IGF 2022 First Open Consultations and MAG Meeting Day 2

The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF virtual intervention. 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.



 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Okay.  Well, let's start.  I would like to welcome all of you to this session of the IGF 2022 MAG.

 Yesterday we had the opportunity to lack back at the results of last year's results in the stock-taking session, and a few themes emerged:  more inclusivity, a desire for better alignment in workshops, the importance of the hybrid model, there were challenges to managing the large number of sessions, comments on the number of sessions, comments on the intersessional work, and more.

 What emerged was a picture of a vibrant and active community with an awareness of a number of critical issues and paths for making a difference in the world.

 Today we have a packed agenda.  Our task is to make actual decisions that will carry us forward; and specifically, we have the goal to, one, decide on the main themes for the IGF 2022; two, decide on how we want to work -- call for workshops, the selection procedures, the confirmation of the timeline, agreeing on call design, selection criteria, and the formation of the MAG group that will finalize the suggestions; and, three, to endorse the design of the overall program structure, including desirable number of sessions and any logistical issues that we can think of.  It's a lot to get done in just a few hours, but I'm confident in our ability to achieve these objectives.  So I want to thank you before we get going for your commitment and your full participation.  And I would like to ask for your consent to adopt this agenda if there is no objection.

 Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted, and we'll move forward.

 So at this point, I'd like to call on Marlene from the secretariat to present the ideas that were shared about the issues and themes from the consultation yesterday.  And over to you, Marlene.

 >>Marlene Fasolt:  Thank you, and welcome everybody.  I'm going to share my screen, and I'm going to present the issues and themes that emerged yesterday.

 So one of the first points that were discussed is that it's important not to just choose a few themes for this year but to also develop a multi--year thematic framework and think ahead of the future, but pretty much all participants also agreed that it's important to have a more focused IGF by limiting the number of themes that are chosen.  So a maximum of three to four is what most people agreed upon this year.

 The IGF 2022 call for inputs results are important for looking at the themes, but they should also be looked at holistically.  So there are suggestions not just to look at what themes scored the highest but also to acknowledge that different stakeholders have different representations, and there should be something there for everybody.

 Some themes were also directly discussed or suggested, such as Internet security, which was a big theme at the Dutch IGF, but there was also a big discussion on orientating the themes around other global, political, and U.N. processes, such as the digital roadmap, the Common Agenda, or the Global Digital Compact.  There was also the suggestion to focus on the 12 commitments and the digital issues of the Our Common Agenda report.

 There's also a further suggestion to differentiate the issues based on the Global Digital Compact.  So these would be, for example, connecting the unconnected, avoiding Internet fragmentation, data use in governance, trustworthy Internet, and the regulation of AI.

 The host country also introduced their new logo for this IGF, and also suggested tag lines for it.  So their suggestions were Internet for shared prosperity, unleashing shared prosperity, and Internet for opportunity, and resilient Internet for a sustainable future.

 Before we go over to discussing what the next topics -- the next themes and overarching themes were, will be, I will show the -- I will share all the overarching themes of the past meetings.

 I'm just going to share this document shortly so you can see it.  Anja or Eleonora will send the link in so that you can look at it and maybe see what has been there so far.  

 So here are all the overarching themes since 2006.  And here we have summarized the issue areas and the main themes of the last five years.

 At the bottom there's a link, and there you can see all the themes from 2006 to 2021.

 And now I'll ask Luis to share a Google doc to discuss what main themes are important.  And while we share that, we will write down the themes that emerge.

 Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  So the purpose is to narrow it down so that we get one overarching theme and then also the selection for the themes and tracks that we'll have for the IGF 2022.  You can review the document, I think.  I did share the document of the past themes, and the past subthemes as well.  And if you do look at the document, you can also see the number of themes that we have had in the past for -- last year for IGF 2021.  We had six issue areas, and then for IGF 2020, we had four thematic tracks.  So this is just an indication.  And we did share it with you, the MAG I'm talking about, when we did have our prep meeting, our preparatory virtual meeting for this meeting.  But back to the Chair for the discussion.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   So I would invite interventions from anyone on the call regarding these suggested themes and suggestions for how they might be organized in terms of themes and tracks.

 Is there anyone who would like to -- yes, I see Chris Buckridge.  We'll start there.

 >>CHRIS BUCKRIDGE:   Good morning, Paul.  And hello, everyone.  It's good to be on the call.

 I was just -- I think these are a good starting point for some themes, and thank you to the host country for these.

 I was wondering, and just sort of a bit of a brain wave, maybe a theme that uses -- incorporates the word "common" might be a useful one at this point in time.  I think both just sort of stress that linkage to the other activities going on in the U.N. and to the Our Common Agenda point.  But I think also there's a real need to highlight the fact that the Internet serves as that common platform for the whole world, and that's something that has realized the importance of the Internet but it's also something we see at risk from fragmentation from other forces.

 So think it would be -- I can see a couple reasons why it might be useful.  I don't have exactly the phrasing of it quite yet, but maybe this could help with that.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you very much.  Tereza.  

 >>TEREZA HOREJSOVA:   Yes.  Thank you very much.  Hello to everybody.  Tereza Horejsova, MAG member.

 I just wonder whether we should first clarify the overarching theme for first actually clarify the tracks and kind of thematic focus.

 We have heard yesterday with the stock-taking and the suggestions for teams suggest, but I'm just wondering, you know, whether too start bottom-up or from below.  I hope it makes sense.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Yes.  Thank you.

 I don't have a personal preference one way or the other.  Is there anyone on the call who has a particularly strong feeling about the order in which we proceed?

 If we have no one with a burning desire to set this forward, I'm fine with going with the idea of the overarching theme first, and if we would like to contain ourselves for the moment to overarching theme first, maybe that will move us along quickly.

 Any calls for the floor?

 This is a very agreeable group of people this morning.


 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Hi.  Sorry.  Yeah, sorry.  Looking for the unmute.  Every platform is different.  

 Yes, I just wanted to put in my thoughts on -- in terms of this idea of focusing on shared prosperity.  I feel like we need to focus maybe more on shared humanity or human advancement.  So I would suggest something to focus on human advancement.  So that could include rights-based and not simply economic-based perspectives.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you for that.


 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Thank you, Paul.  Amrita for the record.  

 I agree with Courtney that it's just not prosperity which is, you know, one of the parameters how to judge now Internet is shared.  Perhaps something around equity or even humanity is something which -- or shared equity, or something because all those also reflect some amount of equity between different people over the Internet.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.  That's great.

 Others with a viewpoint?

 >>JASMINE BEGUM:   Hi, Paul, this is Jasmine.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.  Go forward.

 >>JASMINE BEGUM:   Thank you, Paul.  Jasmine.  My proposal would be to include equity but also bridging opportunity.  And I support humanity and equity as well.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you very much.


 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Thanks, Paul.  Hi, everybody.  Yeah, I agree with Chris's comment.  I do think the linkage to notion of the Common Agenda, the Internet as a common platform, is strong.  We are seeing something of an inflection point, I think, in how we look at Internet governance, our main topic.  There's a sense that we're moving a little bit back towards some of the discussions of 2005, 2006, which caused and initiated the IGF with calls increasingly from some areas, for more government involvement, whether it's at the global or national level.  And I wonder how that might be reflected.

 So that's just a thought at the moment.  Thank you.


 >>BRUNA SANTOS:  Thank you, Chair.  Just to support this comment as well.  I think that any -- any overarching themes that could maybe set this conversation around the Internet being this common collective good and also relying on the fact that it's also taking on a common compromise around the Internet the way it is, is one good thing that maybe we could hint at this overarching theme.  

 But at the same time, as Courtney mentioned, there is a lot of things under risk right now, not just on the side of prosperity, not just on the side of access; but there is a continuing ongoing trend of government using the Internet to violate rights and things like that.  So anything that would be able to capture this rights-based approach would be really relevant as an overarching theme for this year's IGF.  So thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you very much.  Justin.

 >>JUSTIN FAIR:  Good morning, everyone.  I think this is my first intervention.  So just to say I wish you all well and congratulations to the Chair and new members for being selected to the MAG.  

 On this, I think there's been a lot of great comments and just trying to get some of these different ideas into a short reference.  

 One thing I would just offer, maybe we've been -- is I think that "humanity" and some of these other notions maybe are tied up into the future we're looking for.  And I noticed at that the IGF last year, there seemed to be a lot of references to the future.  And this is also how some of these issues are referenced in Our Common Agenda and some other things.  So a perhaps shared future is a way to kind of grasp some of these different contexts within the overarching theme.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thanks, Justin.  


 >>SUMAIR GUL:  Thank you.  Thank you.  This is Sumair from Pakistan.  This is the first time taking the floor, so hello, everybody.  I want to support the idea of using the word "common" because I think it is timely that we have a Common Agenda by U.N. Secretary-General.  And then we have a review of WSIS as well in 2025.  

 So going towards that, something using wording like "common," "our common Internet" or "Internet is a public good," that would be useful.  

 And under that umbrella, we can cover so many topics because it's just giving a wide area for us to explore under the umbrella of the word "common."  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you very much.  

 Other commenters?

 >>JOYCE CHEN:  Good morning, Paul.  I had my hand up.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Yes, there you are.

 >>JOYCE CHEN:  Good evening.  Thanks for letting me take the floor.  I quite like the fourth bullet, "Resilient Internet for a sustainable future."  I think that really jumps out at me.  

 I agree with previous comments.  I think "prosperity" really is quite an outdated word, and I don't know if unpacking it would really make a lot of sense for the IGF.

 I hear a lot of consensus around the word "shared," perhaps shared future as a concept.  So may I suggest we look at the possibility of a theme, say, "resilient Internet for a sustainable shared future" or "for a shared sustainable future."  I mean, just add the word "in" and I think we have it good.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  Courtney, is that a new hand or an old hand?

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Old.  Sorry.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Okay.  As I look at this list, I wonder, there seems to be two diverging accents.  One is sort of an aspirational -- looking at the list here, one is an aspirational feeling, words like "shared," "humanity," et cetera.

 The flip side of that which has been talked about but isn't reflected in here is the challenges, the challenges aspect.  So the fragmentation, for example.  Don't want to put ideas in people's heads, but I wonder if there's some -- something that should tie those two ends together, the future half and the obstacles that need to be addressed at the same time.  I throw that out as an idea for discussion.  

 No further comments on overarching themes?

 Then if we are agreed with this list, I think the next thing would be to whittle this down to something pithy that actually can fit.  Who would like to make a proposal?  Okay.  Sandra.

 >>SANDRA HOFERICHTER:  Thank you, Chair.  And congratulations to your new role.  And hello, everybody.  I'm not a MAG member so I will keep my comment short, but I made it in the chat already.  

 Maybe we should stress the importance of the Internet for global peace in our overarching title.  I think in today's happenings and also what will be with us in the future -- in the near future, that might be important.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  Roberto.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Hello, everyone.  

 I will strongly suggest also to consider the word "universal" in someplace because actually looking through all these great overarching themes that we're proposing, in a way we're taking for granted that everyone has Internet today.  And that's something that we need to consider.  We still are really, really far away to make it -- make our Internet universal.  I think it's really important to stress that.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.


 >>FOUAD BAJWA:  Thank you, Paul.  This is Fouad Bajwa from Pakistan.  I am an observer.  First of all, congratulations to the MAG team and yourself, Mr. Chair.  

 I would like to take this opportunity to stress upon, as Roberto said, "universal" also encapsulated rural communities.

 So for the past few years, we had Connecting Rural Communities in Pakistan, and I can assure you that connectivity remains a challenge in multiple parts of our country as well as the world.  

 So there would be -- my suggestion is to either include "universal" into the themes or at least recognize the fact that the rural communities have also to be -- they need to be brought in to the discussion as well.

 So inclusion of rural connectivity I would like to stress on that.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you very much.  

 Additional commenters?

 So at this point, we have a list of 12.  And we need a list that's substantially smaller than 12 to be containable.  So I wonder if we can take the opportunity here to whittle down a few of these issues.  We have "shared prosperity."  We have "opportunity."  We have "sustainability."  We have "common."  We have got "humanity," "equity," and we've got "peace."  

 I for one do resonate with the idea of incorporating "peace" somehow since the Internet can be a weapon as well as an enabler for common good.  But don't let me sway you.

 So what I would like to do is see if we can whittle this list down a little bit.  So I think maybe a way to do this is to do a little bit of a poll and ask you to -- I will give you a couple of minutes -- to order for yourself the 12 items that we have here.  And then we'll come back and see what landed at the top of each person's list.  So the goal is for you to rank basically just these 12 items for yourself and give you a couple of minutes to do that.  And then we'll come back, and we'll call for an ordering and see what that looks like as an initial start.

 Is that clear?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Chris had his hand up.  I don't know whether he still wants to speak.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Oh, sorry.  I missed that.

 >>CHRIS BUCKRIDGE:  Thanks, Paul.  I mean, it's probably okay.  I think you sort of put us off in a good direction here.  I think -- I was just going to say, I do maybe want to agree with some who had reservations about the use of the wording them maybe that be a place to start as we whittle.  

 Because I think it is a very sort of optimistic and positive theme, but I'm not sure it captures the sense of where we are not.  I don't mean just in terms of today's news but I think also in general.  I think we're at a bit more of a moment of risk and how do we address that risk.  

 So that would be my thought.  But I'm happy to proceed with what -- the process that you suggested.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Okay.  Thank you very much for that.  

 If you are all clear, the task in just the next three, four minutes is to rank for yourself from 1 to 12 these items.  And we will come back in three minutes and see what the rank order looks like.  Okay?

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Sorry.  This is Adam.  Can you just make sure the full text is on the screen?  It's just overlapping.  I think it's only cutting off the end of a couple of words.  Sorry for the interruption.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thanks for the observation.  Okay.  So I will give you three minutes from right now.


 Okay, that's three minutes.  We'll try this and see how creative we can be.  And the reactions -- under the reactions button, you will find thumbs up, hand wave, et cetera.  So what I would like to do is do a poll on each of these 12 items.  So look at a number, if you had number 1, "Internet for shared prosperity" as an example, if you had number 1 as being "Internet for shared prosperity" as your top one, then you would choose thumbs up for number 1.  We'll do that for each of these 12 so we'll get a count for who's got how many to see how this is ranked.  

 Is that reasonably clear?  I will ask the secretariat to catch the number of thumbs up for each of these 12.  Does that make sense?

 >>ALHAGIE MBOW:  Good afternoon to everyone.  

 I think that sounds good.  But my worry is how will we be able to rank them based on what comes first?  

 For example, for me -- just an example, "the Internet for shared prosperity" is my number one for example.  Now, what if people had something quite different, how are we going to balance that?  Do you follow what I mean?

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Yes.  I think this ends up being an iterative process.  If we do this correctly, we should be able to get a pretty good understanding of what the top ones are and by process of elimination then what the bottom ones are which are the ones that don't make it into the top.  

 So each one of these would end up with a number.  We have 71 participants, but it's only the MAG members that count here at this particular point.  So I'm not sure what our raw total number of MAG participants is today.  

 Secretariat, do you know the number?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No, we don't know the number of MAG people.  But if they put their hands up, we can see their names and the secretariat does know the names.  

 So we can just ask and ask people to -- ask only for the MAG members to do this, and we can easily see who's not a MAG member when they put their hand up.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Right.  This may be a spectacular failure in polling, but we can give it a shot and see what happens.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Some people have put comments.  I don't know, maybe they have...

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Okay.  We have Bruna, Adam, and I'm not quite sure how to pronounce your name, Selamyhun.  Correct me.

 But let's start with Bruna.

 >>BRUNA SANTOS:  Thank you, Chair.  Apologies for trying to interfere with the method.  But just a suggestion, maybe we could have a Doodle poll with the 12 options and share it on the MAG list.  I mean, it would take us some extra time to figure that out.  But maybe it's a better and maybe more appropriate way for us to make sure every single MAG member that's here votes or something like that.  Maybe just to try to figure out who is a MAG member and who is not situation.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  Secretariat is offering to make a quick poll from 1 to 12.  So I would be fine with that approach.  


 >>CAROL ROACH:  Hi, sorry.  I was trying to get in earlier on before the poll started.  I think some of the -- I think we need to make this more personal so persons out there can say, hey, yeah, the MAG is really looking out for me.  The U.N. is looking out for me.

 These seems so abstract.  Like for number 7, I like number 7, "Internet for the common good," as opposed to "as a common good."  

 Just my comment with regards to the phrasing of this.  They seem impersonal to me.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  Appreciate that.  


 >>SELAMYHUN ADEFRIS HAILE:  Thank you for giving me the floor.  I'm from Ethiopia.  I actually prefer to suggest number 5, "Internet for global prosperity," as a MAG member.

 However, the method to actually choose a top list suggested by the speaker is good to deal with.  So it's better to welcome with thumbs up.  (indiscernible).

 Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  If you just give us two minutes, the secretariat is just working on the Doodle poll and we also have a Zoom poll.  We are just going to see which one is the best way to do it as well.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  Then we will give the secretariat a little time to put the poll together, and we can continue the discussion here if membership feels so inclined.

 Anyone else like to comment?

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  May I have a word, Mr. Chair?

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL: Sumair, yes.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  I was saying in the chat -- this is Roberto Zambrana for the record.  I was saying in the chat that it's really difficult to compare between each of these items because in some ways some of them are just concepts or the idea is to be included in the general overarching theme.

 So what I was proposing, if we're going to do the poll, is to include not only one option but perhaps three at least so we can actually combine at least some of them in order to refine later the final, final overarching theme.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.

 Carol, was that an old hand or a new hand?  Okay.


 >>CHRIS BUCKRIDGE:  Sorry.  Thank you, Paul.  I have actually now put it in the chat.  I was just going to say -- I don't want to interfere too much here.  But with the polling, maybe it makes more sense to sort of have a poll focusing on single word concepts and see where the sort of sense of priority for the MAG is that we need to sort of build around.  Like, is it more around prosperity?  Or do we have more of an idea around something like "common" that links to the U.N. processes or something like "peace"?

 But at the moment we have 12 options.  Some of which are sort of quite well formulated, others which are more half baked or just sort of vague concepts.  So perhaps as Roberto was saying, it's a bit comparing apples and oranges.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  I don't disagree.

 Amado.  Is it J --

 >>AMADO ESPINOSA:  Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

 I also agree that maybe -- well, if the first round is not very clear in terms of which the preferences are, it will be helpful to integrate some of them, just as Roberto just said, in two or three options.  Actually most of them are talking about the same -- the same meaning, the same sense.  Maybe we can reword it a little bit better.  Courtney can help a little bit with some of the words that can match the different ideas.  And then we come up with two or three options, and then the selection will be easier.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Okay.  Appreciate that.

 Sumair, is that an old hand or a new one?

 >>SUMAIR GUL:  No, this is a new one.  I just wanted to add one thing, whatever should be the theme that should align with the mandate given to us ties to the Tunis Agenda.  

 So the words like "peace" and like this, I don't find them in the mandate.  So it would be better -- we should align our overarching theme and other themes as well with the language provided to us in the mandate.  And that will be good for us to go with "common," "universal" word.  I see a similarity between these two words, "universality" and "common."  These are -- from my point of view, these can be used interchangeably.  Otherwise, we can see in the poll how does it go.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Okay.  Thank you for that.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Chair, if I may?


 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   So the secretariat has put up and has managed to do a Doodle poll.  We can put that in the chat, but before we do that, I'm sorry, I didn't catch the rest of the discussion, but what we could do is ask the MAG members to select their top three or top four, and then see which one has got the most votes, so we at least have a basis to work on the top three or the top four that the MAG has chosen.  And then we can wordsmith one of them to -- because of course they're not perfect as they stand.  And then we can just slightly change the words, you know, whether we want to have "common" or "global," or et cetera.  But we'll only be working with the top three or the top four.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   And that is -- sounds great.  Appreciate the work of you guys.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Okay.  So the link I will put into the chat right now.  And then we'll ask MAG members just to do the Doodle poll, select -- there are three of them.  Each MAG member selects three of them.  And then of course it will just automatically total up for us which are the most popular, and then we can work from that.  Yeah.


 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Sorry.  I couldn't find my chat box.

 Can someone from the secretariat just paste the link since I can't find my chat box?  Oh, there it is.  I've got it.  Thanks.

 There we go.

 So just put your name, and so that we know that it's a MAG member.  Select the -- Chair, do you want to go for the top three or the top four?

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Let's go for the top three.  See if we can overachieve here.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Okay.  So each MAG member just selects three.  And then we'll eliminate the rest from the doc.  And then we will work on the three and see if we can come up with one with better wording.

 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:   Apologies, Chengetai.  Can I just come in for a moment?  This is Eleonora from the secretariat.  Can the secretariat just have a minute to modify the poll so that we can reflect some of the combinations of titles and concepts that are being proposed in the chat and in the discussion?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   We can give you two minutes, yeah.

 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:   Thank you.  That's all we're asking for, a little time.  So --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Okay.  Two minutes.

 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:   So we can do some combining --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   And then we do understand that some of them are similar, but once we have the top three, we will be changing the words as well, so --

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Right.  Right.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Okay.  So we'll give you two minutes, and then I'll let everybody know when to go.  Yeah.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Okay.  We're ready.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.  Did you display the results?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   No.  For people to start voting.  And let's give people -- give them a time limit, maybe five minutes, and then we'll display the results.  Do we have any objections to that?

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   Sorry.  Do we use the same link?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yes, the same link.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   Okay.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   One minute.  Well...

 Okay.  Let's make it three minutes, and then we will -- Just make sure to check that it's MAG members only, and then we'll display the results in five minutes.  So three minutes to vote, two minutes for us to check, and then we'll display the results at five to wherever you are.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Great.  Thank you.


 >>CAROL ROACH:   Are we still here or am I lost?

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   We're still here.

 >> We're here.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   And looking at the poll, has everyone had the opportunity to complete the poll?

 >> Not yet.  Just a minute.  Not yet.


 Okay.  Has everyone had the opportunity to complete the poll?

 >> Yes.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   All right.  In that case, we have -- we have three winners.  The top -- the top vote-getter with 12 is resilient Internet for a shared sustainable future or resilient Internet for a shared sustainable common future.  Those are the top with 12 votes.

 The next in line with 10 votes is Internet as a common public good, Internet for the common good.  Overarching theme that contains the word "common."  Okay.

 And the third vote-getter is incorporating the world -- the word "universal," the concept of universality, access, connectivity for inclusion of rural communities.

 So I think that gives us three to work through, and we can remove the rest from consideration.

 So perhaps the secretariat could just make that -- just pop those three things together so that we can work on driving to one.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yeah, just give us one minute, and we'll...

 Okay.  And we're done.


 Can you just put those three, not five but just those three?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yes.  There's only those three remaining.  We've removed everybody else -- I mean every other option.  So we have those three.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Great.  And of those three, can we ask for everyone to vote for one.

 >>AMADO ESPINOSA:   Another poll or just here directly?

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Here directly.

 >>AMADO ESPINOSA:   Number 2.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   Mr. President?  Mr. Chair?


 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   Thank you very much.  I would like to suggest the following.  I think since we are short of time, maybe we can leave it at this stage and move to a little bit about the tracks that can we think would be suitable for the next IGF and then come back to the final wording of this overarching theme.

 I'm not sure if that could be a good way to go.  Because I don't know if we are going to have a rough consensus regarding the final theme.


 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   It's really difficult to try to -- I don't know if the best way would be combining, but I'm not sure if the way is, among these three, just select one and that's it, right?  But that's just a suggestion.  

 Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you for the suggestion.

 I think looking at the three, the top vote-getter effectively includes most of what's in the other two, with -- exception for, perhaps, the word "prosperity."  But the concepts are similar.  But I appreciate your suggestion.

 And we are coming up on a break, I believe, if I've got my timing right.  So I wonder whether this is an opportunity to actually take -- take a break, put on the screen while we're doing the break the -- these three items for consideration, and we can come back after the break and work on them.

 Does that work for everyone?

 I see some hands.  So Justin.

 >>JUSTIN FAIR:  Yeah, I just wasn't clear.  Was there already kind of an emerging consensus around one or one seemed to have more support than the others?  Sorry if I missed that.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   I think I interpreted the votes and actually the discussion to be fairly indicative of the -- what the top ultimate vote-getter at this point is in terms of resilience and -- and, you know, kind of commonality, prosperity, et cetera.  But this is probably a good opportunity, I think, to take this break, think about it, and we can -- and then take the previous suggestion.  Maybe do a little bit of discussion of some of the track issues after the break.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   I don't -- Chair?  Sorry.


 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Since most of the votes that we -- that I'm seeing is either 1 or 2, should we delete number 3 and then just concentrate on the two?

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Yes.  That was the direction I was trying to go.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yeah, mm-hmm.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   But I think this might be an opportunity to -- for everybody to sort of reflect on -- there's very little difference, really, between 1 and 2.


 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   And so a little bit of wordsmithing can probably address that to an acceptable consensus, advice.

 But I think this is probably a good opportunity to take a break and let people think about it so we can close out on it in 20 minutes or thereabouts.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Okay.  So we leave number 3 on or we take it off?

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   I would take it off.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Take it off.  Okay.  All right.  Thank you.

 So 3 is off, and then we come back in 20 minutes to reflect.  Okay.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Okay.  And I just want to recognize Sumair, too, before we go.


 >>SUMAIR GUL:   Sorry, Chair.  This was a legacy hand.  Sorry.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Okay.  And Selamyhun?  Sorry, I don't know how to pronounce your name properly.



 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  So that's -- Okay.  You've got a hand up. 

 >>SELAMYHUN ADEFRIS HAILE: Okay, okay.  No, no, no.  My hand is down.  That's why.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Okay.  

 All right.  We're back in 20 minutes.

 [ Break ] 

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Okay.  I think our 20 minutes is up.

 Just wait -- give one more minute for people to come back to their computers and we'll get going.

 Thanks very much for the secretariat for putting the poll together and creating the slide you see here.

 I'd like us to reflect on this slide.  There's two options that have been put together.  Number one, "Resilient Internet for a shared sustainable future" or "Resilient Internet for a shared sustainable common future" or "Resilient Internet for a sustainable future."  

 And the other one is "Internet as a common/public good," "Internet for the common good," or the suggestion that the overarching theme should contain the word "common" somewhere.

 I would like to make a proposal to the group that we opt for the second version of number one:  "Resilient Internet for a shared sustainable and common future," which I think captures all of the ideas in one fairly pithy line.

 I'd like to make that as a proposal and would open -- would accept interventions on that.

 I wanted to make sure we have consensus in whatever we adopt.  So I'm making this proposal, but I would like to have any interventions that you feel you would like to make or any adjustments that you'd like to see.

 You are a very amenable group today.  In that case, my proposal is that we adopt as the theme:  "Resilient Internet for a shared sustainable future" -- sorry, "Resilient Internet for a shared" --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sorry, Paul.  First of all, Justin wants to speak.  And then after Justin -- or I can even say it so now, the IGF 2020 theme was "Internet for human resilience and solidarity."  So that's also something for us to consider while we're choosing the theme.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.

 Justin, sorry, I didn't see your hand.

 >>JUSTIN FAIR:  No worries, Chair.

 Yeah, I was just actually going to ask you to repeat your proposal before we agreed.  But you're doing that, so I'll be quiet.

 I think just while I'm on, I think the proposal you made was very -- was a good way forward and I can support that.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  My proposal was that we adopt "Resilient Internet for a shared sustainable and common future."  So it's the middle part of what's on the screen as number one.

 We have commonality, we have sustainability, we have resilience as key concepts and the idea of having -- everyone having a stake through sharing.

 I suggest that the idea here is really for us to have consensus.  And I define consensus as basically where everyone can get along with what it is, what's stated.  It's not necessarily perfect for everyone but everyone can live with it.

 But I don't want to steam roll or anything, so I wanted to make sure that all views are taken into account.

 I want to make sure if anyone has a hand up -- I see no hands.  If there are no objections, then I would like us to adopt as the overarching theme "Resilient Internet for a shared sustainable and common future" and then move us on to the next part of the agenda.

 So we will accept that as -- Courtney.

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Yeah, sorry.  I just was going to say "common future," it just seems like a little bit redundant, if we're talking -- the future will be held in common regardless of whether we want it to be or not.  And the second meaning of "common" is not extraordinary or interesting and, therefore, you know, that's ambiguous.  And I think we're looking for something more than just a common future.  

 So I would just suggest dropping "common" because it does not really make sense in front of "future."

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I think "common" was a reflection to the Secretary-General's Common Agenda.  And as a common future, I think they were trying to say that it's common for all of us.  So it brings in and invokes the word of inclusivity.  I think that was it, but, please.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Yeah.  Amado.

 >>AMADO ESPINOSA:  I agree with Chengetai.  "Common" and "shared" are redundant.  If we want to drop a word, "common" would be enough and can substitute "shared."  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Okay.  So that would read "Resilient Internet for a Shared" -- sorry, "Resilient Internet for a shared sustainable future."

 >>AMADO ESPINOSA:  No.  What I mean is "Resilient Internet for a common sustainable future."

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  And deleting "shared."  I see.  


 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Can you please look at the chat.

 >>SUMAIR GUL:  Chair, I just want -- we can leave it with or without "common."  But this is not only the literal meaning of the word.  There needs to be some message also conveyed through the overarching theme of the IGF.  Putting in "common" and "shared," "sustainable," it is also aligning with the other U.N. initiatives.  "Resilience" also because there is a lot of talk on cybercrime and cybersecurity.  So "resilient" fits there.  "Shared" also fits there.  "Shared" because of the WSIS review and also SDG agenda.  And "common" because of the recent developments because we are talking about the U.N. Secretary-General's Common Agenda.  And there is also talk of the Digital Compact.  There are so many things within these words.  

 I don't think so, that we only limit to the literal meaning of the words but what message they convey.  This is also important.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.


 >>JORGE CANCIO:  Hello, everyone.  This is more a comment from somebody who was in the MAG and somebody who was in the organization of an IGF in 2017.  And I think in branding terms, the motto or the title is very lengthy.  It's eight words, some of them with many letters, and we have to consider also that dimension.  Perhaps some of the content can be included in a subtitle.

 But just for you to consider that we have to look at this in communication terms.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  Appreciate that.

 Others?  So I've heard the concern about the length and concern about the use of the word "common."  

 Are there any other issues?  More importantly, is there anyone who really can't live with the suggestion I've made?

 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Paul, Amrita here.  I think the word "common" needs to be there primarily from where I see.  Though we may have a common future, but the idea is Internet today is not for everyone.  It is not common for everyone.  So a common future means you, me, everyone, everyone's future.  So I look at it that way.  

 So I think the word "common" is important apart from having the U.N. terms out there.  So Internet today is not common.  We all know that.  There is a divide.  So we are talking about a common future, aspirations.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thanks for that important -- it's important.

 I personally agree with the idea that this phrase is a little bit long, but I also appreciate that these words are -- each one of these words is overloaded in terms of its meaning.  

 "Common" has already been referred to relative to the Common Agenda.  It's relative to universality, et cetera.  "Sustainable" aligns with the sustainable development goals.  "Resilience" is a concept that can be -- which can go into multiple different directions including cybersecurity, et cetera.

 So all of these -- all of these words in this proposal I think create an opportunity for alignment on multiple axises when we get to the discussion of tracks.  And I think it provides flexibility with the ability for us as we move forward to be really thoughtful about how we want to use each of the words in the overarching theme in terms of how we want to lead discussion or how we want the IGF in total to have its various piece parts come together.

 So I would ask one more time if there's anyone who can't live with this idea as the core overarching theme.

 Sumair, is that a hand or an old hand?

 Seeing no significant objection, I'd like to consider this as the adopted theme for this IGF 2022 and then move on to the next agenda item.

 Hearing no objection, that's done.  And I would thank you all for your participation and the deliberations that have got us to this particular point.

 So that moves us to the discussion of the overall flow for the program.  And I'll turn it over to the secretariat for this discussion.

 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  Thank you very much, Chair.  I'm just going to share my screen.  Just one moment.

 >>SUMAIR GUL:  Chair, can I say just one word?  We have not added "and," "and common."  It's just all in continuation, the title.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  When I was reading it out, I said "and" both times.

 >>SUMAIR GUL:  It should be written.


 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  Okay.  So thank you very much for giving me the floor for this next agenda item on the program structure.  

 In the secretariat, what we have done is just collected the -- not very many also because we have condensed them a little bit -- inputs that came through the Open Consultations yesterday on this part of the program planning.  I will also note that they -- a few of these tracked with the inputs that came through in the stocktaking process, too.

 So the first thing that we have here in this collection of bullet points was a suggestion that was, I guess, you would say, the most elaborate one for how to approach the program structure this year, which would be to create a list of key processes, entities, and issue areas, particularly those that look for multistakeholder consultations or already looking for multistakeholder consultations, and engage them in the IGF and to use that as a starting point to consider moving away from a proposals-based program structure only to one that maybe integrates two approaches to, in other words, give space to community proposals as the IGF has always done and also potentially create a new space for consultations and more connection with some of these other processes.

 The next input is about integrating intersessional work and the high-level track into a unique thematic framework, meaning to really have the intersessional sessions and high-level sessions be more coherent with the overall theme.  Again, that was something that was communicated through our stocktaking process, too.

 Next, to allow space for emerging issues and to consider holding a separate intersessional one-day event outside of the one-week IGF week.  I believe that there were a couple of community members who brought this up yesterday.  And, again, this did come through our stocktaking, so this would be a rather new idea.

 And, finally, support was -- some support was also expressed for continuing the preparatory and engagement phase that we had leading into IGF 2021 which consisted of a month, month-and-a-half long program of presessions to the meeting that were aimed at really introducing the IGF community and the public at-large to the issues that were discussed in the meeting and to also conduct other capacity-development-type activities.  

 So those are our inputs from yesterday and a little bit from the stocktaking for informing our discussion now.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you very much.  At this point, I would like to open the floor for anyone to make interventions or comments on what's been said to date.


 >>JOYCE CHEN:  Thanks very much, Chengetai.  And hi, Paul and everyone again.

 I have a question about the point on holding the separate intersessional one-day event led by intersessional groups.  I'm sorry if I might have missed some detail about this.  

 But is it being considered for, say, back to back with the actual IGF event or do they mean holding a separate one-day event that is apart from the scheduled actual annual event?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Chair, I can answer unless there is somebody else who -- but I can give my impression.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Yes, please do.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  My impression is that there was discussion last year that we have an event which is removed from the annual meeting, so be it in October, that is basically getting either a one-day or two-day event.  Kind of like a milestone event where we have -- the intersessional work gets together and discusses what they have done during the past year and also gets ready for the idea of annual meeting.

 So it's an event that kind of consolidates all the different intersessional streams.

 I hope that makes sense.

 >>JOYCE CHEN:   Thanks very much, Chengetai.  And sorry, Paul, if I might just respond on this point.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Yes, please.

 >>JOYCE CHEN:   I think it makes sense to have the intersessional groups have a separate event, but I do hope that doesn't mean they would not continue to have sessions in the IGF itself where they do provide the updates.  I think it's quite important for the intersessional groups and their sessions to be integrated into the IGF program, just because -- I'm thinking in terms of, you know, attendance and participation.  If we held a one-off special event for the intersessional groups and that was it, they may not get the kind of response or attendance this they would have been expecting if it was just going to be done at the IGF anyway.

 So I would see this as in addition to.  Is that correct, Chengetai?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yes.  It's in addition to.  It's more like a midway event.  So it serves two purposes.  First of all, for those people who are carrying out intersessional work, it's something for them to aim for, that they need to get at least some of their outputs if not ready but in order, then it also serves for the wider community to be updated on the intersessional events.  And it will also serve to prepare them for the IGF.  Because what we have seen in the past sometimes, since they're not asked, as such, to present or to organize, they may be a little bit lax -- I don't want it use the word "lax," but a better word doesn't come to mind at the moment.  But it's just something to galvanize them to make sure the preparations are happening and things are moving.


 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Thank you, Paul.  Hi, everybody.

 Yeah, is this envisaged as an in-person event or online?  I suppose that's the first question.


 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Okay.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   And, actually, underline that's just my understanding.  I'm not advocating for it.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Understood, understood.  

 I suppose there's sort of caution, note of caution is that the preparatory sessions last year were not as effective as we wanted them to be, I think.  They were not -- they were difficult to organize, it was quite busy and frenetic, not as many participants as we hoped.  So be careful about overloading the schedule of the MAG members and others who will be preparing these things.  The summer is always busy.  Northern summer.  Apologies, everybody else, and your winters.

 But you know what I mean.  We have a lot of work to do.  So let's be careful with that.  So just a note of caution.  Thank you.


 >>BRUNA SANTOS:   Thank you, Chair.  Yeah, just maybe to do a follow-up on Adam's intervention, and to try to understand how is this different from what we did last year.  Because I think it's an interesting proposal to have on the table, as it, like, helped BPFs, such as the general which I was already involved last year, to kind of like redirect the work and have some input from community and so on.  But I also have the same concerns about overburdening the community, especially us, after, like, two or three years of global pandemic where everything was online.

 So just a little concern about how can we make this a succinct and still interesting, like, event or opportunity for exchange for all the intersessional work but still not be too overburdening for us MAG members and everyone else.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.  Wim.

 >>WIM DEGEZELLE:   Hi.  I just wanted to add some color.  It's my understanding from the idea for this event that came up last year, one of the elements was also to just raise awareness of the work that is being done and raising awareness of opportunities for the broader community to provide feedback on the -- on the work intersessional activities are doing.  And that comes from I think an observation and probably from the work of the BPF on BPFs the year before that where some people came up with the observation that a BPF works, and then just before the IGF, they present some draft report.  And that's really a short time between the moment the report is out for community input and their session at the IGF.  And something often that I heard a lot is that only at the IGF itself, a lot of people get interested or learn about the intersessional work that is being done, and at that moment they come with their request and suggestions to participate in the work, while in the timeline for the intersessional work, that's really at the end of the program.

 And this idea of the event, maybe the event is not the correct word.  It was also linked to have an opportunity to really highlight the work of the intersessional work and the opportunities for the community to get involved, part to avoid that everybody is very interested and wants to contribute when it's actually almost too late.

 So I just wanted to add this, I think, as an additional point to add to what Chengetai said.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.


 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:   Thank you, Paul.  I agree to some extent with what Wim said, and the synthesis document did contain information that people want to see more information about the intersessional work, integrating the NRI work, et cetera.  So obviously having an event to inform the people is a great idea.

 Perhaps it is better than, you know, rather than doing a separate event, because even secretariat has a lot of work to do.  The MAG members also have.  Perhaps having it during the preparatory or engagement phase or even, you know, the intersessional BPFs or DCs have their own calls.  Perhaps communicating and inviting people to those calls may be a better way to making them -- if it is trying to get people into the call, to make them aware or getting them engaged, perhaps that also could be something to be looked at rather than having a one-day event and -- you know, perhaps some people would want to think about it in that way.  We already have discussions on.  Perhaps we can invite people or broadcast it much more.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.


 >>MARK CARVELL: Yes, thank you, Paul.  First time to speak today so hello, everybody, from the UK.

 I'm not a MAG member, so if you're happy for me to add a few comments on the issue of allowing consideration of a one-day or possibly a two-day event in addition to the annual forum.  And I mentioned this yesterday in the Open Consultation in the context of the IGF program having a more focus on specific issues, which I think is the direction the IGF is going, rather than a very wide range of issues that has been a feature in the past, which has been difficult for stakeholders to navigate and so on.

 So the main IGF event is going to be, as I understand it, more focused on either three or four issues.  So that means that maybe one or two issues that concern a lot of stakeholders might not be covered in the IGF program in a fully discussive way on a global basis.

 So I mentioned, you know, consideration of holding additional short, one-day events during the year.  So not adjoining the IGF main event but at some point during the year, as something to consider.  I'm a EuroDIG member, and EuroDIG has entered this into their model.  They're called "extra" events, thus titled "extra," and it's a way of responding quickly to an issue or an opportunity for European stakeholders to discuss a development, a call for inputs from the U.N, for example, which is what has happened.  We had one, and I moderated it, on the multistakeholder high-level Board proposal.  That was a forum that EuroDIG convened.

 So the suggestion is that the IGF planning also considers that as an option during the year to hold events.

 Now, I know what Adam has said about resource allocation.  Yes, that's a problem.  It's a problem for the IGF generally to ensure that there's enough secretariat support to undertake additional arrangements and planning.  That's a challenge, I agree.  But as I say, the idea was to complement the narrowing of focus on top-priority issues for the main event, but allowing the opportunity for global stakeholder discussion on an issue separately in a one-day event.  So that was the thinking behind my intervention yesterday.

 I hope that's helpful.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.


 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Thanks so much.  Courtney Radsch, civil society, MAG member.

 Yes, I wanted to give my thoughts, a couple of different perspectives.  One, I thought that last year's intersessional work was very challenging to take on, and I'm not sure that we really saw it have the impact that we had hoped.  If I recall correctly, there were about the same number of people in the remote sessions as you would have on like any event that you just kind of organize for a group of people versus like a global conference like the IGF.  So it would be helpful, I think, to have some data.

 I know that our community -- and I'm in the DC sustainability of news, media and journalism, and our community is more interested in feeding into those processes than into, like, Internet governance, IGF kind of intricacies of how we developed a program.  So I think that's something to think about.  Different DCs and their members are going to have different types of involvement.  I think the amount of organization it took to really pull together the intersessional work did not have the payoff.  In the main session, there wasn't really the continuity or building upon that work that I think that had been envisioned.

 I also want to propose -- I agree about Zoom fatigue, but I also want to propose that --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   I'm sorry, Court knee.


 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   When you say intersessional work, you're mainly talking about the preparatory and engagement phase, correct?

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Yes, yes.  Thank you.  Sorry for that.

 So I wanted to suggest that perhaps building on some of the ideas others have presented is to use that midway point or that additional event specifically to focus on emerging issues.  And that that would be a way to both incorporate other issues into the agenda, identify emerging issues that would then feed into our process in the beginning of the following year, you know, for identifying new and emerging issues and how those should be incorporated into the IGF.

 So that would just be one approach we might take as well.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.


 >>SANDRA HOFERICHTER:   Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor again.  Sandra Hoferichter from EuroDIG.  I'm an observer, not a MAG member.  And I don't want to give a good advice here.  I just want to share some of those challenges that we also face at EuroDIG, and I guess many regional and national IGFs as well.

 There's always a demand of more focused program from some stakeholder groups, but other groups demand that we need to keep the diversity of topics.  And I think one is as right as the other is.

 Many topics guarantee a diverse participation, and this is very beneficial in particular for any host country, while a focus of themes allows for a more in-depth discussion.  And this is also important.

 So from the EuroDIG experience, I can share it's really hard to balance them both.  And we should not just fight for one or the other but we should try our best to kind of achieve both.

 And maybe it is an idea that the overarching themes or the focus areas are really those topics that you would like to address a little bit more in depth, but the number of workshops are the ones that bring in the diversity.

 For instance, when you visit a country, and we made that experience recently when we still had physical meetings, you can reach out to communities such as police, and they will not attend an entire conference but they will only attend one or two session that are of particular interest for them.  But it's good to have those people attending, so we should do all the effort to get to such and reach out to such communities.

 And I believe the IGF last year has done very well with the preparation -- preparatory phase.  I think a lot of groundwork could be done in this phase, and possibly we can also source out some of the topics into sessions that -- maybe it's similar to what EuroDIG Extra is doing, but for this year, for instance, we are also planning run-up and follow-up sessions that could be held on demand.  And maybe this is also something the IGF MAG meeting -- MAG group could take into consideration when drafting the agenda.  Balancing focused agenda to a diversity of topics on the one hand, and building a process around it, which actually was quite well done already last year.

 And then a last remark is there's always the demand that we have to discuss new issues.  I have recognized and other national IGF have recognized, too, that at the moment there are hardly really new topics but there are a lot of important, recurring topics that still needs to be discussed.  So we should be a little bit faithful this terms of demanding that we have to discuss new topics, because the old ones are still not resolved, in my point of view.

 Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.

 I think one of the things that is coming out in these discussions is this real tension between having a multiplicity of sessions and topics and focus.  And if we go back to the stock-taking, one of the overarching comments in -- that we saw was the need for tighter focus.  And so I'm wondering how we should think about resolving that tension in a responsible manner.  It's already been pointed out that there's resource contention as is.  And we, I think, don't want to exacerbate that because we don't have a solution for the funding.

 But I push this back to you for just a moment, and -- my computer wants to restart itself, or somebody's computer does there.

 Anyways, I would like to try to rationalize a little bit the balance between this multiplicity of topics idea versus focus.  And I'd welcome comments on how to do that balance.

 No one has an idea?

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   I have a hand raised.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   So -- sorry.  There you go.  And Chris, too.

 So Courtney first.

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Okay.  Thank you so much.

 I think that tension is absolutely right.  And I think when we're talking about new topics, it's not necessarily new topics but like new issues that might relate to that topic.  And I would use the example of the IGF USA where we have this, like, very dedicated, you know, person whose focused on the arts and creative industries, and that never gets into the agenda because the way we create the agenda doesn't -- it is really majoritarian, and it's about people voting on what they want to see there.  And I think we use the same kind of approach to some extent here when we make the program, and so that can make it really hard for -- you know, to look at, say, the same issue:  cybersecurity, but maybe as it relates to the arts or, you know, some sort of interesting dynamic there.

 And so one thing I think we could think about how to do this is to try to get outside of the box of how these specific recurring themes are identified in order to create a coherent agenda but that also advances the debate to get beyond kind of the same debates that we kind of always have around these issues.

 And maybe also I would suggest thinking about, in addition, if we were to think about intersessional -- an intersessional session, maybe that's an opportunity specifically for the NRIs.  You know, there's all this work being put in by communities around the world to do these national IGFs, and I think a lot of that isn't getting back to the broader community.  So maybe we should double down on that since the closer we are to the local level, the more likely you are to be inclusive of a greater number of perspectives and types of people.  And so it feels like the NRIs are closer to the local level than the international, you know, global IGF.  And so maybe it's about doubling down on that.  And then that would also help us identify themes that are coming out of, you know, those national IGFs and really feed those more into our global IGF.

 So that's one suggestion.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  Chris and then Adam.

 >>CHRIS BUCKRIDGE:  Yeah.  Thank you, Chair.  And thanks, Courtney.  As I said in the chat, I think the comment you make there about NRIs is a really useful one.  I think that could be a good idea.

 I mean, what I wanted to say, I think, is absolutely top of the list here needs to be the question of resources and how we resource these things because a long list of intersessional events with no resources to do it doesn't help anyone.  

 NRIs might be a way to contribute to that, although I'd certainly, being very involved in EuroDIG and other national IGFs as well, note that the NRIs have even less in the way of formal administrative structure to contribute than the IGF itself.  So it would take some coordination there.

 I think -- I also see the value of having intersessional work.  Maybe in terms of focus it would be useful to provide some guidance and think of intersessional work as leading to something around the annual event, the IGF itself, because I think the point about intersessional work not getting the attention and the people really learn about this stuff at the annual event is an important one and one that we need to take on board.

 And I had a final point but it's slipped out of my head, so I will leave that as my main points.  And I'm sure Adam will fill in anything I've not mentioned.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Okay.  Adam.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Yeah, thank you.  Thanks, Chris.  I will probably confuse everything completely.

 I agree totally about resources.  And I made a comment earlier saying that, you know, if we had a preparatory session or intersessional work, it would be the people who are on this call who would be joining that work because the people who are here -- and I don't mean the MAG members, I mean the others -- are the people that make the IGF work each year.  They are the stalwarts who make this event happen globally.  So we struggle for resources in terms of people being active.

 It would be interesting to know how many MAG members are on this first MAG call of the year.  I don't think everybody is and the question is why not because without that, we can't do the work that we're allocating for ourselves.  So that's one point I want to make.

 And I don't mean to be rude to anyone.  I know people have a lot of work to do and it conflicts and so on.  It's a great shame we're not together in person.  So we are struggling for resources.  It's a small secretariat.  They work incredibly hard, and we have to respect that, too.

 I also have an issue about what we're looking at in terms of, you know, what will take place at the IGF itself.  There's two things.  One is recalling from the Common Agenda the words that the Secretary-General wrote, and it was -- I'll read it.  So this is from the Common Agenda:  "I would urge the Internet Governance Forum to adapt, innovate, and reform to support effective governance of the digital commons and keep pace with rapid, real-world developments.  "Real-world developments" means the work that's happening around the Common Agenda for us.  

 He's given us a challenge.  The word "urge" is strong in diplomatic terms.  I'm not a diplomat, but I recognize that as being a caution to us to get our act together and do the work that he's asking us to do.

 That means looking at the Digital Compact.  That means focusing on issues that he is asking us to do.  We as MAG members convene the IGF in his name.  So that's something I think we need to think about when we're thinking about the topics that we want to address at this year's IGF, the issues.

 I also remember from yesterday the presentation from or about the venue itself.  And it is not large.  I'm looking at the list here.  Conference room 1, 576 places.  Conference room 2, 420 places.  There are four other conference rooms with 115 places or 55 places at table.  

 This is a small venue for an Internet Governance Forum.  It looks like a wonderful venue.  And I personally really want to go to Addis.  Ethiopia is a country I have almost visited.  I've not been able to visit many times over the years, so really want to go.  So I'm not making any criticism of this, but it's a small venue.  And the venue will dictate what we can do there.

 So -- and also noting -- and I may be wrong -- but from the pictures, those conference rooms are in an auditorium type of format.  They are not ones you can subdivide, take a part, whatever, put up the paneling that we have.  So we have a limited type of venue to accommodate the sessions that we want to take place.  And I think we have to take that into account as we go forward thinking about issues that we want to have during the four days of meeting.

 So just to say that resources in people, resources in the venue, the time that we can devote, et cetera, and remembering the work that we always seem to ask of Chengetai and his team almost as if they're 100 people.  They're not.  They're just very hard working and they're a handful.  Thanks very much.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.


 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Sorry.  Old hand.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Okay.  Let's see.  Jorge.

 >>JORGE CANCIO:  Thank you so much.  And as a non-MAG member, a former one, I will be brief.  Just to support what Adam just said.  I think he put it quite eloquently why it is so important that we really have a close look at the contents of the envisaged Global Digital Compact and why it gives us a very good platform to structuring the overall program of the whole IGF.  So I would very much urge also us to go in that lane.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.

 I will just make a comment for your consideration, and that is that we are operating within the U.N. system and we have U.N. processes, like the Digital Compact, like the Common Agenda, like the digital cooperation, et cetera.  And we just adopted a theme that has some specific coded words in the theme such as "resilience" and "common."

 And I wonder if we can sort of use that knowledge to get us to some consensus around what kind of structure and support we can put together in a programmatic form.

 I'm conscious that if we use common language that is used -- that's being used throughout this -- the U.N. system and if we use common concepts and actually explicitly make the links between these issues and these processes, we're more likely to get better adoption and better actual on-the-ground implementation by the actors that have to do the implementations of whatever the -- their respective piece of the Internet community is.

 And I wonder whether using our adopted language as this theme and the language that's coming out of these other processes can help us actually get down to a small number of easy-to-articulate themes that can be mounted in an appropriate framework for the actual event, that will lend themselves to doing both online and offline.

 So throw that out for consideration.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Bruna has her hand up.


 >>BRUNA SANTOS:  Thank you, Chengetai.  And thank you, Chair.

 Just wondering -- because I think we -- we have been going, like, back and forth about this idea of maybe just balancing out, like, all the input from the community that's going to come on workshops and sessions and everything else.  And I know that for, like, at least four to five years now we have been doing some separate tracks such as the parliamentarian one and some other things such as the NRI and intersessional.

 So my suggestion and maybe question to everyone here is whether it would be useful to try to have, like, a dedicated day to discuss the Global Digital Compact -- Global Digital Agenda, Common Agenda, and Global Digital Compact and all of the digital cooperation kind of like results and discussions we have been having in the past years.  Because I think there is a lot of things happening and although those things, they might show up in the agenda in main sessions and interventions from, like, all of our community and participants and speakers, this is never really too dedicated.

 So I was just wondering whether it would be a good thing for us to dedicate maybe a morning or full day to discuss the Global Digital Compact and the Common Agenda as, like, just to emphasize the relevance of the IGF to this discussion.

 And I fully agree with Adam that we might need a little bit of effort to show that we are not just interested in this discussion but we are the main -- or the only multistakeholder forum and space within the U.N. to discuss digital issues.  So just a suggestion for everyone here.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.


 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Thank you, Paul.

 Amrita for the record.

 I agree with Bruna's suggestion of having dedicated discussions on the Global Digital Compact or the digital cooperation or any other things which are relevant, or IGF+.  WSIS+20 is coming.  So having those discussions perhaps is a good platform.

 The only thing is in case -- this is a question to everyone.  If we are having a discussion on this, would it be a single session in the day or as in we would not want multiple sessions of the same thing because it may kind of erode the sanctity of the discussion.  Just in case we think we would have it.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  Joyce.

 >>JOYCE CHEN:  Thanks very much, Paul.  And just following on from what Amrita was saying, I get what was said by Bruna and Adam before and also Chris as well in the chat talking about, you know, how to align better with the Global Digital Compact.

 And thanks, Jorge, for including the goals.  I don't know them off the top of my head.  But just reading them, I do see they are very important.

 I wonder if -- so I'd like to take the discussion in a more concrete direction.  I mean, I think everybody recognizes that it's important to align with the GDC.  But I think the question is how specifically.

 And one idea that I would put forward, just as a strawman.  I mean, it's for everybody to think about.  It could be that we -- instead of the main sessions where -- so previously we would have done according to the thematic tracks or buckets.  So the main sessions are tied to those.

 Instead what we could do is run main sessions that are related exactly to the goals in the GDC, and we could use those as topics and run the main sessions that way.  So that could be one way.

 Another way could be as Amrita said, maybe just have one session where we cover all the issues.  But I think that could be quite difficult because each of the goals could be dealt with quite differently.  So that's just one suggestion to think about.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.


 >>CHRIS BUCKRIDGE:  Yeah, thank you, Paul.

 And, yeah, I think actually Joyce made a really -- a suggestion worth exploring there in terms of using the Digital Compact themes as a sort of structure for main sessions.

 I also wanted to -- I think Bruna made a good comment there and a good suggestion.

 One thing I just wanted to reflect a little on -- and this was quite a personal experience of or take-away from last year's IGF -- was the way that sort of clustering happened quite organically in relation to some topics.

 Now, the topics that I really saw it or felt it sort of happen in relation to were the discussions around the OEWG and the GG U.N. work on cybersecurity.  There were a number of sessions that sort of discussed those topics, discussed what was happening in the different positions there which really felt in a way quite self-contained.  And that was interesting to see.

 But I think it probably was also an example of the IGF being used quite strategically by the people going into those OEWG and GG processes to actually incorporate the multistakeholder processes that the IGF allows for.

 And so, as I said, this actually happened quite organically last year.  Maybe that's the best way for it to happen.  But it's something for us to think about.  Are there ways the MAG can facilitate that?  What specific clusters would it be important to facilitate that for at this point in time?  And maybe the Global Digital Compact is one way to think about that and to go forward on that.  

 Yeah, thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.

 Other comments anyone would like to make?

 Anyone like to make a specific proposal regarding topics here?

 >>SUMAIR GUL:  Chair, may I intervene?

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Yes, please.

 >>SUMAIR GUL:  I wonder if anybody -- the secretariat could enumerate the themes which are denoted in the GDC?  Maybe that can be a starting point, the thematic areas of the GDC.  Maybe people can look at it.  Maybe they align with the thoughts we could use also.

 I think they are AI regulation, accountability, criteria for discrimination, Internet fragmentation.  These all are thematic areas which are denoted.  Maybe they can be enumerated in front of all members and they can talk about it.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  We are pulling it up.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you. Roberto has put a suggestion in the chat.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Sorry, Paul.  I copied what Jorge shared before.  I think those are the five main issues, including digital cooperation.

 Sorry.  If I'm with a word now, sorry to continue, I have heard this suggestion before.  And I think that could be a way to go and then show exactly, if we can, specifically put those words as tracks that perhaps we can analyze and try to frame the tracks around this maybe five or maybe less particular topics.  And those could be the tracks.

 And also -- this could also be aligned with what Joyce mentioned.  If we go -- or the main sessions, of course, would be related to each of these areas.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  Any comments on Roberto's suggestion?

 Any other concrete suggestions that people would like to make?

 >>JOYCE CHEN:  Hi, Paul.  Joyce here.  I had my hand up.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  For whatever reason I don't see your hand.  I apologize.

 >>JOYCE CHEN:  It could be just a syncing issue.

 Just wanted to reiterate what I mentioned in the chat, that we probably should also not forget the results of the call for inputs from the community.  I think the community were quite interested to engage in some of the topics and so we probably want to frame those with the GDC ones as well.  May need a bit of a think about it.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.

 That's a good point.


 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Thank you, Paul.

 Just a thing, I'm okay is what was suggested in terms of, you know, the main themes of the Global Digital Compact.  And I agree with Joyce saying we need to kind of look into also what the feedback has come.  Just a them is, you know, when we are looking at the proposals which have come in, for example, any of the five topics or six topics which are given.  So if you're looking at trustworthy Internet -- and there's a common theme which came during the feedback from people is that many of the sessions were quite common.  Though they may align -- they may be submitted in different heads but at the end of the day, you know, they are like "me too" sessions.  Should we make it a bit more specific so that people don't go everywhere to -- so we end up having the same kind of sessions despite whatever is mentioned in the proposal?

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  If you are asking me the question, I personally think that, you know, excessive redundancy and duplication of sessions doesn't add a lot of value.

 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Yes.  No, I was saying do we need to -- my question was if we have the themes, the subthemes or -- should we also add perhaps not in this stage, the next stage, make it more specific in terms of what we are looking at.  I don't know.  I'm looking at it from the evaluation perspective.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Comments from anyone else?  

 Thank you, Chengetai, or whoever put this slide up, the themes and tracks proposed.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Just to jump in.  Would it be possible to put the top three or four, five, from the community below the suggested?


 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Yeah.  Sorry to ask you to do more, Chengetai.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No, no, no, this is fine.  This is what we're here for.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  And while we're sitting here looking at this slide, I would actually ask you to consider is there anything here that has been done to death or there's not really much more to say?  And is there anything that is sort of glaringly absent given all that's going on in the world today?

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  I would support -- hello?  (Background noise).

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  There's a mic on.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Is that Adam?

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  I want to make a comment regarding this, Paul?


 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Just to say the community call for issues, I think coming from the results that we saw, I think those are very much aligned actually and maybe not in the same position, of course.  But most of them, if not all, are included in these five issues in the Digital Compact.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Courtney, is that a new hand?

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Yes, it is.

 To respond to your question about whether there are any issues that have been done to death, I think what would be interesting is, again, to go back to my point about interweaving these issues.  So getting the unconnected, and there was typically about how do you get everyone online, but how does that relate to number 3?  How does that, or -- you know.  So I think that would be really important if we could help advance the discussion and to find ways of bringing conversations and people working on issues that don't typically engage or see themselves as actually talking about various elements of the same issue or theme together.  I think that could really help move the discussions forward.


 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   That's a great suggestion.  Thank you.

 Other comments?

 Well, what I'm -- I think I'm hearing is there's a desire to be aligned up with these tracks that are on the screen right now, but at the same time, to find ways to make them more holistically relevant to each other.  More of an ecosystem approach than a point approach on a particular issue set.  And there's a desire to find ways to make the discussion result in things that are more actionable.

 Did I get that right?


 >>SELAMYHUN ADEFRIS HAILE:   Yes, thank you.

 The topics seem appropriate; however, I feel a little bit constrained in promoting -- while promoting the governance, the Internet governance issue.  We have to open room for innovation and economic development to prevent.

 So in these themes, I suggest, along with the governance, there must be innovation, the promotion aspect of it, (indiscernible) by the Internet as well.

 So I suggest some aspect of innovation and (indiscernible) promotion as one of the things in this, apart from the suggested ones.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you for that.


 >>AMADO ESPINOSA:   Yes.  I don't know if this topic 1, connecting the unconnected, I don't know if it is overlapping with the goals from the ITU and what will be the difference between what they are already pursuing or discussing about and what -- which will be the value proposition from IGF in this -- in this regard.

 And also, the word "avoiding" Internet fragmentation.  I don't know if it would be more positive in terms of keeping the Internet integrated or something like that.


 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.  Selamyhun, is your hand up again or is it an old hand?

 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:   Paul, Amrita here.  I had my hand up if I may speak.


 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:   So if I look at the call for themes, emerging technologies and innovation was something which was mentioned.  If you look at the GDC list, it mentions regulation of AI but it doesn't talk about other technologies.  AI is one such technology but there could be other technologies.  And also innovation.

 I think somewhere we need to have that.

 And if you're talking about trustworthy Internet, why is it only about discriminatory and misleading content?  Trustworthy Internet could be for safety, for security, for any other things.  As -- we could keep it here as such, as what it is, or do we want to kind of broaden it and not limit it to content only?

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   My personal view is we would do better to just leave it at trustworthy Internet and provide that flexibility as you suggest.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Should we do anything with regulation of AI?  Leave it at that or we swap it out for emerging technologies and innovation?

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   My personal view is that the emerging technologies and innovation is a better topic.  It can encompass elements of AI and regulation, et cetera.  But I -- I think you provide more flexibility.

 >>ALHAGIE MBOW:   Hello, Paul?


 >>ALHAGIE MBOW:   Yes, I think I'll go with that as well, the emerging technologies and innovation.  I think it can cover a lot; in fact, including regulations, et cetera.  So I think it really is a better topic, in general.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.

 It looks like -- Looking at the screen here, and it's been evolving during this discussion, it looks like there's -- there appears to be some emerging consensus amongst this group of what the key themes and tracks could be that would help us line -- line up against our top-level arching theme.

 So I'm wondering at this point if we have enough of a start here to make a proposal that these are the 12 things.  Seven themes that relate to the GDC and then five themes that come from the previous call for inputs.

 And I'm wondering if anyone feels that that would be insufficient or whether we could adopt, at least for the moment, these 12 items for this year.

 Adam and then Jorge.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Hi, I was -- slightly change of topic, but just to say that a lot of focus is on outputs.  What are we going to have a message at the end of the IGF and outputs from the IGF.  And it's always good to remember that outputs have to have an audience, and the U.N. process, as the SG is leaving, is a very relevant and good audience to keep in mind.

 So I'm quite comfortable with the direction that this is going.  There should be other places that would read it, but we have to target somewhere, I think.

 And let's be careful about not now trying to add every issue that we always try and add.  We said last year that we were going to narrow and focus, and then we ended up with exactly the same recognition of workshops as we sort of always do.  And so if we're going to focus, let's try and focus.  And if that means some issues won't be prominent on the IGF agenda and call for workshops this year, then so be it.  We do have a limitation.  I think the venue suggests we have a limitation.  So let's be careful not to start adding every issue under the sun, as often happens.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Right.  Thank you.


 >>JORGE CANCIO:   Yes, thank you.  And thank you for this discussion.

 I think that the themes proposed for the Global Digital Compact are very broad.  So if you look at theme 1, it probably covers what is being mentioned under the third theme from the call for input.  So connecting the unconnected in a way covers universal access and meaningful connectivity.  So that would overlap.

 Cybersecurity and trust, which comes first from the call for inputs, I think is covered by the trustworthy Internet we had in the Global Digital Compact issues, which I don't see anymore.  It was the fifth topic.  And emerging technologies and innovation could be merged with regulation of AI.  Data governance from the call for inputs is encompassed by data use and control by the people.

 And finally, the digital cooperation in the end is a meta topic where we look at ourselves and look at the broader ecosystem of institutions that do the work for Internet governance.  So maybe it's not a subject matter for itself.

 So to make the long story short, and similarly to what Adam said, I wouldn't add the themes from the Global Digital Compact with those from the call for inputs because they overlap.  And considering the high visibility of the topics as described in the Common Agenda, I would try to stick as much as possible to the description we made there, because we can always make subbaskets or subtitles under the broad themes coming from the Global Digital Compact, which, after all, is now the part of the big discussion which is being led in the United Nations and which will attract a lot of attention.  And of course if we are able to converge all the workshops, all the open fora, all the sessions within these baskets, and then we can culminate them into main sessions and high-level sessions, and then converge into concise messages from the IGF on the baskets defined in the Global Digital Compact, I'm pretty sure that the IGF will be able to make a big impact and to attract the attention from the international community.

 So that's my plea, to try to stick to those baskets, to be flexible with that wording, and consider that that wording really has a branding value to it, and to include the discrete issues under those vast baskets and, yeah, limit them as much as possible to the five ones defined in the Global Digital Compact.

 I hope this is helpful.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you very much.  I note Timea in the chat has sort of brought that down to connectivity, fragmentation, trust and security, data governance, emerging tech, and cooperation as crosscutting issue.

 >>JORGE CANCIO:   That's great.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   So excellent synthesis job there.  And I very much appreciate what you said, Jorge, related to the branding value of the work.

 So, Carol, you've been waiting for a while, and then Joyce.


 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   And then Bruna.

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Okay.  I just have two comments.  We took a lot of time coming up with a nice overarching theme.  We need to make sure that it's not just a pretty theme and that the tracks actually fit into the theme.  And that will help us to narrow down.  As Adam says, there's a lot of things that we would like to have here.  The list could be up to a hundred.  But we need to ask ourselves does it match the overarching theme.  Are we talking about a shared sustainability?  Are we talking about a common future?  So that's my first comment.

 My second comment, somebody had mentioned earlier on in the chat, I can't remember who it was, with regards to building capacity.  It's one thing to be connected, but if we don't know how -- if persons don't know how to use, if persons don't know how to take advantage of the Internet to get prosperity or whatever else.

 So I think the point with capacity building, unless somebody can show me where it fits into one of these seven areas.  And when I talk about capacity building, we talk about from literacy to workforce to everyday life to having experts.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.


 >>JOYCE CHEN:   Thanks, Paul.

 So I have a question, if we could just sort of take a step back from this discussion, which is have we decided as the MAG how many themes we want this year for the 2022 IGF?  Is five the magical number that we have settled on?  And did we have that discussion?

 And I say this because a lot of the comments that came from the 2021 feedback was that the program was really bloated, too many sessions, too many parallel tracks.  And just looking back on our experience in managing the program last year, five was a bit of a struggle for us, just in terms of how we allocated ourselves and the work that had to be put in for five themes.

 And so I thought we might want to have the conversation around, well, exactly how many themes can we work with.  It could be three and then, you know, have subthemes within those three, and just be a bit more streamlined in our approach.


 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.  Excellent point.


 >>BRUNA SANTOS:   Thank you, Chair.

 Yes, about the topics and everything else, I just concur with Courtney on the chat about the lack of rights on this list.  I know discussions such as access or even data protection are all like within the boxes of let's say security and other things, but maybe on the emerging tech, we could do just a little change into emerging tech and rights and digital rights or something like that, because it also connects to some of the discussions of the digital cooperation roundtables and so on.  So maybe that's a little short amendment we could do, just to bring some more connection into those things.

 And I think -- I think I pretty much agree with Jorge on this, because if we frame this in a rather similar way to what's on the GDC, then we can shape these messages into the discussions a little bit better in the end of the IGF or throughout the year and so on.

 So my point here will be to not just ensure that this kind of framing is into the workshop submissions and our program but also into the intersessional work, so that being the policy networks, the BPFs, and everything else.  Just make sure everybody is pretty much on the same table about the relevance of these topics and everything else.

 So, yeah.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   I love how the secretariat is right on top of this transcription.  Excellent job.

 Let's see.  We have Roberto, Adam, and Chris.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   Thank you, Paul.

 I think what we are doing so far is actually identifying what the general thematic areas will be, and we're using as inputs, of course, the GDC issues and also the ones that came from the community using the call for issues.

 But of course having only the thematic tracks is quite the opposite of focusing our IGF this year, which is a mandate that we are pursuing during the last two, three IGFs.  And it's really, really difficult to achieve there.

 So I think it's good to have this stage, having this general and identify thematic tracks.  I don't know if those are going to be three, four, five.  That's something I agree that we need to decide.  But besides that, I think it would be good, and also taking the call for issue and also taking GDC as inputs to establish which are the particular issues we need to focus regarding each thematic area.

 So what I suggest is, if you agree, is if we can actually finish what we are trying to do regarding thematic areas, and then go to identify which one of the issues inside each thematic areas we need to address.

 As an example, we have the emerging technologies is one of the important issues coming from the call for issues, and inside that, the main one is regarding artificial intelligence.  And in the case of the GDC, we have specifically the one for regulation of AI.  So that's, for instance, a particular topic we would like to address in this IGF.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.


 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Yeah, thank you.  Something that comes to mind is that quite a lot of these topics have been on IGF agendas for -- well, connecting the unconnected has been on the IGF agenda since 2006.  So what are we going to say that's new?  I mean it's very interesting to hear about community projects and Wi-Fi and IXPs and the role of, et cetera, et cetera, and it's something that ICANN, in a way, is working on, and there will be information on that over the coming months.  So it's important to us.  And I'm not saying it's not important.  But what are we going to say that's new?  And what are we going to say that's a message that actually has an impact other than connecting the unconnected is really important and we're not doing a very good job of it now.  Because that's what we've been saying since 2006, basically.  We need to connect the unconnected.  We're not doing a very good job.  But we don't actually bring anything particularly new other than that message.

 I'm sorry, I'm being very generalized about this.  But this, I think, can apply to a lot of the topics.  What are we going to do that's new?  Because a lot of the time we don't and -- in the IGF.  And so I think that's rather important.  Of course AI is going to be a new topic in this sense, so that's important.  But -- yeah, I hope that's something we can keep in mind, anyway.


 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you for that.  I tend to agree.  I do think that it's very important that we have continuity from year to year, and so there's some language issues that help with continuity.  But I very much resonate with your point that we need to have something new and -- new and actionable, I think, as well, each year.  Otherwise if it's just reporting the same thing, then we shouldn't use the resources to do it.

 And also make the point that for most of these themes, they're big enough that you can roll into them subthemes or subareas of interest.  For example, the rights issues.  Really, rights issues go across every theme.  You can have an individual theme that's just on rights, but you can also -- by doing that, you take away the idea that things participate in an ecosystem.  Rights and how rights are managed is part of the ecosystem, the human factors ecosystem, if you want to think about it that way, of which we all deal with this.

 There are -- there are times and places where specific rights tracks maybe make sense, and I wouldn't want to say they don't, but I think in the Internet governance case, discussions of rights are better placed within the context of a broader Internet ecosystem rather than as a standalone point issue.  Personal opinion, and you can take it or leave it, I suppose.

 Anyway, Jorge.

 >>JORGE CANCIO:   Yeah.  Thank you.  I just posted it in the chat.  I understand the slight frustration underlying Adam's words, and I think we've been working very hard as a community to make the IGF heard, and how we have a window of opportunity of passing across the messages we have, be it old or new, to the highest levels, to the overall international community, and to get them enshrined in a new document like this envisaged Global Digital Compact.  

 So that's a really huge opportunity, and I think we have to seize it because, yeah, maybe we have been saying it for many years, but it start within the walls of our technical or more expert community, and now we have this opening in the coming months.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you very much.


 >>AMADO ESPINOSA:   On the other side, Paul, I totally agree with your perspective that this human rights should be better embedded into specific topics, but the most proper way or the most clear way for the politicians, for decision-makers of the public policies is to have a public policy inside a constitutional article or something like that in which human rights plays a very major role.

 Then I agree with Jorge.  We -- No matter we have been very repetitive in the last years.  Maybe we can provide right now this opportunity with some kind of final push for the parliamentarians to understand that it is time to provide the proper policy -- public-policy framework to make these goals happen.


 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  Carol?  Then Chris.

 >>CAROL ROACH:  As I said, legacy hand.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Okay.  Chris.

 >>CHRIS BUCKRIDGE:  Thank you, Chair.

 I wanted to step back a little bit.  I'm not sure what I'm hearing from people I see a consistent reason for these themes.  Like, why are we defining these themes?  What are we hoping to achieve in doing that?

 I think Adam perhaps got us a little bit towards something like that in saying that the list of helping us find the outputs that we are going to be steering for the IGF.  

 I think sort of having 12 or even seven themes, I'm not sure how it helps us structurally in terms of planning a good event.  And I don't get the impression that our goal with these themes is to discourage people who might have workshop proposals that don't necessarily fit into this.  I think we're try being to be as inclusive as we can and say if you have got a workshop proposal or session proposal that you think fits into Internet governance, we want to hear from you.

 I think -- but I may be wrong but maybe what we're looking for with these themes is a way to start thinking now about what the outputs of the IGF can be and how they can most -- be most effective and significant and relevant in the current context that we find ourselves.  And I think the continuing focus back to the Global Common -- Digital Compact is certainly one way to think about that.  But maybe it would be perhaps good for us to be a bit more explicit about what we're actually looking to achieve in terms of defining these themes at this point.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  I agree with you.  

 I think from my perspective, these themes are exactly for that, just for the ability to have some way to constructively categorize and create a way to make continuity between all of the different Internet governance activities that are going on but all are basically doing some flavor of this.

 And I'm conscious of time.  Secretariat is probably going to insist we speed things up.

 And I would like us to see if we could maybe move the discussion here to something that's actionable on our own behalves.

 I started earlier asking if we could just, you know, leverage the existing seven and then condensed into five below that you see on the screen here.

 And I wonder if this is enough for right now to adopt these as basically foundational themes for what will feed into the call for proposals, et cetera.

 Is there anything that anyone would like to say for or against that concept just as a way for us to move forward and actually have something that we can then take to develop further with more relevance but tied to the idea of common language that gives us sort of the branding help?

 I see lots of hands.  Joyce.

 >>JOYCE CHEN:  Thanks, Paul.  Actually, I wanted to bring up the comment in the chat made by Mark Carvell and to support to say that last year there was a huge focus on environmental issues and the intersection with technology and the Internet, climate change, and all that stuff.

 And I'm not quite seeing it here.  So I don't know if it is worth putting environmental issues or climate change, sustainable development goals back, a bit more to the forefront and continue that conversation.  Or are we sort of sending the signal that, hmmm, people who are interested in these issues will just have to find their way through one of the buckets -- one of the tracks to fit their issues?  Just putting it out there.

 I don't want to increase the number of themes.  I would much rather see it decrease.  But I do also hope that we could have that discussion about some of those topics that seem to have dropped off that we might not have intended to.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Great.  Thank you.  Roberto.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Yes.  Thank you, Paul.  I just wanted to add to Chris' question regarding what is important.  

 The thing is that, of course, the first thing why it's important is because this is going to aim the kind of focused IGF we want for this IGF 2022.  That's the main thing.

 But, also, besides that all the other operational work that we're going to do during the following months as MAG members are going also to be leaded by this definition.  Actually, the initial, I would say, activity or important activity, the next one, will be related to the call for proposals and the proposals need to be aligned to some track.

 So that's why it's important because most of our work later regarding the evaluation also is going to be some sort of organizing these particular thematic tracks that we're going to define.  So that's why it's important.  Just that.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.


 >>BRUNA SANTOS:  Thanks.  Thanks, Chair.

 Yeah, just to also join in Roberto on this.  I still think there's a need for better connection between what is actually going to be, like, the outcomes of the workshops or anything like that because as Chris has put in the chat, this could be seen as kind of a limit or a limitation to the -- to the workshop proposal and so on.

 So maybe there's a way of shaping that into, like, just making sure every single workshop has something aligned or a suggestion aligned with the GDC in terms of the outcomes or what they're going to discuss just so everything is pretty much on the same -- on the same page.

 And, also, I agree with Joyce, there is a slight disconnection between the overarching theme we have just elected and we are selecting as themes and tracks.  And maybe -- not maybe.  Tereza was right that we did the discussion around the themes before we did the overarching one because there's some fine-tuning we should do.

 Lastly, I had just one concern that maybe -- because what we're discussing now is not really a change or, like, a huge change to the normal program.  We're still following with tracks and main sessions and everything else.  

 And I'm going back to my question before, like, should we do, like, a dedicated day to the GDC discussions?  Are all these discussions -- my concern is just that this debate is going to get a little too diluted into the agenda and become, like, not relevant enough.

 So just like re-emphasizing here that there should be a need for us to better highlight the connection to the GDC other than just the program and the tracks and themes and things like that.

 So, yeah, I'm a little confused.  But it's just that.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Okay.  Thank you.


 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Thanks, Paul.

 Yeah.  Just thinking about Joyce's comment about environmental theme and technology and so on, it is incredibly important.  Of course it is.  And we have a policy network on it, and that's not to detract from the idea as having it as a theme.

 We also have a policy network on meaningful access.  Meaningful access and connectivity, et cetera, has, as I said earlier, been a theme that has recurred throughout the IGF.

 Could we or might we think about taking those two policy networks and making them themes in the sense that they will reflect the work of the policy networks?  Include them in a call for workshops but limit the number of workshops that would be accepted on those themes, for example, randomly five, and build that as a very specific, targeted expert track that builds to a policy network main session?  So that for both we are structuring it for output.  We're structuring it for expert comment in a more focused way.  Thinking of how to focus the input in terms of what work the workshops are producing we're talking about and then furthering the work of the policy networks which are often themselves expert forums with a particular output in mind, i.e., they are, like, a pyramid building towards a recommendation or a statement or whatever it may be.

 And so not having them across the whole schedule with lots of workshops but a very targeted, focused reason for having them because they are extremely important and we need to try to have some substantive output on those particular two topics.

 Just a thought.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.

 Jorge and then Roberto.

 >>JORGE CANCIO:  Thank you.  Just reacting to what Chris said and also linking back to our discussion yesterday on a fully integrated program for the whole of the IGF.  I think that the five themes should really serve to structure all the sessions, to inform all the sessions, be it workshops, be it also open fora, be it all kinds of sessions, also from parliamentarian and high-level tracks.  And so the evaluation process should take this into account as Bruna proposed before.

 And all of these five tracks in my view should then converge into five main sessions, five high-level main sessions, and also culminate in five sets of messages, where the wisdom and the discussions coming from the five tracks and the five main sessions would then culminate into an input from the IGF to the global community and to this Global Digital Compact process.

 I think it would really create an incentive for everyone participating in these discussions and also give it a streamlined approach to the overall program as we have been trying to for a long time.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you, Jorge.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Mine was an old hand.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Okay.  Courtney.

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Thanks a lot.  I'd like to +1 of what Adam said terms at least approach of some of the themes to come from the policy networks and with the aim of that would really make sure that the policy networks are inclusive more of the community because then when the community puts forward proposals under one of the policy network tracks, that will expand how that policy is conceptualized, what issues are being seen, whose voices are included. I think that could really strengthen the policy networks and then align with the goal of making the IGF more policy relevant while recognizing that it is not developing policy.  

 And I think to the point that was made earlier about the strength of the Secretary-General's comments about the need to strengthen the IGF, I think that would be really helpful.

 And, again, I also agree that, like, five thematic tracks that are already very general is not probably going to get us very far in terms of having a more focused IGF.

 And what I found last year in the review of the proposals is when you get down into the proposals, there's this real interest, I think, in trying to be inclusive of different types of groups and voices and perspectives that we then might try to kind of shove into one of the themes.  And so there are many points along the way once we identify these themes where we're still going to have opportunities to make adjustments, et cetera.

 But I would like to suggest that we really aim for three themes, maximum four, and that those should be drawn largely from the policy networks with the explicit idea of getting people, organizations, and then have one of the tracks which is really around -- and I'm just kind of throwing this into the wind.  But this idea of make a track multistakeholder consultation.  So we talked about wanting to encourage other organizations and groups to use the IGF.  Why not have a track that is specifically multistakeholder consultations?  So you have something that you want to consult on or share or gain input to or whatever and then you would apply on that track.

 So it wouldn't be a thematic focus.  It would be a process-focused theme.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.



 >>CHERIE LAGAKALI:   Hey, can you hear me?


 >>CHERIE LAGAKALI:   Thank you.  I just wanted to acknowledge that I think a lot of work has happened here today, and we've come a long way.  I feel that -- and I might be confusing myself because it is four a.m. here in Fiji.  I can see that we have taken a lot of consideration of the calls for input and the Global Digital Compact points.  And I think from what Joyce has mentioned before, and taking into account what Adam has said as well as others, we're probably just left with linking that back to discussions from last year and then working out how that links up to our overarching theme.  And so it comes down to the message of what do we want to say and then what outputs do we want.  And is that something that we want to be discussing today or, like Courtney said, something that will be changing and evolving along the way.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.

 Okay.  Courtney, I give you the last word for the moment.

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Oh, sorry.  No, I made my last word.


 Ask the secretariat to scroll down on the document.  And you'll see there is -- they are taking the opportunity to do a merger of the GDC and IGF 2022 call for inputs.  Can everybody see that?

 I'm hearing --

 >> No, no.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Okay.  Can you -- Is it Anja who is typing on this?  

 There we go.

 >>ANJA GENGO:   Eleonora is.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.

 So while we've been talking, somebody in the background has been connecting these two sets of inputs, and I'd like you to just take a look at what's been written here and consider whether or not we can leverage this work, maybe tweak it slightly, and use that as the framework for which we will then link it up to our main theme.  So that would be connected the unconnected, avoiding fragmentation, data use and control by people, applying human rights online, this idea of introducing a trustable -- or accountability.  There's probably some wordsmithing that could happen there.  And emerging technologies and education, and the digital commons.

 Could we -- Would the group be amenable to just working with this seven and whittling it down further, actually, so that we don't cross five, and work to develop our subtracks from that?  Is there anyone who could not live with that as a process for right now?


 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Yeah, I don't really feel like that reflects the conversation about getting beyond kind of this traditional approach to thematics.  So I would suggest that we should really hear on the proposal from Adam and myself to rethink how we're thinking about these thematic approaches.  This is certainly the same way that we've done it for, you know, the past decade or so.  And so I just wonder if, in response to, again, a lot of the feedback and developments in this community, if we want to think about another approach, any of these new modalities, like the policy networks.  We have this new emphasis on really trying to make the IGF useful.  So I think it would warrant greater discussion of what was just introduced as an approach to making the program.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.  I would ask to continue the discussion and to actually see if we could move the discussion forward with actionable words for ourselves so that the discussion which I find very beneficial, and I absolutely resonate with Adam's suggestions, is very great and important.  We need to be able to wrap it up into something that we can talk about and document.  And I think we seem to be having a difficult time getting to something precise at that level.  And so maybe this is an approach to do that.

 And it's Adam's stimulus first, so let's give the first words to Adam.

 Or maybe not.  Anyone else want to speak?

 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   I mean, I guess just to follow up on what he said, then I would suggest -- I'm sorry, I don't have the policy networks names in front of me, but we had -- what?  Two from last year or was it three from last year?  Can maybe the secretariat put those up?  We had the proposal that we know we had one for Internet fragmentation, and then we had the proposal to include one that is on multistakeholder governance or multistakeholder consultation.  So that would be a very -- again, like very different way of organizing this, but would allow people who are focused on connecting the unconnected or on human rights to bring those discussion into these more like focused and policy-relevant approaches.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   You're talking about the policy networks, right?


 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Okay.  Just thinking about it, should we discuss it now and put it in the themes before discussing the intersessional work which is scheduled for tomorrow and see whether or not they're approved?  Then we can see whether or not to merge them into -- into here?  Because I think one should come before the other.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   I would agree with that.


 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Yes, Roberto.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   I think those are two different things.  (indiscernible) thematic tracks and we are adding intersessional work.  It's like saying maybe we could eliminate or combine one DC or if there is one DC already discussing about data, let's eliminate from the general overarching themes or thematic tracks.  I don't know that that's the way to go.

 I would rather think it's better to discuss the intersessional work tomorrow regarding the value, regarding the other proposals, and to see what's going to happen, but not to mix it with the themes that we are discussing.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.



 >>TEREZA HOREJSOVA:   Yes, thank you.  I feel we are going in circles a lot, and I'm not sure that in the last hour or so we have really progressed.  I'm not sure if it wouldn't be more efficient to maybe have a few volunteers that would try to provide some suggestions for our meeting tomorrow to continue this, but I don't feel that we are moving anywhere.  We have started with a decision or kind of understanding that we should limit the thematic tracks, that we should be more focused.  And I'm not having a feeling we have -- we have progressed much in this regard.  Sorry.  It's just -- Other people might have other commitments later, and I'm not sure how much more can be done in this discussion today.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.


 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Sorry.  I think last year we did some breakout rooms.  I want to just respectfully disagree with Tereza.  I think it's really important that we have discussion.  I know that -- I mean, definitely all for getting to the point, but I think that we're actually having a really important discussion right now, which is how we should organize the IGF and whether we continue in the same vein as we have for many years or try something new or find a way to really, you know, align meaningfully with some other very important global processes.  And I think that's really important.  I'm sure if we were in person, we would probably have more, you know, dynamic and interactive debate.  But I know like one thing we did last year in this -- if I recall correctly, in this meeting was we did breakout rooms at some point so that like smaller groups could discuss more about these different approaches and then come back and merge those.

 So just something to maybe think about for other aspects of the meeting, that maybe allowing some breakout group so that we can have a more robust discussion about the pros and cons of different approaches.  Because I feel like that is actually a more useful conversation to have, you know, in this type of Open Consultation meeting than just trying to determine like, okay, well, what five themes that we're going to try to encompass all of the Internet issues in, which is not necessarily going to like a core issue, which is how should the IGF be organized and conceptualized in order to make it useful, to respond to the UN SG, to address where we are in the Internet governance arena where you have so -- you have Internet governance happening in so many different arenas.  And I think yesterday the discussion really emphasized how important it was to make the IGF useful and open to these other processes and this kind of policy-centric approach to Internet governance.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  No one else looking for the floor.  

 Adam, I see you're back.  Would you like to --

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  I'm not sure.  I'm very sorry.  I'm using ear buds.  And as you mentioned my name, I was walking down the stairs to open the front door.  So I heard you but I couldn't run back and type anything or say anything.

 I would just like to emphasize, let's please and try and keep it focused.  I've loved the -- since the beginning this "thousand flower blooms" approach at the IGF.  

 But I think we're at the point now where we do have to look at the outcomes and what we can feed into the audience.  And I suggest a target audience to think of is the U.N. Secretary-General's processes and others will read it and find it useful as well.  And that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a range of topics in there at all.

 But I wanted to again go to IGF sessions where I'm learning something, I'm feeling wowed by what I've learned and that hasn't happened enough recently.  And so I think that means trying to bring in expertise in areas.  And the two areas I think particularly important are around access and connectivity.  And so I would like to see us focus the workshops and the main session, probably through the policy network.  The policy networks are designed as expert networks.

 And the same for climate and environment and technologies for the same reason, that it's an incredibly important topic.  It's not really in the Digital Compact per se, I don't think.  Or perhaps it is one of the thematic areas.  But it's one where we can make an important contribution by structuring the workshops in such a way as to structure the main sessions and allow the rest to develop perhaps in a similar way as previous years because we don't want to -- experimentation is good but we're experimenting with a purpose here on these -- particularly on these two topics.  But generally, let's try, try to keep focus and it goes with an apology that means some people's issues may not get the prominence that they have in previous years.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.

 Chengetai, what are we doing for timing right now?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sorry.  Just trying to find the mute button.

 We are past time.  But since it's a virtual meeting, it really depends on the MAG members, if they can carry on or not.  Another option, of course, is we can break and when we -- and then people have time to think about things and discuss with each other until we meet again tomorrow.  And whether or not we want to pick this up again tomorrow, that's another option as well.  And, of course, the third option is to continue online.  But we still have the sessions that we have tomorrow.  So, yeah.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  I'm sensitive to the discussion between Tereza and Courtney relative to whether we're going in circles or not.  I do think this is a very important discussion in terms of how it will feed into whatever comes out as the IGF program.  But I do think that people need the opportunity at this point to step back and reflect a little bit and see whether we can bridge this slight divide between trying to leverage themes with a main theme and subthemes versus the wholly new concept.  And I would like, I think, to give everybody the rest of the day or evening to think about that and come back to this topic in our next session, if people are amenable, if we have enough agreement.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  And, sorry, we have Bruna.  I don't know if that's a new hand or whether she has something to say.

 >>BRUNA SANTOS:  Thank you, Chengetai.  It was a new hand.  But assuming that the call is pretty much being resumed, I just wanted to maybe just bring up -- because, like, from today's discussion, I think almost everyone agrees on two things.  Like, maybe having a more aligned agenda with the GDC to preface from this opportunity of exercising, like, a real impact or a real influence over the U.N. discussions around this topic.  So this is maybe something we should keep in mind for tomorrow's discussion.

 And just to add a +1 to Adam's point.  I guess given last year's event, I think it was already a confusing event because it was a first that was hosted in a hybrid mode, and we had a lot of disconnected discussions.  So this might be the year for us to actually do some changes and reshape the way the IGF has been done throughout the years and have this more focused and expertise-oriented kind of approach to the debate just so people don't feel as if this is yet another chance for, I don't know, NGOs, companies, civil society, human rights defenders to just present their work.

 So maybe my question for anyone would be whether we would like for the IGF to continue just being this platform for showcasing the community work or if we really want it to have an actual and real influence over the digital cooperation and many other U.N. discussions happening in the digital field.

 So this is just, like, one point of, like, yeah, reflection over what we just discussed this afternoon.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you very much.  Anyone else want to speak on this proposal?  Then if you'll all consent, then --

 >>UCHA SETURI:  Hi, sorry.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Go ahead.

 >>UCHA SETURI:  Excuse me.  It's Ucha Seturi from Georgia.

 Sorry.  I want to just speak a little bit about the first one, about the connection of unconnected and the term of "meaningful."  

 I think we don't want to avoid the word "meaningful" because it changes the real meaning of this direction of connection and access.  Because access is just connection.  "Meaningful" is not only just connection.  If it's possible to add the term "meaningful" and the use sort of meaningful connection to the connection of the unconnected sort of.  But we need term "meaningful" for sure.  Thanks.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you very much.

 So what I would like to do -- I think there's been a lot of valuable discussion happening, but I would -- I'd like us to have the opportunity to sit and reflect and come back to the discussion tomorrow, in tomorrow's session, with the goal -- an explicit goal being we resolve this question -- the questions that we're asking here around priority and focus.  

 As Bruna pointed out, there seems to be great agreement on the need and opportunity inherent in leveraging the GDC activities and vocabulary.

 And we do have an opportunity to change the way things have been done for years.  It's a good opportunity to rethink.  But I think we can also overthink it into paralysis, and to some extent I think we're in that mode right now.

 So I'd like to park this until we resume tomorrow and then take the first part of our agenda tomorrow to see if we can land on something very specific and actionable for the team.  

 And if we have no disagreement with that, I would choose to adjourn the meeting -- today's meeting.

 Okay.  I see no objection to that.  So I want to thank you very much for your participation and you're very thoughtful commentary and proposals.  And look forward to seeing you tomorrow.

 And the meeting is adjourned.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Chair.  And we'll meet at 1200 UTC tomorrow.  That's when we start.  Thank you.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Thank you.  Bye-bye, see you tomorrow.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.