IGF 2021 - MAG - Virtual Meeting - VII

>> Good afternoon, morning, and even ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome to MAG meeting, I think, it's number 7.  As you know, the meeting is being transcribed, recorded and also a summary report will be published on the IGF website.  I'll say first thing Monday if not this weekend.

What's that?  I think we have stabilized our participants.  We're still going up.  So we'll just take it a little bit slow and we'll ramp up and give other people a chance to join.  With that, I'll hand it over to our chair, Anriette.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Greetings, everyone.  I'll switch my camera shortly.  I'm Anriette joining you here.  Thanks to everyone who have pulled together.  We've really made progress.  We're not quite there yet, but we're getting closer and closer.  So I'll just quickly review the agenda.  My welcome from the chair is done.

Next, we have our reports from MAG members who have been working on these two baskets of issues that we've agreed on, the two main focus areas and the four cross‑cutting and emerging issue areas.  We'll have all the groups hopefully present something.  Then we'll agree on next steps so we can honor or commitment to have the call go out on 20 April.

Item Number 3 is an update from the working group on the workshop process.

Item Number 4, can please people start raising any other topic they would like us to discuss.

I'm going to ask (?) if he wants to say anything.  This is a focused MAG meeting.  I look forward to us really making that next step which has taken a few months where we're ready to put out the call.  Typiak, anything from you as we start.

>> Thank you for giving me the floor.  Welcome ‑‑ warm greetings from the host country from a very, very rainy Warsaw.  Nevertheless, I hope we're in a good mood and, first of all, in good health.  I ongoingly wish you very good health and to stay safe and be on the safe side.

As Anriette just mentioned, yes, we're struggling to work, to find the best options, the best descriptions of our focused areas.  And I am here with you if you have any questions to ask for host country.  At this point, please do raise them.  I will be happy to answer them.  My continuous request to provide us with situation with the COVID situation in your countries and regions.  I can report from our side that Poland is speeding up the vaccination process.  Hopefully from beginning of May we are going to start the common vaccination for everyone who would be interested, not just priority groups.  I mean, the elderly people and people with serious diseases or serious complications.  Hopefully by the end of the summer we will be able to vaccinate the majority of society.  We are speeding up the vaccination process.

We would like to learn more from you.  We would like to know your perspective, the situation in your countries and regions.  Therefore, please do write us your ‑‑ how the situation looks like.  I'm going to submit an official today to ask the MAG officially for that.  But I'm currently asking you politely very kindly to do so.

So we are here for you.  We have ‑‑ we are preparing the IGF schedule.  So the agenda for the logistics operator is going.  We will have it published soon.  So we are currently on the way to proceed with the hybrid format.  Abort we're working on the MAG working group and strategy in particular, just to mention those two ones.

Of course, we will also be participating in the policy network on environment.  I'm going to write to Anja on what's our final decision on participating in the working group in this area as well.  So we are also going to work on this just some final clarifications.

I'm going to send an official confirmation to the IGF Secretariat on this as well.

Thank you very much for giving me the floor.  I'm coming back to Anriette for any further information and wishing you a very good meeting and fruitful meeting.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much Typiak.  I see welcome.  We've been joined by past MAG members and by many of our supporters.  Welcome to our captioner, Rhonda.  So thanks, everyone.

Before we go to the reports, let me just recap a little bit so that we are clear where we are.  The MAG decided that for IGF 2021 we'll have a more issue‑driven approach.  This is to help achieve the goal of a more outcome and impact‑oriented IGF.

At the same time the MAG was concerned with not making the IGF closed.  The MAG wants to retain the bottom up and openness of the IGF as a space where people are from all over the world and from different stakeholders can come together and raise their issues and have discussion on the issues.  So to achieve this dual goal, the MAG has decided that in IGF 2021, there will be two baskets of issue areas.  These will be issue areas as opposed to just thematic track as we had in the past.

The two main which we have all tried to allocate most of our time on will invest more in generating outputs and reports.  Firstly, economics, social inclusion, and human rights.  Secondly, universal access and meaningful connectivity.  So those are the two primary focus areas.

Then along with these, as cross‑cutting areas but also as emerging areas where the community can ‑‑ which the community can use to propose other types of sessions that are necessarily part of the primary focus areas.

We have four more areas.  We refer to them as emerging and cross‑cutting discussion‑driven areas.  Firstly, emerging regulation, market structure, content, data, and consumer rights regulation.  Secondly, environmental sustainability and climate change.  Thirdly, inclusive Internet governance ecosystems and digital cooperation.  And fourthly, trust security and stability.  These are the issue areas we agreed on.

The task that the MAG undertook was to work with these and develop them a bit further, to take the descriptions that had been drafted based on community input and the issues that were presented by the community to the MAG.  Based on those, produce short documents that contain an overall description of the issue area, some of the key policy questions and some themes that have emerged.  That's where we are now.

I have put in the chat the sequence of MAG members submitting their reports.  And first report will be from the issue area economic and social inclusion and human rights.  Courtney, will that be you that is presenting that report?  Are you ready?

>> Yes.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  As you get ready, you can share your screen.  Just to reassure all MAG members that we're not expecting finalize text from you.  We're just expecting rough drafts.  We'll give you a bit more time until tomorrow morning to finalize your text.  Then the Secretariat will be tidying up and editing and making the text consistent.  So really the bulk of your work is done.  And don't be intimidated and don't feel you have to present something today.  That is perfect.  We just need to see what your text look like.

Courtney, back to you.

>> COURTNEY RADSCH:  Can I go after somebody because I don't feel like what I'm doing.  I would like to hear somebody else present so I know what should be presented?

(Silence)

>> COURTNEY RADSCH:  Can you hear me?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Anriette?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Sorry, I'm muted.  Sorry.  I was asking if Kareem is ready to go with one of the other main focus areas.  Kareem, are you with us?  He is.  Are you ready to present the document that you and the group have worked on?  Okay.  It looks like neither one of our main focus areas are ready to present.

Is any of the other groups ready to present?  Sooki?

>> I'll go first then.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Sooki will be presenting on the cross‑cutting emerging issues.

>> Thank you very much, Anriette.  Since we don't have a facilitator for this working group, any volunteers are more than welcome to join us.  Thank you very much, Anriette, for the draft you sent us and that I'm going to present now.  I will do it very quickly.  If you have any questions afterwards, please feel free to contact us directly from this working group.

So the working group is on environment and climate change.  I think I do not need to stress out the importance of mitigating climate change and ensuring environmental sustainability.

The role of the tenet and other digital technologies are twofold as we've stated so far that can have a negative impact on the environment.  Think of energy consumption and e‑ways.  They can also be used to advance environmental sustainability.  Against this background we came up with three topics.

First of all, we would like to look into the environmental impact of increased digitalization and Internet penetration in general.  At the same time we see more focus needs to be placed on promoting environmental education and building awareness on environmental sustainability within Internet governance and digital policy spaces.  The second will be on environmental education.

Last but not least use the Internet and other technology tools to manage the impact of climate change and achieve environmental sustainability is at core for us as third topic.

This in a nutshell, Anriette, was it sufficient, or should I go deeper into some aspects?  I didn't want to read out everything that is already written in the work document.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Can you mention some of the policy questions, run through some of those?

>> SOOKI:  You can see the policy questions.  The big area of course would be on policy makers and policy processes because we know that the impact of Internet and digital technologies have to be somehow steered or ‑‑ how would you say that?

And the second, therefore, we came up with the questions, how can we get to the policy makers and give consideration to the impact of the Internet and digitization on sustainability and climate change.

The second policy question is how can digital technologies, big data, and artificial intelligence can be used to make a positive impact on the environment and sustainability in terms of prediction and management of impact of climate change?

Of course, we would also like to discuss the question, how is this relevant for the Internet governance?

The third policy question is on how can policy makers leverage the Internet and Internet governance processes for expanding and strengthening environmental education?  This is the second topic that I mentioned before.  This has to do with, of course, capacity development and awareness raising, and so on.

Last but not least, policy question number four is how can we achieve a net zero impact on climate change in further expansion of Internet infrastructure and penetration, taking into account that the usage of technologies and digital devices, et cetera, is causing, of course, a negative impact on the environment.

The fifth question, maybe you can scroll down a bit.  Also, the next question, how can Internet governance and policy choices contribute to reducing the carbon footprint of the Internet?  The question is also related to the question that we had before.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Sooki.  Can I open the floor to any questions or comments on this group's initial report?  I'm just looking for hands.  I don't see any hands.  That's fine.  Thanks so much for stepping in to do this, Sooki.

Courtney, I see you are ready to go.  Please go ahead.  Are you able to share your screen?

>> COURTNEY RADSCH:  I will try share screen.  Sorry.  Let's see.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  That's fine.  We've lots of time.  Relax and take your time to get ready.

>> COURTNEY RADSCH:  I'm not sure what's happening, but let me try to share.  Allow Zoom to share your screen.  I have to open my setting preferences.  Please give me one moment.  I'm not sure.  I do not seem to be able to share my screen, Anriette.  I don't know what's happening here.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Let me see if I can give you the right to do that.  I can't.  I'm not a host.  Luis, are you able to give Courtney screen sharing?

>> LUIS BOBO:  You should actually have rights in your view at the beginning of the call.  Everyone has the right to share screen.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Courtney, if you look at the bottom of your screen, there should be ‑‑

>> COURTNEY RADSCH:  I have it.  It's giving me like five different ‑‑ it's saying I have to change some settings, and I don't know what to do.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Don't worry, Courtney.  We can also share the document for you.

>> COURTNEY RADSCH:  If somebody might share it, let me put the link ‑‑ if you don't have it ‑‑

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I can go and do that, Chengetai, as I have the document open.

>> COURTNEY RADSCH:  I just put it in the chat too if people want to follow along.

So this is ‑‑

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Can you see my screen?

>> COURTNEY RADSCH:  Yes.  Thank you.  So this is for the economic and social inclusion and human rights.  Part of it ‑‑ I think part of the important aspect of this issue area is that it is contextualized within COVID‑19, and that will really emphasize in the growing qualities and the importance of inclusion and the need for leveraging digital technologies to create equitable and peaceful societies.  And the idea that stakeholders need to work together to design and implement these regulations and policies in order to create a digital and inclusive digital economy and inclusive digital society, digital literacy, digital skills, and that governments also have a responsibility to design and set boundaries for private corporations, internationally the tech companies have a responsibility as well in figuring out where that lies.  Then, of course, capacity building.

A question around what governance mechanisms need to be adopted to enable inclusive economic and social human rights.

So we came up with ‑‑ we definitely need some more input into this.  We welcome other MAG members and others for input.  The first section is economic, social, and digital policies that facilitate and enable inclusion.  So a sample policy question would be, the COVID‑19 pandemic has laid bare the importance of digital inclusion for work and the economy, education and children, people with disabilities, e‑government and traditionally excluded groups and perspectives, which I realize is not a question here.

So we can reframe that as a question.  We wanted to get at various different dimensions there.  We have an additional question education.  We have a policy question on what type of policy efforts are contribute to policy decisions.  This is based on the theme around digital inclusion policies and regulations to address gaps in access, rights, and accountability across the various domains.

Then we had a theme around centering human rights in the digital inclusivity and the design and use and implementation of technologies in a human centered manner with a sample policy question around how we can leverage digital technologies to promote more equitable and peaceful societies that are inclusive, resilient, and sustainable.

The fourth section was around principles and safeguards that can be put into place to protect data rights and ensure transparent, rights respecting governance structures.  This does not yet have a policy question.  Maybe we can come up with one now.

And then fifth was protecting freedom of expression, mitigating censorship, and cultivating multilingualism for full inclusion with a policy question, how can existing regulatory frameworks be adequately implemented and platforms held accountable for their practices.  Then we have open data and transparent governance with a question around what are the principles of transparency that are needed to ensure rights and inclusion?

Digital ethics and shifting notions of societal norms and policy question, what values do we want digital technologies to serve and what kind of societies do we want to live in?  This might have a policy question, for example, around governance of AI and facial recognition.

The eighth is vertical versus horizontal networks of power.  And then this has a sample policy question around how the concentration of power in the hands of a few companies or authoritarian governments could be prevented, although I'm not sure if the IGF uses the term authoritarian governments.  You might want to look at that.

The last one is governance mechanisms and the need for regulation with a sample question around what type of mechanisms are needed and how we can make sure that international human rights remain relevant in the digital age.

I hope that is helpful to folks.  We would love to get some input.  I know that we have one missing on number 4 in terms of a policy question.  So I think that is somewhere ‑‑ we could think about something related to AI or open it up for suggestions from this group.  So thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Courtney.  Thanks to everyone who worked with Courtney.  Thanks for doing the first cut.  It's always ‑‑ once there's something others can comment on, it's so much easier.  To all of the MAG members who came forward and did a first draft, you are my heroes this week.

Any comments or questions for Courtney at this point?  Is there anyone else in that team want to add anything?  I can see people are still absorbing.  We can take questions later.

I think one thing I would flag here is that ‑‑ I don't feel that ‑‑ if some of the MAG members feel that we are ‑‑ that it's too human rights‑centric, for example, or not reflecting the specific perspectives of governments or business, remember this is a multi‑stakeholder workspace.  We can all contribute and put our stamp on how we present these issues.  I'm not criticizing that.  I think it's fantastic and really strong.  I'm creating the space for people to make sure that we present our in a way that doesn't alienate any particular workgroup.  Thank you, Courtney.  Thanks a lot.

Who is next?  Next up I think would be ‑‑ I think it's emerging regulation.  Maria is not with us yet.  I know she said she would arrive late.  Has she arrived yet?  Karim are you able to go to take the second main focus area.

>> Yes, Madam Chair.  Are you able to share your screen?

>> I can share my screen.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  You have the floor.

>> KARIM:  Can you see my screen right now?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes, Karim, we can see it.  We can see you and hear you clearly.

>> KARIM:  Thank you Madam Chair, good morning, good afternoon for colleague.  We do emphasize like other groups.  We have something that we can share with all of you.  In term of the description of the issue, we presented it over three parts regarding understanding the user‑centric needs in terms of connectivity.  The second enabling environment to the development and sustain ability of infrastructures.  The third one, promote the replicability of what works elsewhere.

How can we take into account, how we can rely the good practice in term of connectivity and infrastructure development?  And as we have universal access and meaningful connectivity, at first time we would like to be sure that we understand the main issue in terms of meaningful connectivity and what we need to set up for sure we can easily develop infrastructure over the world.

The third part, how we can identify and document all existing good practices for this replication.

In terms of policy question, we return only five policy question.  Yes, as a sample policy question, we'd like to illustrate how we can address the policy question.

But we'd like to give the opportunity of workshop session to think and share when they think about this.

So the first one is what have been the obstacles to achieving affordable and meaningful access to the Internet in recent years, despite the significant expansion of mobile infrastructure deployed around the world.  One is seeking to understand and tackle the affordability issue and how it might improvements be made.

Third one, what principles, approaches, incentives, and coordinated actions as enabling governments should be central to all actors involved in infrastructures development, it could be governments, local authorities, teleco, providers, consumers associations in order to spur investment in and drive better affordability of Internet inclusive access and connectivity solutions in developing countries.

In this policy question we'd like to reemphasize the issue as mostly we think that's a core infrastructure development for private sector and government.  But we need to extend it on consumer on all stakeholders to be sure that the development of infrastructure and meaningful access is taking into account with all stakeholder.

The fourth policy question, are there particular telecommunication business models in fixed and mobile broadband internet services that have been shown to be particularly effective at expanding affordable access to the Internet, and what are the role of the other stakeholders in bringing about this increased investment and affordable access?

At the end of the we have one de‑Clarks on Internet access as human rights in policy development around the world.  We'd like to emphasize the way that's even after one top level area we consider and we declare Internet as a human rights.  But why government and different actor develop policies and action in term of infrastructure development.  We might think that's this is not considered or taken into account.  I think that's one of the questions that we can try to discuss and see how we can really create a condition to ensure that we have universal access and meaningful connectivity.

In the document we still have the issue proposed by the community as we are working on the document.  And we invite all of you to contribute to help us refine the document.  That's it.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Karim.  Courtney, I hope you read the positive comments on your presentation in the chat.  Congrats to you and Sooki again.  Karim, you're also getting positive feedback.

I'm now giving the floor to Carlos Afonso who would like to comment.  Carlos, over to you.  For your information, we don't have a speaking queue today.  So either use the chat or the Zoom function if you want to raise your hand.  Carlos?

>> CARLOS AFONSO:  Thank you, everyone.  Carlos Afonso for the record and MAG members.  I find that the draft presented by Karim is excellent and raises the fundamental wishes.  I would like to add one thing which is the role of local governments in the process of achieving meaningful connectivity.

We have in most countries local governments organized in municipalities or equivalent.  And these local governments usually have enough leverage to contribute a lot to improve it.  On the connectivity in the last ‑‑ which is where we live, where we all live, this is a major ‑‑ I would like perhaps to somehow include in the document the emphasis of the role of local governments in leveraging local access.  It arrives in the municipality.  Who takes care of universalizing access to that?

It's just that note about local governments.  The rest is great.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Carlos.  I also really like the fact that you are ‑‑ that you're getting to specifics.  I think that's really what we're trying to do with the main questions and how we're defining the issues, that we move beyond the generalities and repeating the same old discussions year after year on what is blocking access.

I also think it's a really strong piece of work.

Any other comments or questions for Karim's group or for any of the presentations we've had so far?  ‑‑ Roberto, I see you have your hand up.  Roberto, please go ahead.

>> Thank you very much, Madam Chair, second year MAG member from Bolivia.  I wanted to add quickly that we will receive, of course, important inputs.  We're going to have a meeting today for policy network and meaningful access.  As far as we are advancing with the policy network team, I think we're going to receive a lot of inputs for this issue also.  I think particularly regarding the policy questions, we are going to refine them also responding to the need to have more outcome-oriented approach.  That is what we need to have in this main policy focus area.  Thank you, Madam Chair.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Struggling to find the mute button.  Thank you.  It's important that we have policy networks on two of the issue areas that the IGF will be addressing.  That's creating a very important link.  Actually, there's also BPF.  There's a lot of synergy.

Who's ready to go next?  We still have to hear from trust and security and stability and from emerging regulation and from digital cooperation.  I'm not sure if we have ‑‑ we haven't received a report from digital cooperation.  But we did receive from trust and security.  Chenai in the meeting?  I don't see her.

>> ANJA GENGO:  I don't see Chenai.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Anja, are you able to show the text that she sent.

>> ANJA GENGO:  Let me please see if I have it.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Is there anyone in that group with Chenai able to present the work that you started?  Trust, security, and stability cross‑cutting and emerging issue area.

>> Sorry, I think she just sent email to the MAG list with a link to that document.  If I've got the right thing, I hope what I've just sent is the correct link in the chat here.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Are you able to just run us through it quickly?

>> I'm not a member of that group or haven't been a part of the discussion, just from the MAG list a few moments.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Anja, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you or one of the MAG members to go forward.  Amrita said she will come in the last 45 minutes.  Okay.  We can wait for her.  If we have someone else to present.  We don't have Maria yet either.  (?) are you able to present the work from the emerging regulation group?

>> Good morning, everybody.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Good morning, Amado.

>> I do not have at this point our (?) to be presented to you.  (Audio breaking up) I will send the first draft today for the MAG members to review on the ecosystem, IGF ecosystem and collaboration and certainly we would be very pleased to get your feedback to see if we are properly addressing the different policy questions regarding the different stakeholders groups from coming up on private sector, education, governments, and so on.

Yes, this is the document which ‑‑ thanks for presenting it.  Mara shared with us.  If you can ‑‑ if you wish, we can go straight to the policy questions where we are introducing how important is the of questions arise on policies to the different groups, which are dealing with these kinds of topics.  The document is also available at the link which is already shared to the email list, to the mailing list.

We will also be very pleased to get your feedback on it.

>> ANJA GENGO:  Anriette, we cannot hear you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I'm back.  I'm sorry.  I had a power cut.  My electricity went down but I'm back.  Can you hear me now?

>> Yes.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  But I've lost the last few minutes.  I'm sorry.  I'm not sure if ‑‑ did Amado present?

>> I am going to send the document for our group on the ecosystem and collaboration.  I will share the document in a few minutes after this meeting end.  Regarding the document from Maria in the emerging questions group, we have already sent a first draft of the different policy questions.  We will be very pleased to hear the feedback from the other MAG members in order to check if the ‑‑ if the way of thinking from the different groups, private sector in education and government is properly represented on the document.  Please, I encourage all the ‑‑ to give us your feedback.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Okay.  Thanks for that, Amado.  We just had a report of the issue groups.  Amado has shared on digital cooperation.  He will share something just after this meeting.  And on emerging regulation we already had a presentation of that group's work last week.  In fact, Maria has said she sent an email to say there isn't many changes, but she's still inviting others to comment.

I don't know if Maria is with us yet, but Amado if you can convey to her again, thank you for being the first.  Because her initial document served as a template for everyone else.  A big thank you to her and that group for yourself as well, as a co‑facilitator for starting the picture.

Adam, Peake, I see your hand up.

>> Hi, everybody.  This proposal and others I've read are really excellent and very comprehensive.  It is a comprehensive proposal reflecting the issues that were submit and it's built off that.  But something I wondered as I read all of the proposals is going back to this idea that was mentioned on some MAG meetings a little while ago is are we meant to be or do we want to think about a more focused IGF?  Something, of course, is mentioned in a few proposals is the global pandemic which has been ‑‑ I don't know if the right word is unifying but it's felt by us all.  It's a unique event.  We don't want to say 100‑year event, but it's an event that is out of all of our experiences.  Is this a way to use as a lens to focus on what has happened or what has affected Internet governance, Internet policy over the last year?

I think something that runs through a lot of the proposals is that changes ‑‑ and also in our lives generally ‑‑ changes that were occurring, trends that were happening have been accentuated, they've been sped up.  They've been highlighted by our experience over the past year.  You see that in access.  You see it in inclusiveness and so on and so forth.  The effects globally have been different, but the effect has been global if you see what I mean.

So that is a sort of a comment and something that might help us focus these proposals.  But on the specifics of this one, what I think someone who has followed regulation for decades really, I think what we're seeing is a heightening in the ‑‑ in just the number of regulations, legislations that are either being proposed or amended around the world.

For example, an absolutely massive effect of the European Union's GDPR on privacy legislation which isn't mentioned very much in the document, privacy, I mean.  The effects of that that's been often to areas such as platform regulation and the tech giants and so on. 
   With like 100 pieces of legislation around the world with this little spur that GDPR has given, for example.  I also don't see mention of cybersecurity where, again, we're looking at security of networks but not only security, it's sort of impacting over into many different aspects of the internet, whether it's behaving Internet operations versus requirements put on operators and of course meshing with other types of legislation on antitrust and competition and so on and so forth.

So we're seeing in this particular area a sort of global trend affecting privacy platforms, data governance, cybersecurity.

I wonder if going back to the thought, would it be effective to frame everything within the impact of the pandemic?  So that really is the comment.  So specific on the proposal generally, that it might look at the very rapid or the raft of legislations we're seeing globally, where they're coming from, what areas they're affecting.  And then perhaps trying to look at it more generally through this COVID‑19 lens.  Thanks.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much for those very important comments that we need to reflect on, Adam.  I think with regard to your specific comments, please add them to the document.  Because I think actually those questions that you raise about specific areas of regulation were in the issues submitted by the community.  So I think just add that to the document, so that when Maria and her team do the final version, they can reflect on that.

With regard to your question about the overarching approach, I would like to open the floor on that.  Certainly, we already see that as a framing in the text on the economic and social inclusion and human rights group.

And it was an overarching theme in 2020.  So I think that's the other ‑‑ we need to also consider ‑‑ we had that as an overall theme, and we looked at resilience and solidarity and the impact of the pandemic in 2020.  If we're going to pull that in again as a framing approach in 2021, how do we do that?

So let me open the floor while we're still waiting for Chenai and Maria to join us to do their reports.  I think it's a good opportunity to discuss Adam's inputs.

Does anybody want to respond to Adam?  Secretariat, you're also very welcome to respond to this.  I think the question that Adam's putting to us is to what extent do we want the pandemic, its impacts and the global community's response to it to frame these different issue areas?

Courtney?

>> COURTNEY RADSCH:  I think that we should center the pandemic I think it laid bare a lot of the issues and what it really means when you have this massive disruption.  And we have the chance to really rethink and rebuild ‑‑ I think a lot of the issues as we've just heard, the policy questions are very well linked.  To make this policy relevant, we should really integrate that throughout and encourage proposal submitters to do so with the idea of not ‑‑ looking back, because we're still in the early days of lessons learned, but also looking forward.  Because this probably won't be the last global pandemic that many of us experience, and we're still in the midst of it.  So there are, I think, very important policies that could be informed now.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Courtney.  Is there another hand up?  Not yet.  While others come forward, let me ask you both and Adam.  When you talk about using it as a frame or centering, do you think it should be reflected in the policy questions or more into the introductory text of how we describe the issues?

If both you and Adam can say a little bit more about how you would like to see the MAG reflect the centering of the pandemic in the core for session proposals?

>> COURTNEY RADSCH:  I would suggest that we have it in both so that it is in the opening document but not that we are only looking at COVID‑19, but that is an overarching ‑‑ it's not identified as a theme but an overarching context in which this IGF and these themes and these issues have been raised.

I think doing a few more policy questions and integrating those in the policy questions would be useful.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks Courtney.  Adam, did you want to add?

>> Adam Peake:  Very similar.  I think it could be part of the overall framing.  I'm remembering a contribution from the government of Canada that touched on this which was part of the submissions.  I think it could be in the overall framing to say, asking people to think how the issue areas that they're interested in or working on have been affected over the year, what responses have been.  There could be, as Courtney said, some specific examples.  I was thinking about inclusion and this is quite ‑‑ the way I'll frame is it sort of global north perspective, but you look at how education has been affected over the last year, how any student, young person who does not have access to a laptop or a phone or the connectivity to connect those phones and the environment in which to work has been enormously disadvantaged and it's a lasting lifetime disadvantage.

That is framed in the perspective who lives in the global north, which I do.  I think you can extend that to the global south in a much richer and deeper problematic way in a way that is we've heard at IGFs over the years has always been a very significant problem.  So there's probably ways of framing this within many different ways in the policy questions, or at least asking people to consider when you're making a proposal, keep this in mind.  What are you telling us about your experiences over the last year, 18 months, or whatever you want to say?

Just to be clear about the regulation and legislation, I'm not saying that the pandemic has caused this legislation.  I'm just saying we've seemed to have seen a lot over the last year.  Perhaps it's been coincidental or perhaps it's focused ‑‑ this may be part of the policy question part of this, it may also have focused regulators, governments, minds on the importance of the Internet, because all of a sudden last March many governments saw their societies move online, the whole functioning of their society moved very much online.

So it brought it front of mind for them as well.  So, yeah, two parts, framing and also as much as possible within the policy questions.  I think it would be interesting to see how that sort of reactive phase you mentioned last year, Anriette, how people are looking at it, now that we've had the experience for longer and have had time to evaluate it and go beyond reaction to sort of really living with it.  Thanks.

I hope that was clear.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Adam.  That's very clear.  I think you and Courtney are clearly thinking along similar lines.

I think also to add to your comments, Adam, is also the possible risks attached to rushing policy and regulation as a result of the pandemic.

Next, we have Amado.  Amado, Roberto.

>> Yes, I think your conclusion is very clear.  The pandemic just shows us the lack of this policy issue regarding the society we are building up.  Of course, maybe IGF can become the repository of these new initiatives, not only for the technical issues but also specifically on the suggestions on what should be next step of public good for the Internet nowadays.  And how can we all together help establish the proper rules to govern it.  And how do Civil Society ‑‑ the ownership of the Internet as such?  Maybe during the call for proposals, we can emphasize these new realities should look like and what are the new policies in place coming from private governments and private sector, thanks.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Amado.  Next, we have Roberto.

>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  I just wanted to remember when we were facing the first phase and second phase when proposers were preparing their proposals, I think most of them, if not all, of course, included the idea of the pandemic.  Most of them also when they finally presented the workshops by the end of the year, they mention that they included content about how they face it, the pandemic.

I'm not sure now ‑‑ in that time we didn't have to frame it.  That came naturally because everyone was facing the pandemic.  I think that now ‑‑ I will agree that we're not ending the pandemic.  Perhaps we're in between waves.  Hopefully this particular pandemic is going to end soon or at least is going to be mitigated.  But what we're going to have more is some very important lessons that we've learned as humanity.  Of course, to be ready and to prepare for similar situations, as Courtney said before.

I'm not sure if we need to actually frame it and ask them the proposals to be related with this or include this or perhaps it will flow just very naturally.  Those are my comments.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you for that, Roberto.  If I understand you correctly, you are going for a little bit of caution and not pushing too hard on insisting that the pandemic be at the center.  Is that what you are saying.

>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Yes, and I think it's going to be very naturally included in the proposals.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Okay.  Any other comments on the general discussion about how we are going to contextualize and frame these issue areas in our core?  I don't see any other hands.  For some reason after my power cut and I came back, I can't see the chat.  I can't even see my own chat.  So I'm relying on people to put up their hands.

>> Can you hear me?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes, I can.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So instead of the pandemic or future pandemic this is supposed to be a 100‑year ISOC.  Can we focus on a post‑pandemic society so taking from what we've learned from the pandemic and putting it into what we do as we go ahead?  This is what I've been listening to.  I think that might be a good idea, post‑pandemic society.  We're doing hybrid meetings more, not just because of the pandemic; but also, it's a good idea but everything else in legislation.  Everything else.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I'm not sure we're ready ‑‑ I'm not sure that post‑pandemic is yet with us, Chengetai.

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We hope it's going to be post‑pandemic next year or two years' time.  I'm also going from what the Polish host would want to focus on ‑‑ sorry for speaking for them ‑‑ on a way forward after the pandemic.  But this is just a suggestion since you asked.  You don't have to literature.  That's fine.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Definitely adding Chengetai's input where we are at the moment.  We have a proposal to center it.  We have a proposal to put it both in the framing and specific policy questions.  We've got a question from Roberto not to push too hard and we have a perspective from Chengetai that we also need to look at a post‑pandemic scenario.  It doesn't mean that we don't give serious consideration to implications of what we learned in the pandemic but we also look toward the future.

Paul, and Timea, I don't know when you put your hands up.  So first Paul and then Timea.  Paul, can you hear me?  I can't hear Paul Charlton. Can others hear him?

>> ANJA GENGO:  We cannot hear Paul.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Timea, why don't you take the floor next.  And, Paul, we'll give you a chance to join us later or you can type.  Timea, you have the floor.

>> Thank you very much.  Thank you for inviting comments from past MAG members and non‑MAG members.  It encouraged me to put my hand up.

First of all, to really signal to the MAG how impressed I am with the work that you've done in less than a week.  I think the last meeting we had we were all a little bit concerned of where this work stands and to see the great work that's been done in the last week.  I'm very grateful to you all and very happy to see us all interact.

Regarding the descriptions you've made and tracks from the teams, this is impressive work.  One thing I would suggest maybe collectively to everyone as you look to finalize your drafts is focus and possibly try and cut back on the amount of information and suggestions and policy questions you are sharing with the community.  I know it is a very complex issues, and I know they need to be very thorough when you present them.  But having, I guess, close to ten policy questions in some of these narratives I think it's a bit overwhelming and would be very hard for all of you, speaking from a MAG member's experience who has gone through this three years, it will be very hard for all of you to create a concise program if the invitation for sessions is so broad.

So if there is a way to synthesize, I would very much encourage you all to do that.  That was the only point I wanted to make.  Regarding since we have the conversation on the pandemic situation, how it should be featured.  I think there is merit in looking at the long-lasting lessons or consequences that we've learned from the current ongoing situation that we see that are here to stay and how we prepare for those, how we treat those other items of regulation or in terms of practical experience.  I think that would be an interesting angle to explore.  Thank you very much for giving me the floor.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you for your ongoing support.  To other past MAG members as well, it helps a lot that you're contributing so much.  Paul Charlton, are you able to speak?  I'm afraid I can't see the chat at all anymore.  I'm relying on Anja to help me on the chat.  Paul, are you able to take the floor?

(Silence)

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I still can't hear Paul.  So Adam, you have requested the floor again.  Please go ahead.

>> ADAM PEAKE:  Thank you.  Yeah, just responding to Chengetai's point.  I remember some IGFs years ago, it was a closing session that was forward looking and looked to the future and so on and so forth.  It might be interesting to design something around that to look to experiences as Timea said and what may come next, perhaps setting something up for the 2022 IGF and so on.

But I think going beyond that gets into the realms of sort of almost what we wish for rather than reporting on experiences, because I notice that I'm sitting in Amsterdam and not in Geneva and not sitting with you and working with you, so I think our lived experience suggest that we report on the effect of the pandemic and not where it might be.  Although there's definitely merit in having a session that looks to that.  Thanks.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Adam.  I think we will have the opportunity with the MAG curated sessions to address those type ‑‑ some of those questions.  We do not want to happen with Internet governance what is happening with vaccine distribution which is the pandemic resulting in lack of global cooperation.

In a way there's a strategic opportunity here to reflect on the impacts of very fragmented approaches to public policy issues.  So I think it's ‑‑ there is an illustrative example in other aspects of the impact of the pandemic that we can also learn from in Internet governance.

Paul, I'm so sorry, I really can't hear you.  I'm hoping someone can help me find Paul a way to speak.  Maybe if you can hear me, maybe you should exit the room and reenter, and then we might be able to hear you.

>> ANJA GENGO:  The comment in chat, Anriette, from Paul, maybe it will help if we read it.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I can't see it.  Go ahead, Anja.

>> ANJA GENGO:  I was going to say the pandemic Soo be a cross‑cutting issue.  So it should be mentioned in the narrative for organizers to consider rather than a central framing device.  It could be mentioned many some policy questions as an option for organizers to consider in the context of main issues, for example.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot for that, Anja.  Thanks, Paul.  I think, Paul, that summarizes what I think we've agreed on, that we want to use it as a framing input.  We don't want to force it.  We want to integrate it in some of the policy questions.  We also want to allow it to be treated organically.

I don't see any more hands on this topic.  I would like us ‑‑ we've gone 73 minutes into our meeting.  I would like us to do the rest of the reports.  Then we'll hear from the working group on workshop process.

I see Chenai chair has joined us.  Are you ready to run us through the draft text on trust, security, and stability, which is a cross‑cutting issue?

>> Hi, Anriette.  Yes, I am.  I was trying to see if any of my colleagues added anything else on the document.  But it is available.  I think the link has been shared.  I'll also post it in the chat right now.

But in essence, what was emerging from the community which takes inclusion at the bottom was more so thinking about trust and security and stability also focusing on the nation state and global governance but also the idea of private actors as mercenaries in terms of perpetrating cybercrime and cyber-attacks.  The main themes that I pulled out for this specific track was more so in mitigating against cyber-attacks from various players and thinking about accountability of (Audio breaking up) in cybersecurity.

And the tags weren't many but there are tags for both subthemes that emerged, cybersecurity, cyber terrorism, cyber criminals, nation states which would be mission states, global organizations, and accountability mechanisms.  So the policy questions that emerged also from the community but were edited so that they could read well.  We're also focusing on how rules ‑‑ how they there can be international rules to nation state behavior and also what can be done at the national, international level to specifically tackle private sector companies and also holding nation states accountable for cyber-attacks.  (Audio breaking up) there wasn't much from the community.  I'm happy to hear inputs on refining this.  Thanks, Anriette.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Chenai.  Any of Chenai's group members who want to add?  Okay.  I don't see any hands.  So I'd like to bring this ‑‑ go ahead.  I'm not sure who's speaking.  Go ahead.  I can't hear.  Amado, is that you?  Are you trying to speak?

>> AMADO:  No, not me.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I'm keeping a close eye on the hands.  I can't see the chat but I can see the raised hands.  Anyone, please feel free to raise your hand.  Let me summarize where we are.  We've had reports from all of the issue areas, the main focus areas and the cross‑cutting and emerging issue areas.  We've not had a report yet from digital cooperation and inclusive Internet governance.  They will submit a report shortly after this call.

We did not receive a presentation from emerging regulation.  But we discussed it.  And it is an issue area that we discussed and received the report on last week already.  So I want to echo what Timea had said.  I think MAG members, you've made significant progress.  We need to finalize.

I'll try to summarize the next steps.  The deadline for you to finalize these documents is tomorrow morning Geneva time.  So I'm going to give you roughly ‑‑ Secretariat, would 8:00UTC be a good time for you to have as a deadline?  I'm going to propose that, 8:00 tomorrow morning, universal time.  If you can then send the final versions of your documents.

Based on ‑‑ (Audio breaking up) discussion, firstly, particularly for the main issue focus areas come up with policy questions and try and focus them.  Do not have long list of subtopics.  Really and try to come up with some concise about themes.  I think you're all very close to that already.  So that we achieve this goal of having a more focused and impact and oriented IGF.  For the emerging and cross‑cutting issues, I think there's more flexibility there.  What we've also decided is we do want to center the pandemic, not in a forced way.  But we want to make sure that it's reflected in how the issues are framed and some of the policy questions where relevant.

We also want to allow for openness and for issues to be ‑‑ the issues that are not specifically pandemic‑related still to be surfaced.  We also have heard from Adam that we need to be sensitive to this issue of global north and global south perspectives.  So also think about that when you finalize your issue text.

I think we also need to consider stakeholder diversity, that we describe the issues and reflect the issues and state the policy questions in such a way that they are inclusive or sufficiently diverse to make sense to people, whether you're from government or Civil Society or business.  We have a very diverse audience that we want to bring into the IGF process.  The way in which we use language and the way in which we express our policy questions can help achieve that.

So I think that's it.  I want to ask the Secretariat if you want to add anything to this little checklist, I've just gone through that we want to give to MAG members for finalizing their text.  Do you want to add anything?  I'm looking here specifically at our pen holder, people like Sorina.

>> Nothing to add, thank you.

>> Anything, Wim, you would like to add.

>> No, nothing to add.  Looking forward to getting information and start working with it.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Good.  So tomorrow when we receive your final versions, the Secretariat will then start working with them just to edit them to make sure that language is consistent, that format is consistent and that they are ready for inclusion in the call.

MAG members will obviously again have the opportunity to comment on these drafts.  So they'll be distributed to you shortly before next week's MAG call.  And you will again have the opportunity to make input.  We'll finalize these texts and make them completely ready for the call for session proposals at next week's MAG call.  That's next step on that agenda item.

If there no hands on this agenda item, we are going to move on.  I don't see any hands or hear any voices.  Thanks very much, everyone.  We are all (Audio breaking up) almost there.  I would say 80%.

Our next agenda item is to look at the workshop process, working groups report, particularly in its implications for how we develop the call that will go out next week.

So Roberto?

>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Thank you very much, Anriette.

(Overlapping Speakers)

>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Thank you very much again.  I would share the screen.  Actually, we shared in the agenda you may have found two main documents.  As you remember last year, we had a document that was called thematic tracts and we have narratives there.  That is the idea about having this document that is going to be receiving the inputs coming from the different issue working groups that are working now and providing not only the narratives but also the policy questions, things like that.  So this document is a work in progress.  Because this document will also be the main reference for the call for proposals that we are going to receive later.

So since this is one of the key aspects that we need to have, it was important for us in the working group to discuss some considerations about the organization of the IGF 2021.

About those ‑‑ we may remember that we have concluded that we're going to have a hybrid approach, at least until the moment.  The idea is to have face‑to‑face meeting in December.  But, of course, including the online functionalities, the online participations for many of the remote attendants.

Besides the type of sessions that we have suggested, roundtable, panel, debates, et cetera, that the proposal we're using during the last IGF and that with the length of 60 to 90 minutes, there is suggestion to include some other type of sessions, such as the flash sessions or lightning talks that were included in the hybrid meeting suggestions with even shorter time allocations.  We're talking about maybe 30 or perhaps 45 minutes to have an alternative to the other 60 or 90‑minute length options we had before.

Also, we had to analyze the recommendation of having fewer number of sessions.  So far we didn't come with a final number yet.  I think it may be something we decide later.  Although there were some options ‑‑ some suggestions about not necessary reduce the amount of the slots that we have in the past, but in any case, the fewer sessions will also mean that we will have fewer parallel sessions.

The idea, as you remember, from the last meeting that we have as MAG members, the idea was not to have more than five parallel sessions, even though the host had the capacity to allocate ten rooms temporal sessions, but the idea is not to have more than five parallel sessions.

Another thing that was discussed during our meeting was to have reserve some slots for open ‑‑ maybe to compensate some of the proposals that are going to be rejected considering we will finally allocate fewer proposals.

Another important thing that we discussed in the meeting was related with the forum.  I think I will try to show how the forum is right now as a proposal too.  About this forum, as you remember, is the one that the proposers use to present the proposals including or selecting the issues that they are going to face and all the other content that will be included as part of the proposals.

There are some suggestions about this.  While the initial approach was to have the two main focus areas as well as the other four cross‑cutting issues.  And once the proposers select one of these six, then it will appear the rest of the forum for filling it out.

But there were some suggestions to have closer relationship between the two main focus areas and the cross‑cutting issues.  The idea will be to perhaps have an initial question for the proposal about which one of those main topics will follow the proposal and then to perhaps include one of the cross‑cutting themes.

Of course, the idea is to have it more flexible, actually the proposer will be able to maybe just suggest the main focus topic particularly and not to include any of the other four cross‑cutting, or even we could have the alternative to first select the cross‑cutting issue.  And then relate it to one of the main focus areas.  So the idea is not to have these two baskets, as we discussed before, totally separated but maybe have them related.

But, again, I think one of the more important things that we want is to have it very flexible for the proponents.

There was another idea, besides having the traditional worships to have some slots reserved for workshop related, as I mentioned before, the cross‑cutting themes related with the main focus issues.  And maybe some other slots to have a little bit more open themes that will be related to the cross‑cutting issues.

About the preparatory phase, that was another thing that we were considering in the group is that we will have the ‑‑ we will be able to ask the proposers to ‑‑ if they want to have their worships in the IGF main options but perhaps also to have interproprietary space.  I think that's something that MAG members will also be able to analyze and maybe decide in some cases.  One of the workshops before to be rejected could be considered as to be allocated in the preparatory phase.  This preparatory phase, as we also know, and remember will be organized three or four weeks before the IGF in December.  So we're talking about November.

Well, those considerations were very important in order to have ‑‑ before I finish it, I want to share the forum.  This is the form it is right now to present the proposals.  So far we have, as I mentioned before, the six separated main and two focus issues as well as the four cross‑cutting issues.  This will change after we have a decision about how we're going to present this part if we're going to relate this main two focus areas with the other four cross‑cutting or if we will have some sort of mark that are relating these cross‑cutting issues with the first two, or if we're going to choose one of them.  But still after choosing one of the four cross‑cutting issues, we will be able to relate to the one main focus areas.

So far they are separated.  We will have the narrative, as I said before, from the IGF 2021 issues document.  And then, of course, they will have the rest of the form to fill out with all the other sections.

So, again, this is very important to finish because this will be included in the call for sessions, which is the other document, the other document is a call for workshop proposals.  You also have this document in the agenda.  And it's a very initial draft.  We need to finish it before this call for proposals.  And one of the important things is ‑‑ actually in response to a long evolution is the criteria for workshop evaluations.  Which has the different dimensions that are going to be evaluated during this period of work as well as some other support document like the brief manual for workshop proposers.  That's something that also needs to be updated.  And that perhaps will include some of the other types of sessions that we're going to promote to present.  That's all we have, Anriette.  Now we can listen to your comments.  Thank you very much.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much for that, Roberto.  I see there are some questions in the chat about the form, about world limits.  There's a question about how useful the part about the SDGs, I would like people to respond to.  Carlos, I see your hand.

What I would like to say before I open the floor for discussion and responses to the working groups and Roberto's report is that a few things you have to keep in mind is that the Secretariat will release the call for session proposals not just for workshops but for all the different types of sessions at the IGF.  That would be open forums, networking sessions and various other types of sessions.  Part of the purpose here is that we're trying to achieve that dual goal of having a focused IGF and a very inclusive IGF.  We try to create the space for somebody who might want to apply to do a book launch but that they do that as a book launch, not as a book launch disguised as a workshop.

So when the session proposal call goes out, it will have the option for proposers to select what type of session they want to propose, and workshops will only be one type of session.  We're trying to be very inclusive but at the same time also being a little bit more directive with workshops being more (Audio breaking up) and linked to the other areas.

I'm opening the floor.  I see we have Carlos Afonso; you go first.  If people can respond to Adam's question.  Secretariat, particularly, is it useful to ask about the link to SDGs.  Carlos?

>> CARLOS AFONSO:  Yes.  Thank you.  I see the choice of themes we have to consider, the focus and the cross‑cutting are all in some way interrelated.  There are no interpretations in all of them.  Maybe if we could ‑‑ I don't know if it covers it too much to put an option for workshop proposers can choose what focus is first proprietary and what is second.  One cross‑cutting or another second proprietary.  I don't know.  These are the main relationships of our workshop proposal regarding the themes that the IGF has prioritized.  I don't know if this complicates too much or if they just have to choose one focus and one cross‑cutting.  Maybe this would be too restrictive.  I don't know.  Just thinking aloud.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Carlos.  We discussed that a little bit in the workshop working group yesterday.  I think the form will try to address that.

Anyone else?  Anyone want to respond to Adam's question?  I see June has responded in the chat.  But does somebody else want to talk about how we use the link with the SDGs and why it is important?  I don't see any volunteers.  Oh, we have Courtney.  Go ahead, Courtney.  Adam, do you want to say something and then I give the floor to Courtney?

>> Adam Peake:  No.  Perhaps I should because it might be unfair if I don't.  The reason I ask is because I've seen this, of course, not as a MAG member but as somebody who has submitted proposals.  Quite frankly, it's forced.  You look at the SDGs and you're like my proposal sort of fits with this.  I'm not sure how much genuine connection is thought other than a bit of a box ticking exercise.  So that is a bit cynical and probably heretical.  I'm not saying in any way that the SDGs are not valuable.  I'm just wondering about how a number of people who are making proposals might use it and therefore have we, as MAG members, evaluate it.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Adam.  I have a response for you, but I'm first going to give the floor to Courtney.

>> COURTNEY RADSCH:  Thank you.  So a couple thoughts.  I think that we should make it optional to identify an SDG, because I think it really does matter where you're based in the world.  If you're living in the US and Europe maybe they're less central.  We never really talk about them in the US.  I think they're important in parts of the world.  I think we should include that.  I think that's useful for us as a MAG and frankly to the broader SDG initiative to be able to have that information that would be able to be gathered by seeing which proposals were under that.  But I don't think we should make it mandatory.  I think we could make that a dropdown menu or people can fill it in if it's relevant.

Also, I wanted to suggest on the design of the form that we have a dropdown menu for the two focus areas or add a third that would be other.  And then a separate dropdown menu that would identify a cross‑cutting issue.  I definitely hear what Carlos was saying in terms of that there are panels that are going to hit on multiples.  But I think we want to encourage people to get specific and to make those choices and that will help us as MAG members.  I'm not sure how useful ‑‑ I've never done this, but I'm thinking if we're going through proposals and most of them have like multiple emerging issues that they're hitting on, then that doesn't really help us to make sure we have representation in all of the buckets.

So I would be inclined to limit that to one choice.

And then just one other comment about the speakers.  As somebody who is based in WEOG and really tries to create diverse panels.  We know there is this list of resource persons, I'm just wondering how we could encourage that more and really facilitate organizers and make it an option to those that don't have a fully-fledged panel but maybe have a couple experts.  And then either the MAG or maybe there's a way to incorporate the community to fill in the blanks.  Because I think that would be really helpful for getting outside the bubbles that people exist in, being more inclusive.  So I don't know if that's been tried before.  But I did want to think about how we might really leverage resource persons and then just get more diverse panels and also people who don't always talk to each other.

Because if you're putting together a panel, you're probably getting people who you know or who you've been on a panel with before or in your circle.  So that's my suggestion.  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Courtney.  I think that's a really interesting question.  I invite MAG members, particularly MAG members that have been around and past MAG members to respond to that suggestion.

Courtney, if I understand you correctly, you're saying why does the MAG not propose some speakers for people to include to help them come up with diverse panels?  So please start responding to that.

I wanted to respond to the SDGs.  I think, yes, maybe we have used it as a tick box exercise.  But I don't think that only need to be used.  I think the IGF is moving into a phase of being more outcome oriented.  There's more ‑‑ we saw that last year last year with Odessa organizing the IGF more closer with other UN agencies.  Having that creates a first step ‑‑ as an example to compile a report on December 2021 for the SDG review in 2022 that reflects on the IGF and how the IGF discussed SDGs and what emerged just makes it a little bit easier to do that.

I agree with you.  I don't think we've used it creatively yet.  I think having it there sends the message that the IGF is part of the UN system and that the IGF is part of this broader UN member state set of goals.  But we haven't used it.  Hopefully we can use it more creatively in the coming year.

Any responses to Courtney's question about the MAG proposing speakers?  We can also come back to that at a later stage.  We don't have to finalize that now.  But if anybody is able to share any experience.  I don't see any hands.

>> COURTNEY RADSCH:  Anriette, I want to say ‑‑ I think it could be that the MAG or is there a way ‑‑ maybe if you've identified as a resource person, could we make panels that are not fully fleshed out or who are looking for diverse perspective like available for resource people to put themselves forward for or something like that?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Can someone to that?  Secretariat, I have seen variations of different ‑‑ there are MAGs that have in the past that have reviewed proposals without panels of speakers, for example.  And that comes later.  So there are different approaches to that.  Maybe Chengetai, you can give a summary of how the MAG and Secretariat have used the list of resource people on the IGF site and in what way it's been ‑‑ of including speakers have opened up?  Can someone else comment on this?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, Anriette.  That's true that when the proposal doesn't have to have the full set of speakers because one difficulty about having a proposal and then having conference speakers is that you have to ask them.  Then if only have the proposals get through and then the people don't know whether or not to say yes or no if they've been approached by three people who want ‑‑ three organizations who want to organize workshops for those speakers.

At times it has not been a requirement to have the full panelists.  And we have had the resource persons list.  And that is still going to be a feature for this year as well.  I hope that answers the question.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Chengetai.  Courtney, I think that will also become clearer as we look at how we do the evaluation for workshop proposals which we haven't done in depth yet.

We have 15 minutes left.  I'm going to try to summarize.  In the meantime, I invite people to raise their hands with any further questions that they have.  Adam, is that a new hand?

>> ADAM PEAKE:  It is.  Because I wanted to ‑‑ I may interrupt your summary, but the point Chengetai was mentioning about speaker selection and whether or not they're confirmed and so on when someone submits a proposal I know has been an issue in the past, however many years you would see people putting down names of quite well-known people in their particular area because it makes their proposal looks good quite Frankly and they haven't asked the person.  You will see them on two, three, proposals but search, eight, nine.  People were starting to make a list of who the most popular person was to put on a proposal.

I think the MAGs over the years have built (?) into the process to address this.  But I think it will come back this year.  Because if we are asking ‑‑ this goes on to hybrid meetings.  If we're asking people to propose sessions where there are speakers on site and speakers online, somebody may be able to commit to participating in a proposal, but they may not be able to commit to participating on site because who could do that with all honesty at this moment in time?

So I think there's issues around how we look at the proposed speakers.  It will be important in the proposal probably saying, you must have at least contacted the person or something like that.

Anyway, it sort of goes on to the issues of the hybrid meetings which perhaps we'll have time to discuss.  Thanks.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Adam.  I'm just checking the chat.  I think there's some important considerations here that are coming through.  And I urge the working group on workshop process to make note of these.  For example, TT's suggestion that the MAG can propose speakers from other institutions to strengthen the IGF's relationship with institutions.  So this is still something we need to look at definitely.

But to capture where we are now, we have a very, very draft proposal.  And that's going to be adapted.  The Secretariat is working on that already.  The workshop variation working group came up with general points.  They also looked at the recommendations of the hybrid meeting working group.

So what you're going to see as a MAG when you look at the next version of the proposal form and the text and for the call, you'll see firstly information about the different types of sessions, so workshops are only one type.  They'll be in the call.  There will be different types of sessions and we'll encourage the community to not just automatically click on workshop or automatically click on open forum.  We are going to encourage them to use the diversity type of formats.

We've also decided that we should at this point make it possible for fully virtual proposed sessions also to be part of the type of the sessions.  Once you're inside the form for whatever type of session you want to propose, you will also have an option for a format.  If you select workshop, you will have a fully or fully virtual you will have the option of a fully virtual.  That's in the next version of the form.  The Secretariat needs more time to work on the form and all these considerations will be take into account from the discussion today.

My goal by next Tuesday there will be a MAG call.  At that call you will need to give your final approval for the texts and the policy questions and the subthemes for the issues, and you will have to review the application form and the text of the call for session proposals that we'll put out.

That's really where we are now.  The deadline for MAG members, the first deadline is tomorrow morning UTC.  What did I say?  8:00 UTC on 16, April.  That's the final deadline for your texts.  That include the issue framing and descriptions and policy questions and subthemes.

And then the Secretariat will continue to work with the working group on workshop process to update the call text and the proposal forms and will present those to you at next Tuesday's mag meeting.  We'll probably still need some hours to make further changes.  If we all stick to our deadlines for the call for proposals for IGF 2021 should go out mid next week, 20 April was our target date.

Is that clear?  Any questions on that?  Is everyone okay with our process?  Are people clear on what needs to be done?  Chengetai, do you want to add anything at this point?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No, nothing at this point.  Just the next MAG meeting of course is on Tuesday 20 April.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  A calendar invite will be sent.  Has it been sent already, Chengetai?

>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I did not send it because I did not want to cause confusion for this MAG meeting.  Straight after I will send it.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  We have this request to send out calendar invites.  You can visit the calendar.  You will find these MAG meetings in the calendar.  Even though you haven't received the calendar invite link, you can go to the link for the calendar on the IGF website and you will find the meetings reflected there.

So I don't see any questions.  I don't see any hands.  So I think this is it.  I want to thank everyone.

>> Stop.

>> Adam Peake:  It's Adam.  I did want to ‑‑ I actually have a question.  Then if the question ‑‑ depending on the answer to the question, it may be taking more of your time.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I like questions, Adam.

>> Adam Peake:  It's about the hybrid meeting working group and the proposal that's being drafted and edited and so on.  If this will be part of the call for proposals that will go out on the 20th and it does include instructions for draft instructions for proposers to consider, so I think when Theresa and I were drafting it, it was our expectation it will be part of it.  Then I think the MAG will need to take a look at it and Anja has put that in the chat.  I don't know if you want to discuss it, Anja, but there are issues in there that need to be considered.

So I'm sorry.  You can see that it's quite heavily edited at the moment.  Thank you to everybody who has done that.  There are issues there that we're proposing that proposals should be a mix of online and on-site speakers because the intention, as we are now is to have a very significant on-site meeting.  And we're hoping that will go ahead.  Of course, many people won't be able to travel.  We're proposing we should have a mix of online and on-site hybrid.  There are considerations for that.  Does it mean that we should require at least one speaker be online?

It requires people to think about moderation and facilitation that they need, not only the moderator that looks at the facilitation of the conversation, but also that takes place among panelists and roundtables and but also facilitations of online contributions because I think the most important feedback for 2020 was that we have sessions where the online participants are fully included.  It's an inclusive discussion.

There will be issues ‑‑ well, you can go down the list, but I do think this is something, at least some initial reactions would probably be helpful, because if it's to be included in the proposals in just a few day ‑‑ in the publication for proposals in workshops and sessions in a few days' time, then this will be important.

There are comments in there yes, there will be capacity building to facilitate moderators.  It also notes that Zoom will be the platform to be used this year because the contracts are already out.  And that's what we're using.  But it does ask that people can use additional applications and so on.  I imagine the Secretariat may have comments on that because there's complications always with applications.  Some are easy to use, some are not.  But they can be extremely disruptive in some cases when they don't work well.

So if this is to be part of the proposed it is important for us to understand, are we happy with it.  If it's not to be in the proposals, there's no rush.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  We're using it already.  Sorry to interrupt you.  But I think both the working group on workshop process and the Secretariat have been working with these recommendations as given.  So I think you're absolutely right.  I propose you that you email them to the MAG so everyone has a chance to look at them.  But we are working with them.  So both the Secretariat and the working group on workshop process are taking them into consideration.  So there are some motivations here and there of the we're working with the formats you proposed.  Those are being integrated into the form.  We're working with many of the suggestions.

In fact, I think everything is being incorporated at some point.  So these recommendations have been extremely useful.  Thanks very much to the working group for the recommendations.

Adam is absolutely correct.  You should all have a look at it and see if you want to add anything because we are basic ‑‑ the way in which the proposal forms are being developed this year, the options we are giving to proposers are taking these recommendations into account.

>> ADAM PEAKE:  Thanks, Anriette.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Does anyone have any questions for Adam or Theresa.

>> Adam Peake:  She's on vacation this week.  Thank you very much.  I had a suspicion that it was being incorporated.  Thank you very much.  That's helpful to know.  And I sent the link in the email to the MAG I think it was last night or perhaps this morning, probably last night.  So, yeah, please take a look.  Because it's quite integral to what we're doing.  We don't want to be just a couple of people overrepresenting our thoughts.  That's not how we should work.  So thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Adam, I would also suggest as a specific action item that for the Secretariat once Luis has had time to adapt the form, which I suspect will probably only be on Monday.  He does need to work on Monday.  Luis, I think it will be good if you share the form with the working group on hybrid meetings before you share it with the rest of the MAG just to enable them to make sure that their vision of a hybrid meeting is reflected in how we have structured the proposals and the form.  I suggest that we add that.

I think similarly the working group strategy, your input has also been very useful.  It's also useful for MAG working groups to consider the draft text for proposals.

So our target is to distribute these new ‑‑ the issue document, the call text, and the proposal application forms to the MAG by the end of Monday so you have time to review them before the call on Tuesday.  And if that's not possible, if the Secretariat needs a bit more time, it will go out early on Tuesday, Geneva time.  Definitely by the next MAG call we'll have all these documents prepared.

So any other business, any other matters that anybody would like to raise?  Is everyone clear on what they need to do and what the deadlines are?  I'm going to pause a little bit.  We're at the end of our two‑hour allocated time, but I want to make sure that there are no further questions.  Adam, even you, you're allowed to butt in and ask another question.

>> ADAM PEAKE:  No.  Thank you so much, everybody.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Well, thanks very much then to all of the MAG members.  Thanks to the new MAG members who have come forward and done work and presented and thanks to all the past MAG members.  Thanks to the Secretariat, our observers, and to Rhonda, our captioner.  Work hard and be well.  Take care of yourselves and we'll talk at our call on Tuesday.  Thanks, everyone.