IGF 2021 Third Open Consultations & MAG Meeting - Day 2

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Good morning and good morning, afternoon, and evening, ladies and gentlemen.  Those of you who are joining us remotely, this is the first day of the MAG meeting in the Open Consultations -- third Open Consultations and MAG meeting.  So this is the first day of the MAG meeting.
 Thank you very much for joining us.  And just to say it verbally, that we are being recorded.  It is going to be posted -- the session is going to be posted on YouTube.  There is a transcript going, and the transcript is going to be made available after the meeting.  And when you -- we would also like you to use the speaking queue.  And the link is being put in the chat right now.  And if you are unable to use the speaking queue, you can just put a message in the chat and then somebody will put your name in the speaking queue.  When the chair calls your name, please, could you introduce yourself, your name and your organization and whether or not you are a MAG member, since this is the first day of the MAG meeting.  But the chair -- but, please, if you are not a MAG member, you can still put your name in the speaking queue.  We do encourage that.
 And with that, I will hand it over to our chair, Anriette Esterhuysen, to start the meeting.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Greetings, everyone.  Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, and welcome to the MAG meeting.
 I will review the agenda and what our goals are for today.  But, first, I would like to give over the floor to our co-chair from Poland, Mr. Krzysztof Szubert who is online and ready to make some opening remarks.  Krzysztof, over to you.
 >>KRZYSZTOF SZUBERT:  Thank you, Anriette.  Thank you, Chengetai.  Dear colleagues, I hope you can hear me well because I had problems in the morning but now I hope I'm --
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, we can.
 >>KRZYSZTOF SZUBERT:  Okay.  Thank you, thank you, Chengetai.  Warm welcome to today's MAG meeting.  I hope you are all fine and in good health.  Firstly, thank you all for the hard work and efforts up till now in preparing the IGF 2021 in Poland.  Yet, there is still a lot to be done.  We need to finally shape the IGF 2021 agenda, which is extremely important, including the high-level sessions, main sessions, as well as the parliamentary track.  We have very big interest in the parliamentary track also from our parliament which is also a good sign.  Poland as a host country is constantly supporting the UN DESA, the IGF secretariat, and the MAG in the preparations for this year's IGF.  It's really very important meeting and very important even for us and we are promoting, even as I mentioned yesterday in the opening remarks, very, very hard and really very wide.
 You can count on our continuous commitment and further support.  If you need any help from us, please contact me directly or Przemyslaw Typiak, my colleague who is with you today in Geneva in the meeting.  It is our joint work and effort to make this year's IGF really successful despite the current pandemic restrictions and limitations.  To together with our logistic and venue operators in the state and all the support from the different organizations, we are setting the necessary conditions to safely conduct our joint event for those of you who will be able to come to Katowice in person.  I do hope there will be a lot of participants.  As we see from the registration, there's quite high number of people which are registered to be with us on-site, which is really great.  And thank you for that.
 Therefore, I encourage the MAG's active support and inviting everyone to register for the IGF 2021 particularly on-site.  As we mentioned, we have great venue, so it would be really great and also very safe to meet in person after the last year break because of the pandemic and online MAG -- online IGF meeting.
 I'm counting on your involvement and feedback during our today's and tomorrow's discussion in finalizing the IGF 2021 agenda.  It's really a unique opportunity to hear your voices and thoughts on this issue.  So I wish you a very fruitful discussion and excellent meeting.  I do hope to see you all physically in Katowice in December this year.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much for that warm opening, Krzysztof.  And thank you for sending Przemyslaw to be with us.  He's been working hard.
 I'd like to just review the agenda briefly and then I also have to alert you to the fact that I'll be stepping out for a while later this morning.  I need to speak at the closing of the Asia-Pacific regional IGF, and the chairing will be in the very capable hands of Chengetai and Przemyslaw.  
 So as you know, today is the first day of the MAG meeting.  The meeting is open to observers as you well, as you know.
 I was checking -- I was asked yesterday to give participants a sense of who is in the room.  Today we have some past MAG members.  We have the secretariat.  And we have a few MAG members present.  But actually we are quite a small number of people that are physically in the room today, and I want to just look at the list of participants.
 I see we have 25 participants that are online and so welcome to all of those.  A special welcome to Wai-Min who is joining us very early from New York from UN DESA.  
 And, everyone, the protocol is that even though this is a MAG meeting.  We're a small group of participants, observer, non-MAG members, others should feel free to ask for the floor and participate in the discussion.
 But the primary purpose for today is for the MAG to progress in its work around planning the 2021 IGF.
 So the first agenda item will be in the spirit of the hybrid format that we are developing and learning from.  We'll be given the opportunity for people who received comments overnight.  We received one comment from a MAG member who cannot be here in-person and I will read that comment.
 And, remember, the same applies for today's meeting.  Anyone who follows the transcript, who watches the recording of this meeting or listens to it who have any comments or questions, please send them overnight to myself or to the secretariat, and we will review them and revisit them early tomorrow morning at the beginning of the meeting.  Geneva time.
 The next agenda item will be the briefing on the state of preparations for the 16th IGF.  And here there will be more detail than we had yesterday, specifically looking at the high-level leader session, parliamentary sessions, opening and closing sessions.  That will be followed by questions and answers and discussion on how to approach that, where there's still need for any changes to be made.
 Then from 1130 to 1300 Geneva time, we'll be looking at implementation of the IGF 2021 preparatory training and engagement phase.  We've allocated a bit of time, an hour and a half for that.
 What we will do is have a presentation of what the current plans are and the purpose, the goals of the preparatory and engagement phase.
 And then we'd like to -- we are a very small number of participants.  But I still would like to experiment with breaking people into groups just to come up with discussions and ideas, just for a short while, probably about 30 minutes.  And then we'll come back to plenary.  We'll then break for lunch.
 And then the biggest chunk of work for today will be after lunch from 1500 to 1730 Geneva time when the MAG-led issue teams will present their plans for main sessions.
 We'll go in the order of the issue areas as they are listed on the website.  And we'll ask the teams to present the plans, whatever state of completion their proposals are.  And the idea is that they will share what their plans are.  We will look at overall guidelines and scheduling of main sessions, and we'll follow this by discussion.
 The background to this is that the different issue teams have been working in groups on their proposals.  This will be the first opportunity for the whole MAG to look at and comment on other issue teams that they are not directly involved in proposals.  It's an opportunity for MAG members to get a big-picture perspective of what the main sessions are going to cover and what they can potentially achieve.  So important that everyone takes the time to listen to the plans from those issue teams, give feedback, because overnight the issue teams will have the opportunity to make further changes to those proposals; and then we'll revisit them tomorrow.
 And that will be the final chunk of work for today.  And we'll follow that with just a short closing session to make sure that everyone has a clear understanding of what needs to be done on the next day.
 So I hope I have that correct.  I just want to check that the agenda -- because we did change the agenda.  I just want to make 100% sure that this is consistent with the agenda that you all have access to on the website, and, indeed, it is.
 So any questions on the agenda and on what we are trying to get done today?  Nothing?
 So let me move on immediately by reading the comment that we received over night.  So this was a contribution by Gunela Astbrink, MAG member from Australia, so the time zone is not easy for her to participate in.
 I will just read her contribution.  It's a short message.
 This is Gunela Astbrink, second-year MAG member.  Unfortunately, I was unable to participate in the launch of the new website yesterday.  This is an important milestone for the IGF and long sought by the community.  Thank you very much for the support of the U.K. government in creating a modern platform for IGF's work.  
 The comments by Under-Secretary-General of UN DESA, Mr. Liu Zhenmin, highlighting the importance of developing an accessible website for person with disability and referring to the consultation with the dynamic coalition for accessibility and disability are most welcome.
 I appreciate Mr. Ryder Thomas of the U.K. government and his remarks in moving the objective of a user-friendly and accessible online platform.
 This reflects that many national governments require their website to meet W3C's Web content accessibility guidelines, Version 2.1.  
 Based on the multistakeholder foundation of the IGF and the understanding that persons with disability are over 1 billion of the global population, this new platform should mean improved communication and sharing of information and ideas by persons with disability and, of course, a larger part of our diverse community.  
 I will share the information about the launch with the dynamic coalition for accessibility and disability, DCAD for short, for comment and feedback.  DCAD members may wish to suggest any accessibility enhancements.  Thanks.
 So, Gunela, thank you for making that contribution.  And we look forward to similar contributions that can be part of our hybrid participation strategy, which we'll look at tomorrow morning.
 Chengetai and Przemyslaw, I think I will actually now hand over the chairing to you to take us through the presentation of the state of preparations.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Anriette.  So now we're going to have a briefing on the state of preparations from the IGF secretariat.  And with that, I would like to -- Przemyslaw, do you want to do the high-level sessions.
 Eleonora?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I just want to interject, sorry, before I leave the room.  I think it will be useful also to try and recap some of the comment that was received during the Open Consultation with regard to the high-level sessions and the parliamentary sessions.  So, I mean, I think there were not many key points but they were important ones around diversity.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, diversity and some people mentioned not only agenda diversity but also regional diversity which is very important.  And I can -- I can attest that.
 As far as agenda diversity is concerned, we have that.  We're still working on the regional diversity but we're going to try and get it as close as possible because the other thing that we want is to have small panels so that there is going to be a lot of discussion not more than seven people and then they'll just be able to make three statements each.
 So we do want a real and proper discussion within all of our sessions.  So that's what we're going to be doing.
 I think let's just skip the high-level for now.  We'll come back to that.  And I can just have a briefing on the parliamentary session.  And I will ask Sorina to give an update, a quick overview of the parliamentary session.  Thank you.
 >>SORINA TELEANU:  Thank you, Chengetai.  Hello, everyone.  As was said, I think, before the parliamentary track this year includes a preparatory phase.  So we are trying to bring members of parliament together online before the actual IGF in December.  The overall theme for the whole track is legislative approaches for user-centric digital space.  And we think this overarching theme will be discussing three specific topics.  One around privacy and data protection.  The other one around freedom of expression and dealing with misinformation, misinformation online.  And third topic, AI governance and governing algorithms if that's in any way possible.
 We started a series of online sessions two weeks ago with broader discussion about how the Internet works and also the history into the Internet governance ecosystem.  Next week we have the first more substantive session, I would say, on privacy and data protection and then we continue with the other two sessions, plus one more session about the IGF itself so members of parliament get to know a bit more what's happening here before they actually meet in Katowice and online.
 And then in Poland, we will continue with these three separate sessions on the three topics.  So the members of parliament will be able to advance the discussions and prepare for the parliamentary track messages.  And then the usual parliamentary roundtable, and they will basically conclude the discussions within the track.
 And that's more or less it about the parliamentary track.  We would very much welcome any support you can provide in reaching out to more members of parliaments and encouraging them to attend both the online sessions and the ones happening in December.
 There is still travel support available.  The call for applications is open actually until today, so if there's any way to reach out to someone today and encourage them to apply, that would be good.
 And that's it.  Happy to answer any questions you might have.  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Sorina.  And I'd just like to -- and we can extend the deadline for travel support.  Yes, the deadline is today.  But we can extend it because we really do want to encourage and grow this track.
 I would also like to mention that we are providing interpretation in these tracks thanks to ICANN.  So we will have interpretation in English, Spanish, and French, just to widen it.  So those three languages are supported and there are transcripts available.
 So if you do so you may have missed one session, you can go back, review the session, et cetera.  So, please, it's not too late to join now.
 And let me just check with the host country co-chair, if they want to say something about the parliamentary track.
 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:  Yes, please.  Thank you very much, Chengetai.
 Just to build on what Sorina has just said, two issues actually.  First of all, we are -- we have presented the parliamentary -- the IGF concept and the parliamentary track to our parliamentary Commission on new Technologies and Innovations.  And they were so much happy about this and highly interested that they decided to most probably come to Katowice in December to hold the entire upcoming meeting of commission.  So that will be 17 members of parliament who are dedicated to this commission.  So we are hoping to having them on-site in Katowice during the IGF.  So that's one thing is very good news.  We hope this decision will not change.
 And another issue that I wanted to share with you is that at most we have received an update from them, from our national parliament, that our head of parliament, Madame Elzbieta Witek, is highly interested in parliamentary session, the entire parliamentary track.  And it's very highly possible that Madame Witek will personally attend this parliamentary track.  Of course, we are awaiting for official confirmation.  Nevertheless, we hope to see Madame Witek on-site in Katowice as well.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Przemyslaw.
 With that, we will go to the opening and closing and then we'll come back to the high-level session.
 The host country, Przemyslaw, did give a presentation yesterday about the opening and closing, and just to recap, the president of Poland is expected to give a speech remotely.  The prime minister is expected to attend.  We will -- we are also expecting that we will have high-level representation from the United Nations.  The Secretary-General has received an invitation, and we're just waiting for him to confirm.  The Secretary-General has been very interested in the IGF and has attended all the last number of IGFs, so we have very high hopes that he will attend this IGF as well.  And for the opening session, we are going to have representatives of the stakeholder groups to give brief statements like we -- I mean, we didn't do it last year or the year before, but in previous years we had representations from each of the stakeholder groups giving opening remarks.  So we do encourage that, and we are also asking the help of the MAG, the stakeholder groups within the MAG, to coordinate amongst the various stakeholder groups and give us a name of the person who's going to be speaking.  So we will not be choosing.  We would be asking the MAG -- we'll be asking the stakeholder groups to suggest a name, and we're asking the MAG -- the MAG -- the stakeholder groups within the MAG to help coordinate this with their respective communities.  I hope that's clear.
 The closing sessions will be the same as the traditional closing sessions.  We will have the open mic session where we'll look back and also have suggestions for the future.  This is the first time that we'll be trying the hybrid format, so we are very keen and interested to find out what the stakeholders' views were on this.  And not just the hybrid format but also other changes that we've done.  For this year, for example, we've made a concerted effort on the youth track.  As has been mentioned in the Berlin IGF we did have a number -- a great number -- a large number of youth come forward saying that they want to be more integrated.  So we would like a reflection back to see if they feel that they are more interested and also from all the other stakeholder groups.  So that's the open mic session.  And we'll have the traditional closing session from -- with representatives from the host country, from the United Nations, and also from the next host country, which is going to be in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia.  So that's -- so the closing format is that traditional closing format.  For the opening, we are going back a few years, so it's not going to be like last year or the year before.  We are going to be inviting representatives from each stakeholder groups to give opening statements as well after the official opening ceremony.
 So with that, let's go back and just have a brief overview of the high-level leaders session.  Eleonora.
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  Thank you, Chengetai, for giving me the floor.  So there will be seven high-level sessions at the meeting, five on Monday, December 6, and two on Tuesday, December 7.  I will briefly just go over the topic of each one.  The first one will be on the global economic recovery.  The second one on the role of digital platforms in creating a sustainable and inclusive society.  The third on corporate social responsibility in digital technologies.  The fourth on building equitable employment conditions, so basically on the future of work.  The fifth is on green cities, I believe, and on the role of digital technologies in green cities.  The sixth on investing in digital growth and enabling capacities, transnational and transcontinental synergies.  And then the final one on governance models for promoting inclusive and diverse business development.
 So what I can say is at this point of the organization is that we're trying very hard, first of all given that these panels are one hour each, to limit them to seven speakers per panel.  And from the secretariat's standpoint, I was actually quite heartened to hear the feedback and the comments yesterday in the meeting about the need to make these panels as balanced as possible because that's something that we are working very hard on in the background.  And so I'm -- I was glad to hear that those -- those efforts won't go unnoticed.  And I'm sorry if you mentioned this already, Chengetai, but we're not just trying to make them gender balanced.  We're trying to make them regionally balanced and stakeholder balanced.  And not just within the composition of the speakers but also within the moderators.  We want to make sure that we have a gender balance and regional balance among our moderators, too.
 And in that regard, we're lucky to have a colleague from the WBU/EBU who is helping us reach out to moderators who are professional journalists from around the world and who would even have the option, if they wish, to moderate in their native language since we will have interpretation facilities.
 So just right now this week and in the coming days we are reaching out to the potential speakers to these high-level panelists.  This is in an effort that's divided among us in the secretariat, our colleagues in UN DESA and our host country colleagues.  So we really hope to bring to these panels a diverse mix of government ministers, representatives of intergovernmental organizations, and high-level officials from across the stakeholder spectrum.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Eleonora.  Those are the presentations.  So I now open -- unless Przemyslaw, do you want to say anything about the high-level track?
 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:  Thank you very much, Chengetai.  Just to add that also our ministers are very keen on taking part in those high-level panels, and we are constantly working with Eleonora on shaping the concept and the composition of these high-level sessions.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Przemyslaw.  So the floor is now open for questions.  I'm checking the speaking queue.  It's currently empty at the moment.  And let me just see the chat.  No questions in the chat.  So am I to assume that everything is understood?  And if there's anybody who -- for the high-level, if you have any further suggestions, please feel free to contact Eleonora.  Her contact information is available on our website as well, so you can just email her if you've got a speaker that you think may fit into one of these.  And just to underline as well, it is a hybrid meeting, so we can accommodate remote as well.  So I will just give it a five count to see if there's any questions.  And no questions.  Okay.  That is okay.  I will take it in the positive manner meaning that everything is clear and there's -- everybody is happy with the way things are going on that front.
 And then now we're going to have the next agenda item, which we are early on, but we can carry on to it, is implementation of the IGF 2021 preparatory and engagement phase.  And the first thing we're going to be doing is an overview of that process and then again, I am calling upon Eleonora to just give us an overview.  Thank you very much, Eleonora.
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  Thank you, Chengetai.  I was actually a bit surprised that we arrived at this agenda item so quickly.  Okay.  So if you'll just give me a moment.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  If you want to share your screen, I'll just ask Luis, Luis, can you just help Eleonora share her screen?
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  I'm sorry, Luis, if you wouldn't mind, just because I haven't done it before.  Apologies.  This will just take a moment.  Oh, okay.  Wonderful.  That worked well.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Luis.
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  Thank you, Luis.  So as I hope many of you know, the IGF 2021 preparatory and engagement phase is well underway and has been for more than a month now.  These preparatory and engagement sessions were organized to engage people in IGF discussions and identify synergies between the different activities to facilitate cooperation at the IGF.  And so I -- what I will say is that in this phase the emphasis is really on engagement.  We want IGF participants to come to the IGF prepared to discuss the issues in depth, regardless of what level of familiarity with the IGF they have.  So this is a phase for newcomers but also for kind of, you know, seasoned IGF community members who want to familiarize themselves with the specific issues that are going to be covered in the program.
 So per the MAG's discussions and agreements to have this phase, the shared goals of the -- of the preparatory and engagement phase, as I said, are to facilitate in-depth engagement, to provide the IGF community, especially newcomers, with opportunities for developing capacity in IGF-linked areas, and to facilitate engagement with the IGF's intersessional activities.  So you will see in the program that there are a number of sessions devoted to those intersessional work streams, and to broaden participation and inclusion.  We really want people who have not yet come to the IGF to see these sessions and take them as -- to take them as an opportunity to get to know the IGF better and participate in the annual meeting.
 So the program is divided into a few different types of sessions, depending on who's facilitating them and how they're organized.  So there are discussions convened by MAG members, whether those are MAG working groups or the MAG issue teams.  So each of the IGF 2021's issue areas have devoted, dedicated MAG teams attached to them.  There's a youth engagement track.  There's a track for intersessional work.  There are sessions that the secretariat is facilitating in the context of national and regional meetings.  There are discussions convened by the MAG chair herself, and a few IGF 2021 outreach sessions, among which the Town Hall we held on September 20 very recently on the IGF's hybrid meeting modalities, which was very well attended.  We had over 140 people who tuned in for that, and we think it was -- it was very informative and we got a lot of positive feedback on that.
 So I'll just scroll down the schedule.  So we see the events that have happened in September.  There were a couple of youth engagement sessions, the Town Hall that I just mentioned on September 20, and then continuing down along the schedule, a few of the other session types that I mentioned.  There will be, on the 4th of October, a discussion convened by the MAG chair on inclusive IG processes in the context of the pandemic.  That should be an interesting one to watch out for.
 And then -- well, and on the 13th of October there will be a session that gives a very good overview of all of the IGF's intersessional activities, facilitated by some of the people we have here in the room, some of our secretariat consultants.  So that will also be a great opportunity to understand the full intersessional picture and get a preview of what's going to be discussed in terms of the intersessional work at the annual meeting.
 And then I'll just skip ahead to what may well be called the kind of core sessions of this preparatory and engagement phase, which are the sessions from the 1st to the 3rd of October on each of the IGF issue areas, facilitated by the MAG issue area teams.  And these will really give a sense of how these issues are going to be discussed in the annual meeting, kind of lay a substantive foundation for the participants in these sessions.  So that's, again, from the 1st through the 3rd of November.  Each issue area will be discussed for about 90 minutes and there will be also plenty of time for question and answers with participants.
 So I think these are the most important elements of the preparatory and engagement phase.  Of course, it doesn't end on the 3rd of November.  We have sessions that go all the way through November and leading into the annual meeting.  Oh, I did forget to mention and this is quite important actually, there will also be two capacity development sessions on how to host and participate in the hybrid meeting.  So these will be directed at IGF session organizers but also just participants who want to know more about how the hybrid format will work.  So there will be one in October, I believe, and one in November.  So these will be, again, quite important for the IGF's session organizers and they will be -- they will be made aware to participate in these.  
 So I think that covers the most important aspects of this preparatory and engagement phase.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Eleonora.  Next I'll just hand over the floor to Anja.
 >>ANJA GENGO:  Yes, thank you very much, Chengetai.  Just to complement what Eleonora was saying, part of the preparatory and engagement phase, as Eleonora mentioned, are several capacity development activities which are run by the IGF secretariat, in collaboration and cooperation with a number of parties from the community, including a project that's been presented to the MAG and to the community a few months ago.  It's called the Our Digital Future, which is a series of capacity development workshops focused on addressing digital transformation and cybersecurity.  The targeted communities are developing countries, but, of course, the process is open to everyone.  And the whole set of workshops is driven by the call in the U.N. decade of action to partner for the sustainable development goals, and in a multistakeholder environment we're trying to focus primarily on the goals 9 and 16 to understand how these SDGs adds to the digital transformation in a safe and secure manner.  And in that -- in that context, the IGF secretariat, as part of the U.N., is grateful for a very kind and generous support of Microsoft in developing and donating a website to this project to support the workshop developments and especially in contributing substantive inputs to the workshop's program development as a party we collaborate with.
 So the first workshop was hosted indeed on -- indeed on 8 of September.  Our goal through that work -- through that -- those set of workshops is, as I said, to build capacity, but also to help engagement among various intersessional work streams of the IGF.  Primarily we target the dynamic coalitions and the excellent work happening in that network as well as the best practice forums.  Especially relevant for this context, the best practice forum on cybersecurity.  And I wish to thank the MAG members facilitators of that best practice forums as well as the dynamic coalition on security coordinators and their community.  
 So I would like to share my screen and to show you that website because the website has been with us since sometime now.  So allow me, please, to share my screen.
 I hope you can see it now.  Yes.  Now I'm going to try to move this.
 That is the website.  If you visit the igf-odf.org, then you will see a website dedicated to these workshops.  The website will also allow to be a platform to gather also good practices, success stories from across developing countries, communities from developing countries that are doing good work on bringing digital transformation to their communities and areas.
 So I will not take more of your time.  You are most welcome to visit the website and browse through it.  And, of course, we are at your disposal if you have any questions.
 The next workshop is scheduled for 2nd of November, and we are going to work again closely with interested dynamic coalitions, best practice forums and, of course, the MAG members to implement this workshop which will conclude the whole track with a third workshop on the Day Zero of the 16th IGF, so on 6th of December.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Anja.
 And also -- well, first of all, let me just stop there a little bit and see if there are any questions on this.  Let me see if there is anything in the speaking queue.  
 Ah, yes.  Abdulkarim.  Please, you have the floor.
 >>LUIS BOBO:  Hi, Chengetai.  If you allow me, please.  I don't think he's in the room.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Is he in Webex?
 >>LUIS BOBO:  No.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Okay.  Then we'll skip him.  If you are there and we don't see you, then just please speak or type something into the chat.
 Do we have anything from the -- nothing in the chat.  Okay.
 Is our intersessional activities very clear?  I can ask Wim just to go through our Wiki again and the ways we are collecting output.
 Your mic's not on.
 >>WIM DEGEZELLE:  Now it's working.  Between two important moments, we had a first call with the MAG members that were involved in the Wiki and I think actually further developing will start next week.  
 So what is the idea behind the Wikis?  We have those six issue areas.  And the idea came up -- or the comments were there was so much going on within the IGF, there was so much going on outside of IGF, it would be handy to try and capture as much as possible of that on one space.  So that is where more or less the idea of the Wikis came from.  If you go to the website -- we shared I think at one of the past MAG meetings the current state of the Wikis as it is online.  But it's basically a rough structure that is now available on the website.  If you go to the issue areas for this year and then you can click to the Wiki, and there you see the rough structure.  What it has now is links, overall description of -- sorry, of the issue area with then a link to the different topics.
 But I think starting from next week, there will be more content available.  The idea is to also collect some of the ideas or some of the pointers to the preparatory sessions and then later the main sessions to have that on the Wiki.
 And there are a number of things that I think came up yesterday in the discussion -- in the discussions about collecting and capturing what is going on in the preparatory phase, capturing what is going on in the NRIs.  I think the Wikis could be a very good place to capture that because that's one of the next ideas for those Wikis, one is sufficient to have basic content and also to reach out to the community, reach out to the NRIs, reach out to other initiatives inside and outside the core IGF to just help us with building the Wiki.
 I will not go into too much detail on the way how because we're still looking into -- I think Timea had a good suggestion at one of the, I think, MAG strategy working group calls.  She said while the idea of the Wiki is great, but it is very important to think about an easy way for organization, especially those outside of the IGF itself to provide the information so that they -- it's clear what they have to provide.  They can do it almost effortless.  But that is a point we still have to discuss with the different responsibilities and liaisons for the Wikis.
 We also on purpose didn't start to discuss this because we're waiting on the new website so that it can be fit in there.
 I think those were the main ideas.  I think also just keep the idea of the Wiki in mind when in the next -- today and tomorrow the discussion is about capturing what is going on in different -- in the preparatory phase and other points.  But happy to answer any questions.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Wim.  Do we have any questions from...
 Abdulkarim, if you are online, can you try and speak?
 No, that's fine.
 Do we have any other questions?  The next thing we're going to be doing is to break out into breakout groups.  We're going to have a discussion.  And we're just going to be asking you to reflect on ways of feeding outputs into the IGF -- into the 16th IGF.  And I think we can have two breakout groups.
 But let's see if there are any questions.  I saw one hand up.  But -- speaking queue, please.  Or just put it in the chat so that we just have a record of it.
 Any questions?  Clarifications?  No?  Okay.  Later.  Okay.  After the session, okay, all right.
 Was there anything from the national and regional initiatives?
 >>ANJA GENGO:  Yes.  I can pass on some of the questions that were received over a couple of calls with the NRIs and also in individual communication with them.  It relates to the concept of the Wikis that Wim was mentioning.  
 So the questions were very concretely -- if maybe Wim can elaborate more, on how one NRI can contribute, for example, to one issue area.  For instance, there are really rich reports on the NRI side.  They should be in English; but for some of them, there are annexes that are not.  How could we bridge that challenge, for example?  If the report is submitted, what happens next?  How it will feed into the annual meeting?  How will that contribution be reflected?  Because I will now speak in a capacity of NRIs' focal point.  I do think it's important when we receive the contribution from the NRIs to also give credits to the NRIs because it adds to the visibility and then long-term strengthening of the IGF ecosystem.  That would be my question.
 And another part of the question would relate especially to Wim.  I know it's an internal matter.  But the IGF secretariat also has a rich repository of NRI documents with us.  So how do we use those in order to ensure we enrich the narrative of the issue areas?  And how will it practically be reflected in the 16th IGF in Katowice?  Thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Anja and to the NRIs.
 I will give you two choices, Wim.  You could reflect now and try and answer now, or this could be part of the discussion in our breakout groups.  And then you can report back later once you've had time.  
 But it's up to you, Wim.
 >>WIM DEGEZELLE:  I'm very much in favor of giving the time to people to reflect and come up with great ideas.
 But one direct action I would like to give, the danger for the Wikis is more to get too much information.  So taking the example of the NRIs, it's more a way to get in a very short way the information that a specific NRI had an important -- or an interesting session related to the topic with a link to the website or even the IGF repository where the information can be found.  It should be looked at more in that way than NRIs or any other organization really provides text or pages or even real reports because the idea is not, like, to upload -- I say put additional documents and a huge archive on the IGF website.  The idea is clear pointers.
 But I'm looking forward to the outcome and suggestions for the Wikis that will come out of the breakout sessions.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much.  We do have Adam online.  Adam, please.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Yeah, good morning, Chengetai.  Good morning, everybody.  Adam Peake speaking, and I'm a member of the MAG.
 Well, actually, I wasn't intending to put my hand up into the queue.  But the default is when you join -- when you log in to the portal that takes you to the queue, you automatically by default have your hand up so I was just logging in.
 I do have a question, which I can think of conveniently, and that is because I'm a member of the working group on hybrid meetings.  And as you know, we are very keen to see everybody participating online as the primary means of engaging with all of these sessions.
 So I heard you say that someone put their hand up in the room, and I just wanted to know if everybody in the room is online, because that is the principle we have asked for participation.  So I hope everybody is logged in WebEx.  Otherwise, we're not following our process for participation in these meetings and the participation in the IGF in Katowice.  So that would be great to know.  And thank you.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Adam.
 So I will ask the room and convey the results.  Is everybody in the room online on the Webex?  Let me put it this way.  Who is not online?
 Two.  We have two people who are not online, and they are rapidly getting online.  So I hope that answers your question.
 And for the breakout rooms, we are -- again, since we're using Webex, we're not too familiar with Webex, we usually use Zoom.  We are going to try and have two breakout rooms in Webex for people.  
 Let me, first of all, see if there are any other questions.  Otherwise, we are going to divide the people into two breakout rooms and have -- and pose questions there so that we can have a discussion on ways on how we can have this output integrated into the IGF and make sure that it is reflected at the IGF 2021 meeting.
 So I will just give Lynn's famous six-count to see if there's any questions.
 Also, one other thing, if you recall, we did have pledges from last year.  So we are going to revisit those pledges and highlight as well what these -- those people who have kept their pledges because we ask people to make some voluntary pledges of what they were going to do between the two IGFs, between last year's IGF and this year's IGF.
 We are going to put this on our website as well and also integrate it as part -- as a section -- a small section as part of the outputs, the pledges.
 Okay.  With that, I just want to make sure -- if you're not online yet, if you could please go online.  And then I'm going to ask Luis if he could get three -- two breakout rooms.  And we will post the questions into the breakout rooms so that you can discuss.  And then once you discuss those questions about the outputs, then when you're finished discussing those questions about the outputs, the other thing that you can do -- and this is mainly for MAG members, is just to make sure that you have the main sessions done because there's going to be a presentation of the main sessions after lunch.  So that's also very important for the presentations of the main sessions.  So thank you.
 We'll adjourn for ten minutes.  And then when you come back, we hope that we'll have the two rooms set up and we can have breakout rooms discussions.
 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:  There is one question in the chat from Jim Prendergast.  How long is the breakout scheduled for?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  The breakout is scheduled -- why don't we come back at... shall we say at 12:30?  But we'll have the -- so you have an hour and a half to discuss, and then we can just have a short meeting afterwards just to refine the reports from each of the breakout rooms.  
 So give us ten minutes, you can go ahead and get coffee.  Unfortunately that coffee machine is broken.  You have to go across where the SAFI is, go to the second floor and there's a coffee machine for you.  It's very important.
 And those of you who are remote, of course, you know where you can get your coffee.  All right.  Thank you.  So you don't need to come back.  All I'm asking you to do is log on back, oh -- maintain your Webex room and then you'll find the instructions there in your Webex room, in the Webex room.
 Okay.  Clear?  Thank you.
 All right.
 [ Breakout sessions ]
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you all, and thank you all for coming back on time.  So I will now hand it back to our chair, Anriette Esterhuysen.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thank you very much, Chengetai, and welcome back, everyone, to plenary.  My apologies to all the face-to-face and virtual participants that I disappeared earlier.  I was in the Asia Pacific Regional IGF, and, in fact, I found many of you in that meeting as well.  And just congratulations to the Asia Pacific Regional IGF.  Based on the closing sessions and panels that I attended, it was an excellent event.
 So we have two groups that discussed these two questions:  How can the discussions and outputs from the Preparatory & Engagement phase, as well as the intersessional outputs, feed into the IGF 2021 output?
 And then the second question:  How can the overall IGF 2021 output be improved.
 I'm not sure how you've done your reports.  If you've handled them as two separate questions, that's -- that's good.  If you haven't, I just ask you, when you report, that you try and cluster your feedback into those two different areas, because that makes it easier for the secretariat and the MAG to work with.
 So on that note shall we ask the virtual group to present their report.  I'm not sure who your rapporteur is, but please go ahead, take the floor and share your report with us.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Is it you, Gunela, or is it me?
 Anriette, it's definitely not a report.  It's a review of key points.  We were just talking and didn't particularly address the questions individually.  It was more a discussion, trying to understand, first of all, what we'd been asked to do and then discussing that.
 So here are a couple of issues that we thought about.
 So during the preparatory stage, we have multiple meetings, whether it's a meeting preparing the main session or whether it's the youth track or the parliamentarian track.  And something that we might ask each of those sessions is do you have a message from this session to the relevant IGF activities that are going on?  So the preparatory sessions are preparing people to participate in the IGF.  So what is the message or the comment or the concern that you would like people to address?  That could be a broad comment from, say, the youth or parliamentarians or a broad set of comments about their concerns or issues, things to consider, or it might be, where it's a main session, an issue that people during that main session should bear in mind because the preparatory stage has said we're concerned about this, we would like you to discuss this or address this in some way in your main session.
 So that's one point.  And it's really trying to create linkages between outputs, a little bit more specific about this, talking more about the youth and the parliamentarian track as they are specific stakeholder tracks.  Collating outputs better.  Again, it's sort of like what is the main output of your track, the preparatory that you as youth or you as parliamentarians want to convey to the IGF?  What are your main concerns for 2021?  What do you want considered?  And again, this is something that, if you're a workshop organizer or a dynamic coalition or a main session, you can look at the youth and the parliamentarians are saying this is what concerns us.  And perhaps your session, which whatever format it may be, would be trying to consider that.
 We've spoken a lot about trying to break down these notions of silos, and so again, the session organizer might look at that output and then go to a parliamentarian contact or a youth contact and say we'd like to bring someone in from your group into our sessions so that we're bringing people in from these stakeholder groups rather than treating them as an isolated track in a different sort of room, whether that room is virtual or in person.
 So I think there's an opportunity there perhaps to use the IPU and also the youth project that the Polish government is working on.  So informing the session organizers of the interest of these particular groups.
 So concern and interest about media, a discussion about media.  And this is something we often talk about at the IGF, and I know that the outreach and engagement -- sorry, is it the outreach and engagement MAG working group is thinking about a lot?  So how do we strengthen media?  We already have messaging, and this was meant to (indiscernible) about the Geneva initiative, the Diplo initiative and the reports they that write each day.  Could there be a return to some kind of press conference each day where somebody discusses that output that Diplo has created?  If people from the working groups -- sorry, workshops and plenary sessions want to join, then they should do to have their own input.  And could there be a name speaker?  I mean sort of a VIP, famous person could join each day so there's something that would be a little bit of a attractor for media.  So a return to some kind of preference -- sorry, press conference and using the output that we're already creating, particularly via the Geneva platform.
 Sorry while I turn over the page.
 The opportunity -- When people are having networking sessions, and this was based on their experience from previous IGFs, a lot of the sessions are recorded anyway, and we will have a lot of recordings this year, of course, because everybody will be in the hybrid format.  But when people have an informal session, a networking session, please make sure that those are recorded so that people can -- obviously the organizers can review that output but also an opportunity for people to use media share, social media share, and so on.
 But generally, for the recordings, for all the output that we have at the end of each day, then being able to tag it in social media is a way of ensuring that things are shared.
 There's also the notion on the new website of being able to tag text so that searching is easier and so on.  Not just tagging text but tagging the issues that are being addressed in particular areas.
 Some of this is also going to be important, we think, for people in different time zones; that if there were that one-hour or whatever it is review of the day based on the output documents that I've mentioned, then that could be something that they could watch overnight, or whatever it would be in their time difference, and help them understand what was discussed the day before without having to look at every new G recording, or whatever it would be.
 VIPs as attractors.  I think this has been mentioned before.  And I think I will give Titti the opportunity if she'd like to mention the work of the Working Group on Strategy and improvements particularly around the notion of a multiyear plan which would give a better opportunity for communicating with stakeholders and getting information on their agenda.
 I don't know, Titti, if you want to briefly jump in there.
 >>CONCETTINA CASSA:   Just a few minutes to share the fact that in order to improve the IGF output, I think it's also important to choose one important topic per area using the proposal that has been raised by the working group - strategy related to multiyear plan.  Because in this way, you have one subject in the area.  You can choose just a few main outputs to engage the main stakeholders and also to engage them international agenda and organization.  I think this is a way to stress one output per area that could be also used to measure the impact of this IGF output.
 This is what I said.  This is what I want to share.  Thank you.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Thanks very much, Titti.
 And then the last point, and this goes back to the APR IGF and the work that they do to sort of communicate their activities.  They have a synthesis document that is produced at the end of the event, and this is worked on throughout the event by committee on a shared-document platform.  And this is something that is useful both for the participants, for others who want to see what happened, but also potentially for media so that they can understand what is going on.
 Perhaps a suggestion is we could actually ask young people:  How would you improve the outputs?  Do you have any technology ideas for different platforms and ways of collaborative working that would help us do this?  And remembering that this should all be accessible and meet Internet accessibility standards.
 So I think that's it.  I see in the chat mention of our intersessional working, and this is important, of course, because we do have work that goes on throughout the year, and this should be considered; the dynamic coalitions and policy networks that have just been merged, and also the desire to -- I think for all of us to think about how the issues discussed in the main sessions can be done so that the dialogue around them continues.
 And that's the end of the summary.  Thank you very much.
 I should say anybody who was in the group, if I butchered whatever it is that was said, done a bad job of it, correct me or whatever it might be.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thank you very much for that report, Adam, and to everyone who participated in that group.
 Does anyone else want to add anything to Adam's report?
 No one further.
 Are there any questions for this group before we listen to the second group?  Any questions for clarification from anyone that's sitting here in the room?
 Carol, please.
 >>Carol Roach:  I put a question in the chat.  I like the idea of using the different platforms, but how do we promote?  So for example, we talk about the new website, but how do we promote that?  How do we know?  Do we just build it and people say, okay, they will come?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Adam, did you hear that question?
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   I did, yeah, and I think it's a very good question.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Please respond.  It's in the chat as well.  Hybrid style.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Yeah, I think it's a very good question and it goes to an issue we did touch on briefly which is we're adding information all the time.  We're doing it right now.  You can see a transcript where words are emerging and every bit of what we do is recorded and shared, and there's input and there's mailing lists, and there will be YouTube videos.  And one of the issues with that is how do you actually find your way through this extraordinary rich information?  And I do -- I don't know the answer to that.  And perhaps that's one of the questions, one of the reasons we mentioned talking to youth about this, because -- with the idea that younger people may find there is a technology challenge or something to discuss.
 I don't know how we promote the website.  I think that's really up to the U.N.  Of course we can do so within our stakeholder groups, and anybody who accesses the website, because they're interested in a working group already or they're considering to apply, will see the change.
 But I think a bit of publicity around that would be very helpful.  How to do that would be coming top-down from the U.N. system.  I always like the idea that we have the U.N. Secretary-General.  Our job is to on convenient the IGF for him, it's been a him.  And so would he like to use his office which has immense reach to publicize some of these things?  We tend not to use that office perhaps as much as we could.  Not that I want to tell the U.N. Secretary-General what he should do, but you see what I mean.  There is an enormous power within the reach of that office.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Adam.  
 And next we have a question from Amrita Choudhury, MAG member present in the room.
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:   thank you, Anriette.  Amrita, for the record.  
 I just wanted to add what Adam mentioned in terms of promotion.  Yes, the U.N. Secretary-General's office and the U.N. can do a great job in spreading the word all across.  Similarly, we can use the NRIs.  We can use the youth initiatives which we have in the various countries.  And also, as MAG members.  For example, in each of our messages, emails, et cetera, if we are sending within our communities, if we have a tag line saying "Have you seen the new IGF website?" or something, perhaps we can also promote it in those manners apart from the usual channels.
 I know that's not enough, but at least those are certain initiatives.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks.  Thanks, Amrita.
 Adam, I have a -- before you respond to that, I'll ask my question and then you can respond to Amrita's suggestion and my question.  And who did you have in mind as the audience or audiences for IGF output?  I remembered -- I heard you mention one particular audience, which was youth, but do -- and you mentioned, I think, some institutions as well.  But did you consider that, the relationship between the output, the type of output, and who it's intended for?  Did you have any discussion on that?
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   No, I don't think we did, not as a specific topic of discussion.  It was more the broad pushing it out there kind of thing.
 Yes, we do want to reach parliamentarians and that was mentioned, but it's more about including them in the process and then they would ideally use their own mechanisms to share that, whether it's through committee or whatever that would be, parliamentary committee.  But, no, there was no specific thought on who the audience would be.  I think it's -- the IGF is the IGF and Internet users would be just too nebulous.  But, yeah, it's a good point because journalists struggle because the IGF and also a lot of Internet governance is not newsworthy in the sense that it doesn't make a headline.  So how to change that.
 Amrita, I'm not sure -- while you were talking, I wondered, you know, does the U.N. Secretary-General, his office at least, have a Twitter account?  And when the website is ready and stable, could we just see a tweet from them?  You know, a nice enthusiastic, "I'm really pleased to see the IGF website is available," or have been upgraded or whatever it would be.  But I don't know how much the U.N. SG uses Twitter, but it would be quite nice to see that kind of thing getting out there, if the U.N. allows such things.
 Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Adam, and everyone in that group.
 And now let's hear from the group that stood outside our meeting room in the Geneva bright sunshine and had a very vigorous discussion.
 Group two, can we hear from you, please.  Who is your rapporteur?
 >>ROMAN CHUKOV:  Dear colleagues, can I be heard?  Roman Chukov, MAG member, for the record.  
 So we discussed the two questions briefly.  The first question, one of the ideas was to have some outputs from the preparatory engagement phase sessions to make sure that participants of the main sessions have some brief summary what has been discussed.  It would be useful for all the speakers and for all the participants and remote participants to know the context, because as we understand many of the issue teams, during the preparation of the preparatory engagement phase took this educational approach to sort of introduce the audience to the issue.  So we think it will be very helpful to, before the main session, to have such like guidance and brief summary into what has been discussed which will basically give the, let's say, outline of the current state of things.  So this is briefly on the first question.
 The second question consists of two aspects, as amazing first group also shared.  So one aspect is PR and promotion of these outcomes, and the second question is the format and content of these outcomes.  So these are two separate questions.  And maybe, yes, as also Titti's contribution was really valuable, maybe our group, our Working Group on the Strategy and Strengthening of the IGF, can consider some more activities on how the IGF should promote the results and how to make sure that we do not only promote the fact of existence of the IGF but its substantial messages.  But the second -- so this is something to be considered, of course.  It shouldn't be an additional burden for the secretariat, and we should really understand who will be those promoters, in a good sense, of the specific outcomes of the IGF.
 And the second most important question is what will be those specific outcomes of the IGF?  How to make sure that the executive summary of all the discussions, including prep- (indiscernible) and the main sessions and all these 80-plus discussions of the forum are equally reflected in this short summary.
 And among those proposals that we discussed is that we could have some executive summary either for parliaments or governments to make sure these stakeholders who are to take some admitted actions or to consider some strategic planning for years to go, that these stakeholders understand from such executive summaries, first, the current, like, issue area, what is the problem; second, how these problems are being currently addressed globally, so more like sharing best practices; and the third one, what are those strategic challenges and approaches which we should all think about it.
 So this is just one example of how such executive summary could look like.  But the main question is whether the host country is producing this chair's summary, as usually with help the secretariat, and after some time provided for Mark and all the stakeholders to give some substantial comments and critiques.  But again, it's also very important to not be late with these recommendations so that we can also promote it.  In addition to the fact that IGF took place in Katowice, we should also promote some key messages out of it.
 And also Secretary-General himself and his office and UN DESA and other relevant offices and stakeholder groups should know what was the basic output of all the discussions.
 We discussed the practices of some partners and some stakeholders of the forum who produce reporting from the sessions.  We discussed that maybe there are ways to increase the -- not -- how to say?  The -- all -- to increase unbiased nature of such reports, maybe in partnership with the session organizers.  It would be, of course, some day ideal to have a joint report by session organizers and these, like, external partners, verified by all the participants to make sure that all points of views were reflected.  But this, what considers the session outlines?  What will be the main messages out of the whole forum?  This is a big question mark.  And how to prepare it, the only, like, consensus way was that it's up to the host country to decide on the format.  But I'm sure that we still can propose some innovative solutions how this IGF might differ in terms of being specific and really address some current challenges.
 This is, I think, it from my side, and I kindly ask colleagues to comment.  Maybe I missed something.  I'm sure I did.  Please.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Roman.  Anyone else from that group want to add some suggestions or discussion points?
 Giacomo, please take the floor.  Wout, we'll come to you later.  I just want this group to complete its reporting.  
 So we'll have Giacomo and then we'll have Mattia.
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:   No, the report is perfect.  I think that there is only one point that was probably not focused enough, which is that we said that we need to identify within the massive messages that we have, because we treat all the problems of the Internet governance, eventually to cherry pick some topics that could be the topics on which we want to straight give more attention.  And in that case, then we need to have a special track of production of report that is more accurate and more in deep and more eventually in the form of suggestion, recommendation, action, request for action.
 And I think this marries very well with what was said by the other group when it says that the -- if there is a provisional agenda, we can have clear each year which will be the focal point on which we have to concentrate the efforts in order to be more productive.
 And I mentioned one last point is that what was working at the very beginning of the IGF, it was that informally, we were informed from the Secretary-General of the United Nations which were for him the points on which he needs to have feedback from the IGF.  If this virtual process -- virtuous process could be restarted, reignited, this would be very useful.  Not only from the Secretary-General of the United Nations.  Can be also parliament, government, that need the advice.  Because we can -- what is unique for the IGF is that we can provide the multistakeholder view.  That is what is lacking in the intergovernmental arena.  No?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Yes.  I just wanted to emphasize Giacomo's point.  I think that that would make it -- it would simplify the process if the -- if the IGF and if the MAG had a clearer sense of who wants to bring what. for example, I don't know if you recall, it might have even been last year but the European Commission for example were talking about using the IGF as a platform to get feedback on the Digital Services Act.  You know, and that creates a line of -- of request for issues to be debated which we can then be reported on.
 I think we tried that with the issue areas and the policy questions, but we're not quite there yet.  We need to find a way to be more specific.
 But I think connecting the inputs with the outputs, and then what happens to the outputs in a multiyear way, as Titti said earlier, is certainly something to be considered.
 Anyway, Mattia, please, go ahead.
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:   Also, UNESCO made for universal indicators to come to the IGF to get the feedback, if they were on the right track.  You remember very well because you were part of this process.  We can offer this kind of assistance to many institutions --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Yeah.
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:   -- that are working in this group.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   I agree completely.  
 So I'm not sure if you all heard just Giacomo saying we can reach out to certain institutions.  Well, a lot of them are using the IGF already to have some of their processes and proposals discussed more -- more broadly.  OECD on taxation, for example.
 Anyway, let's hear what Mattia wants to say.
 >>MATTIA FANTINATI:  Thank you very much, Anriette.  I would like to praise my colleague Roman for the very, very importance of his speech and very completed (indiscernible).  I would like to add something maybe out of the scene.  I would like to just to see this a little bit further.
 IGF I think is really important reality that we have to strengthen and we have to promote.  If I read the comment agenda by the Secretary-General of the U.N., it was issued I think three weeks -- three months ago.  On the paragraph number 93, they really describe the important role of IGF.
 So I think that we are dealing with a very important strategic issue, and we have to be confident and aware of it.
 I would like to say something maybe out of the scheme and maybe to think about the future, because I think that IGF is going in a very good way.
 I remember when it was the first IGF and IGF began.  It was 2005, if I'm -- 2006.  And it was more or less 15 years ago.  Internet was clear, but maybe the human rights and the Internet, maybe the connectivity and what -- and most of the of the topic that IGF is discussing about, they were not very clear to the -- to the -- at the global level.
 So in several ways, the 2006 IGF represented sort of a ground break in these kind of topics, in these kind of session.  And even the multistakeholder part of the IGF is really, really important, because I really participate.  Like speakers in a lot of event are talking about digitalization, of public administration, cybersecurity, human right the same.
 But what are really the added value of the IGF?  That we are, as Giacomo said, multistakeholder.  That we have -- we trying for the first time the hybrid, but really hybrid conference method, and I think that we have to continue in this kind of way.  
 In 2006 we were sort of ground-breaking.  We were sort of tinier.  Nowadays, there are a lot of -- there are several, several institutions that more or less are talking about the digitalization of public administration.  
 Now we have to focus and think, because I am talking with you, my distinguished colleague, because in a sort of way we are trying to design the new style of the new IGF because we have to be the ground break, the innovators in the sort of way to do, because now we are on the level that a lot of agency, a lot of events are more like saying like we are.  Now we have to do just a little bit more.  I'm talking to you, Anriette.  I'm talking to you, Chengetai.  And we have to knock the door to the U.N. and really claim to be heard and to be important.  This is -- I think that we really need.
 On the digital roadmap, there is an important point about the IGF Plus.  This is not the way how IGF will improve.  We don't care, but we have to begin to regain the role of ground break and to present something more.
 I think that the parliamentarian session is one of this one.  And the role, the institutional role of the parliamentarian are in IGF, and I know that the Poland made a huge effort to convene a lot of parliamentarians.  The Germany did the same two years ago.  And I think that the role of parliamentarians could be a new added value to the IGF, would be improved.  And I really think that we can really inspire the regulation and the legislature.  This is my point of view.  So we have to think about the future of IGF.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Mattia.
 We don't have a lot of time left, but let's hear what Wout has to say.  And then I'll also read some comments in the chat.
 And I have one remark I want to make.  I hope I don't forget.
 Wout, you have the floor.
 >>WOUT DE NATRIS:   Yes, thank you, Anriette.  First thanking Adam for his excellent review of what we've been discussing about, because what I've heard, I have two things I would like to add.
 I think the U.N. press office has a lot of experience with the press.  So in other words, how can we get that experience and make sure that our messages get across in a more professional way than they currently are?
 The second is that -- there's three comments.  Sorry.  Second is that with all the outcomes that we are working on currently, we are catering different stakeholder communities in different categories.  So in other words that perhaps instead of just publicizing one digest on the IGF website, we should be catering these different stakeholder communities.  So what is the message for industry?  What is the message for government?  What is it for policymakers?  Et cetera, et cetera.  So that through a liaison system that we sort of have with the MAG, we can cater these messages directly to the people they concern.  And perhaps that way we will get more involvement from those communities as well, because some are still not very -- represent very -- are represented at the IGF.  And by showing that we're actually working on their concerns, we may attract them to the IGF as well.
 So it's about diversifying our messages and not just one big message on the -- on the IGF website.
 So that's just as an idea.  Thank you for the opportunity, Anriette.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks.  Thanks, Wout.  And thanks, everyone, for contributing to this session, which we now need to bring to a close.
 I -- what I've done, you know, just offline is to ask the secretariat, because we also have to be sure that what we undertake, particularly for 2021, is realistic and is implementable in terms of the current capacity that we have within the MAG and the secretariat.
 So I've asked him to process some of these suggestions -- well, all of these suggestions, but to come back tomorrow with their take.  This is Eleonora and Sorina and Wim who are responsible within the secretariat for communications and the outputs, to share what they think can be done realistically this year.
 I think you've made fantastic suggestions, and I think it's good that you're approaching this long term.  And I would request the secretariat in their report, in the meeting summary, to highlight the points that were made for strategic longer term consideration as part of the IGF strengthening process.  The keeping the IGF relevant, as Mattia was saying.
 Just I want to read a few comments in the chat and then I want to make a comment about attribution, because I think that's important.  And I think Wout, in some ways, what you said I feel is quite problematic in a way because I think distributing those messages to targeted audience when you cannot actually attribute where those messages come from could in some ways also discredit the IGF.
 You know, we have to not just look at what we say.  We also have to be able to say who said it.  And we have to be able to do that with integrity, you know, and clarity.
 For example, I heard that the online group communicated -- I think, Adam, you said that we should ask session organizers to say what are their key messages.  And I think, Wim, you and Sorina also suggested something like that.  And to me, that would clarify the attribution point because we wouldn't be pretending that what they say is neutral.  We wouldn't be pretending that it reflects the interest of everyone who attended that session.  We would be saying you, as session organizer, what do you feel could be -- are the key takeaways?  
 And then that could be complemented by the Diplo reports which are neutral.  And I think that's always important, that when you share information that you make it very clear what its origins are and who it can be attributed to.
 But anyway, let me go back to reading on the chat.  Just a few good comments here.  Juliana, MAG member, Harsianti was saying that it's important to look at the liaison of the press and using media outreach not just around the event but actually to really liaise with the media around all the intersessional work as well.  And to have continuity as well.  So it's actually building relationships with the press, you know, that will be over time.
 Christian was saying we should use the regionals and subregionals and national IGFs.  This was discussed in the Geneva-based breakout group as well.  I mentioned the example of the U.S. IGF which has an annual debrief after the global IGF, where they organize a meeting where people actually discuss what came out of the IGF.  Just think how powerful it could be if every regional and national IGF took just some of the IGF outputs, even if it's just the issues they are most concerned about, and discussed that at national level with government, with parliamentarians, you know, with other stakeholder groups.
 And then there was a comment from Carol, which addressed Carol's comment.  I'm just scrolling down.
 Adam was adding that it's important to remember the prep phase isn't just to prepare people to attend the IGF but to help prepare the session organizers, particularly main session organizers, in what people are interested in.
 So again, that actually creates -- those preparatory phase sessions on the issues creates opportunity to input, to listen to what people are most concerned about, and then to address those as much as possible in the main sessions.
 And then there was a question about how IGF messages could be transformed and translated to norms and guidelines.  I would say at the moment, indirectly.  I think where there's an opportunity for more direct discussion is through the policy networks who actually have a mandate to produce policy recommendations.
 Then Courtney was saying, "I think the value goes far beyond being multistakeholder."  She's, I think, reflecting here, responding to Mattia's remarks about the IGF.  The IGF is about inclusivity, in her opinion, and instead of going out to convince entities to come to the IGF, we should aim for more like UNESCO, EU, the OSCE, et cetera, wanting to come to the IGF as part of their processes.  This is a testament to the relevance and the utility of the IGF.
 I would definitely agree.  And I think you and Mattia concur on that, Courtney.
 And then there's a question:  How do we make this easier?  How do we make it easier for these entities and processes to leverage the IGF without having to wait and see if these sessions are improved?
 I think to some extent, that's happening.  And maybe, Chengetai, you can reflect on that, but it's worth considering.
 And then Giacomo says:  Why don't we decide today or tomorrow on one key issue on which we can focus our attention for -- during this IGF?
 So I leave that with the MAG to come back to tomorrow.  And that would be, then, the topic of a more in-depth output report.
 And Lucien also adds:  Focused messages and highlights on main trends.
 And Carol says at the end, the final comment:  "Outcomes are important to governments for national direction and legislation.  They need to know the good, the bad and the ugly."
 So those are quite powerful closing words for the session.  So thanks, Carol.  And thanks everyone.  And secretariat, I know it's challenging, but I have complete confidence in you.  And I think if you can just capture what you think can be done now and what you think should be tabled for further consideration, that would be very helpful.
 So thanks, everyone, for being in the session.  Meal break time, or work break time for those of you in the room and those of you who join us virtually.
 We will reconvene at 1500 Geneva time, which is 1300 UTC.
 See you later, everyone.
 [ Meal break ]
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Ladies and gentlemen, we'll start in two minutes.  I'd just like to remind everybody as well, those MAG members who want travel support for the IGF 2021 meeting should send an email to Pascal so that we have your names and we can start processing those requests now.  So Global South MAG members who are based in the Global South who want funding support to attend the Katowice meeting, please send an email to Pascal.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Welcome back to the post-meal break session of day one of the MAG meeting.  Welcome to those of us in the room and everyone who is joining us virtually.  
 The agenda item for this afternoon is to look at the main sessions.  So this is building on the work that MAG led issue teams.  These are issue teams led by MAG members but include past MAG members and other people in the community, including those involved in the intersessional activities.
 They have worked on sessions during the preparatory phase, the introductory sessions, and have done really, really constructive work.  And I think most MAG members concluded the preparation for these preparatory phases at the end of August and have since started then started working on main sessions.
 And so this afternoon, I want you to feel completely unconcerned about what state of finalization your proposal is in.  Don't feel intimidated by this.  The purpose of today's discussion is to allow all MAG members to comment and reflect on the proposals from all of the issue teams because thus far you've really talked about those main session proposals in your issue teams.  You haven't discussed them with the MAG at-large.  Plus we have the benefit of observers with us who might also want to contribute.
 Just before we start, I want to just refer you back to the document that we all shared with you earlier, IGF main session guidelines.  And I won't read the entire document, just to refer to some of the bullet points on the purpose of main sessions.  
 And these are guidelines that have evolved over time.  I think they date back to 2018 or 2019 and maybe even earlier.  But what happens usually in the IGF is that every year MAG members revisit some of those guidelines and can make them simpler or make them more complex.  But they grow and evolve with experience.
 So what we have in this guidelines document -- actually, maybe I can ask Eleonora or Anja to just post the link in the chat.  This is the 2019 version which was updated for 2020 and then 2021.
 So the first bullet point here is that main sessions are intended to create a structured approach for developing and executing main sessions that enable MAG members and the IGF community to contribute; that they facilitate the development of main sessions in a way that is very inclusive, transparent, and timely.
 This is the purpose of the guidelines.  Actually, I'm going to skip to the principles for main session organization because I think that's what's really relevant.
 So the themes topic should be on a high level of discussion.  Main sessions are intended to attract the participation of global experts and high-level delegates, not exclusively but "also."
 B, they need to be contemporary and relevant to Internet governance development so that being topical and addressing the sessions that -- the sessions of the day, of the moment, that's very important for main sessions.  It creates an element of excitement about them and anticipation.
 C, that they should be aligned with the overarching theme of the IGF, reflect one of the existing themes -- this year we call them issue areas -- or reflect a new theme with broad consensus among MAG members.  
 So this year MAG members have not introduced a new theme.  You're organizing main sessions based on the predefined issue areas.  But it has happened in the past that something -- the case that I will never forget is the Snowden revelations.  The Snowden revelations happened.  We had an IGF not long after.  So the MAG decided that there should be a main session on surveillance.  So that -- the MAG, you have that power.  If something happened between now and the IGF, you could actually still introduce a new main session.
 Main session's topic should be important and relevant to developing countries and should be managed in a way that has that relevance for developing countries.
 E, they should be able to generate wide-ranging interest among on-site and online participants.  And, finally, to the extent possible, they should build on the dialogue of previous IGFs.
 There is a further point here that says, Main sessions should not, to the extent practicable, replicate other sessions in terms of speaker composition.  So that's a consideration.
 And then under item number 3, it says that main sessions should engage key stakeholders and allow for all multistakeholder groups to contribute substantively and on an equal footing.  
 B, they should consider -- you should consider how the main sessions contributes substantively to the topic.  You should enable them -- use them to establish dialogue between actors.
 Next, you need to consider how the main session can contribute to efforts to improve the IGF in line with CSTD working group report on recommendations for improvements to the IGF and as reflected in the WSIS+10 outcome document and now also is reflected in the digital cooperation roadmap.
 Main sessions should encourage contributions from main session organizers, encourage contributions from NRIs, dynamic coalitions, and relevant best practice forums and policy networks.
 You should consider how the session can benefit from the resources available, e.g., room size, translation into U.N. languages.  And include in an appropriate way inputs from the IGF workshop sessions on the same theme.
 And then the last section of this document looks at criteria for main session organization.  I'm not going to go through all of that.  I know you've looked at that.  
 I'm not sure, Chengetai, if you think there's anything particularly important I should emphasize here.  
 There's logistical information here as well.  It refers to the importance of the session description because that session description is used to promote the main session.
 Speaker composition -- I'll just emphasize on that a bit -- should reflect gender, geographic, and stakeholder group diversity and should drive to include young people and persons with disabilities.
 The guidelines for MAG participation in these sessions is that unless there's a clear rationale, MAG members should not serve either as speaker or a moderator in a main session that she or he are co-organizing.  Nor should a MAG member serve as a speaker or moderator in more than one main session.
 And then on moderators and rapporteurs, there's information in this document on the role of these moderators and rapporteurs.  I won't elaborate on that.  It does also talk about what we called remote moderators.  That's still a very important role.
 And then the formats -- there's a section on formats as well.  So I won't read that.  
 But the purpose of looking at formats is to facilitate participation and to make main sessions very participative.
 Main sessions have sometimes in the IGF actually been quite challenging because they've tended to be panel-heavy and have tended to be quite boring.  
 But I think in recent years, MAG members have changed that and have actually organized some very exciting and effective main sessions.
 So you can visit this document.  I hope you have looked at it already and go back to it.  Also, if you want to propose changes for it for next year, that's what you need to do as a MAG.
 So now to listen to the proposals for this year's main session.  Can I start with the issue teams as they are listed on the website?  Which means that the first issue team we are asking to present -- I'm not sure who's presenting -- is the team that has looked at economic and social inclusion and human rights.
 Who's presenting?
 Okay.  Let's move on to universal access and meaningful connectivity, and I'll check in with the issue team on economic and social inclusion and human rights.  Who's presenting for universal access and meaningful connectivity?  Susan, are you with us?  I don't see Susan online at the moment.  Chengetai will Skype with her.  Let's move on to the next -- to the next issue area, which is the -- as you will remember, and for those of you who are observers, we have these two levels of issue areas.  We have the main focus areas, and then we have the crosscutting and emerging issue areas.  And the first one -- well, the next one on the list is emerging regulation, market structure, content data, and consumer rights and protection, and I think it's Roman that is presenting, correct?  Not?  Is that also Susan?
 >>ROMAN CHUKOV:  Well, we were supposed -- on emerging regulation, Jutta was supposed to speak.  I do not know if she is on the line.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I'm just going to continue going down the list.  Eventually we'll get a MAG member that's ready to present.  
 >>ROMAN CHUKOV:  No, I can.  We have just -- 
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Environmental sustainability and climate change.  Is Titti?
 >> She's online.
 >>ROMAN CHUKOV:  No, Anriette, if I might, we have had a call with emerging regulation groups.  Some of the members are here, so I think I can briefly share.  So basically, just now we have made some inputs to --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Hang on a bit.  Hang on a bit, Roman.  So everyone is following the meeting, we are now going to hear the state of preparations, initial ideas and discussions of the issue team that worked on the emerging regulation main session.  And Roman Chukov is going to start us off, but then I'm going to open the floor to other members of that issue team to add as needed.  So thanks very much, Roman, and you have the floor.
 >>ROMAN CHUKOV:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  And others can just check in with your team members so that we can get clarity for who's presenting next.
 >>ROMAN CHUKOV:  Thank you, Anriette.  And dear colleagues, this is Roman Chukov, MAG member from Russia as one of the co-facilitators of the emerging regulations issue team, along with Jutta Croll, I would like to briefly update you where we are with our main session preparation.  Just 15 minutes ago we have finished another round of conversations and we are updating the Google Doc with our approaches.
 So we plan to focus on two or three most pressing issues, such as content or fragmentation or non-discriminatory access.  It's where we are now.  We did not define and we did not agree, so we do not yet have consensus.  We agreed to, like, raise them all to think of most useful cases of regulation from national or regional global level, which we can mention as examples or as best practices.  So this is what we plan to do.  And we will also bring potential speakers for each of the topics.
 So we were thinking of layers, and in this regard layers could be schematic and like -- basic, like, from service providers to national to global.  One of the ideas which I personally had was to somehow involve this global digital compact discussion, but I know that not everybody's happy about discussing this.  And so our colleagues will fill their share of the ideas in the Google Doc.
 As far as moderator, we've contacted Jovan Kurbalija who's preliminarily ready.  And I know some other group also considers him as a moderator, so we should hear the clear -- I don't think we should have same moderator for many sessions, so I think this is something we need to discuss with another working group.
 But yeah, generally, to sum up, there will be several main issue -- issues which we plan to focus on, and we did not yet decide what is the main outcome of the main session which we want to achieve.  After we do this, we will, of course, update the whole MAG of what we have come to.  So dear colleagues, please kindly add.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Roman.  Courtney has asked for the floor.  Amrita, you are also asking for the floor.  Do you have anything to add?
 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Yes, thank you.  Courtney Radsch for the record, a MAG member.  Just in terms, to build on what Roman said, I think the general consensus is that the way to design -- that, you know, we wanted to design this section is looking at different -- at how big major buckets of regulatory approaches are being implemented at different layers of the Internet.  And therefore, that could include, for example, competition policy writ large or data -- you know, data privacy and ownership writ large.  So we do still need to define what those big buckets are, but I think the approach, in terms of looking at major regulatory trends, which could then include specific examples but not getting -- kind of drilling down into any one specific country's approach but rather keeping it a bit high-level.  And I believe some of the outcomes that we identified wanting to have is to identify kind of similarities and differences in approaches and where some of the pain points are as well as whether that is going to enable an interconnected global Internet.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much for that, Courtney.  Any other contributions?  Or additions to this team?  Did you -- Raquel, please take the floor.
 >>RAQUEL GATTO:  Thank you very much, Anriette.  Well, I'm Raquel Gatto.  I'm the PN -- the policy network on meaningful access facilitator, and just because we don't have Susan Chalmers yet -- and I hope she doesn't mind that I bring that up on the universal access and meaningful connectivity.  I'm part of also the group and we're trying to integrate and streamline the work from the PNMA with the UAMC track.
 And so just to report that there is a topic that is surfacing which is making the Internet multilingual or since we were talking about multilingualisms perhaps (non-English word or phrase).  So this is, upon definition, that this is what is surfacing in the discussions in the mailing list.  And so this is -- well, there is a brief description right now on the -- on our working draft which is about the ability of Internet users to engage online in their own language is a key element of meaningful universal connectivity.  Though there are half a billion, for example, Spanish speakers online, only 4% of the websites are in Spanish.  There are other numbers here about Hindi language and so on.
 So this is also building on previous work, for example, from the BPF of local content.  And the idea is to have -- well, setting the scene on what local content -- universal, sorry, on universal meaningful connectivity means and then have discussions under two streams, a discussion on local content and then a discussion also on universal acceptance.
 So I hope I did at least a briefing for everyone, and Susan, if you are joining or please scrap and start from the beginning.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Raquel.  We are actually still on emerging regulation.  So -- but we'll -- but we've now had the report from universal access.  So we'll come back to that.  But if we can just go -- no, it's absolutely fine.  If we can just go back to emerging regulation and take some more inputs and discussions on that.  And I also want to -- you know, while I was being very flexible in terms of asking MAG members to share reports in any state of preparation today, I'm afraid that flexibility is not going to apply tomorrow.  We need proposals in writing by the time this meeting starts tomorrow.  Otherwise, we actually will not be achieving the primary purpose of this meeting.  So I'm sorry to put you all under pressure, but you're going to have to work overnight or whatever time zone our virtual participants are in.  We need these proposals in writing.  They do not have to have confirmed speakers, absolutely, but we need the overall outline of these session proposals, you know, the goals, the frame, and the type of speakers and proposed speakers by tomorrow morning.
 So to get back to emerging regulation, I just wanted to ask if you also looked -- I think the MAG mentioned this in the last call -- to also look at sort of cross-fertilization of the parliamentary track because some of the sessions in the parliamentary track are also touching certain aspects of regulation.  So it might be worth just -- just comparing focus areas there.  And then what I wanted to say about this emerging regulation session, I think, and Sorina will probably remember better than me, but in the call for issue -- for issues from the community, there were a very large number of people who responded with regulation or aspects of regulation or emerging regulation as an issue.  And I think for the private sector, it's a very relevant topic.  For governments, it's a very relevant topic.  In fact, for all stakeholder groups.  And it's one that's very pertinent, at the moment, because there is so much discussion at the moment, particularly by regional bodies, European level but also at a national level.  You know, regulation of the Internet is an area of concern at present.  So I think you should capitalize on that.  You should address the fact that this is -- this is a very -- it's quite -- it's controversial, it's interesting, attitudes towards regulation have shifted, maybe too much, you know, maybe not in the right direction.  So I think you have the potential here to create a very dynamic main session.  
 Any other comments or suggestions for this issue team.
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  So we had -- Amrita, for the record.  Yes.  So we were having a lot of discussion as to how to address because there are a lot of emerging regulations which were taking place.  The other was -- we were looking at a layered approach.  For example, the networking layer, content layer, an application layer, and look at how it is happening.  But then we thought no, taking two, three issues might be a better way to look at it because not pinpointing which worked well, which worked badly, but take out the essence of what is being done, what could be the, you know, balanced approaches and what could be done better or how can the discussions move more in the IGF in the times to come because we're looking at a multiyear kind of thing.  So this was also school of thought we had.  I think Adam has his hand up.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  And thanks, Amrita.  Adam has his hand off.  And I'll just read, Courtney has just written in the chat that that's exactly why the issue team decided to narrow down into three buckets and layers.  So she's echoing what you've been saying.  
 And Adam, you have the floor.  And then after Adam, we'll have Timea.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Thank you.  Thank you, Anriette.  It's Adam Peake speaking, for the record.  Yes, all the things you said, yes, yes, we're considering all of that, and I think the working group is doing a good job on this.
 You mentioned the parliamentary session.  Yes, we have discussed how we can integrate this with the parliamentary session because it is on regulation, but we don't know what the content of the parliamentary session is so we're somewhat stuck there.  But yes, absolutely.  This is firmly in our minds.
 And also you mentioned the private sector, and yes, they, in many cases, are the subjects of regulation, so they will be included.  But yep, thanks, and thanks to other members who commented, Amrita, Courtney, and so on.  So thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Adam.  And just Timea, before you go, there's a comment in the chat from Shah Zahidur Rahman.  "Emerging technologies, regulation most important and potential topic around the world and also from the perspective of concern with defending rights in the digital age "  Timea.
 >>TIMEA SUTO:  Thank you, Chair.  Hello, colleagues.  This is the first time I'm taking the floor.  Just wanted to say how glad I am to be here with you finally in Geneva and very sorry to miss all of you who are still at home but great to hear your voices and I hope we can meet soon in person.
 Just a few thoughts around the emerging regulation main session of the organizing team, which I am part of.  We did have a lot of conversations around this, and as Roman said, we still are in the middle of figuring out how to do this best because we only do have 90 minutes and it's a huge topic.  But I wanted to echo what you said, Anriette, that we did hear from the community a lot of interest around this session, including the business community that I am part of, and that regulation around Internet is a very hot topic right now.  I do think we should capitalize on this moment and make the IGF the space where these conversations come together because we -- what we do see is that many of these conversations are happening either in national context, in regional context, or in policy silos that don't necessarily work together with other policy areas.  So I think it's a prime time for us at the IGF to demonstrate how these things can come together in a truly global forum and discuss how the best practices that we do see in some of these regulatory approaches -- and I don't just talk about the black letter of the law, but regulatory approaches, self-regulation guidelines, whatever we might want to call them -- but the IGF is the place to bring out the commonalities of the best practices that we see around here but also the place to consider where things can go wrong and where some of these approaches actually do threaten the Internet as we know it today, open, interoperable, and interconnected.  So if we can find a session, and I think this emerging regulation session is the place, to discuss where we can capitalize on what's going well and make sure that we don't fall into the pitfalls of fragmenting the Internet through our efforts of making it better, I think the IGF would have a really great role to play in this discussion and we can demonstrate real action on our part, if we get this session right.  So I do ask for your forbearance if we're not ready to present to you a proposal because it's a very, very difficult conversation and we do want to get it right.  But I promise we'll have something soon.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   By tomorrow morning.  No, I think you're absolutely right.  And I think your idea of focusing on a few issues and then looking at it through those angles that you just mentioned, Timea, is a very nice idea.  Wring it could work well.
 Maria Paz was just posting in the chat as well that because it's such a broad scope, you should probably revisit the issues that were submitted by the community, because some of those were actually very specific aspects.  They requested a focus on very specific aspect of regulation.
 Next we have June, and then we'll have Maria Paz.
 Oh, by the way, Courtney just pointed out as well that this topic is of interest to the media.  So we talked earlier about, you know, attracting media attention and focus, and this is an area, I think, that you can really draw media.  Invite the economists now already.  Tell them your going to unravel the challenge of Internet regulation and they'll attend.
 June, please go ahead.
 >>JUNE PARRIS:   Thank you, Chair.  I'm June Parris, former MAG member.
 [ Echoing ]
 I just want to report -- Sorry, I'm having an echo.  Can you hear?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   We need people to switch off their computer mics and only listen to the audio through the room's audio system.
 Someone has their computer mic enabled.  Somebody is logged into Webex.
 >>JUNE PARRIS:   It's probably me.  Yeah.
 Okay.  Okay.  Hello everyone, again.  June Parris, former MAG member.  I'm reporting on economic and social inclusion and human rights.
 [ Echoing ]
 There is a document prepared, it's just being edited at the moment.
 Thank you.
 [ Echoing ]
 >> Please turn off your mobile device because --
 >>JUNE PARRIS:   So the document has been prepared.
 [ Echoing ]
 It's being edited at the moment.  The associated program themes of economic and social inclusion, innovations, human rights, and digital -- digital technologies.  We've got a brief description here as this topic is not new to the Internet, but it is getting more and more popular as -- as the IGF goes on.
 We have -- We're trying to -- to enlist high-level speakers from government, business, academia, civil society to discuss emerging trends, challenges, and opportunities.
 The policy questions have been prepared.  I won't read them at the moment.
 We -- Our agenda:  We intend to have introductory remarks by the moderator, MAG members, welcome to the audience and a short description of topic and introduction of speakers for about five minutes.  So in the first block -- the first block in discussion of trends, new opportunities, and risk.  And then we go on to the second block, which will be a discussion of governance, strategies to promote inclusion and human rights including the role of the IGF.
 The final discussion is among the audience and panelists.  There's a short summary of main points by the moderator and outlook to the main session at the IGF, and that will be five minutes.
 Chair and moderators will then have verbal inputs and discussions, and they are Courtney and Evelyne, and our chat moderator will be Afi.
 We have chosen some speakers but we're still in the process of looking for speakers.  They're not -- it's not concluded yet.
 Rapporteurs will be Adama and myself, June Parris.  We plan for participation and engagement by captioning of presentations and discussion and online moderation and questions-and-answer session.  Facilitators to be added.
 Desired outputs.  Explanation and raising significance of inclusion and human rights in societal debates and public awareness.
 New risks emerged since the pandemic.  Using new opportunities offered by digital technologies and the Internet for positive change.  The role of the IGF on promoting economic and social inclusion and human rights.
 I think that solved the problem.
 We intend to use SDGs, SDG right through 1 to 17.  
 And that's your short update. I'm not sure if anyone else wants to follow on from what I've said.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   June, I'm finding this very confusing.  I'm sorry.  I would like to complete the discussion on one issue area before we move on to another.
 >>JUNE PARRIS:   Yeah.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   So thanks very much.  Because June just actually presented economic and social inclusion and human rights.  We were still discussing regulation.
 So we now have had -- we need to catch up.  So my apologies.  I was confusing.  But please allow me to just close the discussion on one issue area before we move to another.  I would really appreciate that.
 So -- so June and Raquel, we're going to come back to you, but I'd like us to just first close the discussion on emerging regulation.
 I don't see anyone else.  Maria Paz says her comment was in the chat, so we don't need to give her the floor.
 I want to just check, is there anyone else who want to add on emerging regulation?
 I don't see that.  Przemyslaw, is there anything in the chat on that?  No.
 So really, before -- for us to move on now, who is undertaking the responsibility to touch base with the issue team and enter this meeting tomorrow with a draft report for this emerging regulation main session.
 Any volunteers?  The session -- I think the facilitators are Jutta and Roman.  But, really, any of the members, Mac members involved in that group or even past MAG members.  Who's willing to undertake the responsibility to come and present a proposal tomorrow?
 Thanks very much.  So Roman is doing that.
 And from what I can see, you've actually discussed the issue and the approach.  It seems to me your main task is to decide which are the three buckets that you are going to focus on.  And then from that will flow the speakers and the types of questions.
 Anyone willing to volunteer to work with Roman on this?
 Timea?  Fantastic.  Amrita?  Good.
 And of course online we have the other -- the other groups.
 Maria Paz is saying that there is already a working document.  So that's good.  You can work with that.  So Maria Paz, if you can also just make sure to connect with Roman and Timea on that so that we can have the cleaned-up version of that working document.
 So thanks very much, everyone.  Now I'm going to go back.  Timea, go ahead.
 >>TIMEA SUTO:   Just in the spirit of full transparency, we do have a really active group, so not everybody might be here in the room but we do have Susan Chalmers and Adam Peake and Courtney Radsch and Amrita, Roman and myself, of course Jutta.  So we do have a very active group.  So everybody is -- Maria Paz, of course, who started off on our Google doc.  So I'm sure that we will have a very busy evening ahead of us, and we'll get something ready by tomorrow.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much.  And I think that's perfect.  If you can get something out today which allows, you know, Courtney and others to comment.  There's also Joyce I see is part of this group.  So she'll have time to comment as well.  And then we'll look at it tomorrow.
 Thanks very much, everyone.
 Now let's go back to -- to Raquel's input which was on universal access and meaningful connectivity.
 Raquel, I don't want you to repeat the whole thing.  Just what are the core issues?  What are you going to focus on?  And it sounded to me like it was content and language.
 >>RAQUEL GATTO:   And first of all, Anriette, I'm so sorry I disrupt the agenda.  I hope now we can have a productive discussion.
 So the title -- well, the temporary title for the universal access and meaningful connectivity is Making the Internet Multilingual.  And the focus that is suggested is precisely on local -- local language, the culture heritage of local language.  And also on universal acceptance.  So describing more of the IDNs and the discussions around IDNs and universal acceptance is a fundamental component for multilingual -- a multilingual Internet.
 There is also a Google docs, and I see we have online Carlos Afonso, who is also an active member and MAG member and active in the mailing list.  I was really just trying to be helpful and report back.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Raquel.
 And I see the facilitators for that -- that issue team, they are Susan, who can't with us right now, and Sooki, who also isn't able to be with us in the call right now.  
 But you have all heard what the general idea is that Raquel has proposed.  Carlos, you are with us.  Do you want to add anything?  Is there anyone else in that issue team who want to contribute?  Or are there any suggestions for this issue team?
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   Hi, good morning.  Carlos Afonso.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Hi, Carlos.  Please go ahead.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   We are --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Introduce yourself, too.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   Carlos Afonso, a MAG member from Brazil for the record.
 We are still working on the proposal, and I have some suggestions which we'll be discussing.  I am afraid that some issues, like discussing IDN, might deviate too much the discussion towards an issue which is very complex, which has been discussed a lot in the ICANN environment.  And lots of advances were achieved already.  So there are, of course, still issues to be considered, but this could eat up most of our time in the session.
 So I am trying to propose a new session agenda which would be, of course, the welcome and introduction to the Policy Network on Meaningful Access proposal, scene-setting remarks on universal meaningful connectivity, and a discussion on advancing local content in local language.  This, I think, is a fundamental part of the session.  And then strategies for the continuity and advancement of the policy network itself.
 That's my vision which I hope we can refine and in two, three days have it ready.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   24 hours.  Maybe not even.  12 hours.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   (Laughing.)  Okay.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   But it seems to me you are building on input received from the MAG last month, which was really working closely with the Policy Network on Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity.  Any other suggestions or comments or this issue group or any other members wanting to share?
 I think my only advice or -- I think that the thing with a main session is you also don't want to be too shallow.  You don't want to cover too many topics.  You know, it's better to actually cover something in depth.
 I think, Roberto you might even want to share some of your experience that you and Karim had with your main session last year.  So maybe if the two of you would like to share and contribute?  Roberto, you have the floor.
 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   Thank you very much, Anriette.  Roberto Zambrana, second year MAG member.
 Yes, actually, as you all know, we were dedicated a lot to the preparatory session, which is really, really good now.  And we started our discussion very recently.  And, yes, this one is a very important topic that perhaps don't reflect the current situation and that doesn't have the following up to the main session that was related to this topic last year.
 So that's something that in these 12 hours that we're going to have, we can still reflect on that, and hopefully we will have a common ground on this.
 I definitely agree that we don't have too much time.  It was a very good proposal regarding this particular topic, which is relevant today.  But hopefully we will have a chance to add something of this following up coming from the last year's session.
 And of course the other important thing, and that's why I'm not that much worry, is that we also have the policy network session.  And using this policy network session, it could be a very good way to complement each other with the content we're going to have.
 So that will be my comment, Anriette.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO: Very good.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Good.  I look forward to the next iteration of this proposal.  And really, I don't think you should -- even if you don't have perfect consensus, if you have something documented, you know, we live in the world of text, in our -- specifically in our virtual working together.  It's very hard for people to work together virtually if there aren't text.  And I know you have a draft text.  So having something tomorrow, it can still be modified, but at least having something that is more or less coherent.
 I don't see any requests for the floor.
 Karim, did you want to add anything on this?
 >>KARIM ATTOUMANI:  Yes, Madam Chair.  Karim Attoumani, second year MAG member. 
 I would like to join what said Roberto in the way that I think discussing main session at this time is a little bit pushing people to -- to draft something or to share something that didn't take time for reflection and analysis.
 Last year, we started on -- working on BPF proposal.  We had to justify it.  And at the end we -- we came up with the proposal on my session.
 I think that starting it on the beginning of the process gave us more time to do the reflection and to justify it.
 I don't know if we can make a proposal to move in the chronology of starting the proposal of main session.  And I don't think we -- we lose something to move it even on June or July.  Start it a little bit earlier than what we are doing here till now.
 Okay.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Karim.  So that's important for future -- future consideration.
 So I don't see hands.
 If there are no other suggestions for universal access and meaningful connectivity, then let's give you time to work until tomorrow when we reconvene, and then you can present your ideas.
 So next we had from June the initial presentation on economic and social inclusion and human rights.  That issue team is Afia and Lucien and Sooki and Evelyne are the MAG members that are facilitating that, but it has a large membership amongst MAG members and others, many of whom are on the call.  So June gave us a rough outline of what your focus is going to be.  June, I'm going to ask you, as I did Raquel, you don't have to go over the whole proposal but what is the topic going to be?
 >>JUNE PARRIS:  The topic is about -- While the topic of economic and social inclusion and human rights is not new to the Internet governance, this issue area has been gaining strength as -- I don't think I'm unmuted either.
 Hello, can you hear me now?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Yes.
 >>JUNE PARRIS:   Okay.
 So the topic is actually about -- it's been around a long time.  I'm actually trying to find a topic --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Do you need a bit more time?  We can go on to someone else.
 >>JUNE PARRIS:   Yeah.  Would Courtney take over or AFI?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Courtney, are you able to -- or Afi, are you able to give us a briefing on the main session preparations for economic and social inclusion and human rights?
 June is stepping in here to -- she's being very bravely supportive as a past MAG member, but it would be good if one of the MAG members can step in.
 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   I can, but I need to just find that document.  Give me one second or come back to me.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I can't hear.  Sorry, I couldn't hear that.  Oh, she's looking for the document.  Let's give this issue team an opportunity to come back later, and let's move on to one of the other main session organizing teams.  
 We still have to listen to inclusive Internet governance and digital cooperation; and there is trust, security, and stability.  
 Amrita, you are ready, aren't you, based on our earlier conversation?  So would you be willing to go next?
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Amrita, for the record.  We have been trying to put it into the format which Eleonora had shared.  Unfortunately, if I go by the topic, we've not decided on the title.  It would be 90 minutes.  And the session would actually provide a summary of the preparatory discussions.  This will include mapping the inputs from the preparatory session, to share a map of the cybersecurity situation.  This will include how community perceives and prioritizes threat, identified measures, and instruments, and stakeholders that presently address some of these issues which are the threats which are possible -- which are those threats which possibly has no measures or instruments and what needs to be done.
 Then it would also highlight the main trends and use cases from select communities.  And then it will be followed by an open discussion where speakers will share their take on the main trends, highlighting the different approaches, share what measures are required, discuss what can be the role of different stakeholders, and what can be the role of IGF.
 And, lastly, there would be an audience interaction followed by summarization of the session.
 Now, if you look at the policy questions, we are trying to look at cybersecurity practices and mechanisms, ensuring a safe digital space, international standards, what could be the roles and responsibilities in protecting against cyber attacks; international rules and state accountability, private sector accountability.  
 So the agenda looks like we have an initial five minutes opening, and then we have a summary of the preparatory session.  We would have someone who has spoken there speaking in ten minutes giving the entire mapping and what were the outcome.  
 And then we have an overview given by one speaker for ten minutes what the main trends are.
 And then we have two use cases.  We were looking at some youth organization that is working on these issues of trust and possibly a journalist or someone from the technical community who's discovered a breach.  We were thinking of Pegasus or something.  That's our wish list.  Let's see how it goes.
 And then we have open discussion where speakers would share their take on the main trends and highlight the different approaches.  And then audience interaction for 20 minutes with summarization -- the key take-aways in five minutes.
 For on-site moderator, the suggestion came of Chris Disspain because he would be there.  These are certain names which came.  And we've not decided who would be representing from the preparatory session.  
 But in terms of main trends, the name -- the suggestion which came was for Henry Verdier.  He's the French ambassador.  And the reason is there are various international initiatives, such as Christchurch call and Paris call which are on --
 >> (off microphone).
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Yes, yes.  In terms of the case studies, Jutta has confirmed.  Josephine Ballon from Hate Aid, it's a civil society organization, youth who are working to ensure a safe digital space.  They are confirmed.
 We are also looking for someone from Amnesty International or Reporters Without Borders.  We are looking at who could be.  If you all have any suggestions, we are happy.
 For the open discussion, the names are still in suggestion mode.  We have someone from ANSSI or ENSISA, which is government.  We have Anastasia Kazakova from Kaspersky who is confirmed from business.  We also have a suggestion of Latha Reddy because she was the co-chair of DCSC.  But we are looking at speakers, and we are looking at speakers from Africa and other platbots also.  In any case, if any of you have any names, please give us.  
 We would be requiring two rapporteurs.  We've not decided.
 Plan for participating -- participant engagement is through chat, questions, perhaps use menti.com or something in those lines.  
 Facilitator, obviously Lucien and me.  
 And we are still working on putting the other details.
 But in terms of links, perhaps Goal 16, promote just, peaceful and inclusive society as something we feel may be suitable.  This is still work in progress.  
 We are looking at inputs from everyone for speakers and everything.  So that's about it.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Amrita, and everyone in the issue team who contributed to that.  
 Any additions or any comments or questions for the trust, security, and stability issue team?  You have involved the best practice forum i your preparation.  So congrats.  Well done with that.
 I want to commend this issue team.  I'm not sure I heard the other draft proposals mention that they're going to create a space at the beginning of the session for input from the preparatory phase session.  So I think we discussed that this morning as well.  
 But keep that in mind in your session outline, that you need to create, like, five minutes for any relevant input from your preparatory phase main sessions.
 So the floor is open.  Additions?  Comments?  Questions?  
 Thanks.  Przemyslaw, do you want to read?
 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:  There is a suggestion from Courtney.  If it helps to include several speakers on Pegasus and spyware, that could be helpful, including a high-level journalist who could help generate interest.
 As well as Courtney just add that Rasha Abdul Rahim is the head of Amnesty Tech and could be a good addition.  
 As well as Forbidden Stories led a global consortium on news outlets who revealed the latest Pegasus developments.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Przemyslaw.  
 Maria Paz, I'm not sure if that's an old hand or a new one.  I think it's an old one.  Do you want to say something?
 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:  Sorry.  It's an old one.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  It's an old one.  
 So, Joyce, can you please join us and take the floor?  
 Joyce, we can't hear you.  I see that your mic is unmuted, but I can't hear you.
 Joyce, while you try and sort your audio out, let's hear from Adam who's next in line.  And let's see if we can hear Adam.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Hello.  Hello.  I can hear me twice.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  We can hear you, Adam.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  No, there's no echo.  
 Hi, Adam Peake, MAG member.  It was a general comment about speakers and to try and take advantage of the fact that we will be in a hybrid meeting.  I think we've seen -- our I've seen a couple of meetings over the past year, particularly NRIs, where because they're online, you're seeing a very, very high quality of speaker because it's much easier to get someone to spend 90 minutes, two hours on Zoom than it is to get them to fly to, pick a location around the world, but in this case getting them to fly to Katowice.
 So I would just like to say we should all be thinking boldly about the speakers rather than the people that we might know quite well.  We had discussion about this in the regulatory working group earlier, and a couple of Nobel Prize winners were suggested.  Whether we get them or not, I don't know.
 But try to think of speakers that you would actually perhaps even pay to see.  Of course, we don't have to.  But we do have the opportunity now to get a really very high-quality and very relevant speaker.  
 I think in the past sometimes IGFs, we have seen people who have big names in one topic but being invited to speak on topics that they might not be quite as expert on.  So I think we can be very specific about the expertise that we're bringing in and high level.  
 That's the comment I wanted to make.  So thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Adam.  Very important comment.
 I will read Joyce's comment.  She asks:  Have we considered inviting someone from FIRST to the main session for representation from the CERT, the computer emergency response team community?  And she proposes Chris Gibson, who is the executive director of FIRST TC as a potential speaker.  
 Really good suggestions.  
 Courtney, please take the floor.  You're next.
 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Thank you.  I was having trouble accessing the floor earlier.  But just to build on my previous comments since Pegasus was mentioned and just kind of the broader issue of spyware, Agnes Callamard is the former special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings and is now -- and the former director of Article 19 is now the secretary-general of Amnesty.  So she is also very well-versed on these topics and, again, someone that would be potentially even better than kind of like the tech person at Amnesty.
 And if this group wants any more ideas about who could be invited, happy to help with that.
 And I would also note that because there was a consortium of a dozen media organizations around the world who documented how Pegasus was used, it's a really great opportunity, I think, to do some specific outreach to Forbidden Stories and to the news outlets that were involved in that investigation because this is a perfect example of where telling the story and making the links between what we're doing at the Internet Governance Forum and what's happening kind of in the outside world could be really interesting.  And I'm happy to help with that.
 I'm not currently on the mailing list.  But if somebody wants to just reach out, I can provide you some more information next week.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Courtney.  Agnes would be a very good speaker.
 I can also, if you want to get in touch with anyone from the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace, we can also connect you to that.
 I think the point here that I want us to really keep at the forefront of our planning is the one that Adam made.  Be bold.  Be ambitious.  Invite all those people that normally wouldn't want to come to an IGF without being paid.  So it's really -- it will really add an element of glamour to the IGF, but it also can make the debate that much more interesting, not only high-profile people for the sake of being high profile but because they have topical and interesting things to say.
 Amrita, anything else from you?  Anyone else want to contribute to trust, security, and stability?  No.
 Amrita, I have one more request for you.  You will, I assume, send an updated version.  I think it will be helpful because you used the template that Eleonora provided.  If you can send yours sooner rather than later, it would be helpful for everyone else.
 I want to just go back quickly to check who is going to lead and take responsibility for economic and social inclusion in human rights.  Who will submit the updated proposal by tomorrow?  Afi
 >>AFI EDOH:  Courtney will do it.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Courtney.  Thanks, Afi.  
 And for universal access and meaningful connectivity, Raquel has left.  Giacomo?  Thanks.  Good.
 Okay.  Let's move on.
 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:  There is a request from Joyce.  Is it possible for the issue teams to share the Google Docs links?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes.  Please, can you all share -- can everyone that we've agreed is responsible for sharing the updated proposal tomorrow, doesn't matter whether you're the facilitator or not, to share the Google Doc link to the draft version of your main session proposals before the end of today?  Even if you are going to modify it, at least it's there and people can look at it and add comments overnight.
 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Anriette, I'm sorry.  This is Courtney.  I will be on a flight tomorrow.  I think there was a misunderstanding from my chat.  I thought you wanted somebody now to just add on to what June said earlier.  I will be on a plane tomorrow and unlikely to be able to present this tomorrow.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Let's hear from you now.  While you presented, let's ask someone else to come forward, to prepare mentally and in other ways, to be the volunteer for submitting the updated proposal.  But let's hear your outline.
 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Sure.  I think June did a really great job.  Since we were in the other session, let me just reframe this, which is we are -- we have identified the moderators and speakers which represent --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Courtney, I just want to -- sorry to interrupt.  Just so that everyone is clear, we're now back on economic and social inclusion and human rights.  
 Go ahead, Courtney.
 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Thank you.  We have identified the speakers which represent a diversity of stakeholder groups, regions, age, and many other issues, language, although we'll be doing it all in English.  
 And we have identified several questions that we want to get into in an interactive and dynamic way, specifically framing this conversation around what the implications for economic, inclusion, and human rights are in the wake of -- or amid the ongoing impact of the pandemic; the new risks that have emerged and new opportunities that have emerged from digital technology in the Internet for positive change; and what type of governance strategies this could mean for creating more inclusive societies, specifically with respect to recognizing the vulnerable and marginalized groups.
 And I think delving into a little bit more action around --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Courtney, sorry to interrupt you yet again.  It seems the transcript has frozen.  So I just want to get us to fix it before we go ahead. 
 Secretariat, any reason for that?
 >> Anriette, I think it's just the screen there because online it works fine.  As we can see it, it's only the screen that is frozen. 
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  It's just not displaying in Webex.  
 Courtney, false alarm.  It is not displaying in Webex, but it is happening.  We will have access to it.
 Go ahead
 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  No problem.  The transcript is very important.  
 So the first block will go through all the speakers with an opportunity to talk about the trends, opportunities, and risks that are emerging from this new environment that we're in and then provide very rapid response to other speakers' inputs.  During this time, we're going to do a poll into the audience that will poll-ranking the top risks and opportunities that were identified so that we can bring in that audience participation and bring in any sort of questions that arise.
 We then go to another round which will then focus on possible governance strategies to promote inclusion and human rights, including specifically the role of the IGF.  And, again, we're going to go through short interventions from each speaker, the opportunity to respond to each other very briefly, a poll again to the audience that will be ranking the top governance strategies and opportunity for any questions to be brought in with a final discussion among the panelists about -- that will take into consideration the polls and the discussion with a brief summary at the end.
 And we have identified, as I mentioned, speakers we need to, I think, just confirm in terms of following up with actual invitations.  But we have a pretty good list.
 I think the only person -- we don't have somebody -- we suggested somebody from UNCTAD or CSTD, but we did not have a specific person identified.  So if anyone has a suggestion that they could share, then we could, I think, move forward pretty quickly with invitations because we have international organizations, government, business, academia, and civil society identified with two each.  And we just want to make the invitations based on what that final mix will look like.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Courtney.  That's really good.  In fact, the UNCTAD or CSTD has just published their latest digital economy report.  The person that I certainly -- that I can recommend is Torbjorn Fredriksson -- I can send you the links from UNCTAD who is responsible for that.  He's very good.
 So any comments, questions for economic and social inclusion and human rights?  Afi has sent the link in the chat.  And I think I misunderstood Joyce's request earlier.  She's asking, I think, that everyone post the links in the chat now.
 And just -- I think what's exciting about your strategy is that you are looking at real participation.  I think -- in fact, both trust and stability and economic and social inclusion, you are thinking about how to involve the audience in the participants.  That's really great.
 Comments for you, for this group, from anyone suggestions or questions?  
 Okay.  There's nothing in the speaking queue.  But I'm sure that tomorrow we'll have more input.
 So we still have just two issue teams to present.  We've got environmental, sustainability, and climate change, which we also have a policy network to connect with.  And we have digital cooperation and inclusive Internet governance.  
 Is there anyone here that would like to present?  
 And I also just want to note that Susan Chalmers, MAG member, who is involved in both the emerging regulation and the universal access and meaningful connectivity teams has joined.
 So, Susan, if you wanted to add anything, please do.  We did have presentations of those two issue teams' proposals.  And we'll have more final versions tomorrow.
 Who's here for environmental sustainability?  The facilitator, great.  Juliana, please go ahead.
 >>JULIANA HARSIANTI:  Thank you, Anriette, for the opportunity to speak.  Is this not very detailed, but the progress of the main session for the environmental and climate change, but only still brief ideas for that have been collecting during the brainstorming from the preparatory session.  There is some idea for the main session, is -- one is about the environmental data governance, is discussed about the global versus indigenous and regional data.
 The second one is the future of environmental issue related to digital technology, the influence on technology development and how data can support the environmental issue.  
 The third one is the Internet and other digital technology can pose challenges to the environment.  For instance, energy consumption for data production, storage, usage and transfer, and through the production of device and disposal of the e-waste, but they can also be leveraged to advance environmental sustainability.  
 And the latest is about the digitalization and policies and action among different stakeholder, about success factors and status quo.  
 We're still preparing the document, but yes, we're working -- we're still working on it.  So with Flurina (phonetic) from the PNE working group and other facilitator, Joyce, and some colleague, has adding some suggestion about the speaker and develop the policy question, and we hope that tomorrow we will be -- there is more -- more exact the comment can be here.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Juliana.  And I've just looked at the proposal as well.  So any comments or questions or additions?  And, Flurina, did you want to add anything?  No.
 >>JULIANA HARSIANTI:  Yeah, Flurina is adding some comments under the comments so yeah.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  It's good to see that you are working collaboratively on this.  I think my only comment here is -- and this is not just to this issue team but to all of the issue teams, is that you don't have to use the existing policy questions that are in the MAG -- the document on issues and themes.  You're actually under no obligation, but I think just look at them.  Because if they are relevant to your thinking and what you're doing, it can be helpful to address them.  But you're not under any obligation to address those specific questions.  There are also those subcategories in those issue areas.  So if you can, if you're not using a policy question, but if you can link your topic to one of those sub-themes, then do so.  Again, you don't have to, but if you can, that would be -- would be useful.
 So I don't -- there's no one in the speaking queue.  So -- but please, members of that issue team, just work with Juliana who's here and the facilitator, and we'll look at a slightly updated or hopefully more updated version tomorrow.
 So the last issue team is digital cooperation.  And who's present here for digital cooperation and inclusive governance?  I'm just looking.  That was -- it's Sooki, but Adam, I know you are in that team.  Carol is as well.  So Carol.  Carol, would you be willing to give us a report, please?
 >>CAROL ROACH:  I wish I could, but I've been out of sync for quite a while.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  That's fine.  Thanks, Carol.  Anyone else that's in this group.  The members I have here are Adam, Ben Wallis, Carlos Afonso, Carol, Concettina Cassa, that's Titti, Evelyne, Afi, Hana, Joyce, Rahul, Susan Chalmers, Sooki, and Tereza.  But I know all of you are also on other issue teams.  But is there anyone who can give us an update on digital cooperation.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Hi.  It's Adam, Adam Peake, for the record.  Sorry for not using the speaker queue.  Yeah, not really an update.  I think the thing is, you know, we've seen a few suggestions going in and then not much has happened, actually.  So it's left in a preparatory state for the prep -- excuse me, a preparatory state for the prep session, which is not where we're meant to be at the moment.  And I think it's a bit stuck.
 What we do have -- and Roman touched on this earlier when he was talking about the regulatory session -- is a document that was published by the U.N. Secretary-General's office last week called the Common Agenda Report, and this was a report that was submitted to the U.N. General Assembly.  And part of that, one paragraph, addresses issues around the IGF.  And I think, in my opinion at least, it addresses issues which would be relevant to this session.  It begins with "It's time to protect the online space and strengthen its governance."  It talks about a multistakeholder digital track and in preparation of another summit to talk about and to agree on a global digital compact.  And it calls out the IGF itself.  Let me find the words in here.  Essentially saying that this is -- this is an opportunity, "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."  
 So I feel that this is one of those issues that comes up.  It has come from the U.N. Secretary-General.  We convene the IGF on his behalf.  So while it's very, very short notice to be looking at anything, there isn't that much, I think, in the preparatory -- that's being prepared to change that.  But I don't really feel competent to start writing about this, partly because once this call finishes I have to go and do my work for the day.  But yeah.  So that's what I wanted to mention.
 I think that this fits into this session very well.  But it's quite new and people might not be familiar with it.  So yeah, that's all I wanted to say.  We're a bit stuck on this one, I think.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Adam.  I think to me that sounds like a very strategic, tactical suggestion.  Any comments?  Adam, no one is requesting to speak on this.  I think that actually -- you know, when I read the main session guidelines document earlier, this was exactly one of the points that's in that document, that main session should be able to respond to topical new developments.  And I think, just in the two days here in Geneva, so many people have asked what is this document, where did it come from, how is it relevant to the IGF?  So I think that makes a lot of sense.
 What I would ask you, I know you have to do your ICANN work now,  but Adam, if you can just -- unless it's already been shared in the mailing list for that issue team, if you could just share that as a proposal for that issue team and see if we can get more feedback on that so that we can have a little bit more clarity on what this session will focus on tomorrow.  Are you willing to do that, Adam?  I'm not asking you to undertake sending the, you know, full proposal, but if -- at least if you can try and reach Sooki.  And who's the co-facilitator?  I'm opening my MAG issue team central document.  We have facilitators, it's Sooki.  She's the facilitator.  So Adam, would you be willing to do that, just to try and connect with her and send this idea to the mailing list?
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Give me a couple of moments and I'll do that.  I'll just write an email.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Adam.  Okay.  So I -- I want to -- we've now covered -- we've had proposals from all the main -- the issue teams for the main session proposals.  I think I was hoping in a slightly more complete format but maybe that's because we all haven't looked at the documents.
 I want to open the floor.  We have a little bit more time on this agenda item.  Just if there are any members of the MAG or observers who haven't yet commented to share any reflections or any ideas, please let's hear them.  So let's open the floor for a general discussion on these main sessions.  And I think feel free to connect these inputs to the discussions we had on IGF outputs and documenting outputs because ultimately all of these processes have to reinforce one another.  
 Adam has posted the link to the -- to the common agenda document.  I think Anja shared it earlier today as well, or yesterday.  So thanks very much for that.  Amrita, please go ahead.
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  So my -- you know, a thought came that we will have our preparatory sessions where each of these issues in different ways will be discussed.  And there will be certain trains of thought which come -- which would emerge from those discussions which may be crosscutting in nature, too.  Would we be looking at taking those trains -- say, for example, if it's a trust discussion and there are issues of emerging regulations coming, as in are we looking at collaborating or sharing it?  You know, personally we can, but will we come up with some kind of a, I would say, way in which we shared those?  Because it may be helpful to the other groups when they are also discussing the main sessions.  Perhaps that could help in building the links between what the community has heard initially to what the main sessions are, as a -- just a hazy thought but can we build those linkages?  Because most of these are interconnected issues.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I think yes, absolutely.  I wonder, perhaps, if somebody was in the breakout group discussion this morning when we talked about how to document -- Timea, I that was you.  Do you mind restating your suggestion this morning about how the preparatory phase sessions can draft their reports in such a way that they can form inputs for the main session discussions?
 >>TIMEA SUTO:  Yeah, okay.  Sorry, I was trying to figure out which of my comments you were referring to.  I tend to speak way too much.
 Yes, so the idea that I've had in our breakout group discussion this morning was that since I believe all prep sessions will need to do some sort of reporting of what happened in that session, why not use this idea of reporting out from what happened in that -- in that session as an input document of sorts for the main session or for the IGF in general to help level set the level of understanding and expectation of IGF attendance on what is to happen around that track in the IGF.  So it will have not more than a page, even just half a page of summary of what was discussed in these prep sessions because they already are taking, as Roman put it, an educational approach towards what is going to happen in that track.  So if we frame those as sort of a briefing document, of this is what happened, these are the main pillars of discussion, an overview of what has been happening thus far in this track, and now here we are, we are starting from this level and trying to move forward.  So if we take that as an input document then hopefully the main sessions can already take that forward a little bit or other conversations in the IGF, not just the main sessions, and that can help towards framing the reporting as a continuation of what has happened thus far.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Timea.  Amrita, I'm not sure that I -- that that's entirely connected, but does that resonate with what you were asking, or what you suggesting something a little bit different as well?
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Yes, it does resonate, but I was referencing certain things different.  For example, we take the summary, but sometimes there are certain essence which perhaps for me may not make sense as a working group but for another working group it makes sense, so we pass it on to them, you know.  I may be interested in just specific things for the main session, but some other session may be interested.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Wim and Sorina, is that perhaps something you're trying to facilitate through the issue mapping document?
 >>WIM DEGEZELLE:  Well, it's -- it should happen but not -- I mean, it won't work immediately from session.  I mean, there are probably some steps in between, and you count on people looking at those sessions.  But what Amrita just said made me think maybe it's something all the MAG members should think and keep in the back of their head when they go to the IGF in December to when they see the opportunity, to try and link back in their comments in sessions, say but well, yes I was in another session or yesterday I was -- or I'm also part of a main session where this topic or something relevant for this discussion is -- was, sorry, came up.  So listening to the discussion, I sometimes think it probably would be helpful if -- or would be more easy to just make that almost informal thing.  Let's just try, everyone, to do our best to what we take from the sessions, try to promote in other sessions, than trying to really formalize it in a process, because having it adding additional documents is one thing.  The second part, you also need people to read.  And one of the things we also heard during the breakout session was that there was so many different types of outcomes and documents, so maybe that's not immediately the most helpful thing.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Yes, I agree.  I think we have to keep the number of documents produce to the minimum.  But my understanding is that you are producing a pre-meeting guide where you're building on the existing pre-meeting guide.  And would you be putting some of these documents into that pre-meeting guide as they are -- as they -- or some of these paragraphs as they are generated?
 For example, the outcome documents from the preparatory phase main sessions, they'll make their way into that guide, won't they?  So that can then also facilitate, without the secretariat having -- or MAG members having to perform an additional task, they will be capturing the information in such a way for that cross-fertilization to take place.
 And I think what I would suggest is that we look at how in a MAG call, maybe not too long before the IGF, the annual forum, that there's a discussion where MAG members and their issue teams who organized the preparatory phase sessions, you know, share some of what they see as potential cross-fertilization.  So we could cover that in a discussion.  And I think as -- yeah, doing it informally is probably the most realistic way.
 Any other comments or questions?
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Anriette, I'm not saying put another burden.  I'm saying like, for example, we have rapporteurs in each of the sessions.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Yeah.
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  So if we lead them that, look, this is how you make the report, so it is meaningful for, you know, even Wim or Sorina to capture the information.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Yes.
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:  Simultaneously, if they're hearing some other trends, write it down here.
 And I don't know here.  Like in AP IGF we have something called a synthesis document which is made, so we firstly make the draft, and people who are interested can come and comment, just leave the comment.  We are not asking you to write.  
 So perhaps when you're making the report, you know, first time report, if you want we can come and leave our comments.  If you find it relevant, pick it up.  If you don't find it, you can discard it.
 So it will not add work to what you're doing.  We don't want additional work.  If we know what kind of report you want, we will try to have our rapporteurs making it in that way.  So it's easy.  No duplication of work.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   I think that's a very useful comment and I suggest you talk with Amrita and Joyce who is not with us but she's online about how they do this synthesis document in the Asia Pacific Regional IGF, because they do have a committee that works on it, but it is also produced consultatively.  And I think without making major changes to your process, you could draw on some of those mechanisms just to get feedback from the MAG on the documents which you are already developing.  And of course the onus is on them to provide the feedback.  It's not as if you are going to have to be held back, which I know would be very difficult for you.
 So I think just think through that a little bit and see how you can build on some of that experience.
 I see everyone is tired.  Maybe I'm assuming everyone is tired because I am tired, which is not very appropriate but it's been a long meeting.
 Any other comments on the main sessions?
 I think what we can do tomorrow is we've scheduled the main session discussion for the afternoon tomorrow, but we might want to try to do it before lunch when people are still a bit more energized.  And I think that with Chengetai's help, we can look at reshuffling the agenda a little bit so that we can come back to the main session discussion, at least in our morning tomorrow.
 I wanted to ask the secretariat something.  I'm just looking at the program.  We did add, Eleonora and Anja, we did add a recap session during the Katowice forum for a review of the preparatory phase?  Was that done?  I think thought was done.  I can't find it.
 And if it hasn't been done maybe we need to rethink whether we actually need it or not, because if all the main sessions are going to include in their programs looking back on the outcomes of the preparatory phase sessions, then maybe we don't need that recap session?  So I just wanted to check-in with you on that.
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:   Yes, I'm sorry, chair.  We did agree on having a recap session but it wasn't included in --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   It's not in the schedule.
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:   It's not in the schedule.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   So let's put that as a question, as a question to the MAG.  We had talked initially of having a recap session at the beginning of the December meeting to review what emerged from the preparatory phase.  Now keep in mind that the preparatory phase is not just the MAG-led sessions.  It's the youth IGF, it's the NRI sessions and the DC sessions.  So I think if we skip having that, we could potentially miss out on an opportunity for giving that sort of intersessional work and main sessions.
 But what is your view?  Do we need a recap of the preparatory phase at the December meeting?
 So everyone:  Secretariat, MAG members, anyone.  Please respond.
 >>ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:   Chair, if I may add, maybe it's worth reminding the room that the recap session was envisioned as a replacement for what had been a wrap-up session at the end of the preparatory and engagement phase.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Maria Paz, can you please go ahead.  I see you've asked for the floor.
 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:   Thank you very much, Madam Chair.  This is Maria Paz Canales for the record.
 I think it is still relevant to have the recap session as a separate event because I think that because of the time constriction of the different main session that want to capture, maybe, what will be in the preparatory session, it will not be much opportunity to do it in a more interactive way, for example, if they are participants of the preparatory phase that want to come and participate.  Again, trying to present some of the lesson captured in the participation of the preparatory phase or some of the relevant input that they shared.
 So I think still it will be relevant to give more -- this more open-mic space for reflecting on the preparatory session in this recap session on the (indiscernible) of the IGF.  And I think that also it will play good as a motivator for the participation of the -- of the audience in general in the main segment of the IGF because it's encouraging if the first -- one of the first (indiscernible) provide much more opportunity of doing this direct interaction.
 That's my personal opinion.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Maria Paz.  Very good points.
 Courtney, go ahead.
 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Thank you.  Yes.  I think it is important to have a recap session if it can fit into the agenda because I think that a lot of the broader audience and participants in the IGF are not necessarily going to take place in the -- or take part in the participatory phase.  They might not know about it.  It's a great way if there are journalists or people who want to get a quick recap, instead of having to go to a bunch of different sessions, can go to one.
 So I think if there is room on the agenda, that would be helpful.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Okay.  Thanks.  Amrita.
 >>AMRITA CHOUDHURY:   Amrita for the record.
 I'm in two minds, actually, about a recap session because on the one hand, we will have extensive discussions during the preparatory phase.  We also want people to come to the IGF.  We also know that people have Zoom fatigue, and they have other things to do.  And we also need a recap session for those who have missed.
 So even if we do have a recap session, perhaps we have to have it in a coin sized, very short, 90 minutes, giving an overview of everything.  Perhaps.  I don't know.  Because everyone is spending so much of time online, they miss out on a lot of things and may not have that much of time.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks Amrita.
 Wim.
 >>WIM DEGEZELLE:   Sorry.  No, I was just wondering, and probably I should know, there is no, like, general introductory session at the IGF, because maybe that's something we just want to do, is have that one session presenting the six issues and as part of that session mention there was a preparatory phase, and that can be the link between the preparatory phase and the main session.  And in that way you kind of cover both things you just mentioned.  On the one hand, preparing those that come to the IGF and that might have missed the preparatory phase, and on the other hand, also outlining or making the link between both.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Yes.  And the key outcomes from the preparatory phase will be captured in the pre-meeting guide.  So that work is being done, and that guide could be used.
 I completely understand your concern, Amrita, but I think I agree with Courtney and Maria Paz as well.  Especially if we remember the idea of the preparatory phase was to make the IGF more inclusive and to connect intersessional work with the -- with the annual forum.
 So I think finding a way of doing that is useful.
 I'm looking at the agenda, and, Wim, there's an opening ceremony, and there's a newcomers' track, but there's no session of that nature.
 What I would suggest is that we give the secretariat the opportunity to look at the agenda and see if they can find a slot where we can fit that in or where we can combine that, and then I think we should -- we should ask for MAG members to volunteer to help organize that session.
 And I think, Wim, your idea of making it a sort of recap/introductory session.  So we might even want to really look at the -- you know, the newcomers' track is usually partly about content and also a lot about process.  I don't think we should do it in the newcomers' track because we'll lose very significant audience, but maybe there's a way of combining it with that.
 Anyway, my proposal here is that we give this to the secretariat to work with and to come back to the MAG with a proposal, hopefully by tomorrow morning if that's possible for you.
 Joyce, please go ahead.
 >>JOYCE CHEN:   Thanks, Anriette.  Are you able to hear me?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Yes, Joyce, we can hear you.
 >>JOYCE CHEN:   Awesome.
 I just had a question about who the envisioned audience for the recap session would be.  Would it still be sort of newcomers who missed the preparatory session or just anybody who is interested to find out what happened during the preparatory phase to join the session?  So it may not just be newcomers.  Or how are we thinking the audience would be?
 That's a very good question.  And I will try and recap, and hopefully others will chime in.
 I think the idea was to present what came out of the preparatory phase as an input for the IGF, to give people a sense of what they -- what they should be focusing on, what's important or, you know, what the questions are and the needs that emerged or the ideas that emerged from the preparatory phase.
 So it's an input to session organizers.  I would say session organizers are an important audience for that recap phase.  Moderators, speakers.  But maybe at the top of the list would be session organizers.
 Any other reflections on this?
 Wim, did you have -- You know, what did you have -- what would you say is -- Wim and Sorina.  You're doing the pre-meeting guide.  Who would you say is the priority audience?
 >>SORINA TELEANU:   Thanks, Anriette.  Hi, everyone.  Well, yes, starting with the session organizers, because technically they would be using whatever we get out of the preparatory phase and try to build upon that in their sessions, even if we might think it might be a bit too late because at that point they will already have their sessions framed.  But, you know, just bringing a question into a session might not be that complicated.
 And I think it should also be for all participants, right?  As Amrita was saying, not everyone will be able to follow the preparatory phase.  So seeing what's happened there should be technically of interest for everyone.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Would it be realistic to include it in the opening ceremony?
 >>SORINA TELEANU:   I think that's more --
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Let's give this to the secretariat to reflect on.  But that's maybe something to look at.  Building some content into the opening ceremony and not just ceremony into the opening ceremony.  You know, that's something maybe we could consider.
 But I know that's very complicated, so I'm going to refer to my earlier suggestion which is that we give the secretariat a chance to look at that and to look at the program because the program is very complex, and any changes that the secretariat has to make to the program, you know, comes with implications.
 So if there are no further suggestions, I'm going to ask you all to reflect on this and to come back to us tomorrow morning with suggestions.  Okay?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Okay.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Chengetai, you're very welcome to speak right now.
 So Chengetai is just correctly flagging that the opening ceremony is about ceremony, so we should also not overload that.
 But let's come back.  I'm sure we'll find a solution and a creative solution.  And it's really good to have everyone's input on that.
 Are we now ready to move on?
 Any further comments or questions about main sessions?
 I think not.  Przemyslaw, is there anything in the speaking queue?
 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:   No.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Well, I think, then, that's really good -- good opportunity for us to finish earlier because you have work to do.  And then I see many of the MAG members are online.  Susan is online with us.  Joyce.  Lots of others.
 So this is an opportunity for you to touch base with people about the main session proposals, gives the secretariat some time to look at the program to see where we can start the recap session.
 And unless there are any other comments or questions or additions --
 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:   I have one remark, if I may.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Przemyslaw is going to be leaving so he's going to make --
 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:   Yes, I have one remark, my final remark because I am leaving for the airport.  
 I have -- On behalf of Mr. Krzysztof Szubert, I have a very kind request to all dear MAG colleagues regarding the registration and the promotion of the IGF 2021 in your respected environment, stakeholders, entities.  If you know of any events in which Mr. Szubert could somehow connect to -- as just maybe even for a few minutes to say a few words about the IGF to promote this event among your respective networks, please let us know.  We will be very happy to engage and to present the IGF 2021 to broader communities and to -- and I also have a request from -- on behalf of Mr. Szubert to kindly ask your respected colleagues and entities to do register.  Do start registering for the IGF, particularly on-site.
 So with this remark, I would like to thank you very much to you all for your participation on-site and online on behalf of the host country.  Wishing you all the best, and we hope to see you all in Katowice in December.
 Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Przemyslaw.
 Let's give Przemyslaw a round of applause.
 [ Applause ]
 And thanks very much for being a really wonderful co-chair.
 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:   Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   And, Adam, you asked for the floor.  Please go ahead.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Yes, thank you very much.  (Indiscernible), so Adam Peake speaking, MAG member. 
 Przemyslaw, yes, thank you very much for that offer of using Mr. -- sorry, I'm blocking on names all of a sudden -- Krzysztof to speak at the events.  Would that include regional national IGFs, and would he mind if it was quite a short intervention?  But I think it would be very good to hear from him in some events.
 Thank you.
 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:   Yes.  Yes, it is, Adam.  To answer your question, yes.
 Thank you.
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   And thanks, everyone.  Thank you Przemyslaw.  Safe travels to you.  When we see you next it will be virtual, but hopefully also in person in December.
 And thanks to everyone who has joined the meeting today.  It's hard work.
 And MAG members, tomorrow morning please be ready.  We'll probably adjust the agenda a little bit.  I don't want to adjust it too dramatically because I know that MAG members have planned their participation based on the time zones they are in.  But hopefully, and I'm actually quite confident that we'll be able to finish early tomorrow as well.
 So good luck, everyone.  Please, tomorrow what I'd like us to do is to display your main session proposals on screen so we can actually look at them as we talk about them.
 And I just want to make sure that the secretariat has clarity on who is doing what.  So I'm going to go through the issue areas so we know who our point people are for the different main session proposals.  So economic and social inclusion and human rights.  It cannot be Courtney because she's on a plane.
 Afi, will you take responsibility for that?  Fantastic.
 And universal access and meaningful connectivity.  Giacomo?  And Giacomo, please liaise with Susan as well, okay?  Because she's online now but she obviously can't be online tomorrow morning.  And I know she wants to contribute.
 Emerging regulation?  Sorry, Giacomo, go ahead.
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:   I reported Raquel about your request and we will manage together.  So it's not only me.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   So Raquel and Giacomo together will make contact with all the other issue team members and report on that.
 Emerging regulation.  It was Timea and Roman, correct.
 Digital cooperation?  It's a bit of an open-ended one.  Adam was going to share a question.  I'll see if I can reach the facilitators overnight to get them to contribute.
 On trust, security and stability, we have Amrita.  And climate change, environment, we have Juliana.  Digital cooperation is Sooki.
 So which one am I missing?  Or have I got them all?
 Environment is Juliana.
 So I think that's it.  I think we've covered all of them.
 I don't think I've missed one.
 So please, everyone, if you need help, I'll be online, and the secretariat as well.  And we'll see you tomorrow morning Geneva time at 10:00 a.m., which is 8 UTC.  Have a good break.
 Bye-bye everyone.  Thanks.
 Thanks to the transcribers, thanks to the interpreters, and to all the participants, and the secretariat.
 [ Applause ]