The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during an IGF virtual call. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Welcome to MAG Virtual Meeting V. The meeting is being recorded and it's also being transcribed and a summary will be posted on the IGF website by the end of this week for this meeting. If you want to raise your hand, please use the speaking queue and the Chair will call your name. If you are unable to take, to put your name on the speaking queue, raise your hand and somebody from the Secretariat will put your name onto the speaking queue. And then you can speak when the Chair has called your name.
With that, we will give the floor to our Chair, Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen.
>> CHAIR: I would like to welcome you to the meeting where we are going to finalize key decisions that are needed for us to work on IGF 2021. It sounded like I have said this before, but about I think that this is today really is the meeting where we have done all of the background work to decide on the two primary issues and this is the goal for today to decide on what should be IGF's 2021's focus, the issues and themes, and on what should be the format of IGF 2021.
So just to review our agenda very quickly, after this welcome, we will hear from the host country, I think Jamaica is with us. We will have updates from the Secretariat, but then we will move into the issue of IGF content, and that's item number 4. There is a task team of MAG members who worked since our last call and they have a proposal for us to discuss.
You need to look at the proposal, listen to it, think about it, comment and based on that we will decide what our next steps are. After that, if I can just have the agenda back on screen, please, after that we will look at the IGF format, and this is the proposal that we presented last week, and thanks ‑‑ not last week, during the last call.
Thanks very much to the MAG members who sent comments on that, and we will present that proposal again, and give you an opportunity to discuss it, and then we have to move forward. So essentially there is quite a simple proposal, and once you have given the go‑ahead as MAG members, we can proceed to do the next steps.
I think that's it. I don't have the agenda. It's disappeared, but I think the final item on the agenda probably is any other matters, and, please, add those as needed. And now, I will hand over to our host country for some welcoming remarks.
>> KRZYSZTOF SZUBERT: Thank you, Anriette. Dear my colleagues, very warming with from war saw to our next MAG meeting. First of all, let me thank you for your kind work regarding the shaping of the IGF 2021 format and structure. I'm fully aware that it is not an easy task as form ‑‑ former MAG member I came across similar difficulties and uneasy tasks in the past, but in the end, we have been always very positive and satisfied.
Before, I kindly encourage your joint effort on finding the best solutions and come up with a conclusion to the final thematic tracks. In other words, we need to move forward much weaker as Anriette mentioned so we are in the same direction, the MAG Chair, my staff and the IGF Secretariat, we are all here to support you.
I have a good feeling that we will make it very soon and very possible. Looking at the very interesting discussion at our previous meetings, I can tell you that from the current host country perspective, we are considering the hybrid format, both virtual and on-site event. The situation is still not clear at this point. We do not want to make any final assumptions, so we would like really to see you all together on site, but the entire vaccination process may not be finalized until the end of this year. However, restrictions concerning mobility around the world would still not be entirely lifted.
Bearing this in mind, we need to come up with the best solution to meet those challenges. After carefully analyzing all pros and cons from last year's IGF, we are striving for event onsite. We have already selected the venue partner, the hotel operator. We are currently conduct the tender for the logistic operator. I am very confident that we can find a way to compromise on site and online elements at one dedicated time and place.
For instance, we could work on extending the regular hours during the IGF 2021 in order to accommodate more time zones or is one of the ideas. Moreover last week we have launched the call for submissions for the day. Zero among the policy stakeholders. We are waiting for their response until the end of May. By the way, on that virtual meeting two weeks ago with potential stakeholders, companies, universities, different types of stakeholders, we had almost 200 companies online. So the interest is very big and we are really counting on the event to be, to have it in the physical way.
To sum up, I'm counting on your support and feedback during today's discussion on the IGF 2021 format and the thematic tracks. This is the unique opportunity from our perspective to hear your voices and thoughts on these issues. I wish you a very fruitful discussion and excellent meeting. It's my continuous wish to see you all physically in Katowice in December this year.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Krzysztof.
Chengetai, can I hand to you for the update from the Secretariat?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Anriette. Very few updates from the Secretariat. We are still continuing our consultations with the stakeholders and the users of the IGF website during the renewal process, and on Thursday at 12:00 p.m. UTC we will be having a meeting with the DCAD, Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disabilities to get their views and anybody else who is interested in contributing to the usability and accessibility of the website, you are invited to attend that. So it's a chance for you to meet the developers as well, and, you know, and give direct feedback about the website and what enhancements you would like on the website then.
As I mentioned earlier, we have published the calendar of MAG meetings from now until June when we are having our next, our second open consultations and MAG meeting. So they are all there on the website, and somebody is going to put the link into the chat right now. And then we have also updated the diagram with the work plan about when we are going to issue the calls, et cetera. That has also been updated by the Secretariat.
And with that, let me just ask Anja, Luis and Sorina if there is anything I have missed or there is anything they would like to update on.
>>
>> LUIS BOBO: Thank you, nothing, Chengetai.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you. Back to you, Anriette.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for that. I think there are probably quite a few questions about the intersessional work, about the policy networks and how they are going to work, and I just want to assure you that the Secretariat is working on that, and will share more information.
And for those ‑‑ shortly, I think we are probably looking at within a week. But for those MAG members that have specific queries that and that have emailed, I promise that in the next, before the end of this week we would have had one‑on‑ones or group discussions with all of you. We have already covered some of you, but those that still have questions, we will talk in the course of this week.
So now I would like to hand over to the MAG members who did the work of looking at the issues that were submitted and the call for issues, and I think the background here for us to remember, and I know it is quite confusing is that we are not just looking at establishing themes and tracks for the IGF. We put out a call for issues. And in response to that, we received a set of very specific issues which we have since clustered into issue areas.
We presented those, and discussed those, and a group of MAG volunteers looked at those, and they have a proposal for us. So Maria Paz did email that to the list, but I will hand the floor to her now to update us to share the thinking and present the proposal from this group of MAG members and thanks to them for their work. Maria Paz, is it okay if I went on to you now?
>> MARIA PAZ CANALES LOEBEL: Thank you. Yes, I am ready. So basically what we did as the Working Group was created during last MAG meeting for trying to help refine a proposal on the focus areas for the program this year. We took all of the input that was shared by the Secretariat in the last meeting in the documents that they prepared for us that we processed all of the information coming from the community input.
And we reviewed what were, again, some of those, the ideas. Most of them were shared by the MAG members in the answers for the surveyance criteria and during the discussion we had during the last MAG meeting. Considering all of that information, we considered that the most adequate proposal for moving forward in making those decisions or defining the main areas of focus for the program will be to consider an issue‑based approach. That was something that was discussed during our previous meeting, that it's slightly different from the approach that the MAG has taken in the previous years in which we were more focused in themes, areas or subjects.
From this slightly different perspective, we thought that it was clear from the data coming from the community and later the opinions shared by the MAG members that were two clear areas of focus issues that there was a strong desire from the community and from the MAG members to be the core main focus areas for the '21 IGF, the 2021 IGF.
Those two topics were the ones with the highest level of scoring in terms of preference in the survey, and they were economic and social inclusion and human rights and universal access and meaningful connectivity. So we saw that in this issue approach focus that we are proposing to consider for consideration of the MAG members this will be the two main focus areas in which the ‑‑
>> CHAIR: Maria Paz, I'm sorry, I want to interrupt because I think the document that's being shared is quite confusing. This is not the document that we should be looking at. So Maria Paz, are you able to share your screen or should?
>> MARIA PAZ CANALES LOEBEL: Let me check that I can share my screen. I don't have a slide, no. I don't have ‑‑
>> CHAIR: Not a slide but just the text, or actually, why don't you ‑‑
>> MARIA PAZ CANALES LOEBEL: Yes, I can share my text, but I don't have the function for sharing my screen.
>> CHAIR: Can someone give Maria Paz sharing.
>> MARIA PAZ CANALES LOEBEL: I have.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.
>> MARIA PAZ CANALES LOEBEL: Don't worry. Now you can see the proposal. It is the same text that I shared by email. So I was explaining the issue approach is the main focus area of the proposal. The two topics that I already mentioned, which were the highest scored in the categorization that it was presented in the survey for the MAG members, and then where it was coming from the processing of the data, from the community previously, and because we considered those two capture the majority of the attention in terms of the priorities and we think that those are core discussions for the IGF that have been going on for a long time, but they are still very relevant and need to be further refined and particularly from the perspective of an outcome‑focused approach, we are proposing that for this first group of issues, we devote a 60% allocation of the time of the program.
So this will be the first part of the composition in terms of issues of the program for 2021 IGF, and then we are considering trying to reflect on the up put of the MAG and the input from the survey that we saw during last meeting. We tried to consider this issue approach a second bucket of issues that will combine the emerging and cross‑cutting issues for the 2021 IGF. That the different issues the Articles here in this group or this category are the ones that we considered that are more discussion driven matters still, so there is not a long time of discussion that has been necessarily devoted previously for this topic inside IGF, and they are in evolution or on the spot like someone mentioned during our last meeting.
And because of that, we considered that they deserve relevant time of the allocation of the time of the program, but slightly minor than the core issues that I described previously. So we are proposing 40% of time allocation for these emerging and cross‑cutting issues that from the survey and from the processing of the input from the community, those four areas are emerging and cross‑cutting issues will be emerging regulation. That will consider market structure, content, data, and consumer/users rights regulation. The bucket of regulation.
Then environmental sustainability that was included for the first-time last year in the program of IGF. And the other two will be inclusive Internet Governance ecosystems and digital cooperation, and trust, security, and stability. So here as you see, we have these two elements in combination. Some of them are more emerging and some of them are more cross cutting, but they the four combine, and in time allocation, we think they should represent 40% of the time allocation of the program. We are not proposing a specific time allocation for each one of the topics neither in the 60% issues main focus areas issues, or in the emerging and cross‑cutting issues. We are not proposing another way to allocate the percentage of the 40% total for that group because we consider in our discussion internally in this Working Group that that will need to be flexible depending on the proposal that we receive as we have opportunity to see from previous years.
The numbers have been part of the MAG for more than one period. We have experienced that sometimes the level of attention of some of these topics from the proponents of workshop, it's different. So the final time allocation for this distribution will be deciding depending on the interest of the community in the proposal for each one of these groups. But we think proposing at least this initial allocation of 60 versus 40% give us a sense of the weight that each one of this group of issues will have inside the overall program.
So I will stop there, if any of my colleagues from the Working Group Paul, Amado want to complement anything I have shared, you are more than welcome and I share also if the MAG members have questions or additional comments on this proposal. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, and Paul, Carlos, Amado, Alberto, do you want to add anything? I don't hear from you, so no MAG members. I'm opening the floor to ‑‑ and now, MAG members, I'm opening the floor for you to share your thinking and ask questions about this. It's really very important. I was tempted to break you up into groups, but I think it's an issue that we need to discuss in plenary. So please any question for clarification or anything else, any suggestions.
So I see Joyce, you have the floor. Please go ahead, Joyce, and others, please start adding your ‑‑ raising your hands or joining the speaking queue. Over to you, Joyce.
>> JOYCE CHEN: This is Joyce Chen, I am a MAG member. I wanted to thank Maria Paz as well as for the members who did this work, very, very well done, and I agree with this approach of allocating a percentage of time. So my question was, and I did some very, very elementary Math, would it be correct to say we are looking at 30% each for the main focus areas and then 10% each for the remaining issues? Or is it that remaining 40% could be flexible. It doesn't have to be strictly 10% each, but it depends on proposals that come in so there might be different percentages within that bucket?
>> MARIA PAZ CANALES LOEBEL: As I mentioned at the end of the presentation, maybe it was not clear enough, but precisely we want to keep it flexible. We are not making a specific allocation for each one of the issues inside the two categories, because we consider that that will depend fundamentally on what is the interest of the community in presenting workshop proposals for those different issues. And also on the strategic definition that finally the MAG members can make considering the numbers to are received. So there is a percentage assigned for the category, but not inside each one. For example, in the first category, it has these two core main topics. It's not the same. It will not be the case that it is 30 and 30, it could be allocation differently. If I recall correctly last year that we had themes, we didn't receive an equivalent number of proposals for each one of the themes.
We saw that some attracted much more attention and the MAG can still make decisions in terms of strategy and do not use only the number of roles as a proxy for making those decisions but also introduce other things into consideration. But at this stage, our proposal is general in order to provide the MAG the flexible for making those decisions when the proposals are already received according to their quality and attractiveness. That's my answer. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Maria Paz. Amrita, you are next.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: I think my question has been responded by Maria Paz, but I just had a follow‑up question, for example, if, you know, while we are mentioning that we would be flexible between the two groups where there? We have the first group having 60% weight and the other 40%. What happens in the proposals the community gives in the first bucket outweighs those in the first bucket?
>> MARIA PAZ CANALES LOEBEL: I don't have the definite answer for that because I think that that will be a decision for making collectively on the MAG, but the approach that I will propose is that we respect the allocation of 60 and 40 percentage because that proposal is made on the consideration of the input we received from the community that still the main issues that are highly identified as priorities for discussion on the IGF are the two ones that are in the main issues with the 60% of allocation.
So I think that we have to honour the input from the community, and also with the input that was coming from the MAG. I think that 40% of allocation of the time from the programming in the IGF is still quite a lot of time that will allow us to make accommodation between these different emerging and cross‑cutting issues for having interesting proposals to be considered for the workshop in each one of those issues.
But I think that as an overall structure, we should respect the 60/40% allocation because I think that that's in line with what we received input from the community and what was shared by the MAG also in our internal consultation. Thank you.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: I had a follow‑up question, many times we may receive proposals in bucket one which, and then we have proposals in bucket 2. The proposals in bucket 2 may also be more interesting than bucket 1, but if we are kind of, if we want to give priority to bucket 2, if the quality is not good, would the MAG be deciding on percentages later? Would it be flexible?
>> CHAIR: Maria Paz do you want me to respond to that or do you want me to try and respond that.
>> MARIA PAZ CANALES LOEBEL: Yes, I think you are better suited for answering that, Anriette. The only thing that I can share as my previous experience as a MAG member doing the process of evaluation of workshops in previous years is that finally you made a comparative analysis between proposals that belong to a category. And the reality is that the quality of the proposals have been very good over the time, and we are not in DCNR, about proposal because it is in category that is slightly more protected or have a bigger allocation of time. The quality of proposal is generally good, and we don't have to make decisions between bad proposals and good proposals.
We generally have to make difficult decisions between good proposals that are different in their components, but equally suitable for being part of the program. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I see Roberto and Carlos Alphonso typing. Did you want to add anything, Roberto?
>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: I have already wrote it, but for the record, it would be good for me to express. Thank you very much. Rob MAG member from Bolivia. What I was saying in the chat, it will be informed from the beginning to the community what this allocation is going to be. So the people we already know, the composition of these two buckets in order to present proposals.
Besides, at least from my past experience and so far what I know about the other years, there are always very, very ‑‑ a large quantity of proposals, workshop proposals to select and usually quality has not been an issue before. So I don't think in this time it would affect so I bet that we will have still a very good proposals in these two areas.
Inside each bucket, the good thing is this flexibility that Maria Paz mentioned and Joyce really asked as well. So I think it will be a good approach. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks a lot. Roberto. And just to add to that, I think the next step would be for MAG members to now start the work of within those areas to look at all of the issues that people submitted and to identify sub themes. So that in fact when the call for session proposals goes out to the community, you are not just keeping it wide open, and, you know, economic, social and inclusion and human rights.
You would look at the issues they submitted and, you know, we have synthesized or gathered that information, and MAG members would break into groups and you would very many some sub themes or some key policy questions that you would use for that first basket that would go out into the call.
And because the other basket, the second basket is a combination of crosscutting and emerging issues, it wouldn't surprise me if somebody submits a response to inclusive IG ecosystems or digital cooperations and when the MAG looks at that proposal, they might think that is about digital cooperation with regard to universal access and meaningful connectivity. That's the kind of flexibility the MAG would have. The MAG would then have the opportunity to go back to the people that presented that proposal and say, you know, you submitted under inclusive IG ecosystems and digital cooperation, but we actually think your workshop is addressing one of the key sub themes under universal access and meaningful connectivity.
So, in other words, it doesn't mean if somebody submitted in basket one or basket two that it necessarily has to stay in that basket. The MAG will use its judgment where they think that would fit best. I see comments in the chat. I want to hear people speak. Please, this is important. So I think ‑‑ I don't see any hands, but I see Courtney, I see Carlos, please, can we hear from you. This is a very important decision we are making and I urge anyone who is uncertain, who has doubts about the proposal to speak, we need to hear from you as well.
>> LIVIA WALPEN: I thought it's easier to write in the chat, but I can also speak. Thank you very much to Maria Paz and all of the others for this great work. It makes a lot of sense, as I wrote in the chat, I just had a small question on the difference actually between what you named like discussion focused and outcome focused, and the outcome focus would take 60% of the time, and 40%. I was wondering because we are, like, trying to, we are always trying to make the IGF more outcome oriented, and, therefore, I was wondering if 40% of only discussion focus would be too much. And also what would the difference be exactly with the sessions that are discussion focused, would there be no messages? I was not sure what is the difference between those two categories.
>> CHAIR: Thanks for that. Livia Walpen. I don't have the answer, but a what a great difference would be it last year the secretariat had a huge workload in trying to capture key takeaways, key messages and reports at the same level from all of the sessions, and I think what I would imagine, how we approach this is that we allocate more time to the 60%, and that we, and that demand for outcomes and for how to farm late outcomes is slightly different for those sessions than it would be for the 40%.
But this in fact is one of the tasks that the MAG will still have to undertake, and we have the work. We have the procedure that the MAG used last year, and the Secretariat used last year to build on in terms of how they captured the different outcomes. I don't think that the outputs or outcomes of cross cutting or emerging themes will not make it into the IGF outputs, it's just that it would be treated differently and given less focus and less space. This is still something that has to be fine-tuned by the Secretariat and fine-tuned by the are MAG.
>> MARIA PAZ: The difference we did between outcome focused and session driven, it was related to the maturity of the topics. It is expected that the issues that are covered in the first bucket of the 60% are in some way the more mature topics for the discussion in the IGF in which the focus will be in trying to compile recommendations our very concrete steps for moving forward in addressing some of those issues that in some way are recurrent over the years in the work of the IGF.
And I have arrived to a certain level of maturity. So they are in a better state for being more concrete and that compared to the cross cutting and emerging issues in which some of them are relatively new and which it's more about how to use the IGF as an opportunity to interchange information, and different approaches and practices, and provide maybe more soft recommendations or soft conclusion, initial conclusion about some direction for moving forward, but not so precise as the ones that are expected from the first bucket.
But as Anriette mentioned, it is does not mean it won't be an outcome in the second bucket. It means that the expectation is the most relevant part is trying to make the information to be interchanging among the different stakeholders, and provide opportunity for further addressing collectively those emerging and cross‑cutting issues. Thank you. Ire.
>> CHAIR: Thanks Maria Paz. And the idea is also that there is a multi-‑ year approach. So some of the issue areas and emerging and cross cutting could actually become priority main focus areas in 2022, and also keep in mind that there is also this proposal that the high-level track sessions are also asked to focus on some of these areas. So there is just more, more outcome orientation in general.
Anyway, let's go to Courtney and after Courtney, Joyce.
>> COURTNEY RADSCH: I think that this proposal makes sense in terms of the fore looking more policy relevant and coupling it with the emerging cross‑cutting issues. I think we should reconsider the emerging regulation to be in the main focus area. And I say that because I think we are hearing from a lot of policy makers these days who want expertise, who want input from the community, and being more oriented towards doing that from the IGF, I think, would be really helpful so that we are helping to shape and inform that emerging regulation instead of, say, commenting on it after the fact.
So I would like to advocate that that be within one of the main focus areas and get kind of the same level of attention, but otherwise, I think that the breakdown makes sense. This lets us respond to the IGF plus and the needs in the digital cooperation plan as well as the interest in allowing the community, you know, to help set the agenda and that we don't need to worry about being too prescriptive. I apologize, I am moderating a panel and have to jump off shortly, but appreciate the opportunity to provide input. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks Courtney, Maria Paz, do you want to respond to Courtney now seeing that she has to leave before I give the floor to Joyce.
>> MARIA PAZ CANALES LOEBEL: I think that that's more a question that is suitable for the whole MAG to answer in terms of what should be the allocation. I can explain, again, the logic that we took in deciding to put the emerging regulation discussion in the emerging and cross‑cutting issues bucket, but, again, it's linked to the idea that these are discussions that are attracting a lot of interest from all of the stakeholders in the Internet Governance community, but they are relatively new in terms of the discussion, and the evolution, if you look into the different specific topics that our grouped in the emerging regulation discussion, are all of the different nature, some of them have been discussed by the stakeholders for larger period of time over the time, like data regulation, but some of them are relatively new as content moderation, regulation, or competition issues or consumer use of regulation regarding to Internet technologies.
So I think that that's the logic that is behind the proposal and the topic of is discussing some of the issues that are emerging or cross cutting is not a categorization that, say, the first are more relevant than the second. Precisely, we discussed a lot about that. We were using the beginning the idea of tiers when we were discussing in the Working Group, and we eliminated because we don't want to give the impression that some of them are more important than the other. They are all important, and all of the sessions will be important. But the time of allocation relates to first the interest of the community in the discussion of the topics and then the majority of those issues in terms of what is the expectation of the result of the discussion.
But it's not that one is more important than the other. They are all important, and that's why they are all in the input community, and they were all indicated by the MAG members as relevant for the program. So I see another hand from Paul. Maybe you want to add complement.
>> PAUL CHARLTON: I want to add to that.
>> CHAIR: Let's hear from Paul and Roberto and then Joyce we will go to you.
>> PAUL CHARLTON: Paul Charlton, MAG member from the Government of Canada. I wanted to second what Maria Paz said, I do favor keeping us to two main focus areas. I think that's important in terms of the focusing and streamlining aspect which the roadmap and many stakeholders have pointed out is an important part of the IGF's evolution. And also that those two themes, although we are going to, you know, instead of having them very broad, we are going to try to define them more narrowly. I think they can certainly encompass in terms of an individual session proposals different elements relating to the other, the cross-cutting themes including emerging regulations. There could be aspects in the two main themes.
And also as you said, Anriette, the cross‑cutting issues could also be in some ways a kind of dress rehearsal for 2022 and could give us a gauge in terms of how popular the issues and could factor in the thinking of the MAG next year in choosing the themes or issues for the 2022 MAG, and maybe by having the emerging regulations and others as cross‑cutting issues, we can even get information from that process to what sort of sub areas or specific issues within broad areas like emerging regulation might be suitable as topics next year. So that would be my response to Courtney's question and I think it's a good question, but I think the proposal that the Working Group suggested, I think, can incorporate those concerns. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Paul. Roberto.
>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Thank you, Anriette. What I wanted to mention perhaps, but I don't know if Courtney is still with us, but when she was mentioning that there is a lot of attention, I agree, regarding regulation. I'm not sure if emerging regulation, but regulation in general. And I think that part could be related more for the first bucket regarding more outcome‑focused. And we think that hopefully part of the proposals will be related to have more policies, proposals or more regulations proposals as outcome‑oriented approach.
But particularly emerging relations is something that will be more discussion driven as we proposed. That was the only maybe clarification that I wanted to make. Thank you, Anriette.
>> CHAIR: Joyce, sorry to keep you waiting. You have the floor.
>> JOYCE CHEN: Joyce Chen, MAG member. I put my hand up because I wanted to put on record what I said in the chat, which is that I think that this is a great proposal that gives the MAG good guidance. It's not something we necessarily need to adhere to very, very strictly in terms of the percentages, and I think it would help us to organize a program so that we are a bit more disciplined about the shape of the program. Having said that, I prefer to keep the focus areas as they are, just the two focus areas, because I think that they will have longevity as a multiyear thing.
And I think like the other issue such as emerging regulation, though important and also very much in the spotlight these days, it is more like a trend and as it said, it is an issue that we do notice. It is taking a lot of people's attention, but not necessarily something that we see could be a focus area per se in the same way that those two are in the main bucket.
So I'm for keeping this as I support that. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks very much, Joyce.
Everyone, this is really now it's crunch time because even though we have flexibility about the percentage allocation, we need to communicate to the world what the focus areas of IGF 2021 will be. And MAG members will have more time to refine the sub themes and key issues and questions within each of these areas. But I really now need ‑‑ I don't see anyone in the queue, so can I just ask people to, if you agree, if you support this proposal as it is, we have one additional proposal which was to move emerging regulation up. I think we have heard responses saying that it doesn't, it's not necessary to do that, and maybe now is not the time to do that. And in in any case, emerging or regulation can be a sub theme of those issues. So I want to ask people just if you could type in the chat or raise your hand, or just give a reaction to indicate your support for this proposal. And if there is anyone who has concerns or questions about this proposal, now is the time to speak.
Type in the chat if you agree and if you have more questions, raise your hand and speak. I don't see reactions. They are coming. Good. Is there anyone who has any further comments or questions? is there a need for more discussion on this? I'm not convinced, actually, I'm not hearing enough support. Do MAG members feel that this is, do you feel excited? Do you feel comfortable moving forward on these themes?
>> Do we have a chance to make a quick poll?
>> CHAIR: Please jump in.
>> MARIA PAZ CANALES LOEBEL: I don't have, I don't have ‑‑ no, no, I was trying to see the functionality of poll making.
>> CHAIR: We can do a quick poll. So in fact, I was actually thinking of asking Luis to do that. Luis, I'm sorry to put you on the spot. Do you mind doing a quick poll for us just if you can just put the text of this proposal at the top, and then just ask people in the call do they support this, do they not support it, do they want further discussion.
That will give us a sense if we are ready to move on.
>> LUIS BOBO: Please give me five minutes and I will be able to do that.
>> CHAIR: While Luis does that, I will talk about what the next steps will be. And I will ask Chengetai to help me with the timeline. We do need to move quite fast, if you agree with this proposal, we can communicate this in the short term, and it means the host country also has something to use, but what then has though happen is that MAG members need to work in groups in each of these thematic areas, and I think we need to obviously focus on the two, the two priority main focus areas.
You need to then go back and look at the issues that the community submitted, and to define some sub themes. And the goal being here that we want to invite proposals from the community that treat these areas in a relatively rounded way., but also in a way that I think finds a good balance between being quite focused, but also being quite open. But also that invites the diversity of experiences on these issues to emerge. Because if you look at those two main issues, economic and social inclusion and human rights, and universal access and meaningful connectivity, different stakeholder groups have different relations to those, different people in different regions would have a different experience.
So the next step would be for MAG members to discuss those in greater depth and develop sub themes and questions, and prepare the material that we would then need to do the call for session proposals.
And Chengetai, what would you say is the ideal deadline for us to be ready with releasing the call for session proposals? What is the latest possible that that needs to be done?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: According to our timeline, let me just check quickly., the call for workshops is supposed to launch the 20th of April to the 20th of May. We could push that a little bit by a week, I suppose. So if we could make it during the, by the 20th of April, I think that would be good.
>> CHAIR: That would be ideal. So that gives MAG members essentially I would say about three weeks in which to develop proposals and then a further week for everyone to discuss those proposals. So that would be the next step. And I would like people, I would like to put a question which I'm not sure what the answer is, we haven't discussed that yet, do you feel that we should also for the emerging and cross‑cutting issues also develop sub questions and sub themes based on the input we received from the community or do you think the MAG should only focus on the main areas in developing that kind of structure?
Maybe if Maria Paz, Paul, Roberto, Carlos and Amado, I don't know if you reflect on that, but if anyone else has a view, I invite people to respond to that question.
In other words, do we do the further issues and analysis of sub themes for both baskets or only for the focus basket? Roberto, and then Maria Paz .
>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Thank you, Anriette. I think it would be good to an analysis and some things for each bucket because as we already saw in the past, there are relevant issues, sub themes, issues that would be nice to analyze beforehand, but also once we receive these different proposals coming from the community, again, we will have a second, a second opportunity to review these themes that we analyze or identify, thank you, Anriette.
>> CHAIR: Thanks Roberto. Maria Paz.
>> MARIA PAZ CANALES LOEBEL: Yes, I will add my vote to that, and once they have manifested their opinion in the chat, I think that is particularly relevant to be as much precise as possible providing guidance in terms of receiving good proposals that are well focused in the issues identified by the MAG and also include what Joyce and Livia were adding in the chat comments regarding the difference between the outcome oriented or discussion focused orientation of the two different groups of proposal. I think that the clarity and the clarity about what are the expected outcomes for each one of these categories are redevelop vent as part of the call for proposals. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Maria Paz. I think that's a good decision as well, because we did ask the community for issues, and they gave us issues. So I think it's good to work with those issues and to develop this further analysis.
Amanda, I see you wanted the floor. Please, let's hear from you. I wanted to respond to your comment in the chat, your view was included. It was in the summary of the discussion, so, you know, it was there for this group to consider, but please do raise it again. Please, Ananda, you have the floor.
>> RAJ ANANDA KHANAL: This is Ananda, Government stakeholder from Nepal. My argument was how you identify the issues for discussion in the IGF should be based often not only its relevance but whether the issue has been sufficiently discussed in my Forums and is accepted as an issue by the national Government or not. That should be the criteria for further discussion in the IGF.
The issues that we have selected more or less proposed, and you said that it has come up from the bottom up, it looks like these issues are already established. These are part of the Government agenda. It's in the implementation process. It's always ongoing, for example, universal access and meaningful connectivity has been an agenda since 20 years. It has been accepted by all of the Governments. It is accepted by the ITU, ITU's mission or Broadband Commission is working on. It's accepted by all member countries in line with that, all countries have policies to implement on universal access.
They have created Universal Access Funds and being spent to ensure that this universal access is ensured. If we think that it is still relevant, we ‑‑ I am afraid we are losing our relevance in establishing newer emerging issues that the Internet Ecosystem has brought into. So my argument is that we shouldn't prioritize issues that were already implemented or in the process of implementation. It's a waste of time.
And I am afraid that IGF will be losing its relevance in creating focused discussion on emerging issues, which is not so widely discussed in other Forums and also not been implemented or accepted by the national Government. So I'm very much afraid that IGF will lose its significance, it's relevance in creating, you know, the emerging issues if we focus only on the issues that are already implemented, already in the process of implementation, is already accepted, there is no doubt about its relevance. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thanks Ananda. That was in the summary of the comments. I think, well, maybe I would let the group respond to you. I think in part, you know, I think your comment does relate to the whole process. And the way in which the MAG works is to have this open call for issues and what we have reflects that. I think the two baskets is a way of trying to address your concern, which I understand, but let me give it to Paul and Maria Paz and Roberto and the others to respond to that Maria or mall do you have any reflections to share on that or, Paul, maybe you because you come from Government?
>> PAUL CHARLTON: I think what we received from the stakeholders overall that these are the issues to focus on as we follow through and I think from a Government perspective, from our Government perspective, things like access or inclusion are still things we are working on because they are issues that come up in developed as well as in Developing Countries. Maybe differently for different Governments, but I still think they are very much, very much still relevant.
The other issues as we were saying before, are ones that are being active on or being developed but are certainly up and coming and we need to keep an eye on them and look for them for future discussions as well will.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Paul. Ananda, I think what is important is when MAG members develop the sub themes and questions within each of those areas that they focus on what the current issues are. So even, you know, under access, there are emerging issues. Similarly, under inclusion and rights, so I think that the idea is not to cover the same ground that is being covered in the WSIS Forum, for example, or the ITU meetings, but to really delve beneath the surface.
For example, Universal Access Funds, we know about them. Governments have been introducing them, but they are not necessarily working everywhere or they are not working as they should be. So I think your point holds. I think your emphasis on the need to focus on relevant topical issues, I think that can still be achieved even if those overarching areas seem as if they are, you know, quite well treated already.
And if you look at the community submitted, they do actually raise very specific issues. And that's what the next step will be for MAG members to work on that. And then I think the other point that Ananda, that you maybe me think about is also that in the future as the IGF MAG, it's important to get Government to give input, I'm not sure how many of the community, the call for issues, you know, Governments that respond, but maybe in the future, we can also do more to make sure that Governments respond to those calls.
Ananda, I know you are not 100% satisfied but I think there is a way we can continue to address your concern and when we develop the sub themes, so please continue to raise it.
I'm afraid we have to close on this topic now because we need to move onto format and design. I'm going to ask Luis to bring up the poll, just so behave a sense of whether we are ready to move on or not.
>> LUIS BOBO: I'm launching it now. I'm sorry, the question is a bit compact because there is a limit on the number of characters, but I it's fine, I think, I'm launching it now.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Luis.
Luis, I can't see. I leave it to you to decide when enough people have responded. We have 37 people in the meeting, and then you can share the result with us.
>> LUIS BOBO: Yes, thank you Anriette, I think we can share it now. Thank you. You should be seeing the results now,.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Luis, so the result is that 73% of participants are ready to move on with this as our thematic proposal for 2021. 5% say no, and 23% say they need more discussion. Can I ask one of the people who asked for more discussion just to give an indication of what type of discussion they are talking about, and do you think that that discussion can be part of the next phase or would you like us to pause before moving ahead and have more discussion?
>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: Carlos speaking. I thought that we need more discussion because there was no other alternative. We do need to try to establish a sort of percentage, but with flexibility. We might end up with a proposal that will be coming to find out that there are very important issues in the themes that are given less percentage, and we can't fit them because of the percentage. So find the percentage as a reference but not as a straitjacket. That's what I want to say.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Carlos. I think that is what the group proposed, that the percentages are flexible at this point.
>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: Okay.
>> CHAIR: Carlos, are you happy with the content?
>> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO: Yes, I do. Yes. It is fine. I think that Ananda's observations are important but I think you responded adequately, so it's okay. Let's go ahead with it.
>> CHAIR: I think Ananda's observations are very important, and that's why it is so important to have that emerging issues basket.
So I think we need to go ahead. I know this is, there is not 100% consensus, but I think we have a strong enough support for this proposal to move ahead. And the opportunity for MAG members to give input will begin because the next phase is going to have to be to break up into groups to develop these issues both baskets further.
So I think well done to all of the MAG members who participated, who responded to the surveys and prioritization. Thanks to the Secretariat for doing a lot of work, and thanks to our Working Group. I think we have our focus areas for IGF 2021. So congratulations, everyone! I feel like clapping, but maybe it's not yet quite ready time for us to clap.
Thanks, Joyce. I appreciate that. Good! That's the spirit! So thanks very much, everyone. And the next step, and we will follow up on that, will be for the Secretariat to set up lists and for each of these issue areas and then MAG members would sign up to those. You would choose the ones that you are interested in working on further. We will send a template more or less of what you need to do, and then you can have calls to take the process further.
So we will follow up by email in the coming day or two on exactly what has to follow next. So thanks very much for that, everyone. We now need to move onto the next big decision, which is IGF 2021 format. I think this will be a little bit quicker because you are looking at this proposal for the second time.
And Anja, can I please and over to you.
>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you Anriette. Let me paste the link for our colleagues for the MAG members in the chat, although I think that Luis is sharing the link as well.
While posting in the chat, this is the document that we went through on the last MAG meeting, so we didn't change a lot, actually, just maybe a few details. In any case you will see that there is preparatory component of this proposal that is proposed to start on the 15th of June, the 1st of December, 2021. Just to recap as you may recall, the preparatory phase would be launched during the second open consultations in MAG meeting.
It would include cooperation with the Best Practice Forums and policy networks that would further be developing their work through substantive exchanges during the preparatory phase or component. In addition to that, we would also invite the Dynamic Coalitions and the NRIs to host their substantive exchanges on the priority issues of the IGF 2021, or alternatively, and if they would like to share progress on their work, whether it's substantive or more procedural.
Also throughout this phase, we would together work on developing again the guide to issues and themes of the IGF 2021. So it would be like a living document that would outline the priority for substantive areas of the meeting leading into the IGF.
I'll just report here, and that's an update also for everyone, that this proposal was also presented to the NRIs and the latest NRIs virtual meeting. And colleagues expressed willingness for cooperation, but they did ask how the, any form of cooperation with the NRIs would be presented into the IGF 2021 preparatory process or the annual meeting.
So how it would feed in. One of the proposals that came through exchanges with the NRIs is that the IGF 2021 could maybe foster and implement the outreach through the NRI's meetings on the IGF 2021 priority focus area. So, for example, we could cooperate with the NRIs that substantive exchanges are hosted on the margins of their annual meetings on the priority areas, and then the outputs would then feed into the IGF 2021 preparatory process, and would inform the annual Forum as well, and that's the particular part where they ask for more information on how this process will be documented.
Moving forward, this preparatory phase would also include robust capacity development process, for example, we would present trainings for session organizer on what it means to effectively moderate the session, to ensure meaningful inclusion of online and on site participants as well as sequel treatment and then we could organize specific capacity development workshops on substantive issues of the IGF 2021 in collaboration and in cooperation with intersessional work streams so the BPF, the Dynamic Coalitions but also what I mentioned previously with the NRIs.
And all of this would then lead us to the annual meeting, the IGF annual meeting hosted from 6 to 10th of December. Just briefly to remind that the meeting would be hosted into what are the work hours of the duty station of the venue, so usually that would be around eight UTC until 11UTC and then the second block would be 13 to 16UTC, but this is also something to be discussed further with the host.
And then we could consider so called floating lunch breaks, just to take advantage of the lunch time slot in the central European time zone as colleagues advised especially the work group on meetings that that slot is convenient for the majority of the time.
So this would mean that some of my sessions could be organized during the official lunch break. With that, yes, we would need to work throughout the next couple of months until the IGF with the Working Group on hybrid meetings to understand how the online platform would be set up in the most kind of friendliest way possible for online also the onsite participants through which they can interact with online participants, and that process would also require developing detailed guidelines for moderators on how to treat online and online participants equally, but also for all of the participants to behave through that platform.
And finally, something also to discuss is the number of parallel tracks. As you know, there were advices that we consider having three parallel tracks, but then again to take advantage of having the availability of ten rooms that are already reserved at the venue. So, for example, if not formal sessions, those rooms could also be used for accommodating lightning flash sessions if the MAG will reintroduce those in the program or for networking sessions.
We would need to be careful, again, in avoiding thematic overlaps in the program. And so on. So I won't go into details in this document. You also see which are the possible types of sessions. Those are usually the traditional forms of sessions we had in past years with the major difference this year that we have to work on facilitating the online participation modalities for these sessions.
Let me check if I didn't ‑‑ yes. And I think to consider which is important when calling for sessions is possibilities for new and innovative formats that would fit the hybrid nature of the meeting. So whether just the last, for illustrative purposes to consider institutional dialogues or the so-called learning sessions, hands on sessions, and what I he mentioned at the beginning, the lightning or the flash sessions we had, I think, in 2016 and '17.
Finally, the MAG would need to advise on the session organizers to produce concrete outputs, key messages as well as the Forum would need to think building on the previous work on how to produce concrete outputs out of the meeting, whether that will take the same form as it did last year, for example, as the overall summary including the messages or from the high-level track and so on.
And that's, I think, what I wanted to say. It's very important and the Secretariat is aware of that, to think of technical background for facilitation of the meeting, for example, to ensure that we have safe, secure, but then user friendly registration process, accessing the online platform, and similar items to that such as the, for example, the design of the schedule or of the program.
I will stop here, Anriette, I know there is a lot of details in this document, but happy to respond if I missed something.
>> CHAIR: Thanks very much, Anja. Maybe I can just highlight some of the comments we have already received and from MAG members, if you can scroll to the top of the document. I think we have already had comments that the preparatory phase must not be too heavy. It shouldn't contain too many sessions and there were also comments which we discussed earlier today which is that in terms of scenarios, we are looking at hybrid scenarios.
So the document needs to make that very clear, that scenario A is in fact also a hybrid scenario. And I open the floor and Roberto. I'm happy to have someone come forward, so you have the opportunity to speak to us. Go ahead.
>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: Thank you very much, Anriette. I wanted to make a comment about this part of the proposal to have no more than three parallel rooms during the event, and I believe that it will depend of the number of sessions we will finally accept the number of the proposal we will finally allocate. So perhaps it would be good, not only to discuss, but also to have an approach of how many of these sessions will have the actual IGF, the second stage. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks Roberto, and Maria Paz, you can speak, but Maria Paz also responded saying we should have actually only no more than 5 sessions parallel in total. So I think what the MAG will have to work with is the fact that there will be ten physical rooms, but there are different ways of using that, that we want to not have too many parallel sessions because that was a decision from the stock taking, but also with the flexibility to have different types of sessions, and as you say, Roberto, we would have to respond to the number of proposals that we get. So I think that what I suggest is that we look at the guideline here is not to have too many parallel sessions that are part of the core IGF program.
So I think that is possible for the MAG to continue to respect that. I think Maria Paz you outlined that in your comment. I don't know if you would like to share it now.
>> MARIA PAZ CANALES LOEBEL: I just wrote it in the chat. This is Maria Paz, MAG member from GRULAC, civil society. I just pasted my proposal in the chat so you can see with more detail, but, basically, hey, it was adding to the concept of not having more than three sessions in parallel that are belonging to this main programmatic issues that we are deciding, so considering the two in the main issues and the four that we have in the cross cutting and emerging, so in parallel, maximum three of those, and then adding additional spot for other type of session that were included in the document for discussion that are more from this category of other elements of the discussion that can be part of the program.
Working session or new format session. Among those interinstitutional dialogues, learning session including hands on session. And with two of those categories additional, we would will total the five IM here, because the usual feedback we receive from the communities that people feel overwhelmed when there are too many substantive discussions running in parallel, and they feel they cannot make decision about where to go. So I think that that makes a good middle ground in terms of taking the space for other types of activities.
>> CHAIR: I think that makes a lot of sense. Any other comments or questions? In terms of moving forward, I think the first decision here is do we have the two phases, the preparatory phase that is fully virtual, and the face‑to‑face hybrid phase? Is everyone okay with that? Are people in agreement with that? Can we use that as a basis for continuing our planning?
I see some reactions in the chat. Good. Good. More people please type. You know, the problem with this kind of process is that those who stay silent could have their views ignored, and I really don't want that. So I really do urge people to communicate.
Okay. So that, I think, is a fairly simple, it's much simpler than we had in 2020 which was a complex prephase and very dense preparatory phase. This time around it will be simpler to have the two‑phase approach. The other decisions really are, I think we can refine in detail. I don't think there is anything else that is a departure.
I think there is consensus on needing to have a hybrid format. I think Maria Paz has made a good compromise proposal on the number of parallel tracks, and because we are introducing the diversity of sessions and there is a proposal for having shorter sessions as well, I think it can give us the opportunity to build quite a dynamic program which yet at the same time honours this goal and feedback from the community to be more focused and not to have too much overlap.
And my proposal for a next step would be for the Secretariat to incorporate the comment we have already received, and for us to use this as a working proposal, and then for MAG members to reconvene the Working Group on workshop process. And that Working Group can then start looking at format issues and how we should approach the call for proposals in terms of format.
And I will refine the next steps on both Agenda Items issues and format at the end. And I don't see anyone else asking for the floor. Anja, did you want to add, Anja or Chengetai or if we have Krzysztof here if you want to add anything to this or have any questions about this proposal, please could you make them known.
>> PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK: This is from the host country, I have been hearing our discussion, and I am very happy to be here with you, and this discussion is very good. The host country perspective as mentioned by myself at the other meeting, we are as a host country ready to cooperate with you on this format of preparing the IGF for Katowice. However, as we have said previously, we have limitations unfortunately, however, we would like to be more focused on the IGF in Katowice at the time of the Conference itself of the Forum.
That is why we are very keen on assisting you at the regular meeting hours and unfortunately we cannot give any more resources to the preparatory phase as it was already mentioned. Nevertheless we would be happy to work with you on and to accommodate the existing resources and possibilities on how to best accommodate and find the best format and design IGF between the 6 will and 10th of December in Katowice itself. And one other comment that has been mentioned before, I would like to kindly ask the distinguished colleagues to kindly inform me on what is the current COVID situation in your countries and what is the current COVID perspective? I would encourage you to inform us about this, because we need to know and be best prepared for the upcoming months because as it was mentioned before by Mr. Szubert. We do not know how the situation will improve, how the vaccination would proceed and I have followed the chat when we had our premeeting before the MAG meeting and I have seen colleagues putting very important and good comments there about the vaccination, and about, rising their concerns on how this process would tackle upon different countries and different regions.
We need to take this into consideration as well. We cannot forget that. We cannot exclude anyone. I perfectly agree with this, with those comments, with those concerns. We need to be best prepared for the situation in the coming months. Therefore, I kindly ask everyone to please inform us as the host country on the current COVID perspective in your countries.
We would really like, we would really appreciate this, your input and your insight on this. Thank you so much.
>> CHAIR: Thanks for that. Why don't you send a message to the mailing list with a clear subject line asking people to share, and then we can all share those updates in the MAG list.
>> Can you please repeat, I have connectivity issues.
>> CHAIR: I was just suggesting that we respond to your call and that you can start the process by writing a message to the MAG list something like COVID updates on the subject line, and then we can all share our updates with you there, and then it's easy for you to share it with your team.
>> Thank you very much. Anriette. Thank you for this proposal. I will contact Anja and Chengetai to help me with this and I will put it on the mailing list. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks a lot. I don't see any other hands. Any other comments on this proposal? We are nearing the end of the meeting and it's time to move on. I don't see comments or questions.
Okay. So let me then ‑‑ is there a voice there? I hear somebody or was it an echo? Is anyone trying to speak?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: I think it was background.
>> CHAIR: Thanks Chengetai. Well, everyone, again, I don't hear overwhelming response, but I don't hear any objections to this either, and I think this is a practical proposal and I think it's one that we can work with and I think we will work with it very successfully. If I think of the complexity of the process that the MAG had to tackle in 2020, I think this year we have more experience.
I think it's a simpler proposal, and it comes with its own challenges, but I'm convinced that we will succeed. So the next steps at this point, so we, on Agenda Item 4 ‑‑
>> It's time for one ‑‑
>> CHAIR: There is someone who is not muted who is listening to something interesting. I'm not sure who it was. They have switched off. The next step on the IGF 2021 issue focus will be for MAG members to work in groups on defining the issue areas more deeply. And we will set that up with the Secretariat, in fact Maria Paz if your group request give guidance, I would appreciate that. In particular, if you can comment on whether you think we will need a separate Working Group for each issue in each, in both baskets or whether we can split it in a different way.
We will set out the call inviting MAG members to join the Working Groups and you need to complete the task of looking again at the issues that were presented to the MAG in response to the call, and based on that to run a short document, really, that builds on the existing descriptions that we have and that develops that issue area and produces a set of sub themes or key questions that can then guide the input from the session proposal. So that's the next task.
We will set it up by sending a message to the IGF MAG list inviting people to join those groups. Secondly, on following up on IGF 2021 format, I think we have the broad brush strokes of the proposal that we can share publicly with the community, and the Secretariat will prepare that material and collaborate with the host country on making that public. What we then need to do as the MAG is for the MAG Working Group on workshop process to reconvene. And can I ask, is there anyone here who was a member of that Working Group last year who would be willing to start the process of reconvening that Working Group. I see that Jutta Croll is here, if there is a current MAG member, I'm sure the past MAG members will be willing to help.
>> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA: I will be happy to continue to be part of the group and also I will encourage to first year MAG members to join because it's a very important activity as we all know, and it would be great for them to join.
>> CHAIR: Thanks Roberto, and I really echo that. I think this is ‑‑ it's a Working Group that looks in detail at how workshop proposals should be invited, the form that should be designed, and then also look at the criteria for evaluation. So this really is a key MAG Working Group, and it would be really helpful if past MAG members can join.
Roberto, thank you very much for offering to be the initiator and the convener, and to facilitate this. We will work with you to send out the invitation to MAG members.
>> JUTTA CROLL: As I'm a former MAG member, I don't feel I'm in the position to lead such a group, but I will be very happy to support the newly formed group of current MAG members with the expertise we gave from the process of, I think the whole process started even before I became a MAG member with Abdullah, so it has a history, and I'm really happy to transfer that forward to the newly formed group. So just contact me and I'm happy to answer questions and help understand the whole process.
>> CHAIR: Thanks very much, Jutta and thanks, Roberto, for volunteering. It's one of the oldest. I think even when I was a MAG member, there was a group. So MAG members look out in your email for the following, invitation to join the issue groups in the two baskets. We will outline what the tasks are. And then an invitation to join the MAG Working Group on workshop process. If we respect our timeline, the deadline for both of these groups for your initial responses will be roughly 15 or 16 April. We will put that in the email.
So I think on that note, I don't have anything further to say, really just to thank everyone who stayed with this process.
It's taken quite long, and but I think we have a very strong response, and I think that will be reflected in the IGF this year. Chengetai, next on the agenda we have MAG Working Groups. So I'm not sure if any MAG Working Groups have their reports. While they get their reports ready, I think we should also show MAG members the timeline, the updated timeline that the Secretariat has produced. Do any MAG Working Groups have any updates? I'm opening the floor to MAG Working Groups. Theresa, you have already invited MAG members to join the discussion and the meeting tomorrow. TT, do you have any updates.
>> TITTI CASA: I don't have too much updates from my side. If you want, I can recap where we are with a MAG Working Group strategy. As you know, we submitted two documents, the proposal seeking improvements to the IGF and operational measures for 2021, and the second document related to the action area selected as a priority by the Working Group for further action. So we submitted these two documented shared with the MAG. The first one was more on related to the recommendation for a more strategic longer term proposal for, further developed for the IGF and also included in a section on suggestion on more operational activity, a short term measure for 2021.
And then we also have produced as Working Group the second document where we defined a list of priority for 2021. Now, the Working Group actually is discussing what could be the next activity in the action to be done in 2021. There was an important discussion on the meeting last March where we were considering the possibility to collaborate and support the MAG to identify a list of institutions in decision making bodies based on a specific thematic message out of the IGF 2020, but this is something that is going to be discussed by the Working Group.
There was also an important discussion on the documents that the Working Group, as you know, the Working Group has produced a lot of documents in response to the optional paper and response to the roadmap for digital cooperation, so it could be useful for the Working Group also to understand how this contribution will be taken in the account by the IGF Secretariat. Also, it would be important also to have a feedback from the MAG on how the Working Group could further support.
There was also, I mean, for the next meeting, the next meeting will be held on the 25th, so the day after tomorrow, and we will, we will discuss an important point, the results of the multi‑stakeholder level body of the consultation. So this is an important element of the agenda, and then we will try to compare our perspective on the next activity, the Working Group could activate to support the MAG further 2021. That's all from my side, Anriette. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, Titti. I don't see Amado or Courtney, so I don't think we have an update for the Working Group on Communication Strategy. Oh, you are here, please go ahead.
>> AMADO ESPONOSA: We have been placing together a document from communication and outreach, and we decided that we are going to invite the other members of MAG to join the group. I hope today we can send the final version of our document which we have been prepared all together, and I will I would strongly appreciate if you would have two minutes just to take a broad look at the final format, because we are trying to also integrate the experience from the Language Working Group, and we want to join to make a mixture of the three groups which were working together last period. We are working to put something that will be attracting, interesting and meaningful for the IGF in order to become very successful. Thank you very much, Anriette.
>> CHAIR: Thanks very much, I will take a look. Thanks very much MAG members for those reports. Secretariat, do you want to take us through the timeline, and MAG members, your request for regular calendar updates or calendar invitations have been heard and we will be responding to that. As we said earlier, Chengetai said earlier, should be able to get all of the details from the calendar link on the website. Chengetai, I hand it over to you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO:
>> Chengetai said I should go through the timeline.
>> CHAIR: Please go ahead, Anja.
>> ANJA GENGO: Well, thank you very much, and here what we have updated based on the process for identifying the issues. So the launch, well, the call for workshops, other sessions and village board is moved the proposed date is 20th of April. It will say hope until 20th of May. So that's four weeks' time for the proposals to submit proposal.
At the same time, we would also open a call for remote hubs. So the 20th of April, just we would leave it open until 20th of September for the submissions to come in. Once the MAG concludes the, I'm sorry, once the call for workshops and other sessions is concluded on 20th of May. The Secretariat will take around five days, including the weekend to process those evaluations, and to process those proposals and willing submit to MAG for evaluations. So the evaluation process would start on 26th of May, and you would have around three weeks until 17th of June to conclude the evaluations.
This is shortened now because of the delay with the core issues and because of the fact that we want to be ready for the second IGF consultation MAG meeting plan to be 21st to 23rd of June. After the second open consultations, hopefully we will hoe which are the official sessions going into the agenda. The Secretariat then would be drafting the schedule, and also the village plan between June, end of June until end of August this year.
We would also make published the call for bilateral meetings, so to book the room. That would actually happen shortly after the second IGF and the consultations on the 24th of June and we would leave it open until 15th of October. There is registration stays the same as in the initially proposed timeline. To open the registration on the 15th of August and leave it open until the beginning of the meeting, 6th of November.
After that the third IGF open consultations and MAG meeting is planned hopefully face to face if the situation allows between 15 to 17th of September. And after that, the next milestone on the timeline is actually the IGF 2021 annual Forum from 6 to 10 December, 2021, and after the Forum concludes, the finalization of the IGF outputs would need to be done by 20th of December the latest.
So that would be roughly the timeline. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks very much for that, Anja. So important everyone diarize the 21 to 24 of June that will be the open consultation and MAG meeting, and then the workshop and other sessions, the evaluations which will start on the 20th of May more or less and have to be done by the 17th of June.
And these, these dates are important for us to do the process well in time, but we will allow the workshop on workshop process. If you have suggestions about how to modify this, maybe have slightly different deadliness for different time slot sessions, you can obviously look at that. But that milestone of the open consultation and MAG meeting, 21, 23 June is essentially one that we cannot change.
And I put a link in the chat which is the dashboard for MAG members that Luis has created for us. So we want to use that as a space where MAG members can put announcements of calls of Working Groups, for example, those should also be on the calendar, BPFs and so on. So please always look at that page, and we will try to keep it updated with tasks, so the emails that I sent with tasks will continue, but we will put all of the MAG tasks on that dashboard page as well.
So I think that is it. We are a little bit early. Nearly two hours and it's been quite a tiring meeting. Does anyone have any other matters they want to raise or any final questions or comments? I know this is very late for some of you, so I'm glad we could finish early.
Thanks very much for that Chengetai. Chengetai has just posted the time and date for the next MAG call, it's Tuesday, 6 April, from 20 to 22UTC.
So on that, thanks very much, everyone, for being here.
Thanks for being with us so late, those of us, Joyce and others on your side of the planet. And I hereby close the meeting. Chengetai, do you have anything to add?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: No. Just thank you very much, Anriette, and thank you all.
>> CHAIR: Thanks, everyone, and thanks for finally making these big decisions about format and dates and issues. We really are entering into the next phase of planning now.
Goodbye, everyone, see you on the mailing list.