You are here

IGF 2020 - MAG - Virtual Meeting - XIII

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:  Okay.  Good afternoon, morning, and evening, ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome to MAG Meeting Number 13.  Thank you very much for joining us.  Just out of the way, the legal stuff, that this meeting is being recorded, it's also being transcribed, and also a summary report will be made available a couple of days after this meeting.  We will be using the speaking queue, so I would encourage you all to use the speaking queue.  The link is being posted into the chat right now.  If you cannot use the speaking queue, please just put your name into the Chat and one of us will forward your name to the Chair.  Or no, your name will be put into the Speaking Queue by one of us.
Okay.  Thank you, and with that, I'll give the floor to our Chair, Anriette.  Please, you have a very nice background, yeah.  Anriette, we can't hear you.  You're muted.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Can you hear me now?  The sun is shining so brightly on my screen so I couldn't see that I'm not unmuted.  Yes, everyone.  I'm online from remote part of South Africa in the East where it's warming, where I brought my mother who wasn't well, so that's why I have this beautiful background and I'm using solar power and mobile data.
And welcome to everyone.  I know you've been busy and many of you have national and regional IGFs that have started.  And between Chengetai and Anja and myself, we've been participating and it's gone very well.  We also have the WSIS Forum starting this week and I'll be presenting at the High Level Session on Friday talking about the impact of NRIs.
And last week was the high level    in fact, was it the week before?  The High Level Political Forum making progress on the SDGs, and so we've enacted those and all of those have relevant conversation for us.  And I must say that my sense is in participation in these events, that the selection of the themes for the program this year are really very spot on.  I think we are identifying themes that have been prioritized elsewhere as well.
So, to get on to business, we are really very close to announcing dates and the final shape of what the virtual IGF 2020 will look like.  And the Secretariat will present more of our options that we've developed based on the last meeting, so I won't elaborate on that.  We are going to give you quite a few polls during this meeting, and we're not really using the polls to make decisions.  We know it's not really fair to use polls in an online meeting to make decision, but we're just using them to help us eliminate options.  If we cannot reach consensus in the meeting, we'll find another way of doing it, but hopefully we can.
The two issues that we're going to consider today, the first issue is the duration of the IGF, how many days.  You know, we have an indication from the last meeting.  And the end date and start date, and the different phases of the IGF.  We're very close already to making decisions on those, and I'm sure that we can finalize that today.
The second issue is what the theme should be of IGF 2020.  Thanks to those of you that have input on the Google Doc.  I tried to summarize it, and I also got some impact    some impact from Sam Dickinson from the Secretariat Communication Consultant on those and so we can discuss those and do a poll to see at least which ones you're not interested in so that we can eliminate them.
And aside from that, you know, I think that is all.  I can report that Chengetai and I did meet with Tech Change, the organization that is providing the organization for Rights Con, which starts next week, and we will be sending them the specifications of IGF 2020 to get a quotation and also a sense of the different options that they can offer us.  Apologies for my moving screen.  I'm balancing my laptop on my knee.  And we also will ask for a similar response in temples of what this can offer us.
But I also have been watching the Secretariat work and prepare for this Virtual IGF and I feel very confident that even if we're not able to get the support of external experts on the online meeting, that we'll still have a very successful virtual IGF.  It will be much harder, more effort and risk, but I'm convince that had we can pull it off.
But, today, we don't really need to worry about that.  Priorities of today are duration, phases of date, and secondly the theme.
And then as you can see from the agenda, we also hope to have time for very brief updates from those MAG Working Groups that have anything to share.  That's all from me for now and I'll probably take this nice background away and go and sit in the shade, and back to you Chengetai.
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Anriette.  Just a few updates from the Secretariat.  First of all, apologies from Heiki, Adela, Natasa are not able to make it to the meeting so they have sent their apologies but will follow up later through the meeting summary, et cetera.
As Anriette has stated, the WSIS Forum has started and the IGF outreach session is going to be on 3rd of August, and I've sent out a Doodle poll for those people that want to help with our session.  Our session is only one hour long so we can't really do that much, but we do hope to inform people about the IGF.
We do have a newsletter which is coming out later this week.  It was supposed to come out at the end of last week but we decided to hold off on it a little bit because we are going to make decisions on the schedule now and so we want to send out the newsletter preferably with more solid information about the dates and length of the Virtual IGF.
The Youth Engagement Strategy is also going to be communicated in the coming days.  As you know, we do have kind of involved Youth Engagement Strategy for which you'll not just be for the Virtual IGF, but it will start sooner and hopefully carry on until next year as well.  So, we're going to communicate that to you in the coming days.
And as far as the stuff that we were supposed to do from the last meeting, which was the Secretariat was supposed to communicate the Draft Schedule and themes to the MAG, and I think we have done that.
And the last thing I would like to say is that this is going to be Lima's last virtual meeting because she finishes her fellowship at the end of this month and so her fellowship will be completed and she will go home to Afghanistan.  And hopefully she'll go with a lot more knowledge and contacts as well.  So, I would just like to take this opportunity to publicly thank Lima for the work that she's done over the past nine months.
I think that's it for the Secretariat updates, in case I've forgotten anything.  Have I forgotten anything Luis, Lima?  Anja? 
   >> LUIS BOBO:  No.  I think that's it.  And thank you to Lima.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Chengetai.  Lima, I did not know that, and hopefully that actually we can hear your voice if you want to say anything to us and to the rest of the MAG?  I got to know you last year when I was working as a member of the Secretariat and I really enjoyed working with you, so you'll be missed enormously.
>> LIMA MADOMI:  Thank you.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Before the next action item can we hear Lima's voice.  Do you want to say something to us?
>> LIMA MADOMI:  Thank you very much Anriette and Chengetai.  It was great working with you in this past one year.  It was very good and I have learned a lot.  Thank you so much everyone, and Anja and Chengetai and Luis, including all the support and to all MAG Members.  Thank you very much.  I know you last year and it was a pleasure working with you in group while writing messages of the IGF.  Thank you, everyone.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Lima, and safe travels and accept our good wishes to your family.  And consolation prize is that you can be back with it, and I hope that that's a happy reunion for you.
And, Chengetai, let's get on to Item Number 3 which is updates from the IGF Secretariat.  Anything else or have you actually covered that already?
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  I've covered that.  That's the end.  Uh huh.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  In that case, I would like to hand it over now to Anja who with support of the team has been working very hard to try to craft the options that we have to consider for our virtual IGF into a logical and understandable format.  So, don't be overwhelmed.  They'll explain there are different options, options for date ranges, options for length of the duration per day, in other words, how much of the 24 hour clock we take up.  There are options for how many parallel tracks we have at the same time, so don't feel too overwhelmed.  We are going to poll you after this presentation, but if anybody feels uncomfortable about making a decision at this point, we'll find another way of doing it, but I do hope that we can reach agreement on the duration, phases, and dates.  So, Anja, over to you.
   >> ANJA GENGO:  Thank you very much, Chair.  Thank you to everyone.  I'm going to help Luis to help us share the Google Doc into the chat.  This includes the MAG proposal that we've updated as well with an overall summary of what's been communicated to you two or three days ago in terms of different    in terms of possible different designs of our annual meeting across the two phases.
So, going to Page 3, and I'm also moving there.  We are not going to share all those sheets, as Anriette had said because it can be quite overwhelming to go through all of those ourselves in the files and log dates, but I think what is good to do is to do an overall summary to see how long our days could be across different designs per phases, as well.
So, we shared a couple of, as you knew, Excel files Chengetai sent to you.  There are two phases that we already discussed of the meeting and each phase contains a couple of designs.
So, the Phase 1, is proposed to be 11 work days long and that is basically 2 weeks plus 1 day of a third week.  So, from 23 of October to 6 of November, there are two options.  Two possible designs.  One option includes one orientation session on 23 of October, that's Friday.  Then we would start the next week with 44 Day Zero sessions.  The time range would be between 6:00 a.m. UTC and 21:00 p.m. UTC.  One 60 minute long break, networking break session, and then we would have in between those sessions a 10 minute break.
Option two is a little bit longer, so it stays    the dates are the same of 23rd of October until 6 of November.  The scheduled will include one orientation session on 23rd of October and then over the next following two weeks, we would have Day Zero events, Open Forums dynamic, NRI and possibly four VPFs.  The time range for this session is that our days are between 6:00 a.m. and 23:00 p.m. UTC.  What I said for the previous design, for the breaks, applies here as well.  So that's what Phase 1.
For Phase 2 there are four options communicated to you.  So, one option is that we look at this Phase 2 of the meeting is 10 work days long, so two weeks, between 9 of November until 20 of November, and it would have 5 parallel tracks of sessions.  We would have the    we would accommodate the sessions, workshops, opening ceremony workshop it's, Open Forums, main sessions, five high level track sessions, parliamentarian sessions, dynamic coalitions and the NRI sessions and concluding sessions.  The time range for this option would be    so the shortest day is 4 hours and 40 minutes long.  The longest one is 11 hours and 30 minutes long.
If we want to reduce the number of days, then we could look at the option of having the meeting the 7 workdays long, so that would be from 9th of November until 17th.  It would have four parallel tracks where we would have the workshops, main sessions, the five session of the high level practical, parliamentary roundtable, concluding sessions, and that this option would mean that the intersessional work sessions would be moved to this Phase 1, and the time range for daily durations are between 7 hours, that's the shortest, and the longest is 10 hours and 20 minutes.  So that's for 7 days.
The third option that we've communicated is if we would have the Phase 2 of the meeting be 5 workdays long, so one week.  So, depending which sessions we want to accommodate, we can have three or two parallel tracks.  So, if you want to have all sessions, so workshops, Open Forum, main sessions, five high level track session, dynamic coalition NRI sessions, parliamentarian session, concluding session.  And as I said the opening ceremony, then we could slot all of these in three parallel tracks of sessions.  The shortest day would be 15 hours and 30 minutes.  The longest day would be 19 hours and 20 minutes.  This is closest to the options several of you mentioned in terms of having the 24 hour cycle of sessions.
And then if we look at the fourth option, and again as I said so this is for the meeting to be one week long, 4 work days from 9 to 13 of November.  If we want to move intersessional work moved into phase 1 then we could reduce the number of tracks.  So, we could have two parallel tracks of sessions composed of the opening ceremony, workshops, main session, high level track sessions, parliamentarian roundtable and concluding sessions.  The time range per day again would be between 15 hours and 19 hours depending on    depending on where we would slot in mainly the main session, that's what makes the difference.
So, yes, those are our options.  As I said for the Phase 1, what we were discussing as well is if you will advise that the intersessional work goes into Phase 1, then what we could do is use maybe the last two days of the Phase 1 to be just for the intersessional work sessions, so for the dynamic coalitions, depending whether you would advise that the BPFs are in the first phase then they could be there as well.
And prior to that, we would have the Day Zero events, followed by Open Forum, and that would maybe make a better transition between these phases so that we have the intersessional work that is kind of interlinking the community like sessions of Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Okay.  Maybe I'll start here.  There are a few questions that we posted in this Google Doc just below these designs, but perhaps Anriette wants to go through these and then I'm online if you will have follow up questions.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Anja.  So, to confirm a few assumptions.  These are options depending how many hours of the day we take up, parallel track, and also where we put the intersessional work.  Anja, am I correct that all of these options still have the main sessions in the Geneva UTC East Coast of the Americas time zone, am I right?  So, they will still be concentrated in this time zone, but workshops would be spread out into Pacific and Central Asian time zones; is that correct?
   >> ANJA GENGO:  Out of 7 main sessions, we tried to at least have one or two that is convenient, completely convenient across the five main time zones starting from further Pacific moving from Australia to Asia Pacific and then Europe and Africa and going to Americas.  So, it's not really    yes, there is a bit of balance there.  Yes.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Good.  And which options, just so we know which are the options do you feel that take up most of the 24 hour time zone range?  That would be option 3?
   >> ANJA GENGO:   I think that is Option 3, yes, because it has all sessions in.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Option 3 and Option 4, actually, because they both take up that 15 hour time zone.
   >> ANJA GENGO:  Yes.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I think that's    before we go into polling of MAG Members.  These are the questions that we've identified, and we want to poll you on how long you would think it should be?  Should it be more stretched out and Phase 2 being the main event?  Or do you want a more concentrated IGF that feels like a conference that you commit to and then it's over?  We have the options, 5 days, 7 days, and 10 days, which is in fact what you had said you preferred last time we met.
The reason that we came up with the other options is because it began to look as if it was very intense to go on for 10 days, and also once we took up the MAG proposal to have sessions stretching out over the 24 hour clock, we realize that had we actually did not necessarily need as many days.
The second question is where we locate the intersessional work, those are the best practice Forums and dynamic coalitions and the NRI sessions.  And then the third question, how many parallel tracks?  And I actually think that this is quite a significant question in the sense that I think that an online meeting, my sense is from those that I've participated in, that it might be challenging and we might lose people if we have too many parallel tracks.
So normally at an IGF that's not a problem because people kind of navigate it and walk in one room and the other, and maybe it will work online too, but give that some thought.  Parallel tracks also have implications for how much technical support we need because if we have five parallel tracks, that means that the team that supports the event needs to have more capacity because we have to support five parallel events at any given time.
So, I think that is it.  It's just those three questions, isn't it, at this point, Anja?
   >> ANJA GENGO:  Yes.  I think those are the main questions.  Yes.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Any questions, or anyone who wants to take the floor before we do the polling?  I see Amada's hand and try to use the speaking queue, but I'm going to look at the hands as well.  So, you have the floor.
   >> AMADO ESPINOSA:  Thank you very much, Anriette.  Congratulations to the Secretariat for a wonderful job that they already accomplished by trying to put together all of those different ideas and initiatives and proposals and so on.  I think it looks great how it has been organized into phase, and I agree with you that Option 3 with the intersectional sessions in the DPs at the Phase 1 in providing my personal suggestion is providing to the main session just a summary of the conclusions in order for the participants who just take part (audio breaking up)    I think what can happen in the meantime.  But I think accordingly    (audio breaking up).  Again, I congratulate all the team for your extraordinary job.  Thank you very much.  
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I'm sorry.  Took me a while to unmute.  I think we should add that to the suggestions.  If anyone impressed by the document, she has a spreadsheet with all of these options, a detailed spreadsheet with color coded sessions slotted into actual time slots.
Next, we have I see Anna has asked for the floor as well.  Please go ahead, and then Anja then you should just respond.  Anna, go ahead.
   >> ANNA:  Hello, everyone.  My name is Anna and I'm representing Polish Government the organizer of the IGF 2021.  I just thought it may be a good moment once all the options have been proposed to clarify our involvement as on the foundation and transcription issues as I believe these are very important topics.
Of course, I would like to underline first of all that we're very happy that we may help and also as you may know we have everyone    
(audio breaking up) 
   so on translation and transcription, Poland, we would rather not just to clarify this issue, that we would rather not go beyond the scope that was the case for previous IGF additions, so it means that we rather not be able to provide for like extra translations.  For example, the translations for the pre events, so in general we would prefer to stick to what is now mainly provided during the IGF and optimized for the best allocation of our limited resources.  So, I hope    I hope you understand that we will not able to accommodate all needs.  It would be quite difficult for us, but like general scope of the translation and transcription which is no money provided during the IGF is very, very happy to support.  Thank you very much, Anja.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks a lot for that, Anna.  And yes, we are definitely taking that into account.  I think that the only possible. 
I think the additional translation that we would be looking for is regional sessions, but that's just the assumptions.  The assumes that there would only be interpretation for the main sessions and high level sessions.  Anja, do you want to respond and confirm or provide additional information?
   >> ANJA GENGO:   I can just confirm what you said, Anriette, and I also responded to Hana's very good question in the chat and just to say that if Anna was aiming to say also for the duration of the dates, you know,  that we should work with what's the closest to the central European summertime is that the closest options for that is very convenient, UTCRs for Europe are    well, the first and second option, I see a preference in the chat that session works is moved to Phase 1, if that then, then Option 2 I think would be ideal from your perspective for the implementation of the design of the schedule, that's 7 days long meeting.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Anja, and I think the answer to Hana's question is that, yes, the reason that the option with the longer duration has five parallel tracks is because everything is then included, all the intersessional work and the open Forums as well, and so this is important.  I just want to read what Hana says, one piece of feedback that we frequently get from the south is that there is just way too much going on for the IGF to be accessible with this in mind, so I support Option 4 strongly.  So, yes, I think that's the challenge of having so many parallel tracks.  It can be very overwhelming.
Anything else, Anja, that we need to respond to in the chat?  
Hana is ready to take the floor.  Let's let her do that.  Please everyone joins the speaking queue because I think it's important that you ask your questions before you do the poll so that you feel informed when we respond to the poll.  So, Hana and then Roman.
   >> HANA AL HASHIMI:  Thanks so much I'm trying to find the speaking queue, I don't know, it's like the 13th session of the year and still trying to figure it out.  Thanks so much, Anja.  I know, it's in the chat.  Thank you so much.  Thank you.  Thanks so much for all of the hard work that's gone into this.  It's very much appreciated.  I think that Anja in your clarification, you mentioned that Option 2 made sense but I think my concern is more about the number of parallel tracks and just trying to listen to what people are saying, particularly people that, you know, that we'd like to encourage greater participation from certain parts of the world and certain groups, et cetera, and so with that in mind, actually Option 2 with four parallel tracks doesn't really address that concern about, you know, this being something that makes sense to newcomers so with that in mind, I think allowing parallel tracks and adequate time for people working on intersessionals to be able to do that in Phase 1, we would still be, it would still be the preference.  I'm not trying to influence the vote, but I've just spent a lot of time listening to feedback about IGF recently, and while I have the floor, thank you so much for everyone who has also contributed to that dialogue.  I'll end here.  Thank you.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Hana.  Roman?
   >> ROMAN CHUKOV:  Hello, everyone.  Greetings from Moscow.  Yes, I would like to support    my idea from the beginning is less days, less parallel events happening at the same time, and less amounts of sessions.  So, Option 4 seems for me the one which takes all of this points, and if I may my suggestion for the time zone is maybe to focus the majority of them across Geneva time as we're all more or less used to this.  But it's not obligatory and I like the idea that all of the tracks at least for main sessions, we can have for each time zone comfortable, so let's try to play with this also.  Thank you.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much.  I don't see any other hands so I think we can go on to the poll, and Secretariat, I just think that we should record the Amado's suggestion about having some kind of summation or some way of capturing highlights or outputs of Phase 1, or    for those who are not going to follow it.
So, I think that is actually a really good suggestion, so I think we should look at how to implement that.
Jutta, I see you've just put up your hand, please, go ahead. 
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  With regard to Option 3 and Option 4, because I see we have in both options the same time range per day between 15 hours 30 minutes and 19 hours 20 minutes.  Although, Option 3 has 3 parallel tracks and Option 4 has only 2 parallel tracks.  Maybe I don't get the calculus behind that, but could you explain?
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  The difference is, Jutta, that Option 3 has the intersessional sessions, so dynamic coalitions and the national and regional IGF sessions is included.
   >> JUTTA CROLL:   That leads to the longer time range.  Okay.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  That's right.  Whereas in Option 4, those are part of Phase 1 and not of Phase 2.  That's the difference.
   >> ANJA GENGO:  Okay.  Thank you.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I think that is it.  I don't see any other hands.  To Anja, back to you and to your colleague Luis is going to poll us.
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Yes.  Thank you.  I think it's back to Luis, preparing polls to understand what is the view of the majority of MAG Members.
   >> LUIS BOBO:  Thank you, Anja and Anriette.  I will start a poll now maybe have it for 1 minutes.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I think make it 2 minutes because it's that complicated to give everyone time.  If anyone feels uncomfortable with us using the poll to come to a closer decision, I would like to hear from you.  But let's look at what the polling tells us first.
   >> ANJA GENGO:  May I just ask one more question.  Is it correct that if we    that Option 4 goes then with Option 1 for the first phase?  Because the    or oh, no.  Option 4 goes with Option 2 for the first phase?  Is that right?  So that the NRI sessions and the Day Zero events are all in Phase 1?  That would mean Option 2 and Phase 1, right?
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes.  I think, Anja, that's correct, isn't it?  So, Option 4 assumes that we go for Option 2 for Phase 1.  Yes.  Correct.
   >> LUIS BOBO:  Anriette, if it's good for you I'm going to launch the poll here.  The options here is not exactly the same as in the document.  You just can see it, so you have 2 minutes at least to fill it.  Okay.  So, we're launching it now.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  So, everyone, remember that Phase 2 is the Main Event and Phase 1 are the Day Zero and other pre events and preparatory sessions and it could also be the intersessional work. 
   >> ANJA GENGO:  I'm really sorry to interrupt again.  The poll is not consistent with the options we see in the document and what Anja just explained.  It says 5 days with 24 hours.  And we did not have 24 hours in any of the options.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I think it says, Jutta, per 24 hour day.  18 hours per 24 hour day or 7 to 10 hours per 24 hour day.
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Thank you so much, Anriette.  I should be reading properly to try to understand.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  It's confusing.  I wish it wasn't but it is.  (Laughing).
By the way, I cannot    I can see I'm not allowed to poll and I'm only seeing the results because I'm a co host, so I am a completely neutral Chair in this instance in case anyone wondered.
Luis, I'm assuming you are timekeeping for us.  I see there is a clock on the poll.
   >> LUIS BOBO:  We can close this, 3.5 minutes.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I think I'm just looking at the number of respondents, and we are looking at about, what, about 30 34.  I'm assuming observers are not necessarily polling.
   >> LUIS BOBO:  I just guess 30 maybe.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  So, we should    we're probably ready to close.  Are we ready to close?  Does anybody, just please raise your hand or speak out if you need more time?
Okay.  I think we can probably end.
   >> LUIS BOBO:  So, it's over    we can share the results, Anriette.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Let me just check.  Anyone who still wants to make a selection?  Are you all ready?  Okay.  Yes.  Share the result, please, Luis.
Okay.  So, this is actually very helpful.  Let's look at the first question.  How long should Phase 2, the main event, be?  The largest or majority, or the largest single number of responses is for 5 days with 2 parallel tracks.
But out of 25, there were 5 people who referred to 5 days and 3 parallel tracks and there were 5 people who liked 7 days with 4 parallel tracks, and 5 people who liked 10 days with 5 parallel tracks.  So, this is a bit of a challenge because we had more people all together responding for other options, but the single most popular options is 5 days with 2 parallel tracks.  I want us to come back to that in discussion later.  There is not a very clear result    there is an indication of a result specifically if we take two five day options together and that would give us 17 respondents out of 30, so we have to come back to that question.  I don't see a very clear consensus yet, although we're close to it.
Second question.  Should Phase 1 include Day Zero sessions, Open Forums, NRI, and DC sessions?  Here there is quite a clear response, I think.  So, most people think, yes, that I'd like when we go back into session after I've gone through the results, I'd like those people that said, no, to speak so that we can hear what their concern is.
Third question, should BPFs be in Phase 2.  Here it's pretty divided.  More people thought it should be part of Phase 2, so those would be 4 sessions, one for each of the BPFs, but it wasn't a very clear majority.
And then but it is a majority.  And then the fourth question is should the introductory sessions, those are the thematic introductory sessions, be in Phase 2?  And again, It's pretty divided.  More people seem to think that it should be in Phase 1, but it's really 48% versus 52%.
So, I think I would say that from this poll, the one thing that stands out as a very clear preference is that we should have the Open Forums and NRI and D sessions the first days reducing the load of the main event.
The session, or the question that's very important is one, which is how long should Phase 2 be?  So, I'm going to open the floor now, and Anja, maybe I want you to start just to tell us how you read this and if there is anything in particular you would like MAG Members to comment on?  And then I want to open the floor on how people feel about the results of this follow, for the first question, 5 days with 2 parallel tracks or not?  Anja, did you want to make some remarks?  Yeah.
   >> ANJA GENGO:  Thank you, Anriette.  Very briefly, even without the poll for me also, and I believe for you as well, the feeling really mirrors what the poll shows.
I'll speak, a bit selfishly from my side because we did the background work on these tracks of sessions and with more tracks it's much more difficult to balance sessions, because as you know in certain thematic tracks there are much less sessions than in others.
So, with 2 parallel tracks or even 3, that's much easier to manage once we enter that phase, I guess, shortly after this phase in the meeting with the thematic groups, but that would be my remarks here.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I think that takes advantage of the virtual format by not forcing people to choose to follow one particular track or to go to a session even if they are full that they want to go to in the same time slot.
Any other comments on this?  How do we move forward with how long Phase 2 should be?  I'd like to hear from you.  You know, we can always go ahead and make a decision, but I'd like to hear more voices.  How do people feel about the 5 days with 2 parallel track options?
No one in the speaking queue?  Anything in the chat?  Okay.  There is a debate in the chat.  Can I please ask MAG Members that are debating in the chat to speak so that we can hear their voices?
   >> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  May I jump in, Anriette? Yes.  What I was saying is that considering that the many of the people would like to attend several different sessions, mostly between the tracks of their preferences, and it seems that those will be spread during all day in a long cycle, and in some cases they will have to be awake the most part of the day.  And depending of time zone, someone perhaps would have to be awake from 1:00, 2:00, 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning and then perhaps go and take a rest and then wake up again and wait until, let's say, afternoon to be in another session of his or her preference.
Perhaps that would be a little bit inconvenient for those participants in that situation with these long cycles.  In my case, my preference was to have Option 2, considering that most of the MAG Members said that it would be better to have the Open Forum, sessions, DCs in the first phase.  So perhaps now that we have that clear, perhaps we could think about this possibility.  That is    those are my comments, Madam Chair.  Thank you very much.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Roberto.  Your preference is for 7 days with 4 parallel tracks.  I assume one can also probably have 7 days with 3 parallel tracks, but let's hear more people.  I see, Ben, you haven't put your hand up yet.  Maria Paz, Jennifer, please, let's hear you.
   >> ROMAN CHUKOV:  Thank you.  Just we're in the speaking queue now.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I can't see it right now.
   >> BEN WALLIS:  I'm sorry.  Hello.  Yes. I am in the camp of shorter days and a longer meeting, so if that is, I voted for the 10 day option.  And I can say that largely for the reasons that Roberto mentioned about the difficulty of participating in 18 hour days or 15 hour days and so I was happier having more parallel tracks.  It's still a lot fewer parallel tracks than people deal with when they're it's a an IGF in person, but I can see that a lot of people prefer a shorter meeting with very long days, and that's why I mention the in the chat that maybe the 7 days with 4 parallel tracks is a middle ground.  Thank you.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Ben.  Jutta?
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  You're right.  I also think that we need to discuss whether we could reduce the whole program.  As Hana has written in the chat, it's not realistic to ask people to take two weeks off to attend 164 sessions.  So, I'm pretty sure everyone will not attend all these sessions because also in the real IGF we do not attend all of these sessions.  Participants have to decide which sessions they attend.  Nonetheless, if we have the Phase 1 and then the Phase 2, then it's more than two weeks, or at least it's two week's time and so people had already said their schedule.
(sirens outside in background).
 I'm sorry for the disturbance.  I'm in the office but I need to open the windows to have it not too hot in the room, and so I do think it's really difficult for people to take so much time off, and therefore, I prefer to have the 5 days.  But maybe we can try to reduce sessions and not try to squeeze in all sessions that we had assumed to be in a face to face Internet Governance Forum.  Thanks for listening.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Okay.  So, Jutta, your preference is for 5 days.
   >> JUTTA CROLL:   Yes.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  With as few parallel sessions as possible.
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Yes.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Ben, your preference is 10 days but willing to settle for 7.  I'm sorry, I sound like I'm at an auction and I'm definitely not, and so I'm just trying to track what we have.  Thanks for that.
   >> BEN WALLIS:  Yes.  That summed me up.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Maria Paz? 
   >> MARIA PAZ:  Thank you very much, Madam Chair.  Maria Paz from Civil Society from GRULAC.  Yeah, I think it's a very difficult exercise again and all of the arguments that have been raised can play it one way or another because if we're talking that we don't have as a goal that everyone participates in everything, it's the same if it's longer or if it's shorter because if it's shorter, people will have actually less opportunity to participate in the activities because they'll be running in a parallel way, and if it's longer, then the argument is that people cannot devote the whole time during two weeks, but the difference is that if it's longer, then you can pick in some moments to participate and things that are more interested to you than in other moments, and not participate.  And so in the end, the two things that have the same arguments about participation and about increasing participation or having different goals of participation than a physical event.
So, I think that probably that's not the stronger argument for making the decision.  And but what I think should be maybe some stronger argument regarding the length of the hours of work during each day, is that in general, the longer hours in the third day will imply higher impact in the population that are located in the extreme zones and time zones because those will have probably less opportunity to participate in some of the activities that will be in it the sub time or in the UTC time zone.  It's more challenging for them to participate.  So in the end if those if the number of days is reduced to 5, which is the minimal in the proposal, those people on extreme will have less options to select between workshops that they want to participate probably from the regular workshop session, but also will have more challenge to participate in the UTC framework time of the main session.
So at the end, I agree with what was said by my colleagues in the chat, that the intermediate proposal that in this case is to have 7 days, so not the longest but not the shortest one, and it will be a good compromise to provide this balance between the opportunity to have different things running in parallel and can you pick one of them but also you don't have such long hours of work in the event, so either if you're located in extreme zone, you can decide for example one day to go very late or wake up really early and you have more days for recovering and being able to participate in all sections.  That's my argument.  Thank you.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Maria Paz.  Am I unmuted?  Let me just   
>> We can hear you.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Can you?  Okay.  I'm sorry, jumping from window to window.  I don't see any other hands on this.  What I hear from both the results of the poll and the inputs that were made before and after is that maybe we need to look at a compromise solution which will be 7 days but with fewer than 4 parallel tracks.
And possibly by making it a longer time duration, and so at the moment our 7 day option has 4 parallel tracks for 7 10 hours and so maybe by extending it to let's say 12 14 hours, we can have even 18 hours, but with fewer parallel tracks.  That might make it easier.
So, would you be happy or is there any objection from anyone to let the Secretariat come up with a compromise option to try to address the points that Hana made at the beginning about IGF not being too overwhelming?  You know, that was also reinforced by Jutta and others.  And by following up on the suggestion of a compromise of between 10 days and 5 days, which is 7 days.  Are you happy for the Secretariat to work with that and produce an option along those lines?  No objections?  
Maybe just as we put to the chat.  Maybe we do another poll by email so that every MAG Member votes so we understand that this is the whole picture and we can list all the arguments and pros and cons for everyone with duration, but to make sure that we just decide it and go ahead so that we do not question every time we vote.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I think that's a good idea and we can do that poll with this compromise option built into it.  Which, Anja, with her brilliant spreadsheet skills will be able to do.
   >> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  It's just me or totally clipping the speak?
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Am I breaking up, Carlos?
   >> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO:  No.  I can hear you well.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I'll try to be clearer.  It's because I'm also manipulating the computer.  And so let's move on.  I think that's a good suggestion.  We're much closer to a solution.  We're going to add to the set of options that we have, a fifth option which is the compromised option, and 7 days but with 2 or 3 parallel tracks.
Okay.  So, let's move on to Question 2.  Are you all happy with this, what seems to be a majority feeling, can we build consensus based on that?  That Phase 1 includes all the Day Zero session, all the Open Forums, NRIs and DC sessions?  Anyone objecting to that?  I'm not looking at the chats, so please, Anja, let me know if there is anything in the chat that I should reflect on.  Okay.  To me    I see June is asking about another poll.  Okay.  Great.
Okay.  So, let's move on.  I think we can assume that you're happy having all of those in Phase 1.  The third question is BPS.  Should BPS be in Phase 1 or Phase 2?  And it seems that most people felt that they should be in Phase 2, so they should be part of the main event.  It's not a very huge majority, but there is a majority.  Does anyone object to us working with that as an assumption, that BPFs are part of Phase 2?  Jutta, please take the floor.
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  I'm sorry for again being a bit late, but the speaking queue doesn't react so quickly.  I wanted to speak for all the dynamic coalitions.  I'm not sure whether all dynamic coalitions will be happy to have their session in the Phase 1.  So, I also suggest for this question that we need to go back to the dynamic coalitions and asking them.  We could do that via the list, but usually dynamic coalitions understand their sessions as part of the program of the IGF.  It's related to the issues; it's related to the three thematic or four thematic tracks.  The Dynamic Coalition sessions are related to these tracks, so I don't really    I'm not sure but I don't think that dynamic coalitions feel too comfortable with being in Phase 1, so therefore I cannot confirm that everybody is happy with that.  And if we do another poll for the whole question of 5, or 7, or 10 days, I think we should go back to the dynamic coalitions and ask how they feel with being of their sessions in Phase 1 and not Phase 2.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Jutta.  Let me, let's hear    I want to respond to that but let's hear what Roberto has to say first.  Please go ahead, Roberto.
   >> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Thank you very much, Anriette.  What I want to say is that we need to consider both Phase 1 and Phase 2 are part of the event.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes.
   >> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  I don't think that's a good idea to consider that not having in Phase 2 is perhaps something that is going to diminish or make it less important, so that's very important to think.
And the other thing is that since we perhaps are going to have any options of the 7 days, trying to organize the    trying to organize our best within the times, perhaps also we can consider the BPFs could be moved to the first phase.  Thank you.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Roberto.  Yes.  And I'm actually    I should not be referring to Phase 2 as the main event.  I apologize.  That is not the right way of representing it.  And in fact, Jutta, I think that the DCs could benefit from having their sessions during Phase 1.  Because they could have longer sessions.  For example, if they wanted to, they wouldn't be competing with main sessions and workshops in a way that they normally have to, and so in fact I think that there are advantages to that.
But I do think that once we come up with the nexus and decision that I was really hoping we would decide by Friday, and in fact I think the newsletter is going out, Chengetai, it's supposed to go out tomorrow or we need to think about that.  I don't think we should consult forever and ever, but I do think that getting the feedback via yourself and Markus would be good, but I don't think you should present this to them as not being part of the IGF, because in fact, there are advantages, real advantages, I think.
What about the BPFs?  How do people feel about BPFs in Phase 2 or Phase 1? Roberto is saying he doesn't mind if it's Phase 1 or Phase 2.  The poll indicate that had BPFs should be part of Phase 1.  Does anybody want to speak on that or should we just work on that assumption?  Jutta?
   >> JUTTA CROLL:   Yes.  It's me again.  So, I'm not sure why we decide on BPFs in a different way than on Dynamic Coalition sessions and NRI sessions.  It's a fraction between Phase 1 and Phase 2 obviously, and so it's also an interruption in discussing certain things, so it's not that I say the first one is not part of the real IGF, that's not the argument.  But there is definitely an interruption between the two phases, and if you try to build in your Dynamic Coalition sessions into the thematic track of the IGF, then it's obvious that it's better to have the session within the thematic track and not 5, 7, or 8 days in advance, depending on when you get your slot into the whole program.
So, there might be a situation that you have a session of a Dynamic Coalition in regard to the data track that is at the beginning, so at the end of October, and then you have the sessions of the thematic track 10 days later.  So, in that it makes it, of course, difficult.  Same goes for BPFs and everything.  So, it's not like it's second best to be in the first phase, but we need to take into account that there is an interruption of the thematic flow.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  So just to clarify that, Mary I've note that had you asked for the floor, but I just want to clarify in response to Jutta.
The thematic facts can start beforehand, there will be preparatory thematic sessions as part of Phase 1, and so there is no reason why it would be 10 days either.  You know, we could have Day Zero events and then towards the end of Phase 1 have the DC sessions and the BPFs.  And remember the DC main session, that is still part of Phase 2.  And but the kind of division, the Secretariat and I discussed that, and I think the Secretariat, you know, we also wanted to see what is the logic of the differences between Phase 1 and Phase 2?  Now, it's not a very fixed logic, but there is a little bit of logic here.  BPFs are also, they're not limited to the MAG but there is MAG leadership of BPFs, so main sessions and workshops and BPFs have very strong MAG involvement, and MAG Members are really leaders in organizing those sessions.  And then the high level sessions are organized by the host.  So, the logic of having BPFs as well as workshops and main sessions and high level sessions as part of Phase 2 is that those are the sessions where the MAG is the primary responsible body.
Whereas, when it comes to the NRI session, the DC meetings, and the Open Forums and Day Zero, those are not organized by MAG Members.  So that is kind of the logic that we were keeping in mind.
Mary, please, go ahead.
   >> MARY UDUMA:  Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor.  You have spoken my mind.  I just wanted to say that whether it's Phase 1 or Phase 2, there is still the 2020 Virtual IGF Program and there will be no dichotomy.  I also argue that if we're moving all order this is the Open Forum, we should also move the BPFs, but since NRIs have their decision and DCs, they will be in Phase 2 and I don't think there is any issue.
Mostly, that we're trying to ensure that all the regions of the world benefit from this planning and we should take that into consideration.  So, you spoke my mind.  I think between this activity or the other.  Intersessional activities of the IGF and initiatives are activities of the IGFs, and many of the MAG Members are involved in those activities, so instead of saying Phase 1, maybe you say (?).  I don't know we will call it week 1 or week what.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that.  That is good input.  I'm getting messages of my Internet connection is unstable so I hope that you can all still hear me.  And Chengetai, if I do lose my connection, please just take over the meeting.  If for some reason, that does sometimes affect my mobile connection because the sun is out.
So okay, let's move on.  I don't see any hands in the queue, and I think the next one that we need to look at, is should the introductory sessions be hosted during Phase 2 or Phase 1?  And here the response was interesting.  Again, not a big difference.  But more than half of the respondents felt that these are the thematic introductory sessions, and it would also be the newcomer session, I think, that these would be in Phase 2.  Does anybody want to speak to Question 4?  No one?  Can you still hear me?
>> Yes, Anriette, very well.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot.  It was so silent.  Thanks.  Thanks.  I'm sitting looking at my solar panel which is now looking very depressed because it doesn't have sun on it anymore.  I think that we have enough now to get the Secretariat.
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I think Paul wanted to say something?
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Did he?  Go ahead, Paul.
   >> PAUL CHARLTON:  Hi, Anriette.  I'm sorry, I couldn't get into the queue.  On the introductory sessions, my personal view is that they should be held in Phase 1.  I think it gives us a good opportunity to create some thought processes for the workshop proposals on you know, some of the pertinent issues that they might be addressing and then how to structure some of the sessions.  So, my personal view is that it should be in Phase 1 and also it unclutters Phase 2 a little bit.  Thank you. 
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I think that's really insightful.  And what Jutta's remarks made me consider is that we have to remember phase 1 is also part of the event and by having thematic introductory sessions that we're sending a very clear message that the thematic structure of IGF 2020 starts with Phase 1.  So, I think, and then if we add Amado's proposal of having some kind of summation of Phase 1, you know, we can actually then start Phase 2 from a more informed and by consolidating the content of Phase 1, we can feed that into Phase 2.  So, I do think that I agree with you.  I think it would work well to have those introductory thematic sessions, and it will help us to reinforce the idea that Phase 2 is not    it's not the IGF, it's just Phase 1 of IGF 2020 with the same thematic structure.
So, I think that is a good suggestion.  Anyone else?  I see not.  June is right, Zoom is overworking and tiring.  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry, June, and everyone else who is having difficulty.  I see Carlos Afonso is also struggling, and we will and the Secretariat always does a really concise summary of the meeting and we'll share all of that with you.
So, my conclusion of this discussion is that we have come very close to decisions on all the questions that we've polled you on, and I think that what we are going to do is to do an email poll of MAG Members, just to get final input.  And also, to give those of you who want to consult those that you work with, your constituencies, so in Jutta's case, the dynamic coalitions so sense if there is strong objection.  And Jutta, I would really go for strong objections rather than    it's a challenge.  This whole format is a challenge for everyone, but it would be good to get a sense of whether they feel very strongly opposed to that.
I think just give us a chance to package how the DC sessions will fit in in a way that Mary Uduma described it, you know, that they'll be very much part of the thematic structure.
And then we'll get final feedback.  And Anja and Chengetai, do you think we'll still be able to make a final decision by Friday?  Are you happy with us to aim as Friday, is Friday a good day for you?  Or do you want us to do it sooner or later?
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I think we can aim for Friday.  Anja, do you have a preference.
   >> ANJA GENGO:  I think Friday is good for our schedule as well.
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:   I just have one question.  The date ranges we're discussing, nobody has any reservations about that?
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I was about to come to that.  I was about to come to the date ranges.  So, let's close on this poll then.  And Anja, I think let's present the date ranges so that we can get final approval of those date ranges.  It will depend whether it's 7 days or 5 days or 10 days, but for Phase 1, does anyone have any objection to a date range of 23 of October to 6 of November?  Any objections to that?  I don't see any.  I don't see any hands.  Actually, can I ask you to put up your hands?  Is everyone happy with that date range for Phase 1?
I see some hands and not many.  Does anybody want to speak to this?  Jutta, please go ahead.
   >> JUTTA CROLL:   (sirens in the background)    Thank you so much for giving me the floor.  So, it would be useful if you could just explain again why it's all changed from the original date and the Phase 2 is put into a later slot of the calendar of the months of November?  I'm sorry that I couldn't attend the whole meeting, the last meeting, and I really didn't get it from.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  From the document?  Okay.
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  If you could explain that again, that would be helpful.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Anja, let me allow you to explain the ICANN/Thanksgiving/whatever other organizations are that you had taken into account.  If you could just give the MAG the background.
   >> ANJA GENGO:  Yes.  Thank you, Anriette.  Yes, so the main reason    a few main reasons Anriette mentioned.  The first is to avoid the ICANN meeting, I believe is 17 or 22 of October.  We have seen in past that many of our traditional participants are pretty occupied with the ICANN meeting so we wanted to avoid that.  And then with the November, we didn't want to go into the Thanksgiving week because we had    or actually complaint, and as you know in the past negative experience with that.
Those are the main reasons.  Then we wanted to have Phase 1 two weeks plus the extra day for the orientation session, and that automatically moved to start on 9 of November instead of 6.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And the only thing you may have missed last week is that Chengetai    not last week but during the last call, Chengetai reported that the Secretariat scanned the calendar and that mid-November period was actually very open and there weren't many meetings scheduled during that period, so that's the reason for that.  Jutta, is that okay?  Does that clarify it for you?
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Yes.  It does clarify for me.  I know that many people had already scheduled the first week of November in their calendar and blocked it for the IGF, and that would then be only the first phase and we need to see how many people will be able to block off also the second phase in their calendars.  It may impact workshop proposals that had blocked some days between the 2nd and 6th of November, but would maybe not be able to have the workshops later.  I have the same speakers and so on, but there are good reasons for doing so, so it needs to be accepted.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Jutta.  And maybe we need to avoid Phase 1 and Phase 2.  It increasingly sounds to me as we have to make sure that we present this as an integrated event.
And then the date range for the main    here I go again    I'm sorry, the date range for Phase 2 would depend on how many days.  If we go, and we'll let you choose the option that you like the most, and we'll introduce an additional 7 day option, which would be up to 17 November and then of course the 10 day option goes up to 13 November.
So, I think that is it from me.  I think we know what to do next.  I think if we get an updated poll to you tomorrow, we can expect to hear from you by Friday morning and then we can make the public announcement of the overall date range and the rough shape of what IGF 2020 will be.
The Secretariat has been in touch with session organizers, by the way, so we have a sense already that people are aware and they're waiting for more information.  They are aware of the fact that they'll have to make some adjustments, but that they will soon hear when these sessions will be in and which sessions have been approved.  Chengetai, can I hand it back to you to make sure that we are ready, to you and Anja to move to the next agenda item.  There is no one in the speaking queue.  I saw it.  Is that correct, Luis, no one in the speaking queue.
   >> LUIS BOBO:  That's correct.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much.  That's a big    this Item 4 is a big issue and thank you so much, as you can see the polls help us identify the gaps in how we're presenting IGF 2020.
So now, any MAG Working Groups that have anything to report?  Just take the floor.
>> Hi, Anriette, I can trust the working group of IGF continuous strategy.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Please go ahead, TT.
>> TT:  Thanks, Anriette.  So the Working Group held three meeting so far and as you know the main focus of the Working Group is to try to propose action to be implemented in short and medium term on how to you to swing the IGF and how to position it in a strategical way involving digital cooperation landscape.
We in the last meeting analyzed the chart and I sent a short update to the MAG Members so you can find a link to the chart with the final version.  And as you know, the group actually is focusing on two main points.  From one side to try to send out to IGF the current mandate as indicated on the agenda.  On the other side, try to have a discussion on digital cooperation and especially on the roadmap that has been issued by USA last June, especially on the Paragraph 93 and 94 because there are several topics that actually have been discussed so far regarding on how to improve the IGF.
So, on the first group of activity, the Working Group has shared several ideas as identified also several activities.  On the area of improving the focus of the IGF, the IGF Program focus on communication, website, and so on.
About the group activity Number 2, related to the roadmap, during last call the chart from the FCC Secretariat last call and we had a lot of discussion especially on    on Paragraph 93 option E, as you know there is a new high level body that is included on the paragraph for 93 and there was a lot of a concern about how this model will interact with the MAG and so on.  And so actually, it was true that the new body will be not an expanded body, but actually it will be a body that with support the IGF outcomes in order to communicate them to the UN System and beyond.  There was also an understanding that this body, this new high level body will be connected and integrated with the MAG, possibly will be a steering committee and we don't know yet.  Anyway, we decided during last call to start some Working Group that will be focused on the terms of reference of the MAG and how to improve the MAG so there will be a Working Group working on this.  And possibly working on the possible implementation models of the roadmap high level body.  And another Working Group or area is focused on approval of IGF (?).  Okay.  Thank you, I don't know, Anriette, if you want to add something as co chair of the Working Group because maybe I missed something.  Thanks, anyway.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  Thanks for that.  Nothing to add from me.  Just to invite MAG Members who are not yet part of this Working Group to join it.  We really need as many of you.  We particularly need MAG members from the Global south, from developing countries, but any MAG Member who is interested in this topic, please join.  Thanks for that, TT.
Ben, you have the floor.
   >> BEN WALLIS:  Thank you, Anriette.  That was    that was a delight request for the floor and we were just closing the comments about the poll so then I put the comment in the chat instead.  I was just suggesting that we have preferential voting so that that can often be a way of find the general preference of everybody.  Vote for every and 1 through 5 that kind of thing or have it to only pick one option.  Obviously, when we were using the Zoom poll within the meeting it allowed for people to vote for more than one but that wasn't clear.  So that was my suggestion.  I'm sorry, I didn't get my hand up quick enough at the end.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  No.  Thanks for making that suggestion.  That's important, and Secretariat, I hope you have taken note of that.  I think that is    that is probably how you intended to do it anyway, but let's do that.
Jutta, is that also an old hand of yours in the speaking queue or would you like to speak to the Working Groups?
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  I wanted to speak to the Working Groups and report back from the dynamic coalitions who had their 44th call last Tuesday.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Please go ahead, Jutta.  Yes.
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  So as said before, the Dynamic Coalition had their call last Tuesday discussing the Dynamic Coalition's main session and also the principles of the work of dynamic coalitions, and then I reported back from the last MAG Meeting explaining that the Working Group or workshop evaluation is working on producing some guidance for workshop proposals in regard of having their workshop organized in a virtual IGF.
And then Jutta Helstein from Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility asked whether it would be possible to include in the guidance paper that the Working Group is already producing some guidance also in regard of making the virtual IGF sessions more accessible to people with disabilities, and I do think that is a very important issue, since it's really difficult for people with disabilities to take part in a physical IGF session and make their voices heard, but even so it is in a virtual IGF, so it would be helpful to remind all workshop appropriators of the needs of people with disabilities and June has already volunteered to become a member of the Working Group at least for this part of the work to help phrase some guidance for workshop organizers how to make the session accessible as possible for people with disabilities.  So that is a consider ate from the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and I do think that is a very    I'm very supportive of that idea that we include some recommendations in this regard.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot for that, Jutta, and I noted your email.  And, actually, in response to your email, a MAG Member pointed out to me that workshop process is the one Working Group which is generally limited to MAG Members because it's the    it's so closely involved in developing the criteria for sessions.
   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Yes.  I completely understand that and I do think it's also understandable for her, so she just not join the Working Group but the process.  This process, she could give very valuable input in this option and I agree with that option.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I agree with you completely.  If she could join a call or for a limited period join an online discussion and so I think that's really good feedback.  And it's really good to see members of dynamic coalitions want to get involved at this level, so that's good news.
Anyone else with any questions for Jutta or TT or any other Working Groups that want to report?  We did have a report from the Outreach Working Group not long ago, and it is important to get written reports because it makes it easier for us.  But if anyone else wants to share anything, please go ahead.
If not    
   >> MARY UDUMA:  Hello.  This is Mary.  I don't know if Kareem has anything to report, in the Language Working Group, do you remember anything to report whether you finished the translation of the (?)?
   >> KAREEM:  Hello.  Good evening, everyone.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Good evening, go ahead.
   >> KAREEM:  Yeah.  I'd like just to share with all of you that we shared our Working Group activities and in the last email Madam Chair asked us to work that we finish the June meeting, so we going to share again the report of our last Working Group meeting and we'll invite your feedback on the survey that will be translated into French.
I will need the support from Luis on this way, and that's it.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And, Kareem, are you there?  Are you finished?
   >> KAREEM:  Yes.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And during when are you hoping to launch the survey?
   >> KAREEM:  As I said, we have just translated into French in the script, so I will need to share it with Luis because the first version of the survey was implemented as a platform, and so the last recommendation we had from some MAG Member would be to use the survey in the IGF facility, so I will share the French script with Luis to see how we can implement both of them in the IGF platform.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.
(multiple speakers).
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Does anyone want to add?
   >> MARY UDUMA:  Mary:  Hello?  Hello.  Yes?  Can you hear me?
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Yes, we can.
   >> MARY UDUMA:  Okay.  In addition, we're working to have a session with the Chair, she asked us to pause, and as soon as we're happy with what we have done, then for us the survey will happen after the June meeting.  So, if it's possible in the next two weeks for you to have some time to meet with us, then.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Okay.  Good.  Good.  I'm sorry about that, Mary, if I missed an email on that.
Okay.  I think that we need to move on.  If there is nothing else on Working Groups and if there is no    if no one has any questions, then there is one more item that we want to cover under Any Other Business, and that's the discussion of the theme.
So, thanks to everyone who made suggestions for the theme, and I tried to capture them and summarize them and Luis has done a poll for us, you know, again to just use the poll to get a sense of where your preference lies with regard to the theme for IGF 2020.
And we are acknowledging that there were a few people who felt that no theme was necessary and nothing in addition to the four thematic tracks, but then they were also people who felt we did have a theme.
So, Luis, can you bring up the poll for us on themes for IGF 2020?  Then we'll have a discussion after we've done the poll.  
So, this is really good.  Simple, reflects the document, should we have a theme or not?  And then just some themes, and I'm sorry, you know, words are words and words are not always that easy to put together in a way that's meaningful and not lengthy.  But please, take your time, and we'll discuss the result when is you're done.
I see only 13 people have voted or responded to the poll, so please go ahead.
   >> MARY UDUMA:  I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the poll.  I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it.  Is it my Internet or what?
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  If you're not seeing it, Luis, can you help Mary?
   >> LUIS BOBO:  Supposedly, you should be able to see it.  Every participant should be able to see it.  Maybe in the chat, first if you are in a mobile device or not a desk computer?
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Is anyone else struggling to see the poll?  
   >> VENI MARKOVSKI:  This is Veni.  I see the poll but there is no option either way, I don't have preference, for example.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  So, you see it but you cannot respond to it?
   >> VENI MARKOVSKI:  No.  I can respond, but if I respond that means a take a side.  I am fine if there is no main theme or if there is a theme.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  So, if you're abstaining.
   >> VENI MARKOVSKI:  Abstaining or agrees with the majority whatever that will be.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And the second question, I hope you can respond to that.  I see people are saying they responded.  Thanks, everyone.  Yes, Jennifer, Question 2, I think it is mandatory.  Just checking the chat.
We have 23 people that have responded.  We'll give it another few seconds.  It looks like we're done.
So, I think, Luis, you can end it.  Let's have a look at the result.  
So, it seems that I think there is a majority that feel that there is needs to be a theme.  I would like people who feel that there shouldn't be a theme to speak to that so that we can try to reach consensus.  Let's hear the views of those who feel there should be a theme and those who don't.
Let us continue to the second question.  I think what we can do based on this is maybe eliminate those options that did not receive, you know, more than three expressions of support.  And then we can send these to you, and we can call you on them again.  And but I think what is important is that if there is anybody who wants to propose revisions or variations on these suggestions, then we need to hear them quite quickly, and we need to get that from you by tomorrow, so that if we can include this in the final poll that we will be sending to you with regard to the theme, and the places, and the times.  Yes, Veni, do you want to speak?
   >> VENI MARKOVSKI:  I'm sorry, again.  It's Veni and not Vinny for the transcriber.  I just wanted to say that because you asked me to vote in the second question, I actually had to choose in the first question, and I chose being related to current context, and given the fact how many people have voted, if I had chosen the other it would be 45 to 60 or something like that, so it would be good to have an option which is neutral for everybody to vote so that we actually get a better understanding of where people stand.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  That is a good idea, and we can include that in the poll.  Does anybody who feels that we don't need a theme want to explain their position?  Roberto, you have the floor.
   >> ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:  Thank you very much, Anriette.  I said it before, and I would like to support the idea of having the theme for this year because we need to keep our IGF as close to its conventional or normal IGF, and one of the things that we can do about it because some others we can't, but one of the things that we can do is, of course, keeping a theme for this year.  And, again, it's important to relate to the current situations.
And, finally, I would suggest that we shouldn't be avoiding this exercise.  I think it was a good exercise, and perhaps if we are going to run another poll, we should considerate least not all but maybe just four    three or four of the most voted suggested themes that will also be.  Thank you very much.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Roberto.  Yes, I think that's what we would like to do.  Jennifer?  
   >> JENNIFER CHUNG:  Thank you, Chair.  I'm speaking for the first time so Jennifer, MAG Member Private sector.  Jennifer Chung.
I might be one of the people in the camp where we think that no specific theme is particularly necessary because the fact that we're having virtual IGF is the innovation and focus and theme of the whole thing.
That being said, of course, Question 2 was mandatory so I picked one that I could live with or could compromise with.  I would appreciate very much, I guess, I think Roman and other colleagues have mentioned, you know, just to get a sense of the full MAG, I think a lot of MAG Members are either on leave or have already started their summer, so it would be nice to have their input as well.
I do note that we've had this discussion before as well, but just to conclude on it, it would be great to have a bigger picture.  Thank you.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Jennifer.  Ben?
   >> BEN WALLIS:  Thank you, Anriette.  I mean, for me, it's not about the fact that this is a virtual IGF.  I just generally don't think that the themes add that much.  I wonder if people can remember what the theme was in 2016 or 2017, or 2018?  So, I'm very happy for there to be a theme and I will vote and I did vote on some of the options.  There were some interesting ones there, and I just personally don't think it's necessary, and yeah, I've seen in previous years hours devoted to people discussing words that, yeah.  It's such a broad theme, it's hard to capture anything specific, but I'm very happy to look at the options and vote for one and give my preference there, too.  Thanks.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Ben.  Carlos?
   >> CARLOS ALBERTO AFONSO:  Yes.  This is the first time we're at liberty to choose a theme because in the other IGFs, the government chose at the end, and remembering in the IGF Berlin, we had in the MAG a very lively discussion about the theme, and we arrived at a very good proposal and in the end the government said, no, we are going to keep the opportunity.
Now we have an opportunity to do it ourselves, and I think we should have a theme to keep the tradition.  Always there is a main theme.  Why, why shouldn't just because it's virtual, we don't have a theme?  It's not good.  Thank you.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Carlos, and I see Delcie is agreeing that there should be a theme to maintain consistency.  And (?).  Let's hear from you.  Paul Charlton? 
   >> PAUL CHARLTON:  Yes, thanks, Anriette.  Like Veni, I'm one of those people and voted for no theme.  I'm kind of ambivalent.  I could go either way, but I do think that, I mean, some of the options for themes that we've seen, I think are fairly good and sort of capture the elements that we're all thinking of.  I think if we do have a theme, I think it should be something that is specific to our circumstances this year.  Some of the themes like sort of resilient Internet or others are maybe a bit generic and could apply in any year, and I think we should, if we have a theme, we should have something that is more specific.
But I also note what Jennifer said when she said that the fact that the meeting is happening virtually is sort of an indication of what's going on and I just recall that a famous Canadian once said that the medium is the message, and so maybe that applies here as well.  Thank you.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Paul Charlton.  I'm old enough to know you're talking about marshal    one of those fabulous things I learned at university.
Everyone, I think that there is clearly not consensus on this, and so I think we do need to take on board what you've just said, and we need to process the response to the poll, and then come back to you on the issue of the main theme.
I also would like the Secretariat, actually, to speak on this.  You know, when I was in the MAG, we wasted hours and hours discussing themes, so I don't think we've done that yet and so I'm not really concerned that we're wasting time.  I think this is a legitimate discussion and, Secretariat, it would be good to hear from you whether you think having a main theme helps with promoting the IGF and messaging around the IGF?  Is that something that is part or does it make it easier, for example, to communicate outcomes or outputs or I just would like to hear your perspective.  Not to make a decision based on that, but just it's an important view to hear.  Do you want to comment on that?
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Personally speaking, yes, I mean, if we do have a theme that we can put in the materials on the outputs.  I don't think it's that important leading up to the virtual, but of course later on when we communicate the outputs, yes, it would be helpful.
But it's    it's up to the MAG.  As far as I know, as far as this is concerned, we are happy to leave it to the MAG to come up with a theme or not.  Yeah.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  Thanks for that, Chengetai.  Maria Paz?
   >> MARIA PAZ:  Thank you.  Sorry.  Yeah.  I just want to add to the support of having a theme for this year, and I think that particularly it's necessarily to emphasize that the fact that this is a virtual IGF, doesn't take away anything of the human factor of the richness of the IGF which might seem something pretty obvious because we're all human beings involved in Internet, but I think that it's something that it's really necessarily to emphasize in terms of like putting together how the concept of virtual is not taken away and the richness of the experience of re engaging in this virtual IGF.  So trying to transmit that with the theme, I think that it will be something very good, so all the proposal that were emphasized, the human factor and the solidarity and the concept of coming together, I think are very well positioned to be part of the theme for this virtual IGF.  And I think that will help also with this purpose of promoting the engagement of people and trying to highlight how the way in which we have to organize as human beings in this specific and special and challenges circumstances is through this kind of technology tools and virtual tools, so how we are using them in a way in which we can provide them with an interaction that is as much valuable as the physical interaction.  Just my two cents.  Thank you.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Maria Paz, and I really like what you put in the chat, the idea of virtually together.  I think it has a good sound.
Amado?
   >> AMADO ESPINOSA:  Thanks, Anriette.  I think    I agree also with most of the opinions in terms of having a theme, while I personally think it is worth emphasizing that IGF is now going to a closed version in that we are looking forward to equip new goals according to the UN Roadmap for this new digital cooperation age, and I think if we can find an approach on which we deliver a message, we are also just getting into this new way of building up relationships and defining strategies together in having this cooperation, collaboration together.  I think that would be a good point to manufacture sides for this version which, it's not    but from my personal perspective, relevant to mention that we are under special circumstances because right now that's not really key, but more important I think that we are taking advantage of these new digital environments in order to put the extent on the issue that we are actually getting to the new area of IGF in terms of cooperation.  Thanks.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Amado, and Mary, I see you asked a question about the Secretary General and what they had in mind.  I mean, we haven't asked them what they felt the main theme should be, but the high level session theme will be "internet governance in a time of uncertainty."  And I think that we've heard perhaps rounded    you know, you've all made really good comments.  I think we've heard arguments for a theme and arguments for not having a theme.  I think there is more of the stronger support, my sense is that more MAG Members are in support of us having a theme than not.
But I also read, you know, explicitly from some of you but also between the lines that the theme shouldn't just be there for the sake of having a theme.  That it should convey some kind of message, which is meaningful to us in this current context of the pandemic, and then also as Amado just pointed out, impending changes and developments in digital cooperation.
So, what we can do is to take all of this on board and repoll you, and then if that doesn't produce a strong result, we'll have to find more top down ways of coming down to a decision, but I think we're not there yet.  So, I think let's poll you, and we'll poll you in a way which doesn't force you to make a decision as Veni pointed out, that you might not want to make.  And I think it would also be    we can also poll you on different options and give you the opportunity to suggest revisions.  And then based on that, we'll make a decision, even if the decision is then made by, you know, by the Secretariat and myself who would look at what you've suggested and go back to you with a recommendation for a final decision.  It might take two rounds to make this decision, and it might take one.  But we shouldn't let it take more than two further rounds of consultation.
I think that is it, and we are near our time for ending.  Does anyone have any other matters that they'd like us to discuss today?  No?  I don't see anything.  I don't hear anyone.  Is there anything in the chat?  Secretariat, anything from you?
   >> CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Just the next meeting, the next meeting would be scheduled to be on the 4 of August at UTC 20:00.  That's it.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  4th of August at 20:00 UTC.  Thanks, everyone, that's the end of the meeting.
   >> MARY UDUMA:  Hi, everyone, please join us tomorrow.  I'm sorry, Anriette.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  That's okay.  West African IGF starts tomorrow.
   >> MARY UDUMA:  Yes.  We do those leads, so ours start at 10:00 a.m. UTC and will end in three hours, so please can you join us.  Thank you.
   >> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  And thanks for reminding us, Mary, and wishing you very well for your virtual IGF.
I also just want to give everyone my support and solidarity.  You know, the pandemic situation is not getting better in many parts of the world.  In many parts of the world, in fact, it's getting worse and I know that probably there are many of you that know people that are affected or have been affected yourselves, so just sending you all support and solidarity.  It's not an easy period for us, and but we will get through it.  So just take care, everyone, and talk to you at our next meeting.
And please do watch your email closely for the duration of this week so that we can reach conclusion on these decisions that we need to make.  Thanks, everyone.

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 411