>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Good morning, everyone.  It feels really nice, I think, for me personally for this to be the MAG meeting as opposed to the Open Consultation day.  The Open Consultation day is very important but it's also the day where we, as a group of individuals, take more of a back seat.  And today really marks the day when our face-to-face moment where we start our work to prepare for 2020.

 So firstly I want to introduce, you've met him, but today he is our formal co-chair.

 Do you want to just make some welcoming remarks?

 >>MICHAL PUKALUK:   Thank you, Chair.  I was here yesterday, but for those of you who don't know me, I'm Michal Pukaluk.  I'm head of International Affairs of the Ministry of the Digital Affairs of Poland.  Poland will be hosting the next IGF in 2020, November.  I had a presentation, some slides on that yesterday.

 My role here is to be shadowing Wanda Buk, who is the former co-chair, in her capacity of shadowing Anriette as the chair.

 I think this is it for now.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Michal.  And it's also nice for me to have a co-chair sitting by my side.

 And just a few notes on the agenda.  We're shifting things around a little bit.  We're going to start with introductions and some framing input looking at our terms of reference, at our mandate.

 Then we will -- and item number 4 that you have in front of you at the moment will move forward as the introductory component of item number 6.  So there's a new item, number 4, which is introductions and opening remarks.  Item number 5 is important.  We might start it late, but we will stick to it because we've invited other institutions to come and be with us and share their input.

 And then after that we will start with the item number 6.

 So then we have lunch.  During lunch, very important to note ...

 [ Scribes have no audio ]

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Okay.  Everyone, as you probably would notice, if you look at your screens.  The scribes cannot hear us.  Now we're back.  Thanks.  So we'll start with introductions, and then we'll move on to some general remarks from me and we'll look at our mandate and our terms of reference.  But to start our introductions I want to start with our new MAG members and a really warm welcome to them.

 We have done an orientation session with the new MAG members, Chengetai, Anja and myself in November, but we know that's not much that help, and I really urge everyone on the MAG to encourage and support the new MAG members.  Later on we'll call for mentors, but there's nothing that has more power and impact than people actually reaching out to one another and supporting one another.

 So I'm going to point to you, Gunela.  So if you can -- you can start by just introducing yourself briefly, and then we'll go on to the other new MAG members, and then all the current MAG members.

 >> GUNELA ASTHRINK:  Thank you very much, Anriette.  And I'm delighted to be here as an incoming MAG member.  My name is Gunela Asthrink, and I come from the technical community as a MAG member.  And my special interest is Internet accessibility for persons with disability.  And I have been involved with the dynamic coalition on accessibility and disability and took an active part in the Berlin IGF.  And I'm from Australia, and I was touched by the number of people yesterday who came up and asked me about the fires in Australia.  So it's certainly a global issue, and I recognize that climate change and the environment and the Internet maybe discussed as a topic for the coming IGF.  So thank you very much for that.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Gunela.  Well welcome and thanks for coming such a long way.

 Next we have -- is he with us?  I'm not sure.  Amado Espinosa.  Or participating remotely? 

 >>AMADO ESPINOSA:  No.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Oh, there you are.

 >>AMADO ESPINOSA:  Yes, my name is Amado Espinosa.  Hi, I am from Guadalajara Mexico for the private sector.  My main interests are digital economy and Internet for healthcare services.  I am representing also the Mexican I.T. Association and, well, have been involved in different national organizations in order to promote the digital environment, the digital advantages which can better serve people.  Very pleased meeting you, and I'll be very happy collaborating with you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Amado.

 Next we have Karim.  And I have worked with Karim in previous fora, so very good to see you here, Karim.

 >>KARIM ATTOUMANI:  Good morning, everybody, and I'm glad to be here for this meeting and have the opportunity to see all of you.  I come from Comoros, from telco, private sector.  And I work with various IG actors.  I worked for my government of the GAC ICANN for a while.  I also involved in African -- with AU and African Union regarding the PRIDA project that's aimed to promote and support African people to be involved at the global level.  And I'm also (indiscernible) in the IG matter.  So I have this opportunity to join you on the MAG, and I'm really happy.

 Mrs. Chair, you talked something about helping newcomer.  I think it's a good point because, for example, in term of BPF proposal, I took a look on the website and I didn't find any model, and I just realized why I saw -- why they submit the proposal.  I think it could be a good thing that if we can have some model, some guideline to help the newcomer to be quickly involved in the processes.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   We'll get to that immediately after the introductory session.  Thanks for that, Karim.

 Eric?  Is that -- do we call you Eric or Eric ARMEL?  Please tell us.

 >>ERIC NDOUMBA:   Good morning, everybody.  I'm from Congo (indiscernible).  My name is Eric Ndoumba.  I'm a telecommunication advisor of Minister of Post, Telecommunication and Digital Economy.  And I'm also the focal point of two project of African Union.  One is PRIDA and the second is PIDA.

 I'm so happy to be here to be member of MAG for 2020.  And I am more focused on policy and regulation.  So thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   And what do we call you?  Eric or Eric ARMEL?

 >>ERIC NDOUMBA:   Eric.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Everyone, when you introduce yourself, tell us what your preferred name is.

 Thank you.  And then our next new MAG member is Mr. Sheikh, Liban.

 [ Scribes have no audio ]

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Close.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Scribes, are you ready to proceed?  They can't hear me yet.

 Oh, good.

 Thanks.  Thanks very much.

 So, Roberto, you have the mic again.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   Thank you very much, Madam Chair.  It was, I was saying, a pleasure for me to be here.  I am honored to be invited to this MAG.  And, well, I am from Bolivia, as you know.  I am the chair of the Board of our Bolivian ISOC chapter, Internet Society chapter.  And I am also the director of the ICT area in the local government, in the city hall in La Paz.  And in my other activities, I work at the university.  I am a medium-time teacher in undergraduate and postgraduate programs.

 I -- I really look forward to express all the things that we believe are important in order to make our IGF -- IGF a better working space in the future.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Roberto.

 And lastly we have Mr. JI.  Is he with us?  Yes, there.

 >>JI ZHAOYU:   Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to everyone.  It's my pleasure to join all of you as a new MAG member in my first year.  My name is JI Zhaoyu.  I think for those who know Chinese, you can simply call me Zhaoyu, and for those who are not good at Chinese, I think you can simply call me JI.  Whatever you like.

 And I think as mentioned by Madam Chair, I am exactly the one who need mentoring and encouragement based on my experience of yesterday's meeting.  And I look forward to cooperation with all of dear colleagues here in this room.

 Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much.  And we'll try and say Zhaoyu.  You will have to try to teach us.

 Now I'd like the other MAG members to introduce themselves.  We can just start from one side of the room.  Be brief.  We don't have a lot of time, but it is useful to say how long you have been on the MAG and how long you have left because that gives us a sense of how the shape of the team is going to evolve. 

 I would also like, when MAG members introduce themselves, those that feel they have the time and the capacity to play a mentoring role for new MAG members, to share that.  And the secretariat will take note of that.  And then afterwards we'll do a kind of matching of new MAG members with existing MAG members that are willing to play this mentoring role.

 So I am going to start here at the front.  I think if there -- We won't do observers now.  If there's time afterwards, we'll ask the observers to briefly introduce themselves but let's start with MAG members.  Susan, I think that means you.

 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:   Good morning, everybody, and a warm welcome to the new MAG members.  My name is Susan Chalmers, and I am a policy analyst with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration at the U.S. Department of Commerce.  This is my second year as a MAG member in this term, though I have been with the IGF community in some capacity or another since 2011, I guess.  So I'm very happy to serve in a mentor role, though I don't have too much time, but I'm willing to give it.

 Thank you.

 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:  Good morning, everybody.  My name is Przemyslaw Typiak from the Ministry of Digital Affairs, Republic of Poland.  Along with my colleague Michal we are first time on the MAG, and we are very happy to be here with you.  I am delighted to see all those people, all you, my colleagues, from other countries of the world.  And of course a warm welcome to everybody who is participating remotely.  We are very happy to be here.  We are the host of this year's IGF in Poland, Katowice.  As my colleague said yesterday, we had a presentation on this event.  So we are very happy to be here with you and looking forward to -- to receive your feedback and good -- good advice and good practice on the functioning of the MAG and all the IGF process.

 Thank you so much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Przemyslaw.

 Carlos.  Let's try to go quite quickly.

 >>CARLOS AFONSO:   Good morning, everyone.  Welcome, new members of the MAG.  My name is Carlos Afonso, preferred name CA, and I am working with the theme of Internet governance since the last century as part of the campaign for Information Rights for the Internet society, the CRISP campaign, and later the WSIS and the WGIG.  And I am a member of the Brazilian chapter of the Internet society, and the secretary director of research institute  institute in Rio de Janeiro called Nupef.

 Thank you.

 >>ANANDA RAZ KHANAL:  Good morning, my name is Ananda Raz Khanal.  I'm from Nepal, a government stakeholder.  This is the second year for me.

 Thank you.

 >>JUTTA CROLL:   Hello, my name is Jutta Croll.  I'm serving the MAG in the third year.  I am working for the Digital Opportunities Foundation in Germany with a focus on human rights, especially children sites and child protection.  I'm representing civil society on the MAG. 

 Together with Markus Kummer, I have the pleasure to co-facilitate the work of the dynamic coalitions, and I have also been working with Sylvia Cadena and Susan Chalmers in organizing the Workshop Evaluation Process Working Group.

 Thank you.

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:  Good morning, everyone.  So my first name is Maria Paz Canales.  So my first name is Maria Paz.  My last is Canales.  That always confuse people because, Latin America, too many Marias. 

 So I am the Executive Director of Derechos Digitales, Chile-based NGO working in Latin America.  I represent GRULAC civil society in the MAG.  I am in my second year, and the work that I do with my organization is fundamentally focused in how technology impact the exercise of human rights.

 Thank you.

 I'm sorry.  Also I am one of the co-facilitators of the BPF on gender and access.

 >> NATASA GLAVOR:  My name is Natasa Glavor.  I come from Croatia.  I'm a data analyst in Croatian Academic and Research Network.  This is my third term in MAG.  And I'm pleased for the opportunity.

 [ Scribes have no audio ]

 >>NEBOJSA REGOJE:  Hello, everybody.  My name is Nebojsa Regoje.  I am in my third year, one of 26 of us that are finishing this year mandate in the MAG.  I work for Foreign Affairs Ministry of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  I am spokesman.  I am active in IGF in different, from national to global IGF for last 12 years, and I certainly hope I will continue after ending mandate.  I wish you all of the best in 2020.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Mary, let's go to you next.  We'll go like this and then the other way.

 >>MARY UDUMA:   Good morning, everyone.  I hope you can hear me.  Yeah.  Okay.  Good morning, everyone.  My name is Mary Uduma.  I'm from Nigeria.  This is my third year in the MAG.  I'm with the technical community.

 My background, I'm a migrant to the tech world IG world because I -- I'm an accountant by profession.  I've been a regulator with the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority in my country, retired, and got involved with the ccTLD my country.  And now I co-facilitate the Nigerian Internet Governance Forum.  I'm the coordinator of West Africa Internet Governance Forum, and the chair of Africa -- the Chair of MAG Africa Internet Governance Forum.

 I'm happy to see so many people around, and I hope we'll work together and deliver the 2020 IGF as we did last year.  You're all welcome.  I'm available for any mentoring role.

 Thank you.

 >> PAUL ROWNEY:  Good morning, everybody.  My name is Paul Rowney.  I'm a third year MAG member.  I'm from the business constituency from Namibia.  I'm on the Board of the Africa ICT Alliance, part of the Namibian IGF.  During the day I help develop (indiscernible) policies and networks in Africa.  My primary interests, what makes me get out of bed, really, is digital inclusion.  And I'm happy to help with mentoring any new members.

 Thank you very much.

 Bye.

 >> JUNE PARRIS:  Morning.  I'm June Parris.  This is my third year in the MAG.  First of all, welcome to the new MAG and the new chair, and I'm looking forward to working with a new team.

 I'm a retired specialist, general psychiatric and research, medical research and social research.

 Since I retired I've been volunteering in the business sector.  Most of my work is mostly girl power and policy.  I volunteer with groups such as the (saying name), Girls Power Tech, ISOCBB, and Future Center Trust.  We look at climate change and we look at policy.  I also do a bit of volunteering in the nursing sector.

 I'm really looking forward to working with the new team as I said, and I'm available for mentoring.

 Thank you.

 >> MARY ROSE RONTAL:  Hello, everyone.  Good morning.  My name is Mary Rose Rontal.  I'm from the Philippines, and you can just call me Rose.  I'm in the private sector in the MAG.  This is my second year, and I'm working in building and empowering the entrepreneurs and tech startups in my country.  so welcome to the new MAG members.

 >> LIANNA GALSTYAN:  Hello, everyone.  My name is Lianna Galstyan.  I am from Armenia, and I am with one -- I'm the one with the flowers and good vibes to share with everyone.  And it's not only sharing the spirit but also had the knowledge and experience we have in our great network and the group.  So I'm serving the third year, so outgoing MAG member, and I'll be happy to work with the new MAG members. 

 I'm involved in several initiatives.  The Armenian IGF, coordinator of that, and Southeastern European IGF and EuroDIG and IPR IGF.  So quite a lot of things.  And I'm also very glad and ready to work with you for this year.  And I hope we'll make this environment a better place and involve some of the topics that we're discussing every year.

 Thank you very much.

 >> SORINA TELEANU:  Good morning.  Welcome to the new MAG members.

 To the MAG chair, thank you for all your previous work and good luck for the new work.  We're all here to support you, but we also count on your guidance and leadership.

 Sorina Teleanu.  I'm from Romania working as a digital consultant with entities such as DiploFoundation and the Geneva Internet Platform.  I'm also chairing the Executive Committee of the Southeastern European IGF, which is called SEEDIG, Southeastern European Dialogue on Internet Governance.

 My third year on the MAG so the last one, and happy to help with mentoring.

 Thank you.

 >> AFI EDOH:  Hello, everyone.  My name is Afi, and I'm from Togo.  I represent the technical community in the MAG, and I'm a system engineer.  Thank you.

 (Indiscernible).

 >>ADAMA JALLOW:  Good morning, everyone.  My name is Adama Jallow.  I'm a third year MAG member, outgoing.  Welcome to the new MAG members.  I'm working with the One Project.  We advocate for digital rights, content, and youth inclusion.

 Talking about youth inclusion, I have here with me our youngest participant, a three-month-year-old baby.  (Saying name) is joining us this time.  So we're on the right track when we talk about youth inclusion.

 So I'm also available for a mentoring role, anybody that needs any mentoring.  Thank you.  Civil society multistakeholder group.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Adama.  I just want to share that it's really special to me to see Adama with her son because in 2003 I was in Geneva with my daughter who was four months and I was -- it was for WSIS prep but was a member of the U.N. ICT task force which was a fairly high-level body, and they were somewhat challenged by having this breast-feeding woman in there.  But I have very good memories from that.  I'm very glad that you felt comfortable and that you trusted us enough to bring your son with you.

 [ Applause ]

 >>XIAOFENG TAO: Good morning.  I'm Xiaofeng Tao.  You can call me Xiaofeng because Xiaofeng is my first name.  I'm a technical professor of Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications.  I'm a MAG member for the third year.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Concettina.

 >>CONCETTINA CASSA: Good morning, everybody.  My name is Concettina Cassa.  My nickname is Titi.  I work for AgID, that is the digital agency of the Prime Minister's office in Italy.  I am a MAG member.  This is my third year.  I'm also co-facilitator for the best practice forum on (indiscernible) and artificial intelligence, and I am a coordinator of Italy IGF.  Thank you.

 >>HEIKI SIBUL:  Good morning, everyone.  My name is Heiki Sibul.  I'm coming from Estonia.  I'm the CEO of Estonian Internet Foundation.  And it's my third and last year in the MAG.  And I represent the government stakeholder group.  Thank you.

 >>ARSENE TUNGALI:  Hi, everyone.  This is Arsene Tungali, Executive Director of Rudi International, and I'm based in Congo, Kinshasa.  So I'm also coordinating our local IGF which is the DRC Internet Governance Forum.  I'm on my second year on the MAG and representing civil society where I've been engaged in different capacities since 2011. 

 And this last year I had the pleasure to chair the working group on outreach and engagement, and I hope to be able to continue the same capacity this year, should the group be rechartered.  And I'm planning to send an email to request for this working group to be rechartered soon. 

 And I'm an active French speaker and available for any mentoring role.  Thank you.

 >>CHRISTINE ARIDA:  Good morning.  My name is Christine Arida.  I'm not a new MAG member and I'm not an old MAG member.  I'm in another category.  I'm a former host representative.  Egypt, I come from Egypt.  I work for the Egyptian government, and Egypt has hosted the IGF in 2009.  And a warm welcome to all new MAG members and to you, Anriette, in your new capacity.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes.  We've just figured out that we overlooked you.  So please introduce yourself.  One of our new MAG members.

 >>ALAA ALI:  Good morning.  Alaa Ali from Sudan.  This is my second year as a MAG member.  I work for government sector in telecommunications, local government.  And (indiscernible) in cybersecurity and cyber online protection.

 >>CHENAI CHAIR:  Good morning, everyone.  My name is Chenai Chair.  I am Zimbabwean but based in South African and I currently work for the World Wide Web Foundation as the gender and digital rights research manager. 

 I have been fortunate to work with Anriette before -- it's a credit to have her as the chair of the MAG -- in the African School of Internet Governance that helps me to find my way to the Internet governance sites. 

 I'm currently the co-chair of the gender-based best practice forum with Maria Paz and also worked on the working group on IGF improvements with June last year, which we will see if it will continue this year.  And if anyone wants to learn more about women to support and with questions around participation within the Internet Governance Forum space.

 >>PAUL CHARLTON:  Hello, everyone.  And especially the new MAG members.  My name is Paul Charlton.  I'm with -- I'm a senior policy advisor with the Department of Innovation Science and Economic Development of the Government of Canada.  This is my second year on the MAG and happy to help out with any of the new MAG members.  Thank you.

 >>VENI MARKOVSKI:  Hi.  My name is Veni Markovski.  I'm the ICANN vice president for U.N. engagement based in New York from Bulgaria.  I've been dealing with Internet governance -- unlike Carlos -- since the last -- not since the last century but since the last millennium.  Obviously happy to share experience, if I remember anything from that time.  But this is my last, hopefully, year in the MAG, and I've been in the MAG in the very beginning when we didn't have so much fancy equipment and tough guys and stuff.  So there is a big progress that the MAG has done. 

 And I use the opportunity to thank, again, to the German government and the German parliament for their really big support for the IGF in Germany but also for the next three years, IGF, with the generous money that they gave.  And towards my colleagues to talk to their dignitaries and governments to support the IGF because this is one of the crucial things that we need to take care of, funding for the IGF secretariat and for the IGF itself.  Thank you.

 >>HARTMUT GLASER:  Good morning.  My name is Hartmut Glaser.  It's a German name, but I live in Brazil.  I have a seat as a host country.  We organized two meetings in Brazil, 2007 and 2015.  And since this time, 2007, I am observer, advisor, member, I don't know, in the MAG.  So I'm here for the last 12, 13, 14 years.

 >>JEREMY HUREAUX:  Hi, everyone.  I'm Jeremy, Jeremy Hureaux.  You can call me Jeremy, of course.  I'm a former host representative as well.  And I work within the French ministry of Europe and foreign affairs.  Thank you.

 >>RUDOLF GRIDL:  Good morning.  My name is Rudolf Gridl.  I'm a third-year MAG member, also former host, welcoming all the new MAG members.  Looking forward to working with you and wishing all the best to the Polish host country.  Thank you very much.

 >>JENNIFER CHUNG: Good morning, everyone.  My name is Jennifer Chung.  I work for an organization called DotAsia, and I'm a third-year MAG member.  We're also serving as the secretariat for the Asia-Pacific regional IGF.  I'm happy to be mentoring anybody who needs mentoring and looking very much forward to working with all of you.

 >>BEN WALLIS:  Good morning.  I'm Ben Wallis with Microsoft.  Before I joined Microsoft, I worked for the U.K. teleconference regulator and also for civil society before that.  I talked a little bit yesterday about my roles in the BPFs last year.  This is my third year on the MAG.  I was pushing this idea of a mentor system.  I would be very excited to be a mentor or buddy to somebody this year.  I think that could be a role for -- that's invited for 30 MAG members every year and so it's something you do in your last years of MAG, you offer yourself as a mentor for those coming in their first year.  I think that could be a good system to introduce. 

 I'm fortunate that my manager allows me plenty of time to be an active member of the MAG.  And I'd just like to say to new MAG members that the MAG is kind of what you make of it and there is so much opportunity to volunteer and take part and to have an impact if you have the time and the desire and the energy. 

 I'd advise you to pick one, two, three things where you can -- you can volunteer and be part of something and take a lead on something than try and do everything.  There are four working groups, there were three themes last year, there were six main sessions that the MAG members were responsible for organizing.  But you can pick one or two of those things and stick your hand up and take a lead or just be part of the team that's doing that work.  So there really is an opportunity to make an impact, if you want to and you have the time to.

 >>TIMEA SUTO: Morning, everyone.  My name is Timea Suto.  I am the knowledge manager at the International Chamber of Commerce Knowledge Hub on Innovation for All where I work with Internet governance in digital economy policy issues.  I'm a third-year MAG member for the private sector, and as many before me, I'm happy to join the role of those who would like to mentor or help out for new colleagues. 

 May I just express also appreciation for a lot of our former host countries being here and helping out, and I'm sure our Polish colleagues are also very happy to see this group offering to help.  I think we can extend this mentorship program, club of former hosts and previous next hosts to inform what worked well and what didn't work well and for all of us to work together to make 2020 a successful IGF.  Thank you.

 >>WAFA DAHMANI:  Good morning, everybody.  I'm Wafa Dahmani from Tunisia.  I'm in charge of (indiscernible) technical operations of our IDN and ccTLD, in Tunisia, of course.  This is my third year in the MAG and then also the vice chair of our local IGF, MAG of the local IGF.  Thank you.

 >>DALSIE BANIALA:  Thank you.  Good morning.  My name is Dalsie Baniala.  I'm from Vanuatu.  I am the telecommunications regulator for Vanuatu, and I have been the MAG member for the last two years.  And this is my first MAG meeting.  Currently, I'm consulting at the Palau states as the telecommunications regulatory advisor.  And at the same time, I'm assisting with getting together the Internet community to promote more on Internet governance. 

 Thank you very much for all the communications and dialogues through the emails to MAG members which I've learned a lot to contribute in my region.  I have also contributed assistance with women and girls in ICT, volunteering in my country and also in the region.  And I'm (indiscernible) board member for value add to IGF and also assisting and contributing with whatever requested from the Pacific ISOC.  Thank you.

 >>JULIANA HARSIANTI:  Good morning, everyone.  My name is Juliana.  I am from Indonesia, represent civil of society.  This is my second year as MAG member.  I am working as both journalist and researcher with the focus on the digital inclusion, gender, and the                             public policy.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   I thought I pressed it.  Thanks. 

 So we've had all the MAG members.  We've had past host country representatives. 

 Can I quickly ask the international organization representatives to introduce themselves and those consultants who have not yet introduced themselves.

 Should we start here with you, Valentina.

 >>VALENTINA SCIALPI:   Yes, thank you, and good morning, everyone.

 My name is Valentina Scialpi.  I work for the European Commission, DG Connect, in the unit in charge of Internet governance.

 As every international organization, the European Commission is a permanent observer to the MAG.  And personally for me this is the fourth year in the MAG and too many MAG meetings already, but we are very happy to continue our support.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks a lot.

 Giacomo, I think you are next.

 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  Yes, European Broadcasting Union.  We are representing the media sector since the very beginning here, and we do on behalf of the World Broadcasting Union that represent all the broadcasters' union of the world.  And we are very happy to continue to be here to contribute to the change.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Giacomo. 

 And I see we have the ITU with us.  Please introduce yourself.

 >>ITU:  Good morning to everyone.  My name is (saying name).  I'm fairly new to ITU but pleased to be here.  I know ITU and IGF have had a long history of collaboration, and we look forward to working closely together.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   I think that is it.  Have I overlooked any of the international organizations?

 Oh, WIPO.

 >>WIPO:  Thank you very much.  This is Paolo Lanteri from the World Intellectual Property Organizations.  As part of the U.N. family, we have been participating in the IGF since its inception in Rio de Janeiro in 2007, and we are looking forward to keep our collaboration and contribution.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much.  And quickly, I'd like Markus and Wim, any of the consultants, and the secretariat.  I want you all to quickly introduce yourself.

 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   Markus Kummer.  I am the chair of the IGF Support Association, IGFSA by its acronym.  And I used to be the head of the IGF Secretariat right at the very beginning.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Sandra?

 >>SANDRA HOFERICHTER:   Hello, everyone.  Sandra Hoferichter from EuroDIG which is the European IGF, and I'm participating in these Open Consultations for quite some years.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks.  Sandra.  And then...

 >>WIM DEGEZELLE:  Good morning.  Is it on?  Okay. 

 I'm Wim Degezelle.  I work as an independent consultant on Internet governance and Internet policy in general, but specifically the last few years I have been working with the IGF Secretariat to support BPFs, Best Practice Forums, on several topics.

 Last year was one on cybersecurity and the Best Practice Forum I.T., big data, AI.  And I think the role of the consultant in the whole BPF process might be good for members, new MAG members, to be clear on that.  It's really to try to be the neutral party holding the pen that is transformed into an output by the end of the progress.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Anja.

 If there's one person in the room other than Chengetai that everyone knows, it is Anja.  It's worth really taking a good look at her and listening to her because she is really glue, I think.

 >>ANJA GENGO:   Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for very kind words, and good morning to everyone.  Yes, my name is Anja Gengo, and I work in Chengetai's team with the IGF Secretariat, mostly focused on the national and digital IGFs, youth IGFs, but also on some other components.  So if you need anything, I think you all have my email so please be feel to write.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: (No audio) who is at the center of our connective tissue.

 >>LUIS BOBO:  hello, everyone.  Nice to say hello to you as well.  I also work at the IGF Secretariat, and I am your I.T. contact person that you may need, and any other thing also.  I am happy to help.  Okay?  Thank you.

 >>LIMA MADOMI:  Good morning, everyone.  My name is Lima.  I am working with the IGF Secretariat as a fellow.  So I will be here for the next few months.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   I think that is it.  So, Wai Min, do you want to quickly introduce yourself?

 >>WAI MIN KWOK:   Thanks, Anriette.  I'm here as Wai Min Kwok on behalf of UN DESA.  I'm in the division for public institutions and digital governments.  We are responsible for advocacy, research and capacity development work related to public institution and (indiscernible) government.

 Thanks, Anriette.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   My name is Chengetai Masango.  I'm based here in Geneva and in charge of the IGF Secretariat.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much.  And I'm sorry this took time but I think we do need to get to know one another.

 So just briefly about myself.  Oh, Samantha.  Is Samantha online with us?  I haven't got my remote participation interface open.

 So yesterday people commended Wai Min and the secretariat for the work on the messages.  Samantha Dickinson is the person that deserves the primary credit for that.  So it's very good that she's with us. 

 Sam, quick introduction from you.

 >> We can't hear you, Samantha.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Use your headset to listen to her.

 >>Give everyone a second to put on the headset.

 >>SAMANTHA DICKINSON:  Hi, I'm Samantha Dickinson. I've been a consultant doing communications-related work for the IGF, hoping to help make the documentation clearer.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks for that, Sam.  The audio wasn't very clear but everyone did hear.

 I also just want to point out that the consultants who supported the secretariat in 2019 are here in a volunteer capacity at the moment.  No consultants have been contracted for 2020.

 So just quickly about myself.  You know about me, and many of you I've worked with in different capacities.

 I was for a long time executive director of Association for Progressive Communications, which is an international civil society network.  I've worked with the U.N. in various capacities, starting in the previous millennium slash century with the United Nations Economic Commission in Africa.  Carlos Afonso is my mentor and, in fact, the reason I'm in the Internet Hall of Fame is because of him, and it really should be him that's in the Internet Hall of Fame because it was through his pioneering work in creating connectivity in the pre-public Internet era in the 1980s and '90s that I was able to join that movement and make a difference.

 And then one more thing about me.  I've done everything.  I've worked on a production line in a factory, I've done agricultural work, I've done clerical work.  My academic background is in musicology and information science.  I play the piano, but not as good as Susan Chalmers does.  And so I'm quite multi-skilled.  It also means I can become easily distracted.  So I'm going to rely on Wai Min and Chengetai to help me keep focus.

 But -- and I really -- for me in my own capacity and the work I've done, I've worked with regulators, I've worked with governments.  So even though I'm from civil society and a lot of my work has been around human rights, I do have an appreciation of how this different context of stakeholders, from research to academic to government to regulation to youth movement, fit together and how you need inputs from all of those to achieve change.

 And I think what I would like to say about us as a MAG, and I think none of this is new to you, Wai Min is going to show us briefly what our mandate is, as it is at the moment, and what our terms of reference is.  But we are a team.  We are hear to work.  And while we are constituted, you are all drawn from different stakeholder groups, but once you are in the MAG, you are here as individuals to work as a team.  That does not mean that the fact that you represent a government or that you come from a certain stakeholder group stops mattering.  That's part of the texture that you give to the MAG.  It is also not inappropriate that, for example, business MAG members collaborate and meet and discuss issues amongst themselves.  Civil society is free to do that.  Regional groupings are free to do that.  But primarily we are here as people to work.

 And whether you are a first-year MAG member or a third-year MAG member, there's enough diversity of tasks that you will be able to make a contribution.  As Ben said, you need to be selective, and I think you need to be consistent as well.

 I think that we all go through periods in our work lives and our personal lives when we cannot take on these voluntary roles to full, and when that happens, disclose it.  But don't be a sleeping nondeliverer in the MAG.  I think that undermines the strength of the team and the strength of the output.  If you're too busy to participate in some of the processes -- we are here to support one another and understand one another -- disclose that.

 If you can't work and can't fulfill your workload, ask for support but don't stay silent and don't not participate.

 I think the other point I earlier made during the time the bridge was down, the point about language.  Let's really be sensitive.

 I think it's one of those things you tend to forget if you are an English speaker.  And no matter how fluent you are, in a context like this, especially when there's debate or when people get tired, it can be very difficult to express yourself in your second or third language, so be patient with one another.  English speakers, speak slowly, speak clearly.  Keep in mind that others might struggle to understand you.  And I know we have the transcript, but the transcript -- understanding the transcript is kind of an art in itself because the transcript is not always all that clear.

 The other point I wanted to make is about respect for diversity, but also respect and willingness to disagree with one another.  I think, you know, the reason why the MAG is constituted like that is because we bring diversity.  We have different political backgrounds and opinions.  We come from different stakeholders.  Those of you that are from governments have capital policy and concerns that you can't ignore.  You have to respect those.  And we are -- we have the opportunity.  We are here as individuals.  We can work under Chatham House Rules, even though we don't always do that.  But let's not be shy about disagreeing with one another.  That actually adds value to our work.  But we can be respectful about disagreeing with one another.  So that's extremely important.  Respectful debate, respectful dialogue is possible without shying away from expressing our disagreements and having debate with one another.

 I've mentioned support.  I think it's important that we support one another and that we understand one another.  Try and take some time to get to know MAG members that you don't know yet.  And there will be lots of opportunities through working groups, through preparation for the IGF to do that.

 So I -- I will be -- For me, it's very important that you all work and that if you can't, that you declare that.  And I think partly because being on the MAG, if you are not here, someone else could have been here.  So keep that in mind, that you're representing the diversity of the IGF stakeholder community.  And it's an honor to be here.  It's also really hard work.  But it's very important to play that role.

 If you're uncertain about what your role is or what to do, ask.  And expressing questions, expressing lack of understanding actually helps everyone to refine our own understanding of what our role is.  So please, please participate.  Don't be shy.  Ask for help.  Come to me.  Come to the secretariat if you have concerns or if you're uncertain about anything.

 And we'll evolve our own work style and work -- work methods together, but let's make that a collective effort of all of us, not just of a few.

 So on that note -- and I'm really sorry that we are going over time, but I felt it was important for us to start with this common platform of understanding of who we are and how to work together and what our responsibilities are.  And I would like, Wai Min, for us to just -- to take us quickly through our mandate and through our terms of reference.  And you want to take long, you can all go and look at it later, and I hope you have already, but it's such a good thing to have common ground on this.

 >>WAI MIN KWOK: Thank you, Anriette.  I will touch on the mandates and I will leave the terms of reference to Chengetai. 

 First, I will need Luis' help in order to pull up on screen.  I think especially for third-year MAG members, I am sure all the third-year MAG members who can remember the mandates by heart, but I believe it would be so useful, especially for the first-year MAG members to get to know. 

 We always make reference to Tunis Agenda, but I choose to do this in reverse chronological order. 

 We always say that IGF has (indiscernible) at the mercy of the U.N.  What does it mean?  Essentially, such a time for ending that result of the U.N. that is a resolution, the GA resolution.  Every year, the IGF is reviewed not in one, two, but three U.N. bodies.  They lead the -- the UNCTAD -- sorry.  The CSTD.  The secretariat is UNCTAD.  Second is ECOSOC.  And the third is GA. 

 I will not go through all the resolutions, but it will be the GA resolution.  So the most recent one, in fact, what Luis has shared on screen, is an unedited version.  That means you cannot find it online.  This resolution was adopted by General Assembly, second committee, in December. 

 As you can see, this -- there's actually a preamble that makes reference to the importance of the IGF and also thanking the host countries, including Germany, adding Germany to the list as compared to the past resolution.

 These three paragraphs  are what we call the operative paragraphs.  The first paragraph is -- makes reference to an extension of the mandates.  Again, I mentioned that yesterday.  the current mandate will end in 2025. 

 Paragraph 24, it's recognizing the importance of IGF as a forum for multistakeholder dialogue.  And that makes reference to the Tunis Agenda. 

 The last paragraph is what we always remind us on the enhanced cooperation of governments and stakeholders from developing countries, in particular the least developed countries.  And that's calling for relevant stakeholders to support the participation of governments and other stakeholders. 

 So with that, I think we have the many thanks, but still to thank Germany again for the Global South fund, as well as other donors that are contributing to the IGF main trust fund. 

 So this is what happened in -- last year.  And it will be recurring every year, as I mentioned.  And I repeat that the IGF will be reviewed in GA, in ECOSOC, and  in CSTD. 

 So taking a step back, the last, actually, review or get the renewal of the IGF was in 2015 in the document called Outcome Document of the GA on the Overall Review of the Implementation of the Outcomes of WSIS.  So IGF was reviewed alongside with WSIS during the WSIS+10 process.  And in it, that the paragraph 63 that make reference again acknowledging the role of IGF as a multistakeholder platform.  Make reference to the report of the working group of CSTD and to call for accelerated implementation.  So are extending for ten years to continue to show progress on working modalities and the participation of relevant stakeholders.  And then here make reference to the paragraph that we always quote is 72 to 8 is -- in the Tunis Agenda, there were nine paragraphs, 72 to 90.  But in the outcome document, these seven paragraphs will make -- were included, 72 to 78. 

 So, Luis, the final -- or the origin of the mandate, that is the Tunis Agenda. 

 In the Tunis Agenda, this paragraph 72 actually give a very detailed bullet list of the respective mandate.  I will run through very quickly the key points.  So bear with me. 

 First is to discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance.  Second is to facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with international public policy.  So it's important for IGF to work with other Internet governmental and international organizations.  So that's the next point. 

 Next is to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices.  And we see how IGF is doing that through the best practice forum and the dynamic coalition.

 Next is to advise stakeholders in proposing ways and means on the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.  With that, I also make reference to the SDG.  Under target in IC, there is one target for SDG that says to increase access to ICT and strives to provide universal and affordable access to Internet in a list of countries by 2020.  That is this year.  I'm not the first one to state it, but we are going to meet these targets, as we all know.  So I think that's it's the responsibility for IGF to continue to work towards this goal. 

 Next on the role is to strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders, again, particularly from developing countries.  Identify emerging issues and to bring to the attention of relevant bodies.  Contribute to capacity building.  Promote and assess the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes.  To discuss issues related to the critical Internet resources.  This was actually a very important issue, especially in the first mandates, when we look at the IANA transition, but maybe less often in recent years.  And also issues related to the youth and issues of the Internet.  Again, this was included in 2005, and we can actually see that -- its increased relevance in today's context. 

 There are other paragraphs that look at the -- the subsequent paragraphs, 73 until 78.  So I invite you all to take a look, which I will not cover here. 

 So thank you.  And now I turn to Chengetai for the terms of reference.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Wai Min.  Just for your information, this paragraph 72 is on the IGF website so you can go there whenever you want to take a look at it, and there's also a link to the whole Tunis Agenda because paragraph 72 is the call but there are other paragraphs that do mention -- that are relevant for Internet governance and for the IGF.

 And now I'm just going to go briefly to the MAG terms of reference again.  This is available on the IGF website.  If you go to the -- Luis, can we just do what you did again?  If you go to the About?  MAG, and then there's a MAG terms of reference.  There's also MAG Chair's Terms of Reference.  But we'll go to those.  And the Code of Conduct.  So I'm going to touch upon those three documents.

 So for the MAG Terms of Reference, as it says, the primary purpose of the MAG is to advise the Secretary-General on the program and schedule of the Internet Governance Forum meetings.  Now, this also includes other intersessional activities, but I just want to also underline that we -- at the MAG we should also be careful to know that some of these intersessional activities that we have are independent and they work with us.  They don't work under our direction.  We're talking about dynamic coalitions and the national and regional initiatives.  I mean, they're quite willing to work with us, but they don't follow what the MAG says.  It's all on a voluntary basis.  So that's also very important to underline. 

 And as I said, develop a detailed program and schedule to determine how best to plan and organize the annual IGF meeting.  Organize main sessions.  That's also a very particular task for the MAG that there are usually two co-facilitators for each main session that we have.  That is -- usually it's going to be a sophomore or MAG member that has been there for a while who can take the lead and a MAG member that has just come in and they take ownership in facilitating the meeting, getting the people together, getting the agenda together, to facilitate each of the main sessions or a particular main session.  And number 4 is also quite a heavy workload and that is to select workshops and facilitate the organization of workshops.  So there is the workshop selection process.  There's the MAG working group on workshops selection that MAG members can join as well and are encouraged to join and also MAG members can help mentoring people who are not used to submitting workshops to navigate the process because the MAG comes up with the rules so they are also sometimes the best to help people submit a workshop proposal and we're also trying to concentrate on people from developing countries, to get them to submit good workshop proposals that have got a higher chance of parsing all the criteria.  As it says, they coordinate panels, et cetera, and the IGF intersessional work. 

 I have mentioned intersessional work.  It's not only the dynamic coalitions and the national and regional initiatives.  There's the MAG working groups that I've mentioned best practice forums.  The MAG also takes part in those as well.

 Now, individual MAG responsibilities.  As our chair has said that she expects all MAG members to participate.  You were chosen out of quite a number of prospective MAG members and you're here representing the community.  And as she said at the beginning, yes, you were chosen from those different communities but in the MAG you do act in your personal capacity.  That means that you're not beholden to the community, that you are also -- you act on your own conscience, what you think is best, but we do expect you to maintain that bridge and seek advice from the community and bring it back to the MAG.  But it's -- it doesn't mean that you have to do.  You work for the general consensus of the MAG and also for the IGF as a whole.  I hope that's clear. 

 And as she said, DSAs, absolutely nothing wrong with you meeting in your own constituents, you know, the business community meeting or society meeting, et cetera.  But then again, should underline you're not beholden to follow what the MAG -- what those constituents say.  You do what you think is best.

 So we do have some expectations.  There's the face-to-face MAG meetings, which this is one of them.  We do expect you to participate.  You can either participate physically as you're here and also remotely as some people are remotely because we do understand sometimes you cannot travel or sometimes you're doing something -- you do have other responsibilities that you do have to take care of.  And we do expect you to participate to the best of your ability.  That means that -- we're not saying that you have to be here from 10:00 to 6:00, but to the best of your ability to participate and to contribute.  And some people contribute in different days because there's a face-to-face meeting, there's the virtual meetings that happen and that we will schedule later on that we do have and there's participation in the working groups, et cetera.  So you may not be able to attend the face -- our face-to-face meeting, let's say, but you do participate in the mailing list, you do participate in the face-to-face meetings, that's fair and good.  The secretariat does do a review at the end of each year on MAG participation.  I mean, it's not a heavy review.  It's a light review just to make sure that you are active and you are interested and you do contribute in some fashion, or else in the next renewal we do give the place to somebody who's more -- who is willing to do that.  But again, as I said, it's not that heavy of a thing but we just want to make sure that that position is being used and you are living up to the expectations.

 MAG members are, of course, expected to explore new fundraising opportunities and that means that you can either forward those people to us or to the secretariat, to the chair, or to UN DESA through Wai Min.  All three avenues are fine.  But we also must be very careful the way that MAG members -- when they go about their business, you must be careful how you use your membership of the MAG, so to speak.  If you speak on behalf of the MAG, you must speak through approved messages that is approved by the working group on communication.  So that means that there has to be a distinction between your personal view, the MAG, and also your work view.  It's -- we do know that being a MAG member and saying that you are a member of the Secretary-General's Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group has some weight in it, but you must use that very, very carefully as well.

 And that reminds me of something that I should have said right at the beginning, is that the MAG is an advisory group.  So it advises the Secretary-General on these issues.  That means that that advice does not necessarily need to be taken as such.  The Secretary-General may have different views.  May listen to the advice but may take a different avenue due to some other priorities he may have.  This has very, very, very rarely happened, but I'm just trying to say that there is that potential.  I mean, it's not something you should worry about.  Just to make sure it's just understood that decisions of this MAG are not binding, but they are 99% of the time blessed by the Secretary-General.  And I also say to this because, you know, there's been a lot of activities around this field in the past couple of years.  So, you know, I can't speak for the future, but in the past, you know, that's nothing to worry about.

 The MAG can -- there is a Chatham House Rule.  This Chatham House Rule used to be very important at the very beginning when we had closed sessions.  Now there has been -- I mean, everything is open.  All our work, as you can see, are being recorded, but the MAG can request for a closed session.  There's absolutely no rule against having a closed session.  And it's also very important.  And also, when we go outside the MAG room we shouldn't say oh, that representative from so-and-so said this or that.  No.  When we make a decision, we make a decision as the MAG, so the MAG says this.  It's not, oh, it's because of this.  I wanted -- No, no.  It's as a MAG. 

 The MAG does operate on a -- as Nitin Desai would call it, a rough consensus model, which means that not everybody has to be in agreement but there's no loud disagreement.  So -- and once the Chair has made a decision, it is agreed.  We would touch not on trying to overturn that because to overturn that agreement you need a new consensus.  If you go to get some water and you come back and that moment has passed and the Chair has made a ruling, too bad.  We'll have to move forward.  So once the Chair has said that it has been decided, it has been decided.

 Appointments and duration.  As we know, it's a three-year period and it is -- sorry, it's a one-year period, and it is renewed every single year.  Unless, of course, you're a no-show or we see that there has been no commitment or no contribution from that MAG member.  MAG is like most positions of this type within the -- there's no honorarium or fee that the MAG member will get from the U.N.  But yes, for people from the Global South we do sponsor their attendance.  The airfares and DSA, but nothing else.  Yes, you can -- yes, you do work for your organizations  and they pay you, but -- that's fine, but you -- but you shouldn't go out and ask for money from other sources as such.  But your organization can sponsor you, et cetera.  Basically I'm saying that you shouldn't be doing it for a fee or for money.  And that's the MAG Terms of Reference. 

 And very quickly, because I realize I may be taking a little more time than I wanted to, we also do have the MAG Chair's Terms of Reference.  And I'll just go very, very quickly. 

 The MAG chair is appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General and the primary responsibility of the MAG Chair is to facilitate the MAG in carrying out the tasks related to the programming and scheduling of the annual forum as described in the MAG Terms of Reference, which I just read out.  So the MAG Chair is tasked with chairing the MAG, identifying the themes, the sub-themes of the IGF annual meeting, and also working out the intersessional work schedule and stating the agenda for all MAG-related activities in a bottom-up manner so that she -- the MAG Chair does have to consult with you, but the MAG Chair is the one that leads the process. 

 The MAG Chair also acts as a bridge to other institutions.  The MAG Chair may represent the MAG because -- in other institutions, you know, like the (indiscernible), et cetera, that's the MAG Chair's responsibility as well.  The MAG Chair can inform you that yes, the MAG Chair is going to be doing this and this and this and with the tacit approval.  I mean, there's no voting or anything like that, but if there's any objections, of course, we can discuss it because the MAG Chair is actually representing the MAG.  So the MAG has to -- so the MAG Chair has to have the approval of the MAG.  But it's not a formal approval or anything like that.  But the -- let me just cut it short.  Yes.

 And then the last thing I wanted to say is that there is the IGF Code of Conduct which is also on the website, and that is very quickly, treat all members of the IGF community equally, irrespective of nationality, gender,  racial, or ethical origin.  We are listening.  Though the -- one MAG member may have a totally different opinion from another MAG member, they have the right to speak uninterrupted and we should give that right to everybody, including -- and we have to act fairly and in good faith to participate and to forward the IGF process.  And act in an ethical and responsible way.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Chengetai.  I knew that took long, but it's -- I now there are some questions on that.  Michal has a question.  I have a question.  But I think we should come back with questions on this after lunch and proceed with the agenda.  I want to make one point and that is the MAG Chair is also an uncompensated position.  And the travel expenditure is covered through the U.N. but there's no salary or consultancy fees.  I'm fortunate in that my previous employer -- I am unemployed currently -- Association for Progressive Communications, is offering to raise funding for my position and they will then second me to the MAG.  I cannot not earn a living.  I have a child at school, at university, so I'll keep you briefed on that process.  It's only just starting.  But that's what will be the modality of how my time expenditure as MAG Chair will be covered.  It will be through ABC who raise funds and second me to the MAG, similar to how Markus worked as MAG Chair when he was in ISOC and Jonas when he was representing the Latvian government.  So on that note, so we'll come back to this with questions.  If you have questions, park them.  We'll take them immediately after lunch. 

 But we now need move on to item number 5 which is updates from related Internet governance initiatives and processes with their reflections on how the IGF 2019 main themes related to their work.  When Wai Min presented the agenda, the Tunis Agenda, a document I'm very fond of actually, inter-institutional dialogue was right up there as one of our core areas of mandate.  So we wanted to invite others to be here and to share that. 

 So Chengetai, can I hand over to you to identify who has joined us with (indiscernible) session?  Do you have it in front of you?  Thanks.  I'm just going to go in no specific order from the top of the list that Chengetai has given to me.  And Carlos, that is you.  It's World Intellectual Property Organization.  Can you, please, provide us with some reflections and inputs. 

 >>PAOLO LANTERI:  A very good morning to you all, your colleagues, and thank you very much, once again, for giving WIPO this opportunity to address the MAG.  I will be brief and my intervention I'll mention a few updates which may be of interest to the IGF community. 

 As a general introduction, for those of you that are participating events where WIPO was contributing, WIPO tried to send this informed message, perhaps not too surprisingly, that a balanced and well functioning system contributes to inclusive and sustainable growth by providing incentives for innovation and creations.  Far from being a barrier, we believe IP enables and bolsters creativity and distribution of content information on the Internet.  Following the Chair's wise guidance, so we won't be shy but we will be respectful, we believe in our view that discussion around content deserves to be included in the agenda and discussions surrounding Internet governance because content is the main reason why people go on the Internet on a daily basis.

 Turning to updates.  Three main areas.  One visibility, domain names, and artificial intelligence, partly new to what WIPO has been bringing to this forum. 

 Secondly, we would like to highlight that the Marrakesh Treaty for the visually-impaired person is growing in its membership at record speed.  We have now 61 contracting parties covering around -- covering 88 territories.  It is because the European Union counts as one.  We count to have hundred members during 2020, which is absolutely a record for any  multilateral treaty in the field of intellectual property.  What is the Marrakesh Treaty?  The Marrakesh Treaty is a multilateral endeavor to promote the worldwide availability of text that our specially adapted for use by person who are blind or with visual impairment. 

 On the side of the treaty, WIPO has launched a project called Accessible Books Consortium, which is a public/private partnership led by WIPO, but really to which they contribute all disability associations, publishers, authors, and all stakeholders in the field.  It was launched five years ago to fight the book famine.  And, basically, to this point, we would like to say that the Internet is the main reason why it works.  We have reached amazing results.  We have now over half million titles in 76 languages available for free.

 It's a library for libraries for the blind and is in constant growth so we would like to tell the world this is an opportunity for all people with a print disability to access learning and leisure material.

 Secondly, WIPO's material is in alternative dispute resolutions for cybersquatting cases continues to grow.  Brand owners from over 110 countries filed a record 3,000-plus cases under the uniform domain name dispute resolution policy with WIPO.  This shows the increasing challenges faced by businesses online and the need for vigilance against the proliferation of websites used for counter fitted sales, fraud, phishing, and other forms of online abuses.

 WIPO has been actively involved in ICANN discussion concerning the protection of intergovernmental organization identifiers in the DNS; as they are not formally in the position to use UDRP generally, because as IGOs, we do not normally register our trademarks and we would have to go submit that to a court jurisdiction.

 Finally, on artificial intelligence, WIPO is actively working on AI from both the policy perspective but also from practical and concrete AI applications.

 On the policy side, we launched a call for comments and proposals from all stakeholders, not only state agents and governments, to suggest policies issues that should be tackled by organization, notably how artificial intelligence is impacting innovation and creations.  And for those of you that are familiar with the topic, these impacts are really, really substantial and growing.

 On the practical side, many of the United Nations agencies and other IGOs represented in this room are actually already using one of the few AI application fully developed by the public sector, which is the WIPO Translate.  It's translator.  It's a machine-learning-enabled translator used by the U.N. secretariat, ITU and many others.  We are over ten international organizations using it.  That is based on machine learning of patent filings over the last 50 years, so particularly effective in the innovation sector.  And will soon be used as a speech-to-text in our large meetings; therefore, saving money in report preparation.

 WIPO remains committed to the IGF process.  We will be participating hopefully in the next MAG's meetings, and definitely in Poland.  Particularly, we are looking forward to contributing to the work on supporting local content, production and distribution discussion, and within the Best Practice Forum, of course, and potentially even at some regional IGF initiatives.

 Thank you very much for this space.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much for that, pool PAULO and WIPO's involvement in this process.

 Next we have.  You have the International Telecommunication Union.  You have the floor.

 >>SADHVI SORAN:  Thank you, Chair.  And once again, a very good morning to all of you.

 Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to contribute to the discussion today, and on behalf of ITU I would like to begin by congratulating the government of Germany, the IGF Secretariat and the IGF community at large on an outstanding IGF 2019.

 As you know, ITU participated at the highest level at IGF last year, and we once again look forward to another close collaboration in Poland this year.

 Since last year's forum, ITU has been engaged in a number of Internet-related activities and practices.  I'll run through the key ones briefly.

 As decided by the 13th session of the ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related public-policy issues, or CWG-Internet.  ITU has launched an open online consultation on the topic of international Internet-related public-policy issues on harnessing new and emerging telecommunications ICTs for sustainable development.  All stakeholders have been invited to submit contributions on this topic and the four questions that are thereunder until 22nd January.

 A physical meeting for the consultation will also be held at ITU on 3rd February where these contributions will be further presented and discussed.

 Separately, the 2019 session of ITU Council also decided to convene the 6th World Telecommunication ICT Policy Forum in 2021.  The theme of the forum was decided to be as follows:  Policies for mobilizing new and emerging telecommunications ICTs for sustainable development.  The WTPF '21 would discuss how new and emerging digital technologies and trends are enablers of the global transition to the digital economy.  Themes for consideration include AI, IoT, 5G, big data, OTTs, et cetera.  In this regard the WTPF '21 will focus on opportunities, challenges, and policies to foster sustainable development.

 It was further decided that discussions at the WTPF will be based on a report by the ITU Secretary-General prepared with the assistance of a balanced, informal group of experts.  The first draft outline of the report was discussed by this group last year, and based on this, the second draft has been made available online for an open public consultation from November 1st to December 23rd, 2019.  The contributions submitted for this consultation are currently available on our website and will be discussed at the next meeting of the informal expert group in February.

 During the course of this year, ITU will continue to launch public consultations both on CWG-Internet as well as the report of the SG on WTPF '21.  We warmly welcome inputs from all the stakeholders and interested parties present here for these processes.

 Looking ahead, we now also have the WSIS forum 2020 coming up in Geneva in April.  IGF and WSIS have a longstanding history of collaboration, and Berlin last year saw a successful physical meeting of the WSIS 2020 Open Consultation process.  As a global multistakeholder platform dedicated to using ICTs to advance the SDGs, this year's WSIS forum will focus on fostering partnerships, showcasing innovations, exchanging best practices, and launching new tools and initiatives for this purpose.  We look forward to welcoming the IGF community and MAG members to the forum again this year.

 For ITU, the future is the Internet, is an Internet where everyone, everywhere feels empowered to use the technology, and when the technology is affordable, attractive and safe.  However, given that almost half the world's population is still not using the Internet, ITU counts on its diverse and ever-growing membership made up 193 governments as well as some 900 private-sector companies, universities and international and regional organizations, as well as continued collaboration with you all to build a secure, inclusive, and empowering global Internet.

 Thank you very much for your time and consideration.  We remain committed to the IGF process and look forward to working with all of you.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much for that, Sadhvi.  And I think later when we get to the open discussion, I think you and everyone else should feel free to delve a little bit deeper on how we can actually practically operationalize these relationships.

 Next, and I hope she's online, we have Xianhong Hu from UNESCO.  Is she ready?  Xianhong, are you there?  Can you hear me?  Are you ready to speak?

 >>XIANHONG HU:  Yes, I'm here.  Can you hear me?

 Hello?

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Yes, we can hear you clearly.

 >>XIANHONG HU:  Okay.  Excellent.

 Hello, everyone.  My name is Xianhong Hu, very well pronounced by our chair.  First time call on UNESCO to take floor.  I would like to warmly congratulate the appointment of Anriette as the new MAG chair.

 We have been working with Anriette in the past decade where (indiscernible) and multistakeholder environment and the comprehensive expertise and visionary knowledge, you absolutely bring new success to this IGF process and MAG work.

 I'd also like to congratulate the new appointed MAG members as I just followed.  So encouraging to see so many new members with diverse background, some different country, and equally women experts join this new group.  That will bring new knowledge and aspect to the (indiscernible).

 As we have all witnessed the huge success of the Berlin IGF, I think I met some of you there as well, I'd like to share maybe three key observations of the success and some ideas for this future.

 And the first is that, as you know that we have organized a four-hour -- actually it's five-hour day zero event as supported by the MAG and also the German host to present UNESCO project, Internet universality indicators.  I have to say that these 303 Internet universality indicators itself is a sort of product of success or outcome of the IGF in the past years because we have been consulting on the concept of (indiscernible) and the human rights openness, access and multistakeholder through this IGF process and consulted with stakeholders.  And then (indiscernible) indicators engaging with the expert who have met, encountered here at IGF.  That's why this year the scheduled events are presenting 15 countries, the country (indiscernible) indicate the past, achieved (indiscernible) has been resonating so much with stakeholders from so many countries.  Literally we have 15 countries, country team to present the results.  We have very high-level presence of ministers to -- to present (indiscernible) they are really improving and changing their policies at country level (indiscernible) To aid in multistakeholder body, to legislate on the (indiscernible) from the recommendations of this (indiscernible).

 And that's why we are asking it can be very promising that we continue this regular reporting presentation of the indicator assessment, IGF in the future.  It was the project expanding where we're sitting interestingly number of countries who are doing this assessment.  We are having -- we are working now in the total with more than 30 countries.  I believe that for the future IGF, we are able to present which results and also policy discussions to the forum.

 And not only as a digital event.  We can also imagine that we can also share the results and good practice with a plenary session as a (indiscernible) session because (indiscernible) a very broad, covering human rights, covering access, as well as the openness and the governance model (indiscernible) participation of multistakeholders.  So that's one observation and one suggestion, that we want to work further and deeper with IGF on having this universality in the assessment.

 Also I'd like to extend here the collaboration with Anja and her led NRIs which is also a very important process we have been counting on at national level to assess the (indiscernible) indicator.  I hope our collaboration will be fully fledged for different aspects in future.

 And my second observation is echoing with many others because my former, my previous speaker from WIPO, I found this year's IGF -- I mean Berlin, last year, was very successful in handling and tackling the emerging issues such as artificial intelligence, such as blockchain and internet of Things, 5G, et cetera.

 I personally have benefited a lot.  I went to several sessions which some are simply capacity building, informing what it is, to hear firsthand knowledge from the techie community.  Some sessions are quite policy oriented to exploring the norms, principles which have been developed by different countries, organizations.  And the UNESCO (indiscernible) last week launched a new survey to use the young principles for governing artificial intelligence, which also received a very good result.  That's also a direction we'd like to work further with IGF community because as our 40th general conference just endorsed last December, just the following IGF, UNECO is starting a two-year process to develop internationally recognized nomenclature or framework for artificial intelligence, mostly from ethical dimension.

 The third observation I'd like to commend is I found the multistakeholder participation of IGF has been really progressing very well, as well as those created which used to be not so accurate in the (indiscernible).

 When I attended the creation of the new dynamic coalition on sustainability of journalism and the news media.  And journalism and news media, they were not that actively engaged in the past, but this year I do see such a joint forces from a dozen of different journalism and media development organizations, plus also efforts of the EBU, our long-term connection in the media area.  I do think the Internet needs so much to empower the existing journalism and media landscape which are, on one hand, under crisis and challenge but on the other hand there is a huge opportunity, potential for them to continue to play their role in -- as a public watchdog of the country, which also is the spirit of the WSIS Geneva agenda and the Tunis -- and Tunis Agenda.

 So I do think that this event (indiscernible) should be further strengthened.

 So I think that's all my limited observations. 

 Maybe lastly, I'd like to wish all of you and also our new chair and new members (indiscernible) a brand-new year.  As you know, I'm from China nationally, and China is going to celebrate the new year actually in two weeks also.  It's not yet there.  It will be the new year of also a new decade of 21st century, which I do hope many emerging challenges of ITT can be handled through our IGF or community.  It will also be a new year according to the China lunar calendar, it will be a new year, new circle, 12-year circle of year of the mouse and the life.  That means it will be a very lucky year.  So I do hope for the success and good luck for everyone in our IGF community.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Xianhong.  And happy new year to you, too.  I believe it's year of the rat, and I was certainly born under that sign, and I hope that bodes well for all of us.

 >>XIANHONG HU:  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   And next we have the European Commission, Valentina.

 >>VALENTINA SCIALPI:   Thank you, Anriette, but it will be Oliver.

 >>OLIVIER BRINGER:   Thank you very much.  So I would like to congratulate you also, Anriette, for taking up the challenging job of chairing the MAG.  And really it seems you have done that for forever.  So it's a very good, very good start, I find.

 In the European Commission and in the European Union in general, we have also changes.  We have a new European Parliament which started in the summer of last year.  We have a new European Commission we just started in December of last year.  And digital is clearly one of the priorities of the new commission together with the green DO.

 Also the president of the Commission, Ms. Ursula von der Leyen, made it clear that it will be a geopolitical -- geopolitical commission, which means that we will engage even more towards the outside.  We will project our ideas, our model, and we will seek to improve global cooperation both in multilateral formats and multistakeholder formats.

 And this is why the Commission is actively involved in the follow-up to the U.N. high-level panel report on cooperation, and we will contribute actively to its future outcome.

 So in general, in the EU we remain strong supporters of the multistakeholder model for Internet governance; however, this does not mean that we blindly accept -- accept -- accept it.  On the contrary, we believe that the most appropriate model and mechanism to govern the complex Internet infrastructures includes the views of all the different stakeholders involved.  So we have to put forward proposals to reinforce this model and make it more effective and more sustainable in the long term.

 So our proposed approach, I mentioned it in the afternoon session yesterday, is based on a few main points which are a more balanced participation of stakeholders, including governments, industry, but also innovators.  More focused and strategic multiyear program.  More relevant and peer role for the national and regional initiatives.  And also the idea that we should measure what the IGF is doing with key performance indicators.  So measuring against the objective of the IGF and measuring also the impact.

 So we will continue promoting our European values and our regulatory framework in the Internet governance debate.  Our firm belief is that there can be no trust in society without entering that certain common principles and values are respected, and the same holds true on the Internet.  And this is why in Europe we have put in place an advance set of rules to frame and support the development of the Internet.  There is of course the General Data Protection Regulation, but we also have rules on network neutrality.  We have a whole framework on cybersecurity.  And we have been working and will continue, will deepen our work on platforms regulation.

 We are also looking ahead and assessing how to nurture the disruptive technologies of the coming years.  And for that we have set up multistakeholder and multi-disciplinary advisory body that support us in the development of policies, and we have set up, for example, such bodies in the area of artificial intelligence or blockchain.

 We are also putting our money where our mouth is.  At the moment, we are discussing our next multi-annual financial framework so our budget for -- basically for the next ten years.  And we are quite ambitious in terms of budget dedicated to digital but also budget dedicated to development.  And our ambition in the field of Internet is to invest in an Internet that is more human-centric and in line with our values, so an Internet that is open, that is trustworthy, that is inclusive and sustainable.  And we think that by doing that not only will we improve the way the Internet works but we will also give ourselves a competitive advantage on the global market.

 So we also support a reformed Internet Governance Forum that produces concrete outcomes, as we discussed yesterday.  And we would like again to thank Germany for the very good IGF that they organized, the very good level of participation, the diverse participation, industry, Global South, and the number of innovation that they have introduced -- for example, the day zero or all the meetings with the parliamentarians -- but also having this idea of tracks in addition to an overarching theme.

 For us, it's important now to ensure continuity between Berlin and Katowice and ensure progress on the main topics that have been discussed in the last IGF.  For that, we believe the intersessional work is going to be very important.  So we have to build on Berlin and prepare for Katowice in this intersessional work.  And we have to involve, of course, the national and the regional initiatives.

 Going -- looking ahead, we think after four IGF in Europe, it is time to go outside Europe, and we very much support IGF 2021 to take place outside Europe, which will be a way to ensure renewed participation and diversity, as we discussed yesterday.

 And there is a role here, I think, for the -- for the MAG, to explain how to apply to organize an IGF and to support host country candidates.

 So there is a lot of work ahead for the IGF and for the MAG.  There are a number of changes which can be implemented incrementally.  As Thomas Schneider was saying yesterday, simple changes which can make a difference.  There are more far-reaching changes which will be discussed, in particular, in the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation, and the two should be linked.  There should not be a complete separation between the discussion that takes place in the high-level panel follow-up and the discussion that is taking place inside the MAG, for example, on how things can be improved.

 I think the IGF is a very dynamic environment, so it's possible to test new things, and we have seen that in the last IGFs with the innovations I just mentioned from Germany, the Paris call in 2018, the Geneva messages in 2017.  So it's important to build on what has been done, continue what works, of course, and improve what can be improved, and build a framework for people to join and bring their ideas.

 And we think this is the way to ensure that the IGF remains relevant and that we continue progressive, in an inclusive bottom-up and multistakeholder way the complex issue that is the governance of the Internet.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thank you very much for that.

 And now we have ICANN, Veni Markovski.

 >>VENI MARKOVSKI:   Hi.  I moved on purpose.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   You've moved back.  You moved to the back of the room, Veni.

 >>VENI MARKOVSKI:   Yes.  I moved on purpose so that I'll confuse you.

 So we -- I mean, ICANN has been supportive of the IGF since the very beginning.  We contribute both financially and with in-kind support.  We always try to bring somebody from ICANN to the MAG.  We believe that the global ICANN community is very much interested in everything that's happening around the IGF.  We contribute with workshops, open forums.  We bring a lot of people to ICANN -- to IGF meetings.  And we also try to share as much as we can some of our resources urging people from the ICANN community to come to IGFs and to support in any way they can the IGF.  I even used the introduction earlier today to urge people to support the IGF because we believe that the IGF is one of the not-so-many multistakeholder places where we can meet and discuss how the Internet is developing all of the ways forward, all of the different ideas.  And sharing ideas always makes participants richer in -- in many different ways, but also we -- we try to encourage the I-Star, the Internet organizations that are participating at ICANN to also -- and they do.  Most of them if not all of them are actually active participants at the IGF.  And I see you, Anriette, nodding, for the people who can't see you.

 It's one of the things where we believe that the IGF has a great potential.  The very fact that it's being discussed in so many different foras and it's been renewed for ten years, we have five more left, is a very good sign that it's not only the technical community that understands the value of the IGF but it's actually also the governments, the intergovernmental organizations.  I mean, we have here representatives of a number of intergovernmental organizations who also share their views about the importance of the IGFs.  And we always urge -- I always try to brief the ICANN community on what's happening at the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations with regards to Internet governance in the broader sense of the word.

 And we are really happy to see how, in the last few years, the IGF has -- and the IGF Secretariat have managed to elevate the quality of the meeting, of the forum itself.  There is also a lot of regional IGFs, national IGFs.  I mean, we have even people on the MAG who are representing national and regional IGFs.  And this is all good because the more time we spend discussing how the Internet is developing and how the IGF and -- in all of its incarnations, if I can use this, is developing, it's always better.  We -- The sharing of ideas, the sharing of practices and everything that we can see at IGFs is contributing to the global -- keeping the Internet global, interoperable, united, single.  And that's part of why the Internet is so successful.

 So again, to use the opportunity and to the not-so-great number of new MAG members and to offer, you know, any kind of advice you may need or information that you may need, but also to ask them to reach out to the IGF Secretariat who are the walking encyclopedias, if you will, of Internet governance and IGF, because this coming fall when there are -- I think Nebojsa said 26 MAG members stepping down, it will be a little bit challenging.  So these MAG members who are remaining in the MAG will have a much harder task next year to deal with workshops and public forums, et cetera, et cetera.

 So -- Anyway, happy to help.  And I'm happy that ICANN is so supportive as well.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks for that, Veni.

 And just -- I mean, I noted that ICANN brought several of its board members to the IGF in Berlin, which -- you know, which I think was appreciated.  And it would be good to hear when we have the open discussion what value they found in that.

 Similarly, there were European Parliamentarians who always come.  And I know they use the IGF not just to learn but also to have bilaterals.  But we can explore some of these later on.

 And next we have Markus Kummer from the IGF Support Association.

 >>MARKUS KUMMER:   To say a few words on behalf of the IGFSA, and let me also say that we are happy to see you in the chair.

 The IGFSA is a single-purpose association.  Our main purpose is to provide funds to maintain strength in the IGF, the secretariat, but also the national and regional IGFs initiatives.

 We were set up in 2014.  It was set up by the Internet Society, but we have since then grown, also in members.  We are a membership association.  We have more than 200 members, and I would like to take this opportunity to also invite MAG members -- in particular, the new MAG members -- to join the IGFSA.

 Jennifer, a MAG member who is sitting next to me, serves as the secretary of the IGFSA, and she would be happy to take your names and also your contributions to our budget.

 Let me explain a little bit how we evolved.  We provide funds to the IGF trust fund but over the years we have shifted, and our priority now are clearly the national, regional IGF initiatives, the NRIs, as they fall outside the budget.  And obviously we are very happy to see they have grown since you were set up in 2014.

 We provide funds to those in developing economies or economies in transition.  It's not a big contribution we make to them but it's more seed funding that allows them to get started.  We give 2000 U.S. dollars to national IGFs, and three and a half thousand to regional IGFs, but the feedback we get from them is it's very helpful to rent a room for the meeting, to provide printed material to participants, also to provide fellowships for participants.

 Last year, for instance, we supported 9 regional and 31 national IGFs.  Total of U.S. dollars was 97,000 all in all.

 It's also worth mentioning that in 2017 we were able to set up a special fund to enhance the accessibility of the IGF.  With this fund, we provide the captioning for all the MAG calls and also for the dynamic coalition calls, which I think is greatly appreciated by all participants, not only those with disabilities.

 And in addition, we have been able to provide fellowships to people with disabilities to the IGF MAG meetings -- to the IGF meeting in Berlin but also to the MAG meeting.

 So all in all, we don't have opinions as regards the substance, but we can say we feel the IGF moves in the right direction.  And we look forward to the next IGF in Poland.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Markus, and for your support and for all the other institutions who provide support. 

 Next we have Internet Society.  Raquel.

 >>RAQUEL GATTO: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.  My name is Raquel Gatto.  I'm a senior policy manager for Internet Society.  I would pass the microphone to my colleague Alejandra to give the Internet Society presentation in less than one minute.  I just want to take the opportunity first to correct myself.  Yesterday I said I was an outgoing MAG member.  I'm a former MAG member.  It takes a while to correct it.  And I accomplished the three years, and I'm very grateful for all the experience and all the discussions within the MAG.  I'm also welcoming all the new MAG members, and I'm happily providing any -- any information and sharing as needed.  But in particular, I wanted to congratulate Anriette again for the MAG Chair role.  Not only for your brilliant career and journey in this IG land but also for being the role model for many women in this room and beyond.  And also for being the first representative coming from civil society and from Africa region.  I think this needs to be reminded and congratulations again.  Very happy to see you here.  And now, to my colleague Alejandra.

 >>ALEJANDRA PRIETO: Thank you, Raquel.  Thank you, everyone.  So I'm Alejandra Prieto, program manager of the Internet Society.  I think we're hearing around there are many changes and, of course, we are also changing.  So we are going to kind of try and explain briefly what is the changes that are happening at the Internet Society.

 So we launched last year, just before the IGF, the new 2020 action plan.  So after some consultations that we had with our community, we decided that this is the action we want to take. 

 So the plan is to run our vision that it's -- of course, we have -- we want an Internet for everyone.  And we have different -- four actually strategic goals.  We want the Internet to be open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. 

 So as you all know, this is something that is completely linked to the IGF so we are completely agreeing with all this.  I know the IGF, the way -- a good way to do it, like have discussions around that.  But internally, we also decided that we need to do it like in a more project oriented way.  So that's why we identified eight projects that we actually want to -- would be used to build, promote, and defend the Internet.  These eight projects are around two main I would say "pillars."  One would be that we want the Internet to grow, and the other one that we want the Internet to be stronger. 

 So around the growing the Internet, we have three different projects that our community works that, of course, they are key to kind of like connect the unconnected.  Then as I expressed, so because without them we cannot have this Internet for everyone.  We have a new project that is around measurement.  So around that we're going to be measuring -- trying to get all the measurements that we have around on the impact of the Internet, including shut downs from work.  So for a stronger Internet, we have the project that we call the Internet Way of Networking.  Around this is a broad one, it's a big one.  But one of the key things that we are going to be working on, it's around the regulation consolidation issues that we have around the Internet.  Then encryption.  We are pro-encryption and, of course, this is something that I -- I hoped you all know that.  It's kind of like in the news almost every day lately. 

 Routing.  We have some initiative that is called MANRS that it is like for a secure routing.  This is also something that we have been working for years and we keep doing this year too. 

 Time security.  That's a new one that we want really to have this time security project out a little bit known around the community because it's not, sometimes, as known as it should. 

 The last one will an open standards for web servers.  

 So besides our contributions around these eight projects during the IGF, we also want -- we're going to also stay with one of the -- I would say is the transitional work that we've been doing for years that offers direct support to the IGF with the IGF youth ambassadors program that, by the way, I'm leading.  So if you want to hear more about it, don't hesitate to come to me and talk.  We can do things together if you think it's the youth that you want to support.  And actually, during the last years, we kind of like around 300 people were supported by this program, and they are now back in the community, joining our Internet Society chapters and doing -- for example, they are the ones organizing some NRIs, including youth IGFs.  So this is an impact that we wanted also to highlight, that for the last years they are doing that and they are keep doing it.  So direct link and, of course, we want to, like you mentioned before, to highlight a little bit more the impact and the results that we are getting from these NRIs and maybe work together to have that -- like a conciliary or something so we can share it with everyone for the work that they are doing.

 And related to this item and others, we also are restructuring another way.  The Internet Society launched the Internet Society Foundation.  That's another legal entity.  It's part of the Internet Society, but it's separated legal.  And it's a foundation.  As almost all foundations, they provide with funding on grants.  So for example, what we're going to be doing this year is giving this funding that we normally do to the IGF through the foundation.  So IGF global NRIs, youth IGFs will be funded by this foundation.  Doesn't mean that we are not being coordinating us with Don (phonetic), with Raquel, and my colleagues, the IGFs and the work we do with you to support the IGF and all the results we get from that.  But the funding itself will be from this foundation. 

 Of course, we are also supporting other non-project related through that foundation that would be around maybe capacity building, disaster relief, other research, and stuff like that.  It's still a working because it's really brand new, so we will keep you informed.

 So that's what I wanted to share with you.  Any questions, please feel free to come to Raquel or me.  We can discuss and collaborate just from here ongoing.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, thanks a lot Alejandra.  I have a question, but you can reflect on it after we've gone through the other input people, and that is how valuable it was for ISOC to have the .ORG issue surface in such a bottom-up way at the IGF.  Obviously not easy, but possibly useful.  So let's come back to that later.  I would appreciate your thoughts on that.  Excuse me. 

 Next we have Geneva Internet platform.  Natasa. 

 Okay.  They're not in the room any longer.  So Giacomo, are you still with us?  Yes.  European Broadcasting Union.

 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE: Yes.  European Broadcasting Union and World Broadcasting Union together, you remember. 

 Yes, it seems the last IGF in Berlin we have done a lot of things that could be useful to share with you.  I will give only the highlights.  If not we will stay here until tomorrow.

 The first thing is published a report on the use of artificial intelligence in media based on best practices made by our members all across Europe.  How we -- how our members are using artificial intelligence to make a better public service information to the citizens.

 We have examples -- the report is available.  I can send a link to the secretariat for sharing eventually.  Access -- free web access to everybody. 

 One of the project reports there is how to debunk fake news in real time that is being made by the Belgian television in French at the moment.  How to verify user-generated content that are available on the Net to be sure that they're not orgs.  How to translate automatically from non-vernacular languages to non-vernacular languages, that is one of the main problems we have as an association, because MAG members are penalized by the fact that their languages are not vernacular. 

 The use of big data in investigative journalism, as it was the case for the Parliament papers, for instance.  Courses for female journalists to protect against cyber harassment, because it's a specific issue that we have in the media sector. 

 Then also, we have in the same report some example of tools of AI for improving accessibility for disableds of various kind.  And, of course, the main issue that remained and that for us is open and this is one of the reason why we participate actively to the IGF is that the -- for instance, when it comes to use of artificial intelligence in media and in journalism, we have a lot of ethical issues and we need to have agreed guidelines.  We can do by ourselves, of course, we do, but has to be agreed at the larger and higher level.  Every day, I don't know if you are aware, but there are already thousands of articles that are produced by robots.  So who is responsible for that?  The publisher?  The robot?  The software?  The system that bring the information to the robots?  The interpretation of the software or the interpretation of the algorithm?  This is an issue that I think that is one which IGF can play an important role in the future.

 Of course, UNESCO and Council of Europe are very much involved in this and we work closely with them.

 The second report that I bring copies that are available at the rear is about how to improve gender balance in media.  It was published in December because it contains some guidelines that have been approved in our General Assembly in winter.  This is the fruit of the work of six months of working group across all of Europe, and includes concrete measures to be adopted within media organization with a public commitment to implement gender parity.  Very concrete measures that can be done. 

 And now the follow-up of that is, for instance, to work with UNESCO to revise the gender indicators in media, contributing with our specific experience in broadcasting.

 Not about all the contents but also about distribution of contents, last month has been created a group that is -- of interest that is called 5g MAG.  What it means, it's about the 5g technology.  Because at the moment, most of the 5g reflection is based on how to distribute content against payment.  But the problem is how to distribute free contents accessible to all the citizens.  So what is today free to our distribution, what will happen in the future when we will go in the 5g environment.  This group will specifically reflect on that and is open to all partners interested to this.  So not only broadcast but also telecommunicators, content providers, group of interest of any kind, civil society, et cetera, et cetera.

 Then this -- there are documents also on this that I can send the link to the Web page on our website.  Then there are -- as has been already mentioned by WIPO and UNESCO, some activities that we are doing with them.  We are very pleased to cooperate with WIPO, UNESCO, VF (phonetic) in the BPF on local contents this year under the leadership of Carlos.  Very interesting and very fruitful for us. 

 We are working with many organizations on the concept of public service Internet, so how to transfer the concept of the public service remit into the Internet world. 

 We are cooperating with the UNDRR about the emergency communication in the situation of disaster.  They will do something with ITU in the framework of the next WSIS. 

 The World Broadcasting Union, the other unions, at the moment are a little bit less active because the IGF continue to be in Europe.  I'm very glad of that but, of course, this means that most of the work is made in Europe and not in the other part of the world.  I hope that for next year this will be the case.

 Cooperation with civil society, we are working on the new report on the problem with the freedom of expression and safety of journalists in Europe that will be published by the Council of Europe in a few weeks' time.  And there is a very interesting project that makes communication and civil society a vulnerable audience that is called Project New Neighbors on how to change communication partners -- patterns about migrants across Europe and across all the media.

 Finally, the support to the IGF, and this is the closing words.  As you know, we supported the IGF for the host broadcasting in the Polish country.  We are already in contact with the Polish for trying to do our best.  I want to underline that we have a problem with the fact that now in the host country agreement this has been put as eventual and nice to have and not anymore as mandatory.  That this means that, for instance, in Germany last year there was not the same kind of coverage that has been provided in other countries like in Switzerland some years ago. 

 And finally, we are actively involved in the NRIs through directly, for instance, EuroDIG.  This is why I will not be with you tomorrow because we have a meeting in Trieste.  Apologies for that.  And personally our members are involved in many IGF, including the IGF Italy, IGF France, Finland, et cetera, et cetera.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: And thanks very much, Giacomo, and everyone else.  I think this -- this might feel a little bit -- it's a lot of information to absorb.  But I think for MAG members we need to really try and use these relationships with these other institutions, draw them into the intersessional work, and respond to their needs but also utilize what they are doing. 

 I think -- I mean, what stands out for me is -- and before I open the floor -- is that there is capacity building.  The IGF clearly plays a capacity -- capacity building role that provides value to these institutions that also work with Internet policy and regulation.  And that can be through individuals.  I heard Xianhong saying she learned a lot about blockchain and AI.  And I think the ICANN Board members who were there gained -- I mean, the example of ISOC's -- the ISOC -- the young people that ISOC bring and they gain capacity which they take back. 

 So I think there are different levels of capacity building.  But I think that's clearly something important that we need to build on.

 Then I think the convening role of the IGF, it sounds to me as if that is also useful to these institutions, that you can bring your own constituencies or members or staff into a forum where they can meet with related but different people and institutions.  I think also just convening your own -- your own community, I'll use ISOC again.  ISOC's work with community networks, the way in which the community network, dynamic coalition, and those that work with ISOC come to the IGF and utilize the IGF and actually refine their own relationship with regulators and policymakers has really been very profound.  I think it's something we need to work at. 

 And sharing your work.  Sharing your practice and your innovation.  It sounds to me as if that is also useful, that the IGF is a place where you can go to, to say, "We've done this work on the Marrakech Treaty," for example, and drawn more people into it. 

 And surfacing debate.  In 2011 in Nairobi, I don't know -- put up your hand, who in the room remembers IBSA or knows what IBSA stands for.  No one?  Ah, Giacomo.  Roman.  So that was -- IBSA was the India Brazil South Africa proposal for a new mechanism.  And it was being debated at the General Assembly.  And like others in the past, they thought they could go ahead before talking to the IGF and, in fact, it then turned out to be a really hot issue that was debated at the IGF, which I think, in fact, changed the future path of proposals around institutional mechanisms.  And I think similarly you know, .ORG, the IGF was a place where people could learn more about that issue and talk more and engage more and consult more.  And sometimes that's not planned. 

 In 2013 that happened up in Indonesia at the Bali IGF when the Snowden revelations had come out, and shortly after, there was the IGF.  And the government and companies engaged were unprepared for it but were then very open and actually used the IGF as a space to listen to the concerns and the debates.

 Looking forward, I think what I picked up here, and maybe the MAG can keep this in mind, measuring impact.  I think that stands out as something that is in the interest of the IGF and also of the institutions that work with the IGF that also do Internet governance-related work.  And thus, you know, there are different levels of that.  There's the UNESCO broader impact measurement.  There's -- I think, Alejandra, I think you mentioned, one of you had mentioned measuring the impact of the NRIs.  You know, that's something that we could look at.  And IGF measurement and metrics as well.  So those are things the MAG could definitely explore.

 Something that struck me on artificial intelligence, and I wasn't able to follow that track in Berlin, but it seems that there is a process of addressing the ethical issues, establishing principles, and many different people are doing that.  Different institutions and different agencies are looking at guidelines and principles.  And I wonder if this is perhaps not a gap.  In fact, this might be an outcome that I'm not aware of, but may be an opportunity for the IGF to play a role in facilitating more -- and maybe we'll hear more about that when we listen to the BPF.

 And I think the other thing that struck me is multistakeholder participation.  I think it was -- it was the East European Commission that mentioned not taking it for granted, investing it, improving multistakeholder participation, making sure that it achieves its objectives.  And this has been part of the IGF for a long time.  It's part of the NRI guidelines and handbook.  And maybe this is something not necessarily this year but in a more multiyear approach, the IGF possibly looking at this, at doing more exploratory work into what that really means, what are the principles, what are the outcomes, what are the results.  How is it changing policy-making?

 So these just stood out for me.  But I now open the floor.  We have -- time check.  We have just half an hour until lunch.

 I'd like to keep -- Secretariat, how much time do you need to present the second iteration of the synthesis, of the stock taking?  Five minutes?  Ten nineties?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Call it ten minutes but less than ten minutes.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Okay.  So let's have an open discussion, but let's keep ten minutes at the end to have the IGF give us the input for our afternoon discussion.

 So any questions, any additional input on this relationship with other institutions? 

 Raquel.

 >>RAQUEL GATTO:  Thank you very much, Madam Chair.  I was not expecting the question about the (indiscernible) at this moment, but I appreciate the moment to prepare, but also there is no concerns in addressing it.  I really appreciate that you brought this up, and it's a very important moment to clarify it.

 For those that haven't heard yet, just a couple of weeks before the IGF in Berlin, ISOC has announced that it accepted an offer from Ethos Capital, a private fund institution, to buy the PIR, the Public Interest Register, with all its assets, which includes the .ORG, for a little bit over $1.1 billion.

 And this transaction has been submitted to ICANN's approval so far, and we are waiting to have the questions.  There were some questions that we also addressed.  And also, this is also pending an evaluation, a possible evaluation from the court of Pennsylvania where PIR is settled.

 Regarding your question in terms of the value at the IGF, I was -- during Ibiza, it was funny the you mentioned the Ibiza declaration.  I was working with NIC BR and CGI BR by the time, and whereas the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee where this meeting was also hosted, so I remember that very lively.  But also it was very important to listen to our community, to engage with all our members, including our organization in (indiscernible) and our chapter leaders, but also with our partners, to listen to their concerns very respectfully, addressing what we could have in terms of information.  We also took the opportunity by the last day of the IGF, on Friday, to host an open -- an open call.  So online, our CEO PIR have addressed many of those concerns.  And after that, there are many strings that have flourished, including at the lists, many of them, but also with the media coverage.

 And we are updating -- I invite everyone.  It's really hard to keep up with all the details, but there is a website called TheKeyPointsAbout, and then .org, where ISOC, PIR, and Ethos Capital are maintaining all the information about this transaction and the path to follow within ICANN and other streams.

 So I appreciate.  And if anyone has other questions and we can address the concerns, we are happy to do so.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Raquel.  And I see, Sandra, you are back as well.

 If there are any other people in the room that represent institutions that use the IGF as a platform, please share your experience as well.

 And we have a question from Michal.

 >>MICHAL PUKALUK:   Thank you, Chair.  I'd like to go back to the IGFSA.  I just realized the gentleman representing IGFSA is not in the room.  If I may, I would like to have a better understanding on terms of reference.  The ex-MAG member, Igor Ostrowski, who is Polish, I remember once talking with him and he very much applauded IGFSA in the access-facilitating efforts.

 Is there any established way of cooperating between the IGFSA and host country?  We would like to be as instrumental to -- to them as possible in facilitating any access in Katowice.

 So I'm fully open to the cooperation with them.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks a lot Michal.

 Jennifer, do you want to respond?

 >>JENNIFER CHUNG:   Thank you, Madam Chair.  Thank you for your question, Michal.

 Just speaking on behalf of the IGFSA as the secretary, we would be very happy to take this back to the Executive Committee.  I'm sure we're very happy to explore any avenues of cooperation.

 I think the main mandate which Markus had mentioned earlier is to support the NRIs.  So if that could mean there is, you know any opportunities for the NRIs at the global IGF, that would be in part of our charter and our mandate.  We would be very happy to work with you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Maybe you can follow up bilaterally.

 I see no other MAG members.  I see an observer that has called for the floor, and I encourage the observers in the room to also feel free to ask questions.

 I see we have Michael BenAUDIS, an observe.  Please introduce yourself and identify yours.  You have the floor.

 >> Michal BenAUDIS:  (no audio).

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Okay.  Let's move on.  The next person who requested the floor is Thorsten Jelinek.  Is Thorsten in the room?

 >> THORSTEN JELINEK:  Thank you, Madam Chair, the secretary, dear and MAG members.  I'm an observer and very honored that I have the opportunity.  I am a director of Taihe Institute.  We are a public-policy think tank with focus on technology but also a regional focus on China in particular.  I'll make it just brief, and it not really fits fully into the discussion, but I felt now the opportunity to share that one element of the very deep discussion here and very informative discussion is actually governance itself.  And yesterday I briefly mentioned it, that the issue -- there are many issues technology related, of course, and the agenda is pretty broad, but one issue from my observation, also from the Berlin event, is that the governance issue is not addressed, itself, heads on.  So when you look at current affairs, just briefly people would say we are on a little bit downward spiral of history.  It's not so much about whether the class is half full or half empty.  I think this would be an observation many would share.  And is it because of technology?  Is it because of Internet?  People would say maybe not.

 So the Internet, with all its technologies, is probably here just a symptom used for certain ends but not the course of history.

 So I think it might be worthwhile to investigate whether a theme, a work group just on the governance challenge itself is addressed.  So what is governance?  It's a possibility for collaboration.  Not just regulation but it's a possibility for participation -- sorry, for collaboration based on common goals and interests.  And there are probably at least three things which undermine that.  One of course is the fast pace of technology.  The second one is the fierce competition over that technology, which is causing fragmentation, division, it becomes geopolitical.  And the third are -- is deep-seated cultural and ethical differences which needs to be tackled head on.

 So a call for universality, et cetera, these are laudable elements but there needs to be a mechanism to identify first what is common, to respect what is different, and to work on those differences and maybe, over time, to resolve some of the differences.  And I think this all belongs in itself for the issue of governance, for the IGF but also for countries. 

 And maybe one last thing.  And, Madam Chair, you mentioned the AI ethics debate.  And so we are actually organizing in April -- and it's a little bit of an advertisement and I apologize for that but maybe there is some opportunity for cross-referencing, collaboration, et cetera.  In Prague in April, a fairly big conference, and we call it the First Conference on the Governance of AI, which brings together civil society, academia, businesses, international organizations.  And we have been, over the last two years, working in New York, in Beijing, in Geneva to put together the themes we would address.  And we put it in front of this Congress to elaborate.  You're right, there are many, many -- I think there are over 80 principles, ethical principle statements around AI.  But if you don't address, again, these governance issues head on, those principles appear like an ideology of history, what's happening.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thank you.  And do look at the Best Practice Forum on artificial intelligence, that covered artificial intelligence.

 And thanks for that.  I think it is a -- it's an interesting reflection.  I think sometimes we do perhaps -- people say I have to delve into detailed areas and detailed challenges of Internet governance.  We might be not seeing the wood for the trees, so I think it's an interesting observation for MAG members to keep in mind, particularly as we plan the framing sessions and the introductory sessions of the IGF.

 Anyone else requesting the floor?

 Anyone else in the room with any questions or comment for the institutions that presented their reflections?

 Is he ready now?  So our observer and remote participant Michael Benaudis is online.  Michael, please introduce yourself.

 >>MICHAEL BENAUDIS:  Okay.  Hello.  Can you hear me?  Hello?

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Yes, we can.

 >>MICHAEL BENAUDIS:  Thank you.  Good morning, everybody.  My name is Michael Benaudis.  I am from the private sector.  I am French, and I am the CEO and founder of Https Card, Internet identity card.

 It's our first year as an IGF member, and also my first year as a member of IGFSA.  And my company is an official supporter and a signatory of the (indiscernible) in security in cyberspace launched by the French president.

 My company becomes member of the IGF because we believe no private company, no country or organization can solve the complex problem of cybersecurity alone, and we have the desire and the energy to work closely with the IGF to help any part of our knowledge in supporting the common principles for secure cyberspace.

 New and dangerous practices are developing in cyberspace.  Cybercrime, information manipulation, political or economic espionage, attack on critical infrastructure or individual, the theft of personal information or confidential data.  We truly believe the give is a wonderful opportunity and has a unique potential to bring the international community together to ensure peace and security in the digital space.

 Again, thank you, and welcome to the new MAG member.  And again, thank you very much for your work.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much for that, Michael.  I hope you submitted an input to the stock taking, and thanks for following our work.  I think for the next MAG meeting, try and schedule your participation for the Open Consultation day because then we'll be able to give you more time and space, because that day is designed for input from non-MAG members.  But I'm very glad that we had the time now to give you the floor.

 Thanks a lot.

 I see there are no further requests for the floor.  So I think -- I hope that that's not the end of the discussion about the interaction with other institutions, and I hope it will come back when we plan the work of the year.  But on this note, I want to give the floor now to the secretariat.  We're now going to jump to what is on your printed agenda item number 4, taking stock of IGF 2019.

 We had input on this already, but what the secretariat gave us yesterday was a very brief summary with very -- very -- they had very little time to synthesize the input -- that -- now they have even less time to some extent but they're going to prioritize.  They're going to focus on those aspects of the stock taking that we really need to think about in our work as the MAG.  So they are going to focus particularly on suggestions for improvements, on submissions on thematic content, and a few other designs, flow, format, workshops, and so on.

 Chengetai.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much, Chair.

 I'm just going to read out what we could extract from the inputs on things that the submitters suggested that we focus on.

 I know for some of these things it might be just a matter of making it more clear on the website, but, yes, that is also something that we should focus on.  How can we make it more clear, how can we make this information more accessible.

 So to start off with, for the preparatory process, some of the comments were more clarity on the session reporting process.  Another one was the timely publishing of meeting outputs and messages which, again, as I said, I thought we did this but how do we -- can we think about how do we make it more clear.

 Develop detailed requirements for workshop proponents and simplify overall process.  Introduce more transparency in the workshop evaluation process.  Policy questions for thematic narratives to be more specific.  There could be two types of workshops:  one, workshops exploring new areas and looking into the future on emerging issues; and, two, others that are expected to feed concretely into the discussion of the main sessions and the selected priority topics.

 The last point in this section is main session discussion should be based on pre-prepared and published documents developed by the IGF Secretariat and the MAG on the basis of community input.  I don't think I need to clarify that, but we can discuss it later on when we get to that topic.

 Community intersessional activities and the national, regional initiatives.  Align all intersessional work -- that's the best practices forums, the DCs and the national, regional initiatives -- into the thematic tracks.  Increase the role of the NRIs to collect local inputs and convey it to the global IGF program.  Develop linkages -- I mean that's stronger links between the global IGF and the national and regional initiatives which, yes, we are working on.

 Develop linkages between high-level meeting and the intersessional work, which I think we can work on with the host country now.  If we have a program for the high-level meeting earlier on, we can see if we can include it into the international work so it's not just on the one day; that we can have something that flows into it.  I mean, that's just a suggestion as I'm saying, but that's what we gather from that suggestion.

 Enhanced dissemination of intersessional work outputs.  Yes, that's something that we are working on.

 And then the next one is the structure and flow.  Maintain the practice of the thematic tracks.  There was very broad support for the thematic tracks, and I think it was one of the things that was most praised about the structure of the program, the three thematic tracks instead of the traditional eight or more that we've had.

 The legislators and parliamentary track to be continued with outcomes including the documents; there, reference to the Jimmy Schultz call.  All sessions to be outcome oriented.  Outcome messages to be linked to the outcome and results of the intersessional work and the national and regional initiatives.

 The high-level meeting from day zero could be organized during the regular meeting days, and there's a suggestion for it to be on the last day as it would allow participants to discuss session outcomes.

 Reduce number of sessions and improve selection methods.  Leave enough time in between sessions for participants to meet bilaterally and do not miss any -- and to not miss many of the program components.  That's the reduction in sessions, which is always on the agenda.

 There could be one main session per day.  Avoid the workshops to compete with the main sessions.  Day one could be dedicated to workshops, and day two and three to more general discussions.

 Workshops should feed into the discussion of the main sessions.  Session conclusions could be prepared similarly as they do it in EuroDIG, form of messages prepared by trained rapporteurs which present participants -- where present participants are asked to express or support of objections.  I think we can ask Sandra a little bit more about that, but that's later on.

 On the themes, tracks and content, provide synergies between Best Practice Forums and main sessions.  For example, the main session on applying human rights and ethics in responsible data governance and AI could also -- gave an opportunity to raise the visibility and impact of the work.  The work and outputs of different Best Practice Forums whilst also while presented in workshops, thereby forfeiting the need to have allocated main session slot for the intersessional activities.  I hope that's clear.

 Maintain the current three themes.  As I said beforehand, there was support for maintaining the current three themes, but there was also additional suggestions for themes that were put forward.  And Anja is going to give a presentation on that when we start discussing the thematic themes.  She's got a presentation prepared.

 So these were -- So the traditional -- the three themes we had last year were digital -- oh, sorry.  Now I'm putting myself in.  Yes.  Data governance, digital inclusion, yes, security, stability, and safety.

 They had other ones:  Digital transformation, digital skills, digital economy, trust and security, human rights and ethics, new and emerging technologies, digitization and climate change, environmental impact of ICTs.

 Just to point out you don't have to take notes because this document is on the front page already, so you can just read it through lunch and -- it's under the "Documents" tab.

 Increased participation of the private sector, governments, startups and SMEs.  Reach out to permanent missions to the U.N. in Geneva and to have them informed and engaged in the IGF preparatory process as soon as possible.  Participation of head of the host country and the U.N. Secretary-General should become a permanent practice as -- and be framed as "state of the Internet" or "state of digital cooperation."

 Gathering and participation of high-level leaders through the high-level session format should be continued.  Further raise efforts to engage participants from developing countries, the Global South, like we did in IGF 2019.  And also strong support for the youth to be embedded into the overall IGF work.

 As you noticed during the open mic session, there was -- a lot of people came up to the mic and said, you know, we should include the youth throughout the session.  So we should also think about that, but also encourage the youth to be proactive in that.  Not that we drag them, but they should be proactive as well.  Sorry, I'm commenting, which I shouldn't.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   (Off microphone).

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yes.  (laughing).

 Other comments included partnership with other projects and organizations.  The information sources at the disposal of the participants during the IGF such as digital policy summaries, instant session reporting and daily reports, et cetera, should be further developed and improved.  Yes.  We agree.

 By strengthening and partnership with the GIP, GIPO and the summit schools.

 The IGF Secretariat could maintain a dedicated site linking to partners that provide observatory or help desk functions which provide updated information on relevant issues and processes.

 Further strengthen linkages of the IGF to the U.N. agenda 2030 and sustainable development.

 The IGF to evolve towards becoming a platform that provides practical solutions through the dedicated projects such as hackathons and prizes involving industry, innovators, and tech developers.  Develop strategic multiyear planning and interlink the previous and current and future host countries and MAG programming.  The intersessional work could be spanned over two to three years, which we were already working on, but yes.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much for that, Chengetai.

 So MAG members, it's on the website.  Have a look at that.

 When we come back, we're going to be discussing this in more depth, and I'd like the track leaders to start mentally preparing a little bit for feedback and reflection.  Similarly, BPF coordinators.  We're not going to have formal reporting but we are going to ask you to speak and share your reflections.

 So we just have a few minutes left before we close, and I promised that we would open the floor to discussions on mandate, terms of reference of the MAG and terms of reference of the MAG chair.  So I don't know if we have any questions.  I know Michal has a question. 

 I hope you remember your question from this morning on terms of reference.  So we start with you.

 >>MICHAL PUKALUK:   Thanks very much.  Since this is my first MAG meeting, I would like very much to be indulged to my own experience.  I'm still trying to get used to specific vocabulary used and the comments that I'm about to make might be too generic, too basic for you, but as a newcomer, I think I might not only be speaking on behalf of myself but maybe on all the newcomers that are present in the room right now.

 First, it's about the intersessional work.  I guess that would be a question to the secretariat.  Could you, Chengetai, maybe elaborate more on how it's structured and how exactly it fits into the mainstream of the MAG?  What tools you use and, well, is it simply the meetings in between the main global IGF meetings?  So that's first.

 And that leads me to the second, to the second question on the structure of the MAG itself, because there are so many actors, so many processes to it.  Maybe it is there and I simply should have looked at the MAG website more carefully, but I think some sort of visual form explaining the MAG structure and all the different work flow to it will help explain all the complexities that, believe me, are there and not come easy to the newcomers.

 It may be long shots but I guess worth considering, especially at the start of the new MAG.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks a lot, Michal.  Very useful questions.

 And let's take all the questions first.

 Next we have Jutta.

 >>JUTTA CROLL:   Thank you, Anriette, for giving me the floor.  I just wanted to add a bit of information to the stock-taking process.  The working group on the workshop evaluation process has done, with the help of Luis, a survey on the overall satisfaction with the process, how people felt about the feedback they got when they sent in their proposal, whether it was rejected or accepted, whether they found the form to be appropriate, and so on, and so on.  And we got substantial feedback on that.  And it's not the time now to discuss the feedback, but I just wanted to inform you that we have got that feedback from the community.  It was about -- it was 55 people who responded, so that -- taking in mind that many people sent in several proposals, it's more or less a quarter of all workshop proposers who responded to the survey.  And I do think it gives us a substantial input to the process that we have ahead of us for this year's program.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Good.  We definitely want you to present that, the results of that, this afternoon.

 And any more questions?  This is -- We're still talking about MAG mandate, terms of reference, and chair terms of reference.

 Mary.

 >>MARY UDUMA:   Thank you.  I had clicked hand down.  I don't know why it's still there.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Okay.  So Ben.

 >>BEN WALLIS:   Thank you.  I just wondered if you could clarify the term "track leaders."  I know that some of us had volunteered and ended up leading the three tracks last year.  So is it about us being in a place to reflect on how it worked last year?  I hoped that -- well, obviously we can't assume yet or know which would be the tracks that we go forward, but also hopefully there will be an opportunity for anyone to volunteer to step up and lead them this year.  It won't necessarily be me again.

 Thanks.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   My apologies if I used the wrong language.  I was referring to people -- well, I'm going to look at Paul, for example, who was in the digital inclusion -- worked on the digital inclusion track, and I think part of that responsibility was compiling a background document.  So I can't remember what term you used, but that's who I was referring to.  And that's for this afternoon.

 >>BEN WALLIS:   Yes, that was me.  And we're talking about what happened in 2019, so, yes, I was the thematic track leader for --

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   That's right.  So we'd like you just to reflect on that and share some reflections this afternoon.

 >>BEN WALLIS: Great. 

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   So before we break for lunch, no further questions on MAG terms of reference?

 >>ANASTASIYA KAKOVA:  Hello, my name is Anastasiya Kakova.  I'm from Kaspersky as we talked yesterday to  you.  This is the first time, and we are really excited to take part for the first time in the IGF.  And thank you very much for spending the time explaining the -- very capably, the whole process regarding the MAG and the consultation.  Though it is, indeed, seems a little bit complicated, now it is much clearer, though I still have one question regarding the call for nominations and the overall process how the private sector and businesses can be selected to be members of the MAG.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks.  Thanks for that question.

 Chengetai, so you have to tell us about the MAG selection process and appointment process, and then the structure of the intersessional work.  The different modalities of intersessional work and how that operates.  And finally -- or maybe that can be covered under response number one, the structure of the MAG, how does it look visually.

 And I'm sorry, I know we're going to take a few minutes of lunch, but it won't be a lot.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Okay.  Thank you.

 For the MAG selection process, the MAG is renewed every single year, and there is a rotation of MAG members every year.  The original intent was to have a one-third rotation of the MAG members so that you don't lose everything with a full rotation, and the old members can also pass down things to the new members.

 It hasn't worked out quite that well because in the past 14 years, you've had people dropping out, et cetera.  So the rotation is rather uneven.  But to answer your question, the IGF secretariat publishes a note from the Under-Secretary-General announcing the MAG renewal process.  And what happens is that there is a -- a process where stakeholders can submit names.  So you can either be individual stakeholders submitting names to this process.  It can be groups like the civil society caucus, ICC/BASIS for the business.

 Also, but these nominations are not -- they're nominations that we look at, are not just through these institutions we say that anybody can submit a name for consideration.

 The governments have got a more organized process because they do this all the time in their -- through the U.N.  So I'll just concentrate on the non-governmental process.

 So once these names have been put in, they are -- we submit them to UN DESA and it's actually this person here who actually receives the email.

 [ Laughter ]

 And they are all tabulated, and depending on the number of people rotating out, I think this year we're rotating out around 21 or 22 people.  20?  27 people.  So it's -- yeah.  So we're rotating that. And they're collated, cover letter is put on, and it's passed through to the Secretary-General's office.  And the Secretary-General's office looks at several criteria which we try and guess what this criteria is and publish instructions on our website when you are looking -- when you are submitting applications.  So this would be, of course, regional representation is very important and critical.  There's also a gender balance.  The Secretary-General's office is very, very concerned about gender balance.  It has to be 50/50, 25 male, 25 females.  And yes, 50 in total.  And to break it down each stakeholder group, it should be 10, 10, 10, and 20 for the governments.  So 10 civil society, 10 technical community, and 10 private sector, so everybody knows where they stand. 

 The Secretary-General's office looks at that and signs off on it, and those are the MAG members.  We -- the Secretary-General's office tries not to repeat countries and to make sure that there is wide representation so that if we have a lot of people coming from a particular country, they would not want to repeat that country so that we garner the most, I don't know what you want to call it.  Viewpoints, yes.  Disparate viewpoints from across the globe.  I'm going to try to be a little bit more quicker.  So that's how it is selected.  Have I missed something that's critical?  No?  Okay. 

 So a final reminder is that the Secretary-General chooses whom he wants to advise.  So we try and give you the best advice but it's -- it is really the Secretary-General's prerogative to choose whom he wants to be in the advisory group because it is the Secretary-General's advisory group.  So I'll finish with that.

 The structure of the MAG, well there's the MAG chair and there's the 50 MAG members.  There is a -- I've already talked about the 10, 10, 10, 20.  There is the -- well, and the MAG is supported by the IGF secretariat.  And the UN DESA represents, basically, the Secretary-General's office.

 Intersessional work.  On our website, if you go to our website, there is --

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: There's a top-level menu item for intersessional work.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.  So the first thing I would like to show you is on the MAG About MAG, there is the MAG working groups.  And you can see the MAG working groups here.  Working group on fundraising, working group on IGF improvements, working group on outreach and engagements, working group on workshop process, which was mentioned before, working group on reporting, and these are going to be discussed I think day after -- tomorrow.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: These are not standing working groups.  We can initiate, we can change them, introduce new ones, as needed.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes.  They're renewed every single year.  And I think we're going to do that tomorrow.  And then the other thing is the intersessional activities tab where you have the dynamic coalitions and the best practice forums.  We used to have policy options, but I think that ran for three years and that has now been concluded, and MAG members are encouraged to join some of these groups.  Of course, not all of the groups but to pick something that, you know, is close to your heart or that you think that you can help out with, and help coordinate, facilitate, whatever is going on in that group. 

 So those are the main intersessional work initiatives that we currently have.  Of course, you might choose to have some more initiatives, but that's -- okay.  And there's also the national and regional initiatives.  We have some MAG members here who are members of those.  And we want to coordinate with those groups.  And for those people who are new -- and I think Michal you may not know -- we do have Anja Gengo over there who sits in the Secretariat and is the Secretariat facilitator and coordinator for the national and regional initiatives.  There's biweekly calls with the coordinators et cetera and we discuss how we can work together.  And we emphasize that we're working together, not a top-down thing.  Is that all?  I think so.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I think so.  I think we need to break.  I'll just add three things. 

 The one is that if you look at the IGF website and if you look at the outputs of the IGF retreat, MAG selection is not an uncontested activity.  In fact, I think it's testimony to the good work that this MAG did last year that I didn't see any of the open and consultation input complaining about MAG selections.  So congratulations to the 2019 MAG, along with the host countries and others.  But the community often does ask questions about who is selected, why, on what basis.  And that's part of this open, inclusive, bottom-up way. 

 I think the other thing to note is that the MAG and the work of organizing the IGF, both done by the MAG, as well as the work of the intersessional spaces, the work is not done just by MAG members.  All of those spaces are open to other members of the community.  What MAG has to do is to provide leadership, coordination, continuity, and reporting back.  But they can draw on others in the community to support the work that they do.  Some of -- the BPFs really, that is done by BPF members, and MAG plays a facilitation and coordination role.  But it is -- it's a modality that exists for non-MAG members and anyone else in the community to do work.  And the dynamic coalitions are really very -- they're self-organized.  And entirely, actually.  And that's another way in which the IGF creates this opportunity for bottom-up and inclusive participation. 

 So I think on that note, thanks very much for everyone's patience, and go and enjoy your lunch.  Remember that at 2:30 there's the IGF trust fund briefing, and I'd like everyone to come back after lunch prepared to speak because I think those of us up here, particularly myself and Chengetai, have done too much speaking.  So it's going to have to be your turn after lunch.

 [ Lunch break ]

 

 

 

 MAG Day 2, Afternoon Session

 15 January 2020

 

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Everyone, can you please take your seats.  We need to start the afternoon session.

 Chengetai wants me to use the gavel.

 [ Gavel ]

 It actually works.

 Thanks, everyone.  And it's good to see you talking to one another and socializing and having lunch together.

 We now need to begin to make some decisions.  We've got a day and a half left, and we actually have quite a lot of work left to do.

 What I'd like us to achieve by the end of this afternoon's session is a decision on themes and how to take the next steps to follow up on those themes, identifying policy questions and how to involve the community on that.  And I think we need to also begin to discuss the design and flow of the IGF, but with the entry point of thematic tracks.  Because there clearly is consensus that it works well to have thematic tracks.

 And I am going to ask you to break into working groups and work in groups and report back.

 But before that, let's just have some just general reflections.  I'd like the people who were involved in coordinating tracks to share their reflections on the process in particular.

 I know we have Sandra with us from EuroDIG just for this afternoon, she can't be with us tomorrow, to share some of the experience reflections that they have undertaken on how to work and identify the themes.

 Let's just for about ten to 15 minutes have some general input, and then we'll break into working groups.

 So, in fact, I'm going to ask the -- let's start with the track coordinators.  Can we have digital inclusion to share your reflections and learnings and suggestions.

 >>PAUL ROWNEY:  Thank you, Chair.  Putting me on the spot.

 Okay --

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I always start with my neighboring countries when I put people on the spot.

 >>PAUL ROWNEY:  Big Brother bullying the small neighbors.

 Okay.  I was involved in the digital inclusion stream.  And I think the general views of the working group that was involved with me was that the process worked well.

 We started with the topping, so basically an introduction into the stream and the sort of areas that we wanted to tackle.  And we had some breakout groups.  And the breakout groups worked very well.  In general, people didn't really want to participate when it was a broad group, but when we broke them into the breakout groups, they did start to participate.

 We didn't really get the participation that we had expected from the workshop proposers.  There were some of the workshop proposers there, but not as many as we would have wanted.  I don't know whether we didn't communicate it well.

 There's the usual challenges of running a workshop like this in parallel to so much else that was going on.  And there were -- there was a very interesting main session that happened at the same time.  And I think that drew a lot of people away from the topping session.  And I think this is throughout all the three streams.

 We might want to look at how we could enhance the topping and tailing.  I think the topping and tailing of the stream is important.  I don't think we got it quite right.

 Some thoughts I'm putting here, I think on the topping, we definitely want to try and avoid conflicts from other sessions to try and push as many people there as possible, and maybe even combine all the topping sessions into one sort of main session so there is translation and language, which might encourage more participation and more understanding of how the streams would run.

 I believe that this approach did help reduce a lot of the duplication around discussing the same thing, because it did focus the workshops.  Specifically just talking about digital inclusion, there was a sort of story line that we tried to build from building the inclusion, the main issues of inclusion, policy discussions, and stuff, so they came throughout the stream.  So we tried to build a story.  But people were not necessarily following that stream.  So as I say, there was a lot going on.

 Just general comments, and this, I think, translates throughout the whole IGF.  I don't think we got the diversity at the workshops that we thought we would get when we evaluated the workshops, because there was a lot of changing of speakers.  A lot of cancellation of people that could travel.  Yeah.

 And my general thought is, I think if -- because when we started this process, it -- we didn't -- it sort of gained structure as we moved forward.  And I think now we've got a better understanding, starting now, to understand the theme and how we would want it to flow may help us now shape how we want to request workshop proposals.  So we could change the way we're trying to solicit workshops so they fit better with the thematic streams that we're going to propose this year.

 So, yeah, that's just generally my thoughts and feedback.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  And thanks.

 Any questions for Paul?  Or any comments or additions on digital inclusion?

 No.  Okay.

 Let's move on to security, stability, and safety.

 You are data governance.  I know, I'm just smiling at you because you smiled so nicely at me.

 Jutta?  Who should I give that --

 >> The problem is that it's Sylvia, Sylvia Cadena.  I'm not sure whether she takes part remotely.  I think she is not available.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  She is in Colombia at the moment, actually.  She's not in Australia.  But I don't think she's -- she's not online at the moment, is she?

 Is there anyone else who worked with Sylvia on that -- Susan, you were involved in that, maria Paz -- who would be willing -- Jutta, yourself.

 Please go ahead.  Be involved -- Is Maria Paz back from lunch?  Is she with us?

 She's coming in.  She can also, then, add.  So why don't we start with Ben, data governance.  You have the floor.

 >>BEN WALLIS:  Thank you.

 So, yes, I took the lead to coordinate the data governance track from -- in terms of the activities of the MAG.  So let me kind of make three observations.

 One would be about using thematic tracks generally to organize the program.

 One would be about what it then meant in terms of the MAG work before Berlin.

 And the other would be about what happened in Berlin.

 So I think I said this yesterday as well.  It wasn't complete innovation, because apparently it happened in the past, but having three thematic tracks, I felt, was a helpful way of organizing the meeting in a more coherent way, both for us as the MAG during the year, and giving us different tasks, even as far as the way we organized the workshop evaluation, but also for the participants leading up to conference and when there were in Berlin.

 In practice, I don't think it does much to reduce the variety of topics discussed, as there are so many different components or subthemes, as we call them, to each of the thematic tracks.  So I don't think picking three themes is restrictive.  And for some people, that's a problem.  But for me, it's not a big problem.  I think there's a broad demand across the community to discuss different topics.  It allows for that.  I know some people would like it to be narrower and more focused.

 So I don't think having the thematic tracks is -- restricts the amount of topics greatly.  And I do think it provides some value from an organizational perspective.

 And I -- so I'd like to see us continue with three thematic tracks.  I am filled with dread at the idea of starting anew and coming up with three completely new thematic tracks.  I think the ones we had allowed for us to cover a lot of the topics which are of interest to the community.  But as we've heard yesterday, there are issues like the environment, skills, potentially the future of work.  So I wonder if we'll maybe tomorrow find ways to tweak those thematic tracks -- today -- in our working group groups that you're going to put us in.

 So that's an observation about the general approach.

 What does it mean for the MAG?  Before we got to the Berlin, yes, I think it helped with the evaluation process that we were thinking in terms of -- so when we were looking at which should be the workshops chosen, we were able to kind of look across the thematic track rather than just in a miscellaneous way.

 It created a lot of work for the MAG.  So I think in the previous year, where I'd put energy into a working group, last year, that energy went into organizing a thematic track.  Now, I recognize that a lot of that work -- some of that work was about inventing this topping and tailing, as we called it, how do you organize this in Berlin.  And Susan and Timea kind of led a lot -- and Sylvia, I think, as well -- led a lot of that thinking about how to organize it.  And then it fell to the different working groups on how to take that forward and make those sessions happen.  And, you know, me kind of nagging people to step forward as leaders of breakout sessions in Berlin and things like that.

 So that took a lot of energy.  It will still take energy even if we don't have to reinvent the wheel.

 And then what about when we were in Berlin?

 So I'll just focus on these introductory and concluding sessions, which I cochaired with Lucien Castex, who's a MAG member this year, and from ISOC.

 I thought those meetings were a success.  It was interesting to have a keynote speaker.  I thought the real value was when we went out into breakout sessions, people who wouldn't either have the opportunity to speak during a workshop or -- or wouldn't feel brave enough or would be intimidated by putting their hand up to speak on a microphone I think gave them a chance to give their views in a discussion.  And I think it also had a social value as well of kind of getting people exposed to people they wouldn't necessarily be talking to, and potentially hearing about workshop sessions they might not have already been going to.  So I think that -- that was where the real value, for me, was.

 In terms of what it produced as messages, it was a real challenge for it to produce anything usable in realtime, because we were working pretty much in realtime.  And to be honest, you know, in terms of the messages for the three themes, none of that work was done by the secretariat's team that were monitoring all of the sessions and all of the reporting.  And they were able to bring that together.  And I was able to report that, but also incorporate a little bit of what I had taken in for the concluding session.

 But in terms of what I would see, I would manage the expectations of what those sessions could achieve and see them as part of kind of the social glue of the meeting rather than necessarily their primary focus being to produce outcomes for the meeting.

 So thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  That's very interesting reflections.

 Any questions for Ben on the data governance track?  Or additions, additional input?  No.  Not yet.

 Maria Paz, I'm sorry, when you were out, I'm asking the coordinators of the tracks to just share their reflections, what worked, what they thought could work better.

 And Sylvia is not able to be with us, so would you and your attache -- mind sharing some input from security, stability, and safety?

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES:  Sure.  Although we are in a position, because I started more in the security/stability track, and then I move a little bit more to the data governance track.  So I think that if we do it together with Jutta, probably will be a better combination, because I think that Jutta was more with Sylvia during the whole time in the security, stability --

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  No.  That was the idea, that Jutta would do it, and then if you want to add anything, you could.

 So, Jutta, thanks very much for being willing to do this.

 >>JUTTA CROLL:  I can only step in and what we have seen during yesterday and today was something that was crucial for the whole track, that it's very difficult to remember that it was security, safety, stability, and resilience.  And the experience was the bucket was maybe just too huge.  We tried to explain that in that introductory session as well as when we brought out the three tracks, explaining that security is more related to the systems, while safety more related to the people.  But also, we faced that, and that is somehow mirrored by Maria Paz, that some of the issues in this bucket were also related today to governance.  Everything that was related to data security was somehow in between.  And I remember that we sorted some workshops in the process nearly into the one or the other bucket.  So that was one of the difficulties.  And I really do think that it belongs together, so we should go ahead with the track, but maybe we can make it more comprehensive to people where their workshop proposals really belong.

 I don't know whether it's only a question of phrasing the description or whether if we go for more tracks, if we consider also the environmental aspects, climate change and so on, that maybe opens up new relations between the three tracks or four tracks or whatsoever.

 So we need to take that in mind.

 I do think we had a good resonance to the track.  So many people sent in their workshop proposals.  In general, it was well understood what we mean with security and safety.  But still, it might be a little bit more precise.

 I cannot report about the opening and the -- no, it was -- the topping and the tailing sessions because I -- then at that point, it was more Sylvia who was doing that.  So I'm sorry for that.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  And thanks very much, Jutta.

 Any additions?

 Susan.

 And just -- I want to just quickly, Susan, before we start, because we're not using the speaking queue, which is okay, do we have -- I'm not logged into the remote participation interface.  Do we have MAG members that are with us remotely?

 Sorry?

 >> (Indiscernible.)

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  So just, remote participants, I'm going to do log into the system just now.  But please -- please don't hesitate to participate.  Please don't.  You can use the speaking queue or you can alert the secretariat.

 Susan.

 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:  Thank you, their.

 And thanks to Ben, Jutta.  Paul, I apologize, I was coming in as you were giving your intervention.  So, please, if I say something you've already explained, just flag me or something.  And Maria Paz.

 To build off some of Ben's comments, I just wanted to share a few reflections as the co-organizer of the digital inclusion track with Paul.

 So the reduction of -- well, the reduction of three broad themes, I agree that it didn't necessarily have that very strong narrowing effect when it came to the diversity of the workshops that were submitted.  It did help with organization, and it did mean that those workshops when they were submitted under a certain theme had identified a nexus between the workshop and the subject matter issue.  So the way the workshops were framed were within the narrative, because we created three narratives for each of the three themes.  But still, it was very diverse.  So I do think it helped with organization. 

 But if there remains a desire to see a further narrowing of subject matter topics, then I think that is a question that could be further addressed and thought about.

 In terms of the workshop evaluation process, what we found in the digital inclusion workshop was that there were a number of different subthemes that emerged within digital inclusion.  What we did for the intro section was actually take those subthemes.  And those were the topics of the breakout groups.  I'm not sure if somebody had clarified that.  But I apologize if somebody already has and I'm being repetitive.

 But I think what was very interesting with the digital inclusion concluding session is that when we revisited these different subthemes, we were able to kind of do a mapping of how these issues flowed into each other.  And so I'm going to try and remember what that was.  And, Paul, please jump in if I'm -- if I'm wrong.

 But we did kind of start at the bottom of the stack and then move upwards.  So we first talked about infrastructure issues and universal access, community networks.  And then that led to a very interesting discussion between access and accessibility, which then segued into the next subtheme.  And we were talking about digital skills, which segued into the next.

 And so I think one of the benefits of approaching the program in this way was that we were able to see how the themes interrelated.  And from a policy perspective, that was fascinating.  So I think that was probably one of the coolest parts about how we approached the topic.  And I'm not sure if -- if the other tracks had the same experience.

 And just one last thing.  Something that I think worked really well for the collaboration and engagement among MAG members is that we had MAG members lead the -- the breakout group discussions.  And so that was a really nice opportunity to -- I don't see -- there she is, Dalsie -- to be able to work with different colleagues, people who I have never been able to work with before, people I have worked with before.  But it was a really nice way for us to all come together and work on that project.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  And thanks, Susan.

 And just for the new MAG members -- and I'm new, too, so correct me if I'm wrong.  But how this worked was that the themes, the tracks were identified and then there were policy questions associated with each track.  And then the workshop proponents were asked to say which of those policy questions they are responding to.  And then the MAG, instead of all the MAG members evaluating all the -- the workshop proposals, the MAG worked in those thematic clusters, and they would evaluate only those workshops who identify with a particular track.

 And so there was this continuity of MAG members engaging that thematic track in different ways, from looking at what the policy questions would be, to evaluating the workshops, and as Susan just said, to running the introductory sessions, the breakout sessions, and then the concluding sessions, and identifying some of the outcomes, as well as producing an input paper.  So it did -- I think that is new.  I think the MAG has worked, the IGF has had tracks before, but I think that kind of intensive process is new.

 And I think as you've all said, there's still incremental developments and changes that can work with that.

 I just wanted to brief the new MAG members about this so they understand, you know, what this means for the work process.

 Any other general reflections?  You are -- I am going to ask you to break into groups, into breakout sessions, seeing as now that's becoming an acceptable practice in the IGF, which, as someone from civil society, I think is a very good idea.  But I want more general reflections.  And I also want Sandra to take the floor.

 Chenai, you have the floor.

 >>CHENAI CHAIR:  Thank you very much.  My name is Chenai Chair, for the record, representing civil society.

 I think, as a first-year MAG member participating in the working tracks -- I worked with Ben on the data governance track -- it was a really good approach to actually be able to set the pace for the sessions.  And there was some general feedback that I got from people who had attended MAG before who then went to these sessions.  And I think what was particularly important was the breakout.  Because if you haven't been part of the MAG -- not MAG.  If you haven't been part of IGF or if you have participated in IGF and not always a front speaker, there were breakout sessions allowed for you to actually engage with a smaller group of people on a particular topic of interest and be able to feel like your feedback was picked up and heard.  And it also allowed people to scribe in the sessions, because we had someone who was scribing in the working group we had for the first time.  And their feedback is that this helped them to actually be able to understand the IGF process itself and the topic at hand.

 And in reflecting in terms of overall being part of that working group and then participating in other workshops at the IGF, what I thought would have been great and maybe could be implemented in this round if we continue with the tracks, which I think was really good, is to probably have -- even though we have the introductory and closing of each one of the sessions, it would have been great to actually, then, see what were the cross-cutting -- the issues that were emerging across the three subthemes.  Because what happened was, I was sitting on a lot of digital inclusion panels, but a lot of data issues kept on coming up in those digital inclusion panels.  So because I had been part of the data governance session, I kind of was able to pick up the issues that were emerging.  But it would have been good to then have a final presentation that actually does talk about although we've siloed things, some of these issues are actually related to see the cross-thematic issues that emerged.

 So that was my contribution with regards to the sessions.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Chenai.

 Mary.

 And -- yeah, people are identifying themselves for the record.  Personally, I prefer Chatham House.  But that's fine.  But also for the transcribers. 

 We have Mary Uduma taking the floor.

 >>MARY UDUMA:  Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor.

 My name is Mary Uduma, from Nigeria, technical community in MAG.

 As part of my reflection, as I did this in my feedback, we had a very good outing.  First of all, the thematic groups gave a good focus for those even people from my community.  I told them about the three.  And we shared ourselves into those three thematic sessions so that we can follow that and report on what happened.  So it was a good one.

 But I was disappointed that we were not able to organize the beginners session.  The beginners session was bungled -- I mean, it didn't happen well, because we didn't have a handle for it.  So I think for 2020, if we are going to run that beginners or newcomers session, we should have a handle.  And they should be -- that will have an interpretation, because it's always in the main hall.  If it has interpretation, people will be focused, people will know what to find or what to -- they are up against and they will be talked to about these three groups if they haven't read it online.  Some people will come blindly.  They don't know.  So they could also be directed and get focused.  That's the first aspect.

 The -- and when we were preparing last year, I kept asking, these topping and tailing sessions, will it take over the newcomers sessions or newcomers' session?  And it's like we missed it there.  So I think 2020, we should look at that and see whether we can get it back on course, and there should be an interpretation.

 Another good thing that happened was that so many people came from the Global South.  Right?  And it was a good one.  But the truth is that people from my community were left out from the workshop sessions.  Why?  Because some of them came, and the only thing that we're doing, I was seeing them, I was meeting with them, they were only working on the tops and did not follow anything that happened in the session, whether there was a presentation or a contribution, they did not follow because of language issues.

 So for me, I think we should be very, very clear on what we want to do with -- from Global South, what we want to do with them, do we want them to just come to see what we do at the IGF or do we want them to effectively participate in the IGF process.

 So if that is the case, we should have a new strategy on how to get them engaged, on how to get them effectively participate in what was happening.

 Maybe when we get to the nitty-gritty, then we can look at what do we do for 2020.

 And certainly the thematic -- I mean, the three parallel sessions, they were all good, well organized, and they made the community -- they brought the community to focus on what the issues are in those.  And they are good.  From there, they were all good.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Mary.  And let's keep the discussion not to the thematic tracks and that we'll come to some of those other issues later on in the process.

 Next we have Jennifer.  I just want to urge, I don't want to keep the floor open for too long because I am going to ask you to work in breakout groups.  So please just keep it at very high-level reflections at this point.  Jennifer.

 >>JENNIFER CHUNG: Thank you, Madam Chair.  I'm not going to repeat what my colleagues have said before me.  I do agree very much with a lot of the benefits that we looked at when organizing the workshops into thematic tracks. 

 I find logistically it really helps the MAG review these proposals because previously -- because I'm a third-year MAG member -- previously we were given -- we were divvied out a section of proposals and they were -- they range from every single topic, and it's very difficult to kind of compare when you're thinking about it.  When you're looking at a bucket, or if you're looking at a theme, you're able to see the trends that kind of weave through.  You're able to think about hey, maybe some workshops would benefit being merged or some workshops would benefit from these ideas that are very similar together.  So this really helps us logistically organize how, as a MAG, we can review or do the main substantive work that we were tasked to do.

 Another thing I wanted to reflect was, last year was the first time we did it this way, so each track had its own way of organizing within MAG members.  So it was a little organic, different tracks had different criteria kind of thinking of whether they want to merge proposals or if they don't want to merge proposals, how they can handle it. 

 I don't really have so much of a preference this way, whether or not we continue to do it, organically, but definitely it's something that stuck in my mind, whether we want to have some kind of main umbrella criteria or not.  But this is something to think about. 

 And lastly -- and I've said this in previous years as well -- it looks like we're kind of closing down the timeline on April 15, but the Internet and its issues don't stop there.  As I've called before, I'd like there to be a space.  It doesn't have to be a main session, it doesn't have to be workshops, but there has to be some kind of way to respond in an agile way to the kind of issues that crop up.  Especially in Internet governance, and we know how fast this ecosystem moves.  So it doesn't matter how we -- how we do it.  I know it's quite difficult sometimes to plan for this, if everything has to be set in stone, but there's been -- and I've read a lot of the inputs we've received and also anecdotally, people really do want to have this space to be able to reflect on things that are happening quite currently.  And from April to November, it's quite a long period.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Jennifer.  And Sandra, after you, we're closing the floor of this phase.  Others, you'll have another opportunity.  So -- and we have Timea and then we have June and then Sandra.

 >>TIMEA SUTO: Thank you, Chair.  I'll try to be brief.  As Jennifer before me, I'm not going to repeat the things I agree with.  It's basically 99.99% of what has been said so far.  But if I may add two points, one on the substantive side and one on the logistical side.

 In terms of the three tracks and issues to discuss there, I've heard both arguments of keeping them broad and arguments on narrowing them down.  And I think I tend to believe that we shouldn't have more than three.  But having only one would probably hurt us as we won't be able to focus on many issues that the community does want to talk about. 

 But I'm wondering if in those three tracks we could have a main theme or a main thread and then others.  So give them a focus, you know. 

 Digital inclusion, for us it worked well because we could build up on various policy issues, but maybe we want to focus it into something, helping digitalization or -- of SMEs should be the main focus and then we have some other issues.  Just something to think about.

 And then the logistical side, I think we did a really great job with the three tracks all over, but I'm not sure anybody outside this room knew what was happening in planning of the three tracks after a certain point.  We -- I think the MAG did a great job in coming up with the tracks.  We came up with the narratives.  We came up with the policy questions.  Up until the point the workshop proposal were launched, and then life took over and everybody had myriads of priorities and we, I think, forgot about notifying the community of what's really happening.  How are we slotting workshops into subthemes?  What's going to happen with those subthemes in the opening and closing sessions?  Why are we doing them?  So while we were trying to figure out what to do about them, we were forgetting to communicate about them.  And I think to Paul's point earlier, that might have been the reason why the community didn't really know how to follow the program or how to engage in addition to really there were a lot -- there was a lot to digest while on the ground and in Berlin. 

 So I'm thinking if we could do a bit of a better job at making sure that the three thematic tracks, the narratives and the questions, are really at the forefront on the Web page and in our communication and that we -- even the scheduling app might -- or whatever app we decide to use this year, could help in tagging and tracking the various sessions under this.  We can make an effort of adding the various other sessions that are happening into these three tracks, somehow to keep that communication constant for the community so that they know, even the organizers of the workshops, where did their workshop end up and how that fits into the whole program.  So those are my two points.  Thank you

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Timea.  June.

 >>JUNE PARRIS: I have to support what Timea just said.  I think basically -- and Mary and Paul as well.  I think we lost track of what we were doing, there was so much going on, and as a result, people that should have been in these sessions missed the sessions.  I think we need to try and find a way to communicate better, as Timea was just saying, and also what Mary said, initially.

 The sessions were fine, but I think that we still need to do that introductory session for the IGF.  During my breakout I spent a lot of time explaining the IGF, which was time wasted -- well, not wasted, but it's just some of the newcomers couldn't understand what it was all about.  They could not -- I did governance and they didn't have an idea -- they had no idea what Internet governance was about.  So I think we still need to do that introductory session and educate people.  We can do it online or we can do it at the IGF on day zero, I don't know.  Just to educate people about how the IGF works, especially governance.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, June.  And Sandra.  And then Maria Paz, yes, you will get the floor.

 >>SANDRA HOFERICHTER: Thank you very much, Anriette, for giving me the floor.  Unfortunately, I have to leave soon, so I say goodbye to you already because we have the EuroDIG planning meeting going on in Trieste and I'm leaving for Trieste in a minute.  But I want to bring in some of the input for the planning of the next IGF.

 And first of all, there was a lot of support for these thematic tracks, and just to give us all a little bit confidence that not only we find this is a good idea, I would like to share our experiences with you from the EuroDIG where we also started with sort of tracks and we could really see last year in The Hague that we had a track for security on the second day only and certainly we had a lot of new community members like from the police in our room.  They didn't stay for the opening.  They didn't stay for the wrap-up.  They really came only for just certain sessions that were close to each other, and for them it was possibly a very effective day of getting this information about how to govern security issues that they are concerned with.  So that's just a side note.  And we will also continue in the next program with these tracks because we also make good experiences.

 Then secondly for new -- have the difficult choice, and I really know that's difficult to choose from all the workshops, proposals, and plenaries and what you get.  What I heard from the community, and this is really just what I heard and what I would like to share with you, that some proposals have been rejected because of diversity criterias but basically important topic have been missed with us with this kind of doing the selection.  So maybe look more into the diversity.  The diversity is guaranteed in the overall program and not in each and every single session.  Possibly not every session can really match all the diversity criterias, but it shouldn't matter as long as the overall program, the IGF program, is balanced.  And with this approach, you would not miss really important topics that are really of concern of the community but can then not be discussed. 

 One example is these DNS over HTTPS which was a bit short at the IGF but it's basically one of the hot topics in this year and was rejected for exactly such criterias but there have been others as well.

 And then one thing that we are also struggling at EuroDIG and possibly all the other national and regional and as well as the global IGF is the transition from one year to the other.  Of course, we are doing a process.  We do not stop our discussion in Berlin and start a new discussion in Poland.  There is a continuation.  But how to facilitate this continuation process is really not so easy because the mark is changing, the host is changing, and possibly those who were in the topics and who organized the sessions are not organizing a session next year. 

 So we are looking into opportunities of getting topical heads that really actively look back what has been discussed on a certain topic last year and bring that into the discussion and remind, as well, the mark that is choosing the workshops but then also the organizers, that they should not repeat what has been discussed last year already. 

 I think the Diplo reports that are done for every session could be of great help in this respect.  They are very short, condensed, and maybe someone from the MAG could take care off of a certain amount of workshops so they are aware of it.  Because sometimes people, particularly when they are new, they are not aware of all the things that are there.

 And then my next point is that the parliamentarians, it was mentioned by many that this was a successful element.  I think we should keep on going with inviting parliamentarians and even more we should try to better engage them in our session organization so that session organizers are encouraged to include parliamentarians in their organizing team or maybe at least as a speaker.  I think this would really help us to get in the parliamentarian perspective even more.

 And then my last point is -- and I just discussed it with my dear colleagues from other regional IGFs, that I would propose that we support a process that the German ministry here yesterday introduced with his new website.  And sorry, Anriette, on recommendation 5AB.  I know you don't want us to speak about these numbers, but we will find -- but to help facilitating this process from the regional and from the national perspective, and I think the regionals, the colleagues, Jennifer, Mary, my SEEDIG colleague Sorina.  I have to talk to Rahul if he's not online.  Did I forget anyone?  Christine Arida for the Arab region, so that we already agreed among each other that we are going to help facilitating this process that these champions are initiating.  And we are happy to collaborate.  Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Sandra.  And Sandra spoke about more than the tracks because this is her last opportunity.  She won't be with us tomorrow.  And Maria Paz.

 >>MARIA PAZ CANALES: Avoiding the protocols.  I'm trying to ask for speak in a different way, but thank you for giving me the opportunity to input.  Just want to add a couple of things, underline what's already mentioned by some of my colleagues regarding the subcategorization of themes inside each one of the tracks. 

 I think that if we are considering to keep the methodology of having three tracks or maybe an addition of more this year or less or whatever but keep the logic of having tracks, we should think about improving the methodology for deciding the subcategorization of the tracks.  As a map for navigating inside the tracks, it is diversity that you mention it in the security, stability, and resilience track and the other ones also.  Try to make this work at an earlier stage.  So as soon as we define what will be the main tracks of the IGF, try to immediately, in a more collaborative way, hopefully of the -- all the members of the track or all the ones that are participating in each one of the track, in building this categorization and provide this categorization in advance during the submission period of the workshop.  Because we have the last year, the issue that not necessarily that was matching so after was difficult to relate to this and this was also a fundamental piece that we took for organizing the -- into three session and the concluding session to divide those sessions in working groups also inside the session. 

 So I think that much more transparency inside us in the categorization and to the general public in order to them to be able to better submit their proposal, it will be something that will benefit the coherence and the transparency of the program.  It will facilitate also broadly the evaluation of the workshop.

 So thanks as the ones have been mentioned about like keeping track.  For example, if we are missing some important topic, then maybe the workshop submissions are not fulfilling all of the diversity criterias or all the high-score criteria that we are considering in the evaluation of the workshops.  So we can keep track in which one of those themes that we identified as relevant we are missing workshop, and maybe we can come back to those specific submission and ask them for a specific improvement in the criteria that are not fulfilled.

 I agree with Sandra that overall we should keep the division of guarantee, the diversity criterias in the event, but also I think we could make this additional effort of also keeping it in the session.  We have been doing it, this for the last year.  So maybe this alternative methodology will be a way to confront this particular issue and not missing anything.

 And in that sense, I also echo what Jennifer says before about it keeping some kind of a space for what is going on in between the recognition of the workshops and the event itself.  And I think that for that, maybe the most effective things will be like allocate, for example, one or two slot in the -- in the program for defining a later or one main session, for example, for the most salient topic that we can define that is new after the definition of the program.

 And the one last thing I want to add, it's regarding the refining of the categories in general, not only the subtopics that I was just mentioning but also, for example, the refining of the categories of the participant.  Yesterday we spoke a little bit about the necessity to, for example, identify academic participants, but also to break down some of the categories in terms of geographic representation.

 I understand that the categories that we have right now in the submission are the general for the U.N., but maybe to find a way to identify better because sometimes it could be that this assessment of inclusiveness in the participation on diversity is not well done because we are not identifying well the submitters.

 And also, in terms of the other refining categories that will suggest, it's to create in the submission, and later in the evaluation, some kind of category that signalize the level of the -- of the session or workshop that is being proposed in order to identify better what are more in (indiscernible) session or general session for general knowledge and what are more sophisticated discussion that require previous knowledge.  In terms all of keeping the balance in the selection of workshop because some of the things, like the example that Sandra provide about the specific topic, also could be better curated in terms of content if we keep in mind, for example, a number of sessions are more general discussion topics versus a number of sessions that will be devoted to a specific, more sophisticated, complex topic that require previous knowledge.  And we don't -- again, we don't have this because at the moment of the submission, we don't collect that information.

 So I will stop there.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks.  And you touched on exactly some of the issues that I would like you to discuss in groups.

 So my proposal for the rest of today is that we break up in I think maybe four groups.  And I'm suggesting people just kind of cluster where they're sitting.  One group over there, one over there, one over there, and one over there.  And what I'd like these groups to do is to -- and observers, you are very welcome to join the MAG to work on this -- is to first look at what will be our thematic tracks.  We have the previous tracks and we have input that Chengetai presented to us with proposals for new tracks.  And you can do with that what you want.

 Sorry, I forgot.  You had a question.  Michal.  Go ahead with your question first.

 >>MICHAL PUKALUK:   Thank you very much.  I just had a quick question from the organizer, from the point of view of the organizer.

 Thank you for your interesting insights into how the discussion at the IGF was structured.  While I understand the discussion revolves around whether or not structuring various topics into streams works for the IGF, if it's of any use to you, I can say that the team back in Warsaw will be very supportive in having the work structured in the same way in Poland.  And the only question that they might have at this point is how much convergent do the MAG-selected thematic topics have to be with the ones picked up by government for the high-level meeting for day zero.  Do they have to be convergent?  Or how much flexibility does the host country have on that?

 Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   I'm not sure I have a complete answer to that, and I don't think we should even try to answer that right now.  I think -- I think there's flexibility.  That we know.  And I think let's come to that later.  Maybe tomorrow.  Maybe even later after we've had this kind of discussion.  But it's good that you've raised that because I think there are implications.

 And we've also already had proposals on moving the positioning of the high-level sessions, you know, to the end.  So that's something else to consider.

 So before we break out into groups, Anja is going to make it easier for you.  She's got a presentation on the input that we received.  But I just want to carry on just to explain what I would like you to do.

 So, Anja, maybe while you're getting ready to show the input we've received.

 So we've received input on themes, and Anja is going to show that to you again.  So three tasks, or three questions I'd like each group to address.  What should be our thematic tracks?  Do we keep them the same?  Do we add?  Do we merge?  Do we relabel them?

 The next question is how to deal with and identify subcategories and policy questions.  Do we do that as the MAG?  Do we put out a call to the community to ask them to identify what the priority should be within each of those tracks, the subcategories, and what kind of policy questions, or do we have that as more of a MAG-driven process?

 The third question is to look at this, still -- we're still talking here about thematic tracks, but looking at structure and flow.  So this is not structure and flow of the entire IGF.  We'll still get there as well, beginner sessions and issues such as that.  But how do we -- how do we work with these themes in terms of structure and flow?  So that means relooking and assessing the introductory and concluding sessions, what worked, what did we change.  And what about workshops?  Do we want in our call for workshops call for different types of workshops as Maria Paz has just said and I think as Raul Echeberria proposed?  Should all workshops fit into these themes?  Do we want introductory workshops or new workshops or workshops that build on work from last year?  Just how do we integrate the workshop -- the call for workshop proposals into this thematic structure in a way that improves incrementally on what was achieved last year?

 And there are lots of other issues, and if you have time you can get to them.  But I think our goal should be that by the end of this afternoon, we need to have decided what our themes are, or if we're not able to decide, we need a process for deciding what our themes will be.

 So to get us started -- and once you've broken up into groups, I will come and check in that everyone is clear about what the assignment is.  And I would like to give people -- I think we should come back at 5:00 so that we can leave the last hour for processing and the outcomes of the groups.

 Jutta, you have a question.

 >>JUTTA CROLL:   Question.  If I remember right, last year we decided on the themes for the three tracks after we had that call for issues, and we draw upon the report -- results from that call.  Won't we have a call for issues this year to engage the community?  Or how can we decide in advance?

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   We had a call for issues.  And I think many people missed that, but the call for issues was part of the stock taking.  And so that's why I'm saying either we work with what we received, and Anja is going to show us that now, or you might feel that it wasn't -- it wasn't a clear enough call and that we should do a call again.  But certainly in terms of what we felt in December and based on the feedback we got initially, we thought it would help to have the call for issues earlier on.  And that -- that's why it was one of the questions in the call for input that went out in December.

 Ben, do you -- Is it important for you to do?  Yes, go ahead.

 >>BEN WALLIS:   Before we break out and decide a second call for issues, I think it would be relevant to understand what that might do to the draft timeline that the secretariat has put out, because it might have quite a significant impact.  So before people get too invested in that idea, you might quickly give us a sense of whether it would have much of an impact.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   I think let's -- I think that's a good idea, but let's look at Anja's presentation first so that you actually can see what we did get in response to the call for issues.  And then, Chengetai, before people break out into groups, if you can respond to Ben's question, which is what is the implication for the timeline if we have to put out a second call for issues.

 Plus there might be a middle way as well which your working groups can come out with, which is to use the call for policy questions and subthemes as a way of further community engagement.

 But, Anja, are you ready?

 >>ANJA GENGO:  Yes.  Thank you very much.  Very few slides.  Nothing that you haven't seen so far based on Chengetai's summary.  But we would like to remind on what the call for issues that was integrated in the stock-taking process of the 2019 brought to us.

 So if you could just go to the first slide -- to the second slide, Luis.

 As you know, the call for issues this year was integrated into the taking stock call.  Precisely the question that we asked the stakeholders was, do you think there should be thematic tracks as there were in 2019?  Please indicate if you believe that three 2019 thematic tracks should be retained.  If not, what should take their place or what theme should be added?

 This was a mandatory question, which means that all 41 responses that we received had to respond to this question.

 If we go to the next slide, the -- all received responses expressed a positive sentiment or feedback to the thematic structure we had in 2019.  So we didn't receive any objection or any negative feedback to the three themes.  We only received some additional suggestions or advices that perhaps the three themes -- well, that perhaps that we could add additional themes.  So there was general support for the three thematic tracks as in 2019, to focus on data governance, digital inclusion, and security, safety, stability, and resilience.  But a few stakeholders, specifically, 14 stakeholders, did add other themes that could be potentially considered by the MAG to be added.  So those are on the next slide that Luis is showing now.  As you can see, there are eight of them.  So we didn't do any clustering, because it's just very few, so we don't think it should be an issue for the MAG to cluster them even here.  But as you can see, digital transformation, digital skills, digital economy, trust and security, human rights and ethics, new and emerging technologies, digitalization and climate change, and environmental impact of the ICTs.

 Except 7 and 8 potential theme that you see on this list, all others were suggested once.  And there were suggested basically as one word or one issue in the form.  So I think that's the difference compared to the call for issues last year.  This year, we are allowed to look at the context or the background or the narrative behind the potential theme that should be added to the 2020 IGF process.

 And that background context came only with the digitalization and climate change and environmental impacts of the ICTs.

 We invite the stakeholders to look at the submissions specifically of the Swiss government and the Association for Progressive Communications that is elaborating on why the climate change should be added or in general the environmental impacts of the ICTs.  Primarily, the argument relates to the fact that the climate change is at the center of the political discourse currently, and that having that topic would also make the IGF more relevant to the global discussions and more attractive for the key stakeholders, especially on the political side, dealing with climate change.  And so in that sense.  But it also serves the people and the community, given that it's very timely.

 Just on the next slide, before you start your discussion, as Jutta and Ben mentioned, indeed, last year, we had the call for issues.  As you know, it was a very simple form that called for, basically, issues, simple words to be put in front of us by the stakeholders.  So it wasn't time-consuming at all to submit inputs.  We received 350 submissions.  And what you can see on the screen are the analysis from last year.  This is what helped us to define the three themes.

 But what we wanted to do is just reflect quickly on how the Internet and the environment was reflected in that call for issues last year.

 So we received around 2% of all inputs precisely on this potential theme.

 So that would be everything for me.  Just a couple of inputs for you.

 Maybe Luis could go back to the slide with suggested themes, the previous one, for your discussion.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Anja.

 So I am -- Chengetai, I've actually just put in Skype what the three questions are for the breakout groups.

 And Anja, is your presentation available?  Have you emailed it to the MAG?  Or is it on the Web site?  It's on the Web site.

 So you have that to draw on.

 Are people ready to start working?  Are there questions for clarification before we break out?

 I see Mary and Jutta.

 Mary.

 >>MARY UDUMA:  Thank you, Madam Chair.

 And my name is Mary Uduma, for the record.

 When the call for stock-taking in the input for 2020 process, it wasn't very clear to me that there was call for issues.  And you can see the response, we had only 40 inputs and 40 responses when we have so many stakeholders and communities that have not been able to send in their own input.  I wonder whether we want to base our discussions and our processes and our program on just the 40 responses we got or we should allow community to give us more.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  That's what you have to discuss in your breakout group.  That's exactly the question you can discuss.

 I think that the call was late.  But how does the response rate compare with previous years?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Last year, we had a very simplified call for issues, where people were just putting the issues.  So we had more responses compared to that.  This year, it was more complicated, with the online form and different questions.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  So, Mary, absolutely, if you feel strongly about that, bring that up in the breakout groups.  If there's a feeling that we need to put out another call, then we'll work with that.  But let's start with what we have received.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  You should also think, are we just going to have another call for issues and input into the policy questions as well?  I don't think we can have both, as such.  Otherwise, the time line will actually -- I mean, we won't be able to make the time line that we have here.

 >>MARY UDUMA:  And take that into -- you worked on the time line based on what we have currently.  And we hadn't had meeting to look at, you know, what the time line is.  I don't know whether the time line is concluded, is not (indiscernible).

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  The time line is not concluded.  But let's continue with this process.  I think that that's a valid concern.  Let's hear what the breakout groups make of that concern.  And we'll find a way to ensure that we give the community the opportunity to respond, either through another call or through a different type of call.

 Jutta.

 >>JUTTA CROLL:  -- with regard to these 40 responses, would it be able to get a breakdown from which regions these responses came and whether we have good coverage of all regions or not?  I do think that is important for taking the decision, whether we need a new call for issues or whether we can base our decisions on what we already got.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Jutta.

 Secretariat, is that something that it's easy for you to give a response to?  The range and diversity of the responses?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Luis is the tech guy.  So he should know whether or not --

 Is it a simple task to give us a breakdown of the regional distribution of responses that we have?

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I mean, I think we could --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I mean --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Will it take you --

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Even if you just bring up.

 >>LUIS BOBO:  The point is that it was anonymous.  They were anonymous.  But we can extract from those that include the data.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Rudolf, you have the floor.

 >>RUDOLF GRIDL:  Thank you very much.

 I just want to make a reminder that we should not too much be obsessed by process, but more by content.  So when we look at the issues, the three issues that we had last year, everything that went under these issues, in addition to what we have here, I would say even if we started ten new rounds and calls for issues, there would probably not be so many more issues on the table.

 So I think as a MAG, we have a responsibility to take, and we should work on what's on the table and not so much be obsessed by the process, which is something that happens, unfortunately, quite often in this advisory group.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that.  It's a really good and useful reminder, Rudolf.

 And I just wanted to add that aside from the 42 responses, we also did have feedback during the open mic session in Berlin that we are working with.

 So on that note, okay, this is going to be the final input.  And then you have to start working in groups.

 >> As answer to Jutta's question, at the end of synthesis paper that Chengetai presented, there is at least (indiscernible) submitters of 41 reactions.  If you want to check who responded, there are even names or institutions or persons.  I think it's --

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I think that's correct.  In fact, I don't think it was anonymous.  The list is there.  The list is on the Web site as well.  Yeah.  Yeah.

 So you can actually get a sense of the diversity.

 Okay.  And while you organize yourself in groups, we'll project the questions onto the screen.  The task for the groups.  And each group, please nominate a chair and someone to report back.

 And you have until 5:00 o'clock.  And you have three questions to address.  Those questions will be on the screen.

 And so self-organize, four groups, two on this side of the room, or one here, one in the middle, and two on this slide, or....

 If people want to go and work in the coffee shop, although I think it's closed.  But be back at 5:00.

 [ Break ]

 

 

 

 

 

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Then we'll have general discussion.

 >>PAUL ROWNEY:  So we've identified one, which is digital inclusion in the media.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>PAUL ROWNEY:  So okay.  Sorry about that. 

 So the collective view of the majority of our group was to look at four tracks.  We found it quite difficult to consolidate them to three.  One being around cybersecurity, trust, and privacy; one around digital cooperation and the future of the Internet; one around emerging technologies; and one around digital inclusion and sustainability, where we feel the issue of climate change could fall under the digital inclusion and sustainability.  So we see that as a subtopic within that.

 The idea would be that there would be a call for policy questions.  And that would bring in the grass root participation, rather than doing a call for issues.  We would then draw out of those policy questions the subthemes and build a narrative around those subthemes and the policy questions.

 And if that was adopted, we would want that call for policy questions to go out as quickly as possible.

 As part of the call for policy questions, we're making a suggestion that if it's adopted, that the people submitting the policy questions would indicate if they're planning to submit a workshop.  And if they're planning to submit a workshop around that policy question, are they looking for some support, A, as a first-time submitter from the MAG or the secretariat, so we could pick them up early and provide some mentoring or support to the workshops that could come out.

 When we look at the structure flow thematic tracks, workshop types, et cetera, and integration of intersessionals and NRIs, there's a general thought that we might want to move away from calling them workshops and, rather, calling them sessions.  That has a slightly different meaning, something for thought there.  But keep the track, keep the top and tail.  But on the topping and tailing -- well, on the topping, not to clash with other sessions, to try and keep them separate, as a separate agenda item, to try and draw as many people into that.  And possibly, if there are main sessions, we can also have -- parallel main sessions -- they could have language interpretation.

 Around bringing speakers, we need to enhance the repository of the speakers, drawing more diverse speakers into the workshops, trying to make it easier for people to access those speakers, particularly in the diversity areas that are falling short.

 When we process the workshops, look at some provisional acceptance rather than final acceptance, and then give the workshop proposers time to prove that their speakers will be attending or to give us some assurance to get final qualification.

 There's a thought that the screening, when we evaluate the workshops, we need to think of how we can do this more effectively so we can have a high quality of evaluation of those workshops that are in that particular theme.

 And that we put in some criteria, and some of the criteria that was discussed was that at least one speaker should be a new voice, a new speaker that hasn't spoken at an IGF before, and at least one speaker should be a youth speaker participant.  And, of course, find a way that we can bring language interpretation into the sessions, if at all possible, at least more -- try and get more sessions with language interpretation.

 Okay.  That's basically a summary of our feedback.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Any additions from others in group one?

 No.

 So I think we --

 [ Applause ]

 I do think you deserve a huge round of applause.

 Thanks a lot.

 Group two.  Paul.

 >>PAUL CHARLTON:  Other Paul.  Yes.

 In answer to the first question, our group proposed that we keep the -- we have four themes, keeping the three from last year, and adding a fourth.  We didn't come up with a specific name, but the suggestion was on environmental or climate change or sustainability issues, something like the -- how Internet governance could address one or all of those issues.  But it would obviously have to be framed in that way that was related to the IGF's overall purpose.

 On the -- the issue of -- the second question, on subthemes and policy questions, the group felt that we should go to the community, to stakeholders, to get -- to ask them about subthemes and policy questions.  Obviously, we understand that this is partly a process issue that Chengetai would have to advise on whether there's time, given the overall time lines of the -- of the process.  But it was thought that it was very important to get that feedback and not to have the MAG doing it itself.

 On the third questions, there was general support for the opening and closing sessions as a good way to sort of organize and make sense of the various themes.  There was also interest in reaching out to the NRIs and having them -- to see if we could find a way that they could feed into the themes, understanding that the MAG does not direct the work of the NRIs and should not direct of work of the NRIs.

 And there was also a comment -- and this is -- this is something that's come up for a long time, since as long as I've been going to the IGF -- about limiting the number of speakers on panels and workshops and so on.  I know that's an IGF perennial. 

 And so I would leave to other members of the group if I missed something.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much.

 Any additions?

 >>NEBOJSA REGOJE:  Nebojsa Regoje, government, third term. 

 Maybe this is not the moment, but I think it's good to give my impression when it comes to scheduling the sessions.

 Last year, we had the unfortunate situation where a main session was at the same time when we had introductory sessions with -- all three introductory sessions were held at the same time, and at the same time, we had a very attractive main session on High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation.

 My suggestion would be to try to avoid, -- if possible, to avoid conflict, if we can, let's say, reduce the number of main sessions so that we have, instead of in that term for introductory and closing sessions, not main session.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much.

 Paul, you want to add.

 >>PAUL CHARLTON:  Sorry.  There was one thing I forgot.  In answer to the third question, there was a suggestion whether it's possible to have a session that would sort of address overlaps among the various themes.  The cross-cutting issues that have come up and whether it's possible to have -- I don't know if it would be a main session or town hall or what exactly the format.  But that would be extremely useful to tie things together.

 [ Applause ]

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Sorry.  We have one more additional point, and then we can applaud you.

 Two more.

 >>NATASA GLOVER:  Just one thing.  My name is Natasa Glover.  I'm MAG member from Croatia government, representative, third term.

 So the thing that we were discussing inside our group was also connected with Michal's question in the previous session, our co-chair.  It was about the high-level parliamentarian group and theme that group will be discussing during 2020.  So we thought it's a very good question and it would be really great if we could incorporate that theme into our thematic structure and have it all under the same umbrella.  So it would give some additional value to the IGF overall thematic approach.

 So my question would be to Michal whether he has any insights so far about themes that Poland, as the host country, considering for having on this high-level thematic group. 

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  Do you want to respond now?

 >>MICHAL PUKALUK:  Yes.

 Thank you very much for this question.  I -- In my slides yesterday, we have -- I presented three thematic topics that we would be looking to be calling during the high-level meeting, as well as the (indiscernible) session in Poland.

 First (indiscernible) is eco-smart cities, or more broadly, digital-type technologies and environmental change. 

 And secondly, inclusion and diversity.

 And firstly -- thirdly -- sorry -- thirdly, that would be the digital economy, but focused not only on technological and business side, but also on ethics and social rights.

 So this is the outcome of the first steering committee meeting that we had in Poland just two weeks ago.

 As I said yesterday during the presentation, these are open to discussion.  We would very much like to be having them inscribed into the whole IGF agenda and have it as much integrated as possible.

 Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks.  And it's good to see that there's quite a lot of synergy.

 Wout, did you want to add?

 >>WOUT DE NATRIS:  Participating in the second group as well.

 What I've brought in and we discussed quite broadly is that we got through iteration of three of the tracks as our suggestion is that how do you come to a closure?  Because we were talking about the same sort of topics for 14 years now, but what is the answer to these topics?  And just doing new workshops and letting four or five people speak on how bad it is and agreeing upon it again is not going to reach that closure.  So how can the MAG actually do a step extra into forcing people to organize a different sort of session and inviting perhaps opponents that are needed to get to a solution.  And that is a completely different sort of session than has ever been driven by the MAG before.  But otherwise, we will still be talking about gender or cybersecurity or data inclusion 15 years from now, when perhaps we could solve it or help solve it outside of the IGF.  So thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  And thanks for that, Wout.

 And thanks a lot to this group.  So you do deserve your applause now.

 You came with concrete responses, and you also opened up new questions.

 Final group.

 >> We have -- concerning the themes and the thematic tracks, we think that it would be very good to stick to the three issues that have been presented last year.  But we think before that, it might be better to present them in a bit shorter way.  Because, for example, the question of security, safety, stability, and resilience sounded a bit long.  So we thought that it might be very good to put some -- to rename them and to put inclusion, data, and trust, and to add one horizontal subtheme, which would be the environment, which we might -- we thought it might be a cross-cutting issue.  And we even thought that this topic could be considered as an SDG, which would be an SDG for this year.  And for the next years, it would be different.  We could think of some other topics as being an SDG for each year.

 When it comes to the -- to the second and the third question, we thought that concerning the call for proposals, we do not think it's necessary to have an extra -- to have an extra -- an extra call.  But at this point, it -- we thought it might be good to inform the community about the narratives, because we think that it would be good to have them inform at this stage what they would be thinking about and where would they align, how would they stick to this -- these proposals, not waiting until April.

 Another issue is that we could have -- we could propose two or three paragraphs on the narratives, on what we think they might be, from our perspective.  And a narrative could include, for instance, two policy questions.

 We also thought that it might be good to use the tool of the IGF messages to inform the MAG on what we think.  And we also thought that concerning the main sessions, we might have -- might think of a hot topic for one -- for this year and to allocate them in one main session and to think of other so-called flash sessions.

 We also thought that it might be good to have an integration of the intersessional work, because we think that it would be better to align this kind of work.

 And we also thought that we need to inform the proponents of the day's view and other levels of this, of the IGF process, on -- down on the narratives, so that the process will be coherent.

 Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much.

 Any additions from others in that group?

 >>BEN WALLIS:  Thank you.  Ben Wallis, for the record.

 Yes, as we said, we've had this idea of staying with the three themes.  And I thought it could be quite important for us as a MAG, if we're thinking about what the narratives should be for the same themes, they can't stay exactly the same.  Think of the Berlin messages on the three themes.  That should be a major input for us as the MAG as thinking about how we update the narratives for these three themes.

 And then this idea of a horizontal theme which cuts across, I mean, I was keen on having the environment specifically mentioned in one of the tracks.  But people were saying, it comes across -- it comes up in all of the areas.  And so we kind of got to the point where maybe, as we said, you pick a new SDG every year.  This feeds into what we've heard yesterday in the statement that was passed on from the undersecretary-general that the secretary-general would like the IGF to step up as a platform in responding to a call for a decade of action to deliver the SDGs.  And it might be environment in 2020, it might be gender in 2021.  It allows the MAG to provide an emphasis on one particular area while still having the organizational structure of thematic tracks.  And it allows us to take account of the fact that these areas -- these SDGs are often horizontal.

 And we could specify that we would allocate a proportion of each thematic track to sessions on elements of environment so that there are specific sessions on different elements of the environment.  So that could be 10% or 20%.  We certainly shouldn't bind ourselves to a specific proportion at this point, but that we can already be up-front that we're going to make sure there's an emphasis on a particular issue.

 The only other thing I'd add at this point is, there were different views on when and how we would consult the community further beyond what was already done over the holiday period.  And I wasn't one of those who wanted a further call for issues.  I'm concerned about what impact it might have.  But others, you know, rightly said there might be perceptions of how -- the extent to which the community is involved and consulted.

 I just thought it was interesting to think of what happened last year, which is that the call for workshop proposals, that's what informed what the subthemes were.  We had 350 workshop proposals.  Obviously, only a fifth of those actually ended up being sessions.  But all of those, the topics of all of them, told us what the community was interested.  So even if 80% of them were rejected, they all fed into a sense of what should be the subthemes of the week.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much.

 Anything else from that group?

 So --

 [ Applause ]

 Okay.  Let's open the floor.  We've got some time left.  We don't have -- we have proposals that harmonize, even if they are slightly different from one another.

 And we don't have enough time to make a decision, but we have enough time to have good discussion about this.  And then what I would like to do is to ask a small group, you know, representatives of each group, to meet tomorrow morning at about -- at about half past maybe 9:00 so that we can prepare something that tries to find a compromise or a consensus of all of these proposals that we can present to the rest of the MAG for consideration.

 But for now, I open the floor to questions and discussions.

 I also want Anja to share some of her thoughts, because she's been putting some thinking into how the NRIs can be included.

 Timea, you have the floor.

 >>TIMEA SUTO:  Thank you, Chair.  I'm sorry for not using the online queue.  I lost my tabs earlier.

 I just wanted to make a really quick point on -- after listening to all of you here, and I'd like to caution ourselves from not receding from the progress that we made last year.  It's an IGF syndrome that we feel that we want to accommodate everything that is coming out from everyone, and we stretch ourselves in saying, okay, well, you know, we had this many last year, but we feel that there's strong support for one more and one more, and we did really -- I remember us sitting here and arguing last year and being afraid about what will happen if we only have three.  And it ended up actually being a really great reform.  And I really want to caution ourselves about not falling into our usual traps again.

 So if there's a possibility to stick with three or a very small number and take that decision, I don't have preference on what should they be called and what they should be, but to think -- think about -- we've heard also yesterday from -- I think from the U.K. government, who said let's only have one.  Roman also cautioned us yesterday, let's narrow it down.  We've heard from the community, from the inputs.  So let's not fall into that trap.  That's one thing I want to say.

 And the other thing, I wanted to echo what Rudolf cautioned us before we broke out into three groups as well, that input from the community will have to be, again, distilled into three.  So can we streamline our process and think about what are the entry points for more input from the community without adding new layers?  And I think the call for workshops can actually be a good moment if we give the guidance of we want to narrow it down.  We want to have three.  These are the broad topics.  These are the narratives.  You fill out the rest.  And also with the caveat that I think it was Jennifer and also Maria Paz who also said also there will be issues that are not even on everybody's minds right now.  So if we allocate some space for new issues to come up afterwards, that can also lead into new topics.

 So I know we want to please everybody, but that's never a good way of organizing anything, because then nobody will be pleased.  So let's try and keep ourselves to a manageable amount of work.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   I think that's good, but I think we should also remember that it's not just about -- it's responding to the community, but it's also about being strategic and positioning the IGF at the front line of topically relevant discussions.

 And -- and just in response to the call, I absolutely agree with you, but I think there are also ways in which we can -- I think the concern about the limited response to this call can be addressed by using the call for policy questions and themes as a validation exercise as well as a call for subthemes and policy questions.  So I think we can finesse that to be more inclusive without going back to the drawing board.

 Next we have Paul.

 >>PAUL ROWNEY:   Yes, thank you Chair.  I would just like to endorse the suggestion that was made by our colleagues over the floor, they were not in parliament, on the cross-cutting of the climate change as a sustainable development and introducing a new one.  I think that's a brilliant idea, and I think I would support that.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   I just have one comment on that for your consideration.  It's that, you know, the IGF, we already saw from your reports on the three tracks last year that organically cross-cuts emerged.  And if we have to manage in terms of outputs those organic cross-cuts, we've already addressed the fact, you know, that we haven't done that yet, and we have a choreographed cross-cut that can become quite complicated.  But I agree, it's a very interesting suggestion.

 Next we have Roberto.

 >>ROBERTO ZAMBRANA:   Thank you, Madam Chair.

 Well in the line of your -- your proposal about middle ground, perhaps we could take advantage of this policy question quality call process and maybe we could define not the issues but at least the subcategories, the subthemes that we could include together with the proposal of workshops in the future.

 This would imply that all MAG members would be working offline and in a draft of proposals of categories based, I think, on the experience we have from the last two IGFs in the past.  So together with the policy question consultation, we could ask them to confirm which of the preliminary categories are more suited to be part of the main theme or track, and also give the option to identify another one that perhaps were not included before.

 The other advantage about this proposal is that in the preliminary subcategories, we may include a specific environmental issue linked to all three tracks as an option to choose.

 Thank you very much.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much for that Roberto.

 Jennifer.

 >>JENNIFER CHUNG:   Thank you, Madam Chair.  Actually, Roberto just made the point I really wanted to highlight, so I also wanted to put my hand up to call attention to Sylvia who is remote.  I think she had a -- something that may be Anja would like to read out.  So I just wanted to call attention to that.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Sorry, I don't have the mic on.  Are you ready to share Sylvia's input?

 >>ANJA GENGO:   Yes.  So Sylvia added the comment in the chat that I will read on her behalf.

 Dear MAG colleagues.  Very sorry I could not join you today.  My connection not allow me to join the speaking queue today so I hope someone can read my comment.  I would like to support the comment made by group 1 about changing the name from workshops to sessions.  Also, I would like to support the incorporation of the climate -- of climate change, environment, and sustainability as one of the themes for 2020 as suggested by all three groups in different words.

 I also would like to support the request from many MAG members around scheduling to try and not schedule sessions competing with the introductory and concluding sessions.

 I would also like to encourage the MAG to shift from policy questions to policy solutions.

 If the reports and outcomes are coming only highlighting the questions, then we might -- probably might miss out on the solutions that are presented and discussed.  Also, identifying barriers to achieve those solutions at scale is an important part of the discussion in support to the desire to wrap-up or close topics for discussions.

 Just to see if there's the rest of the comment -- no.  I think that's everything.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   It's a very interesting idea.  You know, I'm reminded, Jutta was telling me that Germany has new child protection legislation that's going into consultation phase now, and I mean, it's interesting.  Maybe by shifting around asking for solutions to questions, that's an interesting idea.

 Sylvia, we miss you, and thank you very much for trying to be with us.  I'm not sure if you're online, but maybe you'll read the transcript.

 Next we have Susan.

 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:   My apologies.  Hi.  Thank you, Chair.

 Just really quickly on changing the name from workshops to sessions.  I think all sessions right now are types of sessions.  So you have collaborative sessions, you have flash sessions, you have workshop sessions, you have DC sessions.  So if we change the -- It's -- it would just require a little bit more thinking through that in terms of terminology.

 And I just wanted to iterate my support for introducing the idea of a horizontal subtheme.  I think that's kind of a creative solution because it would be nice for us to retain the approach that we developed in Germany.  So having three -- three main themes.

 And I also agree with several people who have suggested that the call for workshop proposals be also used as an opportunity to fulfill that consultative function for the community.  The -- From the community, there we can derive subthemes if it's -- if it seems appropriate to have a set number of subthemes, or that may depend on the different types of -- that may depend on the main theme itself.  So not all of the -- last year, not all of the three themes had the same subthemes.  They depended on what the workshop proposer submitted, which I think is the basis for the most accurate reflection of what the community is interested in, which should be our starting point.

 If -- If there's predominance of a subtheme under one of the main subthemes, that needs to be adjusted for in order to achieve an overall balance, maybe at the end of the process.  I think that might be -- I think that's okay, but at the heart of it I think asking the community really what is your primary interest.  And they can express that through tags or subthemes in their workshop proposals and also through the policy questions.

 Just to respond to Sylvia's idea, I think that is a really creative idea, proposing a policy solution in lieu of a question.  My only -- And I think it's worth further discussion.  My only -- my initial reaction, though, is I wonder if that might limit the ability to debate different types of solutions to the same policy question.  So if you're just starting out with the solution, could you also -- would people be allowed to challenge the solution and present a different solution, distinguish it?  Then the discussions could weigh the benefits and risks of each.

 So, yeah.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   And you can also have both.  And thanks for that.

 I had one -- Just one question, actually.  When you were talking about the horizontal theme, that reminded me that I heard people in Berlin saying they felt digital inclusion was actually a cross-cut; that it's relevant to all themes.  And, I mean, one can probably treat many of those themes or several themes as cross- -- as cross-cuts.  But let's revisit that.

 Next we have Jutta.

 >>JUTTA CROLL:   Yes.  I wanted to address both issues.  The one thing was about, I would say, overarching theme, not a subtheme, which is environment and climate change.  I do think it's also a strategic decision not to say that it is our subtheme.  That could be misunderstood.

 And in our group, we said that this would be a theme that should be addressed in the narratives for all of the prior suggested three tracks; that we describe how environmental issues and climate change is related to digital inclusion, of course, or we also talked about digital for all.  Then how it's related to trust and how it's related to data as well.

 So we definitely suggest to name it differently, not to say it's a cross-cutting issue or subtheme but overarching theme.

 The second thing is about the policy questions.  I do think -- I do remember that we decided we would like the workshop proposers to phrase these policy questions also to give them the opportunity to focus and concentrate on what they really wanted to be answered in the workshop sessions, say, they proposed.  So I would prefer when we have that call for workshop proposals, we also ask for policy questions that should be answered in that session in order to find solutions.  But it's a process from starting with the question and then coming up probably with solutions, but it could also be a good workshop and a good session if you don't come up with solutions, but if you have addressed several questions.  And we said that in the narratives we should have one or two policy questions just to give an example.  It's not that all the workshops should follow these policy questions, but to give people an idea how to phrase even the policy questions, because that is a difficult process to understand what is a policy question, not a mere question.  Something different.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Yes.  Just I -- just to quickly share, you remind me that when I was using the schedule in Berlin, I found it very easy to go and look at the policy questions.  That was, for me, quite an easy way of quickly, at one glance getting a sense of what that session was going to cover.  I found that actually very helpful.

 Susan.

 >>SUSAN CHALMERS:   Thank you, Chair.  Just in response to Jutta's comments.  I'm not sure -- I'm just thinking -- thinking this through.  I'm not sure if climate change would rise to the level of an overarching theme to include digital inclusion, trust, and data as we proposed.  I know we have already heard from one MAG colleague, Mr. Chukov had suggested earlier that he was not supportive of that, something.  But my bigger question, though, here is, I mean, that's a debate we can have, is what does "Internet United" mean, then?  I mean that's the title, that's the theme of the entire event.  So it would be "Internet United", then environment, then the three themes, and then subthemes.  Seems a bit too challenging for me.  So maybe just a -- maybe as a cross-cutting theme.  We can call it a horizontal theme.  We can remove the qualifier subtheme, perhaps.  But I just want to throw these questions out there.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Susan.

 Michal, you have the floor and you also had a question.

 >>MICHAL PUKALUK:   Thank you.  Thank you very much.

 Well, I understand the question is to explain the rationale behind the slogan that we have put together.  Well, the idea was to make it as inclusive as possible and to reflect the very nature of the Internet.  And there are so many topics, there are so many topics to Internet.  And by this slogan, we just wanted to -- we just wanted to encourage all the possible societies to be part of the discussion on the Internet.

 But on the question that I had, I may be -- I don't think I'm think I'm beyond the structure of the thematic sessions.  And going back to what the thematic sessions might be, I might offer my insight as a person that has grown out of the European legal (indiscernible) environment, and I'd like to draw your attention to the fact and a little bit to advocate on the topic of digital economy.

 The fall of 2020 will be the time when the Commission will be issuing their major overhaul of the eCommerce directive.  And as local as it may seem, what they are doing is they are going to have another legal document whose basis has been around for 18 years right now, and they're going to set up framework for, for example, social networks and their responsibilities.  And it is going to have a huge impact on what the Internet will look like in years to come.

 And my suggestion would be -- of course the IGF doesn't make law, but I think we could use this opportunity of the IGF in Katowice in the fall of 2020 to make the IGF voice heard so that it's heard by the legal -- by the lawmakers in Brussels, because in the fall they're starting with their works.  And then what IGF will have done by this time might actually nicely fit into the process of getting responses and shaping the new deal for the eCommerce directive that will have a huge impact on the Internet.

 That's it.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much for that, Michal.  And it's -- if there are still people here that are going to EuroDIG, do we know whether that will be discussed at EuroDIG?  Year?  I wonder.  I would assume so.

 And Anja, because we don't have a lot of time left, and we have more people, but Anja, can you please give your input on your suggestions.  And then we have Paul, and Roman, and that will be the end of the speakers' queue.

 >>ANJA GENGO:   Yes.  Thank you very much.  So very quickly the NRI says the network will have to go into bottom-up consultations again to decide what will be the topics of priority for their thematic orientation, especially organization of several sessions for the Polish IGF.

 So we met earlier, before this meeting, on purpose to be ready for this meeting, and we discussed how that call for inputs to -- call for proposals, for priority for 125 countries and regions should go, and should it take the same form as it did last year.

 So last year was similar to our call for issues.  We called for three priority topics, and based on that we received more than a hundred inputs from -- I believe around 50 NRIs, which was quite a challenge for the IGF Secretariat to do a fair clustering and decide on a topic that should be a priority.  So we ended up with a very broad framework because we couldn't narrow it down to a very specific topic.

 So the idea, and what we discussed on the latest meeting, was maybe to go with potentially with thematic clusters where the NRIs would say which -- which very broad topical frameworks are of their priority.  We will, of course, allow for that other option.  If something doesn't fit under the cluster, then colleagues would be able to submit.  So there was some support at the meeting, but then the decision was to wait for the MAG to decide how and whether the call for issues will be, in any case, issued.  But from the secretariat's view, what we have seen is that when we run these parallel processes between the NRIs and the other community, I think it negatively affects the overall results that we receive to the overall call for inputs.

 So if the idea would be if the call for issue or policy, maybe, questions would go from the IGF, then we would discuss with colleagues how to merge the two processes, so that we go with one united process.  And then technically we will see in our team how to make sure that we identify which NRI submitted to that one single process of calling for inputs.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Anja.

 Paul.

 We've got just exactly three minutes.  So one minute to you, and then one minute to Roman, and I want a minute at the end.

 >>PAUL ROWNEY:   Thank you, Chair.  My one minute.

 Whilst I understand the concerns of our colleagues on the calls to the community, I'm not convinced that we need to -- should limit it to the session proposals.  I think it's going to be a bit restrictive because some of the people that will respond are not necessarily going to respond to session proposals.

 And I'm aware that we did have this call for inputs, but it was seen as part of the stock taking from 2019 and not really participating in shaping 2020.  So I think we need to give this some more thought.  We might not need to do it as a call from the secretariat.  You know, maybe we use channels, like the NRIs and ICC/BASIS and other channels that can get to the stakeholder communities.  So let's think about that, but I think there is a need to go to the community somehow and get some input back.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks.

 Roman.

 >>ROMAN CHUKOV:   Indeed, answering to Susan's comments, I still do not think that environment is something which we should focus on entirely; whereas, we discussed in our group the sustainability as a whole which can also imply this topic for me is acceptable.  And that's why we like this idea to have these four broad topics.  I can briefly repeat yes; cybersecurity, trust and privacy; digital cooperation, future of the Internet; emerging technologies; and sustainability, digital inclusion.  We think it is overwhelming and includes everything which we might need.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, everyone.  And our scribes, I promised that we'll end at 6:00 and I'm going to keep that promise.

 So can I ask -- Thanks.  This is really good.  I think you worked really hard and it was good to get concrete outputs.

 So at 9:00 tomorrow morning, can I ask, ideally, the chairs or rapporteurs of these three groups to be here and anyone else who wants to participate in a process which will try and come up with a comprise proposal that draws on all of this input that we received this afternoon.  So 9:00 in the serpentine coffee shop and we'll take it from there.

 And please come.  Don't make me be here on my own.

 [ Laughter ]

 So on that, I really would like to thank everyone, and have a good evening, and see you all tomorrow morning.

 Thanks, Michal.  Thanks, secretariat.  Thanks Wai Min, thanks to the scribes, thanks to Luis and to the remote participants.

 [ Applause ]