IGF 2021 First Open Consultations & MAG Meeting - Day 3 - Section 2

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Anriette, I'll leave it up to you.  You can start whenever.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Hi, everyone.  Welcome back.  I hope you had a good break.  And I hope that Joyce and Anja had some birthday cake, wherever they were.
 We are now entering the final two sessions of our meeting, and hopefully we'll finish nice and on time.  You must all be exhausted, so let's try and keep time.
 And we're moving now to item 11 which is to look at Multistakeholder Advisory Group working groups.  We'll start off with reports and recommendations from the 2020 working groups, and then we'll look at the proposals for working groups in 2021.  And then we'll just have a discussion on next steps.  This is not a very formal process, but it's very important --
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome back to our afternoon session.  I think we've given the usual two-minute grace period.  And so with that, I will hand over the floor to our Chair, Anriette Esterhuysen, to start the meeting, the afternoon session.
 >>ANJA GENGO:   Anriette, we can hear you.  I'm not sure Chengetai can hear.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Could you hear my introduction?
 >>LUCIEN CASTEX:  Yeah, yeah.  This is Lucien speaking.  Anriette, I could hear you clearly on my side.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Okay.  
 >>LUCIEN CASTEX:  I was wondering.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Okay.  So it's just Chengetai that can't hear me.  That was very confusing. 
 Chengetai, are you with us?
 Okay.  Good.  Not a fault.  It's not a fault.  It's just tired human beings and technology not always meeting one another in the right way at the right time.  It's no one's fault.
 So as I was saying, we're going to first hear from the MAG members and the working groups of 2020 who have some recommendations about how to proceed and for the MAG to consider and the secretariat, and then we'll look at the proposals for the new working groups.  We'll have a discussion on how to proceed with these.  We've already had some discussion again, so really this is just to bring their discussion to closure and agree on next steps.
 So I'd like to invite now the MAG working groups to report.  We have the working group strategy, the working group on language and diversity, and the working group on outreach and engagement.
 I'd like to start with the working group on language.  Lucien, are you ready?  Are you presenting, Lucien?
 If you're not ready, then we could have the working group - strategy, and Amadothe Working Group on Outreach and Engagement.  Do you have recommendations?
 Livia, are you ready to start with the proposals from the working group - strategy?
 >>LIVIA WALPEN:  Sure, I can go ahead.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Go ahead.  And then I'll check-in with the other working groups in the meantime.
 So, please, welcome and we look forward to hearing you.
 Go ahead, Livia.
 >>LIVIA WALPEN:  Perfect.  Thank you very much, Anriette, to present the main recommendations from the 2020 MAG Working Group on IGF Strategy.
 In fact, they are all included in the document titled "Proposals on the Strategic Improvements to the IGF and Operational Measures in 2021," and I can also just afterwards share it in the chat.
 The working group also submitted this document in January as a contribution to the stock taking and exercise conducted by the IGF Secretariat.  And I believe this, our document, is also listed as an annex of the stock taking and synthesis paper.
 So our recommendations can actually be divided into two parts, some strategic and longer term proposals and some more operational, shorter term measures for 2021.  And the latter are listed in the annex of document, and Titti will present them afterwards.  And I will now try to summarize the more strategic and broader proposals which the working group has developed also against the background of the U.N. SG's roadmap.  And of course all the other working group members can also afterwards complement my presentation.
 So the working group actually sees four main points of action, which are also interconnected.  A more inclusive IGF, a more strategic IGF, a more impactful IGF, and a more sustainable IGF.
 And then on the first point, a more inclusive IGF, this is of course an ongoing process and enormous efforts have already been made.  I think also the virtual IGF last year will enhance inclusion which is very positive.  But still there is a need to increase participation from the Global South, from governments and policymakers as well as from the private sector and youth.  And gender balance has increased but it really remains important.
 And the working group also thinks that the IGF needs to include people who are not Internet specialists but whose perspectives can enrich Internet governance and debates, such as, for example, people working on environmental sustainability.
 And just to mention one concrete recommendation on youth, as this is also one focus, as we know, of the Polish host country, and the working group suggests to the MAG to organize a consultation with the IGF youth initiatives and to develop a strategy for enhancing youth integration while avoiding a siloed approach.
 Then on the second point, a more strategic IGF.  As a vision, the working group really sees the IGF as the institutional framework for improving global and digital cooperation and for enhancing the exchange of information on all aspects of digital cooperation.  And in order to increase the strategic positioning of the IGF, our working group suggests to the MAG and the IGF secretariats to develop during 2021 a multiyear plan for the remaining years of the current IGF mandate.  And this plan should be developed in an inclusive manner through a public consultation process involving all stakeholders.
 Then on the third point, a more impactful IGF.  There one important aspect of the IGF's impact, particularly at national, regional, and sectoral levels is the IGF intersessional work; namely NRIs, Best Practice Forums, D.C.'s and also the new policy network.  And there, their working group, as you also discussed this morning, recommends integrating the intersessional work streams more closely in the agenda of the global IGF and also the other way around.
 And then another aspect of the IGF's impact is its outreach to national legislators.  So the working group suggests building really a standing parliamentarian track in the IGF.  And also it proposes that parliamentarians are seen as a special stakeholder group in the context of the IGF Plus.
 And then impact is also achieved through close liaison between the IGF and decision-making bodies from all stakeholder groups.  And there the working group really recommends to MAG members to proactively engage with their communities, and also the IGF secretariat and the MAG should undertake specific outreach to governments to secure their participation in intersessional work and the annual forum.
 And then the fourth and final point on a sustainable IGF.  I think like many proposals can only be implemented if additional resources are secured; and, therefore, their working group highly welcomes UN DESA's recruitment process for a dedicated fundraising consultant.  And one concrete idea by the working group is also to look for smaller contributions by the global Internet community.  That could be from $10 to $200 or more as they can also add up, and also the contributors would feel further invested in the process.
 Yes, so those were the four more strategic points the working group considers important.  And we hope our reflections on a more inclusive, strategic, impactful and sustainable IGF are helpful and will be considered by the MAG also for its future work.
 And I would now hand over to the chair of the working group, Titti, and she will present the more operational, shorter-term recommendations by the working group for this year.
 Thank you.
 >>CONCETTINA CASSA:   Okay.  Thanks a lot, Livia.
 So as Livia said, the last part document, the annex, includes a suggestion, a practical suggestion, the working group on strategy made for the MAG for the IGF 2021.  Those suggestion can be grouped in five points.  The first one is related to a more focused and interconnected IGF agenda.  What is the working group is suggesting is IGF 2021 should address no more than three focused policy issues or questions, obviously defined by the MAG based on community input and also specific suggestion coming from NRIs, BPF, and dynamic coalition.
 And another suggestion on this point is that the IGF program developed should be more compliance-issue driven.  The working group is proposing that the MAG works with issues in a more comprehensive and consistent way, selecting fewer issues and then analyzing and refining these in a way that integrate different perspective on these issues.
 Another element related to having a more focused, interconnected IGF agenda is related to increasing the involvement of relevant decision-making body in planning of IGF 2021.  And this involvement could be linked to the issue-driven program management.
 And fourth, it's important for the working group to have the opportunity to organize precise events that could cover other issues and are not linked with the focused policy question on which the core program is built.
 The second point is related to suggestion regarding the workshop, where the working group is proposing that the call and the selection of workshop be shaped by the decision comprehensive issue-driven approach, reducing the number of workshop and avoid duplication of content of workshop.
 The third point is related to the intersessional activity.  Here the suggestion is to invite NRIs to address the issue policy-driven policy question in their own context, and then organization, the IGF, to report back on their perspective and on this question.
 Also the youth IGF and dynamic coalition are invited to address the issue-driven policy question.
 For the BPF, the suggestion is slightly different because they are welcome, I mean, to -- to address this issue policy question but it's not mandatory as the working group thinks that the BPF should develop and follow their own work program in discussion with the BPF (indiscernible) kick off their activity before the MAG concludes its discussion on topics and streams for the annual meeting.
 The fourth point of suggestion is related to the format of phases where the suggestion is to design an hybrid IGF that includes virtual components and to use intersessional events and to have precise event.
 The last (indiscernible) is related to capture (indiscernible) communicating message and outcomes where the suggestion is to have a more concise and organized style of reporting from IGF session supported by a work plan to identify, gather, and better market existing outcomes and output for all the IGF.
 The last point I want to share with you is the plan of activity for 2021 that the working group has finalized, and that includes four areas of priority that consider also the previous discussion of the Privacy Working Group on this aspect.  And these priority obviously were discussed and relate also to the roadmap, the U.N. Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, the paper issued by (indiscernible) of High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation.
 So what are these four priority?  The first one is related to the strength and interaction between the IGF and decision-making bodies, where decision-making body, we consider all the relevant decision-making body, as (indiscernible) governance, multistakeholder, intergovernmental bodies, big Internet company, and so on.  And here the working group also has shared a path to implement this proposal.  There were several idea.  One was to integrate direction and communication between IGF and decision-making body in the evolution of the IGF and in particular to the establishment of multistakeholder relevant body.
 Then another idea was to invite decision-making body to use IGF as platform to encourage them to participate consistently in the IGF session and present the idea, the proposal they are working on:  Draft laws, corporate policy, codes of conduct, and so on.
 And then another idea to go to implement is to identify the relevant decision-making body, include the processes for liaising with them effectively in the IGF communication early engagement strategy.
 And then, obviously, based on multiyear plan, engage relevant decision-making body in a proactive way, invite them to participate, and also communicate element of work and discussion and the outcomes document with the specific decision-making body.  Also the message that are relevant for the area of activity of the decision-making body.  These are first group priority.
 The second group is related to developing, modify, adapt the existing IGF modalities as the BPF on dynamic so that they can play a role as policy incubator and accelerate cooperation.  The idea is to adapt the (indiscernible) of BPF on dynamic coalition so they can their roles in the evolution of the IGF and the IGF Plus model.
 The third proposal is create dedicated pages within the improved IGF website, including links to the existing observatory, (indiscernible) and also to the other organization that offer information on Internet governance and digital policy.  Collect information on the accredited initiative and also on the other source of information and advice.
 The last group of priority was on the format of the outputs also.  Here the idea is to produce reports that can be drafted by an independent organization as in the previous IGF that formulates outcomes of the IGF on thematic track, this critical census, the area of difference, the best practice that are emerging from the forum because the working group thinks that the relevant (indiscernible) could position the IGF as a reference point on the Internet governance issues for a global audience.
 And last, this was also mentioned from Livia, was establishing a multiyear plan with a rolling list of priority (indiscernible) 2021 until the end of the IGF current cycle, 2025, that could be used as reference key to prioritize topic and interlocutors for year by year.
 So that's all from my side.  Sorry if I take a little bit -- I was a little bit longer.  Thanks a lot, and back to you, Anriette.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Titti and Livia.  Just before I open for discussion, if you can just tell MAG members how to get involved.  By my count, there are 17 of the 2021 MAG members that are already participating in this working group.  I know this working group would very much like more MAG members to join.  There are also many past MAG members that are involved as well.
 Titti, if you can -- just explain to people that, MAG members, if you want to join this working group, then you can do that through Titti.
 But before -- just to open the discussion, Livia and Titti because your reports were quite comprehensive, if you could just perhaps refresh in bullet-point form which recommendations would you like the MAG to take on board going forward.  Just to highlight those issues where you feel the MAG needs to give consideration and some discussion about how to proceed.
 >>CONCETTINA CASSA:  If I may, as I told you before, one important point for the working group is to try to discuss and establish the multiyear plan.  For us the multiyear plan is important, is important to prioritize the issues for each year and also to involve the decision-making bodies that are actually connected to these issues.  So this is important.
 From these, try to have a more issue program -- developed program.  This for us is important to start from the issues and try to focus more but at the same time give an opportunity to the other issues to be discussed, organized, besides events that are out of the policy issues that have been (indiscernible) for the year.
 So these are two important points for the working group that I think should be underlined.
 I also think the other point that is very important is related to the NRIs.  The NRIs should discuss this policy question and reporting back to the IGF because in this way, it's a more linkage and more discussion on focused issues could be reached.
 I don't know if Livia wants to add more on the point that she has illustrated.  
 Livia, I give you the floor so maybe you can just add something.
 >>LIVIA WALPEN:  Yes, thank you very much, Titti.  I think you already covered many important points.  I would have also said the multiyear working plan and the issue-based program approach is very important and also what you just said, the NRIs.
 Perhaps just to add, I think also the parliamentarian track to further establish this and that the MAG is really involved in this work is highly important.  And then perhaps really also for this year because it's also priority of the Polish government, as I said, the youth integration, perhaps really have consultation from the MAG with the youth initiatives.  That could also be a very concrete point for this year.  
 But I think, yeah, Titti, you already mentioned the most important points.  Thanks.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much to Livia and to Titti.
 I worked as a co-chair of this group last year, so I really respect all the hard work that's been done.  We actually are in the process of refreshing the chairing of the group.  
 But for now, I want to open the floor to members of the MAG and other participants but starting with the MAG for responses.  Do these recommendations make sense to you?  Do you feel comfortable with them?  Do you think we should go ahead with them?  Would you like to make further suggestions?  And do you have questions?
 Lucien, please go ahead and take the floor.
 >>LUCIEN CASTEX:  Thank you.  Thank you, Anriette.  Sorry for the bad connection.  I'm on a 4G hot spot.
 Thank you, Titti and Livia, for the excellent presentation and perspectives.  I just want to react quickly, and I have a quick question.
 First, clearly NRIs are a key part to have an impactful discussion on policy.  It's important to have it at the global level and at the local level also.
 My question would be the following.  Should we, starting this year, actively contribute to engage parliamentarians at local level in the context of this IGF 2021?  It was pretty successful in Berlin, and at the time, the country mobilized the policy and IG community to increase diversity of the debate.  It was quite interesting.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Lucien.  
 I don't see any other hands at this point.  So, Titti and Livia, please go ahead and respond.
 >>CONCETTINA CASSA:  I don't know.  I think they should be concretely involved, starting from this year, if it will be possible, at the global level and also at the national level because it's a way, I mean, to have more impact on the legislation.  The parliamentarian culture, the best practice on the national initiative, this could have an impact in terms of legislation into just consider the results of the IGF at the national level.  
 It's important for this to involve more 2021 parliamentarian at both national and regional and global.  I think this will be a very good way to proceed as it was made in Berlin.
 I don't know if Livia wants to add more on this point.
 >>LIVIA WALPEN:  I think I can only support what you said.  I think parliamentarians need to be involved on both levels, on the global IGF -- the global IGF and the national NRIs.  
 Yeah, I mean, we've discussed in the working group different ideas.  Titti mentioned like sharing best practices in the framework of the global IGF could be something.  Also, building, like, an informal parliamentarian group within the global IGF that then also is involved in the NRIs.  I think there are many different ideas.  And I think at the global level, since IGF 2019 in Germany, this is really going forward.  And I think it's very important work and should be taken, yeah -- should be further developed this year and also on the NRI levels.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Can I just, Livia, before you go, perhaps ask you just -- and, Joyce, I have seen you.  You are on the floor, in the queue.
 Livia, perhaps if you can say a little bit more about the issue-driven approach.  Because if I think back of our discussions yesterday, I think it's not always clear what is different.  What is the working group strategy really proposing?  When it talks about the issue-driven approach, how is that different from the thematic track approach that the IGF has adopted in the past?  I think it would be helpful to give the MAG more clarification on what that proposal entails.
 >>LIVIA WALPEN:  Sure.  I don't know if Sandra Hoferichter is also here from EuroDIG.  She has also a lot of experience.  Perhaps she can also share her view.
 What we have been discussing in the working group is really that -- like, particularly also with the view to the workshop proposals and the process of workshop proposals, that it should be more clustered among issues and not so much, like, single workshops that in itself are, of course, respecting diversity.  But that's kind of -- people should cluster more around issues and then not feeling so much responsible for one single workshop but will have a broader perspective.
 And so in this regard, the call for issues is really a very important first step and should then be taken forward to really -- so it's less -- yeah, that it gets a broader overall perspective.  I don't know if that makes any sense.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Livia.
 And I think -- I'm not sure if Paul Charlton is with us.  He talked a bit about this yesterday at the close of our meeting.  And Paul also is a member of this working group.  And I think, Paul, what you were saying is that it's a way of being more focused.
 I'm not sure, Paul, if you want to add or repeat some of your remarks from yesterday.
 But let me give the floor to Joyce, and then I'm glad to see that Paul has joined the queue.  First, let's have Joyce.
 >>JOYCE CHEN:  Thank you, Anriette.  Joyce Chen, MAG member.  I have a question.  
 Thank you very much, Titti and Livia, for the excellent and very comprehensive summary of this working group and the document.
 We heard on Monday the idea and the concept of the IGF high-level -- multistakeholder high-level body.  And I know it's not been approved, but I just wondered if the working group had some form of a response on that.  Is it considering to participate in the survey that is going to go out?
 And if there was some kind of consensus that a multistakeholder high-level body was to somehow be integrated within the MAG, would this document then sort of be changed to reflect that, or how would we sort of view it from this point of view?  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Joyce.
 Livia or Titti, could you just respond to that before we give to Paul?
 And Paul obviously can add to that response, if he wants to.  He's also a member of the working group.
 Titti or Livia, I'm not sure who of you wants to respond to Joyce's question.  Just jump in.
 >>CONCETTINA CASSA:  If I can say -- the first question was if we had some feedback.  Working group, as was explained in the last day, presented its proposal for multistakeholder high-level body that included three approaches for the multistakeholder high-level body.
 We received many thanks, I mean, from the group of (saying name) that was participating to the working group, strategy working group.  So we know that our suggestion will be considered by the Office of Technical Envoy.  But we are not sure which of the model will be taken into account because at the end, the choice, as far as I understand, will be of U.N. Secretary-General.
 So about participating to the -- this new survey, I mean, we didn't decide yet but I think it will be important.  So maybe we can discuss this element in the next meeting -- virtual meeting of the working group.  I think it's important to participate also in this way.  
 That's all from my side.  I don't know if Livia wants to add something else.
 >>LIVIA WALPEN:  Yes.  I mean, as you said, Titti, I think we still have to discuss this in the working group.  I mean, we had already many interesting discussions within the working group on how we could implement -- or operationalize this multistakeholder high-level body.  And there was agreement on many aspects but not on all, as we also already discussed on Monday.  That's why we also came up with these three different approaches.
 So I'm not sure if we could, like, agree on one single contribution from the working group towards this consultation.  I personally -- I'm just thinking out loudly.  I think probably that different members from the working group will participate separately in this consultation.
 But, yeah, I think we still have to discuss this.  But we really -- in the working group, I think it was agreement on the fact that the IGF, in order to become more politically relevant, there needs to be such a bridge-building function that the IGF can reach out towards the already-existing decision-making bodies out there.  And this is a function that currently nobody really is taking up.  And that's like a gap, and it somehow needs to be filled.
 As you've seen on Monday, there's still a lot of discussion ongoing.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Livia.
 Paul Charlton, please take the floor.
 >>PAUL CHARLTON:  Yes.  Thanks, Anriette.  For the record, it's Paul Charlton, MAG member from the government of Canada.
 Just to -- first of all, on the last point that was being discussed about the multistakeholder high-level body, I think, you know, my understanding from our discussion on Monday at the open consultations is that the questionnaire will be distributed I think in New York and Geneva.  
 It wasn't clear to me exactly who was going to.  I hope it goes to all stakeholder groups and gets very wide participation because the point that I and some others was that while there are certain elements of the roadmap that have been pretty well discussed and understood and are already being implemented in terms of improving the IGF, the multistakeholder high-level body, the concept is something that we still -- we still need to understand further and we still don't have agreement on. 
 I think the working group did a very good job in coming up with the three options.  I think there was clearly no consensus on any one option.  But I think the three options give a good overview in terms of how the concept of the high-level body could be implemented.  
 And I think Livia was saying on Monday, there are certain commonalities across the three options.  But nonetheless, they are different and different members of the group and different stakeholders have, you know, different views as to which option they support.
 And I think it's -- I think Livia also said just now that it's ultimately up to the office of the Secretary-General as to which -- as to which option is chosen or if a different option is chosen other than those three, it's within their purview how the high-level body is implemented but hopefully they will get some good feedback from the questionnaire.
 I think just for the earlier point, I think there was mention about -- and I think, Anriette, you were mentioning my comments yesterday about -- I think it was the call for inputs.
 What I was saying yesterday was basically that it's going to be a very important issue because there are so many changes going on and we are in sort of a period of transition that we use the call for event proposals, workshop proposals, and other event proposals strategically and really provide a lot of guidance about the different things we're looking for this year in terms of flexibility as to the shape of events, their length, adopting session proposals for a hybrid environment which we're going to need.
 And also the issue of focusing on questions instead of very, very broad themes, that's going to be different.
 So I do think that's -- it's always important the information we give stakeholders when we call for their input and we call for their ideas for events, but it's going to be especially important this year.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much for that, Paul.
 I think, in other words, these recommendations from the working group strategy, if the MAG feels comfortable with them and find them welcome -- and, in fact, about half MAG members are part of this working group, they can be a useful reference point as the MAG proceeds with the work of planning this year's IGF, for example, when the call for proposals go out.
 But I don't see any other further -- further hands or --
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I can say something quickly, if I may.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Go ahead, Chengetai.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Anriette.  Regarding the questionnaire, I'd just like to say that yesterday the questionnaire was released and the missions in New York were informed.  And this morning we informed the missions in Geneva.  It's up on our website as well.  The link is in the chat.  And it's open to any stakeholder group.  There is a Web form.  And, yes, the deadline is the 8th of March.  Unfortunately, we're doing so many things.  But we will be sending it out to the listservs, the mailing lists, et cetera.
 And I think we also have tweeted it, the survey.  So the survey is open.  It's live.  And we are asking those specific questions on 93(a).  We're not opening up the whole thing as well because, of course, that discussion has been done.  It's just some specific questions that -- and when I say "we," I'm talking about UN DESA, IGF secretariat, and the Office of the Envoy on Technology.
 So it is up there.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Chengetai.  Just a follow-up question.  You are doing direct outreach to missions.  Are you doing direct outreach to other institutions from other stakeholder groups?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We are using our avenues of communications.  Missions, we know -- we know that they're definite.  We know that people follow our mailing lists.  We know we've got a mailing list of everybody who has ever attended an IGF or who may be interested in IGF.  That means all the organizations.  So we're doing -- we're informing people that way.  It's just that it's been out for just a couple of hours at the moment.  So it's basically hot off the press, and we're just rolling it out as fast as we can while also servicing this meeting, of course.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Chengetai.  Obviously, I can assume that you are inviting MAG members to distribute this into their networks as well.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It will go out to all mailing lists, including the MAG mailing list, yes.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Chengetai.
 And next we have Sandra and then Wai Min.
 Sandra, you have the floor.
 Sandra, are you still there?  Are you muted?
 I cannot hear Sandra.  Can other people hear her?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   I can't, but I may not be the most reliable person.
 >>SANDRA HOFERICHTER:   Can you hear me?  Can you hear me now?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Yes.  Yes, we can.  Please go ahead, Sandra.
 >>SANDRA HOFERICHTER:   Okay.  I'm sorry.  There's always something with the audio, I think.
 I just wanted to come back to that question on submitting of proposals and how to draft a program out of this, because Livia pointed to EuroDIG directly.
 I can just report from the latest experience this year, and also from the years ahead that we made our call for issues, for me it becomes more and more clear that the call for issues is only one resource and should never be the one and only resource to draft a program.  Because in particular, when you would like to involve the communities, they do not necessarily submit the proposal because the system or the process is -- seems too complicated for them, and they may be hesitant.
 So when reaching out to new communities, you basically have to really carry them to make a proposal.  That would be one thing.  But you still cannot rely.  And I mean, possibly at the IGF, you also can recognize that, more or less, these are the same people who submit proposals every year.  And with this, we will never really catch up the hot topics.
 So what the MAG, I think, needs to do is, first of all, to be -- or to keep eyes and ears open which are the hot topics and should add them to the agenda in their capacity as the MAG, and even if they have not been submitted.
 And the second point, also curate the proposals a little bit more in terms of that not each and every thing can be considered because it might be redundancy of last year or it might be a discussion we had, we just duplicate.
 And I think the MAG should be free enough to add proposals that they think are missing in the call for proposals, and also be a little bit more frank in terms of handling what came in a proposal by match or criterias like gender, geographical and stakeholder balance but might still not be a thing that really needs to be discussed for -- I don't know how many times it was discussed already.  So maybe skip some of those that are just a redundancy of previous years if there are not really new components that would fit with it.
 On the top of my head I'm not sure if the IGF Secretariat or the IGF process entails a comment phase on the draft program.  I think it does.
 I can just report from the comment phase that we have this year, in particular from the meeting that we had with our community to review what is in the pot of call for issues; that this was a very valuable exercise to do, and possibly that is also something where the MAG would open up the process to the broader community because this was the moment where we really detected, okay, what do we have and what is still missing.  And some really important issues that came up via the call for issues were then submitted in this -- it was a full-day call and were then submitted.  And this I think made a really valuable input to the overall program-shaping process.
 And I stop here.  Thank you very much.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much for that, Sandra.  And I think that actually helps to -- to contribute to what the working group is describing as a more issue-driven approach where you have a deeper discussion on fewer issues.  And I think it's actually -- in a way, you can also -- your remarks can be seen to reflect this transition that Paul Charlton was talking about.  I think so often the MAG is -- so much of the work of the MAG has been to review workshop proposals.  And I think what I hear from the working group - strategy and from yourself as well, Sandra, is that there needs to be more engagement on program development beyond just the MAG scoring workshop proposals.  So putting out the program for review, actively identifying gaps in the program in relation to the primary issues that are being addressed.  So that's all very useful.
 And I think your point about not just looking at the issues received as the only input but also, in this case, I think we also have thematic track proposals, but then also to use the MAG's own networking and its connection with intersessional activities to identify what the really topical issues are.  So I think that's all really useful.
 And I hope the working group - strategy and the MAG and the secretariat will absorb all of these proposals as we plan the work ahead.
 So the final speaker before we move on to the next working group will be Wai Min Kwok from UN DESA.  Wai Min, you are welcomed to the floor.
 >>WAI MIN KWOK:   Thank you.  Thanks, Anriette.  
 This is Wai Min Kwok, UN DESA.  First I would like to join thanks to Titti and also Livia for giving the comprehensive updates and the extensive and very elaborate works of the working group.
 I'd like to respond to Titti's request for comments on a multiyear program.  That's -- I think that is challenging for many institutions, including U.N., like the ECOSOC or the high-level political fora for (indiscernible) to pursue.  
 I like to recall that this has been discussed in earlier MAG, but it is -- I think there was some agreement, but it is challenging and somewhat not follow up.
 I would like to say we also have representative from future host country, both Ethiopia and Japan.  I think Japan, you might be familiar with Mr. Yoichi Iida who is the Deputy Director General from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication.  From Ethiopia we also have Mr. Abere Shiferaw, I believe he's online with us.  He's from the Ministry of Innovation and Technology, Ethiopia.
 So I think it would be useful.  I'm not sure whether this is the right time to go into that discussion but it's useful to also engage the future host country in the discussion of the multiyear program.
 Back to you, Anriette.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thank you very much for that, Wai Min.  And thank you for drawing my attention to the fact that we have representatives of our next two host countries with us.
 And in fact, I do welcome them.  And Titti and Livia, I suggest you reach out to them as well to join the working group - strategy and to participate in the work of the MAG.
 So I don't see any other questions or comments.  This working group has extensive participation from the MAG.  So there will be other opportunities to engage the MAG.  And I trust that this working group will continue to report its work regularly to the MAG.
 I'd now like to give the floor to the Working Group on Outreach and Engagement to present us with their proposals and their plans for going forward.
 >>JUNE PARRIS:   Hello, everyone.  I'm June Parris, a former MAG member.  I'm acting as an observer and I'm helping the group to -- okay.  I'm just assisting the group.  I'm just going to say a few things.  I don't think my video is working.  Yeah, it's on now.  Yeah.
 I'll give you a bit of background about outreach and engagement.  It's a working group, and it was very active in the past three years.  We had a very active team a couple of years ago but the original group has been dissolved.  We have former MAG members who left the group but I am still in the group.
 What I'm going to say, I just want to give you the key points of what we hope to do this year.
 In the past, we sent out communications to different NRIs and (indiscernible) on how to improve their participation at the IGF.  We maintained our mailing list which was used for the 2020 work program and to advise different proposals on the different tracks and opportunities to participate.  We've discussed with the BPFs and MAG members about the convenience to foster the working group for traversal common strategy of communication.
 So over the last two years the working group has worked to develop a sense of IGF community which has to move to the next level.
 So what we hope to do, basically, they're all about communication.  The IGF, everything has improved over the last couple of years, but we want continuance and we want to continue with communication.  So the basic key points are to enhance communication, to assist the secretariat with this communication, to promote the IGF via social platforms, to plan diaries and roadmaps for every delivery of the IGF goals, to include everyone in the planning, to enhance participation at the IGF, to follow through via reporting, and to continue this work over the next few years.
 That's basically what I'm going to say.
 If Amado and Afi are in the room and they want to add something to it, I'd be very happy.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, June.  So Amado, Afi or Roberto, others involved in this group, do you have anything to add?
 I don't see anyone asking for the floor.
 I have also asked this working group to share their plans with the MAG.  And when we hear later -- we have a proposal for a Communication Strategy Working Group.  So one of my questions to you as MAG members is to consider whether perhaps the outreach and engagement working group can join forces with the Communication Strategy Working Group.
 But next we'll hear from the language working group, and after that we'll move on to new working group proposals.
 So I'm not sure if it's Karim or Roberto or Lucien who will present for us. please go ahead.
 >>LUCIEN CASTEX:   Karim will present for the working group.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Welcome to the floor, Karim.
 >>MOHAMED KARIM:   Good morning, everyone.  Let me share my screen.  
 Do you hear me?  Okay.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   We can hear you clearly, Karim.  I can't see your screen yet.  I can see your face.  And I'm happy to see you're one of the MAG members who has regular haircuts.  Not all of us are having regular haircuts.
 >>MOHAMED KARIM:   Thank you.
 Okay.  We had a meeting a quick meeting with Lucien yesterday night to try to finalize and update our proposal from last year, and we'd like to recall that IGF is currently responding to the goal to be inclusive and affirm linguistic diversity.  However, simply responding to provide translation into six U.N. language is not only enough, and it's the precursor of consolidation of including other language and the people that speak them.
 To create a more linguistic diversity, the task force on language has adopted and circulated a questionnaire last year, and the results allow us to draw a clear recommendation.
 But this year, the task force on language reformulated this recommendation with additional proposition.  The task force on language ask for concrete measure and action in line with the goal to be inclusive and affirm linguistic diversity.  This should not be a separate proposal from a working group but should be considered at top level and analyzed in terms of making IGF more inclusive in terms of linguistic diversity and, as a result, in views and opinion.
 Let me recall last-year recommendation.  The first one was about the key message that are part of output of IGF 2020 should be translated into the six U.N. language.  But, unfortunately, if we took a look on the output report of IGF 2020, we have only English version.  So this point illustrates the way that even the working group made the recommendation on that way, maybe we should work closely with the secretariat and see how this recommendation could be implemented in terms of translation.
 We can try at this stage of the meeting in term of the output to try to make translation and assure that all people around the world can have the feedback of the IGF.
 The second one was that people should have the option of hosting some event, particularly pre-events, in a language other than English with or without interpretation.  To enable organizer of such session to do their own fundraising for interpretation, the suggestion is that this should be a voluntary contribution because of limited fund.  And this -- this recommendation need to be well analyzed because it looks or it sound that the linguistic or the translation issue is remain to the own speaking English to fundraise and try to ensure that other language will be taken account.
 So it should be a mandate to the secretariat or to the whole IGF to think about globally how to be inclusive and not only to the (indiscernible) English to have to do it.
 The next one was this allow for a better collaboration with NRI and facilitate a more inclusive IGF with a better atmosphere.  Analysis of the feasibility of using machine translation for interpretation and captioning.  This could be seen from a North African perspective.  And while I discuss with Lucien, he also will try to see perspective from French IGF and other organization.
 The next one, there was a debate on technical competency, but we must start small and expand once efficiency has been achieved.
 We saw it last year with all session and workshop with the facilities raised in term of translation and interpretation, and we can say that it really helped people to be involved on the IGF 2020.
 The inability to fully function a foreign language is a challenge.  We also need to think about people with disabilities.  In fact, MAG proposal should be submitted in other language as a way forward.
 We need to look at lock issues and culture when considering translation to prevent a loss of local language when we make English an official language in other culture.
 This year, we complete this recommendation with the last one.  The task force on language will recall the fact that language is a key factor of exclusion and/or inclusion.  Recall that simultaneous translation and transcription surely helped a lot of people at IGF 2020.  And like Madam Chair recall it always, it will be great to remind everyone that this is a forum open to all and, in particular, to share guidelines to allow better interpretation and understanding.
 Support the option to have session proposal, main session, workshop, Day Zero events, flash session, and organization in other language in addition to English for more diversity and inclusion.  If adopted, it's important to communicate widely on this option in order to give a strong signal to the community in the whole IGF preparation agenda.
 This proposed recommendation, if adopted, will allow at initial stage to communicate with all stakeholder and inform them of the possibility to work with this year with other language than English on the submission of a proposal.
 The next one, the task force would like to see concrete vision and engagement from the IGF secretariat and UN DESA in the way of inclusion and guarantee diversity.  This may start on the documents emanating from the Assistant Secretary-General, the Tech Envoy, and DESA to be translated in six official languages.
 And the last one is that co-chairs of the task force on language request to join the work group on the design and implementation of the new version of the IGF website to help on languages and diversity and inclusion aspect.
 My apologies for my English.  But this is a recommendation from the task force on language for consideration.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Karim, for a very clear presentation.  And your English is excellent.
 >>KARIM ATTOUMANI:  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  I will now open the floor for discussion of these recommendations.  This working group force completed its work.  It's not proposing to continue, but it's asking for serious consideration of its recommendations by the MAG and the secretariat.  
 Let's have some discussion and then we can look at the way forward.
 I don't see anyone in the speaking queue.
 Do any of the other MAG members who participated in this working group want to add?
 In the meantime, Joyce Chen, you have the floor.
 >>JOYCE CHEN:  Anriette, I think Courtney had her hand up first.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Sorry, I did not see that.  
 Courtney, go ahead.  And then Joyce.
 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:  Okay.  Thank you so much.
 I agree with some of the recommendations about making the proposals in additional languages than English.  I think part of that needs to be based on the capacity of MAG members to review proposals in other languages.  And so I don't whether we've ever done a survey of the current MAG members and what their linguistic capabilities are.  Maybe we can do it as an initial step towards achieving this objective and see where there's a critical mass that would enable both review and discussion of the proposals.
 And then the second thing is whether we could ask the secretariat, or perhaps they already do this, to provide statistics on visits to the various language pages of the IGF site, specifically with respect to where text is translated and the multilingual aspects as well as where we had translation and participation because I think Chengetai mentioned either yesterday or the day before that there were sessions provided, translations in French, and then there were no French speakers.
 So I'm wondering if there's a way to gather some statistics and data that would help us figure out if we can't necessarily do all six languages due to the considerations around funding, that we could make some data-driven decisions based on where the communities are and perhaps to think about in the proposal process, A, if we're able to do more languages and, B, if we include something about what languages they would like to do their sessions in or would like to see added, and then again have a more data-driven, community-led approach to figuring out how we prioritize incorporating that additional  (indiscernible).  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks, Courtney and Joyce.
 And then after you, Lucien.
 >>JOYCE CHEN:  Thank you, Anriette.  I'm Joyce Chen, MAG member, for the record.
 I wanted to say thank you very much for this task force that worked on language coming from the Asia-Pacific region.  It's something that is also very, very close to our hearts.  And when we go to global meetings, the APAC community always struggle especially with language and when meetings only use English as the main language.
 I did have a question.  So similar to Courtney, I just wondered if the recommendation MAG proposals should be submitted in other languages moving forward, is it only for the six U.N. languages or is it open to basically any language?  And then how would we determine if MAG members have the capability to assess those proposals?  Just a bit curious about how that would work.
 I had one suggestion kind of, slash, question which is I'm not sure right now how the translations are done from the U.N. secretariat side or -- I don't know, is there someone that's hired to do the translation.  I'm not sure what the process is.  And I would like to ask what it is because I wondered if we would be open to, say, accepting community translations for certain documents that community members felt were important to their communities that they wanted to read.  And is this something the U.N. would be able to accept?  That's all for me.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks for that, Joyce.
 Let's hear from Lucien, and then I will give the floor to the secretariat.
 Sorry, I have got a big thunderstorm here.  
 Lucien, you have the floor.
 >>LUCIEN CASTEX:  Thank you.  Thank you, Anriette.  Just a quick word.  If my memory serves me well, we have a number of French, Spanish, and Arabic, not sure for Mandarin, Chinese, and Russian.  We basically started with the two U.N. working languages, French and English.  But would be nice to reassess.
 Just wanted to stress that language diversity is quite a strong factor on diversity, and it would help a lot with IGF outreach and event fundraising, really.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks a lot, Lucien.
 I just wanted to make a few comments.  I think this working group did discuss the difficulty of accepting working group proposals in languages other than English, both in terms of MAG members having to evaluate them but also in terms of ultimately, you know, what would be the point of that if those organizers still have to run their workshop in English.
 But I do also think that the working group looked at -- it was in their recommendations -- at more flexibility.  In other words, enabling pre-events in languages other than non-English.  And then possibly then such proposals could then also be in languages other than English.
 But I want to give the floor to the secretariat and actually also wanted to -- because Chengetai can respond to some of the questions in terms of what has been done or what is in the process of being done in response to this working group's recommendations on translating IGF outputs.  
 They can also respond on voluntary translations.  They've got this previously.  And perhaps also talk about the other constraints and opportunities they are aware of.
 So, Chengetai, can I give you the floor?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Anriette.  
 And I do miss those thunderstorms.
 [ Laughter ]
 Basically, as with everything, it is to do with resources and what is the best allocation of resources that we can do.
 I'll just go in no particular order the things that I have noted down.  As far as the interpretation is concerned, apart from resources, which is, of course, overarching -- so I won't touch on that again -- it's also how do we justify this.  It's also their usage.  I think it was last year, we did go back and we had it -- we had our Open Consultations in English and French.  Unfortunately, the French was never used in a way that we could quantify as such.  I mean, people may have been listening in French, but nobody spoke in French and there wasn't that translation going back.
 So it was very difficult for us to go to our finance department and say, We want this.  And this is the benefit when we are quite certain that there are French speakers here but nobody took the opportunity to speak in French.
 The other thing about this topic is that it really depends on the MAG.  Sometimes -- before last year when we tried this, we had another discussion -- I think it was in 2017 as well -- whether or not we would do it in French and English.  We are just talking about the Open Consultations here.
 And then the issue was that there were some other people saying, Well, if we're doing it -- our justification was French and English is the working language of the U.N., at least in Geneva, where the IGF secretariat is based.
 But then there was some MAG members who thought that if we're doing it in French, then we should do it in all six U.N. languages.  And, therefore, if we're not -- so, therefore, there would only be two choices:  All six U.N. languages or just in English.  So we went in English.  But this changes year by year, depending on the feeling of the MAG.
 And as far as French is concerned, I think we can try it again.  But, again, as I said yesterday, if we do try it, we have to be able to show the data on how useful it is.  And if everybody speaks in English, then we can't really prove that.
 As far as the interpretation booths are concerned, yes, in most -- I wouldn't say all, but in most meetings when we have face-to-face meetings, I'm talking about the annual meetings, we do have a room with three interpretation booths which aren't manned by the host country.  And this is an opportunity for organizations and people to book that room and provide their own interpreters.
 Again, we did have a discussion once, maybe it was just the composition of the MAG then.  But we did have a discussion once that it wasn't fair because it really gave advantage for those people with money to be able to do those.  But, again, that was the argument there.  Feelings may be totally different this year as well.  And that goes with the territory.
 So I think it was -- yeah, basically 2017, again, I think that's when we stopped having those -- that requirement because that requirement was there in the host country agreement that we signed with every other host country.
 As far as the translation of materials goes, we've done it in the past and sometimes we have not done it.  
 We -- as a part of the U.N., we did have to go through the U.N. system.  And unfortunately we are part of the U.N. but we're also extrabudgetary.  That means when we submit our papers for translation, we're in the back of the queue and all the other from the main budget get priority.
 But we have also opened up -- and it's still active.  As you can see from our website, our website is actually multilingual and we do have a facility for volunteers to help translate pages from the IGF website.  So they could be pages.  They also could be documents.  And maybe Luis can speak a little bit about this because he's the one in the secretariat who is actually heading that program.
 So, of course, at the very beginning, we did have volunteers, but then it peters out again.  But that facility is there, and, of course, we do label them that this is not official U.N. translation or interpretation.  I've known -- again, I think it was -- sorry, I can't remember the exact words.  But sometimes there's a lot -- if somebody speaks -- okay.  I'll just use Spanish.  Not all Spanish is the same.  The Spanish that the interpretation and the meaning of the words from Spanish from Spain is slightly different but can be significant especially in text, significantly different from somebody who's speaking Spanish from -- let's say, from South America.  And even in South America, it differs in the -- which country you come from.
 So those are the things that we are struggling with a little bit.  But we -- we came up with that conclusion, that we do have the -- that disclaimer there saying that this is an unofficial translation.  And, in fact, there's a whole system that is actually organized that somebody translates it, somebody checks it, a different group checks it, et cetera.  And then once that whole group -- that language group has agreed upon it, then it gets published on the website.
 If you want to know more, we can give Luis a chance to speak or you can contact him later.  So that's what we've done.  
 And as far as languages outside of the U.N., I don't think that's a realistic possibility as such.  The host country at times may provide an extra booth for their language.  You know, like, for Poland, they're going to be providing a booth for the Polish language, but I don't think we can expect any time soon to have a booth for Swahili, for instance.  I mean, it's widely spoken in Africa and that would be very good to have.  But I don't think we'll be able to do that in the foreseeable future unless something happens.  I think that was all that was on my list.
 And, yes, so sorry.  For the proposals in different languages, I think, yes, we did permit that sometime back but we saw, I mean, from the secretariat side, that even though it's a good proposal and it is in another language, how do you get that translated?  And if somebody uses Google Translate to translate it, then it's not that good quality.  And even though it's a perfectly fine proposal, it does get points knocked off because people can't truly understand what the person is saying.  
 And that reminds me of the final thing.  Yes, during our day zero and pre-events, we do allow other languages.  I mean, people can apply for sessions in other language.  I mean, the proposal can be written in English and say, this is for the specific community that gets a chance to meet here during the global IGF.  And we do provide them with a room, and that's no problem whatsoever.
 Sorry for taking too long.  Back to you, chair.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you, Chengetai.  And I actually would like to make a proposal, which I think I might have done in the past.  But if we can pick that up again, it's for the secretariat to draft a document that's on the website that actually outlines all of these different ways in which the secretariat is currently -- and the IGF process is currently trying to enable linguistic diversity and support it.
 But I just want to pick up on something Karim said, which is we have got to start somewhere.  I really agree with Karim on that.  I think if we want the IGF to be more inclusive -- and I know we do -- we do have to take some measures to be more inclusive in terms of language.
 And the proposal I would really suggest we give more serious consideration is -- I think it was maybe even first on the list of this task force, this working group, and that is the translation of outputs.
 And I just posted in our chat the link to one of the IGF 2020 outputs.  It's the messages.  There's also a summary.  But these messages are the key messages that emerge from each of the thematic tracks.  And the reason I'm highlighting this is because it's a relatively short document.
 And I would like to propose that we look really at using available resources within the U.N. and the Trust Fund at least to translate those into U.N. languages, if we can.
 And then, Chengetai, my question to you is:  Would it be possible for us to use the network of previous host countries, the network of current and past MAG members to also produce unofficial translations of those outputs?  Clearly, clearly flagged as being volunteer or unofficial.
 Is that something that we can actually do?  I just feel that if we have these key outcomes of the IGF available in languages other than English, it just enables so much more.
 I see Amrita is commenting.  For example, if Amrita wanted to distribute IGF key messages on the environment track in Tamil or in Hindi or Gujarati or whatever, then that gives her the space to be able to do that.
 I just think it is a way to start, and I feel that it helps us reach this objective of a more impactful IGF.
 And then just I think my final reflection here is this is also, I think, one of the reasons why paying attention to the IGF outputs is very important, because to have a hundred-page output document from a global IGF process or an annual forum and then to think it's worth spending the money on translation into multiple languages, I would question that.  But I think having short messages that are key and to the point and accessible is not just less expensive to translate, it's more effective as well.
 Chengetai, so just if you can respond to that initially.  And I do understand all the constraints that the secretariat has.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yeah.  Thank you, Anriette.
 I think maybe I'll just ask Luis, if he's on, just to give a quick response because he's actually coordinating the translation of the documents and the website.  But the quick answer to your question is yes.  And we do have some -- okay.  Luis?
 >>LUIS BOBO:   Sorry.  I was muted.  Thank you, Chengetai.  No, you're completely right.  This work that we did to translate the content of the website does include the document and the outputs that are produced, but this takes a different track.  Basically what we have there is a mailing list for each language, collaborating mailing list in which everyone that can make an effort in translating, another person can just approve that translation, that then we can send it back to the U.N. with communication with the claim that this is not an official translation but we produced like that the documents last year.
 About the other things, Chengetai, I think you said everything perfectly okay.  So we have the systems, but in practice, there are these slightly different drawbacks.  For a new website, we expect to use artificial intelligence and machine translation because now the technology for that we think is mature.  Still with the disclaimer that it's not an official translation but that it should give a boost to the multilingualism at the IGF website.
 And I also would like to say and add to what you said, Chengetai, that last year it worked well during the IGF, every workshop that they brought their own interpreters.  They used the Zoom interpretation capabilities and everything worked smoothly.  So this is always also the possibility.
 Also, technically it's possible to provide inputs in different languages.  But again, it has to be cooperate with resources all the way from beginning to the end and it has to be planned in advance with the reports, et cetera.
 So I think technology is advancing quite fast here.  Probably these tools that we are using as well, they will be able to have automatic translation.  For example, there is -- if we send the transcriptions of a meeting to platforms like YouTube or Facebook or other platforms, they can have an automatic translation, but this is paid for so it's a question of resources but the tools are there for to boost.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Okay.  Thanks.  
 Yes, so just the short of it, to answer it, yes.  I do take your point, Anriette, is that I think these facilities as well should be advertised more on the website so that we have a constant call for volunteers and maybe periodically we should send out calls for volunteers to translate these documents.  I mean, that's a good point, and we should suggest we remember to do that as well.
 So thank you.  I won't take any more time.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks, Chengetai.
 So what I propose as next steps, then -- and, you know, this would apply to -- some of these would apply for both -- all the working group recommendations we have heard, and that is for MAG members to take these recommendations into account to the fullest extent that they can as we plan IGF 2021 and go forward.
 So that would be the Working Group on Strategy and Strengthening as well as the Working Group on Language.
 Then I would suggest that we consider, and I will let the secretariat take the initiative, but I think they will need to work with MAG members to undertake a specific activity, to at least within the next one to two months translate some of the key shorter components of IGF 2020 outputs into U.N. languages and using the disclaimer that Wai Min just wrote about to invite the MAG and previous host countries to translate those outputs into as many different languages as we can.
 So I think if -- that would be my suggestion.  Sort of generally taking these into account to the fullest, but I would really recommend a specific activity around the translation of 2020 outputs, particularly the outputs that are concise.
 Is that acceptable?
 Chengetai, is that a realistic activity for us to undertake collectively with the MAG and the secretariat?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yes, I think so.  Yes.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much.  And then the secretariat will make available to users of the sites all the languages.  How the IGF process is currently accommodating linguistic diversity, the different ways in which we are doing that.
 So thanks very much, everyone.  I'm doing a time check.  We've got roughly half an hour left, and what we need to do in this remaining time -- and correct me if I'm overlooking anything, is we've already heard the plans for 2021 from the working group - strategy and the working group outreach and engagement.  We now need to hear from the proposed new Working Group on Communication Strategy.  That's from Courtney Radsch, and also have a quick revisit from the Working Group on Hybrid Meetings.  And after that, we should be able to close the session.
 So, Courtney, are you ready to take the floor?
 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   Yes, as soon as I can find my mute button.
 So, yes, responding to the discussion that we had earlier about the need for better communication, especially with the news media and external stakeholders that aren't really already involved in the IGF, I just put together an idea for a Working Group on Communications.  I think that responds specifically to 93(g) in the U.N. Digital Cooperation plan.  But I also feel like this could be potentially incorporated into the existing outreach and engagement group, but maybe have a, you know, key aspect of that focus on communications.
 It would also seek to put together some best practices and approaches for social media, and specifically also for outreach to the news media.
 Is there anything else I should cover, Anriette?
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   I think that's fine, Courtney.  And I think if you can circulate your proposal.
 What I would -- I mean, I'm opening the floor for discussions on this proposal, but I definitely think it's a good idea for the MAG members that are interested in communication strategy and the existing or previous Working Group on Outreach and Engagement to have an offline discussion about collaborating.
 We have your proposal in writing, Courtney.  We have their proposal in writing.  And what I suggest is that you take some time just to look at whether you can actually join forces.  And in then this working group should be able to proceed with some of its work.
 I think the other consideration, and I raised this in previous MAG meetings, I think it would be important for the IGF Secretariat to have their designated team in this working on communications to work very closely with this MAG working group, if it join forces or if it stays separate to different groups.  But I would strongly recommend that these working groups join forces because the fewer working groups makes it easier for everyone to participate.
 Does anyone have any comments or questions from -- for Courtney?  And perhaps Amado or anyone else who is in outreach and engagement, if you have any initial reflections on joining forces.
 >>AMADO ESPINOSA:   Totally agree.  Thank you very much, Anriette.  It's a very good idea.  And I will -- I will contact them to (indiscernible) in order to establish a meeting, meeting together.  I think certainly we can -- we can do a lot of things together.
 Thank you very much, Anriette.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Amado and Courtney.
 Anyone else who have any comment?
 I don't see any.
 So I think it now remains just for the Working Group on Hybrid Meetings to just give us again -- I know you've done it before so you really can be very brief, just a short outline of what you propose to do.  And then we'll bring everything to a close.
 >>TEREZA HORESJOVA.  Okay.  Hi, it's Tereza.  There is a train coming as I'm just about to start speaking.  
 We have shared the PDF with you, and we feel that the working group was kind of agreed on that goal in January.  I don't want to go into too many details, but also maybe to reflect what was discussed in the last days by hybrid.
 So maybe to kind of clarify that the main rationale is to move from just like remote participation in the sense that we are enabling participants who are not at the venue to participate at the event virtually; that this should be a clearly kind of hybrid event, meaning providing the same experience for knows that hopefully will be joining the event in person and those joining -- joining online so that they have the same experience.
 We have also stressed in the right tab that the setup and plan of the event must be flexible in the sense that if the meeting needs to go to fully online that this will be -- this will be possible.
 We would like also after experience of the last IGF to have the even kind of embrace the virtual tools as well in terms of interactivity so that it's not just a forum where digital policy issues are discussed but where kind of we use them in our interactions as well.
 We will be touching upon various questions as you can see also on the screen, be it what platform to use and why.  We would strongly like to suggest that we first take as a starting point what we need the event, what the needs of the event are and then think about the platform rather than seeing what the platform allows us to do, and then kind of planning the event around it.
 I will now quickly hand over to Adam who is working on this to add anything on the next steps.
 Adam?
 >>ADAM PEAKE:  Thanks, Tereza.  Yeah, I think -- so I think we've accepted that this working group has being formally agreed by the MAG and look forward to this appearing on the list of MAG mailing list on the website and then with instructions as usual about how people can join so that we have a standard way of subscribing, et cetera, and reading the archives and all the things that we need for that.
 On next steps, the first one that we've been thinking about is to review essentially what -- what was achieved in 2020, particularly taking into account the comments in taking stock.  And you saw a lot of that on -- I think it was Monday when Anja pulled together a very helpful document which actually looked at those issues.  So we're sort of in step one which is to review what worked well, how people commented on their experiences and what we want to improve upon.
 The next step again is sort of a little bit research-oriented.  The IGF isn't the only meeting, of course, that went online last year.  Lots of large organizations.  And I think we should probably begin to look at larger organizations, what their experience is, what have they learned, what platforms are they using, which platforms have different benefits.  For example, people have commented on Zoom as having some low bandwidth benefits compared to other platforms, but we also know that the security issues around Zoom directs us into a certain type of format.
 So reviewing what people have done, what they've learned, what direction we're going in, and Tereza and the Diplo team gave us a really nice example on Monday evening, you know, when we went off and we tried a social app.  And this is something Diplo has looked at carefully, and it's been -- you know, it's a great experience.  And so if we can do more of that sort of thing, not just on the social apps, on what platforms work, what add-ins work, what formats work and so on.
 And then as we go forward, it's really thinking about how it affects the agenda of the overall meeting, if it does.  And that's a discussion that we need to have both in the working group and for the MAG as a whole, because this goes to the notion of actually convening the meeting in an effective way and efficient way that aspirationally, I think it is an aspiration, that we can have this experience where the experience you have of joining an IGF, it doesn't matter if you're online or on-site, your experience will be and your opportunities will be equal.  I do think that's aspirational, but I think it's a reasonable aspiration, a reasonable goal to have.  And see if we can work to that over the years.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks very much, Adam.  We are doing very well in terms of time.  Thanks, Tereza.
 Before I try and summarize where we stand with working groups, I open the floor to any other comments, reflections, proposals, questions.
 Joyce Chen, and after you, Courtney.
 >>JOYCE CHEN:   Sorry, I think that is an old hand.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Okay.  Thanks.
 Courtney, was that an old?
 So there are no new hands; is that correct?  Or, Courtney, did you want to contribute?
 >>COURTNEY RADSCH:   No; sorry, old hand.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Okay.  I will try and summarize.
 >>PAUL CHARLTON:   Oh, excuse me.  Excuse me, Anriette.  I had my hand up, but it's not showing up.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Go ahead.  Go ahead.
 >>PAUL CHARLTON:   It's Paul Charlton from the government of Canada.
 I just wanted to say quickly, thanking Tereza for her presentation.  Just on the subject of the hybrid meeting, I believe last year that the secretariat reached out to ICANN and other organizations on lessons learned in virtual meetings.  So just to the point I think Adam brought up that I certainly think we should continue to learn from other organizations, and I assume that they would -- the secretariat would still be doing that.
 And also that, of course, many MAG members are involved in ICANN or RightsCon or other organizations, so I think we should continue to draw on the lessons learned and the experiences and best practices where we can.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   Thanks for that, Paul.
 And, Tereza, Adam, did you want to respond?
 >>TEREZA HOREJSOVA:   I responded in the chat.  
 Sorry, Adam.  Do you want to go?
 >>ADAM PEAKE:   Sorry, Tereza.  Yeah, I was going to say exactly what you said in the chat, which is it's nice to see we're coordinating so coordinatedly.
 Paul, absolutely.  I actually work for ICANN, and this is one of the reasons I'm interested, that I think we have a lot to share with each other.  And of course I work quite closely with the other technical organizations, the Regional Internet Registries while also, while they're regional, they do hold quite large attendance meetings and are experimenting and using new technologies.  So your point is absolutely on target.  This is, I think, the step that we want to begin right now.  So thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:   And so thank you very much for that, Paul, and thanks, everyone.
 I will now try to summarize where we are with MAG working groups.
 We have thus far, and I sense that there is general support for the continuation of the MAG Working Group on Strategy.  There seems to be general support for a merged MAG Working Group on Communications and outreach and engagement.
 We also have support for the MAG working group on hybrid meetings.  The work of the language working group for now is done, but we need to continue to consider those and integrate it into other MAG working groups.
 And I think as next steps what we need is really for all these working groups to just finalize their documentations for outreach and engagement and communications to come together and agree on a common description of their work program and then for all of these working groups to be made available on the MAG website to make it clear who the facilitators, the chairs, and the co-chairs are and how people can participate because these working groups are open to nonMAG members, even while they are facilitated by MAG members.  I think within a week we should have all of that up and live on the website so that people can participate.
 I think there's one other task which is really just for us to draw up -- and this is something that the secretariat and myself can do in collaboration with MAG members, just very broad outline terms of reference of how working groups operate.  They're all quite different.  
 But I suspect it would be helpful to have some broad guidelines for MAG working groups.  And that's something we can develop in the course of the next few months.
 And then, finally, I just want to flag that there's a very important MAG working group which has been around for a long time.  And I expect we will need it again, and that's the MAG working group on workshop process.  It was facilitated last year by MAG members who are no longer with us who did a really excellent job.
 But now some MAG members who were involved who are still with us, just to mention a few Susan Chalmers and Roberto Zambrana, what I want to suggest is just that we go a little bit further in terms of finalizing the design and format of IGF 2021.  And then I do think we will definitely need to bring -- reconvene this working group on workshop process.  It might need to work very closely with the working group on hybrid meetings.  But it will have to do some work in terms of giving the MAG very specific guidance on how to review proposals but also actually to help develop the call for proposals.
 I just think we're not quite ready yet to convene it.  We will be soon.  But I'd like us to just document that there will also be that working group that we would want to engage in the near future.
 So unless there are any questions or comments from the secretariat, can we close the item on MAG working groups?
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  No comments from the secretariat.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  No questions, no comments.  Does everyone feel they understand where we are and what we've agreed and what our next steps are?
 Now is the time to say no.
 So if there's agreement, I just want to thank again the MAG members who are willing to undertake this additional work.  And I look forward to the collaboration between outreach and engagement and communications and to everyone for being able to participate.
 So I think we are at the end of our meeting, and our timing is superb.
 Any closing remarks from -- I'm not sure -- thanks for that, Carlos Afonso.
 Do we have the host country co-chairs or representatives with us?
 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:  Good morning, afternoon, or evening.  I am with you.  Unfortunately, Mr. Krzysztof Szubert could not make it due to other commitments.  But I'm very happy to be with you.  
 I have listening to all the very interesting and very good discussion we've had for the last three days.  If you wish -- if you would like to give me the floor to say a few words, I can do that on behalf of Mr. Szubert.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Please, Przemyslaw.  Please go ahead.  It's wonderful to have you with us here at the end of the meeting.
 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:  Thank you very much, Anriette.  
 So distinguished colleagues, distinguished MAG colleagues, and nonMAG members, present observers, my name is Przemyslaw Typiak.  And I work for the Chancellery of the Prime Minister.  And on behalf of Mr. Krzysztof Szubert, the MAG co-chair and the plenipotentiary for the IGF 2021 in Katowice, Poland, I very warmly welcome you again on actually last point of our third day of discussions.
 I must say that I have very carefully listened and participated in the discussions that we had.
 My personal experience, a very good experience honestly, is that yesterday's discussion, roundtable discussion in groups when I joined the French-speaking group convened by Mr. Giacomo Mazzone.  It has been a really excellent experience for me, a very good chance to speak French for me as an English-speaking person but also as a francophone.  So thank you very much for providing this really excellent opportunity.  It felt very good that I could speak French to other colleagues, so this opportunity was excellent.  Thank you very much for that.
 We as a host country are fully committed to working with the UN DESA colleagues, the IGF secretariat colleagues, with, of course, the entire MAG convened -- chaired by you, Anriette, and I do -- we commit ourselves to working with you constantly and to have the very successful IGF for this year.
 We welcome all the discussions, all the submissions, and inputs received.  We are very happy that there are so many voices and submissions from the communities.  And we kindly encourage you to give more.  And we strongly support any initiatives that are -- that will be present during this entire preparatory process and at the launch of the intersessional work.
 And we stand ready to support you, to cooperate you with you.  And thank you very much for giving me the floor.  
 Back to you, Anriette.  Thank you.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thank you very much, Przemyslaw.  And thank you so much for joining the French group yesterday.  I think to have our Polish host join a French breakout group, I think that's exactly the kind of creativity that we need to honor the diversity of languages in the IGF community.
 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:  Indeed, Anriette.  Indeed.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  And I am -- I will --
 >>GIACOMO MAZZONE:  So next time will be Italian, then.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>PRZEMYSLAW TYPIAK:  That would be very nice.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  With coffee, with nice espresso.
 So, everyone, this is the end of our meeting.  I will give the secretariat and UN DESA a chance.
 We do have some unfinished work.  And as we agreed yesterday, we will meet in the coming weeks, the secretariat, to try and compile the status of our level of decision-making on two things:  Format and design on the one hand and thematic focus and issues on the other.
 We will -- we will reach a decision.  I'm convinced when we have our next call, which is in two weeks' time, more or less, we will have enough material and synthesis to be able to reach a decision.  I do want to urge MAG members to keep an eye on the mailing list because we might be calling on you to help us prioritize some of the issues that have been submitted so far.
 So on that, I'd like to thank everyone.  These long, multiday online meetings are very, very demanding.  And so I really appreciate everyone's commitment and the active participation that we've had from all of you.  My apologies to people who have lost sleep as a result of this meeting.
 Wai-Min and UN DESA and secretariat, do you have any closing remarks before we bring up the poll to do our meeting evaluation?  
 Chengetai, over to you.
 >>WAI-MIN KWOK: Hi, Anriette.  Maybe I can go over the last words before Chengetai.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Wai-Min, please go ahead.
 >>WAI-MIN KWOK:  It's not closing remarks in any sense.  But I would just like to take the opportunity to congratulate the MAG 2021 with the very dynamic leadership of yours, Anriette, as the chair.  I think it's a very, very constructive and effective discussion.  
 I think we all had experiences in online engagement, but myself participating as more of an observer is actually so much of a lesson on how we can actually do such a virtual meeting that is actually meeting its objectives and aims.
 And I think it also really speaks to the sense that IGF is essentially 16 years in the making, especially 15 years of experience and it's just getting better, especially with this first Open Consultation and MAG meeting.  I think it's really setting a very good footprint ahead.
 I would just like to mention a few points on behalf of DESA.  Again, not closing remarks but just to highlight.  First is that in the past, normally we would have a donors meeting to brief our donors.  But we did not have the chance to do that.  So with IGF secretariat, we're going to organize a donors meeting.  It will be an open meeting not just to assisting donors but also to all stakeholders.  We like to acknowledge the very, very important and kind contribution of all past and current donors and, of course, we welcome more to join the donors community.
 And I think it was mentioned a few times that we are getting a fundraising consultant.  We do not have this person on board, but we hope to have him or her soon.  And there will be more on this to brief the community.
 We are also getting an evaluation consultant.  This is part of the United Nations process on evaluating most activities because the IGF had just past its five-year MAG (indiscernible) mandate.  So we are getting the evaluation.  It will be done by an external evaluator following the U.N. evaluation group and guidelines.  So this will happen over the next six months.  And there will certainly be consultations with different representatives of the IGF community.
 One last point -- or rather, two short points.  One Chengetai already mentioned about the questionnaire that we have just made public.  So we certainly welcome the wide sharing, dissemination of this questionnaire.  We would like to receive input from all stakeholders.  It could be on behalf of each of your organizations, or it could be on your personal capacity.  I think the more we hear, the more inputs that we get, it will give a process for us as the U.N. in advising the Secretary-General on how to proceed with the multilevel -- multistakeholder high-level body of the IGF.
 My very, very last point which is also in Mr. Liu's letter to the MAG, (indiscernible) to the MAG that have already actually contemplate in many ways the different issues raised by Under-Secretary-General.  
 One point is that we are still looking for hosts for 2024.  So, again, I plead with your understanding and also with your network and connections, if you know any country could be possible host for 2024, please let Chengetai and I know.  
 I will stop here.  Back to you, Anriette, please.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Wai-Min.  And thanks for reminding us about the 2024 host.
 Chengetai.
 And in the meantime, participants, you'll see that we'll bring up the poll to evaluate this meeting and give us some feedback.  So please start responding to that.
 And, Chengetai, if you can please make your closing remarks and tell us when our next call will be, please.
 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Anriette.
 I'll just echo your words and also Wai-Min's words.  And, first of all, thank you, Anriette, and thank the host country chair, host country team, and the MAG members and also the community at-large for participating in this meeting.  I think we had a very high number of average participants.  And as far as I could tell, it was very interactive sessions.  So I think that is always very, very good, especially for a community-led process.
 We will be publishing the summary report.  If not end of this week, we'll definitely do it bring Monday or Tuesday.  And we'll also have the action points there as well.  So just check for it on Monday to be sure.  And you can see the report of the meeting.
 As far as the next MAG meeting is concerned, it's on 9th of March.  And unfortunately, again, we're going to start in the morning because as far as the rotation goes, I think it is 11:00 a.m. UTC is the time.
 So 11:00 a.m. UTC, 9th of March.  And we will be sending out calendar invite and reminder for everybody.
 Again, thank you very much.  Bye.
 >>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN:  Thanks very much, Chengetai.
 And we'll share the result of the poll.  I'm not sure if you can see it.  I do want to invite people who are responding who feel that the meeting did not achieve its goals, if you are not satisfied with the outputs -- with this kind of Zoom meeting poll, we cannot ask you for substantive inputs.
 But I really urge people to send an email to myself or the secretariat to express where you felt we were not successful or how we can be better.  
 We are going to have many online meetings this year.  So getting very specific feedback on how we can make these meetings more effective would be very helpful.
 We can share the results.  I think you can all see that.  Overall it seems people are happy with the meeting.  But there are clearly some people who have suggestions for making it better.  So please share that.
 Chengetai has thanked everyone.  So I will just finish with thanking the secretariat.  It's really very challenging for them to have to compile synthesis of documents and reports.  They have other work they're continuing with.  And this meeting takes up a huge chunk of their time, and it is really very demanding.  So thank you very, very much to the team.  Thanks to Wim who contributed as well and to everyone else who has been part of making this meeting a -- I do think a success, even if not a perfect success.
 The meeting is now closed.  We are well within our time frame.  I hope you all enjoy a break.  And we will meet online on the list and at our next call.  Thanks, everyone.  Goodbye.