The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during an IGF virtual call. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Good afternoon, good evening, and good morning, thank you to joining us to MAG virtual meeting No. 12. Just the legal stuff, this meeting is being recorded. A transcript will come out later on. There is a transcription here. And I think that's it. Yes, please use the speaking queue if you want to take the floor. If you are unable to use the speaking queue, please put your name in the chat and somebody from the Secretariat will pick your name and put it in the speaking queue. Let me give the floor to Anriette Esterhuysen who will start the meeting.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you. Anriette Esterhuysen reporting in. Welcome to this call. Thank you for making yourself available for a second MAG call after last week's call. The primary purpose of this meeting is for us to bring to conclusion some of the basic decisions that we discussed last week and that are needed by the Secretariat to move forward and by ourselves to begin to tell the broader IGF community more or less what they can expect from Virtual IGF 2020 in terms of dates and phases. And I have prepared and I will present it later what I feel are the bottom decisions that we need to make which you can all give your input on. I don't know how many of you have had a chance to look at the document that I sent yesterday but will come back to that later.
But now let's move on to checking in on the action items from last week's meeting. So Secretariat, back to you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. I forgot the apologies. We do have apologies from Jutta and she said she might not be able to make it. And Susan cannot make it. There are a number of MAG members who say they can only stay for the first hour of this meeting and then they will have to leave.
As far as the action items go for last week's meeting, the first one that I have is that the IGF Secretariat was meant to send out to the session organizers and ask them whether or not they were willing to host their session online as when they did start when we did publish the call, the expectation was that it would be a face‑to‑face meeting. And we do have the results. I can share the results out now I suppose. Most of them have said yes, they would want to host it online. We don't have that high of an acceptance rate for some. For the DCs, 31% confirmed. So that's five out of 16. And we also asked them whether or not they want to reduce the amount of time that they have ‑‑ they have for this session.
So for the open Forums, 19 out of 31 have confirmed. So that's 61%. 9 have declined. For the workshops, 74 out of 89 have confirmed. So that is 83%. And 17 of those have accepted reducing their 90 minute workshop to 60 minutes. Nobody has actually declined as such. For the Day Zero events there is one proposal that has declined but 28 out of 45 have confirmed. So that's 52%. And so what we plan to do is to send another e‑mail out to those session organizers who have not responded and giving them a week to respond. And if they do not respond, then we must assume that they don't want to hold a meeting or they have got other things that are occupying them. I don't know if that's okay with the MAG. I will just wait for your acceptance on that if we should go that way.
The other thing that we did say to be done is that the workshop evaluation would further define what is required for the online participation. And I think they have sent out a document. But I think the Chair will ask them later on in this meeting. The third thing was that we were asking about the interpretation blocks and those were blocks of four hours but we will work them in to the schedule. And we know what we need to work with when we define the schedule in greater detail. But as today is just to decide on the overall formatting and duration of the schedule. I think that's all. I am not sure if I have forgotten anything.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think that covers it all. MAG members to affirm and paraphrase, what Chengetai was saying the response rate was not that good. In fact, a lot of people seemed to be on holiday. So there were quite a few vacation messages. But I think what we have is an indication that people who did respond definitely are still interested with very few exceptions, but based on the response rate there is a possibility that we might have fewer sessions than anticipated. And Chengetai, we will know in a week. Chengetai, can I assume from that that the time of our next MAG call will have more definite numbers of sessions to accommodate?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, we will get the deadline. If you don't respond we will assume that you are no longer interested.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: What we will do later today is how to accommodate the different types of sessions in the program of a virtual IGF. Chengetai, anything else from the Secretariat to update on? Nothing else. I think the one thing ‑‑
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Nothing else.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: The one thing that I can add it is a really busy month. July is ‑‑ there are lots of NRIs. I know that many of you are busy with the NRIs. I will be speaking next week at the High‑Level Political Forum in New York and then various other events that I am speaking and representing IGF MAG or speaking in my capacity as MAG Chair. We have the West Africa and Ghana. Very busy month. And we have the WSIS Forum which is starting as well. And as I just e‑mailed all of you earlier today I will be participating in the High‑Level policy session. And Chengetai, maybe you don't have to do it now but we should start planning for the IGF session during the WSIS Forum. But that's only ‑‑ Chengetai, what is the date of that session?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: That's the 3rd of August. And thank you very much for all those that have volunteered. I will send an e‑mail out let's say tomorrow and then we can discuss how we are going to carry out that session.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Okay. Okay. Good. So to move on now on the decision that we have to make today, Luis, if you can bring up the document that I prepared, the first thing I prepared and this was in response to the questions raised by Rudolf and many others, mainly Rudolf last week was to clarify so that we are all clear on who is responsible for what part of the IGF this year, and also what ‑‑ what the ‑‑ in light of there not being a host country, who is the host of the IGF. So just to go through this and I have just checked this ‑‑ Chengetai, Luis, are you okay there? Everyone?
>> Sure. Please.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Good. So overall host of the IGF, Chengetai clarified this last week. It is the United Nations Secretary‑General who is the Convenor of the IGF. Invitations will be sent out by the Under‑Secretary General Mr. Leo of UNDESA and then various aspects here which are part of the MAG terms of reference. Determine how base to plan and organize the annual IGF, that doesn't change. The MAG gives advice and works with the Secretariat and UNDESA. Develop the detailed program and schedule of the annual IGF, including identification of themes, that is the MAG's work. And you have done that. The only task that we do need to complete and we need to make a decision today about how to complete it is deciding what the overall theme will be. We cannot use Internet United as Poland will be using that next year.
And we will come back to that later in the decision section of the meeting. Then select workshops, facilitate organization of workshops, that is the MAG as usual. Organize main sessions, again MAG responsibility. And open Forums, Day Zero events, IGF Secretariat, that in consultation with the MAG Chair members. High‑Level leader's track, responsibility of UNDESA, in the absence of a host country. Parliamentary track also. And IGF village, organized by the IGF Secretariat. And we have some interesting variations on that. In the MAG list there was the discussion of a poster list and various ways that we can approach that. But will still be led by the IGF Secretariat but input from the MAG obviously. Music night, if we go ahead with that, facilitated by the IGF Secretariat. Opening and closing ceremonies, that will be handled by the United Nations Secretariat. And then just some specific or slightly different decisions that we have to make, because it is a virtual IGF, system, just the overall structure. And timing of the event which will now be different from the original 2 to 6 November. Hopefully we can make that decision today.
Guidelines for session organizers, IGF Secretariat, based on advice from the MAG and thanks to the Working Group for the document that you have compiled. So that work has been in large part done. Then supported capacity development for organizers, that would be the MAG and the Secretariat. We might want to bring in external support for that or not depending on the scale and what. But that remains the work done by the MAG and Secretariat and then supported capacity development for the High‑Level and Parliamentary tracks and that will be done by UNDESA. That's more or less it based on what we have in front of us at the moment. So can I just pause on that? Are there any questions? Is everyone clear about who is responsible for what? I don't see anyone in the speaking queue.
>> For what I read here, it looks okay. Fine.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Good. Good. So thanks for that, Carlos. And let's keep this in case there are any uncertainties. It is not different from the normal arrangements. Just maybe slightly different and questions did come up last week, particularly because we don't have a cohost in the form of a host country this year.
So now just to move on to Luis, if you can go to section 3. I won't go over all my proposals in detail. I will refer to them. I just want to present what I think we really need to make decisions on today. 3.1 we have just covered. 3.2 is just the phases of the IGF. I think we are quite close to consensus on this. But we just need to agree on that. And basically the idea here is my sense of where we were heading last week is that we are in agreement that there would be a concentrated phase of the IGF which would be the days of the conference, of the virtual conference. And that could be either five days as some MAG members referred with a 24‑hour clock or over two weeks, for example. That would be the concentrated phase. And then a preIGF or a pre‑event phase which would take place over a longer period of time where we can accommodate Day Zero sessions, maybe some of the DC sessions. Some of the open Forums. The preparatory work and training with workshop organizers and so on. And some of the NRI work which is already started. So that's really what I think we need to just concretize today, the number of phases. Do we have these two phases. Is two phases a sufficient way of characterizing it. And then what components do we fit in to these phases. And the date range for these phases. And later on we will just go up to what I am proposing roughly based on what I have heard.
Then 3.3 do we want to put out a call for proposals or an approach to external organizations or partners to give us advice and support on the design of a virtual IGF? This is quite ‑‑ this is a new thing to do and the MAG did reach consensus last week that you want to be innovative. You want this event to take advantage of the virtual format. Not just do an online IGF. Do we have sufficient resources within the MAG and Secretariat and the UN system to do that on our own? Or do we want to approach an external expert or consultant to give us advice on how to do that? I have reached out to Deplor and to Tech Change, the organization that Silvia Cadena shared information about and who is doing Rights Con. And we need to discuss whether we want to proceed with that or not. If we do, and if there are financial implications, we need to keep in mind most probably the IGF trust fund might not be able to cover this. There are also procedural issues with the UN working ‑‑ if we do contract external support, you have to do it through a donation or we have to go through guidelines. There is technicalities that can make it complex. If we can get a yes or no decision from the MAG on whether to continue to look for this type of support. I want to make it clear though this would not replace the role of the MAG or the role of the Secretariat. This really would just be getting some advice on how to design the IGF and how to take advantage of the virtual nature of IGF 2020.
3.4, we need to identify our main theme. And we just need to decide how to go about it. And the Secretariat and I have discussed this. And we think we should explore the idea of using the notion of Internet Governance or Internet and resilience, Internet and the age of uncertainty or Internet Governance and the age of uncertainty. Some link to the particular context. I don't know that there are any other decisions we need to make.
A question now before we go in to more detail, is everyone happy with these being the decisions that we want to reach some kind of conclusion on today? Anything I have overlooked? I don't see any hands.
Okay. So let's move then to phases of the IGF. Luis, if you can move up a little bit to section 2 of my document, overall structure, just a little bit, yes. What I have just ‑‑ that's good. Pause there. Just pause and go a little bit up. Sorry, Luis, to do this to you. Just to the introductory section of ‑‑ the list of bullets, but higher up. Thanks. A little bit more. Just the beginning of that. That's it. So what I have done here is try to capture what we have rough consensus on. So let me run through it quickly and then you need to add or disagree. We have agreed as far as I could see on the chat as well on the mailing list not scheduling workshops and main sessions at the same time.
Next we should give organizers a choice of retaining a 90‑minute slot reducing. The opportunity of a virtual IGF of being inclusive should be utilized through the fall and we should be innovative in organizing the event, not just organizing an online version of a face to face IGF. We agreed that we want to make the event accessible to people in different parts of the world by running it in multiple time zones. And although we did not pin that down exactly. Also suggestions to use language and to allow the fact that we might have breakout sessions or different sessions run in different languages as a way of making the IGF more inclusive. And then also suggestions to make use of prerecording of sessions input where possible is that people can go back and look at these sessions. We did not agree yet on whether the concentrated part of the IGF should be five days or longer. So that is something we need to decide today. I am proposing that we make it five days. But five days running over a 24‑hour clock. The Secretariat has prepared proposals for a five‑day concentrated event and for a ten‑day concentrated event.
So just scroll down a little bit, Luis. Just scroll down a bit. How I have developed this proposal is really just to look at the IGF as being in two phases. And so these dates are suggestions. They really need to be discussed. But the broad idea is that phase 1 would be virtual IGF 2020 pre‑events. And we can start it in September or we can start it later. That we can discuss. Or we can even get the IGF Secretariat to make their decision based on the number of sessions. But the idea here is this would include the youth track. It would include some thematic discussions and debates organized by the MAG and MAG Chair on the themes of digital cooperation. On the IGF's four themes. And possibly on other issues that have come up. This would be ‑‑ this would lead in to the IGF.
The idea I want to put on the table is that we have a lot of open Forum in Day Zero proposals. And we might be able to integrate some of them in to this preparatory series of online discussions, online seminars or whatever we want to call it. So Day Zero events could fit in to that, open Forums, capacity development of online Moderators, test sessions for workshop main sessions, organizers, and potentially the regional High‑Level leader sessions but this is up to UNDESA. So we don't need to discuss that. There might be ‑‑ there are other options here as well. So we could theoretically open the IGF village or we can leave the IGF village part for later. The idea is we have this part of IGF which is spaced over a longer period of time. Phase 2 would be the concentrated event.
Now I have said here 2 to 6 November, the original dates, that's one option. We could make it longer. We could start later, because the IGF Secretariat has pointed out November is very open in terms of international events. We could do the concentrated part of the IGF later. And it could be over five days or it could be over ten days. So that you need to decide today. What is important if we do do it over the concentrated period of days, five days, that we should run workshops on the 24‑hour schedule. If we do that we can easily fit in all the sessions with breaks in between. One way of doing that would be to let the organizers, organizers select their time zones. We could use, for example, the time zones that Maria Pass sent in. But ultimately the Secretariat would have to confirm those slots so we have a balanced agenda so captioners know how much they are working with and in what time zone. We don't want more than five parallel sessions at a time.
Main sessions, and I think this was agreed by you last week already, can be concentrated in time slots where interpretation is available and also opening and closing sessions as Secretariat explained last week would need to work for New York for the UN and for Geneva. So but we want to also make those opening and closing sessions as accessible to everyone as possible. Timing would have to accommodate that. This concentrated part of the IGF would include the main sessions. Introductory and concluding sessions for IGF themes, these could be integrated to in the main theme. I don't want to go in to too much detail yet. The leader's wrap session and if we go with the existing proposal of UNDESA this would be a daily High‑Level leader session and Parliamentary Round Table. Workshops, open mic session, music night, IGF village and if we do work on a 24‑hour clock it shouldn't be too difficult to build all of this in.
So just to go down a little bit, some other components that have come up from MAG members is the idea of poster sessions, networking sessions and kind of speaker's corner. So we can look at whether these can fit in as well. And that's really it. I didn't want to go in to too much detail. If we are going to get design assistance, it would be better to do that first. But also really the decisions that we need to make now are on the very broad parameters of the virtual IGF. So Luis, if you can go back to 3.2.
Great. If we can now just get input. I want to open the floor to your input on the phases, the idea of phases, and the date ranges of those phases and the different components that we would fit in to those phases. So I'm opening the floor. Carlos Afonso, you are the first to get the mic.
>> Thank you. Good morning or good afternoon. Carlos Afonso. I was listening to the idea of having sessions in other languages and this ‑‑ this idea of having two phases and the first phase being sort of equivalent to the Day Zero of the IGF in the ‑‑ over two months, I wonder if we can do something like again quoting, EuroDIG, the example of EuroDIG, which is one of the parallel sessions throughout the event. And I wonder if we could propose that, if people want to organize parallel sessions in other languages they could use those few months of the first freeze. And ‑‑ what is the difference between doing an online meeting. Everyone is free to do that using any infrastructure, but the idea is to have these meetings, using the Zoom infrastructure if we are going to use Zoom, available to these parallel meetings. So this should be organized in a sort of more systematic fashion. And, of course, these parallel meetings will show up in the agenda. But the online modality gives us much more freedom to do these things. If there are ideas of doing parallel meetings other languages and if we can organize them in the first phase, that would be a good idea. Thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Carlos. I see there is a question from Gunela on accessibility. Secretariat, can you respond to that with regard to captioning and sign language? And other people please take the floor. Request the floor.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: As far as the captioning is concerned all sessions, all sessions in the main part will be captioned. So we hope that helps with the accessibility. And, of course, we are using Zoom. And one of the reasons why we are using Zoom is because it is the most accessible of the online platforms that are there now. Yeah. International sign language, we have not done anything on international sign language. But for the others, yes.
>> Chengetai, you seemed to be talking inside a can of Pringles.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: I'm so sorry. Can you hear me now? I am talking while people come up on the speaking queue, but as far as our accessibility efforts are concerned all of the ‑‑ all of the sessions in the ‑‑ I don't know if you want to call it the main phase will be captioned. We don't have any guarantee yet of captioning the Day Zero sessions, et cetera, but the main phase they will be captioned. And that is also one of the reasons why we are recommending at this moment Zoom because it is the most accessible of all the online platforms at the moment. I mean if we do come across something that is as accessible or more accessible then, of course, we do reserve the right to switch to that. But those are the two things that we are doing.
As far as the sign language or international sign language is concerned we don't have plans for that yet. But I mean we can look in to it. And one of the ways that we can also look in to it is also through registration when people do register and they ‑‑ is there a part in the registration where they do indicate if they have any issues or if they need help with anything. And that will also help us know where is the best place to put resources in. Thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Chengetai. So do we have general agreement that we have these two phases? The prephase for self‑organized events and for preparatory discussions and the concentrated phase? I don't see anyone objecting to that. Can we agree on that? Okay.
I see ‑‑ please can you take the floor. Helani, did you want to make an additional comment? I saw you put something in the chat. Do you mind taking the mic? So she ‑‑ okay. Secretariat, can you help or let me just find Helani's comment? I like the two phases and I would support multi‑lingual panels. In the main second phase multi‑regional panels workshops which all are by definition in English. So yes. And I would say that's a reasonable thing. We can much more flexible with the prephase.
With the concentrated phase, we will only have at our disposal the existing translation, interpretation for main sessions, for Plenaries and captioning for workshops. So that's not really changing. Where there is flexibility workshop organizers could, for example, have a ten‑minute breakout discussion where they put people in to breakout discussions by language. Those are flexible features we can accommodate but that would impact on captioning. Katarzyna, let's hear from you and then Ben. Ben, why don't you go ahead.
>> Ben: Thank you. I might be jumping the gun a bit. I noted that you wanted people to take the mic rather than just put comments in the chat. I do like the idea of the two phases. And separating out both kind of Day Zero and open Forums and other sessions in to something that happens before the 2nd of November. And that's probably as far as we have got in the discussion. But seeing as I have got the mic and just kind of help move us on as well I still have a preference for spreading the formal part of the meeting over two weeks. It might be just looking at from my own working patents and perspectives, but I fear that having it condensed to five 14 hour days will mean your people are able to participate in fewer sessions. That's my fear. And so I still have a preference for having it over two weeks. But yeah, I'm not sure that we have got that far in your document yet. But that was one of the thoughts that I had. Thanks.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Ben. And Katarzyna is not on the call. She is being removed. Do you want to a comment building on Ben's remarks on the duration of the phases?
>> Timea: Yeah. Can you hear me now?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Go ahead.
>> Timea: Yes. So actually I was grabbing the mic and comment on both topics. But so in terms of two phases, I like the approach. I think that makes sense. We wanted to market it accordingly and make sure that, you know, we did enough communications so that people understand what each phase is and how it opens up together. But I like it to separate it in to two different phases. In terms of length, I was just wondering what the reasoning is to have the prephase run from 1st of September open to the 31st of October. For me that sounds a little bit too long and it ‑‑ it just worries me a little bit of what other people still feel. This is all part of the IGF or whether these are just a series of meetings and also worried might have people suffer from IGF fatigue from the actual moment that we want them to be most engaged. I am wondering if we can condense those two months in to two weeks or so. I don't know if this makes sense in terms of numbers. But for me those two months are a bit too much. And I agree with Ben about the main event. But it might be a bit too crowded for people who ‑‑ if we want to participate to do it over 14 hours. And also not sure how proponents of various sessions will feel about the time zones. I wonder if it is possible to have around two weeks but around a shorter time frame figuring out where most of the world is already up or still up during the day. So these are my very quick ramblings around this.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Okay. So we have made one decision I think which is that we will have the IGF in two phases. So Secretariat, if you can just document that. We are now looking at the length, duration of the phases. So we have heard Ben and Timea speak in favor of the condensed phase 2 of the IGF taking place over ten working days. And also Timea asking if we can reduce the preIGF phase. I would agree that we would want to reduce it. Maybe we don't ‑‑ maybe we can take that as in principle desire and then we ‑‑ once we know how many actual sessions to integrate in to that, then we can, you know, have a sense of how long it needs to be. Some activities are already starting. I think Secretariat, the youth track is starting ‑‑ that is starting now, isn't it? Or maybe if you can update us on when the youth track is starting.
>> Hi. This is Anya from the Secretariat. Yes, we are discussing extensively with the next year's host country because they continued ‑‑ they will continue building engagement across the next year. Also discussing a lot with very good project that ISOC is running on youth Ambassadors to collaborate there. It is under way. What we are doing now is we just want to put the structure together. We are going to do two webinars. When we have the final number of sessions we are going to come up with a proposal that we reach out to all the session organizers to ask for their collaboration to include meaningfully youth in to their sessions whether it is going to be a speaker or to recognize them as resource persons, it is something to discuss with the session organizers of those two webinars will happen in September and October. Webinars on the subject of engagement in to the IGF. We may schedule some networking sessions during the IGF itself for youth but still work in progress on that. And then finally the newsletter just for youth will be done in cooperation with next year's host country. I believe the first edition will go out in later August. That's as much as I can say at this stage. Thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Thanks. I am reading the comments in the chat. MAG members are expressing concern about the pre‑event creating fatigue. I think what I would like you to consider is to make sure that the pre‑event is branded in such a way that it does include these activities such as the youth track. Because we are trying ‑‑ one of our goals in response to input from the youth is to integrate that in to the IGF process. So I think we wouldn't want to exclude that. It doesn't mean that the preIGF track has to be ‑‑ it is different. I think branding it as being different and made up of more self‑organized sessions as opposed to MAG organized sessions. I think that does become important. But I see it clear ‑‑ a clear desire from those that have responded so far that it shouldn't ‑‑ it should be as short as possible. Am I correct in understanding that from people's inputs? That the preIGF session should not stretch out for too long? So anyone ‑‑ so far we have heard two people speak in favor of the condensed IGF phase 2 running over two weeks. Last week we had people speaking in favor of having it run for five days. Anyone else who want to weigh in on the duration of the phases?
>> If I may, can you hear me?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Is that Roman?
>> Yes.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Just state your name and go ahead.
>> Sorry. That's Roman from Russia and that's really a hard decision to make with regard to duration. Like you mentioned the most recent example in Russia when first ever for some constitutional amendments the voting day was not like one day but like more than one week. And need to receive a huge positive feedback by people. So from that experience, even though on the previous meeting I was against a longer duration of the IGF virtual. Now I do believe that it might be a positive practice to widen it a little bit in terms of time. So I think that ‑‑ my position is as follows: Fewer number of sessions, shorter duration of sessions, longer amount of these and to make sure that in parallel if we have five sessions, they are all from different tracks. So in case some person wants to visit or speak at like all of the sessions from one track, this person is available to do it. Plus a side comment what's youth track, I am ten years in the global youth diplomacy I am more than happy to help on this development.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. I see more comments in the chat asking for keeping this pre‑event phase as condensed as possible and as focused as possible. Luis, if you can scroll up to components, the section I had on components just so that people can comment on that. This is a current proposed division of components for the two phases. Sorry if it doesn't all fit in to one screen. But, you know, we don't have to discuss that in more detail. But the idea is that they are fairly distinct from one another. I do think that is very important in terms of how we do the outreach for the IGF, but my sense is that we seem to have consensus on two weeks, not consensus. No one has spoken against two weeks. I am assuming that. Two weeks for phase 2 and that phase 1 should be shortened. It shouldn't be two months. It should be reduced. Is that enough for us to work with?
>> Excuse me. Sorry, it is Paul. If you can hear me? I just wanted to say yes, no, agree with having the two phases and the shorter phase 1. I wanted to point out that there is a very sort of considerable density of events as far as I understand with the UN in September and October because of the 75th anniversary, although obviously that's going to be affected by the pandemic. So that when we are planning the phase 1 we will need to take in to account that we avoid conflicts if there are major UN events going on related to Internet issues, or that ‑‑ or to sustainable development or other areas that the IGF covers, we would need to avoid to the extent possible having a conflict. And also in phase 2 I'm one of those people who would prefer not having restricted to one week, to having it two weeks or some sort of compromise like seven or eight days because I just think one week may be just a bit too condensed and too intense. Thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Paul. That's all very helpful. In fact, Chengetai was ‑‑ the Secretariat has been considering actually moving the phase 2, the condensed IGF to later in November because based on their research November is fairly open. So in fact, we could take all of this and move it, have the condensed phase start in the second week or even the third week of November. I would say the second week if we run it over two weeks but the Secretariat, do you have any updates for us on the 75th anniversary celebrations because I do recall there was a consideration about postponing it. Do you have any updates on that?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Not from the Geneva end. I will leave my colleagues in New York if they have any updates or even Veni because he is quite informed.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: He has asked for the floor. I don't see Wyman or Dennis. Are they with us? Dennis is with us. Veni, you take the floor. And Dennis, if you have any updates please tell us after Veni has spoken.
>> Can you hear me? Hello?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: We can hear you.
>> Okay. So I actually wanted to concur with Paul's observations because it is not only the 75% anniversary, even if it is virtual it would take a longer time so people can speak. It is a major event with declaration that will cover a lot of issues, including some of it most probably covering some of the stuff that we are going to discuss at the IGF with regards to digital cooperation. But also the UN General Assembly Committees will start working as usual in October, November and some of us who are on the call but also some of the people who are going to participate at the IGF will most probably be present for the work of this Committee. If the Secretariat can find a date that's most suitable from the point of view of competing events that would be really good. Thanks.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. And there are comments in the chat that affirms that. Dennis, do you have any updates for us on the 75th anniversary celebrations?
>> Hi. Greetings to everyone. No, I don't have any updates at this stage. I think we should check and get back to you.
>> Thanks very much, Dennis. It seems that we actually have a decision. What I read here is that we want phase 1 to be no longer than four weeks. Ideally shorter. But no longer than four weeks. And phase 2 it seems there is agreement that it should run over two weeks. That's the condensed part of the IGF. So and then the third decision that we have made is that it seems that there is general consensus that we can move the dates forward with the condensed phase being in mid November as long as it doesn't clash with Thanksgiving. Secretariat, do you feel you have enough now for us to develop concrete dates, date proposals?
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes. I think we have made excellent progress. Thank you very much.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Great. Good. So it seems to me that we can ‑‑ I think that we can move on. There si still some discussion to be had about which components fit in to the different phases. So if anybody wants to make suggestions on that please do so. Otherwise I think we should let the Secretariat look at my proposal and take the feedback that we have had from session organizers and then come up with the overall concept of the two phases and what components should fit in to the different phases. My suggestion is that we don't go in to detailed scheduling yet. We just need to have the overall dates so that people can start putting those in their diaries and then we can work with session organizers, and our time slot structure and to begin to fold the agenda. And hopefully we can do that in the next month. At least we can go public later this week hopefully on what the broad date parameters will be of IGF 2020.
So I don't see anyone else. Luis, if you don't mind going back to the decision to section 3 so we can move on. If people are happy. Can we move on to 3.3? The discussion on whether we should reach out to getting some ‑‑ external advice and support on virtual event design. Anybody who wants to speak to that? Keeping in mind that there will be financial implications. But also that it is not a substitute for the work of the MAG and the work of the Secretariat. That it is just building on some of the points made I think by Timea and others last week about us being creative and innovative. And the fact that this is a huge undertaking. And we want to have the experience of the IGF be as smooth as possible. So I really would like your feedback on that. I have spoken to Yovan and (inaudible) from Diplo and they are working on the UN event design. This is in line with what we are doing. So they are interested in being supportive. They say that they would like to be ‑‑ for them because of who they are they would want any support they provide to the IGF and the MAG to be linked to capacity development and to be innovative in taking virtual, virtual meeting design and virtual participation forward. And then as I informed you in my e‑mail and in this document I have also made contact with the organization that Silvia Cadena wrote to us about Tech Change. They are organizing Rights Con which will take place later this month and Chengetai and I will have a call with them. I don't know if Chengetai can make it but we have a call scheduled with them for tomorrow. But what I really need from you is some general guidance on whether you would like me to pursue reaching out to possible expert consultants and advisors or do you feel that the existing resources of MAG and Secretariat is sufficient. Any comment on that?
>> Yes. It is Carlos.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Go ahead.
>> Yes. One point which I think is interesting is regarding the technical infrastructure. And it is very important to hear what or technical stuff, et cetera, have to say because we have already made spirits regarding using Zoom and so on. Listening what their opinion regarding this is quite important. So I would include in 3.3 also the experience already accumulated from our team.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Is that a yes or a no?
>> Carlos: Yes, regarding Zoom or yes, regarding the whole thing?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: This is not about a new platform. This is about ‑‑ from my perspective the way I understand this and maybe I didn't explain it very clearly, is really advice on the design.
>> Carlos: Of course, I agree.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Both Diplo and Tech Change, so the two entities we are talking about at the moment they both use Zoom. Different ways of designing it. That's the thing. So in the way that EuroDig used Zoom you would go from one Zoom room to another Zoom room when you want to jump from one session to another. The way that Diplo organized their sessions you are in the same Zoom space, but then you seamlessly jump from one to the other. So they have just different ways of doing it. But this is not really about the platform. So they can put it that way or replacing existing IGF platforms. It is more about the overall concept and design.
>> Carlo: Yes, agree.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, I get your point. Jennifer and Veni.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Thanks. This is Jennifer.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes. We can hear you clearly.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Okay. I definitely support getting some expert advice and guidance from both Tech Change and Diplo and any other organization that has already had experience holding a large scale virtual conference. I guess ICANN, I see Veni already in the queue. One thing that's quite important and I don't know if I'm jumping the gun here, I don't think the current resources to have it within the IGF Secretariat is enough. It is quite a large undertaking that will require quite a lot of hands on deck even in a virtual conference, especially in each Zoom room you will need several, if not a team of support people to control, to manage, to moderate, and security part of it as well. So there is that one aspect.
And the second aspect is regarding the design, I think we can take advice and, you know, experience from others seeing what kind of format they have used, if that would work for IGF as well. Going back to Timea and other colleagues have said this is a good time for us to try to innovate a little bit and make this an actual virtual IGF experience and not just transpose the physical sessions in to something virtual. It would be a really good time for us to think about and plan ahead. And one last thing we are happy to help IGF ‑‑ not IGF, sorry. AP IGF, Asia‑Pacific IGF is doing the same thing we are doing, virtual and we are spending quite a lot of time designing on how the format and experience of the participants can be. So we are happy to also share what we have done.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks a lot. Are you working with any external expertise or are you doing it all within the existing network of the AP IGF?
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: So this year, since there is no virtual host, the AP IGF Secretariat is the host. We have actually reached out to Tech Change also suggested by Silvia. They have been quite helpful in giving us advice. We haven't made the final decision whether or not we are going with one vender over the other. That would be decided by our own MAG which we call the MSG. Hopefully that will come soon as well. We anticipate to share that if you would like.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks a lot. And that will be very helpful. Let's hear more people. I have read the comments in the chat. Veni, you have the floor.
>> Thanks. I mean I actually ‑‑ I'm kind of going ‑‑ yes, we definitely ‑‑ I can suggest and I'm sure the IGF Secretariat is in touch with my colleagues at ICANN to get some experience from the just finished ICANN 68 which is entirely a virtual meeting. And figure out how they can use the available tools within Zoom in order to provide, for example, the interpretation services and the transcribed services. So I know that they have been in touch in the past. I helped them ‑‑ I helped the Secretariat talk to some of my colleagues and needless to say they could always reach out but visit the ICANN 68 meeting website and see whether this will be something that they could gain some experience from. Thanks.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Chengetai, you can add that. I know you have been in touch with the ICANN staff. Anyone else who wants to speak to this? In the chat I see general support for the idea to have some input and some concern about affordability. And my response to that Ben, your point about can we afford it, I think we don't really know yet what it would cost. We don't know what the what is. The response so far from MAG members it is worth exploring this a little bit further. And to see what the options are. I think that as if Jennifer, if it is possible to get advice. What is not clear to me yet is where advice stops and where actual support starts. But maybe we need to pursue these conversations a little bit further and then come back to you. I certainly don't see anyone suggesting that we shouldn't explore getting some expert advice. Does anybody else want to speak to 3.3? I don't see any ‑‑
>> Roman.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Roman. Okay. Please go ahead. Do try to use the speaking queue.
>> So I think that we definitely can make this call for proposals for an external device. We should come up this week with terms of reference so we can evaluate if we need terms of reference. If we have a clear terms of reference, I can try to push for the Russian side to explore the opportunity to finance that financial advice or if we can enlarge it to some academic institutions. We start with terms of reference and then see how affordable it is.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think I have just lost my connection.
>> No, we can hear you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Can you still hear me? Thanks for that, Roman. So I think that we should move on. I think that we should explore this a little bit further. And also some implications need to consult with UNDESA on this. But I certainly feel that you are giving me a mandate to continue to look in to this in a little bit more detail without making any commitments at this point. The input is very helpful. And we will come back to you with more detail. So I'm suggesting that we move on. I see no one in the speaking queue. And I'm speaking slowly so that people can interrupt me. Timea, you will be the last speaker on this agenda item. Please go ahead.
>> Sorry to be so late in putting my hand up. Thanks for sharing it again. I just wanted to support what Roman was saying just before I think we need ‑‑ we need a good indication of what is it we would need help with so we know what we are asking for, but I would also very much appreciate some sort of indication from colleagues in New York on timing, how long would it actually take or how would it take for us to contract a party to help us with anything. What are the budget implications, what is it that we can actually plan with because I am sure that it would be great for us to make a wish list of what is it we need help with and there are amazing companies out there that need great work. Both in how much time we have and how big our budget is or isn't.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. That's precisely it I think. We need to ‑‑ we do need to speak to New York. I have ‑‑ I have reached out to them and they are very busy at the moment because the High‑Level Political Forum starts this week and ‑‑ but so let's ‑‑ what I suggest is that we explore more about what the options are and what the implications are. And we consult with New York and then we come back to you with what we have found out at our next call. Is that okay? I don't see any objections. Okay. I'm ‑‑ thanks everyone for the input on that. And know ‑‑ this can be sensitive. And I just want to make it clear that this idea of getting external advice is really not intended to send a message that there is insufficient resources within the Secretariat and the MAG. It is a massive undertaking and particularly if we are working on a 24‑hour clock. And see what is out there and whether it is feasible for us to work with some kind of design support.
Okay. Next step, identifying a main theme. That's kind of fun in a way. The MAG usually does this very early on in the process. And this year we did not need to do that because there was a strong consensus within the MAG that people like the host country, Poland's theme of Internet United. That will now be the theme of IGF 2021. So I'm not asking you to come up with a theme now. But we do need to in at least I would say by next week have a theme for the IGF that will accompany our four thematic tracks and that we can use to promote IGF 2020. The idea that the Secretariat and I have discussed so far is just, you know, to connect this to people's current reality. And how incredibly important the Internet has become in people's lives of this time of uncertainty in this pandemic context.
So I am just opening the floor, if people have proposals please go ahead. What I would like us to decide on is the process for agreeing on the main theme. Opening the floor. And Ben, you will be our first speaker. Go ahead.
>> Ben: Thank you. My suggestion is not to have a theme. So that's the ‑‑ it has the benefit of not taking up more time of the MAG and discussing it, I'm not sure personally how much they add. And I think the V in the virtual is already something that marks the title of this IGF aside from others. I am happy if it is the MAG wants to discuss and come up with a theme, but I would be happy without one all together. So that's my suggestion. Thanks.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Ben, can you just repeat that? I heard you say that you are proposing no main theme and then my connection was just down for a bit. Can you repeat that please?
>> Ben: I would suggest not having a theme, not having a tag line. I personally don't think they have added too much. I think the V, the virtual that we already have is something which sets the title of this year's IGF apart from last year's. I'm very happy if the MAG wants to explore and come up with a theme and wouldn't have any objections, but I just wanted to put the suggestion on the table that we don't come up with a tag line this year.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think it is a fantastic suggestion. Anyone else want to respond to that? I see that people like Ben's suggestion, but some caution about using virtual as a term. Jutta, can you explain that so we know what you mean?
>> JUTTA TREVIRANUS: I am trying to speak but I have a very unstable connection. I like using the V in IGF. We need to be as well as possible in the IGF experience this year and not to make it like it is not the best if we do it virtual. So if it is less important, if it is virtual instead of real, I don't like that impression. I really think it is a real effort to have a real IGF and I would not use the term virtually too often.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Jutta. And I see there is some support in the chat for that idea. And that ‑‑ one person is saying we should use the term virtual, but I think there are different ways of working with that. Your point which is a very important point they want to make it clear this will be a real experience and that people will be connecting with one another and engaging in a very real way. You are saying we need a theme, Hanna? Don't you want to motivate for using that voice?
>> Thanks all for your interventions. I think I see Ben's point. It is a valid one. But also listening to the follow‑up points if we don't want this to feel as real as possible then I do think that there is an opportunity to propose something real virtual, I love it. There is an opportunity to propose something that's somewhat inspirational. You can even talk about connecting lines of directing. I don't have direct proposals. Connecting minds creating something. We can go in to semantics but it would at least provide a rallying point and say we as the MAG, what we have been saying from the beginning like what COVID has said about the importance of the Internet. The importance of connecting the unconnected and about how the progress that's been achieved in the last three months that would have needed three years, like a lot of these important points there is a lot of inspiration which we can actually come up with something. I do need to keep my thinking cap on perhaps where we can provide a space and agreed in the next 45 minutes. I am open to either. Thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I was muted. Hanna, I don't think that we should force a decision in 45 minutes. There are fantastic suggestions in chat. There is the idea that Rudolf put on the table with playing with real and virtual and we should put our thinking caps on and should brainstorm this. And we will reach a decision within the next week or so. Please consider this a call. And we will action the MAG members to make proposals for the theme for ‑‑ an IGF 2020, V IGF 2020. And then we will bring that in to decision once we have some brainstorming done. So I think ‑‑ that is it. Anything else that people feel we should be making decisions on or any questions or issues that we need to discuss today? Just to remind you we have one agenda item left. And if there is time it would be good to also get some updates. If other Working Groups have updates, but we do have an update from the Working Group on virtual process on the guide document that they have developed.
>> Good afternoon or good morning. Is now perhaps the right time to say a few words about the session we had discussed ahead of the IGF to talk about frameworks to addressing merging issues?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, please brief MAG members on that and also that that would be that type of session is exactly the kind of session that I thought we could fit in to the phase 1 of IGF. All those sessions. So please do go ahead. So everyone, this is a follow‑up on the proposal that ISOC had made and input to our MAG meeting, the June ‑‑ the 15 to 19 June MAG meeting. So please, Constance, go ahead.
>> Thank you very much. We had discussed the possibility of entertaining maybe a session preceding the IGF or part of the phase 1 if I understand the format correctly. That would have to do with comparing existing frameworks that have been crafted or that are under development to address emerging Internet issues. It is unfortunate but my colleague had to drop off to jump on another call. He had posted a short video that I think was available before your last MAG call where we explain a bit further what the discussion could look like. The idea is to invite those organizations such as MIT, such as some Universities around the world to compare the work they have done in thinking about creating a lens to articulate to think about, to work on solutions to emerging Internet issues. We are working on a ‑‑ the goal is to invite everyone interested in this conversation to participate, to help construct the track of discussion. The way we are envisioning it and as we have discussed it, it would be a series of two webinars where we would first look at the existing frameworks. And then in the second session dive a little bit deeper and test them, see how these frameworks can help address some of the emerging Internet issues. It was not our thinking that this could be ready or timeliness right now for our main session, but it could be a lighter track if I may say preceding the IGF, feeding the IGF and that it could also be interesting because in the Tunis Agenda it is stated that one of the goals as you know of the IGF is to think about emerging issues. So we thought it could be creating a small toolbox, although it is really still a very humble and preliminary stage. If in the future there is appetite to do more work around this, then perhaps the future MAG and next year or any other year might want to look at best practice Forum in the main session, but we were thinking starting small in the year to see how we can aggregate these communities looking at frameworks for addressing emerging issues.
And we also thought this could be a way to attract additional technical community and academic people to the IGF. So that's it in a nutshell. And if there is interest please let us know and we are happy to work with anybody who is interested in this topic. Thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks a lot for that, Constance. Anybody have any questions for Constance? This was an idea that was first raised during the MAG meeting. And what I thought is something that we could schedule in to preIGF phase. A couple of other people have approached me for ideas to organization sessions of this nature. Some of the open Forums and Day Zero event, which is why I thought we could bundle this together in the preIGF phase or we could have it a completely separate discussion that is being organized in partnership of ISOC. So I think if there are no questions, let's give people a chance to comment on that. And I think it is really good and thanks to ISOC for reaching out to the IGF for doing this collaboration. So I don't see any other questions. I see people adding in the theme identification is clearly pushing people's creative buttons which is really good.
So can I now add ‑‑ I pass the mic on to the Working Group on workshop process. Just to update you on the work that you have done and if any other Working Groups want to take the floor to update us on the work please could you just join the speaking queue. Roberto or anyone else from the Working Group on workshop process. Roberto, I think your mic is muted.
>> Now hello?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Now we can hear you.
>> Sorry about that. I have a problem with my sound. Good morning, good afternoon. I was saying that you already said during the last days we had ‑‑ we have been developing this short guidance for the different users in order to have the possibilities of the organizing, adjusting the original proposal and using the different possibilities. We also included some particular questions that would be ‑‑ that we will be needing to know, some of them we already ask, the Secretariat already ask it in the last contact with them. But still there could be (inaudible) for having formalized along with the other inquiries that we need to have a better precise idea of what the proposals are going to have with these adjustments. And I think we still have a couple of points that we could close hopefully during ‑‑ during the following one or two days and then we will have it ready for having available for the proposals. Perhaps someone will like something about that document. That will be over me. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much. Any questions or additions? I don't see anyone. Roman asked the question in the chat how long do you have to comment on this document. I mean this document really was just a set of proposals for myself to help us reach the decisions. Not all of that is directly related to MAG. Some of the comments or suggestions for High‑Level Track sessions. Please go ahead and make comments on this. We have made some solid decisions today. I think what we now need is to give the Secretariat a chance to take these decisions and reflect them in the form of an outline of the phases, components of phases and dates and duration of phases for IGF 2020. The other aspects of the document please go ahead and make comments. Suggestions for the theme. Please go ahead and make them until our next call. And then we can reach a conclusion on the theme in our next call which we need to decide whether it is next week or in two weeks' time. And I'm going to let Chengetai guide us on that suggestion.
I see that Gunela is making a suggestion about UTC times. 24 hours rather than minus times in the document. Yes, noted that. But if you can have comments by the end of this week I think that would be particularly useful. It doesn't mean that you can't continue. Try and reach decision on the theme by our next call.
Does any other ‑‑ I see Jennifer. Please go ahead and take the floor. And if any other Working Groups or BPFs or NRIs have updates, please go ahead since we have time.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Thanks. Jennifer for the record. I just wanted to ask since we didn't really discuss or ask for any decisions or really make any decisions on this just for clarification, are we going to go for the 24 hour scheduling of the IGF or is that still up for discussion and decision?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: The Secretariat just tried to check with me on that. Thanks for flagging me on that, Jennifer. Let's discuss that. What I heard from the discussions so far and what I know is that we do have some constraints for main sessions. That main sessions because they are interpreted need to fit in to more or less the working hours of where interpreters are and available. We also need to accommodate the UN Secretary‑General in terms of opening and closing. So I think there we are working with this theoretical time range which where we try to be as inclusive as possible. But what I also heard from people is that for workshops and self‑organized sessions that we should work ‑‑ we should take advantage of a 24‑hour clock and to give people space, to work in time zones that accommodate them and to have as many people participate as possible. I did hear a caution as well, I don't know if it was Ben or someone else, who felt that to make ‑‑ to make the IGF accessible to us and for people to attend as many sessions as possible. And we do not want to have so much representation. Ben, your point was that you felt a two week duration for phase 2 would enable you to participate in as many sessions or in more sessions.
So my feeling was that Maria has a suggestion that she made in an e‑mail with the 24 hour broad range, that it makes sense but as said in my document, we still have to give the Secretariat the opportunity to structure that in to a framework where it works from the point of view of the captioners. So let's take some more comments. But the proposal is yes, we work on a 24‑hour clock. That we give session organizers the option to select a time zone that works best for them, but we have to ask the Secretariat and in consultation with the MAG to craft that in to a schedule that works and that makes sense. So Timea, please go ahead.
>> Timea: Thanks so much. Just wanted to (cutting out). Questions we had so far. I just wanted to say that maybe we have many more discussions on what 24 hours means, if it is 24 hours nonstop or various time zones. But what I do want to caution is to keep it short. So a limited time each day rather than having an overstock of sessions. I'm worried that will hurt participation. On previous calls, I said virtual meetings mean will have to attend to their day jobs and other commitments. We don't overcrowd a particular day with particular sessions from morning to evening or too many hours a day. Thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think ‑‑ I mean Timea and I think the challenge and what we need to keep in mind is spacing sessions and concentrating sessions. So in some way we can make the IGF more accessible by spacing sessions but, you know, but I take your point but also keep in mind we will be recording sessions. So they will also ‑‑ I should hope that our platform would be such that people who weren't able to participate in a workshop that's in let's say the Pacific time zone in realtime, they would still be able to go and view it. Let's hear more people on this. Jennifer, you wanted to come back on this issue.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Thank you. Jennifer for the record. Yes, I did want to come back just slightly with it. I think your proposal is quite sound in the fact that we really should see what can be supported even if it is, you know, just a confirmation whether or not the transcribers, the translators and all of the technical aspects can be accommodated first. I think that's probably the first step.
And the second thing is I understand why some colleagues have suggested this for inclusion and for greater participation. But I think also it is quite important for us to keep at least for some of the main sessions or the core sessions or High‑Level sessions to have some kind of backbone time zone if we are going to spread it so widely. And one more thing, and I don't know if this is, you know, one way or the other because we don't know yet. Maybe we can see what the experience of Rights Con might be. The fact that we accommodate time zones can also mean that the people participating in those time zones might become a more regional based participation if that's ‑‑ if that's ‑‑ if I am being clear there. I don't think that's bad. But I don't think that's ‑‑ I don't know if that's going to be our intention either. So that's one thing. I guess I would like to also hear from colleagues as well because I mean I don't really have a very firm preference one way or the other. But basically I really want to make sure that we do have the support and the technical support first before we then open it up widely to give the workshop proposers a chance.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Other people, any more comments on this? I think the principle that we have a call that the main sessions, this kind of core time frame I think that's definitely agreed and that's good advice that we shouldn't rush in to this. We need to look at the technical and support implications. But I also, you know, I think the point that has been made by some people in chat is very important as well. We utilize the virtual IGF. A Central African time zone would be very difficult. It sounds that we shouldn't rush in to this. Let's hear more comments so that the Secretariat can use this as guidance. Does anyone else want to speak to the issue of the ‑‑ how we spread our sessions over the 24‑hour clock? I don't see anyone asking for the hand. But please share ‑‑ I know there are comments in the chat. But I think if people have more reflections on this, please share them in writing so that we can take that in to account when we develop the draft outline, sort of big picture broad strokes outline of the event.
Okay. I think we are done. Does anyone else have anything to report or to share or any updates from NRIs or BPFs?
>> It is Lori in Barbados. Good morning. I just want to update ‑‑ at the moment we are not really doing a lot of work. But we have been following the website and we have been following the (cutting out). We are very pleased with the outcome. We are very pleased with what's going on but because we are so pre‑occupied we haven't been able to plan what we are going to do next. We know what we are going to do next but we haven't done it yet. We want to do flyers and communicate with the larger community in some way so that we can get a large response to the IGF and a large attendance. We are working on it. So I just wanted to let you know that we are working on it. We will come up with some new ideas pretty soon.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you. Thanks a lot for that Joon and I am sure that once these decisions have been finalized and about the overall time frame and dates it will also make it easier for you to doing planning and outreach. Maybe to note that the working group on IGF strengthening and strategy, make Titi can say something about it. That we in our last call recognize that we should collaborate closely with the working group on outreach. But Titi, could you perhaps give a short update on the working group?
>> Yes, I can do it. Thanks for giving me the floor. We had the last call last week and actually we tried to finalize the charter and ‑‑ in the ‑‑ to better refine the plan activity because as you know the Working Group actually is working on two directions, from one side try to strengthen what can be done to strengthen the IGF, starting the IGF mandate as we felt in the Tunis Agenda and on the other side the Working Group is trying to understand how to support, how to collaborate, cooperate more on the digital global cooperation on the roadmap as ‑‑ indicating in paragraph 94 and 98 on digital global cooperation. So we ‑‑ after this discussion we finalized the charter. And I also shared the last version with the MAG members and a little bit of discussion about overlapping the activity between this Working Group and the outreach Working Group. I suggest maybe for the colleagues to have a look to the last version of the charter as there are a list of questions for MAG, especially for what concerns the implementation activities. We have a follow‑up on the mailing list on some ‑‑ concern. Thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Yes. We really like ‑‑ this is the Working Group that Titi and I co‑Chaired and we would really like your comments on the proposed activities. I don't see anyone else asking for the floor.
And I don't see anything in the chat. I am just looking. People are continuing to discuss. Mary is updating us. The virtual IGF, West African IGF will start on 22 to 24 July. There are a lot of NRIs taking place and people are updating one another on that. I think it seems to me that we can close our meeting and it is good to close early, a little bit early. And we think we have all been very efficient today. And Secretariat, I can give the floor back to you to raise any last issues or raise questions that you need clarity on in order to go to the next step in terms of developing this overall outline.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much. For me I think it is fairly clear. I think we have covered a lot of ground and we do have something that the Secretariat can work on. I will just pause a little bit to see if anyone else from ‑‑ if anybody else from the Secretariat has any questions, but for me I think you have answered my most pressing questions. So I will give it a two count. No. So the next thing ‑‑ Luis wanted me to remind you about the difference between Zoom webinars and Zoom meetings. But we can discuss that later. Let's just get the program ready and then we can discuss the actual implementation at a later stage. The other thing I wanted to propose is that the next meeting. Should we have it on the 21st? Or do we want it next Tuesday? I would prefer the 21st because then we will be able to give you a good proposal based on the discussions that we have had today. And the Secretariat will also be able to take a quick look at what the Rights Con is doing as well. But it is up to you, Chair, whether we have it on the 14th or 21st.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think that the 21st is a good idea but I suggest that we circulate the proposal before the 21st so we can use the call of the 21st to discuss the proposal.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: That's fine.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Good. Everyone on that note if there are no other comments, I'm assuming that people are happy with the call on the 21st by which time we will have a draft outline and framework for the event. We will have more feedback on the options and implications of getting external advice and support. Plus we will have had our brainstorming on the main theme. If there is indeed to be a main theme but that we have decided by then. So we will bring all of those things to conclusion at the next call. So thanks very much, everyone. And wishing you a really good week ahead. And thanks for being here for what I know is a difficult time zone for many of you.
>> CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Stay safe.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Bye, everyone.