IGF 2022 - MAG - Virtual Meeting - II

The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF virtual intervention. 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.



>>  Paul:  Okay.  We're right at 9:30.  And I think we can start.  And I'd like to welcome you all to our second virtual meeting.  Our goal today is to finish up on selection of the support for the intercessional activities best practice Forums, et cetera, and policy networks.  And where we left off at our last meeting is we had five that were proposed and we have funding for four effectively.  Before we get to that, I would pass on to Cheng tie for some updates and then we'll get into the meat of the meeting.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Chair.  All right.  So first of all, we do have transcription, so please take advantage of that if you would like.

And, then, also, of course, this is being recorded, and a summary report will come out later this week.

As far as the Secretariat updates are concerned, not that many.  We did publish our monthly newsletter.  If you don't have our monthly newsletter and you would like to receive the monthly newsletter, just either send an email to Eleanora or she will put a link in the chat where you can subscribe yourself to the monthly newsletter.  We also did close on the 20th of February for the EGM, the nominations for the EGM.  And so we have our initial selected list.  And those people have been informed.  Once they have confirmed, we will then just publish a list of the names so that you know who's going to be at the EGM.

And then my final thing is that we did settle on the dates of 6‑8 July, I know 6‑8 July, for the second open consultation and MAG meeting, so we would ask ‑‑ I'll also send an email out on the mailing list, but we would also ask those MAG members from the global South who would like to receive travel support to please contact Pascal and then we can start arranging it.  So the sooner we arrange it, I think the better for everybody.  And I think that's it.  Thank you very much.

>>  Paul:  All right.  Thank you.  Before we dive into next step, does anyone want to add anything to our agenda to consider at the end?  I'll give you a moment or two to think about that.

No additional items to the agenda, then thank you very much.  Let's dive straight into the selection of BPFs and PMs.

We have five to discuss and I hope we can have a robust discussion and land us on four of the five.

So, I think we've got some people lined up to do the talking about particular proposals, and starting with the environment, we have Theresa.  If you had'd like to dive in and make your presentation and we'll have some time for discussion for each of these and then land on that, on our choice.  So the floor is open.

>>  TEREZA HOREJSOVA:  Thank you very much, Chair, Paul.  And good to be here with everybody.

So, I would briefly say a few words about the proposal for the continuation of the policy network of environment that would be entering the second year.  I was serving as the MAG liaison in the first year of this network.  So that's why I would like to talk to you a little bit about that.  As you know, this was an example of a new format of work at the IGF, the so‑called policy network.  And the launch of this network was also possible to CETA funding that the Swiss government has provided.

And I would like to talk about three proposals that Anna has shared on the screen and I think would justify if not rather explain the need to continue the policy network in the second year.  Reason one is it really fits into the current UN policy processes and debates.  Concretely speaking as you can see now on the screen, it has an anchor in the roadmap for the corporation as well as our common agenda.  Mainly, that both are stressing the importance of the topic of the environment but also of intercessional work of the IGM.

Obviously it's not irrelevant to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, so that's another anchor.

The second reason why we feel that this policy network should continue, the environment and digital technologies has become kind of established topic on the IGF agenda.  There is a tradition not only to discuss this very important issue, but also in the calls for teams that was collected from the community, it showed that there is more interest.  And I think we can also say expectation to cover issues of environment in further work of the Internet Governance Forum.

And now the third reason why I do feel that the work of the policy network on environment has been really relevant is that it contributed with very concrete output.  This policy network was really driven by the process of preparing a report that was worked on by a group of experts, some of them, by the way, outside of the IGF, so that's a good element of this in itself.

As you can all see on the screen, the report concentrates on these four issues, of the environmental data, food and water systems, supply chain transparency, and circularity and more general part on overarching issues.  You should have received all of you, this report in the Design Forum very recently in your mailboxes.

So, I think these are kind of the three main reasons why this work should continue.

It would be a mistake or if not a disconnect not to have environment and digitalization, environment and digital technologies kind of closely present on the IGF agenda.

Now, what would be the next steps?  Of course, we should discuss whether you share this view.

I would really like to ask us to consider to leave this issue permanently on the IGF agenda.  Use also the IGF itself to raise more awareness on the issue of our digital technologies and environment are connected.  And to continue this discussion, to build on the very concrete output.

Now, what we need to do practically if we decide to go ahead is to appoint a MAG liaison, a person that would be attending the meetings of the experts in the policy network of environment and serve as a bridge between the work of that group and the MAG.

I was having this function together with Joyce the last year, who is also on this call.  We ‑‑ I cannot speak for Joyce, but for me personally, I will not be able to continue in this role as a MAG liaison, not because I wouldn't enjoy the work or because I wouldn't think it's important, but I decided that in my macro, I would prefer to concentrate on the work of the hybrid IGF, which will require a lot of time and attention.

So, at this point, over to you.  And thank you for listening.  Paul Mitch thank you very much.  We'll go through all five presentations and then we'll go through our sorting algorithm.

So next up is Roberto for meaningful access.

>>  Roberto Zambrana:  Hello, Paul, can you hear me?

>>  Paul Mitchell:  Yes, thank you.

>>  Roberto:  Good evening, everyone.  It's good to be with you and share with you our thoughts regarding this proposal.  As you know, we've prepared, together with the co‑chairs of this proposal, this document in order to justify the importance to continue working with this PNMA, with this policy network.  As you can see, we can go a little bit below the proposal, please.  It is otherwise eye it's continued, actually, all the activities that we were developing during the last year regarding the different sessions that we held with the other members of the Working Group, which is a very interesting group of people with very relevant mostly in the aspects of meaningful connectivity coming from different stakeholders, like the private sector, of course academia, and particularly including some other people of intergovernmental offices like ITU and some others.

So, we believe that it's important to continue this work.  We can Seabee low that we've ‑‑ see below, that we have a working plan for this year.  It's consistent.  We can go a little bit below, please, in the proposal.  Well, I'm sure you all read this document.  We can go to the page, the last page of the schedule, please.

And the idea is to reconvene all the colleagues that were working before.  We have to confirm other members of the MAG would like to contribute as allies for this PNMA and continue, perhaps, with other interest areas that we were dealing, like the one that was in the past coordinated, was coordinated by (someone) and the others that had particular topics that were included in this PNMA version.  As you know, I already explained that in our last organisation, in our last meeting, that were receiving different inputs from different stakeholders before it became actually the PNMA, and by that time we also believed that it was medium list process.  It wasn't supposed to be a year.  We believed that it was supposed to at least take four or five years, knowing, of course, that in each of the years that we were reviewing the outcomes, we will have the chance to evaluate and of course maybe to provide some adjustments if needed to go further.  But that's just for time of intersessional job which will last only a year.

That's why you already saw with the document the different outcomes that we have.

We also are planning for this year to reconvene, as I was saying, reconvene the group.  We would like to also organise sponsored meetings as we did before to work to host a couple of rich sessions and to also work the documents that are going to be our main outcome.  We were planning also to map different initiatives regarding policy for meaningful access, universal meaningful access.  We were planning to map these different initiatives that actually will be the core of the results that we will have with this policy network.

So, I'm sure that we can discuss further about this, but I just wanted to provide a summary about what our discussions were, we were preparing this proposal for renew.  Thank you very much.

>>  Paul Mitchell:  Thank you, Roberto.  And next Bruna for gender.

>>  BRUNA:  Thank you, Chair.  And hi, everyone.  This year's proposal, first of all this year's proposal from the BPF Gender was also a collective work.  We have at least four more volunteers to join this work as cofacilitators, people from APC, from other parts of the community, also UN Women, so we did manage to gather some more interest, some increased interest from our already volunteers to this effort.

And the idea for 2022 is to take a look into legislation.  To be more specific, we start with the premise that gender censorship is pervasive both online, end of line and women and nonbinary voices are surprised controlled and punished by laws and discriminatory practices.  So the idea is to try to understand, to conduct this assessment on legislation to try to understand whether or not they can represent more control, more suppression of rights both from the male and the LQBTQ communities.

And into looking what sorts of suppression or effects on rights this could have.  We are focusing our job, our work ‑‑ we will focus our work in things such as expression of identity, sexualities, freedom of expression, privacy and many other discussions we have nowadays.

So the focus of this BPF will be to, as I was saying, analyze the impact of regulations from this gender justice perspective, taking into consideration both the work that was done by the United Nations Special Rapporteurs for ‑‑ and also Human Rights defenders.

We want to grasp or try to understand what the active responsibility also in generating those conversations around legislations.  We want to tackle or try to understand, as well, the impacts of diminishing privacy and hyperrizations of women in LGBTQY community and also understand the freedom of rights and privacy on female and LGBTQY groups as well.  So with all of that is to help promote the defense of digital rights, Human Rights, understanding the biases and what are the divides that keep us from being the main parts of those legislations.

And just to wrap up, as part of our outreach for this year, the idea is to also continue to reach out to community, to reach out to other NGOs, governments and see how can we set this conversation amongst not only the IG community but also legislators and policymakers.

We did some sort of an interesting bridging last year with some participants of the legislative track, so this is something we plan to continue for 2022.

And also to reach out to other stakeholders from this field, not just the IG but the digital rights one.  So just to the wrap up, I guess like some of the organizations we plan to continue engaging will be Mozilla Foundation, APC, demo super assisted and many others that are working in this field.  And this is it from the BFF Gender.  Thank you so much, Chair.

>>  Paul Mitchell:  Thank you so much.  Now we have EM with cybersecurity.

>>  IOMBANA:  Thank you, Chair.  From the cybersecurity.  I think in our previous consultation meeting cybersecurity remains the major concern for Internet ecosystem.

Allow me to briefly recap previous year's work to provide some context.

It is on the backside of the proposal, but I want to draw your attention on last year's work.  The best practices Forum has been organized since 2016 and has brought together stakeholder group of experts and contributors to investigate the topic of cybersecurity.  The BPF cybersecurity 2021 on the use of norms to foster trust and security has intended to take a deeper look at the drivers of cyber laws and test those norms against integral Internet events.

The BPF pulled out which led to active sharing of our work and output in other forums and in particular presentation to the NRI assembly at (something).

For this year, the express behind the BPF cybersecurity ‑‑ the names are here in the proposal is to continue as we think and I personally agree with them that their work is still left for the IGF.

Indeed while the BPF is not the place for norms development, in the last years, it has been proven to be a viable community for anyone to learn about and contribute to the emerging discussion around cybernorms.

With the Forum proposed to continue some of our work on cybernorms and identifying poverty initiatives, we will update our research paper.

And the ex tanning to a new domain between norms and Cybercrime legislations, it aligns closely to work currently happening under the auspices of United Nations community on Cybercrime, which was, it was recently launched on last February.  That's all from my side.  Thank you, Paul.  And thank you for listening, to all.

>>  Paul Mitchell:  Thank you very much.  And we have one final presentation on fragmentation with Bruna.

>>  BRUNA:  Hi.  I was just not aware that I was doing this presentation, so let me just get the document once again.  I thought Chair was going to be here to help us present this one.

>>  Sheetal:  I am here.  I wasn't sure what the process was, either, but I can help you present, Bruna, or start us off.

>>  BRUNA:  Paul, do you think it's okay for us to have somebody from outside the MAG doing this presentation?

>>  Paul Mitchell:  I think if you're tag teaming that will be okay.  The important thing is to get the information out and for us to be able to evaluate.

>>  BRUNA:  Thank you so much and apologies for the last minute details.  So Sheetal, I think we can start it.

>>  Sheetal:  Okay.  Thanks so much, Bruna.  I think that's a good opportunity for me to say this is a new policy network proposal on Internet fragmentation and Bruna has offered to be a MAG liaison, the MAG liaison for it, which is great.  So thank you so much, Bruna.

I presented it at the open consultation a couple weeks ago, which is to recap this is a policy network that would build upon principles for an open interconnected and interoperable Internet that have been signed on to by a wide range of Civil Society industry stakeholders, many of whom who are also involved in the IGF.  And we think this is really an important intercessional more extreme for the IGF because.  Trends right now around Internet fragmentation and as it says the in the policy network proposal, this means the technical, legislative, and policy developments that are occurring around the world that risk the fragmentation of the Internet into different silos.  And I didn't really want to bring this up.  But what we're seeing at the moment with the invasion of Ukraine and what is happening with regard to access to information both there and in Russia I think really highlights that this is a timely issue, unfortunately.  And that we're seeing it accelerate, this trend.

So Internet fragmentation is also known in the STG's agenda of concern for stakeholders to work together to address which is one thing that we're expecting this PN to do.  As I mentioned we already have an active group of signatories, but we will reach out to and leverage that group to reach out to a much wider group to engage in this policy network from the very beginning.  All of this is detailed in the proposal.

Just to say that the aim of this would be to deliver, as idea says, under plan delivered roles over two years a much stronger and common understanding of what the issues are when it comes to fragmentation and to raise awareness about them and to provide recommendations to address this trend for all stakeholders.

So, let me stop there in case, Bruna, if you wanted to add anything to that.  And then I'm happy to add further, especially if anyone has any questions.  Thanks.

>>  BRUNA:  Thank you very much, Sheetal, I don't have anything else to add.  You did a very good presentation.  So give the floor back to Paul.

>>  Paul Mitchell:  Thank you.  Thanks to everyone who presented.  Now, there's no perfect way to do this.  But I want us to be able to have a good discussion about these five proposals and land on four proposals we're all done.  And I think for the sake of level setting, we should take a temporary of the room, so to speak, and the secretary has prepared a poll that we can use for this.  And my goal is we'll take a poll.  We'll see where we land on the first poll.  Then we'll have an discussion if we need a discussion.  I suspect we will need a discussion.  We'll run that for approximately 20 minutes or so.  And then we'll do a second poll.  And that one hopefully is the one that lands us on whatever we're going to take forward.  Okay.  Hopefully that works for everybody.  So we'll do a temporary taking for a couple of minutes here and then discussion and then a final poll.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So each MAG member should select four out of the five.  So, four.  And here's the ...

>>  Paul Mitchell:  Does anyone see the poll?  I don't yet.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I put the link in the chat.  The link is in the chat.

>>  Paul Mitchell:  Thank you.  What do we have?  This sets us up for a nice discussion.  So, we'll open the floor to anyone to discuss, try teak, et cetera, those.

Please do so.  Raise your hand function so I can see you.  Would anyone like to take the floor?

>>  Hi, it's Adam.  Sorry.  I should have put my hand up.  Hello, everybody.  I have a question for Sheetal and Bruna, really, for the fragmentation proposal, which I think is very good.  But can you tell me, have you formally reached out to ICANN?  Because I've not seen anything about it, not that you should have to contact me necessarily.  Or to the RIRs.  Chris isn't on the call.  I know he has some personal issues, things to deal with this evening because the subject of the policy network does very, very directly affect us as we are the subject of this issue.  Thank you.  I should add that it's a bit awkward being a MAG member speaking with the MAG but also being this kind of secondary role.  Thanks.


>>  SHEETAL:  I can respond.  Well, thank you, Adam, for that question, I think that outreach is very important.  We haven't reached out to ICANN.  But Raul Icheberia is very much involved in the group and he's the Executive Director of ally.  So I think that that could be a link there.  I know that he's been involved before.  And in many different ways with that stakeholder group.  So there are definitely many opportunities for us to increase that engagement, and I completely take your point that it's really critical.  So, thanks for the question.

I don't know whether anybody else wants to add to that.  But, yeah, that would be my response.

I think that happened, so there have been ‑‑ so, sorry.  I've just been thinking.  There have been a range of outreach to different members of the MAG who are involved in different RARs.  But I don't want to speak for them or how they've been engaged so far.  As I mentioned, this is a new proposal.  So the work of reaching out to those groups would certainly happen at the beginning and be integrated into the work from the outset.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Very good.  Thank you.  Does anyone else have thoughts, comments, questions, about any of the five presentations?  (phone ringing).

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  You are muted, Paul.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Nobody has further thoughts?


>>  BRUNA:  Yes, thank you very much.  Just maybe a procedural one.  As we look on the poll right now, I don't think it's the entire MAG that's on this call, we have some sort of a tie with the proposals.  So how are we moving forward from the sense of the room that we're getting from this poll into having like proper vote by the MAG.  Should we consider this as the vote already?  Just a procedural question.  Thank you.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  So my objective, if it wasn't clear, was that we see where we are, which we can see right now we've got some ties going on here.  And have a discussion.  So the poll is just for information.  Have a discussion based on the information that you now all have with the poll.  It's your opportunity to ask questions, make additional proposals regarding the way any of these proposals might work.  Lobby your compatriots for your viewpoint if that's important to you prior to then taking a poll which hopefully with the comments and good discussion will help get to a point where we have good consensus on four of the five proposals.  And that poll should ‑‑ final poll should show that.  That's the idea.

I suppose another way to run the poll would be to have everybody just vote for the one proposal they don't want to support.  But either way we should get the same response.

But we're not going to go anywhere if people aren't actually willing to engage in the discussion, recognizing we have resources to support for.  So one is going to fall out somehow.  And so I, you know, I encourage people to think about the overarching theme of resilience, common future, et cetera.  How will each of these proposals advance, or not or put something new into the discussion.  Consider whether or not the proposals have, that have been running for a while whether clearly they can go forward.  There's more to do.  But has enough been done that there's an opportunity for something else to be done instead?  Those are just ideas for discussion, but I'd like to see some thoughtful progression here so we can move this along.  Amrita.

>>  AMRITA:  Since nobody has spoken, since we talked about the digital rights earlier, the reason why ‑‑ and I would like to reiterate the reason why we think that the discussion on digital rights and freedom of speech, et cetera, from the gender lens is important is because there is a failure in, you know, mainstreaming gender.  So I think there needs to be a specific space where such discussions occur.  And it is in line with the Human Rights, which is also something which is being discussed, even the common agenda.  And hopefully in one of our themes it is talking about various other aspects come into the discussion, you know, which is also being looked at by the UN agencies.

So I think, you know, perhaps the BP agenda is one space where ‑‑ which looks specifically into issues related to gender and trying to look at ‑‑ trying to understand and look at the various regulations or regulations not being there, trying to see how it can be mainstreamed, et cetera.  So perhaps the group may want to think of, you know, having one such space where gender is discussed.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Great, thank you.  Anyone else have comments or questions?  I would think that there would be some questions on the fragmentation proposal since that's received the least support.  Bruna.

>>  BRUNA:  Thank you, Chair.  Just to add on the fragmentation one and specifically about the question about partnerships and so on.

As you can see on the document that was shared on the list, this is also a proposal that is supported by a lot of NGOs and organizations across the Internet Governance ecosystem.  We have like really relevant ones all over the world that helped shape and supported this initiative.  So, whatever suggestions other MAG members have about places and spaces we should reach out to, they are pretty much welcome.  I do think that Adam is pretty much right on the suggestion of us reaching out to ICANN.  But if there is mornings and spaces where you think this proposal should be discussed with, I just wanted to open the opportunity for a new one that would like to weigh in on this discussion because it's a really relevant one.  And it would be sad to not have some sort of a similar discussion in this year's IGF when we are facing repetitive requests from the Ukrainian government for parts of the Russia to be taken out of the Internet.  And we're seeing this increase dynamics of fragmentation, especially in this past two weeks.  So, yeah, just to add some more comments about this.  Thank you so much.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Thank you.  Any reaction?  Evelyn?

>>  Evelyne:  Yes.  Hi, this is Evelyne.  I was just thinking that maybe it would be possible to merge the meaningful access with the Internet fragmentation because like both are somehow about like having access to the Internet.  And then the question is like what kind of access?  Is it meaningful in the sense of like do I have the skills and the social contacts and so on?  But in the sense also the Internet fragmentation, it's more about the political side of access, maybe.  Like what kind of access do I have?  Do I have this like open and universal access?  Or do I rather have like a limited one or censored one?  So I was thinking maybe if we can find like some kind of terminology which would maybe be like an opportunity to merge these two, like in a sense what kind of ‑‑ I don't know how to frame it, but what kind of Internet we are having access to or is meaningful, is it open, is it free, is sit universal, or is it rather fragmented and discriminatory or censored.  What kind of access is that?  But, yeah, I would be interested to see what other MAG members think about that.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Thanks.  We'll do Roberto and then Ben, then Sheetal.

>>  Roberto:  Well, about this last time intervention, I already mentioned in the last call that it is really difficult to lose the focus of what we aim regarding PNMA because we, as I said before, and I think many of our colleagues thinks in the same way.  We are really far to get Internet universal.  It's not just a matter of all different aspects or visions we may have about Internet in general terms.  It's about to get connection.  And that's why it's so important.  Most of our population, I would say, regarding the statistics that says that 56, 57 percent of the population is already connected.  Besides that, I think we are still having a lot of problems in global South.  And that means particularly Africa.  Most of the countries in Latin America.  And that's why it's really, really important to put all our efforts to get policies that actually are going to revert this kind of situation.  And that's what the PNMA is mainly about.

And we do believe that those other topics are important like fragmentation, for instance.  But as we all know, an fragmentation is some aspect that is currently affecting not most of the countries but just particular ones, like Russia or China, things like that.  That may be an approach some other countries, perhaps, would of course follow.  And we don't know that.  I agree with that.  But it's really, really different talking about fragmentation and talking about meaningful, not only meaningful but at least universal access.  That's why it will be maybe not good to lose this focus that we aiming in the PNMA.

And about ‑‑ I would like to ask another question to proposers of the PM on fragmentation.  To know what would prevent for them actually to start as a Dynamic Coalition?  It was something that was mentioned in last calls also.  And I think it could be a good way to start, knowing that they are in the face of preparatory, preparing things.  And maybe can come up with more mature approach in the next year.  I think that could be a way to start.  And that will be a question.  What will be the problem if we could start the Dynamic Coalition on fragmentation?  Thank you, Chair.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Thank you.  Ben.

>>  Ben:  Speaking as a non‑MAG member now, but as a previous MAG member who supported some of the intersessional work.  And so I was one of the people involved in the proposal on fragmentation.  So just to make a few comments in favor of that proposal.  I think something in my three years on the MAG that was a recurring theme was the challenge of getting new blood, of kind of getting a turnover and bringing space for new issues in the intersessional work streams.  And there was always a tendency to kind of favor the incumbents' proposals, which have an existing community.  And so there really wasn't very much turnover.  And so this is an opportunity to bring in a new topic for an intersessional work is a plus.

I think it's worth reminding ourselves when we look at the community consultation that took place last month that this Internet fragmentation proposal aligns with a number of the top issues that were put forward by the IGF community.  Internet shutdowns were the highest ranked of the technical and operational topics.  Freedom of Expression, Human Rights were considered the two most important issues under rights and freedoms and cross data flows was the second highest scoring issue listed under data governance.

And the last point I would make, and someone already alluded to this, was that the IGF often tries to find space in its agenda to respond to topical issues.  And very sadly fragmentation is becoming a very topical issue given the situation in Ukraine.  And I don't expect that issue to go away in the next couple of months.  I think it's still going to be a very hot topic and a very painful issue.  The merits the IGF's attention and focus this year.  So I'll leave it there.  Thank you.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Thank you.  Mattia?

>>  MATTIA:  Yes.  Thank you very much.  I really thanks my colleague that speaks before me to remark to bring up with some topics that are things that are very important.  As you know, I'm a politician.  And when we say about the topics about meaning from our sense and the Human Rights, I have to say a couple of words about a particular issue about this topic.  Unfortunately in this case we have some problem with the freedom of Internet and the use of Internet.  I think we have to focus on this practice about the role of the Civil Society and the role of the governments.  And I think in this case especially what is going on in the world between Ukraine and Russia, but I'm sorry to say that, but I think that in this moment, I can't help but say that.  I think that IGF should say something about these decisions about of some governmental, to close the Internet.  I'm not talks about just Russia in this case, but almost any country that the Civil Society and the citizen is one way and the government the other way.  I think in this best practice, IGF should say something on that.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR: :  Adam.  Thank you.

>>  Adam:  Yeah, I completely agree that fragmentation should be an issue for this year's IGF.  I think we agreed on that when we were talking about issues that we would discuss and build our programme around.  But I don't see how that directly relates to a policy network on fragmentation per se.  So I just want to endorse the proposal that of course fragmentation and the issues around legislation, et cetera, that we're seeing around the world are going to be, I would hope, a focus for this year's IGF as we discuss with the digital compact.  But I think we're talking if not apples and oranges we're talking things that aren't directly comparable here, we're talking about the agenda for the 2022 IGF and a new policy network, which we have to choose from other very reasonable proposals for policy networks and BPFs.  So, anyway, just a point.  Thanks.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:Thanks.  Is that an old hand?

>>  Yes, it is, (ben) I will lower it.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Anyone else like to make an intervention?  Speak in favor of or against one?  I'll offer my own thoughts on the topic.  In my view, it's that all of these topics are critically important.  But at each point in time some are more important than others in terms of their need to be pushed forward or pulled back.  In tech, we often misread the right entry point.  And there is many books written about how the greatest technical inventions didn't make it because of poor timing or lack of understanding of the marketplace.  Not suggesting that that's happening here.  But I would encourage you to consider whether ‑‑ to what degree each of these proposals will create meaning.

Meaningful additional knowledge and action.  That we don't have and that nobody else is doing at this level.  I think that's a challenge we're facing limited budgets.  We can only support so much.  But then you can also look around and identify places where the work that's been done to data cross all of these areas, issue areas, has taken on, in many many respects, a separate life of its own outside of the IGF, that is, that there is work on these topics, o on all of them, actually, outside of IGF.  And the question is:  For me, when we are faced with looking at work in the IGF, what's the unique role that the IGF can bring to that topic that no other process or Forum at this point in time is capable of doing at the same sort of interoperable level?  I throw that out for your consideration without telling you anything about a particular one that I care about or don't because that's not the point.  It's up to you guys to decide.  But I'd really encourage you to be thinking along those lines.  What can push/propel the IGF forward in a more meaningful way?  What can help us focus down so that we're doing what we can do, what we have the resources to do to do well and what are things that we have maybe done really well, well enough that they're already taking on a separate life of their own outside?  Anyone want to respond?  Sheetal, your hand's up.

>>  Sheetal:  Thanks.  I don't want to monopolize.  I want to add something to your point and also to a previous question.  So, I'm not a MAG member, but I am facilitating the group of signatories of the principals that the Internet fragmentation policy network proposal is built on.  And I think that question on timing is really critical.  And on that point about why not ‑‑ why did we propose a PN and not a Dynamic Coalition, for example?  And the reason is that we're at a really critical juncture.  We believe.  Where we have made progress on the principals.  We have socialized them and have reached out to a number of multilateral Forums, both within the UN and outside.  Last year we engaged with the G7, for example.  And we are still ‑‑ and the summit for democracy and others.  And have been raising awareness.  But now we need what we believe will be a really great support, which would be this extra support to be able to amplify that work and make it more concrete.  And so, hopefully, as well, support the IGF's work to more closely tie its discussions to what is happening in decisionmaking forums.  We've done a little bit of that, but we want to be able to build on that.  And we think that we're in a really good place to do that now.  And as has been already mentioned, these are topics of increasingly critical importance.  So in a way it's not we're starting at the bottom of the ladder, we see it.  We have the principles.  We have the network.  We have in outreach we've already done.  We're a few steps up the ladder, so to speak, to use a metaphor.  And we see the PN as bringing us further up and being able to do that more concrete work that can tie into what's going on elsewhere in the world, respond to all of those trends antiinto discussions at other forums.  (and tie into).

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Three minutes for any last thoughts on this topic and then we'll go to a poll here.  If anyone has any thoughts, I would ask you to reset the poll, and then we'll have a couple of minutes for you to enter your decisions.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Sure.  Just give us a couple of seconds.

We're experiencing a little bit of technical difficulty but a couple more seconds.

Not yet.  I'm about to suggest we go to the next topic and then come back to this.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  I was just going there.  But let's do that.  With your agenda, there are two options for phrasing the subthemes that we discussed last time.  And our goal here is to see if we can land on option A or option B, one or the other.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  By the way, the doodle poll is done now.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  The doodle poll is done.  Great.  We're going to have to do another poll.  So let's do the doodle poll.  Think about the question I am going to ask you in a minute.  And let's see if we can close this one out.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So it's still four out of the five.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  So four out of the five.  Interesting.  Well, now we have a runoff.  Okay.  Because we have a clear winner at 5, 2 at 4 and 2 at 3.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Was that everybody?  I don't think that was everybody yet.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  No, I think we have a ways to go.


>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  But watching the early ballots come in.


>>  I can be ready with a swing oh meter if you like.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We can have a runoff of the bottom two.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Has everyone had their opportunity to vote?  Because I will move us to doing a runoff if that's true.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Maybe of the bottom three.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Bottom three.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  And also I just ask Secretariat just to check that it's only MAG members?

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Yes, for sure.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Okay.  I think we have gotten all the votes we're going to get.  So, let's move it to a best two out of three with the bottom three.  So reset the poll to the bottom three.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Let's see how quick we can reset it this time since we've learned.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Meanwhile while the poll is being set, why don't we take discussion for our opportunities for wording for our subtheme?

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It should be reset, I'm told.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Already?  Okay.  Much faster this time.  All right.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Oh, I'm sorry.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  You've got all five showing.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  We have to remove the top two.  So the top two have to be removed.  And I think the top two was, the first one was cybersecurity.  And the second one was.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Meaningful access, I think.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Meaningful access, yeah.  So can we remove cybersecurity and meaningful access?  Or can we just let people ‑‑ do not vote for cybersecurity or meaningful access.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Okay.  We'll get better at this over time.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, we will.  Yes.  So please just vote for three but not for meaningful access or cybersecurity.

>>  Hi, Paul and I don't think it worked for three out of the two.  I think it's vote for two between the three that are left; right?

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Ah, yes.  So sorry about this.  As I said, we will get it.  Yes, you're so right, yes.

>>  Roberto:  Maybe you could limit it.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Louis, is it possible to either remove cybersecurity and meaningful access, if that can be done quick, then that will be good.

>>  Louis:  Yes, let me try.


>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Actually, people are doing it, though?  Louis, you don't need to do it.  I think people are doing it so it's okay.

>>  Louis:  Okay.  Was possible in any case.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yeah.  Oh no, people aren't doing it.  I'll just keep quiet now.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Give it another minute and then everybody shall have had the opportunity to make their mark, as they say.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Okay.  I think we'll call this poll closed.  And the four winners are:  Cybersecurity, gender and digital rights, Internet fragmentation, and environment.

So, thank you all for your collegiality.

>>  Roberto:  Sorry, Paul.  You meant by environment meaningful access.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Yes.  So, thank you for the collegial nature you of the discussion.  And I hope you all feel we used a fair process and everybody had the opportunity to make their case.

We have one more thing to vote on, and that is our subtheme language.  Does everybody see the language that's proposed?  It's in your agenda.  And I have no particular viewpoint on this.  The two proposals are very similar; it's just option B, from my perspective, option B just adds a little additional specificity to each line.  But from my perspective, they are effectively equivalent.  Does anyone want to speak in favor of or against either of these options?  Everybody's fine with either?  Does anyone want to propose we adopt one or the other?  Amrita:

>>  AMRITA:  Thank you, Paul.  What I have seen in the second one especially after data governance tpart of protecting privacy is there.  And obviously in the last point, AI is included.  A in that's where the difference is.  Personally, in ‑‑ I prefer the second one because of the third point being elaborated by mentioning protecting privacy.  So that's my personal view.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Okay.  Thank you.  Anyone else have a strongly held position?

If there is no strong opinion one way or the other, then I will propose for your approval that we adopt option B.  So I proposed option B for our subtheme language.  Roberto?

>>  Roberto:  Yeah, I agree, Paul, thank you.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Thank you.  Okay.  Anyone disagree?  So if you disagree and would like to speak in favor of option A, please do so.  Otherwise, we will adopt option B.


Okay.  Seeing no objection, option B is adopted.

And we have gone over our allotted time by 14 minutes.  But this is a productive meeting.  Thank you very much for ‑‑ to those of you who presented, thank you for presenting.  And to everyone who engaged in the discussion, thank you very much for your attention and collegiality and look forward to continuing this trend as we go forward.

Does anyone have any other business, last notes they want to make?  Cheng tie, any last comments from the Secretariat?

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  I would just like to say, echo your words to say thank you everybody.  And then for the next order of business that's high up on my list and I think should be high up on all our lists is the get the Working Group for the workshop processes up and running.

I know, Roberto, you were one of the leads last year.  Do you want to take that up?  Or do you want to ‑‑ or should we ask for more volunteers?

>>  Roberto:  I would like both.  I certainly would like to support the group, of course, but I would also like a co‑chair, maybe, for one of the first‑year members or even second, that would be fantastic.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Is there a first‑year member or a second‑year member on this call at the moment who would like to Chair it with Roberto?  Or we can ask in the mailing list, as well.  Please just speak up.

>>  My name is peace.  I would be glad to help.  I'm a first‑year member.  I have been learning and starting to know my way, so I would be happy to help.  Thank you.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much.  I think that's it.  Thank you very much.  That's it.  Great.

Back to you, Paul, Chair.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR: , thank you very much.  Do we have a next meeting scheduled at this point?  Or not?

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We can schedule it in two weeks' time if that is fine with everybody.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Same channel?

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes if the same time is fine with everybody, as well.  So two weeks' time is actually the 22nd of March.  If there's no objections, we'll schedule it on the 22nd of March.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Bruna?  You have a hand up.

>>  BRUNA:  Yes.  Thank you, Paul.  Just two questions.  The first one about the EGM.  Are we, first of all is the list of participants going to be published at some point?  Or even shared with the MAG?  I think there is some interest from a lot of us following this.  Okay.  Sorry Chengetai, please go ahead.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  The list is going to be shared once we've had confirmations.  We're still receiving the confirmations.  And once those are set, we'll share the list.

>>  BRUNA:  Perfect.  Thank you.  Also, another question I would have is when will we have a confirmation of the summer meeting?  So is it confirmed for the week of 6 to eighth?

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  It's confirmed for the sixth to eighth of July and I've also asked for all MAG members from the global South who qualify for travel support to please contact Pascal and I will send out email on the MAG list, as well, just to remind everybody, yes.

>>  BRUNO:  Thank you so much.


>>  KARIM:  Thank you, Paul.  Just a question about Working Groups.  As I notice we had the Working Group on language and we cannot list the good job done with the new web portal.  But I think that we have a lot to improve in terms of including more languages in our activity.  So I'd like to know from the Secretariat how we can reenable or how we can reintroduce existing previous Working Group.  Thank you.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  We had a discussion on Working Groups at the first consultations and MAG meeting end of February.  Sorry, I don't have it up.  And the.

>>MR. PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Did charter some Working Groups.  That doesn't mean that if the MAG agrees there can be more Working Groups, but we've already had a first round of Working Groups.

I do not recall that the Working Group on languages was chartered for this year, though.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  It was not.  We didn't have any discussion on it.

>>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  So, I think that it's totally up to the Chair and the MAG.  So, out of my hands.

>>PAUL MITCHELL, CHAIR:  Yeah, happy to entertain a proposal.  But not at this meeting.  Okay?  So, I think we concluded our business for today.  And we'll convene again in two weeks.  I'm available to any of you at any time if you want to reach out and have conversation.  And with that, thanks to the Secretariat and thank you to all of you and I'll close the meeting.

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