Good morning. Maisie. Judgment. We'll start in 2 min as usual. 2 min. Past hmm! Morning, ladies and gentlemen, and good morning, afternoon and evening to those who are joining us online. This is the third and final day of the open consultations and Mag meeting, and I'd like to thank all those who have stuck with us throughout, and we do realize that there are people that do have to leave and who have left because there is the Ican meeting that's basically starting tomorrow, and they have to fly back, and we also know that there are some people who do have to catch earlier flights.
This afternoon. So we've made a request to the chair and we'll see what he says. But apart from that people, we start as usual, the meeting is being recorded. They will be a summary report of the action points next week, and if you want to take the floor, please, you can raise your hand in the zoom, or you can use your hand in the Zoom, or you can use your flag and just put it up and see chair will recognize you and then you can take the floor and clearly take the floor. Can you please say your name slowly, and then you can make your intervention with that I'll hand it over to our chair. Paul Mitchell. Placements. Good morning, and thank you. Yesterday we had a good discussion of our approach to the variety of session types and rules around managing for conflict of interest in session, planning, and execution. We made changes to provide for additional flexibility. So, continuing on positive progress in this meeting this morning, we'll continue to discuss the strategic vision for the future of the Igf, including our approach and relationship to the newly emerging processes, including the wishes, plus 22 DC and the relationship to the leadership panel that we've already done some work with so far.
This week. It's also an opportunity to review our approach to intercessional activities writ large policy networks. Best Practice Forums, etc. Come up with recommendations. If any, on cooperation with the dynamically coalitions in the Nris and the broader community. Finally, we have the opportunity to review the work of the man. Groups themselves. And we've been quite efficient over the past 2 days, and as Chengatai mentioned, there are people who need to be in other places before the end of the day, so I hope we can continue the trend we're scheduled to run to 6 pm today but there's no rule that requires us to do so, so let's be as efficient as we can. And with that the meeting is open, for whoever wants to go first. Strategic vision and for the feature of the it. F. And we did have an invention from Justin yesterday, before he left, he did make an intervention, and also Wyman from you, and this as well, mentioned a few topics.
So pretty nice, thank you. And then, Chris, good morning. Everyone. No, just taking the opportunity to ask about, because we had a discussion last year about to submitting the messages to the Juddc process. So maybe put this on the agenda and see whether we can still consider that, or if we can rehash it, just because I know the leadership panel was also doing a submission somehow based in our messages. The Ijf messages, and so on. So I I would just wanted to put this on the agenda and ask, yes, that's yes. We do have several parts of the idea, intending to submit the messages. So we've had several discussions about this, and I don't know which is based. One recommendation is that we pass things through the chain. That means that it goes through the chain. That means that it goes through the Under Secretary General. Mr. Lee, who will give a cover note and collect the inputs and then put them to the tech. Invoice office, so that was one suggestion.
And then there was. It's not a competing suggestion. But there was also the thought that if we have many inputs and I'm talking about the national and original initiatives as well, that reference, the messages that will actually make them be noticed more so those or things that we should take into consideration, but yes, you, and it does offer to kind of coordinate the message. The inputs as such they would. They will not be editing them, because that was another question that was asked by the IP. That whether or not there'll be a no, it's just a matter of collecting and putting a cover note and just a follow-up question timewise, are we submitting through the process of the Gdc.
Which deadline is like this, like the end of this month, or are we submitting it through other channels to UN channels, and not part of the actual conversation? We can. So yes, there's 2 channels. You can do it. You can submit it through the actual Gdc process. That means that it doesn't go through you and deser or you can submit it through your desktop. If you submit it through the channels. Of course you have to keep to the deadline with the you, and there's some leeway for us. Yeah. Hey, everyone. Chris Buckridge, Ag. Member I so well we start off by saying, I think the point you're making there, Changa, tie about references to the Igf messages in a wide range of inputs is a really important one.
So I think you know we that's one I'd really wanna drive home and sort of say to people who are submitting their own responses to the current open consultation or participating in the deep dives. Yet please take the opportunity to to make that reference, I think that's really important. The other point I was gonna make I was really just to say, as one of the co facilitators of the coaches what we call the working group on strategy and strengthening the Igf, that group's been doing a lot of work in this space and it's probably useful to have a bit of update on that, and where that's at, and that's starting last year, when we had the communication regarding the global digital compact, that working group drafted and that the Mag approved and which is on the Igf website now which really emphasized the importance or the need for the Gdc. Process to be multi-stakeholder, to respect, to respect the input and seek the input of the Igf communities, including the Nris, including the sessional work.
And to really facilitate, do what was possible to facilitate that input. So I think we've seen definitely definite progress in relation to that. I think you know. With this this was a communication that went out before the co facilitators were in place before they laid out the different ways that they were going to be consulting, so I think that's something very welcome and in line with what we were proposing there was also significant significant extensions to the deadline of the consultation that the officers, the tech envoy laid out, and that was something. We also were concerned about the type deadline. There. I'm not sure if that's if that, how much flexibility there still isn't that.
But I think we still have a fairly long way to go before we get to the negotiations. I think there is certainly well, hopefully, possibility for flexibility in that regard as well in relation to the wishes plus 20. The working group on strategy and strengthening the Igf has also started doing some work on draft Igf, which is plus 20 action plan. And so this is very much work in progress. There have been some really great inputs from a lot of members of the working group. Malcolm particularly, has really helped frame the initial draft. So thank you to mark. There's a I think we have 8 different objectives there. That were sort of circling and drafting and coming to agree on.
And we're currently fleshing out some suggested strategies or ways to achieve those objectives. I think, 2 points that were sort of reached consensus quite early on one was the importance of using Igf. 2023, to socialize the importance of this plus 20, to get people engaged and understanding the significance of this event, the timelines involved, so the need to get involved now, even though the event itself has a 2025 days attached and to begin talking about the best way to engage, and I think, from the discussions we've had here this week, and we'll have more discussions on, I assume, about the thematic tracks and the high-level sessions.
But I certainly heard quite a strong move, for at least the main session discussion of these processes and of the significance I think that would they didn't very well with the what group what move Strategies plan? There the second activity. And this perhaps, fits into the broader question of how sort of mag modalities was to to be pulling together a relatively comprehensive list of the Igf's achievements and the achievements of the Igf community in evolving the igf particularly since the wishes plus 10, and in response to the the outputs of that, this is 10 review and subsequent activities. So, including up to and including the expert group meeting that took place last year.
Yeah, wait. I, we need to look at how best to do that and how best to sort of format that, and where it could be. Input, I think, sort of, though, there's been discussion of the need to coordinate a little with the Cstd in that regard to make sure that this information goes in via that channel to the sort of formal with this plus 20 preparation process. So if we, as a group, wanted to discuss a bit how we might do that today, but otherwise the working group strategy is certainly a venue where we'll continue to discuss that and look at the best ways to do that. So I guess finally I would just encourage any Mag members and any other. It's not just Mag members.
Also any other interested parties to join the group group strategy discussions. If you have an interest in this area, I'll post the link for the page in the Zoom chat. Thanks. Thanks. Chris, hey? Lisa! Thank you. Observer. I just wanted to to inform everyone that there is a resolution of our General Conference that requests units. Go to to provide a report on the organization's implementation of the outcomes, and how the vision of the Whizzes as a people centered inclusive development-oriented society can best be fulfilled, and that should be taken into account. You know the current technological realities and challenges that we face, and so on, and a draft resolution for the organization's roadmap, for Unesco's roadmap.
Towards that the 20 Year Review, you know they will visit, plus 20 until 2,02025. So, you know, I just wanted to say that you know one of the things that we intend to do is carry out a few consultations on, on, on the the different ways in which you know this roadmap can put together, and what should be part of this roadmap and invite the mike to be part of this of this conversation as well, just in terms of timeline, so that you know it. This has to be sent to our General Conference this year the Forty-second General Conference of Unesco, which takes place in October, and so, of course, it has to be submitted at least 2 months in advance, and therefore we should have you know something by you know by late August. So you know this is, you know, a shorter, you know, Timeline, but but it's a good conversation, and we could create an interface between the working group and strategy.
And this, and this particular element, so that we can, you know, come together, and some ideas on how to take it forward. And just, you know, because Uneasco, as the you know, universal, carries out the largest number of of action lines as need facilitator of any other agencies. So our Member States want to, you know, to have us provide this kind of information to them, so doing, to for the for the process. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And Chris. Chris, that's okay. What Maria Lisa was saying, that you can coordinate with the working group.
Yes. And also I just wanted to ask for the working group. Do they envision doing anything for this? For the Cstd intercessional that's happening end of this month. I think it is. We're not quite that organized. Unfortunately. No, I there's not any current plans. It. Yes, at the end of this month. So I mean there would be perhaps a possibility to present as it should input on the interest of the Mag. And but the work going on, I don't think we have anything to substantive at this point, but it would certainly be if there's a chance to note to the Cstd. That the Igf 2023 will be having these discussions, and will be making efforts to increase engagement with this, plus 20 preparation process that could well, that could be quite useful.
The Max chair is actually presenting is on a panel at the Csd, so maybe you can coordinate a little bit and see. We'll make sure we get some talking points to you. Thank you, and good morning, all, and good evening. Afternoon for those online. This is Alisa. You've worked for the record. I I would also want to propose, maybe for for next time, for the for keeping updates regularly. If we could have an update from Sweden and Rwanda on the Gdc. Process during the next open consultations here. Well, it will be in Geneva. Then and maybe if the tech employee could also or the Tech Employee office could provide an update on where they are standing, I think it would be very useful. So for the preparation of a main session. If if we would want to have one on the Gdc.
And on the basis I think it would be very, very beneficial, and maybe well, to make it cross-cutting. Even ask if the chair of the Cstd could, and report back. I think, yeah, that would be useful. Thanks, no, thank you. As you're aware, we did have the facilitators here on Tuesday afternoon, but we will definitely give them a invitation to come for June, and they are definitely coming for the idea of in Kyoto. They'll definitely be there. But of course, yes, regular updates is good, and then, unfortunately for the tech envoy, I think they just so wrapped up in the current business, and they're also reformulating the office so they couldn't attend the meeting. But we'll see hopefully. We'll see them in June as well.
Thanks. No, yeah. Just following up on a little suggestion. So, maybe in the next consultation we can have this a similar session about the processes as well. Just so we can keep like doing this conversation until the I just understand that there is some sort of a conversation that we do. You have. Do we like that? We do want to have some focus on that. I know I'm on. It's like the tech invoice. Like some the formulation, but it will be interesting to have him in Geneva if he can, or anyone from his office in July or June, whenever, then, the second translation is happening. But I was also gonna suggest that maybe we could take some time to think whether we already have any ideas, for what could be the main session on the processes for the Ijf. Because I think that maybe having a conversation between the child, the Cstd. Somebody representing the leisis process, the Tech and Boy Office and the co-facilitators plus the Igf.
It would be an interesting conversation to have. Just so we will be able to look forward and see how all of this process they integrate itself. What could be overlapping each other? How can we move forward? And what's the relevance of the motorsakeholder participation in all of that? So, maybe if we have this vision for the main session as soon as we can, it's kind of the conversation we can continue to have with all of these players until the I just happens, and also including the leadership panel that I'm forgetting about so just try and now, right so not forgetting general, but just bringing these ideas to the table, because I think it's gonna be super important, and also because having the co facilitators in July will be important because it's passed on the contribution phase and hopefully there's going to be some more clarity about the process and the issues paper.
And it's gonna be after the maybe dinky also can also weigh in on some of our tracks and in the Ijf tracks. In general, if we're keeping this alignment and bringing more contribution to the debate. So that's it. Thank you. No, thank you very much, and those are excellent ideas. Yes, we should follow that suggestion as a starting point, and see what we can do for the meeting. We will be. We usually. I don't say we will be, because I don't want to make it. That is a said thing. But yes, we will be constructing the main stations, working groups in June. But there's no reason why we can't stop doing it beforehand. In any case. Okay. Yeah, I would like to support very much the ideas of Bruno. And I would like to say the earlier we have visibility. I think we should place such a session very early into the Ijf days, in order to have, if we have higher representation that usually do not stay to the end that we have them at present at this session.
So I would say preferably, maybe on day one that would be best. I also would like to think that if we're gonna have like a mag meetings with the different players in June, July, whatever I think we should maybe have before the Igf some plan to to have a wider Igf community maybe through a publicly available consultation, or something where those issues. are discussed. Please, so that we it's not something that just a mag is is discussing. But I mean the wider community is discussing within. Let me say it's under the organization of the Ijf or under the umbrella of the Igf. Somewhere just before we get to the Igf in Kyoto. Thank you. Just to respond to Christine's idea. Yeah, I'm so something like, maybe a virtual session. I mean, obviously, the working group strategy sessions are open to anyone. But maybe this could be a different thing, and I think the working group strategy could even be sort of the driving force behind it, and we could make it sort of more widely publicized advertised session on these processes and on the what the Igf will be doing in relation to them and yeah, I definitely, it seems like, good.
I just me. So just to say where this is coming from. I mean, it's because we've seen the processes actually go into, you know, statements at least the Gdc. I was like that a statement. And then statement. After that, I would like to see some of what's happening in terms of dynamics of discussion within the Ijf take place also around those topics, not just the formal Member State format. Anyone else have ideas. So thank you for the enlightenment floor, I mean about the idea of evolution, about the involvement of the Igf in the in Cdc. I think it's important.
I mean, to use the Igfs platform for this public consultation, but it's also important to try to inform more the results of the international activity on and Gdc commitment as working group strategies. We start a very important exercise for the for digital cooperation. We had a mapping exercise. Trying to map the lines of the road up with the main discussion. So I think this could be a useful exercise that could be also repeated to the Gdc. In order to to. I mean I mean address, and include the to the Gdc. In order to to I mean I mean address and include more the certain results of the Igf in the in the Gdc.
And another point that I want to arise is a try tool, because the working strategies is trying to. I mean, create a link between the mark and also the Tech Employee office, and we had a very good link. I mean in the past, while some now, sometimes it's different, because the taken by office is a small office. So maybe the secretary have to be equipped that to have to create a more strength link between the 2 office in order to support the Malcolm on this process. So thank you. Thank you, and for the consultation. Yes, I mean, we can think about an online one.
You think it would interfere if we have it on the open consultation day, right? You wanted separate. I I mean I think what I was getting from Christine's initial idea, and was sort of something more to set the same. So yeah, ahead of the You Open Consultation Day. Then the open Consultation day itself can be a bit. I mean, I will obviously have discussions to be had on that day regarding the upcoming Igf, so I yeah, I wouldn't want to crowd too much or place too much ambition in what we can squeeze into that single open consultation.
Day so, but I think like sort of 1 h and 90 min. The virtual session in. You know, the weeks ahead of that. Would perhaps be quite, quite useful. Oh, hey? Online. Thank you. Thank you. Not sure whether this is the right time, but I see some traction in the chat on the 2 proposals. We've been floating this week, both with the Mac and the leadership panel, and I think it's it's, of course, good to talk to the call facilitators to to talk to to the tech invoice. But I feel that the Igf in in this intention of developing itself into an Ijf plus a more moreactive and more actionable Oriented committee, could very well make proposals for action in with the facilitators who are really running the process. The taking boy is just the Secretariat of that process, and I would really suggest that as soon as possible, and at the latest, and in the next meeting of of of the Mac physically in Geneva, that the Ijf comes forward and proposes that the Igf convenes a multicell caller drafting group that would assist, or what support the call facilitators in preparing a draft of the global digital compact.
I think we have the people. We have the means. We have the expertise. We have a lot of work done, especially also in the Addis meeting, and this would be a very concrete contribution to the process, and at least we should try this out. I think if we want to have and influence on what is to be included in the global digital Compact. And if we want to show how the multi stakeholder model embodied in the Itf is able to contribute to to such an international process, and I feel the the co facilitators are open to hearing ideas, so we should really address them directly because as said they are the ones who are running the process, and have a certain way, and being also creative and innovative, how to how to handle things. Who can prepare this. I think the working group on strategy can prepare concept on how this could be done. Based on the itf multi-stakeholder community, and then, be it the leadership panel chair. Then serve, albeit Paul Mitchell, or both of them, could translate this or transfer this proposal to the core facilitators as soon as possible, and then we could have the discussion with them virtually or physically, later on, but as soon as possible, I think so that we don't lose time with.
With this proposal the alternative, I think, is that the consultations go on in New York. That they adopt this form of a lineup of speeches which are really disconnected, which are not structured. And which most of the time also because they are limited in time to 3 min. Usually they don't go beyond the surface, and they stay at a very different level of of deaths, of depth and expertise, of what we have witnessed in the Igf discussions. So far and in such a framework of consultations as we are witnessing social, the Igf voice is not being really heard, and if we just keep on asking the Tech Invoice Office or the co-facilitators at a distance to consult the itf I don't think we will make a difference, but if we come forward with such a proposal, I think we really can change things.
We can make a difference. So I leave it by that. You know. There's another proposal which has to do with the Igf for the follow up and evaluation of the future global digital compact. But that's not as time relevant now as this other one. Thank you. Thank you. That's a good concrete ideas, and we'll also. I'll also I'm not putting women on this spot right now, but we'll also consult with New York to see if what's the best way to go about. This is what it have any advice for us in doing this. Thank you. So if I understood correctly, he's like suggesting that the Mac would be part to help Sweden and wanted to draft the text for the Gdc.
And well, if we all really like this idea, then I think maybe an official letter sent by our Makehair Paul to switching Number One would be a very useful way. But yeah, maybe 2, temperature here. Good, how do people feel about this? Do we want to get that involved, or how? Well, just. So Simon's means that everybody thinks it's brilliant and we could go for it really lined up. I didn't think so. Let's see, who was it that? Even. Desktop webinars. Yeah, thanks. I think they're actually very forthcoming proposals, and also very proactive. Initiates the phone the part of the Mac as whole. A hoy rightly pointed out the tech envoy is the secretary to the Gdc. Process just like the Igf. We are. The secretary to the Itf and the Mac. The Gtc is multi stakeholder end of the day. There will still be a intergovernmental negotiation right? So I would.
I think all these ideas are welcome to put on bots. I mean, I think that they can avoid office would would welcome such ideas. But I'm not sure if they could entirely take that on. Board given that there must be a plan, as of now about the drafting process. So I would like to ask the Mac to consider more of the subset rather than process, or in the issues still to focus on what best the itf could highlight to be included in the Gdc. Rather than process, because I think process is is outside the I will say the the registration of this group here. So that's the first point on the second point on vases plus 20. I think everyone would not disagree. That's the Gdc. Will be connected, should be connected to this plus 20. But as A how it is going to be like we still do not know, but I but the idea of having a focus like a main session on business, plus 20 is again, very welcome, and I would suggest to say, again, to focus.
More on the substrate. Rather than process. They are other para process, like obviously Cstd. They are actually the the Csd is actually coordinating the All, putting together the Sg. Reports on the follow-up to the action lines. Likewise Itu area have the resistance problem, and of course there's also the all the upcoming consultation by Unesco, as we had from Reseller. So again, I think that for 4 weeks, plus 320 I will say that there could be more. We can actually focus a little more because it will be desktop, will also be involved in the New York parts. Given that there will be a gene, but process as well as all of you know. So the I believe that's the to think more about. I think first of all, I just like the highlight again that for this Mac, and what the remaining of the day to focus more about Igf journey journey tree, the Kuto Igf, I think all the other ideas I'm sure the secretary will take notes and then to share with the respective offices but focusing on what's the the value of that? That would.
That would be very good, because not to not do. I think all of you had that there will be a ministerial events. That will be in September, you know. Ga. Then there will still be a follow-up process until a year later, where we have the summit of the future. I am not giving any concrete sub session here, but I just like to point to to say that the focus of this magnet should perhaps still be on the computer Igf especially. We are having the privilege of the co-chair from host country. Here. Thank you. Hey, that's a good reminder, Bruna. And then Chris. Thanks. No. Just about the process it's a I mean, I guess the whole rationale behind us asking for me session, or asking for this more focused contribution to the constellation, and so on, is because a lot of the Gdc is a process that talks about a lot of substance, a lot of content, and in each of the consultations, like the one in Geneva, as opposed to the one that was hosted in Mexico, they each talk about different topics.
But one thing that's becoming somehow clearer is that the Ijf process is the one that is last talked about. So there's a lot of fuss about content, moderation. This information, and a lot of topics surrounding the Internet. But the Ijf process would deserve some more attention, since there is a chance of like some overlap or even influence in what we're doing, so that's the general rationale behind us, asking for a contribution. And I understand the limitations with regards to whether or not we should ask to be part of the process, and I agree with you. I mean that we could focus on the on the substance a little bit more, but at the same time the request, the suggestion from Hardhead maybe, is something that could help bring more legitimacy to the process so I'm not saying adding an actual layer but maybe the co-founder would like to consider a multi-stakeholder group to review whatever it is.
One of the issues, paper or one of the later phases of the process outputs. And this helps brings more legitimacy. This is something that maybe they would be interested in and not, I mean, I'm not saying it's something we should decide now. But one of the requests also, thinking that in the end of the day it is indeed something that will be negotiated by Member States. But it's also something that to some extent is motor stakeholder.
So that's kind of the rationale behind it. Yeah, so my zoom would be just that like, so maybe we could consider. And this is probably a conversation with the Member States about some sort of a multi-coder review, or, like a later phase, consultation of one of The Inputs paper, or anything of the sort. Once we have things more figured out, because I feel like right now.
Everybody is talking about so many things, and the Igf is the one that's last talked about so it would be interesting to have this very kind of like small selected part of the process dedicated to this forum. And how can we move forward in the in the whole scenario? So that's it, Thankful! Thank you, Chris. So, yeah, I'm looking and thinking about or suggesting that I think. We should be very clear that I think I mean, but I certainly take the point that this will be a Member State, agreed document.
I think we're quite explicitly at this stage at least, talking about the preparatory process that leads into the negotiation and I'm not sure what the scope for a multi-stakeholder negotiation will be. I would be great if that could happen, but I think there is a lot of resistance to that among Member States. But if there is a chance to make this sort of the initial first draft a multi-stakeholder document, that, as Bruno says, I think, could give it some additional legitimacy and strength, I take the point that it's important to focus on substance rather than just the process. But I mean, I think we have substance in terms of the Igf. 2022 messages.
That's that's important substance that really directly engages with the themes laid out by the Secretary General for this global digital compact. I think we also have a real obligation, as the Mag. Well, certainly as last year's, Mag. That took a decision to shape the Igf. In response to those themes in response to the call for an outs for a Gdc. We have an obligation to ensure that, having done that, we then take that through to the next stage of actually having those outputs respected and understood and seen and taken into account. So as I absolutely agree, we should also be focusing on Igf 2,023. There is a lot of work to do in ensuring that that is a successful event, and I think it will also, if I understand the timeline correctly, perhaps it's a little optimistic, but we'll also have outputs that can feed into the initial draft of a Gdc and hopefully we can feed into the negotiation that will follow that, but it absolutely is something that I feel.
The Mag needs to do, and and the leadership panel. Really the Igf different institutions of the Igf need to do to follow through and not just sort of drop the ball and say, Okay, we would. We shaped our Igf 2022 around Gdc, we produce the outputs boom. It's out there. Let's hope that sticks to the wall. I think we need to take a little bit more. Ownership and responsibility, for, you know, shaping the preeminent global discussion of Internet governance around this document that the the Secretary General has proposed having done that, we need to be serious about making sure that that's also taken into account and part of that process. So I think there's a lot to be done there's a lot of uncertainty I don't know what the responses to go. Facilitators would be, but I do think it makes sense, and I think we can also point to successful instances of this in the past, and the is obviously the example that's pointed to very often. And I think if we can sort of reference that, and and shape a proposal to the go facilitators that is clearly based on practices that have worked in the past, that seems like a useful thing to do.
Thank you. Other interventions. Go ahead as well. Yeah, thank you for letting me come back just just to clarify that the the process for the Gdc. Is let is run by the call facilitators, who have been entrusted to. To do this by the President of the U. Nga. Or the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Secretariat, of course, has a role, but it's it's the subservient role. It's it's a role to help the facilitators in doing their work and the guiding and document for the co-facilitators is the is, amongst other things, the IC.
T for the resolution that was adopted by the Unga in December, and this says that the process towards the global digital compact has to be open and inclusive, and includes all stakeholders and take into account what for like the itf have been working on so I think that's pretty general at the same time it offers a lot of possibilities, and getting back to the office of the Igf. I think we have to be bold and have to be proactive, forward-looking, and to make proposals, and not wait for being included in consultations as prepared by the Secretary of of these processes. So now I think we should really go forward. This the Itf is an expression of the global multi-stakeholder community. It's it's much beyond an advisory party or something like that. It's really that forum of the global multi-stakeholder community. And we should be bold in making proposals and being relevant. And of course, process is always very important. We know it very well here, and without ownership of the process by the multi-stakeholder community.
One. We will just have a very intergovernmental document at the end of the road, and I don't think that's our intention here. But of course the intergovernment process won't come to us to 100 to say, Hey, come and portate here! That may happen, but we also have to be proactive. And at least that's the intention of the 2 suggestions we've been making during these days. Thank you. Thank you. White men. Thank you. Chan. Yes.
Week here that you have reiterate the points. And yes, I do support that the itf should be the first to to really showcase the the and work that that is working in action for the past 18 years. I just share the link on the Gdc. Deep dive process. The 8 teams. So 1 one practical way is that to see first of all, the Igf 2,022 messages initially, one. And then what we had from the leadership panel on, on shipping the Hi Jeff messages to be shared to the Gdc. Is already underway, but it has. If the itf is represented at each of these 8 sessions. Interestingly, and some of you would agree.
That there are many overlapping issues, for instance, that's one dedicated just on Internet governance. As I said earlier, I believe there is a drafting process plan. So the idea of the what has been discussed here can be shared with the tech. And can be shared with the data I just like to say, in my own personal perspective, here I'm not sure whether that would be taken on board. However, I think the practical approach here is that for Igf to be represented, at this atmatic sessions, including with specific written inputs concisely, but not just to get, you know the Gdc. Or just get them to refer to the link of digit messages. So, but this atmatic dive means to item Gf. And ss, by the Mac, I think there'll be a practical approach.
Thank you. Just I think that's a good suggestion. I mean, and I think I want to just draw a connection back to a couple of days ago. One of the things that the leadership panel is working on, and that I think we all agreed we should make sure it's it's joint work between the Magg and the leadership panel is more crisp concise versions of the messages that came out of Igf.
22, which can be of use to the leadership panel in their ambassadorial role. I think those messages would also be very well suited to this open consultation format. So I'm I'm not sure that should be the extent of it, but I think certainly, if we can prioritize working with the leadership panel to develop those more concise versions of the messages and have them ready for those deep dive sessions as input from the Igf community. I think we should agree sort of as the man today or soon.
How? What the most appropriate way to deliver those would be today or soon, how? What the most appropriate way to deliver those would be. So whether it's having the Mag chair input them during the session itself. That might be an appropriate way. But yeah, no, I. So I think we have some practical steps that we're already going to do that can very much add us in this. Thank you. Thanks. Chair. I think Paul being observer about and I've been observing and participating in the Gdc. Process. So far from the dynamic collisions point of view, I noticed 2 main things. I think first is that people are looking at the Igf to come up with something concrete. I think that that is the message that has been shared broadly. The second is that if I look at the more national regional processes I'm involved with, it's very hard to get. Input basically to the Gdc and in some cases that is because organizations want to present themselves. And if you are in the meetings with the co facilitators, you can see people sending, sending, sending it all from an individual point of view of their own organization, and is that going to be effective? I'm not really certain.
So this could be a role. And I've heard you. Why, I mean quite clearly yet on this. But is there a role for the Igf to magnify these individual messages? But that also means that you have to be able to receive them. But it isn't I think, an ambitious plan that horses is presenting, and as an observer I sort of support it, because that would magnify the role of the Igf. Make it more important, and make sure that we are totally noticed. By the time which is 20, comes along, and this is a great opportunity for us to do so. Let me end there. Thank you.
Thank you very. Thank you. In a scope. Server just wanted to kind of draw the similarities and differences between the principles that are currently proposed for the Gdc. And the and and the ones that we already have endorsed by Member States of by 193 Member States of Unesco for the Rome, which is human rights, openness, accessibility, most stakeholder participation in governance. So the difference, I think, between those 2 is that first one of those you know the Rome they already talk about how governance should be should be carried out for digital ecosystems.
Internet specifically, and the other is that it represents a process that actually has not only the principles, you know, but but a series of indicators that allow for monitoring and measuring. Whether these principles are being upheld, and if they are being upheld, you know what is the distance that exists between you know what is the current status in a particular, you know environment, national space, or whatever and the idea you know let's say of that being upheld. So it used policy recommendations that then allows, you know, for engagement and and participation in terms of advocacy in terms of support, implementation, and so on. And you know what I you think is that you know the Gdc. Eventually will need some type of process like that, you know, just to not to stay in the scope of commitments, but actually to look at how this commitments are going to be implemented, and whether they they are being obtained or not, and what should be you know done, and but prioritizing in those terms.
So we certainly offer, you know, the room as as a kind of a model of an idea of how the Gdc. Eventually, you know, can be contributed. But for the Igf. I think it's really important that that it contributes to this discussion as bringing in the value of most stakeholderism to all these issues that have been discussed because it has a tremendous value. It has a for sighting, you know, element, and in identifying critical issues that that are, you know, emerging in terms of of internet development and digital development. It actually has. You know, this, this opportunity for a collaborative collegial debate on around those issues that you know, that enables some consensus to emerge.
And in I try actually draws together the various groups that need to engage in other. For you know, digital, ecosystems to really, you know, be working for sustainable development. So I think that at least in that regard, in terms of the value of most stakeholderism that should be a contribution of of the Igf to this process, so that it can really talk about not only what the substantive commitment should be in terms of a you know substantive principles and commitments should be, but also the governance element should should bring, you know. But that's a kind of a personal, you know. Observation in that. Thank you. Thank you. Yep, I just like to echo.
What's Chris mentioned about giving creeps, messages? The I believe the Gtc. And both the course firstwater, supported by the tech and boy. They are actually looking at first messaging that could be similar to what we have come up with. Igf Geneva, messaging the other would be more action or rented action. Or intense approaches, like, for instance, some of those issues, whether it's the right time to really do have international norms. And then what would be the multi-stakeholder role in setting the in in in the global norms? This is also to add on to what Marissa mentioned about the multistakeholder. Approach. So to go beyond just repeating the principles which most, if not all, is actually on the table. But to say what's will be the specific action oriented norms regulations need not be need not be prescriptive in terms of already saying, like like the what should be done. But sorry it should be pretty to be clear about to say what should be done, but not to say that who to do it in terms of by the institutional arrangement.
But if there's any need for new institutional arrangement, or even a global institution, to talk about certain certain noms and standards, like, for instance, AI regulation, should that be an international body? So this is actually has been discussed. So that will be the kind of more forward-looking ideas. And which is the vision behind the Secretary General. When he first proposed that we should have a global digital combat. So so again, just just, in short, the messaging to talk about what it should be for the highlighter. And then, second, is the action oriented items. Thank you. Thank you. Chris. Is that right? Anyone else want to come in on this topic? Is that a discussion on whether or not you make an intervention? Or I'm sorry. I think there was. It was a little discussion of. So where are we actually at? In terms of next steps? And processes. Well, to give a very off the top of my head.
Summary. I mean, I think the there's obviously a practical work item on working with the leadership panel on the Chris messages. I think there's a a work item here of contacting and communicating with the co facilitators on to at least open the discussion as to whether they'd be receptive to this kind of a multi-stakeholder drafting proposal. Idea. And we have to find the right way of doing that right? Yeah, absolutely. That's, as I say, a sort of a work item, but one that I don't think we today or tomorrow.
But that's perhaps something, I guess, and that we have. How do we delegate this? And so maybe that's something that working group strategy would be discussing more. Or perhaps it also just makes sense to use the Mag public list to have that discussion. And what we had amongst ourselves. Those are 2, I guess. Main session, I'll analyze session. Obviously, yes, sorry formulation, the co-founder is in the second world. Not just that, but also, how are we engaging on the specific Internet governance Dip, dive on the 13 to payroll? Yeah, yeah, yes. I'm planning on. Yes, planning the online thing. Just before the open consultations, and then also, there was something about the strategy group connecting with Mary Eliza. Yeah. So we got those, okay. I guess we can go to the next segment. We can find out notes. Switching topics. We're going to take a look at the interceptional stuff and. Get ourselves, acclimatize to what's been going on. So we'd like to open up the floor for that. Could I just nominate an update on the best practice forums and have you're right if we have any input on that, we just, we did part of this online when we had the best platforms and the policy networks charted and I don't know if we want updates now, and I think we can.
If anything has been done. If we can. I can just pick audience on the AI. If anything has been done, yet we still have not. Addisa. Yes, we are in the process of as far as updates, as far as the Secretariat is concerned, that we need to get the consultants, and we are in the process of getting that process so that we can advertise for the consultants and then have the consultants assigned to the best practice forums and the policy networks. While that has been done, I do hope that there will be some discussion. The groups and the mailing list are becoming active on that part. But the consultants are we just going through the pipeline? Yeah, thank you. Chang Itai. This is Alisa. Just be clear. Are we like moving to five-thirty on the agenda? What we have discussed, as far as the chair, and I can see is that we have discussed the strategic vision we've discussed the versus 20, and we have discussed those parts underneath that agenda.
But please correct us if we should have further discussions under that topic. If not, then we can do that, and then do zoom any other businesses, because some people did approach us with other suggestions. So. Yes. As a matter of fact, we're just skipping that because it seems that we had summarized. And but we're open. Yeah. And yeah, so to what extent you, we already have some clarity about which main sessions we should be looking towards preparing, or is that sorry for my ignorance? But that's fine, but I'm gonna be in the second open communication.
But as Bruno did say that there was an more or less solid basis for the discussion on the with the first 20 session that you were talking about, there's no reason why it you cannot start that session now, just to make sure that it is strong but the tradition is that yes. we do it in June, but we don't have to follow tradition all the time. Okay? And then one more follow-up question. So we've been mentioning it a couple of times that we could have lia zones to the separate kind of working groups of the leadership panel. Is it? Do we already want to appoint people in this meeting, or will that? Or will we take that well offline or online just if you wanna see it on the mailing list? And decide there. We can take it. Yeah, because this Mag meeting is an official meeting meeting. We have people here. And we have people online who are not supposed to be here.
So? Who can't make it here, and as a matter of efficiency, I think it is, it may be prudent to see if we can appoint the Daisons here, because the work is going on. And do we want to wait that period? So if you want to, we can start discussing that. Do we want to? Okay, who does? Who does not want to discuss it here and want wants to discuss it online? Again. This meeting is for you. So yeah, if you want to do it now we can. Or if you want to. If you think that it's fair to do it online, we can do that too. Let's do it now, at least like have a at least some sort of a show of hands, whether they would be volunteers for these groups, and how could be the relationship between the 2 groups, because we don't also don't wanna overstep you Paul.
We know you're only his own with the Lp. As well, so it will be good to have a good discussion on this. And how can we work together? Sure! Well, I'm open to and likes her here. This is your opportunity to to make the case. Just for Perks of kind of team. Could we maybe have the groups on the screen? So everybody can see it. Yes, but I just asked for that. Yeah, yeah, we're just getting ready the options for the group. I mean for the main group, of course, that's Paul. So that's fine. But then they as groups HD, and that's the ones that we are looking at. So. And just while that's happening, and this is just throwing back to the previous agenda item, I've just in the chat there put a list of the actions that we were discussing there.
So actually, when when you lay it out, there's a a few different ones. But if we can also, I'll have them captured, and if we can make sure that they're noted, and if people see that I've forgotten any, and please just let me know okay, while they're being put up, there's group a which is awareness raising and outreach, and then base group B, which is inputs to the itf and liaison with the Mag and group C, which is fundraising and group D, which is opportunities for substantive contributions and guidance.
So the leads from the leadership panel for these for Group A, which is awareness raising an arch reach is. Christopher Shubert from Poland. He's the lead for Group A for group B Inputs to the Idf and he hasn with a Mag. It's been Surf. Who is the lead there? And for Group C on fundraising. It is also Pinsf! Who is the that the lead on the leadership panel for fundraising and group D opportunities for substantive contributions and guidance. Is Lisa sure? She's the lead there. Yeah. So we can start off with Group A, do we have any volunteers for, or a volunteer for? Ohness, raising and outreach! Who would want to be the okay later? Thank you very much, so we'll just put Lita's name there there's no objection to that.
Nope, check. Online, none. So that's fine. And then my, the next could be inputs to the Igf and liaison with the Mag. Cool. We have to I don't think we necessarily need one group C on fundraising. I think, okay, Chris, thank you and group D opportunities for substantive contributions and guidance. And I'm also checking online to see if there's somebody online who would like to volunteer. Okay, and. Okay, thank you. So we'll go with those and I'll just about the chair of the leadership panel. And once he just gives us okay, and I'll make sure that you join the mailing list. I think that should be fine. Yes, little. Just a logical question. Each of one is to pass who are legal songs to these groups. We're supposed to maybe be invited to their meetings, and the specific group and the mailing list. My question is well, I assume that is will be the case.
But I assume as Paul as a share is also the will. He be optionally in each of these meetings, or only in the whole leadership, panel meeting, or it's a logistical question. Yes, thank you. Paul will be I'm just answering for him, just in case he has other ideas. Paul is on the leadership panel. He's the main dizz on, and he is in some of the groups, as you can see. Group B is already there, but there's a difference between being there, and so I don't think we should exclude them. But does that make sense? And most of these groups? And we're talking about invitation to groups A, B and C, and these groups are usually done online. So they shouldn't be any difficulty on that. Yeah. Yes, Bruno. No, I think it's worth discussing this with them as well, because the way we proposed the Lia Zones was mostly to help share the communication load back and forth between the 2 groups. Help like, inform the 2 groups, and have more oriented and even more rented decisions, and share a lot more about it.
It's not like the Mag. Once you influence the Lp in any way, it's just that we would like to at least know a little bit. Better about the discussion. So it's more us proposing to be fully contributive to the discussion didn't help following them. So that's yeah. I think it was understood that it's basically just to help enhance coordination amongst the 2, etcetera. And according to my understanding, was very receptive to that. So I'll just, you know, communicate with him to tell him what the discussion and the decision was. And then once he says, Okay, we'll do that. I don't foresee any problems as such. Yeah. Yes, your flag is up. Sorry minus for the Pm. Oh, for this. Okay, before we move on to that, because we are shrinking the schedule a little bit.
Any other thing we should be discussing on this topic. Breeder. Yes, just about the main session. I I wanted to put myself forward to help organize it. So, my, to. So we can start discussing it now, because, assuming this main session on the process would be a very high level one. It would be good to get the agendas blocked as soon as possible, so, putting myself forward to help drive, do you have any other? Contribution and suggestion on this. How big? Sorry I'm pumping back and forth for my computer strategic vision, for the feature of the Igf.
If not, if it's okay, we can go to the next talk. Okay policy networks. Yeah, thank you. I just want to briefly explain some of the changes that put that on on the proposal on the policy network on AI, especially those that we're Delta them, that we're not adopted. So the first one was concerning the description, so, as it reflected idf messages, so we could not adopt any changes on the idea of messages.
That's it, was advised to maintain them as they are. So there were some changes made in document previously on on the Igf messages we chose to to just maintain the Igf messages as they are, and not fall into paraphrasing the second part. Was also to to sort of distinguish additional description that was added as not part of the Igf. Messages, especially the one on participation of representative from the global South. That should be actively promoted. So we sort of made sure that this is distinctive, and the idea of messages remain tagged in the description. But the more I think the other changes that we're done. Where to explain father data. Governance as it was sort of broad. So I think what? Hey? Here helped us define what was meant by data. Governance, and it was added that he's such principles and rules, aiming at avoiding bias in gender ethnicity class.
In data sets use train AI systems, principles and rules on how data sets are governed by the community and or what degree of control is attributed to citizens related cross-border issues, and more the other part was on on a fully multi-stake called approach with bottom up model with a global south inputs. So this was also added, and lastly, to cooperate with actors and groups interested in this area, with a special focus on UN agencies. I think Eric also let emissions links just to unesco A. I work adopted by Member States. Yeah, so those are the changes that were meant. Thank you very much. And did you manage? Could you also reshare the document just on the Magg list? So that people have a copy.
Great. Let me do that. Okay. Thank you very much. Bruna. Hmm, just a brief update on the policy network on fragmentation. We we have already shared this proposal for this year with you guys on the previous meeting. So my notice is much shorter just that we contacted the multi-stakeholder. The group that helps steer the Pni F, and we're checking whoever wants to continue in that. And whether we need new members, and also after that, and once we have the consultant, did she host the first meeting for this year? Just so we can help start actually starts. And in terms of outreach. We also have in minds to reach out, to summarize.
We do think that their participation would be key for this year other than that. Some work forces such as the Itf and in other spaces that work on the more technical layers and of the fragmentation discussion, and to contact the Wf. And as well for this year, apart from the conversation with the UN. Tech and by office. So lot of this is yet to be well defined and validated with Themwg and the brother on Pnf. Community. But that's our plan so far. Or the policy metric on fragmentation in any questions. We have had, you know, several reviews of these. Just yes, at least. Yeah, just more on a collaborative note for the AI group is again sorry for my ignorance.
And. Does this? How does this group is interact with with other organizations and groups dealing with AI. So, for example, Gpa. And well, there are many more. AI initiatives and groups, and it would be good to hear a little bit more about that. I think. Thanks. Thank you. Would you want to answer that? Yeah, I just wanted to mention that part of the engagement. Now plan is also cooperation with that, and groups interested in the same area with a special focus on new agencies and collaborating organizations. Yeah. And also we stand as a secretary as well, if they need help, to update to other organizations that we may have better contacts with, we will do that. I mean Unesco he has represented, but also it. You has got an AI track as well, so we will invite them to come and collaborate, and they have in the past for the others. Yeah. And also please keep asking your questions. That is very good, and it's also good for us to rethink things that we are doing as well.
We shouldn't just be doing them because we've done them in the past. We should see that there is logic to them, and that they are contributing to the betterment of the process. Thanks. Just had a proceeding. Hmm, it's a procedural question for the Pnai. If they had started on the what does it call the working group? That's I mean, helps share the load help like, organize the work initially and it takes a little time. So I'm not sure where they stand on this, but it would be good to know I'm so sorry you have to ask the question again. Multi-cholder working group, the group that we normally create to help steer the Pms. The Pnf. Has one. Yes, the more the administrative kind of group. Yes, there's a question whether the Pinai already has one or is still forming, creating.
From notch. I don't think not yet created. Yes, but we will be assisting, and also when the consultant comes. Consultant can also assist with that. Well, yeah, thanks, Shinji, is this new policy network? Okay, because we started the network working group in the dynamic coalition in the Standard Security Center Security safety on this topic. And we have a proposal out which is now being considered for funding. So we may be starting to do things double in this regard. So is there a way to discuss how to move forward if we hear next week? 2 weeks from now maximum, whether we have the funding to start work. Researcher that is paid with the Coordinator being me. And yes, there is. This is a new one. The Mega agreed that to charter it, and thank you for informing us so. Yes, we could look into it. I mean this, I mean, we have to look at the buzz. Both documents to see whether or not they are. They do align. But yes, I mean there's no reason why we cannot. Well, you know, from either merge completely or collaborate in some sense, so that we're not duplicating the work, but they does definitely need to be some sort of a discussion, and I propose that well, maybe not now, but we can have a call if either next week.
Or the following week, just to have a discussion on that, and see what's needed to be done, so that's it's not a jobication. Yeah, so this is Wellton. I think this is an excellent suggestion. And just when they could see if it's totally different. Well, that is it same. And, as I say, we have this proposal out, and we hope to have a positive reaction in the next 2 weeks.
So, let's take it from there. Yes, hmm, thanks. So that's another action item. Because. So we have more. Is there somebody here from the? So any of my glasses. I think it's cyber security right? We haven't heard one. We haven't heard from. Yes, please. Thank you. Human being a member. We don't have any update here to share about the document that we have already shared to you in our last meeting. But currently currently the coordinating team is working on on the launch of the first kickoff will, it will be next few days. So we don't have a substantive update yet. Okay, thank you. And it is understandable. I mean, it was just now, and we're still getting the consultant.
But hmm, thank you. And then I think the pnma meaningful access. Anybody for meaningful access here. Whose name shall I call out? Sorry. Yes, thank you. So the call facilitators are, Jack from Maxon and Niema. The new mag number. Semina is not on the call now, and Jack on one. He will join after. During the afternoon during the agenda slot. For this item. Okay, I think as well. That's one of the results of finishing a bit early. The other again, items, so we'll see if we can get him on. If not, then will have to do it later on.
Thank you. I think that's it. The first thing to do is as I've underlined. We are in the process of getting the consultants. Please do not let that stop you. Starting to formulate the groups and to discuss the initial plans. Where the consultants will come. It's just a process that we have to go through, and we will be doing that. So that's for the best practice forums and the policy networks. Right yes, yes, just a reminder on the first day of the meeting we discussed hosting this conversation between the inner eyes and intersectional work so to put this on our action points as well, because we wanted to promote some more because there's a lot of overlapping stuff and I think well, it's example. It's a good one on how this 2 spaces of the should be. Doing this conversation, and it's not often that they do so. Just to remind us, okay, thank you. I'm looking at. Did we have cyber security? Some security.
Sorry. That's the one. That's why it skipped my head. Okay, slide, I'm gonna look at him again. Because I think, instead of saying cybersecurity, I should have said dynamic coalitions right? Correct. Yes, I have 2 very concrete proposals to make, and I sort of question to ask an information point. Maybe the information points first vote has started a document which shows the work plans of the dynamic collisions we have this year, and it is actually quite impressive. All the work that is underway, the concrete proposals I already made, that on the very first day of the open consultations, a coordinating group of the dynamic collisions would like to make a proposal that we have an intercessional meeting of all the components of intercessional work.
That is the policy networks, best practice forums the Nris and the dynamic collisions to discuss how better to integrate the have made this time and again they should be better integrated into the overall program that we have never been very successful in doing so and we think it will be helpful that we have open discuss discussion among all these components of intersectional work in the first reaction, or what I think, a concrete proposal was to set up a working group. Maybe we could do that, that we have a representative of Nris and representative of each people. Policy network, and also once the dynamic collisions to propose an agenda. How to do that. Our proposal was that we should have it. Maybe in conjunction with the next open consultation, have also a physical meeting. I could be type again, be part of a hybrid in a hybrid format.
To. Deep in this discussion. So this is one concrete proposal, the other concrete proposal was, we had over the years, always had a Mike member, being part as a co-facilitator of the coordinating group, and we felt as we have deepened our work this should be maybe officialized. Currently, it is Adam who is co-facilitator of the coordinating group let the 2 be visualized, and Adam himself made this proposal that it should be officially assaulted to the DC. And maybe have a deputy in case he can't be on the call but there's always some mag representatives on the calls of the DC. Coordinating group. So to have a better interaction between the Mark and the Dcs. And lastly, I do have a question. I became preview to a query from the office of the tech Envoy as one of the DC's.
Submitted a proposal to the Tech envoy consultation on the Gdc. And to take Invoice office, asked, are they entitled to use the UN. Emblem, and the Igf logo, and there we would need to have guidance and I think it will be helpful if the D season know where they are. In my opinion they are not entitled to use the UN. Emblem as they are not part of an integral process. But there, I would like to ask for an official guidance from I don't know that you or be that.
Why mean from UN, so that we can get back to the DC. And tell them what they're allowed to do and what's not. He saw my concrete points. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. As far as Coordination group is concerned. Yes, the Secretary can support that. Is there a mailing list? We can make up a mailing list so that you have the. The group where you can coordinate these and I think yes, that's a very good idea, as far as the liaison. I'm it's is that okay, that we have an official liaison to the dynamic coalitions. I don't see any objection. And then my second question is, does anybody want to be the deputy well, let's just say co liaison. Let's not have deputy. It's Cody is on. Hmm! I'm asking for volunteers. Yes, Alisa, could it? Maybe be before someone can say yes or no.
How much time would it consume? And so how often do they meet? How long on the meetings? Just a little bit more background information, because I don't know if I would say yes. What I'm saying. Yes, to Marcus roughly. Once a month, 1 h. Call so. It's not heavy, heavy in terms of commitment. I will get back to this, but I will not say yes right now. Sorry shall we put your name in pencil? PIN pencil. Now, as far as the use of the UN. Ambulance concerned. We the UN. Is very particular with when that is used, and it can only be used bye people who are either the UN. Secretary at all. The sister organizations. So DC's national and regional initiatives cannot use the things that are produced by this secretariat itself. Yes, because we are part of the UN. But the associated, the bodies, such as you know, dynamic collisions, etc.
Cannot use the UN emblem I don't know if Wyman wants to add anything. Yeah, so it's not a debate. It's not a question. It's just a plain note. Okay. The idea of emblem is different, but it's and I give him without the UN emblem. Yes. Another idea of emblem you cannot use in any shape whale form something that looks remotely close to the UN.
Emblem on your, on whatever you are, because it may be mistaken for an official. UN. Document which has to go through certain processes. So you cannot have that. And how can I say to my members that I'm not recognized by the Igf if I can't use it? The Igf emblem, and it's not nothing zoom feature, and that's my nri. I is a nonfictional one. How can I say that I am the real one? That's representing Italy, for instance, the Igf, okay. Again. I went to to listen to me as well. I mean you can have your you know it. Italian idea. That's fine, you know. It's that's you can have at the bottom, you know, recognized by the UN id of secretariat, which is a different from having your mum.
And then that thing. But again you have to be careful that content shouldn't be said that it is blessed by the Itf. Because it hasn't been through the Mac. It hasn't been through any other formal processes it's just same with the DC. 's, I mean, I hope that's clear. But why is it't been through any other formal processes? It's just same with the DC. I mean, I hope that's clear. But Whyyman is maybe more eloquent than me, and explaining Hmm, no. I think you have has many. Clearly, I just share the link on the is a Pdf document on the use of the unmble to do my test.
Your question. I think the recognition as of now the recognition of an Ni is in the Icf website, right? So that's the official recognition. And I think that is the mechanism. When we look at. Look at the status of an Ni. But moving forward, I think that will be perhaps part of the consideration of of this, plus 20, or I share, plus 20, in how to how to really to better recognize the integral, the integral, the role of the Ni in the IQ process. So but I will say we have to work on what we've, but we have now, which is currently the process very much coordinated by Anya, as your Nobel, and it is true Igf Websites. Thank you. Yeah. So you can stay recognized by the idea. But it's not. We're not endorsing everything that comes out because you know, that needs some sort of a betting. Yeah. Yes. Choice. Thanks. Jingotai. I have no comments about the Igf Emblem issue.
So we're moving on from it, and I'll continue. Yes. And yes. Okay, yeah, I'm the same on the on the emblem. Yes, it's thank you, Shannon. Not that we were thinking about it as the Isdc. But is the difference, then, that a best practice forum and a policy network have a paid consultant by the Secretariat, and that dynamic coalition? Some of them go through exactly the same process with vetting it by presenting it at the Igf. And that is the reason that we can't use the emblem. So is there a solution? If a DC. Would want to use it to make it an official? Igf documents. So is there an out of the box? Solution thinkable that would make it a real if, outcome through the it process we can discuss. I mean, what I'm saying is that there's no blanket recognition. That's it. If you have your final report, let's say, and then you submit it to the Secretariat.
We can have some sort of formulation that we can agree on to have that to make sure that you have that connection. But I'm just saying that you cannot automatically just say, Okay, well, you know, we can just plust that the emblem. In way it. We have to consider it carefully. So thank you. One other request to the nag. If I allow to make it as a demo coalition, Marcus summarized my point quite accidentally, I'd like to add one request that in July you'll have decided on the working groups on the open forums, etc. That there may be tie in to some of the dynamic coalitions. There could be workshops on health, on health, there could be workshops on security, there could be, etc. So? Is there a way to link the intercessional work to the incidental work? Basically that is happening once.
So that's the that the work that we've been doing all the other way around that we can get fresh input into the work that we are doing so that there is a true interaction in the program and that would make also the messages probably a lot stronger so is that a way that the Mac would sort of liaise between the intercessional work. And let's call it incidental work. I think there is, and I think that would need to be discussed between the well in the working group that Marcus is saying to be set up, and the Mag liaisons can come and give feedback, and if the magazines we can have some sort of linkages as you've been saying in in the program. But yes, that needs to be a discussion, and that needs to be discussion in the Mag as well. And then we see, but there's no, there's nothing stopping it. Put it that way. Yeah, yes, Iisa, thank you. What may, as a first step help? Is that the do that that was apparently has made on all the work of the dynamic collisions could be shared.
Then also for for members, whenever the proposals come in, and they have this list in mind, it would also help them, or well, at least would help me thinking, hey, wait! This session proposal looks really a lot like was some dynamic coordination. Doesn't. Well, either it could be merged, or could at least help with bringing people together. I think. Yes, thank you, Liz, and then I would also, you know, just sponsoring of that. I'd also suggest that you also lay with pieces group on the workshop, evaluations, etc. So they could make sensation. This, the workshop form.
But then there's also the evaluation process. So maybe that could be integrated somehow. But I'll that will be a discussion that you'd have to have. Yeah. Any other discussion on the emblem. Logo. Yes, no, excuse me, but I don't want to see I've been noted. But it's just for telling. Idf is a very important really topic, because we're not supported by the government. We are so not a government association. So it's a we are some volunteers that from the bottom we create something that's for us is really important to have a connection with dynamic collision, because in a sort of way, we give it to our membership, whatever the people who are involved in our process, and our community of Igf to be in a sort of way linked with the international Igf, that because I keep striking about the emblem, about the be recognized by the UN, because otherwise Nataly came up a lot of Igf because the government is not is not is more than enough.
So we are some people like in some other States, that we will really work a lot of voluntary just to be a part of our community. This is for us, I was. I'm sorry if I keep saying, but it's really important. It's just this, because he is here, Paula and I will like just to make some an instance of that. We have a company that I cannot say the name, but I'm glad that you are here. I'm excuse me, but I try to be a politically correct that is involving in international Igf.
But it's not supporting the Italian one, because they have some doubts that we are not very the real Igf in Italy. We're not supported by the Government, do we? And we are not recognized by UN. You know, that's how we're real problem. You can have that wording recognized by the idea. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Hmm. Hmm, yeah, no, I mean, you can't have that wording somewhere, and we can. You can discuss it with Anya. That wording. Yes, it's there. It's just that you shouldn't have wording. That would suggest that all your outputs, our official idea of outputs. That's that's a different matter. Yeah. Thanks. Jingaai. I'm not sure that this is an issue, that the Mag is able to provide any advice at the moment.
I'm not sure this is something, you know, that can be discussed in any really substantive way. I know Whyyman has put that the link in the zoom chat for those who are interested to understand how the use of the end user UN emblem should be done. So I I suggest those of you who are interested to go take a look at the link and familiarize yourselves with the rules and the guidelines, and if this really is an issue that needs to be tabled to the mag I suggest we do it at the next meeting I put it in the agenda for discussion, otherwise I'd suggest we move on. Having said that we did talk a bit about engagement between the international work, the Dcs. The policy networks the best practice forums with the Nris, and I do have a concrete suggestion for an action point, which is, might we invite, perhaps, whoever is coordinating the DC.
S someone from the pns and the Bpfs to attend the Nri meetings or the coordination sessions, and have some time to just promote Update on the work that's been done. And then, you know, let them have the opportunity to. Then talk to the Nris, to also seek members into into their working groups, so there could be a two-way conversation. I know the Nri meetings tend to be very packed. It's also for the Nris to have dialogue amongst one another. But if we want to have a closer connection, perhaps we could try and build into the agenda a bit when they meet, just to have, you know, different groups coming in and providing some information about the work that's being done in the Igf space at large, thanks yes, we were gonna have an an update from the Nris.
And I think that one can also, you know, be answered by our the Nri Coordinator in our office. We can have it now. I was gonna go through the working groups in the Nris. But you can switch it around. That's fine. If you are you ready, you know. Yes, thank you. And maybe I'll start by responding to Joyce. We have had those practices in past where the facilitators of the international work would join the Nri meetings, and they would brief them, even consult them on some matters which are important to them.
In addition to that, some of the international work facilitators would address the methodology of collecting inputs specifically through the Nr, I need. So, for example, you know that in past Ppfs would create special set of surveys or pools, just for the Nris. So it would be different than to the brother community. I think, and I thought I, as an another, I focal point, and I'm sure I can speak also for the. And I'm sure I can speak also for you and our colleagues that are here, and they are here that practice really is welcome to continue and I'm sure I can speak also for you and our colleagues that are here and here. That practice really is welcome , but what I see as an issue in the past couple of years is that the analysts collectively are becoming busier and busier with the joint activities that they are coordinating and trying to deliver at the global level and they're certainly busier and busier at their individual levels, and colleagues that are here associated with an arise.
Can. A new choice probably can also confirm that, because I think the processes are really growing in substance, in logistics as well at the Nri levels. So we probably need to brainstorm a little bit on what's the most effective methodology to work with the Nri colleagues to use just time efficiently, but I think there's will, and that's probably the most important. That awareness is there, and willingness so with that, maybe I can just say a few words about the Nris and all overall update. So now we are at a 156, officially recognized, and arise just for the sake of transparency. I'll inform you that the Secretariat is in really intensive communication with a couple of teams which are eager to establish their own national or sub regional youth practices. So they are based in 9 countries I have on my list so in Cambodia, Iran, Maldives, Mali, we're also speaking with Pakistan a lot about the Utah of establishment Central American iitf as a sub regional one Kyrgyzstan, and also with Nicaragua.
There are also some intentions from Libya to establish the Libya youth. Igf, there is a national Igf already in place, and I think especially on the letter. One. I think this year we will see progress in there, because the North African Igf is happening in in Tripoli, so that probably will give some fruitful ground for stakeholder engagement. There, speak collectively about the Nris. We spend the first 2 months in intensive discussions about what the network wants to do for this year. I think last year showed to be quite successful. So a set of activities that were delivered last year will be full of those. So this year. But I'll just tell you very quickly what the analyze agreed. Annual work plan is about and what are the objectives? So one of the objectives certainly is to prepare collectively for the Kyoto Igf.
The set of activities there will be focused again on asking for for a main session for up to 5 collaborative session on different issues which we are now discussing, and also the big questions session. There is already, I think, appetite to discuss the sustainability better cooperation at the global level. Better way to support the underrise. So those are some of the subjects that that emerged now, and one addition is that there is a strong need for a boot at the Igf village in Kyoto as a space where in an informal maybe a way exchanges can happen between the analyze, but also between the community. So we'll see to organize that and request one for this year, and and also there's been a strong demands to improve the communication from the side of the secretariat over dnris but also among the Anris.
So one of the one of them ways to do that that was proposed, and seems that we will be implementing is Quarterly Newsletter to be established. To go on the mailing list and then to start some discussions on the mailing list which are thematic, because so far the mailing list is our really motivated for just the work objectives that we agree on. So it's pretty much work related. And now there are. There is demand that we start discussions on topics which are of interest to the enterprise. That's what I mentioned, maybe about sustainability, about funding.
But maybe even thematically. So the Secretariat will support that following the demand that comes from the coordinators. And and finally, I would like just to say a few words about the youth track, because it relates to the underized work, I mean, certainly the youth track is not LED exclusively just by the Nris, but probably the strongest driving force behind it are the Nr. I coordinators. Those who are running the U. T. Gs, and maybe I can quickly share my screen. I think it's a pity not to show the list of the coordinators that are working on this. Yes. So I think on the screen you will see that we are working with more than I think. 30 youth, Igfs. Those are really wonderful colleagues. Helping us to shape and design, implement the Holy with Igf track, and we already had quite a number of meetings and now I'm gonna create share with you.
One slide, just quite a number of meetings to understand what's the bottom up? Desire for the focus of last year's track on digital transformation that this year we build on the outcomes and the messages from last year, and to focus on trust and security areas so that probably will be aligned with the Igf sub teams as well so save digital future. Is basically the motto of the of the youth track, and the structure will be similar to last year, where we would have 4 interconnected capacity development workshop focused on particular issues nested under the main team of secure cybersecurity. And trust we are discussing still with the colleagues of the regional Igfs on the exact dates. But the it's been confirmed that the 4 capacity development workshops will be hosted hybrid format and implemented, together with the regional Ig, so I think the first one will be a thorough dig in Finland.
African, Igf, Latin American igf, the youth one as well as the Api Igf, and all that then feeds into the big global Ud summit, which will be hosted on day 0 in in Kyoto. We are hoping again for the messages from mute, and then finally, if you're asking me what could be the issues that the particular issues that are of interest for young people, that's something that we will be discussing about the end of this month, on our call but we did.
Have among the youth quiteordinators of pool, and it was interesting to see that AI, for example, as cybersecurity implications, is of their highest interest. Privacy, security freedom of expression online, but also child online safety and capacity development to try, I think, is always one of the top topics, whichever issue that you're discussing. So that would be on on the youth. Check just a few words, and happy to respond to any of the questions we have. Thank you. Yes, choice. Thanks very much, Anya, for the update. Very comprehensive. Just wanted to make a comment, not of question, to say, very proud of the youth track for having the 2,020 free motor. I think that kind of should pressure the Mag to also, you know, finalize on main theme and the subtracts as well. And then, perhaps the question leading on to that. It's not for you, but maybe before watching, a tie in the chairs, if we would continue that discussion today regarding the tracks, or are we looking to bring that to the mailing lists? Or is that what is the thinking around it? Thanks. Yes, the thinking is both.
But yes, we do have final formulation that we but we let's finish this, and then we'll discuss that. Yes, Alyssa, can we maybe go back to the sheet where? Which has the overview of the topics. Youth are interested in. Sure! Has it were quite small letters and a lot of things, but if I look well, if I was looking correctly, I didn't see any anything really on the more technical part of well, how is the Internet governed, or how? So maybe looking more things I can do or on standardization.
I understand this is a bottom up process, but I think it's also really quite important that youth also maybe get educated about how the Internet really works. So, and maybe it's also something that can go 2 ways. And well. Partially. Also he fed to the youth how well, just maybe a concrete suggestion is, I'm probably I can. Does already get involved with the anrisal, with the youth track. But maybe some presentations, just to get them also a bit more up to speed with the more technical side of the Internet. And well in the Netherlands we make the distinction of regulation of the Internet and regulation on the Internet. And here are a lot of topics of things that happen on the Internet, and not of how the Internet is structured. And I do think that well, in all these organizations people are aging, and it's good to have young new people also getting interested in it, and partly you get interested when you know more. So I think this is also a really good opportunity to get them involved and slightly more knowledgeable about about these processes.
Thank you. Lisa. Also, before any response. Maybe you want to blend in the capacity development angle as well. Yes, no, thank you very much. Alisa well, one of the demands of a young people for years now has been that they don't speak to themselves in silos. They really welcome cooperation, and, secondly, specifically with the Mg. As well. So I think maybe building on your proposal, it'd be good to approach them. Those meetings that we're having completely open to everyone and share with them, and see the Secretariat certainly is always willing within its capacity, to support the implementation of travel activities that are of interest to young people.
But also for the better cooperation between senior stakeholders. And you. We did follow the bottom up. Yes, selections of the Yan people, but certainly that doesn't prevent us to limit us to go beyond that. And I think you're very much right. Those topics are exotic to some areas. I think. And then just maybe to connect that with the capacity development. This year we are again going to pursue the capacity, development of the Capacity development strategy similar to last year, and through the capacity development we are also trying to respond again within our capacity to the demand of the community and there are those demands which you said especially from the newcomers. They're not necessarily young people, certainly, but they are interested to understand better the technical layers and functionality of the Internet before going into policy.
And we will adjust our capacity development workshop program to also respond to those technical layers. And I mean given certainly your great proposal. I'll be then free to start communicating with the Mag through you, firstly, and see from there how that can develop. Yeah. Yes, hmm, hmm! On this topic, which I think is very important. How much relationship is there between the youth? Igf proposals and several schools of government Internet governance around the world that could be a very good. So energy between both, so we could arrange by region, if possible, having the use Igf proponents or leaders somehow being obliged to to take one of these school governance programs. Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much. Lisa. That's something that also emerged, I think, on one of the underlying meetings.
The need to cooperate more and also support more schools on Internet governance. So I'll pass on this to the youth coordinators as well to specifically run this cooperation with the U. S. Thank you. I? Yes! Oh, yes, I'm Richard, please hmm! Thank you. Changette. I think the involvement of youth in mainstream discussion is important, and that was specified by the youth during one of the working group. Ig. F strategies. So perhaps, when we are discussing the teams or the main sessions, etc. We could think of kind of mainstreaming the youth engagement. There regarding the topics. They are interested in. I think this is, you know, while all the aspects are important, I think globally, this is what they felt was important, but of course, if there are other discussions on, I can or any other places, and I personally, know few of the youth who are in the Ipan engagements that would help, but I think if they want to discuss these topics, it is something they feel is relevant for them, and we may want to respect.
That also. Thank you. I'm Richard. Chris, so Brina, Chris, Chris, yeah. Yeah. So on, the use track issue. I think I agree with a lot of what's been said here. I think there are a lot of different opportunities, whether it's 6 or in session work, or just generally the sort of broader ecosystem where it's good to do what we can to work with the use track and with these participants to as i'm ready just says, here in the chat mainstream. The youth engagement on all discussions. So I think that should be a real priority. I know we've had some interconnection just recently with the working group strategy. And these track participants. And I know Lily. It. But I'm sorry about the pronunciation. We joined the last working group strategy call and gave a good update on where the youth track was at, and we had some discussions. There, as I mentioned, about possible youth seat on the Mag, but I think that there is a need here, and as we've discussed for a lot of different, if it's to connect the youth track and use participants with everything else that's going on, so I think that's also something for the intercessional work coordinates to take away and sort of look at what the different international groups and activities can do to engage with youth.
There one question I had for Anya, and this is stepping away from the use and back to the Nris activity. You mentioned. They're talking about a main session at the Igf 2,023 focused on sustainability. Is that sustainability of the enterprise themselves, or sort of environmental sustainability issues. Yes, so that's so. Not for the main session. That's for this traditional coordination session. Like a open work meeting between the and everyone else. But yes, sustainability of their practices. So it's a very broad concept. It relates to funding, certainly, but also to just people involved the human factor. That's some interesting. Yeah, that sounds very timely and relevant. So quite good to hear. Anybody else, youth, capacity, development, questions. Suggestions for improvement, working with Mac for the sorry. I'm as far as the youth goes, with the I just wanna make this very, very short having a youth seat on the Mac I mean, there is the option of it's good to know what you think.
But of course we have to, and have the discussion in New York, but instead of a youth seats per se, I mean, okay, that's one option which I'm a little bit hesitant of, for we don't want to really expand. We can have youth observers like they can pick 2 youth observers like we have for the Igos. That's another option that we can have, or we can make sure that within the 40 members we make sure that one, not just one, but a couple of the rick, a couple of the magn members who are replaced because the use are not just standalone use right? They are used that do work for organizations that are in the the stakeholder groups that we have already established.
And again. I'm a bit wary of expanding the stakeholder group, because once you have one, then we'll have a whole number of requests. So since you've put in use why don't we have this? Why don't we have indigenous? Why don't we have, you know, underrepresented, and it just goes wild. Yes, Chris. Yeah, what you're saying in your second point. There, I think, is very something that resonates well with me now I think it would be I don't want to speak for you and I certainly think it's better that we engage with the youth track participants to see what they're if they have a preference, but I absolutely agree. I think observers doesn't seem quite right to me. I think that sort of does. Yeah, establish this sort of quasi stakeholder group on the side. And I'm not sure that's the best way. And I mean, I think, if to the extent that that's necessary, that's all.
Already there with the youth track, I guess, and I think my. If I was to have a preference, or if I, if I was to see to sort of speak to what I see, is the best. It's something like what you're saying there, which is simply in selecting Mag members from the existing stakeholder communities to really make a strong effort to include among those individuals who have strong existing connections to the use track and to the sort of use participant group there. Now I yes, so whether that's sort of it's enough to make that aspirational. Well, a couple of years of trying that would would tell whether that's enough, and if it doesn't happen, then maybe a more formalized approach would be necessary. But yeah, I think for me, if there was a sort of good faith effort in this year's Mag renewal process to include among those seated at least a couple, or at least one or 2 who have strong existing connections downstream connections to the use track and it's activities.
I think that would be useful, because then they we can trust them to bring into into the sort of mag discussions and process the perspectives from that youth track discussion. Thank you. Chris noted Bruno. Thank you, I was just gonna point out that this is yet another issue of diversity and representation. In another space of the Ijf that we have been discussing a lot. Even the use issue is a matter of it's yet another sign, all like signal, of how much we could improve diversity in our space. But for now I would say like in terms of mag members, and how we feel the slots for members. My only recommendation would be to make the criteria for diversity a bit stronger on that sense like, so make sure we can bring you for representatives, but not just them. Other communities and other parts, because going back to yesterday's discussion on whether we would include academia on the form or not, for us to compromise on bringing youth now will be a little confusing, because we didn't decide anything yesterday about a much more accurate stakeholder much more a much older stakeholder in this process, and now we're doing like a different kind of a similar discussion.
But for a different stakeholder, so I'll be wary of like. Maybe us being forcing the diversity criteria for feeling the Maxlots, for now and then do a broader discussions on like what are the actual stakeholders or not, because I do I come from one of those movement is all and I know that their main requests should be acknowledged as one stakeholder, and I know that there's like this huge discussion on whether or not they are one. So to be aware of that as well, maybe, for now what we can also suggest is, we are talking a lot about the so maybe we can have a liaison with the youth track to bring the discussions as well to the mag and see how can we fit this. Into the brother sub teams, discussion and workshop, selection, and and so on. So that's one suggestion let's try to have a liaison or Julie as owns with the use track, so we can bring information as well, and enhance coordination.
Thank you, Bruno, so I would suggest that maybe if Anya could discuss that with the youth that we could offer A at the moment liaison's and see what they say about that. A big plan. Oh, Amita! And then Joyce! Thank you. Chengatai. I tend to agree with you that, as in, we need to have a diverse Mac, for sure. But categorizing. And specifically, you know, I would use the word quota. I may be wrong for a particular section of a community, maybe a wrong way, but I think we should have capable people coming in. They may be. Young people who bring in need their views not necessarily coming from the Ukraine, and in that context I do like Bruno's idea of having a liaison, because then you have the people who are actually working at the you chat. Someone there to kind of share ideas. But if we want to bring in the quota system of okay, we have to have youth, then we will also save.
We need people with disability being there, or from certain communities, etc. I don't think we should go down that road, at least at this point of time. We need to have that diverse people. Yes, but do we need to bracket it? I guess. No, thank you. Thank you, Amita Joyce. Thanks very much. Changa. Tight, Joyce. Chin, Mcmmber. Pardon my ignorance, but perhaps, could someone just sort of run through the process of the youth track? And whether there's a already existing engagement with Mac members and is there some kind of a mentorship that's going on? Perhaps with members involved, and then we can also think about. And I do support the idea of having a liaison. But first, I'd like to know, you know, in the first place, how is it being run? And you know, how might we engage? There might be other opportunities that we could think about. Thanks. Hmm, yes. Thank you, Joyce. So we work as equals with the of coordinators and young people delegated by democracy, holder organizing committees of the other national and regional Igs which do not have your address processes in place, then the coordinators communicate with their respective communities.
When we need input when we need the engagement and so on. And especially on presenting opportunities to youth population within their communities. So their their focal points for that. So, in other words, the process is completely open, as everything in the it of context for anyone to join as equal and contribute to the discussion. And that's important for us. So it's basically, yes, it is bottom up. But it's also nickel putting the secret that also participates in the discussions. We are not absolutely neutral, so we share our views, and we try together with all the participants, to reach consensus.
In addition to the Utah trade coordinators, Isoc is also very active. There. There is a delegated colleague, a staff member of Iso Foundation that channels the cooperation between the youth track on the Iraf and the Iso capacitors program that's been run annually to equip Young People to come to the igf. Thanks very much, Anya. Then might I suggest, you know, while we're thinking about? Perhaps having Meg liaison to the group to also think about potential mentorship, so that you know those of us who are on site at the Igf itself could have facetime with you've tried. We can build it into our schedules, and I think that would perhaps maybe build a step by step process so let's one day, when the Mag is ready, having you thought observers or youth even youth members, to join the Mac.
So I think maybe more engagement can be done. Mentorship could be one way. The Api, for example, has a pretty good mentorship program for the Ufi Gf, so it's not something that's totally new. Thanks. Yes, thank you very much, Ross. I really welcome and like the idea, and I'll pass on to the entire group. You're also most welcome to join the next school present.
That I think it's a great opportunity. I know that for the mentorship program it's been called for. Those initiatives before. It's just that the Secretariat is really not with the capacity to facilitate. It's quite a big bye to take, but, last year I just wanna add, because it relates to that last year you would remember that we did approach the Mag, especially the main session co-facilitators to just present them with opportunities to engage better their sessions with the with young people there are certainly already experienced experts, and there are those who are willing to learn more. So we did give a list of what we call the resource persons. Those are the U. Igf coordinators, and also young people who are delegated by the organizing committees which have expertise in particular areas of Internet governance. So that was identified. And it was sent to the Mac to consider engaging them. So it was a pilot, and I think we saw some success there, and maybe we can build on that for this year.
Even better, thank you. Thank you. Do you have any further questions on these? The use track? And we do have action actions. I don't know if you want me to read them out, or for the Nris discussion. Oh, yes, sir, to attend open youth track meeting with suggestion for youth, capacity, development on technical knowledge of the Internet. That's 1, 2, nrine coordinator will take a will. Take to youth Coordinators, Suggestions for the cooperation between themselves. That's the. And and then also for the corporation between themselves and the schools of Internet governance. And then the last one is magazine. But Joyce Chin invited to attend the Use meetings to discuss mentorship. If I've missed anything, please let me. No, for the international work. It's a call will be arranged between the policy network on AI and the is 3 c.
Yeah, DC, coordinated by which? Oh, yes, right. Yes, of course, to discuss this synergies. Yes, yes, exactly. And Atisa will consider if she has the time to pretend to be a mag. Liaison to the disease. Thanks. I think that's it. And I don't think I need to go back further right I think that's fine. Next on the agenda item, we had the working groups, mag working groups. I feel that we have had a discussion with the working group on workshop processes. But if you please, feel if you want to add something else or further discussion in the man, please do. Thank you. Chengatai, peacefully. We're moving for records.
Nothing to really add. We have started to to work on the evaluation. Criteria, so that's what I can say, and then we'll going to make adjustments. And what we discussed yesterday. Thank you. Are there any follow-up questions on that for the Mac working group on evaluation? I think we've had a discussion, but if there's something we've missed, please. Yeah, no. Okay. And then the next working group is the working group on idf strategy. They have made interventions throughout.
But if there's something that you want, yes, choice sorry, trying to tie, to interrupt, just to revisit the working group out. But if there's something that you want, yes, choice sorry, trying to tie, to interrupt, just to revisit the working group in terms of the evaluation criteria. Are there specific recommendations to the Mac for how? We might not sure how to put it. But to ensure gender balance in. For example, the speakers. This, you know, doing our evaluation. So, for example, if we get proposals that have all-meal panels, is there a kind of evaluation criteria that we should try and follow, or something like that? Thank you, Jay. So we have the section that talks about diversity that looks at that lay female looks at that male female looks at what is.
And have it. Okay. But yes, we have that. So we're evaluating. We have to inconsider all that. But yes, that's in the evaluation form. I will share it with with the mark as we look at it, and you can feel free to make the input. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yeah. Same issue. Because I remember last year we evaluated a lot of webinars. Oh, not lot of the workshops with like 4 speakers and one women as a moderator, and to me they were all knows to be very honest, because I don't think it's even acceptable to be in 2,02223, and and people still have the courage to suggest workshops with all my own speakers. And but yeah, but maybe we, what we can do is go through the evaluation criteria again and see what else we can add to that. In order to keep on moving towards that direction, because I know in some areas like it might be, it might look hard to find the male specialist, and I'm not just talking about the female community, I also think we do have a lot to improve in terms of bringing the Lgbtqy community as well, and that seems to be left outside our evaluation processes like, somehow this, these other humanity, not just the female male, female, binary kind of discussions.
But but I I can also put myself forward to help you. It's so, okay, check it. I can. I just so. I think it also takes us back to the proposal phones that we are sending out. We need to emphasize some of these things, because if we are going to be very strict at the evaluation point, yet we did not infercise these kind of things at the beginning, that it's difficult so that you know that needs to start from the form, that we send out emphasis on gender, and all the diversity aspects that we're talking about. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Chris, I just want to know.
I mean, we do have in that introduction to the proposal form. We 92 things. Yeah. First, was the importance of diversity. And we talk about diversity viewpoints, but also experience, age, stakeholder, group, geographic area. Agenda disability. So it is there in the very opening of of the form. But I absolutely think we need to look at how how else we can bring it in, or how we can emphasize that the other point that we might make in that opening is in importance of the hybrid event and having people on site.
So I think, as the working group, we identified those 2 points as really key to ensuring good proposals and proposals that would ensure a rich Igf event. Thanks. Trina Tayy, and thanks peace for clarifying. I'm gonna make a very controversial proposal. Also suggestion and I'd like for us to maybe think about it, or at least have some discussion which is, would the Mac be prepared or able to accept if we said, in the evaluation in the proposal form that the Mac would not accept any proposals that had all male speakers, or that did not have gender diversity. Do? Would we go so far as to say that as a standard? Thank you, Jerry. I think to me I think it's not, but I don't know what the rest thing would do, other people think. But I think it's it's nice, maybe, to put it out, because it's a very important aspect of you know this conversation, thank you. Invite number. We have a system to rank proposals when we are evaluating.
So it's in the criteria. Diversity is in the ranking, but it's it's not really mandatory in the process. So it's ranked. There's not really mandatory in the process, so it's ranked there. Even if they propose also have related, according to the diversity, to the, to the inputs, to the outer tree, to the output, so that we are expected. But it's not mandatory that it should be gender balanced, and having all the stakeholders presenting the proposal. Try try to jump in, but I guess Joyce's question is whether we should change this understanding. Should it be from now on? Because, like, I keep on thinking, I mean my the example I'm gonna call is the Brazil I jazz, and it the gender and diversity not like regional diversity has a weight in the evaluation process. Right, so you cannot move forward if you don't achieve those 2 like, I'm not saying it has to be like fully diverse it maybe has, like 2 or 3 of the 5 presenting regions.
And some kind of balance in gender, but maybe it will be interesting for us to move forward in that, because we also know that as much work as we do right now that the configuration of the panels in at the Igf. Can be much different as well, because some people as we've been saying, like they try to gain the system. They submit different names, and in the end of the day the the workshops look much different, so we can try to avoid the omnipotent panels. Now. But maybe we can still have them at the edge. But in my perspective as well will be really worth trying to do. To be more precise on that, since right now, because it has been a recommendation from the Bpf. Gender previously we have assessed gender balance, or I mean diversity of the I just before, and we have done very little in the submission form in terms of that. So, yeah, just an idea. Excuse me, I think any. The first is very important, and on all decision that we are, we are having. But my question is that if we have a very good proposal, does not have that they first step is there is a chance that we can give it a helping hand to the proposal to the one who proposed, and we might propose, here any high quality names, or try to enhance this, because I think we should not jeopardize the quality of the proposal.
But if it is, diversity issue, probably because of the speakers or the panelists, then I think we we can provide the helping hand on that. Thank you. And online, we have Enriette. Oh, I'm Rita! Yes. Thank you. Take a take. I think the diversity point is important. We need to have gender balance and and obviously, when we say gender, we are just not meaning women. But we need to have age, and we also want diversity of views. We don't want Tokenism just because we want to women to be there. We put them. That is not something which we want. So I think we need to stress that there has to be diversity in the panel based upon it. And the small note this time says that also, while evaluating, there are criteria, you know. Weight is put in different criteria, so I think that could help in kind of evaluating the proposals, whether we want to take a hard stand, it is for the Mac to decide.
But while we should have gender balance in this in these session, but will that bring diversity of thought? You know, is only gender balance. One thing in the session, or we want to balance the different views coming, and not having the same people speaking the same language is something we need to see, and we also have to be cognizant of the fact that as bruna mentioned what is mentioned in the form may not be the final list of speakers, because a. It may be aspirational, and 2, it may be that people may not be there, so it's not a perfect world. We could try to do it, but making it mandatory may lead to Tokenism, that is also a concern.
But yes, we want diversity in the table. Yes, Brina. I, yeah, I mean, we can take some further discussions on this, because I don't necessarily agree with that. This is Tokenism. I think it's the other way around. I think that any panel that doesn't bear in mind any level of diversity. Let it be gender, regional, or anything of the sort, is already a jeopardized discussion. I mean, it's part of this community like a lot.
Lots of this community are just tired of having this same old discussions being held by Walmart representatives about the same perspectives in the same point of view, and I think that the main goal of the Ijs is to open up the discussions should even more and more and more people and we keep on hearing I'm saying about how he wants to take this message further, and I think this is also our task. In some way. So I'm not. I'm I don't know whether we should make this mandatory or not.
I'm saying like, maybe we can analyze what is the weights that we're giving to diversity on the submission form, and how, as I have been saying, this past days, like a stronger commitment to bringing more diversity to this because it's sometimes it's just a little said how many like parts of the world we're leaving behind in this discussions. And there's a lot of things to be done yet.
So any effort we can do now, even if it's just aspirational, it will be worth it, and it's a good sign for the community. So that's just. Diversity is important, diversity should be managing, and then they use the question that we started off with Is it diversity mandatory, which is all forms of diversity, or is gender? Diversity has to be mandatory as well. I mean, yeah. I, yeah. Check. Sorry. I'm just coming in. I don't mean that Diversity should not be there in the panel. Yeah. Yes, diversity should be there. I was talking. That should be emphasized only on gender diversity.
That would be right. Yes, exactly. I fully understand you. I just didn't fully understand, Bruno, because yes, I think we all agree that diversity is mandatory, because yes, I think we all agree that diversity is mandatory, and we have several dimensions of diversity. You know regional stakeholder and etc. And those should be put in, and at one extreme we cannot have a fully diverse panel of all the diversities, because then you'll have, you know, F. 15. I mean, there's 15 diversity dimensions you have a 15 member panel, and you want to get to.
So. But we do understand the importance of gender balance, and I just wanted to see if what you, what you're proposing is, are we making the gender diversity factor mandatory? That's it. You see, that's a different discussion. Yeah, I understand. What I'm saying about the gender discussion itself be at least coherent with what we have been discussing the past years. We had a Bpf. General for 5, 6 years. That held a lot of interesting discussions on how this space could be even more improved in terms of the gender diversity. So my suggestion would be for us to have a better wait or a better. Kind of evaluation towards that area yes, and of course there's also the. Is it one gender? It should be one member, or should it be fifty-fifty? We have the year, and we cry, we strive for 50, 50 I know we cannot do it, but that's what we strive for. I mean those are all the questions that we're asking, but Teresa is waving her hand. Oh, thank you.
There is a make member. I'm here a little bit with Amrita Bruna. Yes, I understand your point of view, but I think that by having the various sections in the evaluation form like very likely. First of all, I don't think we will see proposals with just mail panel, submitted. You know. I mean, if this is happening, then somebody is really like, not in 2023, probably. So. But hopefully, if this happens, if we feel that some diversity criteria is not the way well enough, this proposal will not rank very high. That's first thing. So it might not even get in the narrower selection of proposals that within the issue teams we are then discussing. Then most of you who are on at least the second tier, know that once the issue teams meet, then we discuss. Then we can get into the proposals, and if we are facing a choice, are we gonna go with this one or dead one? You know, somebody would bring up. But hey, look at this proposals, diversity, criteria, you know it's very problematic, and that proposal will probably not stand much chances.
But I think it's a little bit dangerous to start discussing here whether, having a gender balanced panel is more important than you know. Some of the other very important part of the application form. So that's just my point of view. You know. Also, we we could start thinking about some not like exceptions, you know, but I do recall several proposals from the last batch, which, for instance, we're focused on one region. Yes. Then, yes, that proposal. Maybe I didn't. Wasn't that Jen? Not gender regionally, you know, diverse as it could have been, but had it been if I'm I don't know, discussing something in regards to a specific region, let's say Latin America you know do I need to force, in perspectives, from Asia, and and from Europe? Or does it actually make some sense? You know, to keep it. Keep it to Latin America, and so on. So, yeah, my point is like, let's believe in the system. Was belief in in the percentage points that the working group on workshops, evaluations has discussed very extensively and then have like good discussions within the issue teams.
If such proposal makes it through. Alisa. Thank you. Just a clarifying question as the proposals will. Be anonymized are all so? Are the session speakers also anonymize. You can see. Okay, then. So then you can see in the proposal. If it has agenda, diversity, balance, right. Yeah, okay, and. So this is my personal opinion on gender diversity and. Okay. It's not just like any other type of diversity. Half of the world is female. So how is it possible that we cannot get a like at least one female person in every session to be? Speaking 8, if we're well, we're born so diverse, and that is not a possible to have that in a panel.
I think that's something that we should really well be mindful. I'll leave it up to the group. But yes, I mean we can have at least one member I mean, there's this diversity criteria. But at least one member should be female, I mean, or should be offered different gender put it that way. Let's be, yeah, yes. Should be of a different agenda. Yeah, I really wanted to just touch upon the themes, because our culture has to leave at lunchtime. So. But, Bruno, please, just because we also said yesterday that we would look at gender and sustainability as cross-coding issues to our brother agenda.
So I didn't really want to end up this discussion yet. Maybe what we can do for now, in terms of the submission form is that we all can review the form once again and see whether there's any extra recommendations, and also, in the evaluation parts, that piece should share with us into whether we would like to help this being proved, and whether there's space for improvement. I do think that we we had a lot of all-mail panels last year, and maybe my again, I'm gonna repeat myself.
My request for us will be to have this compromise on not having main sessions that are that have only mails at speakers and female, just in the moderator role, because it's also a kind of an assistant role. I don't want to be. I don't want to see the strong female Nbijs community in an assistant role, and and so let's have this kind of compromise now let's try to work on a diversity for the high-level track the main sessions, and whatever else part of the things we can try to control, try to help improve, and then we reassess the workshop, submission, form, and evaluation.
Just so we can be better in that. So I don't know. Yeah. But I know I'm a minority here, so. Okay, I hear the issues with the gender, but quite honestly, when we try to put a lot of females on our panel, a lot of them were occupied. So. Yes, they are out there, but they're just not available. So I think with as Teresa said, you know we can't put a mandatory on it or numbers on it. Sometimes they're just not available. So what do you want us to do? Thanks, Jingotai, and I just wanna thank the Mag for giving ourselves some time to really talk through this.
It wasn't intended to be a very serious proposal, but more ticket as a straw man, just to get a sense of the temperature of the room. How Mac, members feel about this issue. I haven't actually stayed at what my personal view is, which is, I personally think, gender balance should really just be the absolute minimum standard of you know, diversity. Or however, you want to think about it. If we are put in the position. Obviously, that's geographical diversity. There is subject matter, adversity. Those are all baked into the to the the criteria and the evaluation which obviously is not to say that gender trumps all the other diversity criteria. But I would like to encourage members to also examine if you do come up with a proposal that supposedly has very good ideas and very good description, and it meets the other diversity markers, but yet cannot for some reason meet the gender. One how would you evaluate it? There are some people in the Nris, for example.
The moment. It is an oomo panel. It's a 0 for the diversity criteria immediately and of course that's up to the individual. I'm not saying that members should take that as a standard, but I am saying that there are varying ways that people are approaching this issue. So it'd be good to know, you know, if Mac was ready to be a bit more progressive in this area. But if we're not ready yet, that's totally fine. Nothing wrong with that, but I still think that you know we can go some way to at least give a a stronger signal, a message that we take this seriously.
Thanks. Yes, Jason, I can assure you that for me that would be 0. Max. One, you know, if other proposals were sorry. Other gender diversity criteria were really excellent. I'm being strict. Yes, so I don't want my comment to be misinterpreted in any way. Piece you can have a final word. Thank you. Chigata. It's interesting and nice to hear the different views, but I think in general, really, we have also this opportunity. I think, actually up to mention it, that when we have these proposals instead of we have this very good proposal, but they are lacking somewhere. We have the opportunity to usually write them and say, Okay, give them comments. It's good, but you know, could this areas be improved? So I think that is also something that we're going to use.
But yes, we we are working on the on the valuation form, and for this year the working group thoughts that we should put the diversion, diversity higher than what we had last year. I think last year we had 10 for diversity this year. We have it at 20, because we think it's very important. And, like Chris, mentioned that at the very beginning we put an introductory part for the form and diversity is really emphasized. But we we will be happy to get your comments and have you make input to the form. Once I share it. Thank you. Okay, so, yes, I mean, that's important. That there is a form, it is specified, strongly specified. They're in the form. And before we start grading, we also are going to have an online meeting just to make sure that we are aligned in the way that we're going to be grading and we'll take the various points as well, so I just want to construct the action item right now so what does the action item is that you'll go back.
Take a look on the form and the way that the gender diversity requirement is specified, and share it with the mag, and come back. So we are undoing that conditional because we had previously agreed that you would just make the changes, and then would post the form. But now we're having a comment period, and then the form is approved by the Mac. Also, I'm just a bit concerned about the time.
If we can not come to some solution such as I mean, I don't see any problem with saying that there must be at least one person of a different gender on that panel. I think that is a perfectly good, but that's just my opinion. You if we, if we can have an agreement on that, I think that might. Yes. Joyce. Okay, just say I would support that. I think that's a I think. Beyond that, the Mag itself. And it's a discussion. We will have in the June process. I, yeah, I I would sort of right diversity, not just on gender, but on various things very highly, and certainly, yeah, that would be the bare minimum. But I think having a bare minimum in the form signals the importance of it. So that's yeah. It's a minimum. But of course it is 20, which is is doubled from last year.
But Bruno, thanks, okay. I think it was just first. Oh, Joyce! No! Let me just say that I support at least one person. That's and not a mail as part of the panel, and at a speaking role. Let's make this specification of at a speaking role. Because, again, otherwise we're all gonna be throne to the moderator roles. It's already happened. So I mean, that's okay. So we're not with still, on that conditional approval. And of course it will be the form is going to be shared. And but at least Lewis can do the work, and we can get that form out there as quickly as possible.
I think that's an agreement and peace you're fine with that as well Jason, you have something to say. Yes, I do. I do support in principle, but I have also heard from people's comments and mindful that we don't, we also don't want to get trapped in tokenism, or appear to be doing that so it I'm not going to that is I think the concession that I could make is that we could say that we strongly encourage at least one person. So we make it just flexible for people who aren't quite there yet. Let's just put it that way. Yes, the fax, weakening the requirement to make it that strongly encouraged, not a requirement.
Yes, if the Magg wants it to be a requirement, perfectly happy, I think that is perfectly reasonable. It's not. We can just make a requirement. One person off a different gender cool stuff with us. Speaking. Well, I think that is I mean, that's just my opinion. But I'm just trying to drive a but census. Yeah. Hmm, okay, so I'm just gonna count to 6. And if nobody says anything, I'm Rita. Okay. Thank you. Chengatai, saying, one is reducing our position. We should say that there needs to be a gender balance also, as in, why should we just say, Okay, if we have one woman, it is great. We want more. So do we want to dilute. But again, the balance is a balance is 15. That's a balance.
Our position is yes, as in we aspire for a balance. But I mean, okay, I'll just be a little bit more forthright here. There's no way that we can have a gender balance of 50 for all panels, so I don't. I mean, that's just it doesn't happen. No, as in Shank it. I, if we are bringing, if you're saying one, we reduce it no, if you're saying one, we are reducing it.
We should say that we aspire for it. We are not saying mandatory, but. Yes, yes, yes, we can say we. We aspire. Yes, of course. Yes. Yes, that's fine. We can say we aspire for that. That's fine. And then, okay, so formulation, we aspire for agenda balance amongst all panels. They, as a requirement of at least one person of a different gender on the panels for the speaking room. So I think that's settles it right? Yeah. Yes, Alyssa, Uhhuh. And just to really make care. So if there's no person from a different gender, your session will not go through, and if. Yes, carry on. And well, maybe we should even consider that if the one female person or sorry one non male person isn't at 1 point available anymore, it should be still mandatory to ensure that you haven't piece.
I think we have consistency here. Thank you. Okay, all right, then, thanks, Pete. We do have duck on the line, but I just wanted to quickly just touch upon the It. Session teams. We did go back the co-chair did consult with the with the capital, with the Organizing Committee, as well of the idea of, and we set them between the secretariat and the coaches, and we took what was suggested and combined the themes, and we've come up with this formulation, which again may not. We're not looking for perfection here.
We're just looking for themes that will encapsulate the most that we can. And we do understand that it's not perfect. And but here they are, if we can. To display them, if that's possible. So for the overarching team, the Internet, we want empowering all people. We think it does encapsulate everything that was being discussed, and it is short. It's not too short that it's not that specific, not that specific. And it's and we are about to empowering all people. So we think that this is the one that suits. So my question is, is there any loud objection to this? If not, then we'll do on to the sub teams, so I'll just get that as 6 count. Okay, thank you. So oh, Chris, almost. I, yeah, I'm sorry. I don't mean to cause. I mean, I think it's very close. I've I'm my preference just sort of it would be empowering all people for the Internet. We want, just because I think the way it's currently constructed.
Seem that the the connection between the 2 floors is a little unclear. Is it the Internet? We want also we're empowering all people. A little. I'm not sure the connection between those 2 concepts is strong enough in the current. So empowering all people for the Internet 3 months. Just that would be my, yes. But yeah, thank you. Thank you. Eliji. Well, I think I quite agree with him, because it sounds really better freeze. And it's very catchy as well. Then the next one is on the sub teams. Yes, I completely agree with him. I think it's okay. Hi, give me 1, 2 s. You have to sign that. Okay. Okay, so let me just do that. Okay, 6, count. Oh, sorry! My glasses empowering all people.
Okay. Okay, I'm not touching it, and somebody do that. Okay, just a quick question. Yes, it does remind a lot of the Web foundation initiative from a few years ago, Webb, we want, are we okay with this conference just to check just to check the yes, I don't know if I understand that empowering all people. For the Internet. We want. I think what I thought, you know, as we said the Internet we want, that is the key thing. So how do we get the Internet? We want? I I I don't know. I just don't want. I don't want to.
I'm Rita. Thank you. I my interpretation, and I may be wrong. Here is we want the Internet to be open, interoperable, trustworthy, etc. So we are having new people coming in, and there are fragmentation, etc., happening. But if we can empower people to understand why we need an open, interoperable and trust word, the Internet, I think we would be at least trying to get somewhere where we have the Internet which we all desire and not the Internet which is balconized or has all the issues, I mean we will have issues, but we can at least make one step towards probably so I'm kind of okay with this.
And sorry. This is my interpretation. Does anybody follow? That's what sorry I'm getting a mind, hey? Carol? Is saying, yes. Because yes, empowering more people is also dealing with the monstic order processes that so that's also what's the underlying message here as well? But if it's just Carol, then we will, for that aside. But if it's more people, then yes, there's an Yes, please.
Yes, thanks a lot. I tend to agree with Carol on that. The reason is that when we Hello! Look at the current phrase, I mean, the issue of planet is actually a messing out of the shoe right? Right? So I feel, the emphasis should be on the Internet. We want. I mean, we can have people that we've noticed that for instance, if we even considered AI right on these Gtp related stuff. Yeah, environmental AI footprints that are actually adequate in line with this right? So, when we look at empowering people for the Internet, we want, we seem to have, oh, forgotten about the planet in biodiversity, right? Which is actually shown as part of some of this sub teams. Right. So it depends on whether we focus in on that live in which is the planet, the people by diversity, or we focus on only the people.
But are people different from the? By this part of it? No, we're part of it. So if you're empowering the people, yeah, it's we're not all. We're well. I mean, we. It's so. Yes, Chris, I I think I'm not saying anything terribly. Originally, I think I'm Risa actually said it quite well, but I think the point, and I absolutely hear Carol and Olivier's comments regarding you know this is not really engaging with the issues that we see in the sub themes. But I mean, I think that's a bit deliberate in terms of if you start to list out the sub. The issues in those sub teams in the overarching team, you kind of need to list them all and yes, that's not helpful. Whereas I think what this focus is on is that what the Igf specifically can do is empower people and help to achieve all of the different something. So when we're talking about sustainability in the biosphere which it's empowering people to take more active control and drive towards an Internet which is environmentally sustainable and friendly, it, we're also empowering people to steer towards sort of more better data, governance and trust, and all of the sub things that we have there.
So I think I like this because it focuses on people and empowerment, which is really what the Igf can do best. I think again I'd like to. Sorry for this if you could keep your intervention short. Bruno, the chart, and in the chat already. So I just say I'm just saying that, starting with empowering people, we've also been acknowledging that all of us don't have that access to the Internet or these discussions. So it's kind of like what's important. What do we want first, like, which is, bring more people to this discussion? It's on. Okay. Great Joyce. Thanks. R, much. Chris and others who's spoken up on this there is a distinction between the 2.
The first one, I think really does emphasize. It's empowering people for the Internet, right? But the second one is talking about the cause and effect is a bit different. So the second one is really we, what is the Internet that we are aspiring to? And at least the way I read it is that the Internet we want is one that empowers all people. So the slightly different, you know, in its composition. Having said that I like both. But my preference is actually for the second one, just because I think it's punchy. Thanks. Thank you. Just was 2.2 small point one is that is it? Empowering old people, or the Internet that we want to buy the Internet, that we want. And the second one we should not forget the marketing aspect of this is statement, so this, this will be a branded and everyone we need something that's easy to understand. And with that I'll go with the second option. Second option is. I think I will also go with the second option, because I think in the first one it's like the Internet.
We want is already defined. And I think the second one leaves room for discussion on the Internet. We want, and to achieve it by empowering all people. I think I would also like to support and show my interests, and in Number 2, because I think the Internet we want and then empowering people. If we are not empowered to use to engage, you know, then it makes no sense. But I think second one is perfect thing Internet. We want to empowering. Okay. So I'm gonna make a proposal. And this there is really, really, I'll ask Chris, and to if they could live with the second one. I'm just gonna make a very super brief comment. The Internet. We want empowering all people implies the Internet. We want empowers, people. So that's quite a different context than we're empowering people to build the Internet.
We want. So we're suggesting with the second one that the Internet we want would empower people. No, I'm not sure. That's but yeah, I I say, it's just quite a different message. I think. As so you're not. I did ask a question that sorry that was not really helped. I think just as long as we understand that now I'm still very prefer the first one. But I can you live with the second one? Oh, God, yeah, gonna die. You know, I can live that. Sorry. Could I? Just jump in quick? Perhaps we could ask the co-chairs, you know, because the Internet yeah, perhaps we could ask the co-chairs, you know, because the Internet, yeah, that was my next plus.
We seem to be at a thing, then can we just could be behind, you know. Why, that was to say, as an option. Thanks, so I've got 2 things since we had an impasse, and I don't think nobody one option is. Yes, we can get an explanation. Another option is empowering us to make it decision, since they seem. But let's carry on that discussion. Yes, yeah. You know, you know the means you mean are very different. Actually, on the first one we is actually assuming that we know the Internet that we want. And then we want to empower the people. No, on the second one. It seems we are not sure sure of the kind of Internet we want but then we want to empower people. And that's the reason why I still want to stick to the fourth one that's the reason you wanna stick to the first one. Yeah, so, okay. But okay, yes. Sorry. This is Mark, my first intervention. I've just been following the discussions, and this was raised earlier in the week, some extent, so that a little bit of time to chew on it, and I'm not, you know.
I don't really want to say anything, because I think there's a lot of context in terms of why, there's was phrased in a particular way. But to me, from from the technical community or business community, it's the Internet that is empowering. And that's the sort of message we should get back if we have a good Internet or an Internet that is for full certain goals that will empower people. And in that light I would say the second option is probably speaks to that better than the first one that's just the way I view it. I think it's a bit awkward. But the second one is probably more in line with what I would think, and that's also another comment. I wanted to make. It may have a slightly different meaning to people with English. As a first language, and it may be have so they can tell the nuances. But our audience is not primarily those with expert, level English. Right. So our budget hear me out. You may not buy it. But yes, what's important is, what's the majority of the people get out of that title correct? Yes, I don't know.
I mean. Our coaches says that the community can, with either of them, but if you had to choose, you choose the second one. But I. So we do have a. Sort of an impasse here, I mean, those 2 are fine. We don't want to have a votes, and I my opinion oh, I'll say my useful thing. I'm the Secretariat. Yes? Well, I mean in the end I could live with both, just to make that clear. But what I find interesting is that both options have been explained in exactly the same way and exactly the same way, in exactly the same way. So some people say, with the first one, it's we're still we're empowering people to to use the Internet. We want. And we're already sure what type of Internet we want. And we've I've heard people saying, well, we're not sure. So sure what type of Internet we want. And the same accounts for the other one. And so I think it's either way it could. It could go either way, and I would, though, want to make clear that there is no consensus of what type of Internet we want.
If there would be companies, then rising, the Gdc. And any other documents on Internet Internet governance would be super super super easy. Yeah, there's no consensus for the Internet. We want. That is correct. To answer your question. What I'm hearing here is that if I, if I want to talk about tomatoes, we want, that is correct. To answer your question. What I'm hearing here is that the if I if I want to talk about the majority feeling I'm hearing a majority feeling actually for the second one, I might be mistaken. But that's what I'm hearing is that there is a preference for the second one. Yes, Chris, I'm hearing that, too. So I'm going to make a last stand for the second one for the first one. And and then I can be just regarded. I I don't think that the first one implies that we already know what the Internet we want is, I think, by empowering people to have that discussion.
We define what the Internet we want is rather than a big tech company defining what the Internet is for us we're empowering people to take part in that discussion. I think that's what I see the Igf about now. The second one is quite a political statement which, from my personal politics, I'm absolutely full. The Internet is something that should empower people.
But that's that. It's a it's quite a specific message, and it's not the same message as this is what the Igf can do. It's saying, the Internet we want is one that empowers all people. And, as I say, I'm certainly on board with that message, I think it absolutely, absolutely should empower all people. But it it should also do a lot more than that, and so that I'm I feel it's a little bit limiting in that sense. But I can live with it. But I yeah, as I said, I wanted to make it at least a last stand here. I would like to support the number 2, because all that they have meant it, and because I consider that the message is more directly in this subject.
That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Let me make another attempt. I am going with Number 2, because that is what I'm hearing. So I'm counting to 6. Okay, so we're gonna go in number 2, we then go with number 2. Thank you very much for your understanding and the compromise agreement. I know it's lunchtime, but let's just see what the feeling is on the sub teams. First of all, let's just take them in all its entirety, because we have understood that the purpose of the sub themes is also as a way to structure. The meeting, and also to structure the outputs that we are going for. Again with these they may not be perfect, but we are also going to have underneath each one of them expanding exactly, but broadly expanding on, specifically explaining, of course, what we mean by them, but I won't go through them one by one.
But let me just see how people feel about them first to see. Yes. Oh, yeah, I had a comment on the first one. Was there a specific, maybe reason, behind AI and new technologies, instead of emerging technologies? Hmm! I'm just looking at my team. Not particularly. I mean, we can put. I would. Okay, yes. Let's go with emerging, because new means they were recent. But they are some technologies that have been around for 40 years, but are now just emerging to the full. So I would go with yes, first of all, I think we at I was gonna come in on the number it seems to have gone a little bit over what we discussed yesterday.
I think we were going towards. I don't know. 5 or 6, and we seem to have. We have 7 now, so there's one for me, and fragmentation is being left out, so I wouldn't know where to add fragmentation to. Is it global? Digital governance, and digital cooperation, or somewhere else? Because I think the word there was some level of support for leaving fragmentation in. As one of the sub teams. Just so we don't forget about that. Thanks. Oh, sorry! Global digital governments. Yes, hmm, and we can.
Again. As I said, we can put that under the blurbs just to make sure that people understand that. Yes, just a follow-up comments, because I think Adam is not here, but I think he. Yesterday he was clearly against us, having the digital governance our governance debates on this. So I would maybe agree with him. And then just with digital cooperation and avoiding threatagmentation and or like avoiding for Internet fragmentation something like that. Just so we could have both. So you're proposing deleting global digital governance, not a suggestion at just just bringing us back to the discussion from yesterday, because Chris is raising the flag in my face. Yeah, that's.
Okay will be very quick. Now, my suggestion that I would be to just say, global digital corporation, actually, yeah. Yes, plus one is. Gonna say exactly that. Let's just make it global. Digital Corporation. Anybody. It's got a counterpoint. Okay, let's change it. Then. Yes, choice. Thanks. Very much. Chingatai, and having done this, I do still want to push back to say that 7 sub teams really is a lot. And just so that the Mag, especially the new members, understand what this means for us. It is that we would need to have 7 groups to schedule and arrange 7 main sessions. So that's you know. That's the implication as well. If we have 7 sub teams we will need to arrange an organized 7 main sessions. And when we did 5 we were already struggling that's just the reality. So I very much encourage us to think if we could streamline, or perhaps reduce the sub teams a bit more. Thanks. I mean this. Yes, it does not necessarily follow that we would have the 7. We can, even for the main sessions. We can combine and make them more streamlined.
The idea behind this is also taking from Adams idea is that we we had a great deal of difficulty in previous, where we had workshops. They didn't know where there would be falling under. And this is an effort to structure the proposals, the input of the proposals, and also the outputs. But we can combine the main sessions, as we see, for as we see, the inputs that's coming in, because we might have only 5 under one theme. And then we can see what we can do with that.
So we could also leave it to the community to show us which way to go on. That if I might just react directly with you, if that is the consensus amongst the Mag that we don't have to directly link main sessions with the sub teams, and we can get creative about the topics. I'm absolutely fine with keeping 70, yes, and I'm also want to underline just because we did something last year or even we did something since the beginning. It doesn't mean we have to do it exactly the same way. We are here to improve continual improvement and experimentation, which may not be an improvement, but at least we tried it out. Yeah. Merit as well, since she hasn't spoken. But at least, since I called you merit, please. I do think it's 7 is a lot. I think there's been a lot of calls for focus, especially on the from the private sector side. And so now we have a tendency. I mean, the trend is going upwards again.
Whether that will have a significance or not. I'm you know. I'm not sure. But for me. This says that we have absolutely no idea what our priorities, and we are going to have a lot of lovely little discussions a bit all over the place, and that the messages and the outcomes will be very high level, and I'm superficial and not really serving the purpose to attract more people to this forum, etc. The purpose to attract more people to this forum, etcetera, being a little bit, maybe harsh. Here. But that's what he says to me, and I think that there are easy things here that we could do. For example, the bullet 2 and 3, I think that could all go under Trust Trust, where the Internet or trusted Internet, or what have you? And just that would streamline a bit, because now it's really like long menu of of many different things.
And of course I understand that all of these are important in a way, but I just think that maybe that gives a little bit the wrong message. Thanks. Okay. Alisa. Then I don't know who was first. Let me. Okay, I'll just go to you and then go. So, Alisa. Please. Oh, and Carol. Yes, Alison, first global digital Corporation. It it sounds quite a lot like the global digital compact to me. And I, fear that if you would leave that as a sub theme, that people who have submitted anything to the Gdc. Would see that as the location to to submit basically, any proposal. So to me that global digital corporation, it doesn't say that much. If you okay, all the other theme, digital device and inclusion. Yeah, so i have issues with that one because it's just unclear to me. What's meant with it, and not completely sure what Merit said about just trustworthy or trusted Internet. I I would like to see that on screen. What it exactly before I, she was saying. Click me, if I'm wrong, that trust can replace bullets 2 and 3.
Okay. And so with your global digital corporation, are you saying that we should go back to the original and I'll select to remind. Remember, these aren't just gonna be standing alone. There is going to be an explanatory paragraph under each one of them, for those people who are inputting. Sorry by now. My mind is kind of becomes sick, and so could you, in that case, put back the previous text. Sorry we've been meeting for 3 and a half hours. Good afternoon. Now they have to leave it to 30. Okay. Bruno, than Carol. Oh, no, no, sorry! It was Abdulah first. Yes, and Carol, and yeah, thank you. I'm just thinking about the storyline of sub-eam, and my opinion. That's the sub team should answer the meeting, or as a continuation of the so the Internet, you want important will be able bye, AI emerging technology does not click with me.
You need to need. Probably we need branding teams in between the sub team and the main thing. So if we look to the example of the trustworthy, so Intel, 2 wants to bone and gold people by finding trust towards the Internet. And that under that could might be some some technical terms and technical teams. So I think probably no wording. We need to make sure that we have. We have a questionation of the storyline or for normal people to understand. So thank you. Yeah, okay, so 2 things after what? Dollar said on the phone thing is that you may have a scheduling nightmare. If 7 of those things are done, then you're gonna have 2 main sessions on a day. It was. It was kind of a challenge last time. It's just the 4. You have day 0, and then you have 4 days. So who's gonna double up with main sessions? So just that.
And I agree that maybe we can change the data governance. The word governance to more of my system. I think something about protection and trust, and that is really what people want to know, that when I go on the Internet I can trust it. I can feel protected about my data governance you have to accept to people. Oh, sorry! One more thing, and governance with cyber, security and crime. And no, I don't think that they. Oh, one thing I've noticed is that we are hoping back and forth. I think we should maybe attack one, and then spent that, and then go to the next. So at the moment.
Let's just talk about the sub teams. 2 and 3. Maybe that's would be a better way of doing it. And your suggestion is trust. Just trust. Yeah, I agree with the trust. I don't agree that trust and cyber security, cyber crime and online safety goes together. Okay. Yes, Bryan, yeah. Speed up. Thanks. I want to tag myself out soon, and so. Thanks a lot. I wanted to. The government on the third point. Did you take governance and trust? I'm also looking at the current development and also obviously future trends around data governance. Is to brought it down. I'll prefer in my P. To start looking at responsible data stewardship and really use of data, right? So that is quite specific responsible the It stewardship and reuse of data.
And we could see that during the Covid crisis, where you could see a lot of data, collaborative private sector reusing need for public good, you know, sharing data and all those stuff, and even when we look at the current generative AI tools that are currently being done, it's obviously reusing data from different different sources. So how do we promote the responseible reuse of data? Right? So I'm looking at it. Much more responsible data stewardships. So empowering people, so responsible data, stewardship and reuse of data which will be in line with the global team. Thanks. Thank you. I'm not too sure about the word, Count, but one of the reasons is, remember these things go in banners as well, so we shouldn't make them essays.
It has to be shorter. Yes, thank you to suggestion for joining to entry would be to submit up in data. Maybe data security and trust. It's a simpler. It's more general. It would allow for people to have their own interpretations on whether we're talking about data. Flows, or we're talking about. I don't know. Cyber warfare. I am completely against putting together cyber warfare and digital governance or cooperation together, because these are 2 complete different worlds. I know cooperation is one part or one aspect of that, but like it's not even the same stakeholders. In the end of the day one talks to NATO and other parts of the world, and in the other assume civil society has a say in the discussion.
So it's it's just for us to be aware of that. And on the digital Governance incorporation I would go with maybe I don't know. These cooperation, and avoiding Internet fragmentation. Again, because I think it would be good to kind of have some mention of the topic. There just for us to. I know, I know. Yeah, just put this on the record. To propose Bruno's suggestion. Data comma security and trust to replace those 2. And the chase agree and. Yes, Karina, sorry you can't repeat. I can hear you. Day, comma security and trust as one basket.
We can have a comment before the security end. I think maybe. Yeah. Oh, that was a question, because my! So 2 and 3, and then we have one passcode, and we achieve 2. Yes, Caroline, right? So, being a technical person, those things mean totally different things. They're totally different. Cyber, security, cybercrime and online safety. They have different connotations. When I talk about cyber security and what access to systems I'm talking about access to buildings, access to this at the next. So it's a totally different connotation than talking about data. Yes, data is involved, but they don't need to be all in the same. You can have workshops just about some aspects along the line of data, and or you can have a data and trust, or just another aspect. When I'm saying that's gonna make that basket very huge, is you gonna have people just proposals just talking about data. Then you're gonna have pools, is just talking about cyber security and cybercrime. It's gonna be a huge basket. George, you're agreeing, I suppose? Thanks. Jingotai. Yes. Choice to make member exactly the experience we had, I think, 2 years ago, when we combined data and cyber security together was that we had very different proposals, purely on data.
And then purely on cyber security. And it it just did not make sense like. There were very few proposals that actually took data, protection and security as 2 sides of the same coin. And so I think that's why, later on, we decided to just split it up, just so to have better clarity. I think we Mac, probably has to revisit what the sub teams are for. If this is just to help people who are something, proposals to better understand which theme they should be submitting the and dropping their proposals in, so that Mc. Members will have a easier time as well arranging ourselves, and having properly focused proposals within that theme. I think it works, even if we have a longer list. It's just to help people know where they're supposed to be, and we don't end up with proposals that are talking about some data or whatever.
But then, actually, it's really talking about human rights you know, that sort of thing. So if it's just for that purpose, I think it's fine, even if we have more than we intended, especially since, anyway, we've just mentioned before that the main sessions are not tied to the sub teams. It can be the main sessions with. Then be how the Mac expresses our understanding of the overworking theme, like which topics we feel, the ones that got to express the Internet. We want empowering all people. Yes, thank you, Joyce. Yes, so totally, 100% agree with your last statement. There and what I'm getting from your first part of your statement is that there's no formulation that basically you and Carol will agree where we were going to be having security and data, in the same point because they are 2 different things so the exercise.
Of trying to reduce the themes, at least for these 2, is basically mute. We shouldn't actually be trying to go down this road. But yes! I actually had quite a different idea is, why can data be moved to AI and emerging technologies as a lot of themes might overlap. So AI emerging technologies, data and trust, can we trust these emerging? And where would we have trust so security and trust be shown? And then data.
Yeah, I can imagine technologies. Bruno, and then we'll have one. Nope, yeah, I was just gonna mention that like again, going to Joyce Point, like, what is the actual like? What's the goal of these things? Because we are already discussing that this is not gonna translate into the main session. So we're looking exclusively into baskets for workshop evaluation. Yes, and also kind of a schedule for workshop evaluation. Yes, and also. Other topic is not part of that discussion. We're just gonna keep on making. This is bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger, and bigger.
There's a little bit of a trade-off we need to make here my suggestion will be like, let's see which topics are the most like complicated or dense to evaluate. So if we have an agreement that human rights is too complicated, or cybersecurity has a lot of implications in the broader discussions, and they cannot be together, then it's kind of a more objective discussion today, instead of saying that maybe so you want the discussion now or do you want to have the inputs. And then we can reformulate the tracks and then we can reformulate the tracks, and then we can reformulate the tracks, and then we can reformulate the tracks. Very specific points. The city is this is never gonna stop growing well, yes, yes, that's why.
Yes, I mean at the very beginning, we said, this is not perfect by any means, but it's something that we can work with. If we went to revert to that and have something that we can work with, because Marcus always used to say that perfection is the enemy of the good. So we shouldn't always be aiming for that perfection, because we'll never get anywhere when hmm, okay. Yes, ma'am. Observer. I'm looking at this list for some time now, and we are talking about empowering people. That's been stressed a couple of times already, and I think we could boil this down to 4 themes. And that's just, of course, a suggestion. But we could look at AI and emerging technology, cyber security, etc., and data governance all under the word trustworthy. And trustworthy and powers people, and then you can explain the blurb that people can do something on cyber security, on data that yes, you will have individual suggestions and workshop proposals from individual groups that haven't interest in the topic, but perhaps you will get a more overview as well, another option is to do emerging technologies and then trustworthy with number 2 and 3.
And I think that there's also what is it? 4, 5 is 6. If you find the right word, and I'm bidding my mind around it. I'm not finding it, but there's a word for those 3, because it has to do with access with rights on the Internet. And that is about empowering. All these 3 are about empowering. So we should find the right word, and you connect all 3, and then we have the last one. Which sort of stands apart, and which came on board yesterday, which remains a part in in my mind, so we could have 3 or 4 tracks if we right the blueprint of you. Sorry not me with you. Right the blurb right? So that's just as a suggestion, because it's about empowering people and trustworthiness is empowering. People access, or whatever we called empowers, people. Sustainability is our future a common future. So I I see where you're coming from. Walt. I'm kind of with. I'm not. I mean, of course, it's up to the Mac, but I, personally am not. I don't think that we should like, Chris says.
Burn it all down now, and start again, because, you know, we're gonna it's gonna go. So I would be very hesitant to do that. But Chris, and and join I'm gonna come back to it to a point I was making yesterday, which is that I mean alongside. Obviously scheduling and helping people to understand how how their workshop should fit. Certainly based on this year's experience. Last, sorry last year's experience. One of the primary uses of these themes was in writing the messages that come out, and I think if we start as we start coming things into, you know whether it's trust and AI, and we have to. I think it would be useful for us to stop and think. Okay, are we going to be able to pull together a cohesive, concise set of messages that covers all of these areas that we put together under a theme? So I think, and don't in response a bit to what marred was saying earlier about like a focus.
I actually think having a larger group of quite distinct, clearly sort of encapsulated themes could help us in having more focused outputs because we can produce outputs that really sort of speak to that point without sort of having to try and cover so for instance, and at Neil's point there in the chat about sustainability, economy, and environment being a very broad catch. All I think I agree with that.
I think I for me, I think the inclusion of economy in there takes the focus away. I can understand why we would like to sort of discuss economic impacts or economic concerns, but I think sustainability in the environment will really the quality theme that we were looking to address there. And I think if we add economy in that particular theme, it blows out into something very broad, and if I think about what would be the messages, what would be the bullet point messages for sustainability economy environment. I mean, if you try to break it, if you try to get it down to sort of 5 or 6 key points that would be all over the shop, there wouldn't really be a cohesive message there.
And I think this's the real danger. When we talk about lack of focus we talk about lack of focus is that the messages that come out might seem like they're trying to cover everything when, in fact, they really need to engage quite precisely with the themes that we've laid out. Yes, because I tend to agree with you, and I also think that we can also revisit when we have all the inputs and see whether or not we should do some slight adjustment. But yes, I mean, if we want our outputs to be. Use cases to some other processes.
I think we do need this thing so that we know exactly where people know exactly what to pick up, to read, and then I have to start reading out things. And messages. But let's- carry on. Yes, Joyce, thanks, Jingotai, and I support what Chris has said, and in thinking about you know the Igf messages, and how exactly we are to be precise, I can share a bit about the experience of the Api Gf and also expand on what? What has said, which is that we have experimented with both, which is the system that we use now is, we use just singular words with very broad categories, and we only have 3 sub themes for the entire Api Gf the reasoning behind it for us was that we were trying to encourage cross-cutting proposals and issues, and so we were not thinking about precision as such.
We were trying to get, you know, organizers to be a bit more creative. So that was the you know why we went with that approach as opposed to the way that we're doing now, which is listing everything out. The difficulty that we've observed is that people don't know where to go when submitting their proposals. It's very confusing. Yes, you can read the description, but people are still going to miss. Understand on this, interpret what we're trying to achieve, and then, when it came to actually doing the Api Gf, the Synthesis document again, we had that problem because we only had 3 buckets, and we ended up having to have sub headings of each bucket anyway, so it works for the Apri Igf, because we have a different purpose in mind, and we will keep probably continue to use that.
But the skill is much smaller. We're only dealing with like 100 plus proposals. And trying to with all it down, but at the skill of the Igf it's going to be very difficult, because we're getting so many proposals in just in terms of organization. I think it's better to have clarity of each sub team, and where people should go. But then the question that I'd like to open up to the Mac to consider is, how would we deal with cross-cutting proposals? Or how could we then encourage people to think creatively across themes? And whether or not it we are being so precise, we are actually kinda limiting. You know what they can put in, if that's not really an issue, then that's fine. But I think it's also worth just thinking about it. If they are. No, yes, we can think about it again. As I said, one proposal is that we keep these teams as working together. We can see whether or not we need to adjust them. When the submissions come in. We've had issues in the past. Yes, where? We've had proposals who which didn't, which evaluators didn't think fit in that basket, and that was also, I think, when we had fewer themes, I think the so.
Yes, I am here, and I do understand what Joyce is saying. So! I would propose. We keep these teams with an understanding that we're gonna be revisiting them. The workshop, evaluation group is, this is another point for you to consider. Joyce's question on? Press catching proposals. I think a solution can be made. I think it's we either identify them beforehand. Or something, but I'm sure we can find the solution, and then we revisit it, and we fully understand that it just doesn't mean because it's a theme.
It is a main session. No, these are more of structural tools these are more of structural tools, so that we can get through the schedule and also get through the outputs. But Bruno question, should we still expect reduce to reduce the list or not? Are we like? Are we? We're keeping it as is right now. But are we still discussing having 5 instead of 7 for the near future? My senior is that we keep it as it is, and then we also see, and then we can revisit when the inputs come in.
Because, for instance, we had environment last time, and the input that came in it was debatable whether or not that should be a track. So we can do it that way, so that we're not presupposing things. And we're actually reacting to what we are receiving from the community. So we are using this for the submission form. This list. Yes, yes, Karen, sorry. I just wanted to make a comment. We gave you what you wanted so I hope it's not. I'm gonna be greedy, you know, just because you spoke about the environment and same thing. What going back to Abdulla. Maybe I want to suggest. Only suggest that the last bullet sustainability, economy and environment be changed to something that's more prevalent. Now something called the triple bottom line, and to make it a bit more catchy, it's now people planet and prosperity. Just a suggestion. It's called the Triple P. Is that a colloquial term? Now it's it's becoming one, especially in the business world.
They're now trying to do corporate social responsibility. And it's becoming a big part of can you just put that down? You can put it in another color, and then we'll see how it works and what people think. So just comments on changing the last bullet to people planet and prosperity. And we just discussing that just because if the list and it's best for the list and not rediscus, otherwise, I mean, there's still like fragmentation. That's not there.
A lot of okay. I get your point. Any other comments? Yes, I'm Neil Dundas. Again. I'm new to this, so please excuse me if I don't have the full context of what this is actually meant to do, but from what I understand what Joyce said, it's there to invite proposals based on these sub themes and that doesn't mean that that's gonna be the those are gonna be the final sessions, or anything like that. It's more just to collect different proposals, and it really serves as a way for us to tell people what we want them to focus, what sort of content and discussion we want them to focus on. So if they do submit something that is maybe a hybrid of a number of theme. Maybe this list could also then evolve to include a combination or hybrid options, so that people could self-classify their proposals and say, it cuts across here. And yeah, it's a combination of different teams that's gonna be a practical way of using this list so that's one way of doing it.
Yeah. And my comments on on the chat still stands. I think if you throw the the net very wide like that lost point, even with the proposed amendment, it's very, very wide catch will need, and you will get almost everything that doesn't fit into any of the others fitting into that lost. Theme so it doesn't really help you with your classification or your at the end of the day. So maybe you want to change that rather to some sort of combination and allow people to say, Well, it touches on this and this point. It's a combination of these different themes. That's just practically a way I would go about this, for in the context of how you're gonna use it. Joyce! Thanks, Chinga Tian, thanks Carol for making this suggestion. I always like catchy terms.
I'm a bracele, but I do agree. I think planet and prosperity probably isn't covered because we can pass it as a economy and environment. That's okay. But people might be bit difficult for organizers to understand, because then it might seem very similar to human rights. Maybe, or people the people one people might take it as gender, and you for so I'm trying to imagine what kind of sessions would fall on the final one. And the final one might just be a little bit too broad with people planet and prosperity, although I really like it. And I like that. It's current. And you know it's being used now. So when I'm getting in that they isn't as support to change it to people, planet and prosperity at the present moment. In time, and we still have to look at the last bullet point to see whether or not it's it can be more focused a little bit or, Neil, you were saying, make it a catch all, or make it to cross cutting busket.
Alright, can you? Just again I was. If you look, if you read this, you can fit any topic under this, and is that the intention of what the Magg wants to do once you invite any conceivable proposal because you could probably fit the mundane of some of these categories at least one of them if you want to be focused and you want the proposals to come in on certain focus points and you don't need to want to catch all component to it where you could. Something that's outside of those focus points. And then maybe you can introduce another category. People can send us a and say it cuts over a number of these sub teams, and that would be an interesting submission. So you almost steering them away from trying to submit something to General, and forcing them into self-classifying into how this proposal that they're putting in speaks to the focus points that you want them to speak to even if they if it's if it's a combination of themes and meal out.
Can I give you some minutes to think on a specific wording? It would be an option combination explained a combination of the buff points. Explain. Okay. Alisa. Thank you. So, as we are again debating the the sub teams on the last one, it says, sustainability, economy and environment. I I would at least prefer to have environments and sustainability. Next to each other, because the economy is like something else, and then you're going back to yeah more sustainable environment issue. And I'm not really sure the necessity of economy in here, because it doesn't really say anything so if it were me I'd go for sustainability and environments or environments and sustainability.
Cause I think that sounds better. And okay, can we just hearing you guys? Would it be okay if we removed the economy? I mean, no. Bruno. Again. The if we change to plan, I think we're gonna end up having like proposals about interplanetary stuff that might be a little misleading or I don't know quantitative stuff that might be a little bit about interplanetary stuff that might be a little misleading or I don't know people. Planets and prosperity is going to be about interplanetary stuff. That might be a little misleading, or I don't know we agreed that we were not going to do this discussion. We're doing it, I mean. Yes, economy is a huge part of a lot of the other discussions that are there.
If you discuss data economy, it's on the data governance and trust part. If you discuss cybersecurity, that could also be an economical aspect to that I dropped my charger for the eleventh time today. And so it's fine. I yeah, I I'll just focus on the environmental and sustainability conversation as well, because it's our agreement from yesterday that was the one topic of discussion that was not fully envisioned on the list. And there was also a crosscoding discussion, so there was no discussion about economy. Instead of putting it at the top in the title, putting it in the blub, explaining what we mean, that we are also welcoming. Joyce. Yes, sure. Okay. Great. So we're gonna remove economy from the top and put it in the globe.
Joy, if nobody's got any other objections, will make this lesson normal. Will. I'll give a 6 count. But, Joyce, you have the last word thanks, Jingota. I'm not sure about the last word. I just wanted to make a bit of an explanation of what I think you. Economy was trying to. Why, it's there. And I think, for example, in Asia, Pacific, the very sort of economy and work minded in that sense. And so when we see the word people would typically think about the digital economy or future of work, those sorts of themes.
So, instead of dropping the word economy, and perhaps we could put it somewhere where it better fits rather than in sustainability and environment, which, I agree should be separate. Maybe we can just have digital device inclusion and economy. You know, we have a lot. But my point is that reflective reaction there there's a reason that economy is there for people who? No, but I think economy. There was meaning green economy, sustainability as part of the is it a virtuous circle? I I think economy.
There was meaning green economy, sustainability, as part of the is it a virtu? The phrases, yeah, but as part of a virtuous circle, not as you were describing it. That's why economy was there. And that's the aspect of economy that we want. We don't want the full. Yes, my realism. Oh, sorry! I mean I had the immediate reaction on that, because and the idea that we're talking about divides only because of economic purposes. To me. Is a that we're talking about divides only because of economic purposes. To me is a bit. Oh, no, we're not gonna touch that. Don't worry. So we're not touching anything above the sustainability and environment. That's the only thing that's in debate. Now, but but the idea of putting economy together with this study, divide on inclusion. That's not, you know, the the idea of including people in information ecosystems is for the human rights of access to information or freedom of expression, and so on and so forth. You know, it's like they, the purpose not is not, you know, not to transform them into economic agents, you know.
In that sense, you know. So I think that association is a bit complicated. So that's why. Sorry? Sorry, you know. So if it means circular economy, then I'm fine to have it there as well in the title. But I think, well, if you have sustainability in a environment, and still I would say, environment and sustainability. But if you have those 2 words, there, I'm happy to include circular economy, because that's also more in the green field.
But if you're talking just like economy, it could also be industrial. That would be my suggestion. Okay, Brina, we can clarify this point on the paragraph that describes the track. It's a way of tracking. Overcome that my point was just again same question. I did at the beginning. Where would I submit? A workshop on fragmentation? It's. That is my question about, because it was a theme last year. It's not on this list right now. It's part of the discussions we lost the base. I'm respecting that. So my question is, where? Isn't. It would be digital governance. Yeah, to the digital governance.
And fragmentation to mention it on the as a topic cause. We still have the pn. If it's still part of our discussions, it's one of the like topics related. I don't know what people think. But yes, Chris. Yeah, I know. I mean, I think, I always a bit 2 minds about Instagram fragmentation discussions. But it does make sense. Given that it was there last year, and I think it probably does fit into that. That same idea. I would also go, like economy into the, and also remember that the Pnn is gonna get a session as well. So that's I think the question, I, yeah, I think if we included that fragmentation in the theme, yeah, well, I mean, I don't speak for the Ni. F. But I would. Certainly I think it wasn't from my perspective ideal last time when we had pnis main session, followed immediately by his main session on the boarding Internet Fragmentation.
I think we would want to avoid something like that this time, because I think it was a little too. Okay. Let me ask somebody who hasn't a vested interest. Hey? Do we have any comments? Any opinions on that. Yes, I would change corporation in fragmentation in this sub team. So then you would have global digital governance and fragmentation and a voice. For in a void Internet. No, avoid fragmentation. Yeah. It makes sense to refer back to what it was. Really a very well important part of the idea of last year. Again. I think maybe the message that I was saying earlier got lost because the purpose of this list. It's 2 lists of proposals and if it's not going to equate to you, it's not necessarily going to equate to the sessions at the Igf.
Then you can have 1020 on the list. Yeah, inviting people to give you focused proposals on those specific points. And then when you get all the proposals, you can decide how you want to combine them together, and how you want to present it in sessions. Why is this focus, all this attempt to get focused on certain areas? And then we throw in a general component at the end because we're not achieving focus in terms of what we're asking from proposals.
We were. We're trying to be focused on certain points and and very unfocused on the loss point, because it's anyone can submit anything under that unsustainability. You could prove fragmentation, oh, we are! We're past the last one, and now we just no, but I mean, if you want something on fragmentation, make your point by itself and invite proposals on that that's what I'm trying. I'm trying to get some support for that that is not coming from the pni. If there's other views that are supporting that that are not coming from the pni, then we can consider it to.
Otherwise we could just say that, of course. Still, one I mean, it's natural. Yes, Carol. I think sometimes when you, when you narrow down or put a specific topic in one of the headings, then when I come to do an evaluation, sometimes, you see, people try to just throw in Internet fragmentation, even though, is because it's only because it's part of the heading, and therefore, if you put it part of the heading you then give that proposal low score, because they're not following the topic. But if you put Internet fragmentation within the blurb and say, Hey, this is what we're talking about. Then you you give people options, and then you don't think well, this this doesn't have anything to do with Internet fragmentation. I'm not gonna give it a good school. Yeah. See if there's any other. I'm just a little bit concerned about the fragmentation being guinea pigs. In this discussion, because last year we had human rights and access. 2 very complex. Topics, too, very hard to analyze and go through the workshop proposals. I don't think there was this problem that whether us at one of the submissions that didn't talk necessarily about human rights aspect on ensuring access to I mean to people in South America, would be downgraded because it didn't talk about the human rights aspect and I know it's well more connected by the narrative we adopted last year.
Fragmentation was very much a topic at the age of not just, but but by the community. We had way, too many submissions on the Us. Declaration about the Internet. We had a lot of submissions about the Gdc. And a lot of interest from the community into understanding. What is the new chat about fragmentation, or is it a new one, or like a past one? And above that, above all of that, like the Gdc.
Brings in a lot of the fragmentation discussions, and not just that the pnis had a small subset of a debate about the fragmentation of Internet governance process. I'm not just talking about B and F. Here. I don't talk on behalf of the pnis, but in my mind it makes sense to have some. What some mixing about cooperation and governance and avoiding fragmentation because it's kind of a premise to this space, I fully understand what you're saying.
And but my point is that if we're having a discussion we're trying to come to a consensus. And from what I'm hearing is that there's only one person or 2 people who are pushing for a point, and the other 40 are not. Then it seems to me that there is a rough consensus. There, and and the rough consensus is that we don't all have to agree. But we also take a step back to see. Okay, fine. I have the most important part of it is that you've had your say. You've had a chance to win the people over to but if that's not what I'm hearing, if that's not what we are seeing, then we should keep it like that.
I mean, that's the whole point. I mean, I do understand that. Yes, the way that you're feeling, or what you're saying to us. If this is that I mean, I'm also referring to my Ch as well that. Yeah. I mean, they agree with me as well. So we will keep it at that. You will have a chance to revisit it again. As I said in June, there is a chance to visit that as well. Would that be okay with you? I, Chinatai. It's okay. I just think we don't fully agree. I think you're I mean the way to put as just as a sole position on this. I don't think it's necessarily fair, but I'm okay with that. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna die. It's gonna be. But I mean, it's just that fragmentation was a relevant topic, and it's a little strange that we're forgetting about it. So we understand, okay, so this is what we're going to keep.
As the teams as a way to it's strong the inputs, the proposals structure, the schedule and also help us structure the outputs. There is going to be a chance for revision in June. Oh, my June anymore. But in our proposed date, which I think is our next, is 10 of July, which I want to ask for your input if that's okay, because since June is quite full now, so I'm going to give it a 6, count to see if there are any objections to that, not the dates, but keeping this form as how I explained it. Online man, is that, okay? Okay, so we will carry that. And then our next. Oh, what is on next time? I'm actually yes, we do have. He's waiting to give input on the Pmm. A so we've got 2 options we can go for lunch, and then we can come back and do the Ppm. And also decide on the dates for the next meeting. Would that be okay? And then hopefully, as I know that people have to travel, have to move, we can break early instead of breaking at 60'clock.
We can break early. But first of all, we do know that the co-chair has to leave, so I would just ask Miss Data if he has any porting words for us before he leaves, and also thank him very much for coming here. He is also doing the G. 7. Coordination as well, and it's a long fight from Japan, and he has to go back to carry on his work. And we're very grateful that he made the time and effort to come yeah, thank you very much for the very kind words, and thank you all very much for this very active and insightful discussion actually to be honest, I learned a lot from the discussion this morning, and over the last 2 days, especially the discussion on the main team and also the sub team.
Quite inspiring and informative, so I hope we can share the information, and also the passion here with our colleagues at G. 7, and we try to find some some visible ways, for coordination or synergy. Making, or more further collaboration between different frameworks. After, total Ivf this year. So thank you very much for the meeting and the stay in touch. And please, do not hesitate, contacting me directly. If you have anything to input and thank you very much for that. And I wish you a successful afternoon discussion, too. Thank you. So how long a lunch break do you need? Shall we come back at 3, 3, 33. Okay, we'll come back at 3 then. Thank you.
Can we please take our seats, please. Thank you very much, and welcome to the final session of the magnet. But today, my meeting that we're having. I wouldn't say much. I'll just hand it over to our chair and to start. Thank you. Thank you. Hope you all enjoyed the last segment before a little break. I think it's indicative of the importance that people are place on Meg and place on the the Igf. As a whole. And if you think about it from the beginning to where we are now, Hi, Gfs become sort of the free, eminent platform for discussion of Internet policy issues and the discussion that we just had, how do you indicate how much passion there is or the work at the same time we can have passion, that we can channel.
2 to a wide range of objectives, and I'm not sure that we've ground out all the way on that last policy point before. The break, and so I wanted to give of the assembled people here. Now, and opportunity to do. Take one more bite at the apple of that issue, and see if we can't. Find a way to be a little bit more accommodating. To everyone, and and leave with that as an accomplishment today. And if nobody wants to say anything that's fine, we can just close it off. But I got the strong sense that there wasn't really, but you could call consensus. There. So before we move on to any other topics, is there anybody who would like to proceed and have a little more discussion focused on trying to come to an I believe you're. Chris. Thanks, Paul. I'm not sure I'll get us closer to where we need to be, but I do think what's struck me thinking about it at lunch is bye, there seem to be 2 parallel discussions here or 2 different issues.
That we're conflating, one of which is what is the purpose of the themes. What what do we intend these things to do? And the other is, what is it? What is the language of the themes? What is included in them, and I think if we don't have a clear sense of the first point, and I think and I'm not sure we do. I think we seem to see to have at least some competing ideas about what the themes should do in terms of the Igf.
Then it makes discussion of the second point. A little bit moved. But yeah, we're either trying to combine things and come up with very concise language, always just saying we're happy with lots, and we can. But but where we end up on that kind of depends on a common agreement on what the theme are for. Yeah. So I mean, I have my own views. I think on what the teams are for, and I think I probably in the camp that tends toward they can be many themes, and we sort of use them primarily in relation to messages. We decouple them from the main sessions a little bit, so we don't say every everything has to have a main session, but I'm not the definitive voice on that. I'm not even definitively sure of that myself.
I think I can also see value in saying we condensed to a few themes that really reflect our mag collective understanding of what the priorities for this year should be, and try and keep a very sort of focused event. Yeah, but as I say, I tend towards the other direction. But I'll leave it there. Thanks. Thanks, Chris in Joyce! Thanks very much, Paul, and thanks everyone for having a nice lunch break, although fast on. I like to also support what Chris said, that you know. Maybe it's good that the Mag this year has a very clear idea of what the sub teams are for and how we're treating them. In past years the exercise has always been to try and streamline it, and the purpose of the sub teams were really just to let people know what the main focus areas were for that year, so that was the thinking behind it.
But I think this year seems to be very different. Our approach is more to help people. Nowhere to submit their proposals, seems that that is the direction that we are heading towards, which, again, different from past years. And so the Mac has to understand. This is, this is different, right? But taking a different approach, and we have to be okay with it, because then we are setting up a precedence that next year's Mag will have to deal with, and then next year's. Mag has to understand how we arrived here, because we will definitely get questions like, Oh, why is it? This year we have software many themes.
Does that mean that there's an unfocused Igf we have to be able to defend ourselves and to answer those questions. Long story short, I was trying to end with an action point. I do have a concrete suggestion, which is, if we feel that the subtracts don't capture some topics that we feel like important to put in what we could do is get a bit creative.
We could have the sub track. And typically, we would have a description of that subtract or that theme this up theme. But this time around we could maybe put in some buzzwords to clarify like within this theme. These are some of the topics or sub topics you could think about, and then you know where to find yourself. So we talked a lot about Internet fragmentation. I don't know the feeling of this room. Do you do you think it's important to have it as a special subtract or a category along with the rest of the list? Or maybe, if you don't see that it is, ask crucial or as high level as the ones that we have now, we could put Internet fragmentation or fragmentation is like one of the topic words that describes one of the tracks that could be another way of doing it just trying to find out. A compromise. Thank you. Just remind everybody about last year's subtext, and they were chosen carefully to align language with the Gtc.
And then that sense the word, both restricting, and also at the same time. Opening because they helped to create the alignment across systems. And in, in an analogous way, it's possible that choosing the basket of of words distributed in various ways this year, can serve the same function in terms of creating a broader alignment. Good last year's text produced. Anyways, you just you can have that to think about. And we have chalk Homo online. Thank you. Chair. Can you hear me? Yes, can now. Okay, thank you for giving me the. It's not ideal to. And to come back to the issues that's been so far from the discussion where we are now.
But yeah, I think that is important, anyway, to reflect also on intersectional activities that are going on, as you know, I'm co-chair of the group on public public network, meaningful access. Sorry, and we have presented the plan that has been approved by you, and now we are ready to go to it for implementation. In this plan. As you know, we have a mentioned that we want to implement the activity in the cooperation with the leadership panel in order to try to promote some of the solution, and the best practice that they've been identified last year.
I'm glad that on the day one been surf confirmed that the availability of the leadership panel and promoting so we identify this is a number of actions that are taking place across some international organization and the UN agencies that are that are going on in the good direction, and so would be good to spread these examples and best practice across all the values. Organization. Particularly, we underline the fact that he's important to try to establish cooperation with the regional organization like the African Union and the Latin American Union and European Union in order to try to bring to the attention of the various regional partners what is possible to do according to the best practice. We have identified. There is an important element that we need to. We need to put in place as soon as possible, and is the the support of the Secretariat.
Sooner we will be sure about who will support us sooner. We can start with the action. And so this is my personal recommendation. Request to to you to try, to use and to speed this process, and as soon as we are ready to start we will send a call that we will ask the back to distribute across the members and the cross all the Igf. Calls the procedure in order to see if we can get on board other people. We have a at the moment around 30 organizations that are cooperating with us on a permanent basis. But of course, if we can enlarge, this would be even better.
And I see that there are new faces here at the Igf. And would be useful if we can get in contact with them and try to get them on board. Also on the pandemic activities. That's all. I don't want to prolong your activity on that, but I wish that we can start as soon as possible, and this is also the wish of my co-chair this since this year. Replace Sonia.
That was the co-chair of last year. Thank you very much. Hey? Thank you. Cheek, and thank you, Jacoma, for that update. I just wanted to. Tuesday first of all on the consultant. Yes, we've started processing that it may take a couple of weeks or up to a month before the consultant is hired, and I hope that the work can be forwarded still. But we are working on it, and hopefully to. We will have the consultants sooner rather than later. Another thing that I just wanted to mention, since you mentioned the deeper panel as well is that in the leadership panel we there was a discussion on. If members of the leadership panel could take one track or one issue and be kind of I don't know what you want to call it a figurehead, a champion, a component of that issue or track, for instance, for the use track we did have Mega who was saying that he's willing to to come there as well, and lend his weight behind it.
So also if Pnma is also, you know it is quite essential and without meaningful access, you cannot add, do anything on the Internet, and you cannot be involved in the Internet governance debate effectively. So we could also ask them if there would be somebody who wanted to come, and then they wait behind your activities. So I mean, it's not full time, but part of the reason was that if they're holding press conferences, since it's there that they have decided to champion that track, they could also speak on it specifically, yeah, I hope I'm making myself.
Understood? Yeah. Heyw! You add your hand up. Well, he was above the previous subject, I mean the the thematic, and but not on that. But I would say it anyway. I I'm as you know. I I'm a new member. The quality that will be I will be losing. A few hours. I mean being a new Mac member, but from that optics I will say I will suggest that as some point, not now, we have, we made work on having procedures and agreements on writing, because, for instance, when we were discussing the mathematics, 7 5 whatever I didn't know the implications that, for instance, yours mentioned about the amount of proposals, or or the groups that will be made up within the M.
2 in order to evaluate all these proposals. On the other hand, I was looking. I think it is good that we have so many open possibilities for people to propose, and and they will fit. My proposal is there in this category or this topic, and so on. So I was looking at it as a good thing to have 7, 8, or more, but I didn't know the implications. I still don't know, because I haven't worked on that. But if what I'm saying, if we have a, we should have at some point or the rule that a Mac member choose not sure or should not be part of a panel or yeah worship, or whatever, or in what conditions. So I think that for sometime in the future maybe it will be a good thing to have that on writing all of those so new members can read and can be inducted into the the process, current process of the mark and if somebody wants to change them, okay, that's fine but we have something to work on.
That's my point that I wanna make that point. Thank you. Thank you. Sounds like you're looking for some thing like an onboarding kit right? That's a great idea. Actually, I think that is a great idea. And I think also it would be useful, for now, since you are new, magnet is not just, you. But if you could go with other new magazine, just form a small group, and then, as you're going through your experience, no, okay, I wish I had this, this and this and this, and then we can construct that.
I mean everything. Is there in writing somewhere? It's just that. It's not put into one place, but if we follow your experiences, and it may be too late for this year, but for the others, then we can always Update it as we go along. From your experience. So that I think that would be great. Yeah. Does anyone want? Does anyone want to take the floor? So I would invite choice. Bruno and Chris to expand a little bit on the issue. We left off before lunch. Just see if we can move a little closer together.
We have can we have the? I guess themes back on the screen? If we're gonna go through that something alright. Thank you, Andrew. Yeah, I you know I'm not quite sure. Where we left or where we can go from there. But I I mean I think that was at least in the strong argument to say, Is that fragmentation remains a key issue and remains something that is being discussed in a policy network is still at the center of the global digital compact discussions and was a very popular thematic track last year in terms of workshops that were planned around it.
So I certainly think that it seems odd when all of the other the other issues have survived in some form or another into the this year's things, that that would be the one that gets dropped. I think that's it. There would be questions about that, and I would have questions about that. So it's a question. So then the open question, I think, is, does it sort of do we simply add it as an additional standalone? Something? Or do we try and consolidate a little here, and included in one of the others? I think if we're adding it, it's clear that if we're adding more, perhaps, even if working at the number that we are now, there might need to be some reconsideration of whether these some things reflect will represent the main sessions that we have. And that's that's probably fine, but that would be a change from last year, and I think something we would need to do deliberately. And then, yeah, question about what that means.
Sort of going forward, and how how we structure it. So I'm not sure if I help clarify things. There. But maybe Joyce. Yes. Thanks very much. During the time Paul, and also Chris. I don't really have any strong opinions about whether or not we want to include Internet fragmentation as a as a sub team in the list, or we keep the list as is, I'm quite happy. Both ways. So I'm just let the decide what is the best way forward. I did already give some other suggestions, for if people somehow felt uncomfortable, I think another sub to the list, then there are other ways of dealing with it, but if not happy to see it there as well. Not anymore. I was ready pointed out that my perception might be a little bias, and I might have a with the Pnf. I made my points already.
I think it's still an important subject, so I'll leave the decision to the Mac in general. So I'm thinking of. Okay. So we've heard a little bit more. Chris enjoys. Do you? Hey? Let's just take a temperature of the room. If it's possible to get together on some formulation that includes this Greg fragmentation in this in the teams head. So, or a temperature of the room, I just gonna ask who would find it impossible to agree with.
Putting this in. It's a popper. Anyone who would find it. Carol, you, okay, I don't know if it would be helpful for persons to make a decision. If we can determine. Okay, what is the cause of the fragmentation, and therefore determine. Do any of these things line up with Internet fragmentation. If not, then yes, you need to put it in, because otherwise it's lost. However, if there is a cause and effect with regards to Internet fragmentation, and any one of these thanks listed here, then you could make some kind of determination. I don't know if that's helpful or more confusing.
Thank you. Huh! So Chris, get your flag out. Yeah, I mean, I think just to that, I think one of the really key the key outcome of the Pnif last year was a sort of cataloging of what fragmentation means to different people and identifying that actually, it's a really diverse things. So I I don't see it sort of happily sitting in any of those themes, and that's why I think, yeah, it either. You sort of think of it as a sort of cross-cutting thing, as obviously fragmentation is bad. But again, that's sort of as a tendency to get lost. So I think that's why I would come down on wanting to see it. There in a sort of specific and separate. Thank you. So I asked if there was anyone new would find it impossible to accept incorporating the topic back in, and I haven't seen any. It's impossible plagues yet. About. Don't really have a say here about tonight. But there are some topics in there that are already into session work, and everything that could be discussed in workshops could be discussed the whole year.
So. Perhaps it is then a case of making the outcome a little bit more important at the Igf, and not just the bottom half. Our recession was something that is because if it works international work, you have everything you need, including recommendation, best practices, etc. So if you advocate them in the right way at the Igf, you don't need 10 workshops the same goes to cybersecurity, and the same goes for artificial intelligence.
But that's just my short opinion. Thank you for that. And actually, I can appreciate it. I think that that's something that we could talk about in relation to what happens after this year. Given where we are, but actually have in the offer a plan to have that discussion towards the end of the stop, taking it at the end of the next session, Chris. Sorry, and I don't take the floor to speak for myself, but just to note that there's some discussion in the Zoom chat which I think is relevant and has several mag members involved, too, about the for adding the fragmentation item to the global digital Governance and Corporation point which seems to have some support. So that's certainly something I could live with. But point to that, and also cool. Hey? Has his hand up in the but how are you? Go ahead! Yeah, thank you. Actually, Chris just mentioned what I was intending to say. Andreet has proposed a hey very useful language in just saying global Internet governance.
For a unified and fragmented Internet. So a wording like that in in the sub team could I think this discussion and I have everybody on board. Thank you. Can you repeat, please, what the formulation is? It says, global Internet governance for a unified, unfragmented Internet. Thank you. Chris. I like the effort, but I think we did talk yesterday about the using having Internet governance as one of the things for Internet governance forum. So I mean, I would probably think sticking to that sort of oh, nomenclature of digital corporation which the UN. Seems to have adopted in relation to all of the issues like, which is plus 20 etc., makes a little bit more sense here, and wouldn't be less problematic for those who spoke against it yesterday. It might not be his day again that would parallel our efforts. Last year to mine text. I think I mean I think one of the points in having that global digital governance and corporation theme was to try and make a space in in the sort of mathematic structure to align or to at least to allow engagement with those UN n versus so yeah, that would be relatively explicit in you're making that connection.
Anyone else have comments or thoughts. Alright, tightly held views. If not, what I'd like to ask is Chris, if you would formulate? And ask, we can just test here in the room. Well, I think on Ran, actually has provided the global digital governance and corporation for an unfragmented Internet. I would be happy enough with that. I think it's a elegant enough structure, so happy to put that out. And see if people, how people feel about that. Alisa. Thank you. Paul, yeah. I like the theme. But then it it really stands out towards all the other ones. So this is like almost a full sentence, and the others are like data reference and trust. So it becomes odd, in comparison to the others. That's and I don't have an alternative. Now. So, but just to point that out before we start.
Yes, the choice thanks, Paul. And yes, I support Alisa. I think it has to be, you know, when we play the game. What's the one out very clearly. That's the all one out. Actually, I don't really hear any opposition in the room for having Internet fragmentation as a separate theme. I'm most of you that it doesn't exactly fit into the digital governance and cooperation portion, because that's about processes. And you know other things that we're talking about. But then Internet fragmentation is more than just processes it's about the tennis layer.
It's about infrastructure. It's about all of those different things that go into fragmentation. And so, if, we're not really hearing strong opposition for having Internet fragmentation as a sub- theme, I think we should just put it in. I mean, unless people feel strongly that we should not have it, we should only stick with 7. Otherwise I think we can just move forward with having Internet fragmentation as a sub team. So. Thank you. I think it's it's something that would be nice to get support for. So a question for the assembly here is, who cares? Who can support this idea? 1, 2, yes, hands up! Hold! I view.
Okay. That looks to be like more than half the room. And so what I'd like I would like to do. I just wanna make sure that I'm picking everyone into account. And everybody's had their opportunity to be heard. I would like to be able to move that we incorporate. Good lying something like following the language that we've just heard and incorporate. Frank fragmentation as its own contact line. Do I hear any opposition? Oh, yeah. Alisa. Should we, in that case do avoid Internet fragmentation, because otherwise it might read as if we're propagating it.
I I would I would ask that there'd be a little trusted placed in the Secretariat to do a little special word, smithing to make sure that we don't have that result. But can everybody live with that? So I'm seeing nobody's saying no. So bills just assume that that means we've said yes and direct the secretary. It is appropriate to helps with language. Okay, everybody. Okay, with that. You do? Hmm, okay, we're getting close to the end of this. Marathon and I wanna make sure that everybody who need to chance to be heard gets to be heard.
So it's not opportunity. Open mic, or anybody who wants to. Had an intervention on any of the topics that we've had. Over the last few days. So probably avoiding Internet accommodation should be the second place. Thank you. Thank you for that. Anyone else who would like to say just for us to decide what's gonna be the process for the selection of the main sessions. I understand the concern of not adding fragmentation before was cause. We had 2 sessions about fragmentation last year, and I mean I don't think that's something that's gonna be insisted on. We can just follow through with the Pni F session as the place for discussing Internet fragmentation.
If that's the community consensus, but it would be good to have a process for discussing what will be the themes for the main sessions, because we opted for a different approach this year. So? And when? When should we decide? There are the team? What are the teams? That's great. What proposal would you like to make? I don't have any proposals. I'm just concerned. I mean, we have the one on processes already. That's agreed upon. I hope. But my problem is that we also have a few cross-cutting issues and topics that were discussed so I don't know if maybe on the next month, like we as the Max should work on lists or possible subjects for the main Sessions, and then start like with a proper timeline moving on from there. But there should be more than just what's listed on the sub team, and that's not the approach we're taking. So, yeah. Thank you. Hey? Choice! Thanks, Paul, and thanks Bruna, for bringing up that you know.
Now we do have a process or procedural issue in which we need to built in. Now how we're going to formulate the main sessions. I'm actually thinking. In this case, perhaps, we would have to take guidance then less from the sub teams, because they're just buckets. But more from the overworking theme, so perhaps we could tell ourselves just a suggestion, maybe 2 or 3 main sessions, and it doesn't have to be the sub team names that we see in the list. But just thematic topics or it could even be like a shot phrase or sentence that speaks to the overarching theme. If that makes sense so. Yes, thank you. I think that's a good suggestion. Other ideas. Chris. Just I mean, it would be useful to get, and perhaps the secretary can provide the number of main sessions we have available.
The number of, or how it's expected that they'll be used. So how many are free, basically, and what what to what use they'll be they'll be ported because I'm gonna see, for instance, I mean discussions. As Bruno was saying about the platforms and initiatives. Of age, getting a main session, as happened last year are we going to do that a little differently? I guess it sounds like we might with the Pnif. What does that mean for other intercessional activities? So, yeah, I think at this point. Still, we perhaps don't have all of the information to. Start. Yeah, deciding I'd like, Okay, 3 or 4 sounds like a very small number of main sessions that are not already accounted for.
But maybe that's where we're at. I mean for the main sessions. We can look at the room right. We have one room which has the interpretation, so are we having of course, it also depends on the timing. Are we having 2 sessions per day? We have to cross off the opening and closing session, and also the open mic session, and that brings us to how much? Yeah, so that's easily calculated. And we also have to agree how long these main sessions are. Again what we've done in the past doesn't mean that we have to repeat it for this year. We can also reconfigure. As for the whether the other sessions get a main session, I mean, that's up to the Max as well. So what I would suggest is, you can take it off from the last year schedule it's not gonna change because the hours are standard and the timings are standard it's just that you have to be careful that the the breaks that like the lunch break has to be kept and the opening and closing.
Yeah, that's it. Thank you. Go ahead just to remind us that we wanted to have a placeholder for the process process session. So if we're gonna have it, I think it should be like a main session as well. Other thoughts concerns Newsworthiness. Alisa. Thank you, I know. It's been a main session, or I think it has been main session before on sustainability and green Internet. Something like that. I still think that's such an important topic that that it should be a main session. But would I'm also wary of is calling out for different types of sessions, and we do need the expertise around us as well to organize something. So I'm not an expert on sustainability. Or sustainable Internet. And is there anyone on the Mag here who who is? Who does have this, you know knowledge, for example.
So I can say, like 10 different topics, I find really important, and like to have a main session on that. It. We do need people who also have the expertise or have the context, and to make sure that there will be a really good main session. And yeah, that's what I know. Could I make a suggestion that all of the Mag numbers after we leave here? Hey, good Droff! For the the capabilities that they have, that we don't necessarily know about each other, and so that we can have a little catalog of members who are interested in helping with Apc. Or d, whatever it is, should be a light lift to actually produce, produce that, and it should should help out with avoiding, unwanted and unproductive conversations.
So, but that that would put a slight burden on everybody too. To identify their special thing for things that they'd like to participate in or have expertise in. So. My question is, would you all be willing to do that for each other? Anybody saying no. So we're gonna have a nice group of people sharing common agendas. That's good, hey? Anyone else have any anything you'd like to say? I'd like to get off their test. I like to say pretty good at the order. Oh, yes, thank you. All about an observer. What I want to mention. Finally, I'm going to have a coalitions that Marcus mentioned this morning that we had a list of potential outcomes of the foreseen outcomes for 2023 at the Igf that's been shared with the secretary and that will be shared with with the Mac list and as you will see, it is an impressive list of intercessional work that these dynamic coalitions are working on in through the year, and hopefully that will lead to some new recognition on the outcomes and some more integration in the programs like we discussed and I've heard a lot of recognition in, the in the past 3 days.
So I've thank you all members, for those warm words on academic coalitions on behalf of well for my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm cognizant of the fact that we're running out of time. In terms of what we can accomplish. I wanna make sure that we hit everything that we need to hit. So? Is there anybody who has presentation? They like to make? How's it made to get any data, any ideas about how to do programming anything? Hey, it rises to the top. Here. Urgency queue that we'd need to get off. Yes, Bruno, not sure if Jeff necessarily the place, but considering the Gdc. Co. Facilitators will be at the Ijf. Would be interesting for us to consider having a like a fireside checks, or some sort of a like small conversations, like more informal conversation between them, and maybe the or somebody moderating this conversation just so they could inform the community about the process it doesn't need to be a main session can be just a fireside.
One more focus on the Gdc. Process, and also used to address some of the questions and doubts by the community. Just a suggestion. Thank you. Other ideas. Just thinking on timing. It makes sense session. But that's the last thing. Yeah. Choice. Thanks, Paul. I have a question around now that we have it's up themes, although not necessarily tying it to of the bits and bops that the Magg is working with. But how would we then organize ourselves when it comes to the evaluation groups? Could we just have a very quick discussion around that like do we need to combine some groups? Or should we wait until we see what the demand is like? Per group, and then figure out the best way to organize ourselves.
But I think we should at least have some sense of how we're gonna go forward from here. Thanks. Okay, okay, that sounds like something, right? A couple of discussion. And I guess and go ahead just to give you some background of the. Of course, we can start the discussion. What usually happens is that we do see what's coming in. And then we make sure all we try and make sure that we can divide the groups equally amongst the magn members. So we need to have at least I don't know 4 or 5 Meg members grading one workshop, and as far as breaking them up is concerned, is depends, because in some years we've had 90 workshops in one and 20 workshops in the other and 14 the other so we keep that one and one group marks that, and then we combine 2.
And one good marks that, or if it's really really huge, we can actually break it up into 2 groups. So 2 groups like that. And so it really depends. But we just want to keep it balanced. That magn members would be more marking, basically the same number of workshops and the assignment is random as well. No! Any other conversation on that topic. So, then the next item of businesses where our next meeting is going to be, and what time is going to be.
And. So the thank you. The proposal at the moment is to have it on the tenth of July, one issue with the tenth of July is, of course, that there is going to be the it. Council meeting and I don't know if there is, whether it's a plus or a minus. If you have, if we have it in parallel with a council meeting.
That means that either some people who are attending the house meeting will come to our meeting or the other way around. Some people are supposed to come to our meeting. We'll go to the council meeting. I would hesitate to make it, because the council meeting is from the tenth until the 20. First, I'm not to share the meeting, so I would hesitate to have the the second number of consultations I make meeting. After that, so we should either have it. At right at the beginning of the tenth. We cannot have it during the the first week of July, because I'll chase got other commitments, and so we can't have it. Then, and, as we said, at the end of June, it's because it's a religious holiday, and we try and avoid having them. And then, if you're going back, then we have Euro dig, etcetera.
So June is basically filled up. So the most likely is the tenth of July. So. Thank you for that. Anybody foresee a problem from that? I'm not posting a problem, but it is. I haven't looked at the date, so how it lines up but with May end of may be a possibility, or we too late in the piece. Let me just check with the schedule, because we have to make sure that we have enough time for the workshop proposal phase, and also the grading phase to me the earlier, the better.
Of course. Yes. Are we just talking about starting during the week of the tech? Yes, I mean, there's the week of the tenth. So one proposes to start on the Monday. Another proposal is to start on the Wednesday, another proposal we could sell on Tuesday, but I was thinking Monday as a starting point, and to see the reason why I said Tuesday is because Monday is also the start of the Council the mitochondria, but I pulled them up, and they said, It's the same throughout.
So it doesn't really make a difference which day we start. According to whom I called up in the Itu. So suggest to Wednesday only because it's my country is fiftieth anniversary. So 50 years. It's golden Jubilee, but I understand. No sorry. The proposal is end of May. Is they date end of May. This one that you point out. East. Thank you. Chair. So if we are submitting. I'm trying to get this kid you if we have a thing it you need to put out calls for proposals, and how long shall we give people to submit proposals? And then we have to look at them.
I think maize no correct, because, according to the timeline, we have the the call for proposals runs from first of April to twentieth of May, and then we the Mag does need time to grade them. and we need time to typeulate the results. So it's would be a bit difficult. I this one, to sacrifice some of the time? That you would have to grade them to have it at the end of May. And just to check what was the problem? With the beginning of July of June? It's right. Scott. Yeah, so just checking on my calendar. Sorry. Right. Scott is from the fifth and to the eighth, and then Icon is on the twelfth until the fifteenth, and then we had one. Yeah, one, the irritate week. That's the following one in the 20 eighth, where we had booked. So June is not the best one. Yeah, June is not the best month, thirtieth of May to second of June is, will just give us a week for the grading and the evaluation. Yes. Thank you.
To what extent do you workshop proposers really need? 6 weeks. Could they do with a weeklist proposes? Hey? Game? I it's like the time, you know. We've all been to university to time. It takes you to write term paper given 3 months. You're given 6 months, you're still going to do it in the last 3 days. But yeah, that's I couldn't have said it better, but that's why I'm asking if we would take pick off from them. And well, we would also be cutting in our own time. Obviously, because we, I think we had 3 weeks, in the initial scheduling. But then we would have it much sooner be able to report back to the community which proposals have been on our, and so they can start make travel plans because the later they'll do that.
The more expensive, I think also it will be to travel towards Japan. So I'd be inclined to to go with the end of May. For that reason so to be. I know you'd like to take a week on. What we call is something I can support. Yeah, again. We can do it. No problem. We have always had repeated requests. 4 extensions. And we've actually at times built in the extension time, knowing that it's gonna be asked this, that without fail, it's gonna be asked. People need to get a contact with panelists. People need depend as time to react, etcetera, just to let you know. But of course we can do whatever the might once.
So, given. We know that that's human behavior. Yes, I guess my suggestion would be that we recognize this human behavior and take the extra week. And give ourselves the extra week, and make sure that we do a good job of communicating deadlines and process with. Would say within the timeframe, so we can trust the human nature will help us. Hold the the content in. Choice. Thanks whole. And Chingatai, is there a reason that we're not discussing? Fifth to 7 July? I mean, it's after the Fourth of July. I mean, we can do that. Last year we did have the Mag meeting during that weekend, I mean. Yes, again, we cannot make it convenient for everybody just to same as when we have a virtual call, you know, some people will have to get up a 3 a.
M. So something may have to miss the national holiday. But yeah, it's up to the consensus. Yeah, yeah, I'll and have it live by the computer. So 6 to 8, okay, we may be okay with it. But you know, will not be okay with it. I mean yes, I mean we can have it at the beginning of July. That would. Yeah. But again, I don't want to inconvenience anybody. That's yeah. It's up to you. That's yeah. Could we, and do a doodle for a couple of candidates? Well, yes, okay. We can do the call for both dates.
And taking the consideration on the first one. We know that people are gonna ask for more time, and we also have to take into consideration that the AIM is to get as many people as possible to submit quality proposals with enough time. So it was so, taking that into consideration, we can do the one where we take a week off. We can do the the one where we take a week off. We can do. The end of July, I mean beginning of July one, and we can also do 10 of July. So 3 options, if I'm not mistaken, right? Not the end of July I was I misspoke first week of July and second week of July. Basically. Yeah, yeah. I mean first week of July is I mean, it's it's on the 20 eighth. It's probably gonna go into the second of of July.
So after the Fourth of July to that, so this is the Fourth of July, and then I think the proposal was 5 to 7 of July. So if there's 5 to 7 of July, there is. Yeah, I mean 5 to 10 of July, I suppose, or this, the tenth of July is that? Just because yesterday I mean I don't have anything against doing on the fifth. But yesterday, Justin pointed out that the fact that the Itu Council is happening on the the following week, it would be interesting to bring more people to the open conversation. I don't actually know whether it would indeed bring more people, but just wanted to put this on the tables for us to consider as well. So. It's so you're saying that we have. If we have it. 5, 6, and 7. Then people can stay with the weekend and go to the console.
Then we would gather people for the open consultations. That would still already be in Geneva for the It Council. Quick just quick point. If we want to actually have people confirming the presence on site as we discussed yesterday. Could also take longer, you know, during the preparatory process, and obviously for submitters to have a correct and concern with speakers who will actually be able to attend in on site and on the tenth of July, as an opportunity for the open consultation to actually bring more people, which will be in Geneva. Forcia to console. Thanks. Thank you. So take it under adviser for the secretary. I had to take care of doing the polling and letting us know what the results are. So there's Hi, sorry just to reiterate.
So we have 3 options right? And we'll see which one is the best. So the Wednesday. 5 to 7, 10 to 12, and Carol, you were interested in 12 to 14. Okay. Okay. Just a question, and the main concern with the tenth of July is to lose mach members for the Ito concert. We were saying that it can work both ways. We can either lose or we can gain. Okay. But is there a concrete information that I, will losing my members to the It concert? No, so probably consult with them, maybe. Okay. Well, yes. I mean, this is a perfect question. We have. The magnet is here? Are they, Mag members who are, who have to be at the Itu Council. Okay. So we're not gonna lose any magn members. Thank you. No, yeah, I agree. I don't think we would lose any magnetism. Don't wanna speak for anyone else. But I was looking around, and I knowing who's on. Yeah, I don't think so. I think Justin's point was, we might gain a few attendees.
I also don't think that's too likely, but it might give us an opportunity in the evenings to connect with people from some Member States who would be in town, and that's probably a positive, I think the concern with that week of the tenth is that it's so late that really in terms of identifying. But I but I'm not I still think it's probably our best bet, and we just need to make sure we move very quickly. And really. By the end of the week or early the next week we're able to let workshop proposers know that they're in or they're not in. And people could start booking there travel because that is a real concerned. We're gonna be getting very close to the line. There. Okay, I think we've run out of our agenda business other than sort of a summary recap. And I know that this secretary is going to take it to take the time to do a great job of formally recapping everything that we've done here in the last couple of days.
But I just wanted to recognize that the decisions, how we manage our conflict of interest and relaxing a little bit from the past. That's that's ground breaking the the work we just did here. The this last tower regarding the. The sub themes, and coming to consensus on that, the overall delete. Yeah of the have heard for the last 2 days. It's been great nice, certainly. Appreciated your willingness to. Pay attention to each other's concerns. And I wanna make sure that everyone here feels that they've gotten what they needed to get out of this meeting. And if there's anything that they want to say before we get. Go ahead, please. Thank you so much so. And I have gotten basically everything out of this meeting that I wanted. Except for some nice evening drinks with with the leadership panel, or, for that matter, with the entire Mag. I think I I would like to propose to to see if we could have some social event, and at the second open consultation and because I think it's good to get to know each other also, outside of this meeting, room, I have had the opportunity obviously to to have dinner.
With quite a few of you, but unfortunately, not everyone, cause last minute we couldn't cramp 40 people into to one of the restaurants here, but I think it would be good if we would organize something on 4 hand. Thank you. Agree with that piece. Thank you. Paul. I'd like to sorry, Chris, for a good photo before we leave. Thank you. Group photo, okay. Choice. Thanks. Paul and I second both. I actually some members were asking during lunch, and I think we're revisiting the the team issues again around how we're gonna deal with cross-cutting proposals, proposals with cross-cutting issues. And I think there was also confusion around whether we would be allowing organizers to like tick multiple sub teams if in case they were cross-cutting, or would we only allow them to take the one sub team and we will deal with it as it comes along that's a great question I could make up an answer. Now, I'm not sure that that would serve everybody. My knee jerk reaction is that if you see something that's checked, every box is probably a problem with it. And then act accordingly.
Other ideas, thoughts, concerns. So just to maybe ask a point of clarification, the form itself would only allow one. Box to be checked right? Or how does it work? The form? So we don't get this sort of situation where they try and check as many as possible. Yeah, it's that's something to be determined on. The on the form, and I guess we'd be. We need to work with the the team that has been working on stressy for that. Not sure. It's working strategy, but certainly the working group on the proposal form. Yeah, I, yeah, I mean, I was, part of some of those discussions at lunch about. Yeah, multiple tick boxes or not, I think. Certainly the default is only one, and they've used that sort of to our benefit in cataloging and distributing the workshops for for assessment.
I'd be. Yeah. I think I'd be cautious of imagining that. But yeah, that's what it doesn't leave you with much for the cross-cutting. But yeah, it's if we don't have a really good solution to it. Then I'd certainly stick with what we have as with the theme, I think we should just look at it as a process point of view. If somebody selects several. As you were saying, you know, several separate things, which group is gonna market. Then you need one group. So if we can find a solution to that, and of course, either the primary group that it's then flav at a primary group, and then the subgroups. But what good is that information for us? Is it just going to be going into the description, or is it some? Will it help in the process? The evaluation process, etc., right? Just a question as well about the paragraph that describes every single something. Are how are we working on this? Are we working together with the Secretariat to write it? Should the working group kickstart a Draft. Are we doing this together also? Like, are we taking on Joyce's suggestion of using the let's say hashtags or riding areas? For that, because I do believe that it helps, and also to drive back to one earlier suggestion that we kind of discussed about having one focused call on explaining to the community what the sub teams were.
So it helps community understand as well what we're talking about, whether a session about violence against women fit well into human rights or inclusion, or something like that. So, just these things like, how are we working on the paragraphs? Are we adding the hashtags? And do we like the idea of doing the culture expenditure community? I think that's a great idea, and do some working with the secretary. At to make sure that we're well connected.
Yes, choice thanks, Paul, and thanks, Bruna. I also wanted to support Chris's suggestion. I think, just as a way forward, and we can all agree on this. It's just to ensure that organizers can only tick the one box, and if we felt in that proposal that it was a cross-cutting issue, then, as a working modality during the evaluation, process, when the different groups are presenting on the proposals et cetera, we could highlight to the other group that's relevant. That there is this cross-cutting one, and whether they'd also like to have a chance to read that proposal. I think we could just agree to do that sort of informally.
That should probably do with it. I don't expect that that would be many cross-cutting proposals, anyway, but just in case there are those that come in, we should at least know amongst ourselves how we're gonna deal with it. So probably this is the easiest way forward, but I wanted to be clear, so that you know we don't miss out something in the process, and then everything gets jumbled up. Thanks. Thank you. Observer, although I do, you know, agree with what Joyce and Chris said, I just wanna share something that we do. In this quiz that you know we a similar process in one of our conferences we have a primary and a secondary choice.
So people can mark, select the primary and a secondary. They will go into the primary. But if you don't have enough, perhaps proposals, or or a good proposals on the first one in A, on the second one, then they may shift some into that second session, you know that the second preference for for a session because that way. You you kind of even out also the number of different things that are coming in, and the proponents already know you know, that they would have a you know they their section, you know, their choice may be ending to be the second one you know it. Gives you a bit of a but I agree with you that it's ideally, you know.
You have a one clear thing, but sometimes they are cross-cutting. Indeed. Thank you. Hey? Quite agree! It's my colleagues. Set teams. We have obviously some of them, but you always have the risk of overlapping teams, and obviously cross-cutting issues. Having's ability to select a secondary team could be interesting. We do that to academic conferences, just to allow for, you know, a better programs missing. And also I'd suggest to be very, let's second size with the policy questions. So there is no doubt on the overlaps within the teams and between the different sub topics. Obviously when you are on, for example, human right issues, you could find overlaps with Internet fragmentation in some ways, and so on. So having very precise policy questions and maybe a secondary sept topics that you could choose would be interesting. And the second point wanted to analyze is on the communication side. Be very, very quick in actually publishing the the teams. To set teams, for that matter, and the dates, just to inform the the colleagues here and a lot of colleagues wondering when that's actual.
Also proposal we'd opened, and to earlier, we could communicate obviously, is a better people. We stop preparing great proposals that you? Thank you. I think the objective is to get the communications out as fast as possible as long as they're accurate. And secretary. It will work very hard to do that. Thank you. Choice thanks, Paul, just to quickly react. Thanks very much for the great suggestions. I think primary and secondary themes make a lot of sense, would also be helpful in the Max work when we are actually doing the organization, and exactly as you said, if we find that one bucket is very heavy or dense. We could then move easily to another bucket. I'm not sure now how the form it needs to be changed, or to reflect.
Possibly such a change. If the Mac agrees, and then I don't know. Louis. If you need additional time, then to make those changes. If it's very quick and easy, I think we could go forward. Perhaps if there's no strong objection from the Mac. That's what my hope is that there's no strong objection, and I think the work so far on the form has been very good. So had expected to not be too much on it. Yeah. Lewis. How much time would you estimate it for you to put a primary and secondary category to the workshop? Submission form, and we know that this is just an estimate. So you mean to prepare. They also proposal with a with a with the propositions of the working group.
Yes, yeah, that's around. One weeks would be fine. So no extra time you don't foresee any extra time as of now. Yeah, no. I think that if the changes are not, that's fine. Great. Okay, this is shaping up nicely. Anyone else have anything they want to say for the good of the order. Any words from the Secretariat before we close the meeting. Just thank you very much for coming here, and I think we had a fruitful 3 days, and we'll see you online. We will continue our virtual meetings. I think that is also very useful, and as soon as we get the input from the working as the Mag working group on evaluations, of course we will start implementing and will be posted on the ma ma mailing list, we do have the list of action items which we will be publishing early next week. So thank you very much. It's been great meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Everybody. Chris. Sorry. Well, have a lot. I'm not looking to the last word, but I will say this will be my last word. I think so. Thank you.
Everyone. I really think this has been a very productive meeting, and apologies for taking so much of the time. That I was very, you know, really enjoyed interacting with everyone. Okay. But what I want to ask, is, so will you also distribute the action points from the leadership panel Mag meeting that we had on Tuesday. Because I think, yeah, that was also, yes, okay, perfect. And also the poll that we just talked about so you'll be getting that early next week. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you. And thank you to the secretary for all the hard work that's gone in here. And with that we're adjourned. We will have a picture. Over there somewhere, or maybe if you can, or I think this is best.
If we can't. Yeah, then..