1

PROGRAM ADVISOR DEBRIEF CONFERENCE CALL

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2015 10:00 AM – 1:00 PM EST

Agenda Overview

10:00 – 10:15 Welcome and Introduction to Debrief

10:15 – 10:35 Annual Meeting Experience

10:35 – 11:00 Annual Meeting Theme

11:00 – 11:30 Annual Meeting Plenaries

11:30 – 11:45 Break

11:45 – 12:15 Breakout Sessions and CGCA

12:15 – 12:30 Value Proposition of CGI Annual Meeting

12:30 – 1:00 Advisor Group Structure and Experience

Dial-In Details US/Can: 1-719-867-0497 International: Please click here for international dial-in numbers. Enter Participant Passcode: 492 209 6563

We are excited to see everyone and reflect on this past year. The agenda below provides suggested discussion topics and questions that will help focus the conversation. The session will be most productive if you are able to consider these questions as you participate at the Annual meeting and prior to our debrief meeting.

2

Detailed Agenda

10:00 Welcome and Introduction to Debrief - Alex Amouyel

Objectives of this debrief

Objectives of CGI Program for 2015

Objectives for the Program Advisor Group

Agenda for today

10:15 Annual Meeting Experience and Theme

What were your goals in attending the Annual Meeting? Were these goals met?

How did you perceive the changes to reduce programming and increase space/time for networking?

How did you spend your time when not in sessions?

How did you perceive the increased investment in multimedia? Reflections and Feedback

Payal - Been to every meeting, this year’s meeting there were fewer people, CEOs,

lower energy probably result of UN, etc.?

People have expressed political concerns with the Secretary’s run. Jeri - Built on what Payal said. More people attending summits with conflicting schedule: Rockefeller, Social Good Summit, etc. Derek - CGI’s competitive edge is in the commitment space. There was a dramatic drop in interest in commitments this year. Troubling trend.

Paul – Echo what was just said from Payal re political dynamics which didn’t help with maximizing attendance.

Jocelyn – didn’t feel there were that many super stars. Energy lower.

3

Allison – timing sequence, CGI following UN and Pope, didn’t help things.

Alex – Victims of our own success as we started around the UN General Assembly and over the years, lots of competing events, have emerged in competition. Negative for CGI and commitment making, but if you are creating this broad ecosystem around the event, it is positive. But how do we translate back for CGI? These side events shouldn’t be distractions.

Pauline to Advisors – what can we do for next year? Address issue of competing events?

Anne – CGI supports CtA and partnerships – might be opportunities to collaborate with competing conferences.

Randall – Davos WEF has not embraced the side events and that has been detrimental to WEF. How do we use the CGI brand to bring these competing events together?

Michael – One thing is programming. A lot of people in panels said things we expected to hear. The Minister’s panel was an amazing powerhouse, yet the conversation was what we expected. Might think of programming changes between fewer people.

Perry – agrees with Michael. The moderator is very important to discussion. Not great moderators this year.

Jamie – re what Derek said. Where was the timing of all these decisions? Did we see trend of decrease in commitment making?

Politico article – is this going to be the last CGI? Can Chelsea carry it from here? Work needs to be done now to turn this around.

Derek agrees with this. Opportunity to think differently. Starting with having a more discrete set of commitment areas.

A lot of the content areas have been fatigued. Haiti, etc. doesn’t stimulate interest.

4

Fiona – agrees with Derek. Possible lessons to be learned from CGI America i.e- getting hands dirty during sessions. Perry builds on this- divide meeting into 2 days for big names/topics and one day for hands-on action planning, real talk. James – is the gathering about celebrity events, commitments and some content, or do we actually want to have a view of life cycle of idea generation/partnership to commitment announcement? Let’s spend time digging deep into an issue. Need to get more deliberate about the kinds of commitments.

Tom – agree with James’ framing. Reality is that people are concerned about political environment, the press, competing events, the future of the foundation, etc. But those won’t be solved in this conversation.

The question is – what are the specific things we can do to improve the model and discussion? o Moderators should be experts. Currently, discussions are somewhere in

the middle of substantive and not useful. o There is something in the Pitching for Partnership model. This match-

making function at the heart of CGI.

Fiona agrees re Pitching for Partnerships Alex - What were goals for attending and were they met? How was time outside meeting spent?

Jocelyn – connect with people in network and meet new people. Be inspired by content and learn. Goals were met. Outside the sessions, attend external events or had side meetings with people.

Perry echoes that exactly. Goals met.

Fiona - So many events to attend, so spent little time at CGI. Derek- loved the Looking to the Next Frontier. Both moderator and seeing advances in technology. Can see commitments coming out of that.

5

Payal – The Opening is critical for setting the tone and energy. People remarked that the Opening wasn’t as high energy as past years and kind of deflated the whole event. Jamie – a lot of people commented on how good the food was. Watched which sessions booked up fastest- technology and youth went really quickly.

10:35 Annual Theme “The Future of Impact”

Purpose: Provide year-round coherence to the member experience.

As part of the conclusion of our 10-year anniversary (2005-2015), the 2015 theme,

The Future of Impact, builds on the achievements of CGI members over the past ten

years, and highlights the necessary next steps for accelerating progress over the next

decade.

Building on ten years of impact, CGI members have set their sights on tomorrow’s

challenges and the future of action by:

Expanding and replicating proven solutions to underserved geographies,

markets and populations, and;

Making the required long-term investments to address global challenges and

create opportunity for all. How did the theme improve members’ experiences and the value they derived

from the AM and year-round experience? How well was the theme integrated into the overall program design and session

content? How effective were the off-stage features, such as the Impact Lounge, Lenox

(Commitment Lounge), and Wall of the Future (futureofimpact.org website) in promoting and driving the theme?

Did you feel that the annual theme was reflected by our principals, videos, moderators, speakers, commitment makers and featured commitments?

What could be improved to further integrate the annual theme into the program design, session content, speakers and featuring of commitments?

6

Reflections and Feedback

Jamie - Can't remember theme Perry – Remembers theme but echoes what Jamie said. The Theme is not make or break. Nice to have and lets you think about each year being different from previous years Randall – Gender seemed to be a theme. Impact has been important for the past few years, so to him there might be a difference between a theme and an under-current. Michael – Theme is useful if it can help drive programmatic decision and spice up the program. Fiona – Agree. Themes are useful in helping you think about content. Has the Impact theme run its course? Future of Impact is broad and gives scope of how to program around it. Where do you go from Impact? Jocelyn – Having a Theme is great. CGI is supposed to be about Impact across the board. Too general to be meaningful. Themes in the future should bring more focus that should help drive content.

Tom agrees. Pick a methodology as a theme - like designing- rather than a topic like gender or climate change.

Derek agrees with Tom. 11:00 Annual Meeting Plenary Sessions Plenary Sessions are moderated discussions, bringing together global leaders to present cross-sector perspectives and present forward-thinking visions of the future and solutions to global challenges.

Opening – The Future of Impact

Investing in Prevention and Resilient Health Systems

7

Escalators of Opportunity

Looking to the Next Frontier

Climate Change and Resiliency: Redefining Business as Usual

Unleashing Women’s Economic Opportunities

Closing – The Future of Equality and Opportunity

How effective were the plenaries at achieving their purpose?

How was the increased length of the plenaries (75 min)?

How effective were the plenary format changes and special features (i.e. robot, drone, etc.) in keeping the audience engaged and improving the conversations?

How effective were the commitment announcements integrated into the sessions?

What topics or voices would you have liked to have seen (and would like to see next year)?

Reflections and Feedback

Derek – He loved the Next Frontier, Neil Degrasse Tyson made that session.

Missed opportunities in Escalators of Opportunity with Stiglitz. The moderator was terrible. High-end actress to get up during the session was appalling. How did Stiglitz feel having an actress there talking about babies?

Jamie – agrees with Derek. Needs to have moderators who can deal with different types of people and presentations on stage (print vs. multimedia press voices)

Specifically Stiglitz moderator

And Betsy McKay Randall – likes having innovation- robot, drone, space station. These are things you don’t see at other conferences. A little gimmicky but worth doing. Jocelyn – Technology in Next Frontier was great. How to make Opening really bold and push it outside of what is expected?

8

Fiona – Really good advice. Opening sets tone for entire three days. Didn’t see Next Frontier (robot session) but heard it was great. Escalators of Opportunity with Stiglitz was a lost opportunity. Tom – Opening Plenary was great. Ukraine PM interview well done.

Next Frontier - NDT was great and really knew his subject matter.

Session he always remembers was the debate WJC got into extractive industries and how they contribute to corruption. Provocative and less scripted works!

The moderator makes SUCH a difference. Michael – Made a plug for Adam Davidson, GREAT moderator.

Maybe don’t do Skype in a plenary again, it got a bit awkward. Payal – The Closing Plenary with Ma and Holmes didn’t feel like it was a coherent conversation. Didn’t wrap a bow on anything. Allison – Having two part plenaries was very interesting. Chelsea and Burns was great! Finding people who can carry a conversation like that is important. WJC does better with one on one or two on one than a whole line of panelists Derek – Echo that when you have WJC leading a panel, he shouldn’t be talking with more than maybe 2 people. It’s usually unscripted and more interesting.

Last year with WJC and Jack Ma – Jack Ma said there are no dark sides to the internet, but we didn’t have time to get into a deeper discussion.

Health panel (Investing in Prevention and Resilient Health Systems) was really interesting. One on One of Gates was really informative and the panel worked well.

Jamie –Really liked Elizabeth Holmes. Fresh voices add so much to the plenaries.

9

Alex – Do you feel that the plenaries are the cornerstone of the CGI experience or are people more interested in the breakouts?

Randall – Plenaries are very entertaining. Easy to go attend. No prep and no follow up. Good on a general basis. They serve as an anchor, but it’s in breakouts and impact lounge where real networking happens.

Perry- Plenaries good for content delivery, but are passive. Need breakouts to talk with everyone and meet people. Complement each other.

11:30 Break 11:45 Annual Meeting Breakout Sessions and CGCA Breakout Sessions

Purpose: Bring members together to network, partner, and learn through a number of distinct formats: CGI Conversations: These panel discussions are moderated by news anchors and filmed to air on international news networks. Future Labs: In these collaborative, forward-thinking sessions, CGI members work in smaller groups to craft their ideal vision of the future and generate ideas for future Commitments to Action. Calls to Action: These workshop-style sessions engage members in the four CGI Calls to Action made last year, harnessing the CGI community's unique ability to address these issues through the creation of crosscutting Commitments to Action. Special Sessions focus on the latest issues affecting global development. By offering programming in a smaller, more intimate space, CGI members hear from high-level experts in an environment fostering innovative solutions and wider discussion. Small Group Discussions are in-depth conversations in which participants focus on specific topics of interest, using alternate lenses and identifying strategies to re-envision the outcomes of their efforts.

How well did each session format and overall combo of formats achieve their purpose?

10

What worked well and what could be improved?

How was the integration of commitments into the breakout sessions?

How effective were the facilitators?

How effective was the new, customized breakout formats for networking and member discussion (Future Labs, Calls to Action, etc.)?

How effectively did the Future Labs generate solutions for the Wall of the Future?

How effective was the format of small group discussions for member discussion and networking?

Are there any formats from other conferences that we should explore for the Annual Meeting?

Reflections and Feedback

Jamie - Some of the breakouts were excellent. Attended and moderated. There was a fall out for SGDs where people didn’t think they were registered and so didn’t attend. Derek

Mental Health Breakout - Former PM of Norway talked about how he was open about depression and removed stigma in Norway as a result. We should take the message into a plenary and have commitments to back it.

Food Insecurity Breakout - Great panel, facilitation, brought unlikely partners together.

o Pauline- Re format of this session (Call to Action): new approach, had track managers build out specific exercises based on member interest.

Allison – Water Scarcity Session - Really thought Dalberg was helpful, brought people together on difficult topic. Design methodology helped engage people in this conversation.

11

Perry

Water Scarcity Session- the idea of the Dalberg sessions is great. Helps people engage with each other.

Eating Smart Session- didn’t hear anything new.

Supporting Early Stage Social Enterprises – loved session and moderator.

US Food Insecurity - Chelsea was great, was a small group around one table, people were engaged in dialogue.

Tom

Health Ministers’ Session- great, gave the ministers a chance to connect over common issue

Food and Beverage Session- wasn’t great, lacked diversity and only served one viewpoint

Jocelyn – Preferred Future Labs to Design Labs. It was nice having more time for panelists to get into depth re topics and then also have open dialogue, less structured format. Tom – Access to Medicine. Too many speakers and topics too broad. Payal –Girls Education. Liked the format, nice mix of having an interesting panel and an opportunity to speak at the table. Wasn’t sure about the iPad feature. More of a distraction than value. Using iPads was not a collective exercise.

Clinton Global Citizen Awards Purpose: Established in 2007, the Clinton Global Citizen Awards honor outstanding individuals for their exemplary leadership and groundbreaking work that has effected positive, lasting social change.

What were the most impactful and memorable moments of the Awards ceremony?

12

How well did the Awards highlight and reward the type of people/organizations, actions, and results that reflect CGI’s brand and mission?

CGCA was on Sunday after a full day of programming as opposed to kicking off the program in 2014 – how did you perceive this change?

We made significant changes to the ticketing, seating and food and beverage this year – were these changes successful?

Reflections and Feedback

Derek – Stage change lost a lot of people. Wasn’t a high point.

Ann – Issues: theater style seating, came together last minute. Posed a few problems as to who they would have come as guests. Thought music was great, but didn’t have time to react and think who would be right attendees from their org. Dinner not being served wasn’t a problem but it does change dynamic. They have used the event in a commercial way, which was something they couldn’t do this year b/c of the theatre style seating and no dinner.

Allison – Same challenge with timeline. Technology was fine with tickets but lead time created a problem. Locking things down early is important. Not having an MC to tie things together was a little rough. Definitely should have had MC.

Jamie – Not a fan of theater seating. Not as much communication with people, less jovial. Talent was amazing. Easy to see holes in reserved seating.

Fiona – didn’t feel as full and as “buzzy” as the previous year. Loved the performances, but not quite as well attended.

12:15 Value Proposition of CGI Annual Meeting

13

How else can program content and format be improved to amplify the value proposition of the Annual Meeting?

How can CGI further promote connections that encourage people to network and utilize our platform?

How can the Annual Meeting either kick-off or cap off the "year round membership experience"?

Reflections and Feedback

Derek – Interested in partnerships with robotics, banking, insurance, cognition fields. How can we find technology solutions to issues? Jamie – Environmental Degradation and Human Trafficking Session brought together a lot of different people in the room. Great mix of people. There was a lot of interesting cross-collaboration. One of the big issues is IDing hotspots where environmental degradation is happening. Working with google or other big data companies? Maria- Did you use the Wall of the Future? Did it help you engage with audience beyond the Sheraton?

Perry – Did use Wall of the Future. Thought it was a nice backdrop, but didn’t change experience overall.

Payal – Did submit a bunch of things. It depends on CGI’s motivation and metrics for success. As participant it didn’t add to the experience. But if measure of success is engaging people outside of Sheraton, then look more into that. From a content point of view, it didn’t really add to the conversation.

Derek – Knows of new technology to help people interact in each session (will follow up). Could generate a lot of excitement in the future by streaming several simultaneous plenaries around the world.

12:30 Advisor Group Structure and Experience

14

It is important to us that we maximized your time and you felt like your ideas were valued. Please help us refine our process for organizing and supporting this group.

One year commitment

Planning Retreat, Winter Meeting, Week of Action

Monthly phone calls

Follow up notes, emails, call for suggestions

How can we improve your engagement and better utilize your time in preparing the Annual Meeting?

How can we better maximize this group and help each of your own organizations?

Were there any perspectives/voices not present that would have been beneficial to the group’s functioning?

Reflections and Feedback

Payal – Felt most useful when asked to help/work on specific sessions. Would like to do more of a deep dive than these monthly calls.

Perry – Willing to do more than what they are doing. Should figure out what each advisor’s expertise is and convene smaller sub-groups. The calls feel very much like one way transmission of information. It can definitely be more engaging.

Fiona agrees.

Ann – Capitalizing on expertise would be mutually beneficial. All curious to see what the next year will bring for CGI. Leveraging expertise, especially if there need to be programmatic changes, will really help.

Derek – We could easily fall into silos. Maybe having a session before AM re Silo Affect (Gillian Tett book).

Jamie – CGI takes what they say into consideration and elevate it. Joy to walk into a meeting and feel like you have had an impact on the session.

15