DC Coordination meeting #56

DC COORDINATION MEETING #56

SEPTEMBER 21, 2021

 

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Hi, everyone.  This is Markus speaking.  It's 4:00 on my computer.  That is 1400 UTC.  Let's wait another minute or two.  We only have, so far, ten participants.  Let's hope some more will join.  Yes, I see now joining.  Hello, everyone.

Sorina, can you show the agenda you sent out?

>> SORINA TELEANU: Sure, I'm going to put it in chat.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. That's excellent.  We do seem to have a critical mass that allows us to get started.

(recording in progress)

Let's get started.  You see the agenda in the chat.  The main point is to discuss the DC main session of the IGF 21, and then also, the DC paper and of course we have room for any other business.  Does anyone have comment on the agenda or has already anything to add to any other business?  Doesn't seem to be the case, so, I take it, then, that we accept the agenda as proposed.

and let's then go to the DC main session.  We had a good call, when was it, two weeks ago?  And Sorina has produced a paper she had circulated and some of you made comments but my suggestion would be that we just walk through this paper, and then also comments made during this call will be incorporated as appropriate and we will give you, I think a few more days to provide also written comments as you will recall next week, Wednesday next week, starts an open consultation MAG meeting.  We ever supposed to have a main session planned ready, but as I'm told, everybody is lagging behind and we will not be the only ones not having a main session ready about we can say we have made good probing n I signing the paper.  Sorina, would you like to introduce the paper you have drafted?

>> SORINA TELEANU: Sure.  Let me share the screen.  It's not really a paper, just an overview of what we discussed last time but let me get there.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: It's a document and it's are very helpful.

>> SORINA TELEANU: (laughter).  Yes.  Okay. I'm hoping everybody can see my screen.  So, last time at the previous DC coordination meeting, we discussed about this proposed approach for how to shape the DC main session at IGF 2021 and the idea was to go with split nothing some way the session into two main parts.  One would be to build a bit on this DC paper that we will discuss a little bit later if you hadn't had a chance to look at and basically look at how dynamic coalitions can constitute to frauder digital cooperation efforts to discuss around the IGF and everything created and then the other part would be more substantive in terms of anymore and digital policy issues by trying to connect the work in IGF 2021 areas and that's why part of the document was inviting Dynamic Coalitions to tell us a bit about how your work is related to any of these issue areas in particular with the specific policy questions, the idea being once we have this list over, we would be able to identify with the shorter policy questions and we would be able to frame the discussions at the situation in December.

But, yes, scrolling through the document, not many Dynamic Coalitions have completed this, so, it would be good if you could go through it and add your contributions as well and we would be ending the deadline for this and that's basically what's in this document so I'll stop here and leave it to motorcycle to lead the discussion.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Sorina.  Are there any sort of overall comments?  I would suggest if you look at the document section by section

>> Markus, this is Rajendra.  This is a very important document and it has given a good overview and I did comment but my sense is that this is my summation based on my experience that if it is sent to individual DC chairs to comment specifically they may be more prone to attending to it, otherwise I think everyone, at least for me it was important to I marked it and I did comment on it so I think it is better that it goes to individual DCs for them to comment on it because we have I guess 27 DCs now.  I don't remember the exact number but this is how we could get response.  Because, including mine, I think there were two people commenting which is I think way less than what we could expect.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that and you're right in pointing out that we have a huge number ‑‑ which is a good thing, of Dynamic Coalitions, you but it is difficult if we want to bring them together for one session and we have commented previously is that the nature of Dynamic Coalitions is they are extremely diverse and it's very difficult to find a common denominator.  That's why we thought linking them to these issue areas would be a good way forward.  You're right, like in previous years, that is in, so to speak, the entrance ticket for being part of the main session that you actually do some homework first.  We cannot do it that collectively.  Each Dynamic Coalition has to do something.  Are there other comments?  Of course, very high level comments are welcome to frame the discussion.  I can't see any hand up so here we can go through the document section by section.  We see the comments we have received.  Can you maybe give a high level summary, Sorina, of what we have received?

>> SORINA TELEANU: I can try as we go through this.  Some of the comments, I think we have the same suggestions made at the previous meetings, also, trying to make the decisions a bit more interactive.  Seeing if we can have less speakers but that's challenging depending on how many Dynamic Coalitions we would be having.  What else?  So if we want to engage the general audience, there are specific stakeholders in the first part of the meeting so the discussions around DCs and their Digital Cooperation, we need to formally invite them and provide them with two questions on how they see the future role of Dynamic Coalitions and their new involvement under the new codes and circumstances.  That sounds like a good approach to me so we frame some questions at the beginning and then we expect Dynamic Coalitions to contribute to that and not just have a very similar discussion.

The second we could invite participants up front to share questions based on the papers.  This way questions can be selected for each DC so that's for the issue areas.  Yes, hoping everyone will be identifying in advance what policy questions they are responding to and the last comment, the DCs should work for an overarching goal of making a difference so r so we need to discuss on a session with DCs with a panel discussion on the difference we have made in 2021 and our plan for 2022.

And that is the last b comment.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I saw in the Avri asked if this is a requirement for those planning to be on the DC panels.  We have not, I think, defined the requirements but what I mentioned in my introductory remarks is just like in previous years, we always ask the DCs to produce at least a short paper explaining their approach to the main session, and that was when the entry ticket.  But, in this particular case we have not yet defined what exactly we want from the DCs to produce prior to the main session and what would be the requirement but that is something that is open for discussion but that is something I would strongly urge ‑‑ yes, who wants to talk?

>> I'm sorry.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. No.  But, any suggestions are welcome but as I said, I would strongly urge that we maintain at least the requirement that the Dynamic Coalitions produce some kind of paper.  So, do you know if I missed out anything?

>> SORINA TELEANU: I don't think so but I see a hand from, well, I don't see the list.  I see a hand but I don't see the hand.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Wout has a hand up.  Yes, please, Wout?

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Thank you, Markus.  I sent a message to Sorina that I was trying to correct a typo in my contribution and then it just disappeared so my point, two, is number three, I think, and number two, is gone.  I can't get it back and for the life of me, I can't remember what I've written, sorry, I was just correcting one letter and it just went away so I don't know if you have anywhere, Sorina.

>> SORINA TELEANU: I have no clue but let me look in the history of the Google Doc and see if there's anything there.  When did you make this comment?

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Just when the session started.  And then it kicked me out of the doc for some reason, says, your session is not relevant anymore and then went away.

>> SORINA TELEANU: Let me see if it's here but it might not

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Yes.  There it is.  There it is.  Please bring it back.  Thank you.

>> SORINA TELEANU: I'm going to copy them both and then see which one ‑‑ so, it was the second.

>> SORINA TELEANU: Done.

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Thank you very much.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. Other comments?  And I take it they are, see a plus one from Jutta on the requirement issue and Avri said she's fine with that and also she's not asking to be on the panel.  Are there other comments on this particular issue.  Doesn't seem to be the case.

>> SORINA TELEANU: I see another hand but since I don't see the list of participants, Markus, maybe ‑‑

>> MARKUS KUMMER: No, it's Wout.  Is that an old hand?  It's down, yes.  At this stage, is there anything else ‑‑ as we said, any comments you make now will also be considered to be valid comments.  Sorina will be integrating them into the document.  We hope you make the time to fill in the table and link your Dynamic Coalition to the various issue areas at the very broad level.

Shall we look at issue areas, maybe we have tonight Aonous?  ‑‑ spontaneous.  There are social inequality and the pandemic?  Anyone who would volunteer to add his or her Dynamic Coalition to that issue area, we have DC jobs, DC agenda.  Then the next one is social inclusion and sustainable development.  So far, we have DC‑jobs.  Any other Dynamic Coalition.  Then we have digital policy and human rights frameworks and I know Avri said she is not asking to be on the panel but I think she's part of the Dynamic Coalition on governance schools and I think there's a strong link, for instance, from these two digital policies but that's just a thought.

>> JUTTA CROLL: I think that also the Dynamic Coalition on children's rights and the digital environment will be interested in that part of the session.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Amy is not on the call today but she has apologized and asked me to take over.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Then the next one is inclusion, rights, and stakeholder roles and responsibilities.

>> SORINA TELEANU: Avri has a hand.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Avri?

>> AVRI DORIA: Yeah, thank you, one of the reasons I wanted to explain since you mentioned the DC on schools and government specifically is that because we're putting together the schools and worrying about the mechanics of schools, other than enumerating topics, we don't, as a DC get into the topics.  So, we sort of stay at a meta level so that's why I've sort of felt that all the way through this, since we don't take positions that aren't making suggestions for these specific issues but just ways for schools to discuss the issues, it wasn't appropriate to take positions on anything unless there was a specific one which I didn't see that I you might have missed.  The how do we build capacity for Internet Governance and for including, I never saw that come through and therefore, never answered anything.  Thanks.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I get that but the fact that schools are so so active on all the continents by now and all the areas and yes, you don't take positions but, just describing your activity is such, I think, is what I would consider a tremendous contribution to capacity building and digital policy but again, that's just a thought.

>> AVRI DORIA: Answer something under that one, what tools, mechanism and that could possibly put an entry there so do I have to do it right now?  I can.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: No, no.  You don't have to do it right now.  We can do it another week.

>> AVRI DORIA: I missed that particular question which does indeed fit the description of things I said we could probably put an answer in.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: And also, let's not forget, one of the, the aim is to also show that Dynamic Coalitions can make a difference and there, I think each of them is different but the ones in schools on Internet Governance definitely has an impact and I think also, just looking at the list, I saw an article, actually went through the European school on Internet Governance.

>> AVRI DORIA: All the schools.  If you look at one on Africa and you look at many of the others, many of the people that you see being functional in organizations have been through a school.  A school.  One of the schools.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yeah, so, I think that's worthwhile documenting and listening and mentioning.

>> AVRI DORIA: Okay. I'll put something in in that section on that.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Sounds great.  Thanks.  Where are you now, you're scrolling up and down and I'm getting a bit loss.  Are we promoting equitable development and preventing harm?  Which internets, which Dynamic Coalition is that?  Oh, the statutes.

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Just written it down because I'm reading along the way that we might be able to function there so that's what I'm trying to do.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I have to apologize, I should know all the acronyms by now but there's just too many of them.  We have universal access and meaningful connectivity, then we also have I think quite a number of Dynamic Coalitions with you, with related issues, is anyone on the call who feels, would like to put down his or hers.  Finding universal meaningful access.  Barriers to universal meaningful access.

>> GERRY ELLIS: Markus, this is Gerry Ellis.  That would seem to be a good fit for the Dynamic Coalition.  DCAD.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Absolutely.

>> GERRY ELLIS: So I think maybe stick our name down there.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: That would be great.

>> GERRY ELLIS: Yeah.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: There again, this is a Dynamic Coalition that has a track record of showing that you can have a real and meaningful impact.  Leveraging infrastructure and technology, innovation and development.  Business models and investment.  Practical local driven policy solutions practical suggestions, give you another week to fill in the table.  We may be slightly behind but we're not the only ones so I think it's better to do it properly.  Challenges and solutions in regulating spectrum.  And then, the next category, merging regulation, market structures, content, data, and consumer usage rights, regulation.  Regulation competition and innovation.  Content moderation and human rights compliance.  Data governance and trust.  Globally and locally.  Data transfers trade cooperation and trust.  Protecting consumer rights.  We already have consumer rights, DC standards coalition.

The next category, environmental sustainability and climate change, the youth coalition on Internet Governance.  Increasing awareness and proactiveness among policy makers and developers.  Reducing impact.  Environmental education.  All right, then inclusive Internet Governance ecosystems and Digital Cooperation.  We already have the DC Blockchain and DC SIG, is that ‑‑ Internet Governance?

>> It is.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Right.  I'm getting better.  Technical Internet Governance.  On the call.  That could be something they could produce.

>> MARK CARVELL: Markus, Mark Carvell speaking.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, please.

>> MARK CARVELL: Can I just chip in here.  With regard to the DC‑ISSS, Internet Standards, Security, and Safety, we are taking a technical area, the development of standards and trying to cordone that process of developing standards into this safety online.  So, perhaps DC‑ISS, we'll give it a bit of further thought, Wout and I, I but certainly, my feeling is we have a profile here under that heading.  And also, generally, in the whole, sort of examination of general cooperation.  We are reaching out to a variety of stakeholder communities.  We are talking to technical people.  Talking to business, governments, policy makers, people who are procuring digital technologies because we see procurement as a critical driver for the take‑up of standards that will enhance security online.

So, we could probably put D construction‑ISS into advancing Digital Cooperation and also way back up at the top on sustainable development, defines why sustainable development put it in.  And also access, barrier to access, it's not a safe world, the online world, we want to make it safer, we want to make it more secure.  So, DC I‑ISSS is relevant to access, in overcoming barriers to access because of fear that going online exposes you to harms and threats in your personal data is going to be stolen, compromised, your identities are at risk and so on.

So, to sum up, so, it's a long intervention, but to sum up I think DC‑ISS, we can enter it in in two or three more places.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that and actually, that's a point you made is relevant, I'm sure, for many other Dynamic Coalitions as well.  You don't just fit into one box but they are cross‑references to various of these boxes and I think if in one way or another, we can get that across, that's not a bad thing that you are actually cross‑sectional relevant not only in this bit but also in that bit.

I think that could also show the richness and the wealth of work that Dynamic Coalitions are producing.  Thank you.  Source of trust of security and stability and there again, I suppose the ISSS fits in there but I would encourage you all to look not just at one box but look to see how you are relevant or in other boxes.

Right, are there other comments?  Okay. We have the whole section, cybersecurity.  Practice, mechanism, ensuring a safe digital space and there we have again DC‑ISS and the DC children's rights and its standards, international rules and state accountability.  Private sector accountability.  So we have come through the whole list and I think as we said, please look at it again and see whether you want to add your respective Dynamic Coalitions to one of the sections and also see there's been some comments in the chat.  With Avri again, I think there might be great value in approaching a league of various DCs and check the DC coordination for the preemptive part of why I missed so many meetings, even less than I do.

Okay. Are there any last comments on this whole document?

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Markus, more as an apology, just also looking at Avri and others.  I know it's very important, running a DC besides everything else is already a challenge and this is becoming extremely challenging to keep up with.  And I know I'm putting in my name here, but I'm already looking at next week with all the Working Groups that have meetings in the coming days and the reachout I have to do to get the finance going, I'm really put up against a wall to come up with texts at this point in time to do this exercise.  And this is more or less an apology that I am not sure whether I can make it in seven days.  So, it's a bit of a concern on my end because I know it's necessary, I know I can't do this unless I start working at night, which I will not.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. Well thank you for the comments and yes, that's obviously very relevant and I think many of you are in the very much same position but here we're looking for final final paper, but can also belle a place holder input.  If a Dynamic Coalition feels you would like to produce something on this or that issue.  We would have something, just the place holder would do, it is a work in progress and a living document and we don't expect you to do the impossible, but just indicate your interest, consider it a statement of interest, rather than finished work that you would like to produce something with a bit more detail.  We do understand all your constraints but I think as we said at the beginning, all the best practice forms and the policy networks are supposed to have a session plan ready by the end of this month but none of them will be ready, I think.  We're all suffering from the same syndrome of having too much to do and too many open ends but yes, consider it the best ever.

I think it will be important to have a commitment that you're willing to do something, even if it's not a polished final work by next week.  A consultation that we can actually say, I make commissions while working at it.  Does that work make sense for you all?  I see a thumb up.  That's very welcome.  Thanks.  Other comments, questions?  Or can we then go to the other big paper?  Which is now a paper you would accept, Sorina, she sent you, when we had the first draft, I said, this is far too long.  This paper.  It has what, 30‑something pages but I think the way then Sorina structured it and if we have the main findings as a kind of executive summary as ahead of the document which is ten pages which I think is, can expect to read ten pages and I think it's very rich paper with lots of good ideas and suggestions.

It's not Sorina's ideas and suggestions.  It's the suggestions you made and she collected and put them together in a paper and then the rest of the paper shows where the main findings come from so for the quick read, you don't need to read the whole paper, just the suggestions but if you read the whole paper you'll see they're not just invented but they build elaborate comments.

Sorina, would you like to say a few words and thanks again for producing this excellent document.

>> SORINA TELEANU: Thank you, Markus.  I have pasted in chat again the links to the two papers so the long 30‑something pages paper and then one only looking at the key findings and recommendations.  And yes, as Markus said, this is basically a compilation of everything, most of everything I've been hearing from you through the survey and also the discussions we've been having over the past few months and also some input we collected through the public survey from MAG members in the community so I've basically tried to put all that together into this longish paper and then summarizing the findings and recommendations which I don't really call recommendations but just issues to explore to avoid misunderstandings and it would be great to see if you have any sort of comments and action suggestions, anything on this paper.  But, also, as Markus said, it's not something I invented, it's based on all these discussions and collection of input over the past few months.  Some of them are interesting.  Some of them might be controversial.  But, as I note in the introduction to the paper, people should not be reading this paper as a consensus view of all Dynamic Coalitions but rather as a compilation of input from different places and things that might serve as starting point in future discussions on how we might want to see the Dynamic Coalitions for the contributing to IGF processes and the broader discussions around Digital Cooperation, how to improve the IGF.

And I think that's it for me at this point.  I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you.  So, from you, you would like to know whether you feel, whether something that you have made a suggestion has not been left out.  I mean, ideally, you would recognize the input you gave in the paper as is correctly rendered so but if you feel that your input is not reflected adequately or being distorted so please let us know.  But, if you don't like a suggestion somebody else made you may well say so but I think we would not go into that kind of wordsmithing but we would say, leave this out because you don't like it, but, we just leave it as a very rich menu that Sorina has collected from the input all the Dynamic Coalitions gave.

So, the floor is open.  Any overall comments?  High r high level comments?

Well, first, I would say yes, let's open the floor to shh p rather high level comments before going into some more detailed comments you may have.  Mark, please?

>> MARK CARVELL: Yes, thank you, Markus.  I'll set the ball rolling.  I hope whether they, first of all, a general comment.  I've only read the key findings, so, caveat, I haven't at had the time to read the full document.  I'll try to do that later but the key findings I think is a very helpful digest of the issues, and categorization of issues relating to issues, and a summary of broad responses saying, similar character responses that are similar, is captured, I think, very well in the document.  So, Sorina, thank you very much for that.  It's very well done.  Very well presented, and easy to read and navigate so I come at this fairly fresh in terms of experience of Dynamic Coalitions.  As you know, my background is government.  I'm now free of that association it a government and have engaged with about, in developing the Dynamic Coalition on internet standards, security, and safety, and we're just about to reach our first anniversary.  So, it's early days for us and when we started, I thought, what do we do?  How do we set this up?  This Dynamic Coalition, make the case, need for it, quite a challenge, need to know where to look.  There's some elements in this paper, I'm sure in the full documents, about experience in starting a Dynamic Coalition.  But, I just thought in the key findings there may be a little bit of a gap in terms of how do Dynamic Coalitions get going?  What are the key operational aspects, and management aspects and communication aspects that coalitions should immediately get a grip on.  Otherwise, they risk failing, fizzling out, they don't get the right people involved, and confidence starts to evaporate and, so on.

So, I just flag that as maybe something to build up a bit and in the key findings paper.  But the challenge of actually starting a Dynamic Coalition and how to make it easier for people who have no experience to actually get going, pick up speed, and do the right things and avoid the risks that I mentioned earlier of motivation fizzling out and lack of engagement and poor communication, so on.

Okay. Thanks.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that.  That's, I think, a very valuable comment and I think that sort of thing is also very helpful.  I think, can be easily be integrated in the document.  Are there any other high level comments or similar vein that you feel something is missing that you would like to have seen addressed in the document?

>> SORINA TELEANU: Markus, may I make a quick comment?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Of course.

>> SORINA TELEANU: Thank you, on Mark's point.  Mark, some of what you said is covered in the broader paper, basically, how the Dynamic Coalitions are formed and these kind of things but on your second part about how to get to the challenges that's basically something we don't have a manual on how‑to because no one has looked at those things and maybe provide some sort of set of guidelines for Dynamic Coalitions to go through and that's one of the things that is highlighted several times and possible issues to explore, that it might be a good idea for Dynamic Coalitions or the group to write these introduction guidelines, whatever you want to call it, to help nuance or new ones or even the ones working to address the challenges, whether it's about member engagement or dealing with the principles, finding fines or whatever it is.

You about, we don't have in the paper options because there is no discussion and it has not been discussed in this framework.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you.  That's also very helpful but I just wondered could you maybe not be seen as an area to explore in the future or should more attention be given to group, all these comments in one key finding.  But that's one essentially just a little bit of fine tuning.  Wout?

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Yes thank you, Markus.  Jumping off on what Markus was saying with both of the same Dynamic Coalition, of course, we have not prepared this session together.

What I think is important to look at is also in my comments in the first document that if the Dynamic Coalitions are going to be part of the IGF Plus and an integral part of changeable outcomes I think that may be a difference between Dynamic Coalitions that some do not want to have that sort of high profile to call and others may.

I think it will make a difference in approach and that will probably also make a difference in how to approach setting up a new Dynamic Coalition.  Because if someone starts containing between the three people who are very deeply connected to the specific topic and they start working together, the whole issue is more or less taken care of because they will do that themselves.

One that is more ambitious and tries to ‑‑ drives the main outcomes of the IGF, that may, if that has to undertake a far broader approach and involve people who were not involved in the first place and that may also take more professional organization so that is perhaps something that we need to think of together how to approach that in the future.  Lessons learned.  Tackle this before organizations start but that has to do with the IGF cross models so perhaps at a higher level at the UN this has to be taken into account when they are discussing these.

So, that is just a thought.  So, who should we be inviting to that discussion so that it is taken into account from the very start and not as an afterthought once we're there.

So, this is just some ideas.  Thanks.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you.  That's obviously also something very relevant authority discussion we will have about how the DCs fit into the IGF Plus.  Other comments?  Are there any detailed comments on a particular section?  You particularly liked, disliked, or feel that it ought to be expanded?  Mark again?  I take it that Wout's hand is an old hand.  Mark?

>> MARK CARVELL: Yes.  Thank you, Markus.  I thought the messaging in the key findings document about breaking down the silos was very well captured so I just want to applaud that and some of the thinking but you know, coming together in joint sessions to enhance the profile of the Dynamic Coalitions and explain how they intersect with the best practice fora and the policy networks and also the linking out not only to the IGF global community but also to the NRIs.

So, I just want to champion that.  I've always done that, actually, when I was in my previous guys, governments.  We shouldn't just focus on the global.  We should go really down and focus at the national and regional level of multistakeholder Internet Governance.

So, I just say, I think that those issuings about cross working,breaking down silos, linking up, connecting with NRIs, great stuff in this paper.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you.  Very much appreciate it.  Pass on the compliment to Sorina.  Thanks.  And June would like to add?  I see a message I received from Amali said could June at some point, if there is time ‑‑ yes, there is time.  June, the floor yours.  Maybe connectivity problems.  Amali, do you want to take the floor?  Hello?  Are you trying to speak?  Well, it doesn't seem to work.  June or Amali, just jump in whenever it works.  Feel free to do so.

Meanwhile, are there other comments?  Well, I ‑‑

>> JUNE PARRIS: Hello.  This is June Parris.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Excellent.  Yes.

>> JUNE PARRIS: Markus, what I'm going to do is go through the document and see where we best fit in.  Looking at I think actually representing two today or three, one ever them is data health driven technologies and we need to look at that document and see exactly where we fit in with the IIRPC so I don't have to worry about that one but I'll go through the document and try to choose the best for data driven health technologies so that's all have I to say.  Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you and glad it finally worked.  Good to have you on the call.  Now, can we conclude the talk on this document, Sorina has submitted it.  Feel free to comment in writing with Google Doc you can do it directly in the document but I take it overall it has been very well receive and we had very positive feedback and again, I think I speak on behalf of everyone here to thank Sorina for her excellent work.  She will do her best to, find more on the call.  I think I'm very employeesed about this work.  I think it will help all of us collectively moving forward, also help people finding.  Sorina, do you have a few last comments on that?

>> SORINA TELEANU: No, thank you, everyone.  Just a kind reminder that the deadline for the direct comments is at the end of the month so it would be great if you could provide your comments by then so I can also have a bit of time to look to them afterwards.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you.  Yes.  And I would encourage you also to look at the expanded bit and see whether you and see anything you would like to comment on, not just the key findings bit.  With that, then, do we move to any other business.  Is there any issue we need to address, Sorina?

>> SORINA TELEANU: Thank you, Markus.  Just a quick note.  Previous to the meeting we spoke about the comparison that IGF is organizing in the run up to the December meeting and there was initially planned for a broader intersession for all activities to meet, it was initially scheduled for this month.  I just want everyone to know that this session is now scheduled for 13 of October.  If you look on the website at the phase, you can find it there, a link to copy in chat.

And it will be, again, a meeting with all IGF intersections and not only Dynamic Coalition but also best practice forums and policy networks.  I think will be there as well.  The idea would be to introduce these to the community.  There won't be too much time to talk about their work but it will be great to have at least some of you there to say a few words about what you're doing with Dynamic Coalition and then respond to questions people might have and that's all from me.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you.  Yesterday, just to give a very high level overview of all the intersessional activities without going very much into the substantive areas they cover because one of the questions that we always are faced with with new comers, they get utterly confused with all the different names and acronyms and what's the difference between a Dynamic Coalition and a best practice forum so the session will very much focus on the history, how they came about, at the very high level to explain the differences.

With that, then, I think we come to the end.  We will have then, next week, the consultation and MAG meeting where we can present the work in progress that Dynamic Coalitions are doing both toward main session but also this DC which is a big paper.  In we also encourage you to do the homework as best as you can without trying to be perfect but just do what you can as a best endeavor put in place holder for the document main session and employees look at the DC paper Sorina presented and if you have comments, add them to the Google Doc.

I see two hands, are these old hands from Wout and Mark?

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: One is new one.  Markus, a very practical question.  By the way.  That is there a go, no go moments for hybrid or the real IGF.  There is something known about that, can we say, book a hotel over flight, but best to wait and see what developments are.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I think it is the firm intention of the polish host to go ahead and the meeting will be a hybrid meeting with a strong emphasis on participants who won't be in person.  We don't call them remote participants anymore but it is in a way to be seen as everyone participating whether they're physically in place or not but Sorina is better placed to answer this question.

>> SORINA TELEANU: Just to confirm what Markus has said, the plan is that as it has been so far the host country is working hard putting in place for in seat participation for whoever is able to travel and the results in parallel work being done on the highbred element so nothing has changed.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you and as far as I understand from Europe, you never know these days but all things being equal, it looks like now should be fairly okay to travel to Poland.

Oh, Fred put a hand up and Mark, you were first.  Please, Mark.

>> MARK CARVELL: Yes, thank you.  I hope, sorry, I hope this is not going to delay people from concluding the meeting.  But, just going back to the the event on the 13th of October, you talked about the history and the situation now I think it's going to be important to say something about the future and the kind of point that vat was emphasizing earlier in terms of evolution of the IGF and the greater profile and prominence and intersection of the intersessional work and I just wondered if you had a sense of what the message controlling out of the session is going to be a lot of focus on the IGF community in terms of what the U.S. Secretariat general is talking about, the contact and really a very strong message a few days ago to the IGF to innovate and get going on that and a lot of that is going to have do happen intersessionally so people come to go that meeting on the 13th of next month may have an expectation of some explanation of how coalitions and the BPSs and PNs and so on are going to meet that drive by the UN, by the Secretariat general, in particular.  To really advance progress on a lot of the key challenges.  I don't want to elicit a full ‑‑ now but something to bear in mind.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: No, very welcome comments.  We'll have to address the looking forward bit but I mean, we don't have the answer to that.  All we can say is that we're working on it and we are keen, actually, to be part of this but I think it's an important aspect, thanks for mentioning this.  Fred has appeared with his hand up a few minutes ago.  Yes, please?

>> FRED KWADWO AAZORE: Okay. So what I wanted to add to the conversation was the remote participant bit.  I think yesterday we had the town hall meeting for the IGF 2021 in Katowice and it was mentioned a support act so there's going to be an application that will allow the remote participants to see the various rooms and fit in as if they were in Katowice so that is how come they are trying to do away with its term remote participants so that everyone would feel he or she is participanting directly from Katowice.

So, that was the update but the application we are told would be out on the 29th of this month so we can start testing the application, so we can provide what it is improved on the application before IGF.  Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that.  Yes.  My takeaway was that we try to avoid the term remote participants that they're all participants whether they're online so they're, I think there was always etch or the to include participants whether they're remote but this year we tried to make sure that this year they would not be on site were treated equally and I think what you said, this application is designed to give you that feeling that you are an equal participant whether you're on site or just online.

With that, I think we been on a few minutes over the hour but I think it was a very good discussion and I thank you very much for your thoughts and comments and for your input.

And I hope to see some of you next week in Geneva but the first physical meeting in the IGF context since more than a year and a half.  It's incredible.  For those who are not in Geneva, see you online but let's make sure that we treat you all equally.

And with that, thank you all.  And I close this session and we will then after the MAG meeting at our consultation touch base again and make the schedule another session for our call.  Thank you all.  And stay safe.  Bye‑bye.

(Session was concluded at 10:05 AM CT)

 

 

***

This text, document, or file is based on live transcription.  Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), captioning, and/or live transcription are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.  This text, document, or file is not to be distributed or used in any way that may violate copyright law.

***