DC Coordination meeting #59

DC Coordination meeting #59

21 February 2022 | 15:00 UTC

 

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Hello, everyone. Markus here. It's almost top of the hour. Let's wait a few more minutes. I hope more people will be joining. Good to see you all on the call.

>> JUNE PARNS: Hello, Markus.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: All right. It's top of the hour. Well, I presume there will still be people joining. So before going through the formal agenda, let me just once again welcome you. Hope you had a good start into the new year. And ready for action. This week is the open consultations and MAG meeting. So the DC Coordination group meeting is very timely. So then we can also report back to the MAG. (Recording in progress) Thank you. Just a clarification, Sorina joined us on this call. As you know, she was the official secretariat support last year. She had the consultancy contract. Then she applied again for the advertised position. And we are confident that she will get offered a contract. Right now, she has not yet got the contract. She's not in an official function with us. Just on a voluntary basis. And we cannot ask her to do anything for us. But we obviously accept her kind contribution she does on a voluntary basis. And we hope she will get off the contract. This does not prejudge any decision which is, obviously, the prerogative of the U.N. to take who they will offer contract with. I wanted to clarify this and get it out of the way right at the beginning. And with that, I would officially like to start our meeting. We had sent out a draft agenda ahead of the meeting. Just a few hours before. I think it's nothing radical there. I think we proposed that we discuss the basis for our cooperation this year. And we thought that the paper we worked on last year would be a good starting point. A good basis for setting priorities for upcoming year. And we also had a contribution from Mark. He suggested discussing how the DC is in this summary, the accord of the IGF meeting. And we're looking forward to hearing your comments on that. And lastly, there was also a discussion on, again, we have this before on the legal status of the DCs and their relationships with other organizations, in particular, intergovernmental organizations. And then we have open -- does anybody at this stage would like to raise an issue on any other business? You will still be given the time when we get to that point. But in case if there's anything you'd like to raise, it might be useful for us to know about it already. If that's not the case, can we then adopt the agenda as it was proposed? As I hear no objection, I would assume that we can proceed on that basis. On the basis of that agenda. Then come to the Agenda Item 1 which will be the -- oh, lastly, there was a sum-up. The priorities for next -- for this year. For the DC Coordination. I would like to give the floor to Sorina as she was the one who was holding the pen on our collective paper of DC cooperation. Can you guide us through this paper and share with us the content's paper you produced?

>> SORINA TELEANU: Hello, Markus. Hello, everyone. Let me share in the chat the link. I'll explain. I can also try to share my screen. Let me see.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: If you go on the link, it's a Google Doc. Yes, that's the one she shares.

>> SORINA TELEANU: Okay. What I did was to copy the document. Only the so-called issues to explore from our paper. From the paper we produced last year. And the idea would be that we go through them and see which would be the points that the Dynamic Coalitions coordination group would like to work on this year. I'd like to discuss a few potential starting points. Those are the parts in yellow. Those are just to start the discussion around. If you remember, it's basically a bunch of stuff on issues from everything to objectives and membership of Dynamic Coalitions, to governance mechanisms. Use and availability of resources. Types of activities. And outputs, related to what Mark has been saying. A few other things about relations of the MAG -- of DCs with the MAG. Participation in meetings including building the program. And looking a bit into the future how DCs can contribute to further strengthening the IGF toward IGF Plus or whatever will be happening. You all have the link. I won't be going through them one by one. Just giving the floor back to Markus. And see how we want to start the discussion. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much, Sorina. Think that's a very useful document and useful starting point for our discussion. As you were talking, I just got a message from Adam. "Sorry, calls all day. Horrible days of storms, weather, and Zooms." Adam won't be able to join us, unfortunately, as he is -- >> ADAM PEAKE: No, no, I'm here. Earlier calls I missed. I apologize. I'm now here.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: You're now here.

>> ADAM PEAKE: Lucky yous.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: All the better.

>> ADAM PEAKE: Sorry about that.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: No worries. Okay. We have before us -- well, shall we say as an expected outcome, I think it will be good if you could agree on one or two items to focus on to get started. So we can, obviously, go through the document one by one. But we can also just have a round robin and ask spontaneously where you see priorities or are you see useful starting points going into the new year. Any initial thoughts? If you -- I mean, there are not that many. And I think Sorina did a very useful pre-selection of a relatively easily effective find. Items. Where do you see a good starting point? Just spontaneously or otherwise we go through them one by one?

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Markus, I have my hand up. I like number 1 in general. Because many of the DCs don't know, want to do a Code of Conduct but have no idea where to find the IGF ones or have no idea how to do one, the IGF, to not include those. Making people feel like they're not wanted. But to establish some guidelines. You know, or governance framework. As well as, I see the number 1 on governance to be very similar. Because without a framework, we also don't know how to do our own code of conducts or what code of conducts can we use. I know some IGFs have -- I know IGF USA has one. But that has always been an issue on the list for membership. Because it's been open to everyone. How do we make sure that we publish a Code of Conduct that is allowed by IGF? That was my point.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. Wout?

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: This document was shared with the MAG. Are there any responses that or how they look at the topic of Dynamic Coalitions? I'm wondering how this report landed.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, it was presented on various occasions to the MAG. The MAG was given an opportunity to provide feedback. But I don't know. Sorina, you work much closer to it. Can you clarify?

>> SORINA TELEANU: Thanks, Markus. I don't think there was any formal feedback from the MAG other than I think one said she appreciates the report and the MAG should be taking over some of the issues. But since now there is a new chair, we work well to remind the MAG there's this paper from last year. And see if they would like to take a look at it again. .

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Yes. This week's meeting provides a good opportunity to get back to the MAG and also say if you come out of this meeting, say the coordination group decided to focus on this part of the report as a step to get their feedback to that. But there are more hands up. Rajendra?

>> RAJENDRA PRATAP GUPTA: Working quite good support from the secretariat. So I want to bring forth, you know, two, three, points. One is that this is a voluntary activity. So that should always be considered, you know, that we all volunteer our time, efforts, to do what we do. But more than that, we are passionate about the cause. That's why we're part of this. It should not be forgotten. One thing that will help me, you know, is that if I get maybe annually, I think probably all DC people who run it, what DC accomplished in the year that's gone? I think we all have this annual report. So a number of activities, papers, going back. I think that would be helpful. Same way it would be helpful if you share -- if someone has a governance framework. I think given we're a team of diverse Dynamic Coalitions but work in the same area of Internet. Sharing, you know, the contribution of each would be really helpful. And I think with time, we are getting -- the Internet is going to play an active role in our lives as one of the I think social determinants for all of us. So looking forward to the discussions. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Mark?

>> MARK CARVELL: Thank you, Markus. Hello, everybody. What jumps out about that comprehensive summary that Sorina prepared, what jumps out to me are two things really. First of all, engagement in the IGF planning process. As you mentioned, there is the open consultation happening this week in the first MAG meeting under the new chair. And we discussed in the past the political importance of the Dynamic Coalitions and year-round IGF activity. And they're focused on some key issues. So when it comes to identifying key topics for the IGF this year, given the IGF is going to continue on its track to be more issue focused, we ought to consider how the coalitions as a group can contribute in a meaningful way to the planning process. Including identification of key topics. And the ambitions for concrete outcomes from the IGF. Some coalitions are very outcome oriented. And I would like to see those outcomes this year, in subsequent years, captured in a positive way by the IGF, itself. That they've become, in effect, IGF outputs. So this needs some thinking in terms of how do we convey this wish to the MAG. And how we as a group of stakeholder coalitions can work together to get the messaging and the mechanics, if you like, on contributing to planning clearly set out. That's one thought. The other concern is one we've raised in the past. Me speaking on behalf of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety, IS3C as it's now known. That's the sustainability of the coalition. We talked to a lot of people about how to get the kind of funding we need to carry out important research, in particular. And just to keep this going. You know, if we need to hire a consultant, where are we going to get the money from to employ a consultant to carry out a specific research task, for example? So that is -- I can't remember where it is on Sorina's list. The sustainability of coalitions I think is still a headache. If we're going to play our part in IGF Plus, we need to have some greater sense of facility in terms of support and materials. Sustainability in terms of funding. We're not asking for huge amounts of money. We just, for example, want to pay people to do a bit of work for us. So we're not talking huge amounts. Okay. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. And just listening and also looking at the chat, there was support -- excuse me -- for Judith's comments. And Rajendra similar thoughts. Amy also supports that in the chat. I don't know whether you want to come in, Amy, and also talk a bit. Amali's got a hand up. And then before, Amali, if you allow, there's the other cluster of issues which is, obviously, there's some issues which the Dynamic Coalitions can solve among themselves. Just governance framework. Provide a template. Something like that. But then the issues, the broader issues, of relationship to the broader IGF community to the work, to the NRIs, to planning, all these issues Mark just mentioned. Obviously, the Dynamic Coalitions cannot solve these on their own. They really need to ask the cooperation of the MAG. I look to Adam as the MAG member. With the MAG for the Dynamic Coalition. This is definitely something to bring back to the MAG. Amali, please, you have a hand up.

>> AMALI DE SILVA: Thank you, Markus. This is Amali.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: We can't hear you. Your sound went off. I think you're still muted.

>> AMALI DE SILVA: Can you hear me now?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: We can faintly. Can you go close to the microphone?

>> AMALI DE SILVA: That's better. Okay. Markus, I want to agree, each one of the DCs can create their own terms of reference. When we started three years ago, I was actually asked to create the terms of reference. So this can be done. But it can be fluid. I mean, we can change. We currently have a proposal from someone else as well through Sorina. So, you know, it's not set in stone, as it were. So long as the members agree who are currently members of the DC. These terms can change as well. So just want to mention that. That we do have some control there. Which is actually great. So thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Other general comments?

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yeah. Thank you, Markus. I had raised my hand. I do think that the purpose of the whole exercise would be that we have somehow codes of conducts, or I prefer to say terms of reference, that they must not be similar in all aspects. But they should at least follow the same ideas and same directions. And I think it would be -- it would make sense to know if the IGF secretariat has kind of a framework that could be similar for all the Dynamic Coalitions. Or whether we should develop, elaborate, such a framework that could fit for all Dynamic Coalitions. Then, of course, different Dynamic Coalitions might have different paragraphs within that framework that are more adjusted to their work. Or to their members. But overall, it would be good to have a common framework for that.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Jutta. Yes, I definitely think it will not be necessary if we have the same terms of reference for all Dynamic Coalitions. As we have stated again and again. They vary greatly. Each of them. They are very different. I think we do need to be based on some common principles. We did a few years back when Avri was the co-coordinator that we agreed we need to have open archives and be open to membership for anybody who wants to join as minimal principles. These need to be abided to by all Dynamic Coalitions. At the same way, if you have terms of reference as a common governance framework, we would just set minimum standards. Of course, each Dynamic Coalition would be able to go beyond that. I see, Marianne, in the chat, you refer to the terms of reference. Framework for the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition. Do you want to comment?

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: I want to address a comment from a colleague whose name I forgot. Forgive me. These are unpaid. Also, Dynamic Coalitions have different timelines. In the case of Internet Rights and Principles Coalition, it's been around for ten-plus years. We fairly developed governance framework and procedure. That would be something, a DC that's only just got off the ground the last year or two or three. We wouldn't expect that from them. So I think it would be good to consider a minimum threshold, perhaps, rather than a one-size-fits-all template. As long as there is some sort of governance principles framework that each DC can claim it's worked on. Each one is at a different point in its timeline. I think the Internet Governance Forum standards elderly if I may use that term or ripe, like a good red wine. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Mature. Mature.

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: There's always room for improvement, Markus. I want to make a point about the timeline or levels of development in that respect before we start throwing babies out with the bath water.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Absolutely. Absolutely. That's very much what I tried to say, we're talking about the minimum threshold of we all should agree on and can you beyond, if you need. Also the other point, Rajendra made the point, again, pointing out that it is voluntary work. We have to be cognizant of that. We cannot overburden voluntary workers with too much work. I see June also agreed with you, Marianne. Other comments? Do I sense it that there will be general agreement if we start work on a common -- start work on developing a common governance framework, terms of reference that will include some of the questions that are in last year's paper? That would also mean the very first question, what constitutes DC membership? And then the second would be how do we look at the relationship with the work of the broader IGF community? How do we interact with the MAG? How do we -- this is all part of the paper. Or how do we interact with intercessional activities? How do we connect better with the NRIs and all these very relevant, very important, questions? Would that make sense that we start thinking of developing on these two tracks? First one would be more inward looking. That we set our common standards. And we would explain to the MAG and we would also ask for feedback from the MAG. Whether that would make sense. Obviously, Code of Conduct and all that. I think we don't need to invent a new Code of Conduct for the DCs. We can just endorse the one we have from the IGF. I see there are quite a few hands up now. Jutta, Avri, Wout and Amy. We'll take them in order. Jutta, Avri, then --

>> It was my old hand. Sorry.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Wout?

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Avri goes first. Then my new hand goes up.

>> AVRI DORIA: Thanks. One thing that I'm concerned about is we take take on too much work that is process administrative. That we end up saying that the DCs now have to start, you know, answering a lot of the administrative issues. I think that there may be -- and I understand there's value in terms of reference. Always getting better or conducts of behavior. Or whatever term we want to use. And I think that if we take the fact that we do have some have been around for a long time. And we ask ourselves is there another one or two or even, perhaps, three general principles that we think are missing from there? And do sort of an incremental of, you know, I think X is missing. I think Y is missing. Or my DC thinks X is missing. Go from there. As opposed to starting a top-town sort of, okay, we've got lots of questions that we've got to answer. Is there a sort of minimalist approach that we can take that improves it in ways it needs to be improved without taking on a whole project of this administrative sort of obligations? Thanks.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. These are very wise words. And I think it was also never my intention to have a big real comprehensive work down here. But rather, steppingstones, incremental progress, toward some common pillars of what constitutes DC work. But that is, obviously, all open for discussion. But thanks for your comments. Who's next? Wout then Amy then Mark.

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Thank you, Markus. I have three comments. The first one is on when a new DC comes to the IGF secretariat stating we want to become a DC on a specific topic. It might be good that they receive some pointers. What do you have to think of when you make decisions or what about memberships? So just that you know. Because we became a DC at the IGF in 2020. Then people started asking us all sort of questions we never thought about. Basically, we were put back about four months just deciding on not the content, on what do we have to do. And all the sort of measures we had to invent ourself, basically. Also, because we did it ourselves and didn't think about asking other people for their experience. The fact is we lost months just because some organization started asking difficult questions. And when we have the answers, they were nowhere in sight to receive them. In other words, that was a bit peculiar. Because we really didn't know what to do. We have these sort of papers ready now. And they're on the IGF website under our own name. So we can share that with others. If that need should occur. Then at least people have some pointers. That list of pointers, what's a minimum requirement, would be important. The second one, I think Mark already said that, the next, the MAG meeting, open consultation, et cetera, is coming on. But how do we get -- become, I mean, an integral part of the program for those DCs that would have that ambition? Because we need more than just an hour to present what we've been doing the past year. The same would go for the outcomes of the IGF. And the third I want to point to is that the IGF retreat is coming up. I understand that they will be discussing IGF Plus there and how it should be filled in. Who is going to represent the Dynamic Coalitions? Because we are supposed to become an integral part of IGF Plus. Who's going to represent us? Do we have a common message that we can share, if one of us is there? So that is something I think we have to have in mind as well. Because there's no one from a Dynamic Coalition there, who's going to share our views? And who's going to come up for us and what we should be doing in the future? So that is a question I would like to have answered as well. And that has to be in this session, basically, because after that, there is no other session. So there are my points, Mark. Markus, sorry. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Wout. Now, Amy and then Mark.

>> AMY CROCKER: Hi, Markus, and support everyone else so far. I want to go back to the issue of governance. We're planning to develop (?) to membership. On the one hand, we can talk about what the DCs should do and be and how they should interact. From the DC rights, one of the challenges is we have an inactive membership. In my view, a non-responsive membership does not make a Dynamic Coalition. And so we have a bit of a dilemma in terms of, you know, DCs supposedly being open to anyone that wants to join. But I do believe there should be a minimum standard of engagement. Otherwise, you know, you sort of would lose your place in the group. But I'm not sure, and Jutta and I discussed this late last year. I'm not sure how that can be engineered. We have our ideas for our particular DC. But, you know, could there be a common agreement about ensuring an active membership in a DC? Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Mark?

>> MARK CARVELL: Yes. Thank you, Markus. First of all, I just want to endorse what Avri said about being wary of creating too many -- too much of a loading, a bureaucratic loading or process loading on Dynamic Coalitions. I agree with that. Anything we do in terms of new constructs should be relatively light touch. And involuntary. Some coalitions might be quite happy to cruise along doing their expert discussions. As others who have kind of been much more willing to be integrated in developing IGF outcomes. So on. And the point I wanted to make was that -- it's an idea, really. In terms of awareness raising. And integration. And connecting with NRIs and so on. It's just an idea. I haven't developed it or proposed it in any formal way. The DCCG might consider a regular bulletin to which coalitions might want to contribute a news item or announce the launch of a research proposal or something like that. So you have a kind of regular bulletin that will -- gives the opportunity for coalitions, if they wish, to contribute, as I say, a kind of news item of a brief sort of update report maybe. That will go to all the -- addressed to all the NRIs. As well as the MAG. And in a fairly light-touch way, you get a good way of channeling useful information about coalitions to, you know, an extraordinarily effective global network. Which is the NRIs across the world. What is it? 170 coalitions. Whatever it is. And also the Youth IGFs. That was happening with some of the Dynamic Coalitions. And then we get the benefit of generating more interaction for us and possibly more members. You know. We are also trying to beef up our membership desperately. And that's where also the sustainability argument comes in. Because if stakeholders feel comfortable that this coalition is -- it's going to deliver, they're more likely to join us. So, anyway. I'm kind of combining two aspirations there. So I thought I'd float that idea off a bulletin. As a channel. On a voluntary basis. It should be fairly easy to implement, I would have thought. That could achieve quite a lot. Thanks.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. That's definitely a suggestion worth considering following up on. And I think there was a comment in the chat from the website. Could also be improved as regards the visibility of Dynamic Coalitions to avoid the problems while it's mentioned when they form their new Dynamic Coalition. As it's more visible what is needed. And a kind of checklist when you want to start the Dynamic Coalitions. There are more people who would like to speak? Amy, have you already -- is this a new hand? Have you already -- or an old hand?

>> AMY CROCKER: It's an old hand. Sorry, Markus.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Judith, is that a new hand or old hand?

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: New hand. It's Judith Hellerstein for the record. In discussing in the chat, in the IGF Retreat, there should have -- the DCs were not looked at. They gave representatives from the NRIs. We had no representatives from the DCs. When I asked this question at the end to the secretariat, they said, oh, DCs, many people consider DCs civil society and have to go nominate a civil society. Then there's all these other civil society groups who say, oh, well, we're doing our own process. We're nominating the civil society. And DCs are not really civil society. Maybe a lot of civil society people. They also may be government or other technical people. Other groups. So we do need just like the NRIs have a number of people who can get nominated, we also do need a certain number who are coming from the DCs. Who can represent certain different viewpoints for the IGF Plus. And that -- and it just maybe is because we're not visible enough. That people overlook the DCs and say, you don't get people. But I don't know how we change that and how we go about doing that. That has to do with the visibility of the DCs and funds into it. I also love the idea of trying to find in the website, going back on the website, the DC website, links, like, many of these governance documents, that maybe if we could have other ones that are showing up as examples that we can look at. Been around a long time, but we never created these governance documents. Now we're looking at creating them. And we don't know where to look. So that's my point. So thanks so much.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. And Rajendra.

>> RAJENDRA PRATAP GUPTA: Thank you. I want to put forward one point because we're talking about governance framework and other things. As I said, and I think most of my colleagues would agree that despite being voluntary, we do have a passion. We do things that we believe will have an impact in the age of Internet. But when we try to bring too much of kind of regulations and frameworks, we have innovation. That is my submission. Let's make it -- it's a diverse group. If you look at the composition of DCs, each one of them is working in the area of their interest. Very specific. Doing work, I think, which is really responsible. So in my view, when you look at this governance framework, try to not make it so tough and stiff that it scuttles innovation and open approach of the DCs to contribute. That's my humble solution. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Rajendra. I think you've opened doors there with your comments. I think nobody has the intention of setting out straitjackets for the DCs. Rather, talking about some very basic principles that should be adhered to. And I see a very constructive comment in the chat. Marianne asked whether Mark would like to be the inaugural editor in chief of the bulletin he suggested. I think that would be a very good start to a suggestion. Sorry to put you on the spot. But would you be willing to give it a go?

>> MARK CARVELL: Okay. If there's agreement that this is a useful device to create. >> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, we could have on a provisional basis here. A straw man draft. See whether we think it's useful. Also feedback and take it from there. Just maybe to create the first straw man and see whether that makes much sense. And meets a need. And I think it will be a very useful tool to have. But next speaker is Adam. And that's very helpful because he will be able to sum it all up and take the discussion to the MAG next Friday. Adam, please.

>> ADAM PEAKE: Yeah, I most definitely will take the discussion to the MAG and be able to sum up nothing because I've never been able to do that. Just to follow-up on some of the discussion here. The ideas of the DCs not being represented in the retreat. I don't know much about the retreat, nobody does except those organizing the retreat. I said do DCs have a common view? If you're going to go the retreat to represent something other than yourself, you're going to have to have a common view. Marianne rightly said do DCs need to have a common view? I think in the context I was raising it, yes, I think they do. That's where the NRIs and I think the DCs differ. If you look at the IGF website, I think this reflects my memory of where we are with the different structures. You've got intercessional and best practice forums. Dynamic Coalitions. Capacity development. Forgetting capacity development for a moment. These are issue-based structures, essentially, underneath the best practice forums, Dynamic Coalitions and have IGF initiatives which are formal structures, essentially, of the IGF. They're the building blocks in the more formal sense of the national or regional IGF being the bottom of the pyramid into the IGF, itself, proper. So I can see why a Dynamic Coalition would not have a formal representation with the retreat structure. I don't say whether I agree with it or not. I see because of the nature of the structures. You're meant to be dynamic coalitions forming, doing work, dissolving, et cetera. There isn't the sense of permanency. I don't know if that's the right word. It's not within the structures, as I've seen it. If you want a retreat of 60, 70, people, you're looking at the dynamic sort of retreat as well. Anyway, I hope that's a little bit helpful. I can see why you wouldn't have dynamic coalitions there. I don't know how you would select someone to attend. Because you're not essentially going to be representing the view of your Dynamic Coalition. You're going to have to come together. I don't see that structure existing at the moment. Yeah. What constitutes a common view? I don't know. They do coordinate. That's the purpose. They formally coordinate. A different structure. But, yeah, I don't think there's an answer there. It's just that I can understand why Dynamic Coalitions, because they are different from the other structures, and best practice forums and policy networks are not represented within the retreat structure. But you may disagree. Thanks. >> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Well, it's Marianne just said in the chat that we're in a coordinate meeting at the moment.

>> ADAM PEAKE: Yes, you are. It's a new thing. You created it recently. The whole --

>> MARKUS KUMMER: No, no, we had actually had this kind of meeting for the past -- when did we start with them? I think five or six years ago.

>> ADAM PEAKE: I think we all have seen the way that it's developed. Yeah, it's a slightly different approach, though, isn't it? I mean, the Dynamic Coalitions by their very nature when they were established in Athens in 2006, you know, they are a different structure. They were meant to be. It's in the name, dynamic. It's a coalition to get work achieved around a particular subject. You know, so I think -- I just see a different set of structures to the NRIs, for example.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: No disagreement there. Okay. There are more hands up. I can see Olivier and Wout. Please. Can you unmute yourself?

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Can't hear you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Have to unmute.

>> OLIVIER: CREPIN: Thank you. One of the points Adam made, not sure I agree, temporary nature of DCs. Best practice forum have been created for a single issue then disbanded afterwards. I think the issue of ongoing DC work is one which was discussed on many occasions in the past. And many DCs continue doing work every year. And are, therefore, ongoing. A little concerned about saying that these are throwaway structures. You start, get something done, and afterwards it's finished. Secondly, when it comes to the coordination, I agree with Marianne. We have our DC coordination group here, it's attended regularly. It's a well-attended call. We have our meeting list and so on. I can't see where the real difficulty is in being able to reach consensus and have a unified position on things. We have shown that in the past. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. I see in the chat, Mark asked whether I will be at the retreat. I haven't had an official invitation. But given on the profile as a previous chair of the MAG, I think I fit into the category of those who are invited officially. And should that be the case, I could, obviously, present the case of the DCs. And, again, not here to agree or disagree, but I certainly agree with the point made by several others that we have been coordinating, and while the nature of the DCs is different from the NRIs, the NRIs are multi-issue organizations, structures. Whereas, the DCs are usually issue-based structures. Some, Marianne has pointed out, the DC has been going on for the past 10, 11, years. So it is definitely something we can report back also to the MAG. Collectively, I think, the DCs feel they ought to be taken maybe more seriously. But it has also to do with the fact that until last year, there was no secretariat, secretariat support, given to DCs as it was given to NRIs. We have seen the work done for the NRIs has helped tremendously the cooperation among the NRIs and has strengthened the network. And I think the support Sorina gave us last year very much also helped to strengthen the cooperation of the DCs. And if the NRIs are more visible, that has a lot to do with the much stronger secretariat support. But, Wout, you still have a hand up.

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Thank you, Markus. It's a new hand. A response to Adam and Marianne, basically. I agree with you, Adam, that this is all a temporary initiative, et cetera. But my point is different that at the IGF retreat, as I understand it, they will be discussing the future of the IGF. Of the IGF Plus and Plus Plus model. Whatever they call it. And Dynamic Coalitions in the U.N. secretary's roadmap are given an essential role in the IGF Plus as making sure that the IGF will have tangible outputs in the future. So, in other words, they will be talking about us a lot. And if we are not represented in a good way, they'll be talking about us but not with us. Perhaps, the outcome could be something which is very undesirable for a lot of the DCs. Maybe for some, it would be great news. But we don't know. So how do we get some sort of a message across what we as Dynamic Coalitions see as valuable? And that will be different because we're not the same. But, perhaps, some DCs could indicate, well, we're happy with how we are at this point. We can do whatever we want to do with this. Some others, perhaps, would like to be more influential. Become an integral part of what the IGF is doing. And of those tangible outputs. And I think it's visibility. I think Mark will speak a little bit about the IGF report. But I'm basically very angry that I've got a huge picture as a rock star on the stage and been working for two years and there's not a single word on the report. That makes me angry. It's also extremely unfair to the work that we all are doing as dynamic coalitions. We're a footnote in the report. We're working extremely hard for them to make a difference. That's why the MAG and U.N. DESA think about. And it's important we have a voice in the retreat. Yes, I can nominate myself. But also have to finance it myself. That said, I'm really a little bit angry. Simply, as I said, I wasn't at the IGF to be a rock star. The picture is nice. I would like a copy. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. This is definitely a message we can pass on to the MAG. The Dynamic Coalitions were surprised to see that they were not considered to be part of the groups that are invited to be represented at the retreat.

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: There's no report. We're not there.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Can we all agree to convey this message to the meeting on Friday as one of the group's message? I mean, I think what to do for the future, for the IGF Plus, IGF Plus Plus, Mark summed it up with his very initial statement. These are the issues and they're also contained in the paper we produced last year. It's not, you know, coming from nowhere. Do say in the paper and the issues to be concerned, how better to be integrated into the overall work. So I think we have something to report. But time is moving on. And while Wout already alluded to it to the report, summary report, can we close the agenda item on essentially the DC priorities? And I think my conclusion would be that we agreed on looking into developing a common baseline for governance framework. That is not a detailed governance framework with bylaws, terms of reference. But just a baseline of what should be part of a common governance framework. And as Avri put it, maybe look at what is missing. Not create a big bureaucratic exercise. Just have a light look at that. As we did some six, seven, years ago with various open standards. Open archives. Open membership. And the second item to look at would be how better to integrate Dynamic Coalitions into the overall work. How to contribute to the MAG's work. Definition of issues. And how to integrate Dynamic Coalitions more with the NRIs. And all the other intercessional work as two main messages. Then there is the other message that Dynamic Coalitions are surprised to see that they're not taken as an equivalent partner when it comes to the retreat, to debate the future of the IGF Plus. And despite, they are explicitly mentioned in all the various papers leading to the IGF Plus framework. And then the issues of disability on the website would be part of that message. Yes, Marianne, you have a comment.

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: Yes. I think it's really important -- my problem is we have this conversation year after year. Like Wout, I'm getting fed up. Every year, it's a new MAG. Each year, the DC work has to be introduced to new MAG members. They've never heard of the DCs. So that's basically what one always has to do. Secondly, asking for the website to actually honor and respect and recognize that the enabled DC work is a simple step I hope can be done quickly and efficiently. My issue is if we go to the MAG once again saying why aren't we being taken seriously, there's a sort of supplicant tone. I think it's time to get really strategic about this. As I said in the chat, I'm just wondering if the success of MAGs that come and the success of chairs by the previous one who knew very well what the DC work was. Really supported our work. What would they do if the DCs did actually just say, all right, that's it, we won't contribute any more? I mean, it sounds pretty radical. I'm just thinking this is, like, ten years on. It's been the same song every year. We're not being invited to the party. We are the party. Without us, there would be no IGF outputs. So, Markus, I'm not asking you to wave the red flag or anything. I'm thinking, could we this year think strategically step by step? First, get the website going what it should do. A top priority. We're also required to update our own information that's on that website. I'm not sure how that can be done. Very straightforward. Secondly, Markus, you represent as you always do so beautifully the DCs in the next MAG. You know, as a point of introduction to new MAG members. Then we think very hard about what we do next. Because I don't want to see 2022 end and have this conversation once again in 2023. We're just past it now. >> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, thank you for the candid comments. But I think the constellation this year would say a bit more positive because DCs have been mentioned in the Secretary General's report. And last year, we have been benefitting from Sorina's support. And while Sorina has not been offered a contract yet, but the position is there. We will get the position of someone who will support us. That is slightly different from the past ten years. I would, therefore, urge maybe for a little bit more patience. While not excluding radical measures. I think right now may not be the best time to do so. And, yes, we can. Obviously, we can with the website, and I wonder whether Sorina behind the scenes could take it back to the IGF Secretariat and explain our, shall we say, displeasure with the situation as it is. Jutta, you have your hands up.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes. Thank you, Markus, for giving me the floor. Only shortly, I do not completely agree with Marianne because the MAG doesn't change completely from year to year. We have maybe one-third of the members. Sometimes only a few members that come new on board to the new MAG. And if we are not able as DCs to carry our messages from year to year to the MAG members, then it's also somehow, it must be our effort to make -- enlarge our visibility not only with the MAG but within the whole IGF community. And somehow, I'm afraid the strategy could strike back, if we say why didn't you mention us in the report. Why aren't we seen within the community? Then as a MAG member, I would ask, okay, what are you doing for your visibility? And I do think we could do more for our visibility. Probably the Dynamic Coalitions. We do a lot of work. But communication and visibility is maybe a bit lagging behind. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Well, there is Mark's suggestion of having this bulletin, which would be in many ways an answer to this issue. Marianne, is that a new hand or old hand?

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: I'm an old hand.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Aren't we all old hands? Well, we're reaching almost the top of the hour. We had a very good discussion. Do you have time to stay on for a few more minutes or do you need to hop off? Well, with that, Mark, can you briefly go to the next agenda item and to the report? You wanted us to discuss it. But it has already come up. But let's do it more formally.

>> MARK CARVELL: Yes, thank you, Markus. As you said, it's come up already. It's relevant to the retreat as well. Because I can well expect, in particular, government participants in the retreat. That would be quite a number. Going to the IGF report to get briefed up on what the IGF is. What it did at its last event. And the coalitions are very -- the coverage of the Dynamic Coalitions is very limited in the report. As has already been noted. I think it's pretty poor. Okay. There's an annex where you can -- if you've got the determination, you can go and find out what coalitions are doing. But I don't think many government readers, for example, are going to do that. We don't have a section in the report. A red-headed section like the NRIs had. We're not on the contents page. The policy networks are there. But on the contents page, the index, if you like, there's no mention of Dynamic Coalitions. We don't really crop up until well into the report. And in terms of the account of what Dynamic Coalitions did in their -- there was 17 Dynamic coalitions of sessions. The report is covered in three paragraphs. It doesn't go into kind of topic issue where Dynamic Coalitions are driving forward to develop IGF topics. It's pretty bad. For the retreat, it's not a useful document. In conveying the role we've just been discussing in terms of delivering outcomes. So, I mean, it's an immediate problem. We need the picture of the Dynamic Coalitions to be fully presented at the retreat. And for all the target audiences report, we need to correct this deficiency in coverage in future reporting. I don't know what the immediate answer is for the retreat. I mean, maybe it could be possible to prepare a supplement about the Dynamic Coalitions. You know, like a four-pager or something. For the retreat. Saying this is a supplement to the report of IGF Katowice to give a fuller report. It right not be too demanding a piece of work to do. I think it could help. If you're able to represent us, you could introduce that report to the retreat in New York.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: They're all valid points. I have to admit that I wasn't aware because I was too lazy to look at the overall report. Yes, I think it is, indeed, a missing piece. We are considered to be a key element of the overall IGF architecture. Then we are not figured in the report. Just thinking aloud. Could that, in a way, be the first of these bulletins that we actually have a collective paper on the role of the Dynamic Coalitions which would then go to the retreat? Mark, would you be willing to give it a go?

>> MARK CARVELL: Yes --

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Full of ideas. You asked to volunteer.

>> MARK CARVELL: I should be more careful in future.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: You cannot do it the whole report but would need the input from the Dynamic Coalitions. Produce framework, paper, and framework. A nice paper. Introduction. And then the Dynamic Coalitions that are present there could fill in their bit.

>> MARK CARVELL: Yeah, we would need the contributions from those who are active in Katowice and issue that has a bulletin, supplement, for the annual IGF report. Then bulletins could be updates. If the coalition is launching a reset project or publishing a paper or undertaking a survey. Or going to announce something. That's the idea of the bulletin I had really.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I understand. Just thinking aloud, I thought you pointed out there is a gap. This gap ought to be filled. Wout, you hand your hand up? It's down again? Zb WOUT DE NATRIS: I put it down. As a suggestion, if Mark writes the overall text with help from Jutta, I read. If the call goes out now that every Dynamic Coalition who wants half a page on what it is doing or what it's already achieved, then it should go out now. So we can make sure it lands on time. Because it's only five weeks from when the retreat is. We're all in a hurry. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: For sure. I can send an email to the DC list and say that we have -- Jutta, was that a no? She says good-bye. I think she has to hop off on another call. Could send an email to the list saying that we found -- we want to do that. Or maybe Mark could produce a draft. I'd happily send it out. But as you have thought more about it, we can take that off the list. And maybe bilaterally think about it. I don't want to put you on the spot. I would happily send it out. I would be grateful for your input of what I should say to the list. With that --

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Quick question. This is Judith. In our annual reports, we put in everything we were doing for the year. Maybe Mark can take from there and just put in what every DC has done for the year as for what they've been working on. I don't know.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: This is the report of the meeting of Katowice. It should reflect to that, not just overall.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: We all have a fine report after our DC session and all filed the report with the IGF. That report was about that session.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: True.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: It should be on the IGF site.

>> MARK CARVELL: Can I easily grab them, you mean the four-line reports, whatever they were, that we had to do.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Ours was longer than four lines.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Maybe Sorina can be help there with Mark. Avri has her hand up.

>> AVRI DORIA: We all had to do full reports of our meeting in Katowice and had to submit annual reports. One or the other of those could probably be aggregated relatively easily. And by having said that, I've put myself in the target to help Mark. But could possibly be aggregated with, yes, just a cover page that sort of says, this is the much work that they have done. But if such a thing would be useful for the whatever it is, the gathering of other important people, you know, retreat or whatever it is. Then that could be a useful reference that sort of has a cover page. That sort of does a list. These are the many things that got done. Then the aggregate report of each of them in there. Whether it's the meeting report or annual I'm not quite clear. Because I would think for the, perhaps, for the MAG, you need meeting report but, perhaps, for the retreat you need the annual report. To say this is the work they do. Just a thought.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: It's all a good thought. What triggered Mark's reaction is the fact the annual meeting report did not reflect the meetings of the Dynamic Coalitions. If you have an empty -- the meeting at annual meeting is different from the activity report, what happens over the year. Avri is right, of course. It gives a better view of the overall work of the Dynamic Coalitions. Aggregate of both of them. Of the activity report and annual report. I just wonder whether we should have maybe a group of volunteers and Sorina should definitely be part of it. And maybe Mark and Avri to look at it. And Mark, could you take the lead in coordinating this? Again, it should not be a close group. If anybody else is willing to cooperate. Maybe also, to make it attractive, it would need some editing as well. To bring them -- make easy reading. Not just have juxtaposition of various reports. Adam, you have a brilliant idea.

>> ADAM PEAKE: The 2020 report, which was the virtual IGF, does mention Dynamic Coalitions but briefly. It doesn't describe overall what was happening. It does provide a link to all the reports that dynamic coalitions presented. Probably because someone didn't want to summarize -- having done chairman reports for you, Markus, I can well imagine the chair and person writing the report, IE, me, and often Avri at the time, wouldn't want to go through 21, 25, different reports to summarize them. So I'm not suggesting that modern people are lazy. You can see it's actually more effective and fairer to provide a link to the summary provided by the DC. Where you're starting to summarize summaries which, you know, start to become a little bit, you know, weird in and of themselves, don't they? So the 2020 report does actually mention Dynamic Coalitions a couple times. It's not substantive mention. It does provide you with a listing of all the reports submitted by dynamic coalitions from the meetings that they held during the 2020 IGF process. That might be a suggestion to add to the 2021 report. Some brief mention plus a listing, URL listing, to all the reports submitted. Thanks for that. Yes, that's also a good point. Actually, that summarizing the summaries might be too tedious and hard work, actually.

>> ADAM PEAKE: No one would be happy with a summary of a summary. It's difficult to capture -- it starts to get into dangerous sort of ground. As an editor, I've done it. People quite often, you missed the bit in my summary. You're trying to summarize. It's a difficult thing to do. Providing a link to all the reports does seem like an absolute bare minimum. The URLs are all there.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Marianne?

>> MARIANNE: Yeah, yeah, I take Adam's point. I think that's really -- Mark as well. We have the position paper. I'm not sure, Markus, if I'm using the correct term. Framework, position paper? We have that. We have is it 21 DC reports? The fact that Adam points out how it's impossible to go through them all because it's so time consuming, makes the point that this is substantial work by substantial number of groups that are the constituency that the IGF prides itself on. I would advocate that a template for any IGF reporting, that is outward facing and inward facing, now include a proper section for the DCs. So it isn't just a fleeting mention. All the templates have a section, Dynamic Coalitions. Just like NRIs. That's a start. Because it's all about the archive at the end of the day. And that would be a good practical start. And if there's a resistance to this, I would like to know why.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Honestly, I think I would not see it as any political -- I think it was maybe more an oversight that the dynamics of secretariat, whatever. You know, these things do happen. But I think we are here to point it out. And to see, look, our corrective actions as you produce an additional paper and we would like that to go to the retreat also. As we consider the DCs are an integral part of the overall IGF framework.

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: From the templates of all the templates being developed going guard, Mark.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: That would be the message. Really address the Dynamic Coalition should be part of the templates for the reports going forward.

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: The Dynamic Coalitions are part of the IGF. And the template needs to include that. Just for Mark's initiative, I think more is more in this case. We have a framework paper and we have links. And I think it was all put together in a booklet that sums up where the DCs are starting 2022 with all the reports from the last IGF from each DC listed or just provided and links to previous years. Plus the position paper. This will show empirically how important the work is.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: The DC paper we produced collectively last year --

>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: What's it is. I didn't call it --

>> MARKUS KUMMER: There's a lot of substance there.

>> ADAM PEAKE: I was being flippant. We wrote a report on the daily basis and producing a 30, 40, page document by the end of the meeting. What happens now, as you know, the summary is produced probably a month afterwards. So there's a different process entirely going on. But so I wasn't really saying that people didn't want to read 21 different one or two-page summaries. But I think the point is that they should be mentioned in the report. And probably the tidiest way to do that is unless there's an introduction or something like a summation at the end, you know, the closing ceremony or wrap-up session, which used to be taking stock where someone from the Dynamic Coalitions comes together and makes a statement about this is what our Dynamic Coalition said, which might be one way to do it. Someone from the Dynamic Coalitions summarizes what they want to say the Dynamic Coalitions did during that meeting. Then if you're not going to do something like that, then I think probably a definite reference to the work of the Dynamic Coalitions and link to all the reports submitted is the best thing. And so long as everybody submits their reports in two or three weeks after, then, you know, you're going to get in the final publication. Did that make sense?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Absolutely. Well, with that, can we leave it in Mark's safe hands with support from Avri and Sorina and who else volunteers?

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Jutta volunteers as well, Markus.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Jutta as well.

>> MARK CARVELL: I think we can, you know, it can be an exercise that is not too heavy. Bearing in mind, you know, delivering something to the retreat. We've got to keep it tight. Concise. In order to have impact. We don't want to swamp them with too much. Provide links so they can follow-up. And emphasize the importance of those links. But keep the messaging pretty tight. In my experience in government, that's the way you're going to have impact.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Half a page maximum. Yeah. We used to have it in Switzerland for the minister two-page maximum. You need to have an executive summary of half a page. Amali, you want to say something?

>> AMALI DE SILVA: Yes. The report we did for the IGF meetings, there are two sections. There's a key point section and more detailed section of two pages. I think we allow two pages. So just a suggestion. Perhaps, all those key points can be summarized in a paper that maybe will be three or four pages. Then the links to the detailed report. Just a suggestion.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Well, we don't need to go into -- we leave it to the drafting team. I think Mark's point was well made. We should make it clear that there's a lot of substance there. And the links can provide that without even having to read it. You see that there was work done. And have a nice narrative explaining what the DCs do. And I'm sure that will be fine. And on Friday, we have to make that point that we are in the process of filling this gap. Which was missing. There was another agenda item. We had some discussion on Dynamic Coalition who wanted to work with the ITU. Sorina, you were involved in that. Can you briefly before we close the meeting fill in the participants on this call?

>> SORINA TELEANU: Thank you, Markus. Yes. It was to some extent the repeat of the discussion we had last year, which was raised I think both on the -- in at least one DC Coordination call. Starting from the question of whether Dynamic Coalitions can join ITU study groups and whatever other groups the ITU has. And the point is the same. Dynamic Coalitions don't exist from an equal point of view. And to join an ITU, the ITU study group -- from that point of view, it won't work for Dynamic Coalitions to formally or officially join the ITU. As it was also discussed last year, if there are entities within a dynamic coalition that are part of an ITU study group or interested in joining an ITU study group, they could also see that representing in some way or another a position of a Dynamic Coalition. But, again, in is a repeat of a discussion that was held last year. There is nothing new from that.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Right. That goes, obviously, with regards to relationship with any other intergovernmental organization. Dynamic Coalitions, legally speaking, don't exist. We know we all exist. But the legal framework provided is that of the IGF or the U.N. on top of the IGF. With that, is there anything on any other business? If not, I would like to thank -- oh, Mark. Please. Yes.

>> MARK CARVELL: Yeah. I'm just going back to what I said at the beginning. About issues. And funding. Can we put that on the agenda for the next meeting?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Of course.

>> MARK CARVELL: It's a challenge that many of us face. To undertake a specific activity, sometimes you need money. And we're just having, in our coalition, the highest -- we are banging onwards and not getting far. And had some false leads, too. So, anyway. Next agenda item. Thanks.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. For the next call. Okay. All right. This is also one of the items to be explored. On last year's paper. Yeah. Okay. With that, then, thank you, all, for your patience and your active participation. And I think it was a very good and interesting call. And I think we also had a productive outcome of the call. Thank you, all. Bye-bye.

>> SORINA TELEANU: Bye.

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Have a good day, all. Bye-bye.

(Meeting concluded at 4:22 P.M. UTC)