The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF virtual intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
DC COORDINATION MEETING #60
22 March 2022, 14:00 UTC
[The start of the meeting was not transcribed]
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Is there anything you can do at your end, Sorina, to help him?
>>SORINA TELEANU: No. Mark seems to be connected on the audio, so it's something on his end.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Sorina, can you take over for Mark, in that case ‑‑ Mark, feel free to jump in whenever ‑‑Whenever you're able to get heard.
>>SORINA TELEANU: Mark, maybe you can reconnect. Yeah, he just and heard ‑‑ yeah, he just disappeared. Mark was the one leading the drafting of this paper, and I think it's best if he guides us through it, but while he's reconnecting, just a quick overview of what's there. We start with, you know, the background introduction of both the Dynamic Coalition side and how they work, and we give Dynamic Coalitions to explain a bit the role of the dynamic coordination group ‑‑ in the future IGF ‑‑ I see Mark has reconnected so maybe we can try again.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: We try again, Mark? No?
>> No. We cannot hear you.
>> I wonder why that is?
>> He probably has his audio set for a different thing, and that's usually what it is.
>>WOUT DE NATRIS: This is Wout. It worked a few minutes ago. Maybe something changed in the in the meantime?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: I think you gave a good overview of the paper. Again, our apologies, maybe it was not sufficient time for you to read it, but I would also like to invite other colleagues ‑‑ whether at any high‑level comments or remarks. We don't have time to go into fine‑tuning and into drafting but if you have ‑‑ like Gary on behalf of the people with disabilities, he made a very high‑level comment that is easy to integrate and if you have other comments, where you see maybe a glaring oversight of some sort or important point that should be taken on board, now is the time to make ‑‑ yes, Wout has his hand up.
>>WOUT DE NATRIS: Yes, the date is wrong at the bottom. That's the first comment I make. It's 2020, but it's 2022.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: That's clearly wrong, yes, that's easy to be corrected.
>>WOUT DE NATRIS: That said, I think it's a great paper. It's not missing anything where the history and concerned, but I would like to discuss perhaps later in this hour is the future. And if we should be addressing that as well in this paper or perhaps at a later stage. What is the next step? That's the question I would like to address.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: We could maybe have a generic paragraph saying that the Dynamic Coalitions are now considering the next steps based on last year's exercise, but we don't know yet what they are going to be, but I think this is maybe something Sorina can craft and integrate into the paper.
We have Marianne and ‑‑ I think Marianne and Sivas.
>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: Hi, everyone. Sorry about my voice. Can you hear me?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: We can hear you.
>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: Much as I was the one ‑‑ can I not screen‑share. It would be quicker. I could get this done in 2 minutes if I could share the document I have on screen. Would that be possible; otherwise, I have to walk through it. I just have the PDF open with some remarks.
>> I mean, is this ‑‑
>> I can't share the screen. It's been disabled. I can't share screen.
>> If it's not possible I can take the space to walk through ‑‑ thank you so much. Thank you very much. That's very helpful. There we go. All right. So you can all share that share. You can all see that, yeah. Fair market value, I think we should be starting off with a with a statement not a question mark. Don't start with a question mark? Why should – secondly, it's a great paper by the way. Thanks, everyone for doing it, but I'm just going to cut to the chase 'cause we got started late. There's two repetitions. The count is 22, and then said at the bottom which basically says the same thing so if you want to repeat something, say something different. It's at the top, I like that we can cut it at the top or refine the top phrase.
I think we should do away if you don't mind me saying bluntly all the, therefore, they with the completion of the text. I would just simply get rid of this ‑‑ we're constantly undermining our own status and contribution with these qualifiers. The DCs ‑‑ we are part of the IGF, and we abide by the rules. I don't have much editing, but I would just cut that here on this paragraph if you can find me.
So it's a very succinct paper, so that's great, and then when we get to Page 3, I wonder if we can rephrase this. Once again, we're asking permission. We're already integrated in the IGF. We are saying that the IGF Dynamic Coalitions have a clear role in anything of IGF +, minus or divided by any means, and I wonder if we could get more to the point of this. The Dynamic Coalitions have proven ‑‑ have a proven track record, and acting in important channels for exploring, et cetera. I could get rid of the moreover the Dynamic Coalitions have demonstrated, and then in practical terms it should be well ‑‑ I mean, I know it's being diplomatic, but I know it's more diplomatic up to the terms of saying ‑‑ you know, to underscore the fact that the Dynamic Coalitions are already part of it, and we look forward to continuing in the future and the rest takes care of itself, so those are my points.
Mark or ‑‑ I can actually send this over, so repetition needs to get cut, get rid of all the "meanwhiles," and should be and simply say a and the very important point we are already included, and we've already done Dynamic Coalitions. And if you don't mind, I feel very strong to changing the title how the names of can or have strengthened the IGF to date. And with that I hope you can follow with my terrible voice. I hope that's clear. In my very quick read just this morning. Reading it tangentially as of L‑in actually morning. Mark will get to the Mark and the motile verbs and the rest for the discussion.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Marianne, I don't know whether we're going into drafting, but that has been a bit of a drafting exercise, but those are great comments actually, and I get it you would like the paper to be a bit more affirmative and punchier.
And I'm not quite sure ‑‑ I also agree with you that the question mark in the title maybe not as punchy but how would you re‑word it?
>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: How the Dynamic Coalitions strengthen ‑‑ how the Dynamic Coalitions can strengthen the IGF. That's the title. It's perfectly acceptable. I don't think we should have a question mark about anything.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay, okay, I get it. Yeah.
>> MARIANNE FRANKLIN: I know people may disagree with me ‑‑
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay, I get it, but I think these are great comments.
>>JUTTA CROLL: Yes, I completely green with Marianne, and I've been working on the paper with Mark and Sorina and did I see I didn't know we had a question ‑‑ I would just say how Dynamic Coalitions do strengthen the IGF. I would even put ‑‑
>> Yeah, no, absolutely.
>> We know they are doing that, and I think we should spend some time on discussing the last point. All the other points, Marianne, I completely agree with you but on the last remark that you made on the paragraph I think that needs a bit more consideration and commonsense how we should phrase that in a more affirmative way.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Sivas?
>>SIVASUBRAMANIAN M.: This is a very good step forward to come up with a statement on key outcomes and key take‑aways, but I still feel that that the paper ‑‑ with the 10 pages is not brief enough. Of it looks a little voluminous. And another point ‑‑ I don't know if we can do it but there are 22 ‑‑ DCs and not every DCs calls for a call of action or discusses something that is particularly important for the year, so it is possible from the DC coordination group to insert a summary section in the front with ‑‑ by discussing all the 18 DCs to come up with a single call for action not necessarily one. Maybe 3 or 4 items, one on surveillance, one on privacy or whatever is current for the year like intelligence changes ‑‑ technology changes.
And if there's a call for action, it's far more effective if there's something like two calls for action or three calls for action.
Collectively from all the DCs. After that we can have a group which lists the points and summaries from all the 18 Dynamic Coalitions, so that's what I wanted to say on this paper.
And the title by mistaken how can Dynamic Coalitions strengthen the IGF? I think that's a very, very important theme for our ongoing discussion, and I think we should ‑‑ maybe be part of this meeting we can start discussing that. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. I think you ‑‑ there's some great ideas, but they are, you know ‑‑ call for action, you haven't done that. That is something ‑‑ we'll need further exploration, and I'm not sure whether we can do that right now as an input into the expert group meeting, but I'm here to listen, and Judith?
>>JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Yeah, this is Judith Hellerstein for the for the record.
I know DCAD, and I know others did and the IGF who had sessions ‑‑ we had call to action points that were in the report ‑‑ reports or supposedly supposed to be in the reports, and we could take that for the call to action and do a little summary of call to actions for different groups, which could be easy to do if they're in the reports, as they are supposed to be, so that's one thought on the call to actions.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Right. Mark, still no sound from your end.
>> Well, you can also use the chat if you have comments to what you hear or colleagues say.
Okay, well, he's already made some comments. He said there will be some EGM participants who have little or no knowledge of DC, so we need to have text explains what they are in relationship with the IGF, and I totally agree with that. And again, in practical terms, the idea is that we send out the paper. We ask the secretariat to distribute that paper to the EGM participants.
Now, whether they will read the papers or not is another story, but I will be there and can present the paper, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. Right now I think we have a very good basis. We had some excellent suggestions for improving it for editorial suggestions from Marianne. We have to comment that maybe we should look at one of the suggestions a little bit closer, and I fear if you try to add more ambitious issues to the paper, like this call for action which might be possible but might take much more time.
What we could do is ask Sorina, maybe ask ‑‑ add a little paragraph saying that that we as a coordination group ‑‑ we will now embark this year on exploring the suggestions made in last year's paper. There are quite a few suggestions for how to move forward ‑‑
>> Impact the Dynamic Coalitions, but we are not there because we haven't started this discussion, so we cannot be overambitious at this particular call, but we can make a pointer in the paper to say that we are dynamic in so far as we are actually -- continue to make our cooperation and coordination more forward‑looking.
Judith ‑‑ well, yes, the session apart from the IGF sessions. It's just a question ‑‑ we are less than a week ahead of the meeting and who would have the time to do that? The links are there, yes, but I think the question was to make it more miserable, coordinate a paragraph in the main body of the text relating to the calls for action.
Would that be an option? Sivas, has an old hand or new hand.
>>SIVASUBRAMANIAN M.: This is a new hand. This is about readable that you talked about, and it's interesting you're going to make up the presentation to the meeting but not only this paper. That meeting participants would be loaded with pages and pages of paper, and, so it might get lost, so the important thing is to work on the presentation as a coordination group and come up with some ‑‑ a few salient points, maybe some slights.
To make a definite impact of those persons in the meeting, thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, thank you. I don't know exactly how the meeting is going to be handled, but the Dynamic Coalitions are on the agenda, and I definitely will ask for the floor, and I will be able to refer to this paper but whether or not I would be given enough time to make a PowerPoint presentation with a few slides, I don't know yet, but this is definitely something we can explore, and I just Sorina can maybe check that with the secretariat, but I definitely will be given the opportunity to speak and Adam, who is our cofacilitator, will also be in New York. He's also invited as a participant to the group meeting, so our group, our coordination group, we have actually a good presence in New York, and this paper is a very solid basis.
>> I was a little bit taken aback when I first looked at the paper. It's like 10 pages. It seems a bit long, but it is actually ‑‑
>> And official documentation, so it's not as overwhelming as it looks. It's a ‑‑
>> The participants who don't know much about Dynamic Coalitions, so it's good to have some background there and also, of course, last year's background paper ‑‑ so there's plenty of material.
This a stage can we just focus on making the ‑‑
>> -- the paper more affirmative, more snappier, and I think Marianne has made a good start with that with her editorial comments.
The question now overaction has been made by both Sivas and Judith. Could we maybe add a paragraph in the paper ‑‑ with a reference to the meeting reports? I think that might be a possibility.
>> My other suggestion would be to have a paragraph pointing to the ongoing work looking at implementing and the suggestion made in last year's survey paper, but ‑‑
And, Jutta, you wanted to look at one of Marianne's comments. Could we maybe see that again?
Marianne, could you maybe share that again with us.
>>MARIANNE FRANKLIN: Yeah, sure. Just 2 seconds. Share screen. Just a minute. I have to get it active. Just a sec. Here we are. Okay.
>> I have to remove all the other stuff that was on my screen.
>> I think it was at the beginning of the third page.
>> I know what you were talking about, Jutta, because I was only given a rough ‑‑ here we are. Got it. All right. What I think is kind of a key paragraph.
And as Mark says, the key paragraph 2 pages, so on top of Page 3 here.
Can you all see it?
>> I have a suggestion to make ‑‑ to make it really more affirmative, and that could be that leaving the first sentence consistent with the overall aim of strengthening of the architecture of the Dynamic Coalitions should be understood as important channels for exploring developing, and so on. In the IGF + system, but can it be should be understood?
>> Can I make kind of an editorial comment, "can be" is implied "should be," instead of telling them off.
>> And we don't ‑‑ as much as I would love to tell some of these people off.
>> So ‑‑ so if you say consistent with the overall architecture, et cetera, DCs can be understood as on digital cooperation, et cetera, et cetera.
>> It's just a suggestion to my side.
>> No, I think it is nice and makes the point but unequivocally as well because you're talking about IGF + whatever that is going to be, so the DCs can be an important as I sit here ‑‑ can be as understood important channels. Though I personally would like the more important say DCs are important channels, but that's up to you guys.
>> Yep, that's all. Yep. I cast off sharing. Is that the one ‑‑ yeah, so that's my point here in practical terms ‑‑ the "should be requested should be massaged out, so we can continue ‑‑ we've been doing this for 10, 15 ‑‑ 10 + years and continue to do so in the next iteration of all things IGF.
>> It's a very subtle reframing, but it is data message ‑‑ the medium is the message, so worded ‑‑ so some may disagree. And if the medium is should and can we please and question marks, our messages we're ‑‑ we're making apologies, so it's a subtle reframing that requires no rewriting of what is really a solid piece of ‑‑ a solid introduction. It's just tiny movement as you've noticed. That's my quote for the day. I'll shut up because I can barely talk.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: I certainly agree with you with Marianne the message is affirmative and definitely let's not apologize.
Mark has a few comments in the chat ‑‑ it will be a message to enhance is a to the EGM and to the MAG. I definitely get the point.
Well, in drafting the paper ‑‑ it's a good point, actually. I mean, the paper ‑‑ should it be drafted as a message to the EGM or just a stand‑alone document?
>>WOUT DE NATRIS This is Wout, Markus. I think we started this exercise because of the New York retreat so ‑‑
>> That's a very ‑‑
>> We could see it as a message to the people present at the retreat.
>> No, no, it's clear. The target audience is the people at the meeting but in drafting terms, should it be drafted as whoever reads it, reads it as a constant alone document or as a letter addressed to me, you know?
>> If you see what I mean ‑‑ it may be a subtle point but ‑‑ my feeling is ‑‑ it may come across stronger if it's written as a kind of stand‑alone document, rather, this is ‑‑ the position is what the Dynamic Coalitions think, who they are and, here, read what they think. I'm here, again, to listen to you.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, Marianne, you always have good ideas, yeah.
>>MARIANNE FRANKLIN: I agree, Markus. I think it needs to get into the public domain in which all our public documentation resides it's addressing the audience and newcomers as well, and I think it gets right to the point, and we've said this in many times in many ways. I think this is an update 2022 so stand‑alone to be deployed in other settings, but also at this point even addressed specifically for the retreat, so I'm all ‑‑
If that's what you mean by stand‑alone, Markus?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. We produced this with this EGM meeting in mind, but the way it's produced, if you can use it on other occasions as well, and put it on the website and ‑‑
>> A transferrable document maybe ‑‑
>>MARIANNE FRANKLIN: Exactly, yeah.
>> Yeah, yeah. I see you can't see me but not the way I'm feeling ‑‑
>> Okay. Sorina, with the help of the other editors, do you have enough to go through the document and improve it and enhance it and tidy it up?
>>SORINA TELEANU: I guess we do.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Is there anything else we need to add on that? I mean, if you can, Sorina, check whether there would be an opportunity to present a few slides based on this document.
>>SORINA TELEANU: To be honest, I think that's probably not likely because there is not much time for more information, so the shorter we have and more time we have for discussion, the better, so I think no one will be using slides and such.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, I mean, this is something that can be checked easily, and it's also my feeling ‑‑ I was also at the last retreat, and there was essentially ‑‑ the whole organization was more it should be as open discussion as possible with no major presentations, but it's good to have this document, and you can refer to it, and it's in the back pocket, and I think it has a fairly strong message of what the Dynamic Coalitions think ‑‑ what they can contribute to the strength of IGF with.
With that, is everybody happy to end? That we can send it as a collective document? Yes, it goes without saying, that is without the changes ‑‑ yes, Sorina, as soon as she has made them, she will recirculate it again and if you see any glaring omission, you can still react, but I think the turn‑around has to be very short as ‑‑ you don't have the final deadline yet, Sorina, but I think ‑‑ and, obviously, this ‑‑ the sooner we finalize it, and we send it to the secretariat for distribution, the better it is and the bigger the chance the participants will actually look at it.
And we also then use ‑‑ I mean, one of the starting points was also the annual report did not include the Dynamic Coalitions, so we can use part of that also to distribute to be the final report of '21 IGF and leave it in Sorina's able hands to make sure that this will happen.
Can you promise us that the Dynamic Coalitions will then be reflected in the final‑final ‑‑ in the final‑final ‑‑
>>SORINA TELEANU:Certainly not the promise I can make. I'm just a consultant to the secretariat.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: If you can promise to try?
>>SORINA TELEANU:>> I can promise to try.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: That would be much appreciated. I think that was definitely a remark I heard from various colleagues that they were not very happy about last year's report.
Okay. With that I think we have achieved the main purpose of today's call. We will, of course, ‑‑ hang on, there's a comment from Mark. Primary aim of the document is to ensure the EGM agenda takes full account of the role of the contributions of the DCs in the IGF + system. It plugs a gap in information. Not provided by the IGF 2021 report. That's a very good summary, and that's a good segue to introduce the paper and introduce the ‑‑ refer to the existence of the Dynamic Coalitions.
Mark, we couldn't hear you, that you had microphone problems, but these are the wonders of modern technology, yes? We all have to live with that.
But we will then continue our coordination, and again, take up the work we started looking at last year's paper, which has suggestions for further work.
And also last year there was something ‑‑ Mark, what happens if there are disagreements? What do we do if there are disagreements between either within Dynamic Coalitions or between Dynamic Coalitions and the secretariat? And we have never really ‑‑ luckily, there was never much need of looking into that but, I think, the old Latin saying: If you want peace, prepare for war ‑‑ keeps its relevance, and I think sadly also in today's trying times, we cannot claim to work in Dynamic Coalitions but things might happen, and it's good to have something in place where we can solve conflict before they escalate.
And also one point ‑‑ we always said ‑‑ we agreed a few years back on the very basic principles that all Dynamic Coalitions should be open to participants, whoever want to join them, should be allowed to participate. They should have open mailing lists and open archives, but we have never actually tested whether Dynamic Coalitions comply ‑‑ abide by these principles, and I think it certainly would make sense, and I'm not implying that any Dynamic Coalition is cheating or trying to get a free ride but mistakes may happen. Archives may not be open by mistake and so on, so I think Sorina will make a check, just a very basic check whatever these basic principles are respected and will not be in compliance if you make a gentle reminder make sure that we are all ‑‑ you know, it's one thing if we say we have these common principles, and then it's another thing whether there are actually in practical terms implemented because people might check and might find, oh, this Dynamic Coalition is not this or that in place, so it's just ‑‑ shall we say, a simple compliance test make sure that we are all in the green zone.
And then we have not discussed yet what would happen if they not be compliant with the principles? That's yet another story. Should the Dynamic Coalitions continuously violate these principles be listed or whatever would be what is possible sanctions so ‑‑ I don't know whether you would like to jump in this bit, but we don't need to come to solutions here, but you may have ideas, and this is something we will have ‑‑ I mean, I'm sure that you all get AAAs by Sorina, and we all will be happy, but I think we also need to be ready to prepare for the worst, and this is something, I think, we ought to discuss, but you may have ideas right now. If you do so, please jump in. If not, sleep over it, and we can take it up at one of our next meetings or ‑‑
Jutta, you cofacilitated, do you have any ideas or Sorina, as the extended arm of the secretariat ‑‑ I mean, in the past few, I said leave it to the secretariat to sort it out if there's any problem, but this is may also not be the ideal solution.
Sorina, do you have any or Jutta first, do you have any ideas, thoughts?
>>JUTTA CROLL: I do think that we already spoke about so‑called dispute resolution mechanisms that could be developed by this group, then send to the secretariat for acknowledgement, and then just could be put in place, and I don't think it needs a huge preparation. There's a few things that we could easily lay down like in terms of reference or something like that.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, don't get me wrong. I wasn't thinking of a huge mechanism to prevent World War III or whatever, but at least some basic principles we all agree on?
Wout, do you have any brilliant ideas.
>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Markus, thank you, and hopefully we're not preventing World War III.
What comes to mind is that first everything Dynamic Coalition is able to do goes through the secretariat. They facilitate the means the Dynamic Coalition has, so the only organization or whatever we call it able to revoke those means is the secretariat.
Where Dynamic Coalitions themselves are concerned, I think that perhaps is good to look whether they are active at all so perhaps if one is not active for 2 years, that they get a message that it stops. Why be on the list if nothing happens.
The other could be that, like you said, perhaps accidentally things go wrongs, so if that is ‑‑ goes wrong, and if that is a notice that they get some sort of warning, that you're supposed to comply to these rules, and you have to start doing that, otherwise, you will ‑‑ your means are revoked.
And the third one do they do it deliberately, and I don't know if there's any Dynamic Coalition who's ever done that but if it's done deliberately, then they sort of abuse the options that are offered them. And perhaps that after one warning could lead to the suspension or something like that, but then you have some sort of escalation step in the process.
But in the end, it will be the secretariat revoking the means that they have given to the Dynamic Coalition to communicate, to be on the website, et cetera, and that is something that we as coordination group can ever do, but perhaps we should be the appeal court or something just to call it that, but I don't know if that's a role anybody is willing to take, but the ‑‑ but the steps on how to ‑‑ how to do some sort of control and checking, that is a question who should ‑‑ who should then be appointed to do that? And I think that's a question that we need to answer as well. Thanks.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, no, these are all valid points, and I think and also what Jutta said, we have sort of started the discussion, but we have never actually nailed them down. You know, also the escalation, yes, I mean, first a warning, and I think if things are not ‑‑ I mean, we had ‑‑ and some of these things are already done by the secretariat. If a Dynamic Coalition is not active, and doesn't finalize a report, and it's listed as a nondynamic coalition ‑‑ there's some misunderstandings on what the annual report entailed. I think that has been sorted out.
It is important that we all have the same common understanding of what this actually required and there, I think, the coordination group is very helpful, very useful, but you're right, Wout, that the implementation then to a large extent is the secretariat, but I think also the secretariat is more comfortable if they know that they are supported by the group. That it's all done in accordance with commonly agreed principles.
Sorina, as you are on the hot seat here ‑‑ as currently you are, and good news is actually it's the first time now Sorina is with us, and she has now a contract from the UN. As a consultant, so she is officially in her role as consultant working for the secretariat.
So, Sorina, would you have any thoughts?
>> SORINA TELEANU: No, not really. Nothing at the moment. I guess, as you should, it has been ‑‑ I have been checking which DCs are active and if not, trying to reach out to them and see what's happening, and I am aware of a few cases of Dynamic Coalitions that have been removed from the list of active ones because no one has heard from them in the secretariat but beyond that, I guess we're still discussing how to deal with conflict resolution as Jutta was saying.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, yes, and you will do the compliance check and give a very polite email should you find anyone not being in compliance because I think most of the times this is just by oversight, made up if something does happen, but it is important that we are clearly compliant without principles.
Well, with that, I have nothing else to add. Does anybody else that would like to take up an issue?
>>SORINA TELEANU If I make a kind reminder to everyone that the deadline to submit annual reports was sometime last month and there are still a few DCs who have not done so, and I'm not sure if it applies to many on this list but just for the record.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that, so please, those who have not yet filed their annual report, do so as soon as possible. Otherwise, Sorina, will send you a stern warning.
>>WOUT DE NATRIS: Yes, thank you, Markus.
As I said, I would like to discuss a little forward‑looking about what next steps could be, and I don't think that this meeting is exactly the right one for it, but we're going to present our paper as it is about now ready to the ‑‑ to the retreat, but what do we do after it because we are we're mentioning some ‑‑ some topics that are very close to the heart of most people on this call, and that the recognition of the work of the Dynamic Coalitions as was reflected last year is not what it could be, so how could we make sure that ‑‑ that this gets ‑‑ we understand the word "integrated" is not welcomed by everybody in the group, but to make sure that at least the work is recognized more, and it also discusses how it could be disseminated more broadly in the future.
What I would like to suggest perhaps if we could look at ‑‑ as a deadline, the next MAG consultation meeting, so that's ‑‑ I understand the second week of July to come up with a proposal of some sort.
And in the email I saw today of Amali ‑‑ of MAG and the Dynamic Coalitions ‑‑ if we all should be MAG member or the other way around is something that can be debated, but it may be a good idea to propose to come up with a Dynamic Coalition MAG working group on how to ‑‑ how to make sure that the interaction between the IGF and the Dynamic Coalitions get on better and the Dynamic Coalitions may be a more integrated part of the IGF meeting and perhaps can assist with certain agenda because we're all working the top‑level topics that concern the IGF and the future ‑‑ the tangible outcomes of the IGF.
So is there ‑‑ is there a way to like a proposal to the MAG to start working on how to ‑‑ I'm using the word "integration" but for lack of a better one but integration into the IGF and the IGF + model? So that is my suggestion to think about and to discuss in the next meeting, so that everybody who is involved in this debate can come up with their own ideas, just to give on, let's say, an idea what we could do and leave it there for now. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. And the idea to work towards that next physical MAG meeting I think is an excellent one, but another way we could also look at how the substantive agenda unfolds and see in practical terms where is there substantive contributions Dynamic Coalitions can make? Not a collectively contribution, but this is Dynamic Coalition might like to contribute to that agenda item on the MAG and be more proactive about getting involved in the substantive discussion. That's just a thought.
But I think ‑‑ I saw you had an email that was sent ‑‑ sent out an email that was relatively negative saying: Well, the MAG is not really that interested. I would say yes and no. It goes both ways. It also goes both ways. The Dynamic Coalitions ‑‑ hey, this is an issue we're working on, that we could actually contribute to that discussion, and that has never happened in the past, so it goes both ways, but, Amali, you had made a contribution. You had sent an email shortly before our call, and you had your hand up a few moments ago, but, please, I would like to hear your thoughts.
Well, your hand is down again. Your hand was up. I thought you wanted to say something. Or have you gone for a coffee? That's always a possibility.
Well, anyway, the point, I think, is well taken ‑‑ well, first of all, at the next coordination meeting, Adam, and I ‑‑ we can report back from the discussions in New York what happened at the EGM and see whether there was any recognition of the DCs ‑‑ how well they were received, and so on, and we can then also look at how to maybe influence the July MAG meeting.
I'm not sure whether a jointly DC MAG working group, A, would find a positive echo or, B, whether it would be conducive to improving, but it's definitely worth exploring.
Any other thoughts or shall we give you a few minutes back to your life?
>>JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: I guess my question is, Judith Hellerstein, when will they be posting the list of the participants who are going to the EGM?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: I'm not sure if it's not ‑‑ oh, Amali said her mic is not working. The list of participants, Sorina, isn't it on the IGF website? I haven't checked.
>> I haven't seen it.
>>SORINA TELEANU: I'm looking now.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yeah, I looked in the section where the EGM is mentioned, and there's no link to it.
>> Well, maybe again it's maybe an oversight but presumably this day and age, that sort of list would be made public I would have thought.
But Sorina, could you maybe check and if it's not on the website, can you share it with the DC list?
>>SORINA TELEANU: I will ask my colleagues about it and plans to publish it if it's not yet.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Cause I agree. It should be published.
>> Well, normally ‑‑ yeah, it's ‑‑ it's usually standard operating procedure that you publish that kind of list, but it may well be an oversight.
Oh, and Mark makes a point. The MAG DC coalition group is not mentioned on the website. That's kind of awesome.
Again, Sorina ‑‑ again, can you look into that.
>>SORINA TELEANU: I'm pretty sure it is mentioned on the Dynamic Coalition coordination group website ‑‑ oh, web page, but I'll look into it.
>>JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Yes, it may be mentioned on the DC site but not on the MAG site.
>>SORINA TELEANU: Well, that's not ‑‑ but I'll check with my colleagues as well.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Right. Okay. Yeah, no, okay, I think Adam's name is listed as a MAG member, but he hasn't been added he's taken on another role as liaison as DC coordination group facilitator. Right.
Okay. Any other thoughts?
>>SORINA TELEANU:And my colleagues are telling me the list is not yet published. That's all I know.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. Maybe some last‑minute additions to the list.
>> Okay. If there are no other comments, I think we have our menu to go after the retreat and have work to do, and I think we all march forward into a glorious future in Dynamic Coalitions in the IGF + environment.
Well, thank you very much for joining this call. Thank you again, Mark, for holding the pen with this paper, which is a great input into the expert group meeting. It's very much appreciated and thank you all for your extremely valuable comments. That will help us in New York to defend the role of the Dynamic Coalitions. Thank you all. Bye‑bye. Take care.
>> Thank you, Markus, for your great moderation. As always. Bye‑bye.
>> Yes, thank you very much and have a very good all, bye‑bye.