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.
***
14 June 2022
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Hello. It is the top of the hour. Let's hope that other people will join. Adam already said he will not be able to make it during the ICANN meeting which is taking place right now. And there may be other people who will be in attending the ICANN meeting.
Did we have any indications, Sorina, how many people might join?
>> SORINA TELEANU: No. Only Marlene and Tracy wrote to me that they are busy with ICANN.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Maybe it was not a good idea to have during the ICANN meeting.
>> SORINA TELEANU: I see that people are joining.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: It is two minutes over. In any case, I suppose we still qualify for a fully-fledged meeting, if it is only the four of us. But thanks Wout for sending the letter out today and you sent it to the list as well.
And half of your letter is a part of the agenda, which Sorina kindly prepared, actually before you sent out your note, which was a DC of the IGF 2022. And there you had some suggestions. And then the other part of your letter is interaction with experts at IGF meetings and -- oh, Jutta as well. Hello. I suggest nevertheless, let's go through the agenda as we have it. And the lack of participation doesn't make it sort of -- doesn't provide enough legitimacy to make decisions, but we can nevertheless offer useful brainstorming.
You see the agenda. And the suggestion would be to deal with Wout's letter under the agenda item DCs at IGF 2022, the second part and the first part which is more interaction with experts at the IGF meetings on any other business. But we can also reverse the order and start with that as it was your initiative. And on the other agenda items, well, I think we can still go through them quickly and hear what Sorina has to say because she has done some work on that. Is the agenda as proposed acceptable to you all? Okay.
Then let's go through it. And I think Sorina will guide us through that, agenda item 1, the DCs as reflected in their report from the expert group meeting. Sorina, what do you have to report?
>> SORINA TELEANU: Thank you, Markus. And hello, everyone. I'm not sure how much of you have actually read the report from the NGN which was the short one was also posted. Dynamic Coalitions were reflected a bit there and I will go through some of the mentions and see if anyone would like to comment on it. And if there is anything we could take up as a Dynamic Coalition coordination group. There were some general references to Intersessional activities, some points about them being better integrated in the general meeting and then another point about overall Intersessional activities playing a more substantive role, something we kind of touched upon last year.
Then there was a suggestion about the MAG encouraging Dynamic Coalitions to focus on issues related to the main things of the annual meeting. I know one of the Dynamic Coalitions commented on this. Maybe that's something we can follow up once I'm done. And then there was one paragraph on the above Dynamic Coalitions and I just read as it was. Modalities should be identified to strengthen the work of Dynamic Coalitions including procedures and responsibilities to IGF stakeholders. Guidelines for participation and quality standards for the work produces. These will help validate the work produced by DCs. And some of these elements were included in our discussions last year and also reflected in the report. But maybe we do want to continue discussing these things.
And that's basically it. That's how Dynamic Coalitions and Intersessional activities is a bit broader were mentioned in the report which were up for partner comment. I will stop here. Markus, back to you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Yes, it's a little bit of motherhood and apple pie as the Americans say. Yes, we all agree that we want the Dynamic Coalitions to be better integrated but it doesn't give us much teeth, much meat on the bone. And I think Wout's initiative also be related to that, but right now the deadline for comments -- for public comments is over. Yes. I see Mark has his hand up. Please.
>> MARK CARVELL: Yes. Thank you, Markus. Thank you, Sorina, for giving us a quick run through of what's in the report.
I do encourage colleagues from Dynamic Coalitions to read the report, the long version because that gives a lot more context and rationale for its observations and what I read as proposals. And points for action in relation to as Sorina said the general thrust of what the ETM develop was greater integration of activities within the IGF ecosystem. So it really does make clear that we've moved on from the age of an annual event to a system of activities throughout the year.
And indeed there are -- there is a proposal for Intersessional activity of the IGF. So there would be an additional event halfway through the year, presumably.
For a lot of activity to be taken stock of, including the activities of Dynamic Coalitions and I -- I mean -- there are points of action arising from this report, arising from the meeting that the Dynamic Coalitions as a community of activity within the ecosystem of IGF should take note of and actually try and work out the modalities for them to take action.
I mean one is -- as Sorina said that paragraph she read out, I mean that was -- that was a significant part of the text. It was suggesting that there was an inconsistent level of quality of the outcomes of Dynamic Coalitions. I think that perhaps doesn't quite fully take in to account the variety of coalitions that exist. I mean some are very action orientated and some are very useful, valuable comings together of experts to discuss issues and what's coming over the horizon, which may be less outcome orientated. Maybe it is producing valuable, intangible outcome which can't actually be measured in terms of policy recommendations or guidelines.
So there is that aspect which perhaps isn't fully explained in the report. But nonetheless, there is a clear message that there needs to be some modality for strengthening the role of Dynamic Coalitions. So what is the process for developing that modality? It is -- that has to be worked out.
And then interaction with the wider community by the Dynamic Coalitions and developing the IGF program. And Dynamic Coalitions focusing on themes, that requires some kind of coordinated action amongst those Dynamic Coalitions that are willing to do that. Some may not want to do that. They may be happy as a talk show role. There has to be an action to be developed to follow up on that observation by the expert's group meeting. And raising awareness and interaction with the leadership panel. How are the Dynamic Coalitions going to engage with the leadership panel in order to advance their outcomes, in order for the leadership panel to assist in raising awareness if this is what the Dynamic Coalitions are producing in terms of policy recommendations and Guidelines. You got to work out a mechanism within the IGF ecosystem for the coalitions as a body of activity to engage with the leadership panel.
So I noted several points here. And we haven't mentioned a multi-year strategy. Again there is an inference, I think it is pretty clear actually, in the report that Dynamic Coalitions can contribute to developing the multi-year strategy for the IGF, which has almost 80% support that the IGF should do that. It should narrow its focus but within a multi-year strategy so the issues can be picked up through a three or four-year program planning. Dynamic Coalitions should be able to contribute to that. How do we do it? So the point I'm laboring really is that there are -- there is a follow-up to this report which the Dynamic Coalitions should engage with. But the process is not defined. And we shouldn't just sit back because especially in view of the clear message that the role of the Dynamic Coalitions and the modalities should be strengthened. Otherwise, you know, we will fall off the edge of that ecosystem if we're not credible in producing outcomes for the new age of IGF+. Sorry for going on, Markus.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. And I see that Wout has his hand up. Over to you.
>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Yes. Just following up on, Mark, two questions that came to mind on the basis of what he said. The first one is do we have clear at this point in time one which Dynamic Coalition is active. Which ones are not. Do we know the level of ambition of a -- of a Dynamic Coalition because that will determine probably how they fit in to this new model. And the third one is is what Mark said, came over sort of across that, it could become a top down model. It is now a bottom-up model. But if they say that the Dynamic Coalition has to follow whatever the theme of the year is, then it would tend to become top down as well.
And is that something which this organization is ready for. Because it would change the nature of the Dynamic Coalition completely in my opinion. Is that something which has been discussed or is it just an idea that was floated. You were there Markus. Perhaps you can tell us a little bit about it.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Well, the answer to your first question is agenda item 2, Sorina will report on. To Mark's comment, EGM it is not a law making body. It is not the legislative body. It is a group of experts. They are in a brainstorming mode. It was a good discussion. And I think overall very positive outcome and Sorina can jump in and correct us. She was also taking notes. Official note-taker with -- Anya worked with David who produced an overall report. But there is a very positive message. And as Mark had noticed but it does not provide a blueprint for action as such. I mean it provides suggestions, ideas. It recognizes the DCs as important parts of the ecosystem. And Markus, by right it is also an invitation to action for the DCs but we have been active on that. We had the DC report last year. There are suggestions there. And we have been discussing and I see it also has an invitation for us to continue that work.
And also one comment Mark made about diversity of Dynamic Coalition which is totally true, they not all by nature can produce the same kind of outcome. And I think the Dynamic Coalition school, Internet governance was mentioned on various occasions as an example of a group where they have useful exchange of use of experience among the participants, but they are not really here to produce tangible outcomes as such. And also the intangible outcomes Mark mentioned are dear to my heart. A lot of the IGF is about intangible outcomes. And IGF overall has produced many, many, many intangible outcomes. Not least the general acceptance of the multi-stakeholder system is an incredible intangible outcome of the IGF. That should never be forgotten. And your comment as to the topdown, bottom-up nature I think there is an inherent tension. And it was mentioned by one participant, maybe there should be more of a dynamics in topdown and bottom-up interaction between the two modes of operation.
But that has not been discussed in detail. And the MAG providing the directives to the DCs I think would be something totally against the very nature of DCs. And I think in my understanding it is not something that the DCs would accept easily.
But we would have to look at how we can also maybe more fit in with what the MAG discusses. But that's the beginning of a process. If you have MAG setting priorities, we could as a collective group of Dynamic Coalitions analyze the priorities and say there is a Dynamic Coalition that fits perfectly in to this or that priority. Move towards an integration in a bottom-up way. It would be the MAG that sets priorities but Dynamic Coalitions could also signal some of its activities. Couldn't that be a priority for the MAG. That's -- but that's not a discussion we have had yet. And that would be something to have. And I sense that your proposal goes also very much in this direction to exploring ways of better interaction between MAG and Dynamic Coalitions. But I see Jutta also has her hand and I'm sure she has many brilliant ideas.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you for giving me the floor. I wanted to second what you were saying, Markus. I think what we did with the report was taking, having in mind where the -- where are the roots of Dynamic Coalition work. Where do we come from from the beginning. And now we see that the whole concept of Dynamic Coalitions as such, a single Dynamic Coalition but also the group of Dynamic Coalition is part of this very fluid process of changes in the Internet Governance ecosystem. And it might be necessary, I think it will be necessary to discuss the role that Dynamic Coalitions can play and how this role has changed over the years and will change over the years.
So a little bit looking back on history and then also looking in to the future, how can we maybe perform better, where do we fit in to this whole system. And then in to the suggestions and plans for the future. But still I'm pretty sure Dynamic Coalitions, there is a reason why they are called Dynamic Coalitions, why they are not organizations but why they are groups of people, groups of experts maybe that play their role in the Internet Governance exchange. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. There is a history. And I think if we discard the history, we will not be successful in moving forward. I mean we have to build on what has been achieved in the past. But I don't know, anything else? Mark, yes.
>> MARK CARVELL: Yes. Thank you. Just very briefly. Yes, I note what everyone is saying to a certain extent we don't want to be developing a very rigid template for the Dynamic Coalitions community. And we want to preserve our self-motivated ambition. But we are working within this ecosystem. And it can work to the advantage of the coalitions.
I mean what attracted me to work with Wout on the Internet standard security and safety coalition we had an opportunity of a window on the world through the IGF. The IGF could work for us in helping to achieve change and the security of online activity.
So it is a kind of two-way iterative relationship, if you like. But it could work much better. And I mean -- we haven't mentioned the Global Digital Compact. I mean there is the -- the report does leave a bit of a sphere in the session that the Intersessional activities of the IGF could also be marshalled for the benefit of the DDC.
And what springs to mind for me in order to facilitate that consideration, what the DCs can contribute to the development of the compact is some kind of mapping of what actually we are doing. But this mapping would serve the benefit of the strategic deliberations of the leadership panel and the MAG as well as funneling in to the GDC process, the experience and expertise that's in the pool of the Dynamic Coalitions to assist with the compact process.
But what I'm sort of struggling with is understanding how we would do that. We have got this valuable coordination activity here. But we need to have stronger linkages in to the MAG process and in to the leadership panel when it is up and running. And also on the UN side in to the tech -- the tech envoy, now the envoy has been appointed.
You know -- I just fear that we risk being marginalized if we don't make some concrete efforts to flex in this way across the IGF system, across to the UN and across to the compact process.
Mapping I think is essential. Because I'm sure a lot of the key leaders in that processes don't know what we are doing. What the coalitions are doing. And what their ambitions are that Wout has described. And certainly what Wout is proposing and I think for the IGF will raise the level of knowledge and awareness of opportunity. And be very, very productive.
Thanks.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: No. Thank you. It is only right that there is a need for (inaudible) -- there is also the discussion and there are those who are not convinced that all Dynamic Coalitions make quality work. And the sort of quality control is actually there. We have this discussion. But we also said it is actually very difficult to have a quality control. And we have in the past, in DC coordination always refrained from trying to impose quality control. It is much easier to have easier factual checks like what we have done in the past. You have open lists and so on. But to actually produce quality work who would then be in charge. Do we want the MAG to touch on the quality of work of the DCs? I don't think so. And that would not be -- go down well. But I think the language in that paragraph also reflects the fact that some members present in New York express doubts about some of the Dynamic Coalitions, without pointing fingers but in generic terms. And I think that also emphasizes the need for us to really tighten up our work and really make sure that Dynamic Coalitions agree to commonly -- to abide by commonly agreed standards, minimum standards. And also standards that you can easily control and check.
And the quality work I think, the quality check I would leave that rather to the outside world to see and if Dynamic Coalitions produce useful work and some of them have produced extremely useful work. And it has been recognized by outside organizations, outside bodies. I mean the Net Neutrality is a good example and also the accessibility which I have produced useful outputs that has been recognized, that I think is the best sign of quality work I think, yeah, if you have impact outside narrow IGF family, but actually have impact outside in other organizations. But with that can we now move to the next agenda item? Sorina, precisely, check the respecting the very basic standards, three open principles. Sorina has done some extensive work and also been in touch on a one-on-one basis with (background noise). Sorina, over to you.
>> SORINA TELEANU: Thank you, Markus. Indeed based on some discussions we had in -- I'm hearing myself. I hope you are hearing me well because I'm hearing myself. As I was saying we did come back --
>> MARKUS KUMMER: If you can -- let me close the microphone.
>> SORINA TELEANU: Let me try again. So as the Secretariat we have been doing some checks in to the extent to which Dynamic Coalitions do follow those three open principles we keep mentioning and those are open membership and open mailing lists and open archives. And I have been inviting to all Dynamic Coalitions almost all of them have responded and also almost all of them have fixed what they were -- what issues have been identified, like mailing lists, not working for some reason or another. Or some of the mailing lists not being publicly archived. There are a few things that Dynamic Coalitions are working on. One thing that has been raised by two Dynamic Coalitions was related to the -- one of the principles which is about archives being public. So open to everyone not only members of the mailing list and they raised privacy concerns, and suggested that these are discussed at a Dynamic Coalition meeting. So bringing this up for everyone to share views, opinions on this. I'm not sure if the people who raised these issues are on the call. No, they are not. But yeah, if anyone would like to comment on this. Markus, back to you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. I mean we have established these principles, I think it was 2015, fairly early on because there was one issue with one Dynamic Coalition where some people felt excluded, whatever. And I think it was then agreed by all of them, no concerns were raised as regards open archives and obviously we have to take privacy concerns. At the same time as far as I understand the MAG list is also open and they have open archives there. And I think that's the kind of minimum standards and DCs should respect also the same procedure.
And if the DCs have a concern then it should raise the concerns to the MAG and say maybe it is not a good way to proceed. And there should be discussion at the level of the MAG. And if the MAG decides to change their list, that would be my take on that. Not enough people (inaudible). And we have to put it on the agenda of the next call again.
But I'm also happy to listen to your thoughts on this. But my main point there should be the same principles and standards respected throughout the IGF ecosystem. And if it is good for the MAG, it should also be good enough for the DCs. But the DCs don't agree with what the MAG, the MAG standard, which would raise our concerns and bring it to the attention of the MAG. From a procedural point of view that would be my reaction to that without going in to the substance of the concerns raised. Are there any -- yes.
>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Yes, thank you. This is a question about a potential concern. What is for me it is hypothetical. Two persons speaking? No.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: No.
>> WOUT DE NATRIS: I heard another voice. I hear this -- let me continue. What I could imagine is that perhaps some sensitivities are involved with topics that aren't very favorable in certain countries. And then it could not be a privacy issue but also yeah, concerning bodily harm or whatever. But it is a normal report. And there is a Chair mentioned and that's already public because it is knowing who the Chair is, et cetera. So can you explain a little, Sorina, where these concerns come from?
>> SORINA TELEANU: It is not like I have very in-depth discussions with these people. There is this concern from their end about privacy, but that's the only thing mentioned. So the discussion was around privacy.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: No, no. It is clear that there can be sensitive issues. And you have in the past also with, for instance, the EGM was held on the chat mouse room, which then anonymizes the comments. We don't know who made what. And I think if there is a particularly sensitive issue, then maybe the point could be made that discussions could be anonymized or whatever. On the whole I don't think that our discussions are that politically sensitive. Although the global environment has changed quite a bit in recent months. Jutta, please.
>> JUTTA CROLL: I'm not sure about this. But maybe it would just need to remind people that the MAG has the same rules of openness for their archives, like the DCs have. And we could also make it a standard to say in the beginning of a conversation, via a list, please be aware the mailing list is open to everyone and the archives are public so that people know like you are informed about whether you had a meeting in Chadham rule. Maybe needs people to remind them of that and then, of course, there might be situations where you want more private communication. But then if you know it will be available publically afterwards, then you need to find another channel. If you really think this is an issue that should not be made public. So...
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yeah, and I take it you also support my point that it should be the same standard as the MAG. Essentially, that would also be my main reaction, bump it up, the issue to the MAG for discussion if we really have a problem with it. And then if the MAG decides to have another standard, then we apply the other standard as well. But on the whole -- thank you, Sorina. I think that has been a very useful exercise, that we have now at least fairly solid, we can say and that was also one argument that came up in New York, people then checked and said hey, I just checked the Dynamic Coalitions and these archives are not open or the lists are not open. And we cannot see what's there. Pleased that we know that all DCs, they walk the talk. That's I think an important step.
Thank you, Sorina, for checking that and guiding the DCs. And that brings us then to the next agenda item, DCs of the IGF 2022. It is a paper. And I would also again invite Sorina to introduce the agenda item.
>> SORINA TELEANU: Thank you. Not much to say. Unfortunately I haven't managed to get a number from my colleagues of how many Dynamic Coalitions list. Last time I checked was around 17 or 18. That's not bad. But as soon as I have the final number I will let you know. Though I guess those of you who have submitted sessions are aware of it.
And that's all from me.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. And obviously there will be the question of whether once again we should ask for a main session. And also then that's the other question of how can we better integrate the Dynamic Coalitions in the main sessions, prepared by the MAG. And this was also a discussion that came up in New York and the proposal was made, for instance, with the NRIs. Instead of having a main session for NRIs they should get more integrated in to the main session. They won't get much traction with the NRIs. They want the main session, but the idea it would strengthen, enhance the visibility of the NRIs if they are more integrated in to the main session. The same argument could be made for the DCs. If they are more integrated in to the main session, that could be a visibility. We have Wout. Over to you and explain your paper.
>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Yes. Thank you, Markus. I don't know if everyone had the time to read the paper. But where it comes from is the following, I'm only speaking on behalf of my Dynamic Coalition Internet standard security safety coalition. And we have two Working Groups running. And two or three to start in the next six weeks. That means that we will have multiple outcomes at the IGF. And a 90-minute session which will never cover what we need to do at the IGF. That is check the content, get feedback, make sure that we receive input from experts that are not available during the year for Intersessional work but are at IGF and can be asked for input at the IGF.
And be invited to share that input. So that's IS3C. In general I think that it could go for perhaps all Intersessional work, whether there is best Forum, policy network or Dynamic Coalition. Two things, how do we ensure that the DCs which need to obtain such feedback worldwide will make the most of an opportunity that an IGF meeting provides. And the other way is how can we organize the IGF meeting program in such a way that it allows for sufficient time for DC members to make presentations and interact and meet with experts. So there are two sides to this suggestion. And the one is that to get the input we need visibility, but the other one is that we will have tangible outcomes which need to be shared, to be made known and understood as a tangible outcome of the IGF with the potential to take it beyond the IGF and turn it in to actions like the capacity building programs or toolkits.
And how do you get the platform at the IGF to actually make this known at the grandest scale possible. That's why Mark and I came up with this letter. And the idea is to send it to the MAG Chair, that perhaps we should send it to the MAG Chair and Chengetai because the program of the Dynamic Coalitions is usually outside of the MAG. That's something I would like to discuss here. So that's -- so that's about the tactics of the letter.
But the second is what are your thoughts on this letter? And do you agree with it and you would like to cosupport it in some way. And then we make it broader than just one Dynamic Coalition putting this forward. So that's basically the -- what I would like to envision. And the idea is to have this on the agenda of the MAG in early July in the meeting so it arrives in time there. And that's for the MAG Chair to decide. So there is basically two questions to you. Would you like to cosponsor this letter? And the second one is what is technically the best way to move forward.
And I'm looking for Mark, if you would like to add something to this as cowriter of the proposal and you think I said it all?
>> MARK CARVELL: I think you said it all. I mean there is an intersect with the EGM report. So it is about getting the channel for those Dynamic Coalitions that are producing outcomes. And want the IGF to disseminate those with the help of the leadership panel we do it. So there's that rationale for it. And the coalition would benefit. And there are specific proposals in the paper, but a session at the start and a session at the end of the IGF program which -- I mean the one at the end I think that is good. That will give a summation of what the Dynamic Coalitions have done at the IGF Forum and helps in the process of training with the follow-up activity with everyone completely clued up as to what is achievable in terms of tangible outcomes for those coalitions that are driving forward with that ambition.
Thanks.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Markus, you are muted.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Right. As Jutta, is that a new hand or an old hand?
>> JUTTA CROLL: I had raised my hand in regard to how Dynamic Coalition work can be more integrated in main sessions. And vice versa. So but if you give me the floor now I could also go on in regard of the letter. And to be honest, Wout, I was a bit flummoxed by the paragraph where you said the only significant opportunity of interaction of DCs and experts is by applying for Day Zero session. Because this is the process for applying for the session for main program is very unpredictable. Maybe I didn't get the whole idea of that because the significant opportunity for interaction between experts and DCs is taking advantage of the 90-minute slot allocated to DCs, like you say in paragraphs later. So I didn't get the argument on that. And then my question would be if what are your expectations, what should the MAG Chair or the MAG at large should decide so that your expectations, you have behind that letter for thought.
Maybe you can explain a little bit more.
>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Maybe it is not clear enough in the letter. And that's important to discuss here. As I said in this 90-minute session we have to take care of so many -- so many different topics that it is almost impossible to get the expertise necessary to finalize the work that we have been doing. Because it has to be validated in some way by experts who are usually not available for year long sessions. And we have the opportunity to put this content to them so they can provide feedback.
And this can be done in a Day Zero. But in the -- in the usual working -- workshop process, we have tried last year with an incredibly ambitious workshop proposal involving youth activities that we are working with, and we did not get a slot. That's an option because it is only one in three that will get one. But that's -- it is unpredictable. So that is not a way to get the input that we need to finalize and perhaps even validate the outcomes that we have been using.
And what I would ask the MAG Chair is to think together with the whole MAG and the Dynamic Coalitions to find a way to gather that expertise that is necessary to finalize the tangible outcomes and that is very often the only opportunity you have at the IGF itself.
And so what kind of modality should that be. And that's something which is probably new because it is something we haven't done before. And that is the -- so perhaps it is not possible to arrange it for 2022. But we should start thinking ahead for 2023, what tangible outcomes are going to be so important. We have to make sure we have the outcomes we need. And that could be as one of the suggestions is to have a midway event of some sort. That that could help with getting more experts in but that's something that we don't know yet. But I know for certain that in 2022 will probably in the -- in the Internet standards, the work that would be too much to handle even to present on in 90 minutes. So if we want to more forward, make sure that the work gets the focus it probably deserves. To phrase it carefully, it probably deserves then how are we going to arrange it. And that's something we have to get our head around. And that will probably the same for a few other Dynamic Coalitions or best practice Forum or the policy network.
So that's the question. So if you have a suggestion how to rephrase it, then that is most welcome because that will only strengthen the proposal. It would be most welcome.
>> JUTTA CROLL: I'm playing devil's advocate. I would say from the list you have mentioned the wide range of aims for this session, I would ask the question what would that point that could be done in advance. Must that all be done during that 90-minute session? Isn't that like self-organizing the Dynamic Coalition, and that that would be part of the Intersessional work? And does that not need to take place during the meeting? I know it is devil's advocate. Please be aware of that.
>> Wout: It is the correct question. And if you know how much hours I have spent in reaching out to organizations in the past one and a half years, then they would have paid me for it, I would have been a rich man. I'm not. But the fact is that a lot of people don't understand what the Dynamic Coalition is. They don't know what the IGF is even in -- in many cases. And still I'm getting more and more people on board. But the fact is that if we want to make sure that this work is translated in to some sort of action, it also means it has to become recognized by leaders.
And leaders do not participate in DCs. They don't participate in best practice fora. So how do we translate what we do in to something that gets between the ears of the people who will make a difference. Because that's what this is about. And so on the one hand it is about reading content. And the other one is about promoting it and making sure the right people hear of this work. So that perhaps they will start telling their coworkers and putting time in to this topics. So it is about one way advertising it and the other one about expertise. And you are totally right about the question, what should be done in between. But that's what we need to prepare at the upcoming IGF so that more people are interested to start working on the Dynamic Coalitions in the best fora, et cetera. Is that a good answer?
>> JUTTA CROLL: It does make sense. Definitely.
>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Do we need to rephrase it? If you have a suggestion that would be most welcome but you don't have to tell me now, if you can send me an e-mail with a suggestion we can work it in. I'm not sending it to Paul Mitchell and Chengetai tomorrow. It is something we need to decide on. Any suggestion is more than welcome.
>> Avri: Markus, do you mean to be muted?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. I'm muting myself again. You are asking for more time for Dynamic Coalitions and 90 minutes is not enough. We had this discussion at the Geneva meeting when the slots were reduced to 60 minutes and some Dynamic Coalitions said that is clearly not enough. We do need the 90 minutes. There was quite strong push and pull. And I think there you will face reluctance by the MAG to give you more prime time. There has always been this inherent tension. Some MAG members feel we are in charge of the program. And of the Dynamic Coalitions we don't have a say. They automatically give 90 minutes. And if you approach this with saying we need twice as much time, I think you are off to a bad start.
But I think I get your point. You say and looking again at the letter there, there is points 1, 2, 3. They relate to the organization of the annual meeting. 4, 5 and 6 are more general in term. I think 6 you can take it as a given. DCs, the work and outcomes of DCs are an integral part of the IGF report. It wasn't the case the last time. But that was an oversight. That has been recognized as an oversight. And there you can take that as accepted.
The five, the leadership panel should be regularly updated. I think that's a legitimate request. I think that's -- that would get accepted fairly easily. Then the one day media event is innovative. And I think that could also have -- I find more ease, find easier acceptance than doubling the slot at the annual meeting. So looking at the various things. And then two hour slots, allocate Day One of the program, then it gets complicated. Concrete outcomes are presented. But again not every Dynamic Coalition has tangible outcomes ready to be presented. And should the Dynamic Coalition have a tangible outcome to be presented? I think that's worth considering how should that be done. Should that be done in a dedicated main session. Should it be at the closing ceremony or whatever? But that's definitely I think a valid point. But I mean all this is food for thought. That needs further discussion. My suggestion would be to have it in more generic terms, not in sort of very concrete proposals, action proposals but that's just my outcome. It might be easier to sell it around a few broad principles.
And how to flush it out, leave it open in details. As we discussed at the beginning, the EGM report has positive broad ideas, but they are not flushed out yet. And it is up to us in a way to find ways of flushing out. Maybe one way of presenting could also be building on the EGM report. And having a close link to that as a selling point of the ideas. Thinking about how to implement the suggestions coming out of the EGM report. We had several ideas how to link the Dynamic Coalitions closer to the main work. But this is just thinking out loud.
And Jutta has better ideas.
>> JUTTA CROLL: No, no. I don't think so better ideas. But first I would say what you said about is it only about asking for more time. We should avoid that impression, that it is just asking for more time. It is not. And second the reference to the MAG evaluation process leads also in to the wrong direction because I know there are several MAG members who think that Dynamic Coalitions are only a way to circumvent the evaluation process of workshops. Having the guaranteed 90-minute slot without having to go through that difficult process. You strengthen that assumption by most people think that Dynamic Coalitions try to circumvent the MAG procedure. I don't think that's beneficial for the purpose of the letter. And eventually I do remember that up to 2019 the Dynamic Coalitions were offered to have their booth in the IGF village, to have a contact point to get in exchange with experts. And then we abandoned that idea because it was never used. We had that booth at several IGF meetings.
Dynamic Coalitions had their slots to be present at the booth. They didn't show up. So this opportunity to get an exchange with experts was not well used, it was not used by Dynamic Coalitions. And if you don't want to be told that story again in answer from the IGF Secretariat on the MAG Chair, you need to describe better what you mean with the list exchange. I got it now that you are talking about exchange with leaders. Because we have exchange with all people at the IGF. They are all experts in one or another way. But you want to achieve a better exchange with the leaders that needs special efforts I would say.
So these are my thoughts about the letter and the message that's going to send.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you.
>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Where the booth has been concerned, I have been in the NL booth all week. So yes. If we have a DC booth I would definitely be there. But with that said, I think that Mark and I have been taking notes and we will take heed of your comments. It is a combination of time and of exposure basically to the right people. And that means that they have to hear messages from those Intersessional Working Groups that want to have some extra exposure that they -- they have the opportunity to do so. And that could be in Day One and Day Four on outcomes and on the work next year so people understand what's going to happen. It becomes more integrated in to the IGF as a whole. And that it is one of the important work programs of the IGF.
And I think that that is our ambition. And it is also what we are striving to achieve in -- I can only speak from my own Dynamic Coalition that we definitely try to achieve. We had some comments. Perhaps there other DCs present that would like to say something. Is it only going to be the IS3C that we will send this letter?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: We are already at the top of the hour. We had built up 15 participants and some of them have already dropped out. I'm happy to continue. I am making you aware of the time. I just wonder, there is a MAG meeting and open consultations in early July in Geneva. And it would definitely be useful to have another call of the DC coordination group before the MAG meeting.
And right now I don't think we are collectively ready to sign off any letter. Maybe one thing could be to do it in two steps. That you send a very first letter to the MAG Chair in generic terms. And we could then maybe look at the more fleshed out draft at our next call. It could be a possibility that you could signal that we had this first discussion on how to build on the EGM, for instance. But that's just -- Mark you had your hand up as well.
>> MARK CARVELL: Yes. We are over time. I'll save it for the next discussion.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. With that then can we then agree to have a call? When should that be? The MAG meeting is what, July the 6th I think?
>> SORINA TELEANU: Yes.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: So it should be held -- there is not that much time left.
>> SORINA TELEANU: Yeah, so probably in two weeks' time.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: The last week of June would make sense. Should we make a doodle poll for Thursday, Friday or so the last week of June?
>> SORINA TELEANU: Sure.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: 29, 30, 1st of July. That would allow you to give us time to prepare.
>> WOUT DE NATRIS: For me only the Monday would really work because I will be traveling a lot on to other --
>> MARKUS KUMMER: 27th?
>> Wout: 27th and early in the morning of the 28th but that -- that's my easy availability.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Can we agree already on the 27th then?
>> JUTTA CROLL: I'm sorry, that would not work for me. I'm completely booked 27th and 28th and 30th. So it is very -- the -- I think the only day I could make it would be Friday. So please decide without me.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Would you mind terribly if we agree on the 27th, Jutta?
>> JUTTA CROLL: I'm pretty sure I can't make it because I'm traveling in the morning. And then I have meetings in Berlin as of midday 'til the 29th in the evening.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. Well, then I suggest let's have a doodle poll and we will see what comes out of it. Okay. With that I thank you all. Also very good discussion to have. And I think we are moving in the right direction. But again progress is not quick. It is a multi-stakeholder environment. We have to take care of all the components of the environment. Okay.
>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Thank you for your comments.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you all.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you all.
>> WOUT DE NATRIS: See you next time. Bye-bye.
>> Bye-bye.
>> Bye-bye everyone.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Bye-bye.
***