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.
28 July 2022
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Hi, everyone, this is Markus speaking. It's top of the hour. But we are not particularly numerous on this call. Let's wait another minute or two to see whether other people will be joining us.
>> JUTTA CROLL: I again had some difficulties to join the meeting. I only could enter after I registered with my organization's account details. So, I'm not sure whether all people have the possibility to enter the meeting. I'm still not allowed to change my name. So, you will see me not as Jutta, but Stiftung. I am not sure what the settings for this meeting are.
>> SORINA TELEANU: There is nothing I can change, unfortunately. These are the UN settings and I cannot activate/deactivate a change anything.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Sorina. People are joining so I might be the only one who had the difficulties.
>> ADAM PEAKE: We will take it to *. I think the idea is to make it more secure; so you do have to pre-register with the address. It is probably something that hasn't got across to all of the mailing lists. I am not sure about that. But we can make sure that the communication is clear. The idea is to avoid some of the Zoom-bombing so that you don't have the freedom to join, change your name to of course Mickey Mouse whatever and then start being horrible. So, yeah, I think that's the idea. Connecting a Zoom access with a mailing list and a registration. But we can check that.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Right. I think there was a change in the system and many people had difficulties logging in after that, myself included. But once you have done it, it seems to be working. As you say, there are security concerns, as there were some fairly serious Zoom-bombing incidents. But meanwhile it's two minutes over the hour and we have good attendance so I suggest we start a meeting. Sorina sent out an agenda. Are there any suggestions, amendments, proposals for changing the agenda? If not, can we approve the agenda as it was sent out? As I can't see anybody wishing to take the floor at this stage the agenda is approved as it stands. We come to the first item on the agenda. That will be a briefing on the MAG meeting consultation we had in Geneva earlier this month. And, as we have Adam, who is a MAG member, here, I would invite him to give us the briefing. And the agenda is in the Chat, yes. (Reading)
>> ADAM PEAKE: Thank you, Markus. The MAG meeting was two weeks ago, open consultation and two MAG meetings and the main things we were working on were the evaluation of Working Groups and acceptance of the Working Groups and those that have been accepted are now on the IGF website. What the process did show us was that it actually needs to be re-thought and there is actually a call of the Working Group, the MAG group that looks at Working Group assessment and the whole process this afternoon. I think it's, like many things, over the years, you tend to add a bit of process here and there and at some point it no longer works, it sort of topples over. And I think we found a bit of the that this year. So we are going to start reviewing the Working Group process. That's not to say the Working Groups aren't good. They are good. But the process itself was not satisfactory for the MAG minimums involved. We didn't feel we had as much view as we should have done of all of the proposals. Anyway, that's just a point to make. What to say? So we are focusing, I think everybody knows, on the five issues that have been -- been picked up earlier in the year and those are issues that are related to the Global Digital Compact. So there is an idea that we will try to focus on those issues so that at the end of the day, we will be able to have input to the Global Digital Compact process for next September. What that input will look like or output of the IGF and input of the Global Digital Compact is not decided, but there were requests that, you know -- keep in mind that we are trying to feed into, broadly into governmental process. So, what might that look like. Probably not long narrative texts. It would be more things you can bullet and get across as contributions to set up the work which women be started on the Global Digital Compact. And it was also clear from contributions from the Tech Envoy's office that work hasn't really started yet. There needs to be some work done by the General Assembly, the President of the General Assembly and others assigning two deputies to run the process and so on. We know what we are feeding into but not specifics of what we are feeding into. That is it at the moment. The main Working Groups have been formed. There hasn't been much activity yet. It is the summer in Europe of course; summer in the North. Period of holidays. And the Secretariat has been busy supporting African Parliamentarians, et cetera. Some of us have had COVID, I guess from Geneva, that meeting. That's me. Very mild. Just a week of mess. Then there are other meetings going on. It is only two weeks. So that is where we are at. Everybody can join the main session Working Groups of course. We do have a goal that we will try to get these organized and publicized earlier in some form to try to make the IGF itself more attractive as an event for people to choose to go to. We heard a little about the venue and there aren't as many rooms, the rooms aren't as large as last year; and in Berlin in 2019. So, there won't be the scope for many, many sessions all over the place. We are going to see the actual agenda limited by just the physical availability of rooms. So that is something to bear in mind: That everybody is going to have to tighten up on the number of sessions available. So we will see how that works, but that is something for the DCs and all participants to consider. Unlike previous years, when we had a large venue with plenty of rooms. There will be restrictions this time. it will be physically impossible to have the massive schedule that the IGF has been able to organize in previous years. So I think that's about it from me. So, any questions? I may not know the answers, but we can find out answers, thanks.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Adam. I would like to emphasize one of the points you made. For the Dynamic Coalitions, that would be a very welcome avenue into the main work that is the Working Groups preparing the main sessions in accordance with the main themes are open to anyone willing to join so this is really an opportunity for the Dynamic Coalitions to join in. Sorina, anything to add from the Secretariat which Adam may have over looked, from your point of view?
>> SORINA TELEANU: No, I think those were the most important things. --
>> MARKUS KUMMER: All right. It was a very comprehensive summary. Are there any questions, comments? Yes, Mark, please.
>> MARK CARVELL: Thanks very much, Markus, and thanks, Adam, for the summary from the MAG meeting which I attended. The additional issue I wanted to raise is the letter that * submitted to Paul Mitchell and the MAG. With regard to Dynamic Coalitions and their space in the IGF program. If you remember, the letter basically set out the argument for more space to be provided in the IGF program, for consideration of Dynamic Coalition outcomes/output. And suggested three proposals for the MAG to consider. Firstly, that at opening of the IGF, there be some time for all the Dynamic Coalition outcomes to be summarized for the benefit of the community so they know what the Dynamic Coalitions are doing for the year; how they are contributing to material outcomes of the IGF; and inputs into eventually outcomes to policymakers and so on. That is the first point. And the second point was that at the end of the IGF program there be time for a summary of the Dynamic Coalitions' actions during the IGF event. We are looking for sort of summarizing. The Dynamic Coalitions have been active; they have been presenting in their own individual sessions and this is how they are contributing to the way forward for the IGF in terms of and elements of the global digital Compaq. For one things the Dynamic Coalitions I am sure are considering how they are going to contribute to the Global Digital Compact. * this is the opportunity for all Dynamic Coalitions, coalitions, policy networks, where relevant to defining what the compact will include. So there is. So that would be on the final day. because this is set out? * very detailed letter as you will recall. Then the third suggestion was that there be be an IGF mid-year event specific for the Dynamic Coalitions to report to the global community about their activities during the intersessional year. So, that was presented and summarized, these proposals, after having submitted the letter to the MAG and to Paul. Paul's reaction was actually quite positive. He I think recognized the key objective which was where appropriate, where relevant, to steer into the IGF system inputs from the Dynamic Coalitions. Those that are really -- I mean coalitions vary of course in character and topic; but some of them are going to be highly relevant to the areas of focus of the IGF; and what are the mechanics for doing that? And this is what letter is all about; and had specific proposals. So, * and I both felt we had useful opportunities but now we feel well it's just gone into sort of on the shelf somewhere. We don't really feel it's being picked up at all. And we acknowledge, as Adam is saying and as Adam said during the meeting: There is a lot of time pressure on the IGF. And the capacity of the convention center and so on, is not as extensive as in previous years. We recognize all of those sort of issues that are going to impact on the scope for creating this opportunity for greater integration of Dynamic Coalitions. But it is something the tech envoy's office and I am sure colleagues in Dynamic Coalition community are supportive. So now we don't know what's happening. Maybe Adam can speak to this. But there doesn't seem to be a process for further consideration of what's in * letter and what he said at the meeting. That is risk for all of us that this will all fade away and not be taken forward in any way which, as I say, is not in the spirit of the roadmap of what the Tech Envoy is hoping for in terms of greater integration of intersessional activities and to strengthen the resolve the IGF community to deliver material, concrete outcomes. That should, I think, be a paramount objective as we anticipate this kind of thing to come under severe scrutiny by the General Assembly when the mandate comes up for renewal in concert with the * review. In '25. Sorry for speaking at length, Markus, but I hope colleagues will understand: We feel this is an important issue and we do look for this Coordination Group to consider how we might continue with the momentum of this and engage again with the MAG to ensure that they give it full consideration and adopt some if not all of our suggested ideas and certainly react to our invitation for them, the MAG, to come up with additional proposals. With the overall same objective of Dynamic Coalition in IGF activities, outcomes, results, delivery to policymakers and decision takers from the IGF event and all its activities year-round. Okay, thanks very much.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Mark. Jutta, do you have your hand up? Is your hand down again?
>> JUTTA CROLL: I took it down because I thought maybe people wanted to react directly to Mark's comments; then I can go later.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Adam?
>> ADAM PEAKE: Your intervention and written contribution were well-received. I think -- it's only been two weeks since but there was a sense of "What's next?" And "Who does it?" So, if there is going to be a summary presented, who does the summarizing? And who agrees on what the summary looks like? Because that really is the job of this group here. I don't think Sorina could put out another call for comments. It can work well. It can't be 21, is it, two DCs, all, whoever responds in the various formats. It needs to be something that is presented as a whole. Even though the content itself is individual to the DCs. But it does have to -- otherwise it would be an odd document to read, I think. Then the summary at the end. So that's the same sort of thing. I think, you know, getting this type of document or outcome, let's call it, towards both the high-level panel, to the leaders, to the Parliamentarian groups, is a very good idea but it is a sort of a matter of operationalizing it and the MAG were clear on how that would happen and I don't think the MAG -- and I am speaking for myself -- I don't think I would want to take on additional work. Because we want to make the IGF, the main sessions, really, we have to focus on some of that. And we also have to focus on making sure that all of the sessions, from a lightning talk to a high-level panel, should consider hybrid, how it works and so on. So that's a lot to do. And then on the mid-year event, mid-year of which year? Because we are now in mid-year. So it wasn't clear to me and I might be misremembering when that year would be. Again, if it's an event in October, for you to prepare: How would that event work and what would it look like? That again is something for this coordinating group, I think, to decide what you are asking for. And, you know, I can't see any reason why the MAG wouldn't support it and, if the Secretariat have the resources, I am sure they would support it. It's again a funny year, to be honest. It was the first time we saw the Host Country getting involved. It all seems a bit delayed somehow. So I'm not too sure how we take it forward. Certainly, the proposal was very well-received. It was just like -- in my mind it is okay. What needs to happen next? I should also say that we did learn again that the Leadership Panel, which we have been waiting for since last December, is still not formed. There are very good reasons why it is not forming. They are seeking ministers, some ministers, and the people that they have been getting to agree suddenly find themselves not being ministers anymore because ministers, being political, tend to go in and out of government and we have been lucky with two such people. And it is a delicate balancing business when you have a small group that needs to be considering all kinds of representation as the UN must do. So we still don't have a Leadership Panel. So, some of the things we might have anticipated a Leadership Panel doing, for example, carrying the work of the Dynamic Coalitions and other intersessional groups forward, outside of the IGF, and inside, I suppose, just isn't happening. Sometime; then it will be next week and the next week and the next week, the Leadership Panel will be formed. We don't know when. Next week is a long way off sometimes. Thanks.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Adam. Jutta had her hand up.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes. I was thinking that given the circumstances of the venue we heard about during the MAG meeting and also from Adam, I would say the Dynamic Coalitions should not ask for more space; but for more visibility in the program of the this year's IGF. From my point of view I think we can gain the visibility when Dynamic Coalitions join the Working Groups to prepare the main session for the five main topics. So far I was thinking of joining in my capacity but now I am thinking that as Dynamic Coalitions should join the groups preparing the main session for the IGF so they not only gain visibility for themselves or for the issue; they are advocating but especially for the issues the Dynamic Coalitions are dealing with. I think that is what Wout is asking for in his letter: that Dynamic Coalitions should be more present, visible, within the whole program of the IGF; and that cannot only be achieved by giving them more space and more rooms to have another session and another session, but to be present in the main sessions as Dynamic Coalitions not only as individuals representing the Dynamic Coalitions. Even if we train from interesting our Dynamic Coalitions altogether, which is a difficult exercise: To find a common topic and feed into the whole program. But maybe this year if it's given that we have not enough space in the venue, then maybe just for this year, we as Dynamic Coalitions could say, okay, we accept that; we don't have an additional main session; but we are present in the main session that are already planned. Just as food for thought and for discussion.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Jutta. And Mark kindly copied some key points of the letter in the Chat. There is point six: DCs become part of a parity process; and that is what Adam hinted at: That these groups preparing the main sessions are open. So, anyone is willing is invited to join if they are willing to join the preparatory work for the main session. And the eighth point: the work and outcomes are part of DC are part of the IGF report. That is a given. Last year unfortunately it was an oversight by think that has been accepted and the IGF Secretariat acknowledged it was an over sight and that will not happen again. We had the discussion among the DCs but did not endorse the letter in its integrality. We might be focusing on some of the elements and as a group we can continue the discussion. Listening and, as Adam said, the suggestions were taken seriously; but the general thrust of the discussion in terms of integration of the constituent parts of the IGF was not necessarily to give more space to the various integral parts but rather to integrate them into the work. And how this should be done, I don't think we have a clearcut answer. But I think there is a general feeling that this needs to be done but maybe in a different way. But, Mark, you have your hand up. Please.
>> MARK CARVELL: Okay, things have to change and that requires some concerted effort. I realize of course that the MAG has a huge task at the moment. Evaluation of the workshop proposals. I have been on the MAG; I know what it's like. But, you know, there is almost political pressure here for the change the IGF. And I am * the Tech Envoy, making clear in one of their presentations, something called the Milt stakeholder high-level board that the IGF have to become much more of a year-round process; at the heart of a global system of multi-stakeholder engagement. And some of that year-round process has got to be geared up to producing outcomes. And you have got volunteers in the Coalitions who are willing to step up to that ambition and realize it. But you need the mechanics of the IGF process to deliver. This is basically what the letter is advocating; and suggesting modalities for: How did you do that? I mean I take Jutta's point. A lot of coalitions are happy to be in the kind of background. That is fine. That is their choice. Others want to be up there at the front end, delivering change to, like the Coalition that Val and I are leading on online security. What is the IGF doing about that? The IGF is discussing this and making important consensus-based messages and delivering those. But also you have coalitions that are hacking away, trying to get policy recommendations articulated and guidelines and toolkits. These are physical, tangible outcomes that the IGF should be pushing. Not sort of being footnotes to the IGF event; which is generally what has been the situation in the past. There is no material, full recognition of what the Coalitions potentially can deliver. So the IGF programming has got to be -- they have to take into account this shift of the IGF to a much more outcome-oriented year-round process and that means providing time for the Coalitions to set out what they're doing, how are they going about it; and delivering for the IGF community their results. And then the IGF community with the help of the leadership panel and the Tech Envoy, so there is networking around the UN system and so on, all of those actors picking up on the Dynamic Coalition results. I mean relying on reporting is not enough. It has got to be the opportunity for the coalitions, as a community of activists, if you like, in the IGF system, to say: This is what the IGF should be pushing for. We have done all this work throughout the year and we have been doing it several years and evolving our programs as Coalitions. This is for you now, IGF, to take forward. So, creating the space in the program, is essential. Otherwise, you know, relying on people to sort of follow a link and see the IGF report is not enough. If you have Parliamentarians and morue governments participating in the IGF, more business leaders, more social media platforms, big-tech companies taking part in the IGF, they should be hearing about what the coalitions are doing and how they are delivering and also contributing to the work of the coalitions. That's our argument. For this. Sorry, I'm banging the drum a bit there. We are very fired up about this. And we are connected, we believe, with what the Roadmap on Digital Cooperation said about the IGF what the Tech Envoy is looking in terms of the IGF and what we anticipate the Leadership Panel will look like in the IGF: They want material to deliver to governments, business leaders, worldwide that this is what the IGF community has come up with, go ahead and implement that and some of that is going to come from the Coalitions. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. I think we are in fairly broad agreement on the general objectives. It's just a question of how to get there. But are there other opinions? Are there suggestions, comments? Or can we move on then to the next item which is closely related? That would be the DC main session, which again we don't have deadline for the main session prepared. You tell me there are radical proposals saying maybe we shouldn't mean a main session; but rather integrate -- that's again in the letter, the point that we should be part of the parity process. All of this is open and we did not have enough time to discuss Wout's letter in detail and did not have endorsement of the Coordination Group in its entirety; but we agreed on the general thrust, I think; and also on certain points which are as a given. And I think the midterm, the mid-year event of the DC had quite a lot of traction. But, again, for this year it may be already too late. We would need more time to discuss all of the points. And I think there is one missing link in the proposal, is how do you get from a DC outcome to an IGF outcome? And we had this discussion again and again and again. And we never succeed to have a sort of endorsement of the broader IGF community to an outcome coming from a DC. And this is also something that may merit some discussion. But, again, I'm open. Shall we spend more time on the -- this is essentially the agenda item 1 was a briefing on the MAG meeting and Open Consultations. And the second agenda item is more forward-looking on preparing the main session. But we engaged in a very interesting discussion on essentially the space of the DCs in the broader environment and how to contribute to the digital compact and the broader IGF. But, please, I look forward to your contributions to this discussion and I am glad we have this meeting, this call here in the Northern summer. Times are very calm here. So it's good to maybe take . . . lean back a bit and put the thinking cap on. But we really need to swing into action by early September at the very latest. I need to know what we are going to propose. And also, is Wout's letter the basis for us to move forward? But then we would need to discuss it also a little bit more in detail. Please: Comments? Suggestions? Or can we move on to the next agenda item, discuss and how to prepare the main DC main session if we want to ask for a DC main session which, as of now, I think is still on the tentative agenda of the IGF '22. (Pause)
>> ADAM PEAKE: I think this is the sort of thing we need to think about if the letter is proposing two two-hour sessions; then it's a competitive world. You have 75 workshops, 80 workshops, main sessions, this, that and the other and you have to understand that the DCs are important. Everybody knows that. We have been working with them, everyone has been working with them a long time. It is a competitive world. In our eyes. Think about as a Coordinating Group how you want to use it. Wout's letter and, Mark, your letter, are very good. I think MAG needs to see it as collective. Because it is hard sometimes to wonder if you are listening to two people or 21 DCs with many more people. I am sorry to put that quite frankly. You imagine it is difficult to receive it. I join these calls so I understand it. But we have to be careful here. This is a very competitive market for space at the IGF. So: Sell it; is the answer, I think. Because I have also found your comments, Mark, compelling. But you have to sell it. To be blunt, if that's okay.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Mark, your turn. Sell it.
>> MARK CARVELL: Hm. I have been trying to sell it already, I think. I don't know what opportunities are afforded to us. We have presented this to the MAG. We have discussed it here in the Coordination Group. I hope the Dynamic Coalitions as a community of IGF activists will have an opportunity to meet with the new Tech Envoy and to meet with the Leadership Panel when it is finally instituted so that they get a full understanding that there is this incredibly important year-old activity of the IGF and they know the potential contribution of Dynamic Coalitions. Not all of them, but some of them are very much like ours: Very much geared on security and trust. For example, IS3C. That we have a potential major contribution to make. So, those opportunities to consult with the Tech Envoy and with the Leadership Panel are further opportunities to sell this idea. To sell this intersect with the roadmap on dynamic cooperation. And the evolution of the IGF so it's going to win its mandate in 2025. So, as for endorsement by the Dynamic Coalitions, well, I defer to Markus and the Secretariat to consider if there is a step we should take. Wout is out on holiday. He is actually camping, so he can't actually join us online, unfortunately. In Spain. But I am sure he would agree that endorsement by the DCCG would be a valuable step. As I say, I defer to Markus and Secretariat to set out how that can be done. Do we put it to a vote? I don't know. And -- well, I hope the MAG will have another opportunity to discuss this. Having had more time to consider what's said in the letter; and also the opportunity for further ideas. We're not trying to sell anything, any process in stone in terms of change. But we certainly hope that we have triggered some thinking. And this does, really cross to the other intersessional activities, policy and best practices forummal mid-year event we did not think about it happening this year. We realize it is way beyond the time for planning or scheduling that. But next year as part of this sort of process of integration is one thing we think would be very useful May/June next year. As a DC-wide opportunity for everybody to set out and say this is what we are doing in terms of policy recommendation, toolkit, guidelines. Or whatever. In your hands, really. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Mark. Jutta?
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, my thoughts go in two directions. First, thanks to Adam. You have copied the eight points from Wout's and Mark's letter into the Chat. Going through that, I am not sure we would need within this group, a democratic process, whether all Dynamic Coalitions agree to all of the eight points. Some of the points -- I understand they are good input to discussion of the MAG. But still, if we are stressing that we would go for these eight points, we would need somehow a majority of Dynamic Coalitions saying okay, yes. We all agree to go forward for these eight points. For example -- I do think the DCs' mid-year event is a wonderful idea, brilliant idea. I am not sure all Dynamic Coalitions would stand behind it and go for that meeting. And if it's not a joint effort, then the question would be whether we then have a DCs' mid-year event which is attended and fed in by ten of the Dynamic Coalitions instead of all of the Dynamic Coalitions. So it is my question whether we need a democratic process and decision what we are going for jointly. And the second question is somehow related to that. And that is what would be the consequences if we get all of these eight points. For example, I look at point seven the * and Leadership Panel should be regularly updated by the DCCG on progress. So far so good. But then: So that they know which DC outcomes to promote worldwide during the year. That would be a selection process that puts additional work and efforts on the MAG and on the leadership panel. And we need to know whether they are ready to do so. If 21 Dynamic Coalitions produce outcomes and the MAG and the leadership panel should decide what they bring forward to worldwide attention, then that could be a lot of work. So these are my two thoughts and questions in regard to the letter, before we can move forward. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Jutta. Avri? >> AVRI DORIA: Yes, thanks. I was thinking that there may actually be a step in the middle. I think that Jutta's probably right in sort of saying there is a wholesale endorsement of every point might be challenge, especially now that there has been a conversation, there have been questions brought up. There have been issues brought up. But it might be possible for us to think about sort of endorsing it in general and deciding to take the next step and start basically, you know, taking the next step down and sort of taking the questions; taking the issues. Start as a DC developing responses and answers as to them that we can find general agreement on. So, basically, in short, to endorse the idea; to support what was sent and support our fellow, you know, DCs that sent it but say we understand the questions; we take the questions and we're going to do the next level dive on it. Is a possibility. Thanks.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. Avri, you anticipated what I was going to say. My concluding remarks of the discussion. As I said earlier, I think there is a general support for the basic thrust of the letter. But I think we would need to look a little bit more into the details. And I think also -- but we had a preliminary discussion of the letter; and we also felt that asking for too much might be counterproductive and that we need to look at exactly what we find is realistic and reasonable. Also in light of what Adam said about the constraints of the space. And I do recall earlier discussions we had when some members of the MAG community said they felt that the DCs were asking for prime real estate; you know, the meeting space is limited in an IGF meeting and if up present a proposal for a workshop, you go through a strict scrutiny and some MAG members felt then and the Dynamic Coalitions: They get the space, like that, without having to go through a processor scrutiny. So there is an in-built tension. And I think we need to be aware of that. And I think there is very strong support, in the Chat, that Mark's arguments are very compelling. But I think we would need to have a process where we actually go through all of the points and we want to see which points we want to bring up to the next level. And by asking for atom points at the same time we have to be aware that it might be counter productive. But my suggestion would be, okay, let's take this letter as a basis; and let's go through it point by point and see what we want to highlight as a collective request from the Dynamic Coalitions. But, Mark, maybe I have talked too much?
>> MARK CARVELL: No, I talked too much. And I am sorry for coming back in. First of all, thanks, everybody for your very helpful comments. I am reassured, actually, and I will relay this to Wout in his tent in Keddes (phonetic) wherever he is. That is the outcome. That is helpful. We really didn't want to set out something in stone as an agenda. We wanted to get some thoughts we had out there. And you can knock them down. That's fine. That is part of the process of discussion. And the other point about the leadership panel: This hits on something that has been a nagging worry for me all along. You know, not just with regard to choosing or selecting DC outputs and how that would be done in advocating their in addition to bridge the gap between decision-takers and policymakers. The wider outcomes how are we as a global community of stakeholders going to have confidence that the Leadership Panel is not picking and choosing stuff that perhaps will enhance their role in some way. I am leaving the more tricky stuff they feel not so comfortable. How is all that process going to be set up so that it's going to be transparent and fully accountable? I mention that as a wider issue not just relating to DC outputs but a valid one that Jutta has raised. I still don't know how the Leadership Panel is going to offer -- it's got to be very closely in line with -- we said this all along -- going right on back to the first floating of the multi-stakeholder high-level board. It has to be integrated within the IGF system and process as an inherent link with a strong robust linkage to the MAG so that the Leadership Panel doesn't run off with it own agenda; and act way beyond its agreement. There are some high-level people who will be itching to make their mark, I am sure. I know that, having worked with ministers. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. And there is also the thought that the current global environment is not particularly conducive to multi-stakeholder cooperation. I don't know whoever attended but I joined the open consultation for the OEWG; and there the chairman was actually very open; but he pointed out that it's very difficult sometimes for nongovernmental groups to be just accepted in a discussion and it's not particularly encouraging. And, as you said, we don't know what the high-level panel will look like; and Adam pointed out, we have been waiting until since the end of last year and it's always next week. So this is all a question mark. So this is a very unknown. But to get us back to concrete steps I think there is a very broad agreement among people on the call that we could pursue on the basis of the letter you and Wout sent to the MAG chair, as your letter from an individual Dynamic Coalition. And we could, then, maybe focus on what we want to ask for and Avri made a valid point: Sometimes you have to ask for a little bit more in order to get the minimum accepted. So we have to be realistic as well. Don't ask for the bare minimum; ask for a little bit more but be realistic on what you want. As I mentioned earlier, some of the points, like the DC outcome should be part of the report: That's a given. You can have that. But it can be emphasized how important that is. But that is not actually a request, as such. Then, what we do want, there we have to look at overall space. And again, the -- having a mid-year session for the DCs would give us also a little bit of room outside of the constraints. I think that is a very constructive suggestion. As we all say that we do need more room for the Dynamic Coalitions. But, when you ask for the space within the limited space of the annual meeting, then you have constraints. But if you ask for the extra space, okay, that also needs to be looked at in terms of resources: Does the Secretariat -- are they able to organize it? But I think that, for instance, is a very creative proposal to deal with the constraints. I don't want to expand too much but my suggestion would be that we take it from here and we look at it and see what we want to take on board as a Coordination Group. And present it in a constructive manner in the spirit of working towards IGF plus and contributing to the Digital Compact. But, Adam, you have your hand up.
>> ADAM PEAKE: Yes, sorry to interrupt, Markus, because I was agreeing with everything you were saying. I think the group has to think about how it's going to present all of the work of the DCs so that you are making a good case for all of the inclusion that has been argued for and argue the for very well. You know, you have to think about things like quality control. Are you confident -- I am sure we are all confident our own quality is good but are you confident the work of the other DCs you are not a member of is good and you would expect it to go forward? It is a question that we have to ask. The selection process for workshops is an attempt at quality controls. The Dynamic Coalitions do not form in that way. I am not saying there is any doubt that any Dynamic Coalition -- I don't know them or the subject area well enough. But these are things we have to think about: If we want things to be pushed forward in an important UN global setting into important other multi lateral sessions then we have to be comfortable about things like quality. Yeah, it is a risk. So I am not saying any more than that. But there are lots of issue that is the group needs to think about at a coordinating group to make sure -- to achieve what's being asked for. That's what I would say. Thanks.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Adam. And also don't forget the paper we agreed on last year on the DC coordination, which has many areas and avenues to explore for going forward. We collectively all shied away from what you mentioned the elephant in the room, which is quality control. Could we think about setting up something like a peer review? I don't know.But, you know, just assuming that every Dynamic Coalition is of excellent quality, is maybe also a little bit self-sufficient. I think we need to be aware that there are critical eyes from the outside and actually Adam raised this point of critical eyes. Are we confident that every single coalition is up to the highest standards? I am sure they think they are; but are they really? This is devil's advocate but we have to be aware that these questions may be raised from not outside. Was that an old hand or a new hand? >> Old hand.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: I think it is a good discussion to have. Would there be agreement that we move on that way: That we put on the agenda of our next meeting again Wout's letter and we go through it more in detail and we see which are the points we want to collectively endorse and put forward to the MAG for consideration? Jutta, please.
>> JUTTA CROLL: I just gave you a thumbs-up.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: That was a thumbs-up. Okay. Mark has a thumbs up as well. Okay. Thumbs-up are always helpful. Well, we are almost to the top of the hour. So we haven't actually come to the second agenda item of what we want to do with DC main session. But I think that's in the end also very related. And I think we are in inviolate agreement that we endorse the general thrust of Wout's letter; and we want to look at it more in detail. But Avri has her hand up for a final word.
>> AVRI DORIA: Just a quick thought that the main session could indeed be the selling point. Let's say that we do work through this, what it is we want to propose. And going down into detail. The main session could indeed be a panel that expands on that, that explains, that opens up the conversation to it. Since it is you know within the theme of the IGF, since we are making a case if we decide to dive deeper into the case to sort of answer the issues, then, taking it just -- from just the MAG to taking it to the whole IGF may be a good way to use a session our main session and it would be in keeping. It is just a thought, at the end of the meeting as you were tying things up. Thanks.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: I like the idea. Thank you, Avri, for that. I think it in a way turns upside-down from where we came from. In the beginning, we had DC main sessions were looking inside, how we worked, whatever. Then we thought: Let's look more at the substance. We look again on how we work; but also how we can contribute to the bigger picture. Adam, did you have a hand up?
>> ADAM PEAKE: No, it's okay.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, with that, once again, thank you all for joining the call in the hot summer months in the Northern Hemisphere. And I wish you a great summer vacation if you are going into summer vacation. And let's then reconvene. My suggestion would be that we look for a meeting in early September, where also the main session groups will get more into the swing of work and there again we could encourage the DCs to join the relevant work streams so they contribute substantively to shaping the main sessions according to the main themes agreed on. And we focus collectively more on how we contribute to the bigger scheme of things such as Digital Cooperation and the IGF plus in the way that after I have suggested for the main session. But that obviously will be part of the discussion at our next meeting in early September. With that, if there are no administrative whatever deadlines, Sorina, that we should be aware of?
>> SORINA TELEANU: No, nothing right now.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Nothing from your end. With that, I thank you all for attending and for a very interesting and constructive discussion. Good-bye, everyone, and enjoy your summer holiday if you are in the Northern Hemisphere. If not: Enjoy your winter.
>> ADAM PEAKE: Thank you.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Bye-bye. Thanks a lot for your moderation. >> Bye. >> Recording stopped. (Meeting concluded at 8:00 a.m. ET)