DCCG meeting 54

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during an IGF virtual call. 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. 




9 JUNE 9 2021 12:00 UTC

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Hello, everyone. Markus speaking. We're at the top of the hour, but we're not very numerous. I hope some more people will be joining, but in any case we can start the discussion. The main reason why we convened this meeting, was we have been discussed by Titti Cassa, the Chair of the Strategy Group, and they have produced a Strategy paper a few months earlier and they have also reached out to the DCS and Best Practice Forums to comment on it, so the main objective will be to get some collective feedback on what we think about this paper, in general terms, but then also that I think will then be the second part of our call. In more specific terms, there have been specific recommendations for address to the DCs' way forward, but maybe before we go into the details, I would like either Sorina or Anja from the Secretariat to provide some background on the strategy on this document we are actually talking about. Who would like to take the floor, Sorina or Anja?

>> SORINA TELEANU: Anja, would you like to?

>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you. Yes, I was trying to unmute myself. Thank you very much, and good afternoon to everyone, and thank you for inviting me. I can only speak from the perspective of the Secretariat, there is a participation actively in the calls of the MAG Working Group on Strategy. I know that some of the colleagues present here on this call also participated on that call, so I think you can definitely follow up after me, if I missed something. But not much there is to say. As you know, the MAG Working Group is composed of the MAG members currently serving on the MAG, past MAG members, but also just the active members of the IGF community, with the aim to produce a long-term strategy to strengthen the IGF in various ways from the perspective of the stakeholder engagement to advancing more the program making the IGF more relevant in a kind of political sense of that word. And so they have been meeting for the past I believe two years very actively, but even before, I mean, under the Chairing of Ms. Lynn Saint Amour, this group was existing just under a different name, and it sort of evolved when Anriette took the Chair and pulled the MAG into what it is today. So the idea of these consultation Is as far as I understand is to gather the inputs from various structures of the IGF including the Dynamic Coalitions, to develop a long-term Strategic Plan of this Working Group starting for this year and then over the years to come especially in light of the fact that the IGF has the future confirmed hosts for basically all years except the 2024 which we hope it will also be confirmed in the months to come. And I know this questionnaire that's been put and the DCs list and DCs were invited to comment and it was shared with networks, it was shared with the NRI, and inviting current and MAG members to comment. It was shared with the networks of Best Practice Forums and policy networks and the idea is for all these groups to take a look at the draft of the strategic document on the so far inputs by this group and to respond to the questionnaire with that background to help is shape the strategy of this group in the next months. And I think the DCs are represented in several areas of this strategy, thinking of this as primarily is I think they call it smart think tanks, as Coalitions of experts which could help to advance bringing in many of the issues at the IGF in a substantive manner. And that's pretty much what I know, Markus, but happy to respond if I missed something, or if we need to I guess ask Titti for advice, thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much, Anja. That's very helpful, and I think it's also in a way it comes in very handy as we have also in the process of producing a paper on DCs recording a bit past practices and the history, and have also been given the task to look forward on how to improve and how to integrate DCs better into the IGF ecosystem. Now, I wonder whether we could maybe split the discussion into two parts. In the first phase of overall comments and feedback, and I think it's very welcome that we have been asked to look at this paper and also think about it and provide this feedback, and then a second stage, then I would like to discuss one of the more concrete suggestions addressed to the Dynamic Coalitions, and there again, we may need some guidance from the Secretariat on how this could be done. But can we maybe just gather some general comments? And it would be great if we could provide a kind of collective answer of the DCs' collective feedback, how we see the paper, and what we think about it, and what are the suggestions you may have. And welcome to all who joined. We now have I think critical mass to have a meaningful discussion, and as Mark pointed out in the chat, we're competing against the RightsCon, which is taking place right now, and obviously there are also many DCs who might be participating in the RightsCon, but who would like to give a first reaction? Mark, please.

>> MARK CARVELL: Thank you, Markus. And hello, everybody. I'm with the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security, and Safety, DC ISSS, for those who don't know me, and former MAG member. I follow the IGF and have been engaged to a certain extent with the roadmap on digital cooperation mainly for EuroDIG, and the structure paper is an excellent very comprehensive piece of work, from a quick look this morning, as I was busy yesterday with Rights Con, and it's quite a thorough review of what the roadmap and high-level panel have recommended with regard to strengthening the IGF and reacting to the specific proposals in that roadmap. It's a very impressive effort, have to say that. There's a lot of important provisions in there that can materially change the IGF for the better, and the whole roster of issues, inclusivity and more strategic and multiyear planning and so on, it's very good coverage. I think what I -- one reaction I have is that I don't quite get the sense of the strategy paper reorienting the IGF away from a single big event with some intersessional activity to which the Dynamic Coalitions contribute, some quite marginally, some as think tanks, indeed, others much more assertively in terms of outcomes and DCI is very outcome oriented. I don't get the sense that we're moving towards a year-round Forum, that the perception is still a big one, big annual event, and then other stuff that sort of feeds in. Whereas I think a lot of the thinking behind the high-level panel's proposals and ultimately roadmap, is to transform the IGF into a much more consistent level of activity throughout the year, and Dynamic Coalitions are key instruments for that, and producing proposals that certainly would be broadcast and disseminated in the annual Forum, but it's still going to be seen as everything having to fit around the annual Forum. So that's one comment I have in terms of a reaction. And the other, I mean, what follows from that is, you know, this annual call for workshop proposals, this huge lump of activity that the MAG has to embrace and resolve, maybe that can actually, maybe that's an outdated approach, and if you have a much more year-round high level of activity, including the Dynamic Coalitions producing stuff, this, you know, those outcomes, those inputs could progressively contribute to the agenda of the Forum rather than having this annual massive exercise of workshop proposals and sifting that and evaluating all of that. So that's what I missed from the strategic element, and the multiyear strategy doesn't quite connect with that change of approach to the IGF, which I think some may be hoping for, and I'm quite sympathetic to this year-round concept for the IGF, which is going to need some big changes. And I would Champion the Dynamic Coalitions are subsets of the Internet stakeholder community, working throughout the year to contribute to activities and outcomes and strategic phasing of work maybe over two or three years on particular issues, I don't know, cybersecurity or access, or whatever. So those are my initial thoughts. I hope that helps start the conversation going. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Mark. And also thank you for turning on the camera. I'll follow suit. It's nice when we can see each other. It is not mandatory but I would recommend if you comment turn your camera on so we can see you. Makes it friendlier in these difficult times and Mark, you had a lot of support in the chat. June, Avri, Amy, also tend to agree and I would also say actually that the experience of, since the pandemic has actually underlined this, maybe this need for a different type of approach, and as Amy says, it needs to be a transition from old to new. But Wout you have the hand up. Wout, Amy, Elliott.

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Thank you, Markus. Can you hear me? I'm part of the Dynamic Coalition on cybersecurity and safety, but that's not the hat that I was reading this report with. It's more on the IGF in general. I'd like to underscore what Mark said about the transition, something that I've been proposing for some time, as well, and there could be a difference there between emerging issues and issues that are familiar, and those could be, as I call them, a little bit informally but could be pushed towards intersession work, so if there are 20 proposals on a specific topic it's quite clear that it's an issue that one or 20 workshops is not going to change anything but year-round work may do so and identify the topics that need to be discussed on a policy level or practical level. So that's on strategy, as well. I think that on Page 5, to return there, there has to be a clean objective. The text says, and I'm diving in a bit here, but I've got a few questions. What is a clear objective and who decides what the clear objective is? But also that if you look at one step further, there's a question before that needs to be answered that is: What is the issue at hand? And if that is identified, then from there it would be stepping stones to what is the clear objective and more desirable outcomes. Because I think desirable outcomes may even be more important than a clear objective, because the desirable outcomes also underscore who will have to participate to get there and who has to come on board who may not be on board at this point in time. And that's one of the challenges I think that show from this report that perhaps need to be addressed more directly that with the DC ISSS, we have been trying to get industry on board for example, but they're trying to get policymakers on board from Governments and you can see how extremely difficult it is to do so. There's a clear reason behind that. One of the answers I usually get from trade organizations or from industry, why would I ever go to the IGF? Because you're nothing but a talk shop. Nothing is decided there? It's just a waste of time. So in other words, if the IGF striving to become more impactful and to make actually a difference on specific topics, it becomes a necessity to convince specific stakeholders to come on board, that on the one hand is a marketing issue perhaps that could be addressed. On the other hand it's also something that perhaps we need to invest a little bit more and ask these organizations: When would the IGF become relevant to you? Because that is something that is behind the work that I've been doing since late 2017 on strategic cooperation in the context of the IGF, and you can see that a lot of organizations point to specific topics, to specific sort of discussions and the need for tangible outcomes that are I think by now seriously addressed in this piece of paper, but we have on the other hand solutions towards convincing specific stakeholders is not really addressed yet and I think that that could be defined a little bit more. How are we going to do this outreach? And how are we going to find out what their specific issues are? And that means looking at it from a different angle. I think as final comments on the Parliamentarians, I think that by now, the IGF and EuroDIG are on track to cooperate with Parliamentarians, but it's still sort of incidental so is it possible, for example, to set up a form of cooperation with the Inter-Parliamentary Union? Because they're as I understand now, compared to 2019 when cyber, when I addressed totally flying out of nowhere, there are now both politicians that are interested in the topic. It is becoming an emerging issue, I understand, so it could well be of value to cooperate and identify specific topics together with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and that could strengthen the cooperation considerably and make it perhaps more aligned and have liaisons on this topic with Parliamentarians, so I think I'll leave it at that. The rest just like Mark said, my compliments on the report, because it really tackles the issue very well, so thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Wout. Just a brief comment on the last point, cooperation of IPU, it's my understanding that the Polish host Government with UNDESA are in touch with the IPU to precisely establish this kind of cooperation. Now we have more people who would like to take the floor. We already have Amy and Elliott in the queue but then Rajendra and Jutta asked for the floor. Amy first, then Elliott, then Rajendra. Amy?

>> AMY CROCKER: Thank you, everyone, and thank you, Wout, for your comments. I've just read most of the report, and I also think it's really good, it's very clear. I think it's very ambitious which is not a bad thing but for me, sort of picking up on some of the points that were mentioned it articulates the "how" quite well, even if I think the how has a lot of moving parts to it which are very hard to coordinate and I think the challenge is about the "who," and about who you engage, in what way, how you incentivize them to engage in this issue and if I think a little bit about the area that I represent which is the kind of child protection, child rights space, I think, you know, there are many organizations that engage every year and actively with the IGF process but there are also many other leaders in forums to discuss the key issues we talk about and those shouldn't go but for me, I'm reflecting on whether there's a way to co-opt in a smarter way forums that may need a different way to present the issues they're talking about for example, because the truth is the IGF has to be relevant to people or they won't come and part of it is about what Markus said and part of it is being really clear and focused which I like the issue driven focus of the strategy, and sort of the idea and I highlighted focus on fewer issues in greater depth, because in my view, the IGF should be anticipating but also kind of commenting on clear trends and challenges and it's done that but in such a diverse way that it's been hard I think in the past to kind of narrow down what it's trying to achieve with that. I won't go on so I think it's about your stakeholders, how you engage them, how you make it relevant to them. Other things, and I agree with working with organizations like IPU and others. So one of the things I wanted to mention before I stop is also this issue of compulsory or voluntary engagement with the key teams identified in kind of the multiyear plan and just sort of flagging this idea of, of course I understand the philosophy is not to sort of force groups to fit with a model but at the same time I kind of think, well, if you want to drive a big ship, it makes sense that there is agreement that all of the kind of teams on board are kind of speaking to the same issues so I don't know what page that was on but I had a question about this idea of not making it compulsory to -- that the IGF shouldn't encourage Dynamic Coalitions for example. Yeah, page 5. Integration with the issue driven agenda should be encouraged and facilitated but not compulsory. I think there's a challenge in that. I don't know, I don't have a definitive opinion but I just think what other people think about how much you want to basically get everyone on the same road, in which case you have to have a bit more than encouragement in my view.

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

>> ELLIOTT MANN: Hi, everyone. I think it's a fantastic report. I'm from the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance. I do think it's fantastic and I particularly liked the Section Annex A where it goes suggestions for IGF 2021, particularly around bringing the workshops and how they're structured and everything. If they implemented all those changes around improving how workshops are run like the actual workshops, that would go a long way to improving a lot of people's IGF experience but I think more broadly, I agree with what everyone else said particularly Amy particularly around who is going to implement these changes and how particularly when if I look at the improvements to how workshops are run, at the end of the day, who's got oversight of that? I've been to a lot of IGF workshops which, you know, it's completely different than the description or the speakers are different and all those sorts of aspects. There just needs to be oversight and resourcing around that which is an issue that is highlighted in this report. So I think that's kind of the part that's left unsaid. These are fantastic ideas but then they have to be executed and that's very difficult. I will also highlight the part around consultation with youth initiatives. I think that's fantastic but again, if that's done, that's fantastic but it's just gotta get done and insofar as the resourcing and everything, everything is not there, then that's something difficult when you're reaching out and sort of not hearing anything back so it's all absolutely fantastic. I'd agree with mostly everything that's in this report, so I would -- I think it's really good.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that, and also thank you for putting the finger on one of the key issues. And who does it and how is it done. And there is a resource implication quite often. Rajendra?

>> RAJENDRA PRATAP GUPTA: Thank you, Markus and everyone. Firstly I must congratulate and compliment, this is visionary and ground breaking. That's the beauty of this document. It recommends changes which I think are going to be really impactful to change the course of IGF. I've attended a few of them in the past so it talks about interconnected agenda, a roadmap for three years, and a year-round initiative which I think is something I've always liked, that it should not be just once a year thing. The things that we feel are very impactful are going to be Parliamentary track and the best practices Forum. The only challenge as the one who has the DC jobs, how do we keep the stickiness around the activities? One is, yes, there is an annual report that we send. How do we get the resources? Because we garner the resources and I think I see the sustainability and the viability part, as my colleague said about how to implement, but I think let's not forget human resources is one. The financial resource is another also. Change management is the key, but how do you impact change management with volunteers? That's the major challenge, I think, for people like the headquarters. Of course, we definitely [ ? ] because we believe in the idea of IGF. We do our best to garner resources but something we should discuss about how people have resources to do more and more. I have a report we send out this week, we continue to do but I think this change management ignoring financial resources are going to be key to keep our human resources ticking. Because that is what is important for our work so we still need to find an answer for that.

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

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Markus, for giving me the floor. I just wanted to respond to certain issues that Wout has pointed out, and that is especially in regard to our reachout to industry take holders. To be honest, I don't believe that we are still on the stage that the IGF has criticized as being a talk shop from industry. I think we have left that stage behind, at least, when we had the Internet Governance Forum in Berlin two years ago, when it was of course due to a massive effort of the German Government to include stakeholders from industry, and what I think especially in regard of what Dynamic Coalitions can contribute to that is that it must be a reachout not only to the well-known traditional Internet, it must be a reachout to industry across all Sectors and I do think that is a very important message that we have to bring out, that it's not only Google and Facebook and Amazon and so on who are affected by Internet Governance. It's the whole industry, the whole economy, that is affected by Internet Governance, and we need to make that message clear, and that it will be much more easy to have these relevant stakeholders also engaged in Internet Governance. When Rajendra spoke about the Dynamic Coalition on Jobs, of course you couldn't discuss jobs and Internet without having industry stakeholders within the debate so I do think we need to put this message very clear and bring that out, and then we can also have a better view on what role Dynamic Coalitions can play in that game. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that, and I see Mark made a suggestion in the chat, and I wonder whether you would not for the benefit of everyone just say it out loud.

>> MARK CARVELL: Thank you, Markus. Yeah, you're referring to my latest contribution to the chat?


>> MARK CARVELL: Okay. Yeah, it's coming back to this integration objective for the Dynamic Coalitions within the IGF, and I could see perhaps the direction being taken whereby first of all, proposals for new Dynamic Coalitions are considered within the context of the IGF's narrow focus, narrower focus, and its multi-year strategy and so on. I'm not sure, but is that what is possibly envisaged? And secondly, and turning the other way around, when high-level board and the Office of the Envoy and IGF Secretariat all meet and review the strategy, will they think of Dynamic Coalitions as potential mechanisms or tools to use if the strategy is identifying gaps of knowledge or gaps of thinking, not enough free thinking about an issue? Let's set up a Dynamic Coalition to pull in together key experts and plug that hole in the strategy, if you like? And I'm wondering if that is a potential consideration that's going to impact the whole roster of Dynamic Coalitions and new entrants in the field of Dynamic Coalitions in the future? So I just flag that. I'm not sure it's covered in the report, and one thing in the report that jumped out to me was, it talks about approval of the IGF strategy by the UN Secretary-General, if I read that correctly, as one of the -- the strategy will be pushed up to the Secretary-General to sign off. That's a startling proposal I think because it kind of impacts the whole bottom-up, and hands-off, UN hands-off the IGF approach. And I wonder if others spotted that, or may be thinking I'm overreacting, but it just adds to sort of the whole potential thinking about integrating Dynamic Coalitions more directly in the course of the IGF's strategic activity.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. And that is clear obviously new territory and there have been some talks and some speculation on whether we should not consider graduating from one form to another, let's say a Dynamic Coalition gets bumped up to a Best Practice Forum, where you would then benefit from Secretariat support. That could be one difference. Also now we have new policy networks, that's another element that can be used. One point my comment to your suggestion is Dynamic Coalitions are essentially bottom-up. They're not sort of ordered into being by who ever, so that is something some thought would need to be given to that. Yes, the MAG or whoever could suggest that could be material for the Dynamic Coalition, are there volunteers picking up the idea, but I cannot see the MAG ordering a Dynamic Coalition to be set up. That would be a change of the basic parameters. But again, this is something to be explored. Avri made a comment in the chat. I wonder, Avri, whether you would not also come up and say it loud?

>> AVRI DORIA: Sure. I suppose I could say it out loud. You know, what I wrote there was a personal viewpoint, but I believe one of the central lines we find in that document is that at the end of all this, it goes to the states, the members, the UN Secretary-General for approval, and as long as that is the backstop, I don't think we can really, you know, talk about the IGF as a multistakeholder organization. It certainly has a multistakeholder modality and methodology, but the organization itself, it certainly isn't bottom-up. You don't necessarily need to be bottom-up to be multistakeholder, but when all the work that anybody in the IGF does eventually comes to the states' approval in the UN through the structure of the UN Secretary-General, for me, and I say that's a personal one, since I'm here as a DC, schools on Internet Governance, that issue doesn't really matter to us, because we're not dealing with the IGF as an IGF. We're not studying the IGF and whether it's a multistakeholder organization or not. What we're trying to figure out is how to teach about the various views on Internet Governance elsewhere, so the issue to the DC itself in its bottom-up nature of doing its work, as long as the IGF isn't imposing anything on it, it's IGF, go ahead. You want to be a piece of the UN, you want to be directed by the UN? Fine, you know, go ahead, as long as the DC can continue trying to figure out how we teach about this larger issue of what is Internet Governance. So that's really what I'm saying, so I'm not sure that my view is really very relevant, and as I find the report immensely problematic because of that focus, but so what? Thanks.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, but it is I think a very relevant point and a fairly critical point, as well. I mean, the very nature of the IGF, and it is very -- I have to admit, it escaped my attention. I obviously didn't read the report well enough, but thank you both for putting that to our attention. I think it may be worth signaling in our reaction that we at least have some question mark as to why the strategy report should go up to that level of approval. I mean, this seems to be the reverse of micromanagement but we asked in essence the Secretary-General to micromanage the IGF, which up to now was very much operating at an arm's length away from the Secretary-General. But I don't know whether somebody can actually point out the part of the report and put it up maybe in the screen, but Olivier asked for the floor, and please, looking forward to your comments.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you very much, Markus. I think Avri is absolutely right on this. My feeling on this, and this is purely my personal thoughts, are that because the DCs are bottom-up, there is certainly, if you look at the wider UN structure, there is always an issue of control and an issue of being able to I wouldn't say forecast the issues, but some visibility as to where we're going, and the DCs being bottom-up are by nature very nimble, they can change positions past and so on and that doesn't fit so well with the rest of the structure, which is meant to be there for continuity rather than for changing positions. And I can certainly understand some Member States being concerned about how a bottom-up system that mate change directions fast, that might introduce problems. I mean, I'm looking at it playing the devil's advocate as in oh, this could be trouble type thing, rather than, we could really -- we could really capitalize on this, and we could use the DCs and use this resource for the better and for empowering things and for improving things. So in some way, we're always going to have this tension perhaps, or tension from some stakeholders, because their view of the multistakeholder model isn't at all maybe the view that many of us have, and that stems from a deeper sense of doubt regarding the model than just saying, well, we're going to do our best, and we shouldn't have anyone having to micromanage us, as such. There's always a cost for everything, and so maybe we could try and dig and find out what the cause is and try and see how we can ease those fears, fears, not spheres. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Olivier. You're perfectly right. Governments prefer stability and we are more of a disruptive element and that may cause discomfort and Sorina picked up in the chat the passage where it says Working Group strategy proposes that the IGF MAG and the IGF Secretariat develop a draft multiyear plan that will be submitted to the UN Secretary-General for approval and finalization. And that indeed is, that's what Mark pointed out and picked up and what Avri commented on that I tend to agree, that is somewhat the paradigm shift from past practice, and, yes, the DCs we find that I think collectively and not necessarily something we feel comfortable with. Oh, Mark also pointed out working strategies -- that's the same as Sorina had, yes.

>> MARK CARVELL: Yeah, my contribution crossed with Sorina's. Slow connection from the U.K.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Kudos also for pointing it out and for noticing is. You obviously are very finely tuned, very sensitive to these issues. Are there more general comments? Rajendra, your hand -- is that an old hand that's up.

>> RAJENDRA PRATAP GUPTA: I'm sorry about that, Markus.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: No worries. Other comments? Amy, yes?

>> AMY CROCKER: Thinking about that, something occurred to me I just put it in the chat was this issue of having to submit a strategy to the UN. I get it. I agree actually with that issue, but something we haven't talked about is this issue of the financial sustainability, and I see the discussion of Tides Foundation, et cetera, all I'm saying is throwing out there that if the future of the IGF is to be funded in a different way, a more diversified funding structure then those accountability processes will also change so I think it's not a small issue but that's just may view and that could be positive although you have to completely guard against influence through funding and that's a huge challenge if you Luke at a new financial model for the IGF.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. I'm not sure whether that was behind this proposal. What I heard, there was not talk about a totally new funding model, and so far, one of the selling points of the IGF was it was under the auspices of the Secretary-General, that we never had to say the Secretary-General approved the strategy, or so it was actually something that -- which was given fairly Las line to the Secretary-General, where the IGF could operate on, but it could benefit from the authority of the Secretary-General because it was under his auspices.

>> AMY CROCKER: I do agree. I'm literally looking at what's been written in the report and it does mention a completely independent philanthropic organization so, you know, just sort of -- but you know more about the history. I just think it's something to reflect upon. But thank you, yes.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, thank you for your comment. Are there more general comments? The discussion has been very helpful and very rich. Thank you all for that and I think I trust Sorina will produce a report, and I think my suggestion would be that we can then put it on the list, put it out on the list, and invite for comments also from those who are not able to attend the call finalizing and send it back to the Working Group on Strategy as our collective reaction to that paper. If there are no more general comments I'd like to briefly like to address, there was one very concrete proposal addressed in the Section 3, intersessional work, addressed to the Dynamic Coalition. It is 3.9 and 3.10. DCs are invited to address the issue driven policy questions that the IGF will address, and DCs are invited to join the above mentioned issue teams and I have to admit that I'm not overfamiliar with how this is supposed to work and I wonder whether Anja or Sorina could help us out with that. But is that Mark and Amy, your hands are up. Would you like also to make additional comments? Mark?

>> MARK CARVELL: Yes, thanks. It was just what I put in the chat about the communication strategy. I think what the report says about that needs a bit of strengthening. I don't know if colleagues here would agree. It does refer to communications planning at the intersessional activities, that fair enough but what I thought had a lot of stakeholder support generally was that the communications need a complete overhaul and be made professionalized so you get -- people who know how to handle a wide ranging entity like the IGF, including sensitivity and understanding what the Dynamic Coalitions do with their role in the IGF ecosystem, so you need a dedicated professional team to ensure that our interest as Dynamic Coalitions are properly represented in the communications plan, not just sort of a footnote to what the big staged events, the showcases if you like of the IGF, the Dynamic Coalitions are not sort of subordinate to that. I mention that as a potential comment back. Thanks.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. No, that's again a very valid comment. And it's not resource neutral, a communications strategy and a communications team, and the IGF as you know has a very thinly staffed Secretariat, and relies at the annual meeting very much to the UN Department of Public Information for Communications, but that's a sort of once a year boost but it is not continuous communications team that supports the effort so that would again is a resource issue to a large extent, but it's a valid point. And, yes, now on 3.9 and 3.10, Wout also made the comment in the chat. Wout, would you like to jump in? No? Not particularly. Okay, then -- Sorina?

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: I'm here. The hand disappeared. Just asking Sorina, 3.9 and 3.10 reflecting the discussion we had on the questionnaire so are they outcomes of the questionnaire?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: So Sorina or Anja, who can shed light on the matter? Sorina, please.

>> SORINA TELEANU: Markus, hello everyone. I will try. I'm not completely sure I know the matter but let me try. Wout, on your question: No, because this report by the Working Group was issued early in the year before we even started thinking about the survey and everything we did so it was before that. But specifically on what they covered and what the MAG is trying to do this year related to 3.9 and 3.10, you know there's a plan to have an IGF in September something that will start soon and run theoretically until November or something around that, and if I did not get it wrong, there is a plan for the MAG to invite intersessional activities to contribute to this preparatory phase and one of the ways of contributing would be to pick an issue area, one of the issue areas in focus at the IGF this year, and respond to, for example, one of the policy questions indicated there and by responding that would mean either hosting some sort of an online event during the preparatory phase or providing some written input and anything in between and then whatever the Dynamic Coalitions for instance are submitting would then find the way into the documentation at the end of the IGF so basically looking at the issue areas that the IGF has identified for this year, seeing if there is a specific one that one Dynamic Coalition or several Dynamic Coalitions would want to contribute and seeing how they want to contribute, again whether it's an event or a written contribution or whatever. It would be up to DCs in our case to decide. That's on a bits of 3.9 and 3.10. On issue areas, I'm not completely sure I fully understand them also. I think the MAG is planning to use these teams to develop the main sessions for instance or other key elements that would be part of the IGF in December, and if I'm not wrong, they will be inviting contributions or at least some sort of general input from the rest of the intersessional activities but again I'm guessing this is something the MAG will be reaching out to us and other intersessional activities as soon as they are more clear on what they're trying to do but we also have Anja here so Anja if I missed something important, over to you.

>> ANJA GENGO: You put it really great, Sorina. Nothing more to add from me. I know Anriette is in the MAG in a way to communicate concrete proposal to the Dynamic Coalition for cooperation that Sorina mentioned so I think it will be clearer when that proposal comes to the list.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that, both of you. So if I understand it correctly, there's nothing we have to do or decide right now, but we will have to wait until we get approached, but we could say that we welcome the approach, and we are keen to cooperate, something along these lines. And each Dynamic Coalition would be free to say: Yes, this is an interesting question for us or an interesting issue, and we would like to join. Is that the correct summary? I see Sorina is nodding. Can I assume that we all agree that this would be a welcome development that we could actively cooperate so with the other parts of the IGF ecosystem in contributing towards a session or an outcome result? Are there other comments, thoughts. We don't have to fill an hour. We all have plenty of -- this might want to jump to the RightsCon straight away. I'm not one to feel squeeze out an hour to the last minute. I think we had a very good discussion, a very fruitful discussion, and if you agree, then I would suggest proceeding as I had suggested earlier, that is that Sorina will do a write-up, and knowing Sorina it will be an excellent write-up, of our discussion, and we would circulate it to the list for further comments, and then send it back as a consolidated reaction of the DC Coordination Group to the Strategy Group. Does that meet your approval? Wout would like to say something.

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: One comment. I think this was faster than trying to find the button. Looking at what Avri said and others commented in the chat, perhaps it is a good idea, Sorina, to make a very short inventory of which DCs are more tending towards being autonomous and just being there for their own topic and using the IGF as an umbrella to meet, and others that do have a more extensive agenda and want to be bothered more by the Secretariat because then you know who to target and the others do not need to receive messages that they don't want to, perhaps.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, that's I think again a valid point. Sorry, I didn't see the comment in the chat. But that's again, it's almost a motive of our cooperation that not one size fits all, that we have different ones, and the DC under some schools on IGF for instance, they use the IGF as a platform to connect among themselves, but their ambition is totally different. And, yes, and Avri says, in the chat: Do not mind receiving messages as long as no particular response is required. Yes, I mean, that's the basic point, that we are invited, but we are not ordered to participate, but it's pick and choose and those who feel they can contribute to the issue teams are most welcome to do so and if it's not applicable to others or not relevant, you're most welcome not to react to the call. I think that is for us the Guiding Principle that there's a huge variety of Dynamic Coalitions and there's no one says fits all and they all are free to react differently, and the Guiding Principle is they are bottom-up and they don't accept orders from above. With that, do we have sort of basic understanding on how to take it from here? And can we close the call 5 minutes early? I see no -- except waving hands, but no calls for the floor. Okay, thank you all. Goodbye. Stay safe and take care. Bye-bye. >> Thank you, Markus. Excellent moderation. Bye-bye

. >> MARKUS KUMMER: Bye-bye. Thank you. [ End of session ]