The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Jalisco, Mexico, from 5 to 9 December 2016. 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 to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Hi. We'll start now. I'd like to welcome you to this workshop, which is looking at how we can increase confidence in stakeholder legitimacy. I have some slides which someone will now switch to, just to give a brief introduction.
We do have slides. Anyone? Slides.
Here we go. Slides.
So why are we doing this? I can't see that screen, so I just have to look on this one. There we go.
So just to give some context about the concept of what is legitimacy, because often people talk about legitimacy, but what does it mean? There is a paper which I have a link to in presentation file which you can find from the shared page about this session from our information that describes two types of legitimacy. There's input and output legitimacy. So output legitimacy is the concept that the output is good, and so you know, because it's robust output, peel feel it's legitimate.
The other issue is how the process works, so the input into that. Is to does everyone believe that they have the ability to participate fairly in the process? So that's the part that we are looking at today.
Right. Sorry. I am looking at this screen and wondering why it's not changing because it's that one.
I work in policy. Okay?
So where does this link into the concept of increasing stakeholder legitimacy? Legitimacy is fine in a small situation where everyone feels that the output of the process is legitimate. People kind of have a lower threshold of understanding what legitimacy is. But as Internet Governance has become more complex, the issues have become larger. There's more risk that the outputs are not considered legitimate or that the other participants are not considered legitimate.
So basically what I just said, in the original days of the Internet, it was a very small cohort of people who generally had the same culture, they all knew each other well, they were all volunteers, that sense of understanding who each other were, what their positions were, that they trusted that they were all doing this for the good of the future Internet worked well. But now we have many, many processes; many, many issues; many, many people, and it's hard to track it all and know from one person to another if you trust a person, another group. This's also so many positions, which means that it's harder to say that the output of a process is necessarily going to be agreed to by everyone. So it's easier to question the legitimacy of -- sorry. It's a Friday morning. The legitimacy of the stakeholders who led to that output. Also, there's increasing professionalism in Internet Governance. Most of you are here because your work paid. It's not like the early days where we were volunteers and paid for yourself. We still have a mix of individuals coming as volunteers and people who are here as professionals.
So what does this mean? Because you have more people participating, you have more issues, more diverse issues, more diverse needs. You have no longer those informal trust systems that helped in the original days. But the whole point of the multistakeholder model is to ensure that no one actor, whether that be an individual or entity, is able to capture the process.
Now, trust is used to help ensure or to feel that an individual or entity is not capturing the process, but if you can't have that trust with someone in a personal setting, then it's easier to not necessarily see that their input is legitimate and, therefore, that the output is legitimate. So today's workshop is looking at how can we reestablish trust that is starting to disappear as the Internet Governance arena becomes more complex and it's harder to have that trust.
So today's workshop was originally going to be four breakout groups, but this room isn't particularly suited to that. And we don't have many people, so we are just going to do it -- we are going to use the UN process of breaking out a Plenary into a breakout group that actually consists of everyone. So we will start with Group 1, which Roxana is going to take.
If you like, if you have your laptops and like doing stuff at the same time, you can follow the Google docs that we are going to be inputting the information into. It's from the shared agenda page for this session, and then you can click on one of the four links, and it will take you through, so I will hand over to Roxana.
>> ROXANA RADU: Thank you, this is Roxana from DiploFoundation.
The discussion on multistakeholder legitimacy is both timely and much needed. I think we all agree there is a very strong normative dimension to it.
So in breakout group 1, we will be exploring a little bit this normative dimension and also some of the practical ways to go about it.
So the question we want to look at here is the following: Is there a need to prove the legitimacy of stakeholder groups and their members? And if so, what are the ways that legitimacy can be established? So first, is there a need; and second, how do we go about it?
Any input from your side would be greatly appreciated. As Sam mentioned, we will be adopting a practice very common in the multistakeholder framework, namely this working group style where we have a document, we can input things directly, and we would welcome your contributions, either directly on the document or comments at the microphone that we can later on type.
Any ideas on is there a need to improve the legitimacy of stakeholder groups? Looking at Internet Governance process as it is right now with this multitude of subprocesses, and also thinking about the organizations you work for, the kind of meetings that you attend, is there a need to improve the legitimacy -- to prove it and to improve it, maybe -- of stakeholder groups?
>> JIM PRENDERGAST: This is Jim Prendergast. I may answer your question with another question. That is going back maybe to something Sam touched on, you know, how do you establish legitimacy? In this space, it's showing up and doing the work, I think. That at least is my impression. And I think you can -- by the time, energy, you put into the multistakeholder process, you might overstate your legitimacy by being the organization or individual that's every place at every time. It seems like you are taking over the space.
But I think a track record of accomplishment, a willingness to contribute, a willingness to see and recognize differences of opinions and positions and appreciate those, and you know, accommodate them. I think we all know that the multistakeholder process is not the most beautiful thing in the world. It's ugly. It's messy. It's long and drawn out. But I think at the end of the day, it does produce some results that, generally speaking, everybody seems to be satisfied with. Some people will walk away dissatisfied because they didn't get what they want, but that's the nature, I think, of the whole process.
>> Thomas from the German Federal Office, I am the government stakeholder in this group.
Just one observation concerning the first slide. When you introduced the issue, you talked about input and output legitimacy, and all of a sudden with the next slide that you just gave us, we talk about a completely different category, namely, the legitimacy of players. That's not the same thing.
And concerning your proposal, those are legitimate who do the work and show up, I mean, then we are back again to who can afford to come and do the work? And then you are professionalizing the process because some small NGOs don't have the resources, can't show up, even though they may have legitimate concerns or may have a legitimate role.
Or it could be the Mafia Microsoft who pays people to come here and influence the process. So presence and involvement in the discussion can't be the only thing.
In our discussions back home when I talk to, for example, parliament, about legitimacy of NGO when they participate. They are not democratically legitimate. They may have an issue, may be smart and good and everything, but we are elected and they are not. They are just representing themselves; whereas, others have been elected to present issues. So that may also be a little background on how we can assess the legitimacy of organizations as such or people or those who they represent. Because just doing the work is maybe not enough
>> JIM PRENDERGAST: Yeah, you pointed out something I said, and I just want to clarify it, and it came up in a session earlier in the week, and that is physically showing up is not required to be legitimate. So being at this meeting does not -- you don't have to be here to be legitimate. I think we all know and have been on those 3:00 a.m. conference calls, no matter where you live, that a lot of the work in the multistakeholder process takes place outside of formal meetings like this and between them and throughout the course of the year.
>> But I think you brought forth a very important issue. We are trying to merge the two to get to the ways in which the process can benefit from having some sort of a clear idea of how it works with the different stakeholder groups. So we will get there. I think we are just doing a longer loop, and then we will get to that as well.
Because our next question will tackle the ways in which the legitimacy of stakeholder groups can be assessed, and there we go into transparency, we go into inclusion, and so on. But we will get there in a bit.
Please, you have a comment.
>> I am John, one of the strange beasts that was part of the original people, although an outlier of the cluster that Sam was referring to.
I think there's yet another dimension in addition to the issues about legitimacy by selection. And that dimension is legitimacy by having any idea what you are talking about. And one of the things that caused me to drop out of IGF about nine years ago was a large number of people who were standing up and making rather profound statements about the Internet and how it worked and how it interacted with their particular interests without any idea about what they were actually talking about or, alternatively, with alternatively expressing views which were both accurate and legitimate in some alternate reality. And I don't know the degree to which that connects with your ideas of legitimacy. But it certainly connects down the road and with inter-community legitimacy connections. It's connected in a different way with some issues that in other contexts we used to vies a having skin in the game. So there are two separate issues. Is there enough knowledge in what we are talking about as a group, and is there enough investment in what's going on that one should appropriately be taken seriously by people who have very large investments in what's going on.
>> KEVON SWIFT: Hi. Thanks. My name is Kevon Swift. I am making a comment in my personal capacity. I am from the Caribbean. I just want to put another consideration for this legitimacy question. I am glad that I have my other Caribbean compatriots here, who can probably add to the comments I am making.
I am taking into consideration the gentleman from Germany, his comment in terms of how we started. We had a frame looking at input and output legitimacy, and then does -- do we have to prove it, or should it be improved? It does need to be improved. And I will give you exactly what happens in the Caribbean. We are working with numerical limitations, and we are also on the other end of not just global divide, but also a knowledge divide.
So whereas we can easily say it's just a question of showing up and putting out work, in real practical terms, that is somewhat difficult. When I say so, if that's the baseline that we are all supposed to use, it doesn't really take into consideration the reality that many of us are faced with.
At this point in time within the Caribbean, we are very well familiar with the players in Internet Governance processes. We could probably count them on our fingers. And the fact of the matter is, is that, again, because of our realities, we don't have discussions about Internet Governance in our own countries. We don't even have education on it, we don't have dialogues, we don't have forums at times.
So we -- the few people who are there, when they are exhausted, we come back to this huge leap back or this huge step back at any particular moment in time.
So I don't think it's useful to say it's just a question of showing up and doing a bunch of work and then everything is okay because the restrictions and limitations that are there just naturally just doesn't accommodate for that.
Now, on the other hand, I am not really saying as a suggestion that we should make special categories for it, but it's just to understand that the realities or the baseline needs to be defined a bit more and accommodate a lot more realities than the folks who have resources and have the time to come and participate in processes every day, every night, and still do their day-to-day job.
So I will just hand over to Carlton to continue.
>> CARLTON SAMUELS: Thank you, Kevon. Carlton Samuels. I am from Jamaica. I teach at University of West Indies.
I want to just jump in a bit about -- started out well, input/output legitimacy, I understand that very well. But then it comes to how do you measure and where do you exercise that legitimacy?
Let me give you a practical example. Kevon told you there are only a few of us in the Caribbean that are really invested in this, and we are volunteers. I have a day job. I participate in the ICANN process a lot, and I have a great investment of time and energy and knowledge in that. I have been on review teams, I have been in working groups, and so on.
Here is the thing. It is multistakeholder, but the guy beside me who is on the review team, that's his day job. The guy beside me who is on that review team is paid six figures to be there. Nobody pays me to be there. But the quality of my input is expected to be just as much as theirs. And that's where I have a voice. Sometimes being in the room is as important as having the knowledge elsewhere. Because in a lot of these multistakeholder organizations and the way it works is that you try to influence outcomes for legitimacy, and oftentimes being there physically is the way to get that done.
So we have a conundrum. And it's not easy -- I am not suggesting at all that it is easy to solve, but I wish for you to at least understand the challenges that some of us have in being legitimate.
>> CATHY HANDLEY: I could have put my glasses on.
I am Cathy Handley, and I am with the American Registry for Internet Numbers.
like John, I have been -- and Carlton -- I have been playing this for a long, long time. I was doing Internet Governance before it was a term. And people would -- you would say you were going to do Internet Governance, and they would just look at you like huh. Then I had a large group of people who thought it was great because you got to travel and see the world.
Consequently -- and this is maybe not going to be very nice -- but consequently, the field of Internet Governance has grown exponentially. And my question back to -- and Sam and I have talked about it before -- is what is legitimate in I don't know anything about building highways and roads, but I can go complain about them. I don't know it would be -- they would take that as being legitimate. And particularly coming from the technical community, that's something we are really struggling with is people who want to represent themselves as being legitimate and short of saying what makes you think you are legitimate to comment about the way we do things? That's tough, and that's something I think we all need to look at or think about is not just what constitutes legitimacy to the German Parliament, but what constitutes legitimacy to sitting around a table discussing various Internet issues.
>> And a quick clarification. I don't have any problem with people complaining about roads they don't understand how to build or even about Internets they don't understand how to build. I do have a problem at the boundary between knowing what one knows and knowing what one doesn't know and crossing that boundary in the process of discussions.
>> We have another comment? Yes, please.
>> LORI SCHULMAN: I am Lori Schulman from the International Trademark Association, and I have a number of thoughts about this and also a response to the comment from our colleague at the table. I am sorry, I don't know him personally. I am going to do it backwards.
My first comment is -- and I have been thinking a lot about this. I am one of the privileged ones. I represent the private sector. I represent an association that pays me to come to meetings. So I am that person who you wish there may be a little less of and maybe a little more of someone playing on an equal playing field. But there is a place for the interest I represent, so I am not here to argue that. But I do agree that there is an imbalance. And one of the things that I started to think about and suggested in a workshop earlier this week is maybe we need to start thinking about tiered engagement. There are some of us for whatever reason, because perhaps we have more skin in the game -- you know, I heard the term "Mafia Microsoft" here, and while I understand the intent of that, I also feel in some way that de-legitimizes the private sector interest as well using terms like that. So to be careful about saying maybe there's underrepresentation and overrepresentation, how do we balance representation. But the more money and the more interest that way economically is in the process, the more you are going to see engagement, which is a big issue at ICANN in terms of where does the money go, registrars and registries, so you are going to see the balance of power there. Even in ICANN, the business constituency isn't a balance power. It doesn't have the same access and strength as the contracted in ICANN.
Then getting back to if we are thinking of a new paradigm, particularly post-Diana, when an organization is large as influential as ICANN on its own, and where does IGF now fit in that? Do the policy issues now level out a little more? Does the leveling change? I don't know. But in all these scenarios and thoughts, if we don't find a way to have levels of engagement and all those levels are in some way legitimized, then we are just going to be running around in circles again. So where I think it's important to become creative and I don't have the answer is, is there some way where those who are taking the deep dive, it gets to a certain level, and then we have communication means, and pardon the word "marketing," but I don't have a better one now -- marketing means where we can then sort of push out sort of that ripple effect, that butterfly effect, because yes, particularly in the developing nations, people do not have the same resources we have in the developing nations, but they clearly are legitimate users and have an access reliability to be safe on the Internet.
So sometimes I think we might approach this the wrong way saying how can we get more in using the model we are using now. Let's think about perhaps turning the model into a different paradigm. As I said, with these levels. But I don't know how they work, but I think they are worth talking about it.
>> JIM PRENDERGAST: As is typical, park that idea because in the session I will moderate, we will talk about sort of tiered or weighted participation, so it's a good topic for us to come back to.
>> ROXANA RADU: I think we have heard so far about legitimacy by selection showing up in a room for a selected number of people. Doing the job, expertise is one important element when it comes to that. It's not just anyone who shows up to the discussions, but also their input counts.
We heard about intercommunity legitimacy, which might be something to explore further on. The quality of the work that counts. The self-asserted membership. Establishing who should represent what stakeholder. We also raised the issue of money, who would be able to pay for these processes. And of course, we had the umbrella question of what is legitimate in the end. And in thinking about this workshop, we've laid out a few dimensions that might be interested to explore as we move further in the discussions. The first -- they are all related to the process, so we included transparency, maybe transparency of membership. Here we could look at conflict of statements, statements of interest, endorsement by other members, participation in different activities. Then if we look at transparency of deliberation, there's also multistakeholder input to be assessed there. The inclusiveness of deliberation; does everyone get the chance to participate? Are we representing also the vulnerable who cannot be in the room with us? And also where the money comes from, when we look at funding, at travel support, at income, it might be an important dimension to take into account.
And I think with this, we can move to the second discussion that will go to the specifics.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: I can't turn the on/off button by myself.
So it was interesting that first discussion talking about the difficulty in resources which impacts on how people can participate, so that brings us to the second document, which, if anyone is looking at the shared, you can click on. So here we are looking at how stakeholder groups are composed. Are the current configurations, permutations right for now?
So if you look back to the Tunis Agenda, the main groupings were -- and I hope people can hear over the very loud people next door. Is that okay? Can you guys down the bottom hear okay? Okay. Great.
The original Tunis Agenda talked about having governments, civil society, and the private sector as the main -- and I think IGOs -- as the main group. Academia and technical were actually considered part of all of those groups. But we've kind of pushed the tech and academia into a group that is now separate within the IGF context and the CSTD context. But there are also other permutations in other organizations. If you look at ICANN, you have governments, you have two versions of civil society, you've got the NCUC and the ALAC. Is kind of distributed via the GTLD or the GNSO thing. You've got business constituency, the intellectual property constituency, so different Internet Governance processes and organizations group their stakeholders differently. Which can make it difficult when you are moving from one group to another or if you wear multiple hats.
So there's a couple of questions we are looking at in this section. So do you think, for a start, looking at the overall WSIS groupings, are they still relevant? Is it difficult -- and I think civil society would probably say yes -- to manage within such large groupings? So you look at civil society, and it's such a diverse group, but it's labeled "civil society." So when, say, governments look at civil society and they hear multiple conflicting views or -- it makes it difficult for the civil society group to perhaps appear legitimate to governments because it seems so fragmented.
Is it useful to relook at those groups? Are there groups worth keeping? Should they be updated by stakeholder groups? Can they form their own groups within that? How do we do this, or do you have any thoughts? Anyone?
>> LORI SCHULMAN: This is Lori Schulman. I would be a little careful about necessarily following the ICANN model because there's a lot of questions within ICANN whether or not that model is really what is the best model.
The problem with redefining stakeholder groups or building silos around certain interests is that's exactly it. It's silos. So instead of looking at issue areas, we all get lumped in some bucket, whether it's civil society or private sector or technical or academic when, in fact, some of the interests we have completely overlap. And I would argue too, even looking at the ICANN model, now that we have the new GTLTD program and we have dot brands -- brands -- which traditionally have been buyers of domains are now becoming registries rather than registrants. So even those lines are blurring.
So my personal view about this is I'd like to see less clumping together by business or civil society or academic and more toward issue-based areas, real issues, issues about access, issues about crime, issues about privacy, you know, and then it doesn't matter where you come from. It's that you have a collective interest to solve a problem.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: So you are talking about moving more away from stakeholders and just being completely issue-based?
>> LORI SCHULMAN: Yeah, I think issue based in the long run might be the solution because as you know, those who are involved in the ICANN process know, well, we did come together for the IANA transition. We now seem to be treading back toward our old sectors and silos, and I have a little fear that we won't have the same level of cooperation and spirited engagement that we had over the last two years.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: That's an interesting concept. I am wondering -- because I attend a lot of UN-related meetings, so I mean, that's interesting, I think, within the ICANN concept, but if you were going to the UN and discussing, say, the Human Rights Council, and you said look, we are talking about privacy. We are -- all of us who are interested in privacy will talk together, I think some governments would find it very difficult to say, well, we are not going to distinguish that you, sir, are from a private sector having a say versus someone from a government wanting to have a perspective. So I think it may work in a more level playing field forum, but it may not work in forums where governments are participating or the issue is more within a governmental environment.
>> I will note, though, that the WSIS did try this a little bit at the WSIS Forum in Geneva, where it was more participatory and more conversational, which I thought worked well. That was only the second WSIS that I had been to, but compared to the first, I did feel more engaged. I will disclose I was one of the high-level facilitators, but I think there can be, though, sort of this understanding that governments are governments and will always be governments. But when you are talking about policy, to have more open dialogues at the WSIS level makes sense because at the end of the day, the outcomes still are going to be reliant on implementation, either at the government level or the private sector level, and then that's when you might split out implementation. But the actual discussion and formulating an idea about solutions, I don't see why you need any sort of delineation at all. It's the implementation phase where I think it matters more.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: I think that's interesting. I think the discussion as issue based is interesting. I think the complication comes when it comes to decision-making. That's potentially. So I will be really interested hearing from a government at this point. Is a government willing to?
>> Sorry. I was just supposed to hear and not participate, but I am from Chile, from the Government of Chile, posted in Geneva, but I work in the International Directorate of Economic Affairs. So I was just thinking that there's a lot that we can do at our national level because I also yesterday in the panel of trade and Internet, there was this discussion about funding and how can we make the participation more sound and people be there present in the negotiations, but where I come from, a developing country, so obviously for us that's more difficult. But we do move forward in areas that probably were not based in multistakeholder model, but we have transparency laws. We have a civil society council in our directorate. And everyone participates in the same level here in these councils, that we meet regularly based on specific issues to discuss. The interested parties meet with the negotiators, for example. We have side rooms for the trade negotiators and trade negotiations. And I think that this is important because everyone is considered the same way.
There are a few requirements, just to be a nonprofit organization, so you need to create one if you don't have one, and have an interest in the issue, and then different specific tables are created to discuss negotiations or topics in particular. And this helps a lot for us as developing countries and as a government to have the input of the interested parties to then bring this to the international negotiations without having the struggle of the funding. I think this is an important tool that probably it's not emerging from the multistakeholder process, but it definitely adds in an input of participation in a very important way. I have to say as a negotiator that always these inputs are welcome and we use them. Well, a different level is WIPO, where I currently work, that we do have also participation of civil society, business in the same level, and that they can be there present. We also have these same kind of technology with the transcript and the video streamed in time in the same moment through the Internet for people that can't travel to Geneva. So that's what I can say at this point, and it's very interesting to be here. Thank you.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Any other comments at this point?
>> Hello. I am from the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Division of Information Society.
During the whole discussion, I heard this talk about legitimacy of actors and legitimacy of processes. But one thing that strikes me that's also relevant or could be considered relevant is the legitimacy of goals in the process. Because this is one thing that has changed a lot in the Internet Governance a bit because when Internet Governance started, the impact of the impact on the world was much smaller. So the goal of developing the Internet in itself would not so easily be seen as conflicting with other possible goals, like protecting national jurisdiction in cases of cybercrime or fighting terrorism or whatever subject governments typically are concerned with.
So I think somehow, if you think of the contribution that the multistakeholder model has to offer, solve different kinds of problems that are getting each time more complex as the Internet gets more complex and more relevant to the society as a whole, I think we at some point have to accept that there's no one-size-fits-all solution for the multistakeholder model. The way it works for certain problems, to solve certain problems, would not necessarily work when try to go solve other problems, like jurisdictional conflicts and things like that.
So I think we also need to have this broader perspective, and it may be frustrating in a sense because it makes certain problems more difficult to understand and to treat, but that's reality.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Yeah, I think that's really interesting about the one size doesn't fit all, and that is not the purpose of this workshop. The idea is just to get ideas generated. There is not going to be a solution coming out of this workshop. The idea is to get people thinking about this and then applying it to their own processes and forums.
Any other comments at this point? Yes.
>> Yeah, I think as you just mentioned yourself and also my colleague from Chile mentioned the processes, I wanted to continue my argument that I made before about legitimacy. My answer to, for example, parliamentarians who wonder about the legitimacy of NGOs, is almost always they don't need legitimacy. You have to be legitimate in the very moment that you have a competence to decide something, when you are involved in decision-making. But as long as we are talking about getting a feel for what a democratic society wants about input, technical input, expertise, then governments or anyone, whichever organization takes a decision, can listen to just anyone and then decide whether they listen to those persons or not.
But the moment that decisions are being taken, then you really have to ask about the legitimacy of actors and process and output in all of this. And of course, when we come to Internet Governance, there we have different players who really can decide. It's not governments to decide. No way. That's why we have all the structures that you have been working in for so long, because we have a decision-making capacity of your own. And that's when legitimacy comes into play.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Cathy.
>> CATHY HANDLEY: I want to go back to the comment that the gentleman from Brazil made. I think it's important, the piece about one size doesn't fit all. We are still running on a multistakeholder format that came about 2003 and 2005, and we're being multistakeholder on something that's totally different than what we started out with. The point of national issues is huge. More and more countries -- I happen to know Carlton is extremely active and has been in the Caribbean, which is extremely helpful. But it's not a one size that came out of WSIS. I think you need to look at what the issue it.
I look at Regional Internet Registries. We have great input, multistakeholder input. And we write our own policies. But we live in a very different world than almost everybody else in this room. And that makes it --
>> (Speaker off mic).
>> Yes, thank you. Thank you.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Any other comments at this point?
>> My name is Andre. Would like to tell a couple of words of multistakeholder model.
For my personal opinion, the multistakeholder model is the most (Inaudible) for the whole Internet Governance process. That's why it made legitimate of establishing this model. And I believe not now but in any kind of period, the multistakeholder model will be resulting in decision-making, maybe in the format of this Internet Governance Forum as it was happened over the International Labor Organization. It's the example of the organization which has not only governmental representatives, and it has decision-making capacity. The same will happen with the IGF with multistakeholder model in the future.
Thank you very much.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Thanks.
Is there any more comments? I was going to go back to the WSIS Forum and just make a point about the issue-based discussions.
One interesting thing is -- and the governments not here -- there has been some push-back to the organizers of the WSIS Forum about the way that the high-level panels are composed. Some governments feel that -- feel very uncomfortable that they are on the stage with, in their point of view, some random civil society member that doesn't necessarily -- they don't see how they are representing a large group; whereas, a government may be representing millions. So that is, even within the context of the WSIS forum, they may not be saying it publicly, but you do have some stakeholders thinking why is this person here? Why are they on the same footing as me? That's where I am kind of looking at the groupings. How can we find ways that help other groups who are perhaps suspicious of where someone else is coming from?
>> I have a question to that statement. If there is push-back but it has been public push-back, I could understand that. I mean, governments are who they are, and they are top down. There we go. But at the same time, I guess what I am feeling a little curious about is, again, WSIS is about discussion. It's not about decision-making. So where I don't understand, then, is where I'll use the word "threat," but it's probably not diplomatically correct. But where that tension might arise. Why wouldn't -- it's just a question of this sort of traditional sense of hierarchy?
>> (Speaker off mic).
>> Okay. So how do -- okay. That's fine. So we understand that. So then a different question would be if there is a general agreement -- and I am not going to say consensus, but some sort of understanding that discussion may be a better way to go in the future on some issues, how to we socialize that with governments in a way that at least in a forum by the nature of its name is a forum should be facilitating discussion. I mean, that's been a big criticism of WSIS all along, that it's government, ministers standing up and talking for half an hour with no opportunity to engage at all. And if we don't figure out a way to kind of dovetail the need of the government with the need of, I would say, a greater popular Internet interest in movement in multistakeholderism, we will be here ten years from now having the same discussion.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: One more comment, then I'll wrap up, and that actually works very well into Jim's section.
>> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: I am not sure if it was covered, and I apologize for being late, but I think just on your point, there's an issue around forum and institutional legitimacy as well that I think needs to -- that goes hand in hand with stakeholder legitimacy and individual legitimacy, and I think that might be part of the tension, even though it's not outcome based. I think some governments want an outcome anyway, right, regardless of the sort of format of it as well. So hopefully we'll talk a little more about the institutional aspect of it.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: I did have a really great thought for summing up, but then in listening to Dominique, I've completely forgotten it. That's fine.
But I think this segues very well, though, into the next section, which is looking at levels of stakeholder participation, that we have an interesting environment in which -- well, it's mixed across Internet Governance processes, but in some processes people speak on behalf of an entire stakeholder group or an institution. In other places, like the IGF retreat earlier this year, people were encouraged to speak in their personal capacity.
If you have the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation that's happening at CSTD, the stakeholder groups nominate their representatives, but do those representatives, if they are speaking in a personal capacity, have some sort of requirement or do other stakeholders expect them to be liaising back with other stakeholders so that that is a stakeholder group-wide legitimate participation rather than one person and their personal thoughts? And so this moves into Jim.
>> JIM PRENDERGAST: Great. Thanks, Sam. Jim Prendergast again.
So the way I would sort of kick it off is stakeholders come in all shapes and sizes. You know, even sitting in this room, we have active individuals, we have active associations, we have active governments. When those three people line up at a public forum and make their comments, should their comments be treated equally based upon the fact that they have legitimacy in their own right in who they are representing? Or does who you represent imply a greater or lesser level of legitimacy? And does that legitimacy change when that individual then takes their hat off and uses that phrase that we all love "in my personal capacity."
So that's sort of the questions I want to throw out there and kick them around. Lori, I don't want to put you on the spot, but I have heard you say -- I know this is a personal frustration of yours -- I'm not Lori Schulman. I represent 6,000 association members of INTA. So maybe I'll get you to start it off, and I am sure others will weigh in as well.
>> LORI SCHULMAN: You pretty much said it. I will say I have been active in this space now probably over a dozen years. I have sat in different aisles, so to speak, civil society, working for health and NGOs, working for corporate interests, and now for a trade association that has Fortune 500, NGOs, academics, and technical members but who are focused on the issue of branding and are interested in the Internet as, of course, a safe and reliable Internet as most people want, engaged Internet, and those are the issues that we work on.
I do have a level -- I am extremely seeped in the ICANN process, and over the last few years, become more involved in WSIS and IGF and learning to expand our horizons because one thing I did note in the open sessions for MAG this year, it was noted how there used to be more private sector participation than there is now and encouraging more private sector participation, how that would work I don't know, but I would like to think that our organization could help in that effort to bring more private sector voices in an economical way through me.
Which goes to my point. Yes, there are times when I am speaking for 6,000 members who have an interest, an interest in supporting healthy, safe, consumer goods, services, products being traded over the Internet. That's why I'm here.
At the same time, I do have this personal expertise and interest in how do people know when to separate the two? But I think when you say "in my personal capacity," that does make a difference. I think it does anyway. I've said it myself. I have stood at ICANN and said there's not enough women in the leadership. And I say that in my personal capacity because a trade association that's devoted to branding probably is not going to have an opinion one way or the other about the composition of the leadership of ICANN as a human issue as much as I am here to advance industry issues; right? So there are times when having that personal hat makes a world of difference.
But other times I will say that in working groups, particularly working groups that are devoted to issues that are very near and dear to private sector, like rights protection, access to information for enforcement purposes, you'll have one voice maybe on a call, my voice, and then you have six others chiming in in opposition to whatever is being discussed, and the perception is it's 6:1, so we don't have consensus. But that's when I feel like but I am speaking for 6,000 and we've developed a position, and this is our position. And why? Because there's six of you and one of me. Why do those six count more? That is a problem.
>> JIM PRENDERGAST: Let me phrase that conundrum a little differently, and I am not going to ask either of the two people whose names I used to weigh in on this first. What if Carlton disagrees with the position that you have, as an individual? You, on behalf of 6,000; Carlton as an individual. For the folks sitting around the table, is there a difference in legitimacy? Should we add weight to one opinion or another? Or does it not really matter in the whole debate of ideas?
You can't go first, either one of you.
>> I think it really depends on the forum that we are in. Here at IGF, the very idea is we all come to the table. I don't even know who you represent. If you have a smart, intelligent point to make, I listen and find it interesting. Of course, I have no other legitimacy or anything than anyone around this table. That's the point of IGF, that we are all here to exchange ideas.
But of course, if you and I go to the UN to a commission on whatever, CSTD or -- you make a statement and I make a statement, then, of course, I would be representing government, I will be responsible back home. If I speak nonsense, my Minister will have to go to Parliament and justify what the hell the German diplomat has done at the UN; whereas, you maybe confronting your own people, but it doesn't have a public at this mention.
In that sense, legitimacy also has to do with responsibility. And whether you are -- whether you can be held accountable for your positions.
>> JIM PRENDERGAST: That's a really good point.
>> In one line, could we say, then, legitimacy is contextual? That would be something that we would have to consider in terms of tackling these issues of multistakeholderism.
>> JIM PRENDERGAST: Carlton is over there giving air quotes.
Roaming microphone. Is it that disappear? Okay.
And if you would, just -- I know some folks have already spoken, but just restate your name for the scribe feeds and the record, that would be great.
>> KEVON SWIFT: Hello. Great. Thanks again. And I am going to state it. I think -- well, first and foremost, Kevon Swift. I work at LACNIC, which is the Latin American Caribbean Internet registry, and I am talking in my capacity.
>> JIM PRENDERGAST: Which capacity?
>> KEVON SWIFT: My personal capacity. And really, I agree fully with the idea of legitimacy needing to be contextual because Internet Governance process is completely different from a UN-based process, just based on what -- who you are representing and what the interests are.
But I just wanted to put another light to this in that, as mentioned before, because of all the prevailing conditions or differences that happen outside of this forum -- and I am going back to the example of the Caribbean. You don't have Caribbean people here. But at the same time, you have someone who works in the Internet in a completely safe area, as Cathy mentioned, a completely different area, which is the RIR community, but it's also involved in here, these are the discussions, both at the global level and then back home.
So when I say "in my capacity," these are opinions that are formed from discussions I hear from back home but from people who really just cannot participate. They don't have time, they at no time have resources, and they don't have context. So it's just to say that there is still some validity in making that contribution in my personal capacity, although we can't probably afford to attribute to it the same amount of legitimacy, depending on the exact process.
>> JIM PRENDERGAST: All right. So let me twist it around a little bit. So one of the things we have heard a lot about, at least in the ICANN space, and I think you could argue in the IGF space, is the volunteer burnout, you know, fatigue. How do you encourage and grow participation amongst newcomers and at the same time help them grow, develop, and build legitimacy so that they feel comfortable participating from a standpoint of, you know, of power essentially or respect? How do you bring people along the legitimacy scale in an environment like this or elsewhere?
>> CARLTON SAMUELS: Carlton Samuels, I am from Jamaica.
That's a big problem for us. For those of us who are engaged in the Caribbean, it's a small group, and we are increasingly worried about burnout and not having anybody to take the baton and move it on.
Here's the thing -- and my friend here said it earlier -- this is knowledge-based interaction. Knowledge required. And to acquire knowledge, it takes time and it takes effort. And that takes an investment. When you are volunteering, it's an even greater investment.
For us -- Kevon will tell you -- we try to recruit people. Everywhere we go, every opportunity we get, we try to recruit people. And the biggest bug there is, well, the investment of time that I have to put in, and then somehow to feel I am making the contribution, the legitimacy -- again, back to the legitimacy argument.
We are struggling with it in the Caribbean because of the knowledge gap. So you have to build capacity to engage in the arguments and the issues that Lori was talking about. And we even go as far as saying, okay, well, just take one issue. Take privacy. Or take access. Or take governance. And just focus on that and let us help you to move up the tree.
The other problem is when you get into international fora because this is kind of cliquish, to tell the truth. I know Cathy for a long time, and I have worked with Cathy for a long time. So Cathy has my trust. Cathy has my trust. It's just as simple as that. She has my trust because I have worked with her for a long time, I have known her for a long time.
Somebody new coming into this environment, you've got to build that trust. You've got to build that before you get accepted. And it takes time. There is no easy way to it. I am just telling you. The structural problems, the structural challenges that you face that are separate from the knowledge ones, the acquisition knowledge, acquisition challenges that you face, or even the participatory ones, the ability to participate, whether remote.
Here's the other thing. We get people interested, and then we say we have remote participation as a way of capacity building in stuff that's happening. Then you have to use the technology, and the technology fails. And the technology fails, and they get demotivated. And then we have to go the long road again to get them remotivated.
Simple things like that turn off people. I mean, just getting on a platform, you can't get onto the platform, it's a big thing. Language issues. We've had situations in the Caribbean where the first time they have to listen to a translation, they say well, it's just too much. And they bow out. So these are practical challenges. And they are structural. That is very hard to negotiate. But I don't know how else to do them except keep plugging along, just keep plugging along.
>> JIM PRENDERGAST: I think one thing you just highlighted, not to short-circuit it, it's a lot more than just money. And we forget that all the time.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Okay. We've got two more, then we really have to move on because poor Dominique rushed from another session, so I want to make sure she gets time to do hers.
>> I am having strange feelings here because by my standards, everyone in this room is a newcomer.
I was part of the first IANA transition. Half a dozen people talking to a half a dozen other people.
We are dealing with some very interesting scaling issues here. I was part of a discussion about how a network which was self-organized and collaborative on an international basis would come together and whether or not it would work in 1967. So this is old stuff, and part of that gets back to these other comments. And incidentally, I am speaking in my personal capacity because it's the only one I have left.
But when we are talking about process legitimacy, we are creating a problem for ourselves that directly connects with what Carlton is saying. Because we can force people out or at least disillusion them and push them out simply by making the processes and things which are going on so long, so complex, and so repetitive and in so many venues that people just simply get fed up. Unless, of course, they are being driven by the traditional motivator, which is how can I make money off of this. And I fear that that's becoming part of our problem. Again.
And in is a same light, I am very, very cautious about using ICANN and how it operates as an example, not because it's a good example or a bad example, but because I came back here after nine years in the hope that after this last transition we can be discussing Internet Governance, not what ICANN does and how it relates to everything else, because that turns into another legitimacy problem.
>> I am sorry, I have to run, and I apologize, but I want to stick in, I am so happy you are here and to meet you as a baby. I love it.
But that's where I'd like -- I have my card here. If there's some sort of working group around this or some follow-up, I am extremely interested, and my organization is interested in this topic.
But I want to get back to I think how do you bring people in? Based on what this concept about multitiered, I think there's got to be staged involvement. To say just dive in, find something interesting, I think that's the most intimidating thing in the world. You have to get used to the water. So I think we have a responsibility to figure out how to help people acclimate, so all of a sudden next week if I decide I am interested in privacy issues and I go on to a working group, no matter where it is, but let's say ICANN, and now all of a sudden I have at least one hour a week of phone calls, five hours a week of reading and prep, I mean, that's not going to encourage anybody.
And yes, I am one of the exhausted ones.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Thank you. I still can't turn the button on.
We are going to transition into the final section which I thought we might have come up with this earlier, but we haven't. I will explain why we are moving into this concept. It goes into John's discussion about processes sometimes being so disheartening that people drop out. And there have been stakeholder -- well, and this happens often in large stakeholder groups that have lots of conflicting viewpoints, that they may be dominated by one or two voices that, because they have the resources, because they are loud, because they don't care what other people think of them, are able to dominate processes, which can make even that stakeholder group feel that its final positions or inputs into another process are not legitimate.
So now we are going to move on and look at how do we deal with that within our own stakeholder groups? How do you kind of sanction those misbehaving members who may affect your whole group's reputation?
>> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: So I get the last ten minutes, maybe, not even? And we should summarize as well. And sorry for being late.
So far, by the way, what I have heard has been really, really interesting because I think in our exhaustion and travel, we don't get a chance to take a moment to look at and reflect what we are actually doing and why we are doing it.
For those -- most of you know me, I think, but for those who don't, I am Dominique Lazanski, and I work at the GSMA, so I represent another trade association for -- with many, many diverse members who have very conflicting ideas about Internet Governance and other issues, so it's a challenge.
So I guess just to follow up on what Samantha said, this is sort of the last phase of this discussion, and it's interesting to think about how do we exclude or sanction was the word you used or, you know, whatever kind of language we want to use around that for people who are not necessarily acting in perhaps the way we personally think that they should be acting or professionally think that they should be acting.
To throw it out there, just to hear your views, much more interesting than mine, should this be like a social contract? Should this be a more formal process? Should this even happen at all?
So I just wanted to open that up, and again, if anyone who is left wants to kind of come in, even you guys, I hope that works, I hope that helps. And I am exhausted by the way, so if I sound incoherent, I apologize.
Yeah, I am illegitimate.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Part of the reason we wanted to talk about this is there are actually nonpublic, informal ways that multistakeholder groups handle this. But the problem with having these informal, nonpublic processes is that it can be seen as a way of preventing participation. So the reason I am talking about this is because we want to have these processes kind of public so that people can go yes, this is a process that we are all aware of and that we can -- if we don't think it's relevant -- if it's being used illegitimately, we can then push back against it.
But at the moment, things like, to give an example, some forums may know that some members would steer the discussion off into ways that are, you know, disruptive, shall we say. Some may organize the agenda in a way that doesn't give any space to discussion or the particular topic that they know one member is going to hop on about. And so those are things that, you know, if you are looking at a general agenda, you are not going to realize is happening, but it's a way of dampening down participation of certain members that they view to have less legitimate input into the process.
So that's why this is the discussion. It's not about trying to limit legitimate participation, but to find legitimate processes to ensure that there's greater confidence in processes so the end product is that everyone feels that the participation and the output, the input is legitimate.
It's not about sanctions for the sake of sanctions.
>> So I think one thing you brought up is there's a tension, perhaps, in perception between different groups.
I think this is one thing that happens -- this is me speaking in a personal capacity -- is that some of us know each other for a long time, so we do create those trust networks that was mentioned earlier, but also that means that we tend to self-select, too, which is not necessarily a good thing. I am just making a sort of statement. In the sense that we know certain individuals that we struggle with or we may not think is legitimate or we may not even, in a transparent way, that funding or whatever the background may be for them to attend these meetings, that makes it quite challenging.
So I am going to stop talking now and see if anyone else has any other ideas.
>> As a government representative having worked at the UN, of course, government representatives act on instructions. So it's hard to assume, well, I like or I don't like this person or can I get rid of it? That person will be around because they have a position, is being sent there on mission and gets instructions. Here I don't have instructions to say because my superiors didn't foresee any of this. So I am relatively free to talk.
But of course, at the UN, one way of excluding stakeholders and participants you don't like is to set up accreditation procedures. That's why a number of countries, including my own, when defending this multistakeholder process at UN or UN-related processes, we always say we don't want this procedure that we have at ECOSOC, for example, where an NGO needs to be accredited, get status, and certain rights follow from that status because the checking of an application is always difficult and controversial and politically unpleasant.
So but one way, of course, would be to set up procedures that a person or an organization would have to climb up the ladder even to it get into the body that is where a certain type of negotiation is taking place. That's why multistakeholder is different from observer status. Observer status is something that the organization confers upon you, whereas multistakeholder is a different concept. And that's why it has different procedures for accepting people into the process. Which is important to keep the difference.
The moment you talk no longer about multistakeholder but about multilateral, then you are in UN lingo, UN jargon. Then that means status and accreditation and observer, rather than being more free and more open towards multistakeholder. So watch the language that is being used.
>> CATHY HANDLEY: Cathy Handley. ARIN. I think one thing that's happened over the years is through peer pressure, we have been able to kind of cull the herd, if you will. And those that are kind of out on the fringe coming in, and it used to be they would be on the fringe and would come in and blow everything up. Honestly, I think the best way that we've managed as participants and members and whatever we are, to kind of keep each other in check. Carlton's comment about trust, if you don't want to go all the way to trust, there's a comfort level that I know -- I've known John a long time. We don't always agree, but you know, I am comfortable with what he says because it's another opinion. That's okay. I don't think we ever want to get rid of that. I think it's the responsibility as part of a multistakeholder group that we do some of that policing, for lack of a better term.
>> And part of that is done through not just formal mechanisms, but informal mechanisms; right? So I mean, having those side conversations and lunches and dinners and whatever, having drinks or whatever it might be, having a coffee, actually does increase that level of trust and comfort.
Sorry, you are leaving.
>> I just want to ask a question. Multistakeholder is, of course, very good as success in promoting the innovation of Internet and also the development. But as for the developing countries, those communities are really very weak. So what's the best way for those countries maybe the representation of governments. So if there's any way, for like the capacity, to be participated as multistakeholders.
>> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: Does anyone want to comment?
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: I think that's really interesting, talking about the role of the government in representing the views of all stakeholders in developing countries because it's difficult for them to do it themselves. And I think that's interesting why this whole legitimacy question and potentially helping -- sanction is such a terrible term -- but dampen, cull the herd, is important because it's very difficult for new stakeholders, for developing country stakeholders to be engaged in the process anyway, if they feel there's a bullying voice in the room that's well resourced, they may give up completely.
>> Yeah, actually, what I mean for those multilateral processes, the representation of the developing countries is most of the cases are guaranteed because they have representation as a country.
But for the multistakeholder processes, for example, the ICANN process, I think most of the voices of the developing countries are not as heard because the communities are very weak in those countries. So I think that is also a problem that we have to face during the process of multistakeholder involvement.
>> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: I think that gets back to one of the issues we heard earlier about online and remote participation, quite frankly. It's still not good enough to be able to participate remotely. I feel even though we have the technology for it.
It's ten past, so just any other thoughts on this in particular? I know many of you are probably winding up your day already. But does anybody want to jump in for anything else on this?
Go ahead, please.
>> Thank you. I would just like to add about this idea of the different level of participation and the fact that in these processes, some stakeholders might have more resources to go to more meetings versus others. But in the end, as government officials, will usually tend to look at the substance of the contributions, more than the amount of times we are faced with the same rhetoric discourse or speech.
So I would just invite any stakeholder that has an interest in an issue, if the inputs are solid and are substantive, we will take them into consideration. Even if they are sent through an email or in paper form, that doesn't matter. Like, we will look to the substance beyond the amount of meetings that we might have with others because they have more resources to be there present in the rooms or at the side, I don't know.
So I just want to invite interested stakeholders to approach governments and participate in the process. Thank you.
>> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: Thank you for that. I am going to turn it over to you for a summary and wrap-up, but I think one thing that I would like to see out of this is sort of an ongoing discussion. I think we've only just started, and I think some of the trickier issues need to be evolved a bit. But thank you, and sorry, between, that I was late.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Actually, before I wrap up, I wouldn't mind hearing from the other facilitators and just if you've got any ideas or if you thought of anything based on all the discussion we've had today. So I will start with Roxana because she was first.
>> ROXANA RADU: Thank you.
Listening to the contributions in the room, I think it's important to highlight again the transparency dimension. At the end of the day, if we look at how decisions are made, we end up with very small working groups, informal networks, people that know each other for a long time. So in talking about how more people can be involved, how newcomers can take a seat at the table, it's very important not to have an opaque process and to have this transparency at a level that is good enough for people to engage with. So not just the reports from the working groups, a million transcripts from what has the group discussed, but a way that would allow newcomers to participate in the process.
>> JIM PRENDERGAST: I am not going to try and capture everything that was said, but somebody privately messaged me two minutes ago and said this was an excellent session. Somebody watching it remotely said this is an excellent session. It should really be one of those high-interest topic things at ICANN.
So Sam, you might not be off the hook in a few minutes.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Okay. Well, we've got one comment, yeah.
>> SU SONIA HERRING: Hi. My name is Su Sonia Herring. I am an IGF Ambassador. Also a youth representative from Turkey.
So talking about new comers and how they can participate or represent themselves or their communities, I liked very much the representative from Chile and when she said the quality of input matters and even reaching out to governments. But going from Turkey, from a country which is like Turkey, and I don't think in certain countries the quality of input matters. It's just who is saying it, that's the only thing that matters, and otherwise you are never heard.
I want to take back something to my community, but I am not sure how to, and I am not sure if, like -- this is my second IGF, and there are certain topics that I am interested in, but apart from being on a panel -- (cell phone sounding)
Oh, so sorry. Apart from like participating in panels or even organizing them, I am not sure what the next step is and, like, so I was wondering, since this is such a -- this seemed a good place to ask everyone, like, what would your recommendations be?
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Okay. We'll talk about the next step next, but I want to go back quickly to the quality issue.
Particularly in processes, actually, that are multilateral but we also saw it to a certain degree in -- I am sorry to refer to ICANN -- but the IANA process. When there are time-limited decisions that have to be made, quality can sometimes go out the win tow. You can get decisions being made by exhaustion.
We saw that with the enhanced cooperation text in 2005. If we had thought about that, we would not have that, and we would not be having working groups reviving from the dead and becoming zombie groups. That is an advantage, actually, of the multistakeholder model that we often have, which is it's a never-ending process that you continue until you reach agreement. So that actually is where quality does work. But if you have a time-limited thing, it doesn't.
Okay. So I think this has been an interesting discussion because it's things that we've all probably thought about in our own little heads but haven't discussed. I am wondering if one of the things we could start discussing is the concept of like the policy options or the policy menu for connecting the next billion. We talk about a policy menu for legitimacy considerations. Because not all of these things will apply in all contexts, but it might be interesting to start putting on the table a list of considerations, the different processes with different needs can consider what is most appropriate for them.
Would people be interested in that?
Yep? One comment at the back.
>> Hello. Good morning. My name is Andre, and my comment is not on this point, so I don't know if I can go ahead with that or you prefer just to --
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: Is it relevant to the session at some point? Just a random comment?
>> It's part of my willingness to come here, the last two comments about the quality and legitimacy.
I think that the IANA process treated that the quality of the outcome, it's directly correlated to the legitimacy of the outcome. And so far, in a way, having had the role of the U.S. Government on ICANN with a single contract, in a way undermined this relationship. We could have lived without that because, in a way, the U.S. Government had the contract. And that's my interpretation, just to share my thoughts.
Now that ICANN became independent from this and has to evolve, get into a process of accountability that show that is the organization is transparent, is independent, produce good quality, the participation of stakeholders and variety of stakeholders is essential to ensure that the quality outcome will be there. Otherwise, I think the system won't work.
So I think we are seeing here now, the discussion that you had so far, I mean, I think I will go and just look into the transcripts because it's where we need to investigate more and figure out how to go ahead because we succeed in this first step, and now to go farther ahead, we need to have broad as much participation to ensure that the quality at the end will be the highest and the legitimacy for the participation will be there. That was my thoughts. Thank you.
>> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: And that goes back to the -- you came in late, but there was a PowerPoint presentation at the beginning, and that's what I was talking about.
So if people are interested in this, what I was going to do was leave the Google Docs open for editing until the end of January just so we can start to collect some material.
Also if you are interested, I might suggest that you give me a business card or write down your email address and we might try and have a list. And then see if we can develop this over the next year and perhaps have another workshop next year. And perhaps somewhere in between -- I do plan to pull this all together into some sort of document and then maybe you take it back within your own various constituencies to start thinking about how you can apply it there and what your experiences are, and we just do an iteration of this in the next year.
Does that interest people? Yep. Okay. Great. Thank you for coming.
(End of session, 12:20 p.m. CT.)