IGF 2021 – Day 0 – Event #68 Civil Society Pre-event: Internet Governance in times of Crisis

The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF virtual intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.



>> We all live in a digital world. We all need it to be open and safe. We all want to trust. 

>> And to be trusted. 

>> We all despise control. 

>> And desire freedom. 

>> We are all united. 

>> BRUNA SANTOS: Hi, everyone. I hope you can hear me well. Good afternoon. 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: Good afternoon, Bruna. Welcome to those who are online. I am here in on‑site. And some of us are in the room. So, yes, we can hear you. Welcome. 

>> BRUNA SANTOS: Thank you so much. Welcome, everyone, to this session. We're just going to wait a few seconds for Sheetal. My co‑coordinator. She's having some issues with her link. Apparently, the website is down again. So while she joins us, this, again, is one of the sessions of the Internet Governance Forum which is a Civil Society group that has been along for a long time now. And we have a short agenda for our event today. And the idea ‑‑ and even the idea is to discuss some issues that have been really relevant for us in this past year. And, hence, the reason of the name as well. Internet Governance in Times of Crisis. We do want to use this meeting as an opportunity for everyone to chime in and for everyone to join some parts of our agenda, which I ‑‑ in the chat. Yes, Sheetal is not able to use her link. She logged in from the one she accidentally shared. So that's pretty much it. But I'm posting our agenda on the chat right now. Yes. I am going to. 

Just one second. Yeah, we're going to start with some introductions and agenda or aims of the pre‑event which is what I'm doing right now. Our goal for today was to facilitate this conversation on two of the main topics we have all been engaged in the past years. The first one is the Global Digital Compact. I guess we're going to count on your help on explaining and facilitating the talk as well, Nnenna. Our goal is to hear from all of you, who do you think of the compact idea? Do you think Civil Society should engage? How should we be considering our engagement for this upcoming days? And one second point we wanted to discuss with you was also the debate about the engagement with the Tech Envoy office. So far, what do you, your organisations represented here today expect going forward? And let me see if we have anything. We do have something else. And, yeah, just, like, we had a moment just for us to go through some other topics, if anyone would wish to. Like, some of the things we discussed were the possibility of debating connection. The other second topic was Internet fragmentation. Data protection. Our human rights align. All very general and kind of high level. 

But, like, we really wanted this to be a space for everyone to be part of. So this third part of the session will be kind of free for everyone to present topics and ideas on whatever they wish they can. I'm just checking in with Sheetal, if she managed to get in. I don't think so. But maybe we can ‑‑ what we can do is maybe start with a round of presentations. To all of you on‑site and to some of us here online. I see Jim. I see Barry. I see Raymond. Ategeka in the online room. I can't fully see who is in the on‑site room which I was also supposed to be at. I guess we can start with some short presentations. Just name and organisation maybe. Does anyone want to start? Can I nominate you, Nnenna? 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: Hi, everyone. I'm online and on Skype. My name is Nnenna. Chief Advocate for the Worldwide Web Foundation and coordinating engagement with the Envoy Office. I hope since I'm online, I'm on‑site, I have to play the connectivity link. Thank you very much. 

>> COURTNEY RADSCH: Hello. My name is Courtney Radsch. I'm an independent scholar and advocate. I work with the International Human Rights Organisation as their tech ‑‑ sorry, Global Fund for Media Development as their tech adviser and a bunch of different organisations really at the intersection of media, technology, and human rights. And so I'm also on the Multi‑stakeholder Advisory Group representing Civil Society. Excited to be here and to discuss the issues today. Thank you. 

>> JUDITH: Hi. I'm Judith. Happy to be here. I work with many different other Civil Society groups. Among them, the Special Interest Group/Standing Group, which is a project of ISOC New York. And I'm also with the IGF Dynamic Coalition on accessibility. As well as the member in the Steering Group of the IGF USA along with Courtney. I wear other hats. I work on ITC regulators working on policies and universal access and digital development. 

>> WISDOM DONKOR: Yes, my name is Wisdom. And I'm a council member. 

>> MARTIN MUELLER: I see you, Wisdom, under your mask. Martin Mueller. I'm a Professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology. And Director of the Internet Governance Project which is at the School of Public Policy at Georgia Tech. And a longtime IGC member. 

>> BRUNA SANTOS: Great. Is that everyone that's on‑site? Can we go on with the online attendees? I don't know who wants to start. Siva, Raymond, Jim? 

>> SIVA: I have a small question. I see her on here finally. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Yes. I'm here. I'm happy to go. It's so great to see you there in person. Those who have just introduced themselves. It does feel like a different era, like, properly now doing this hybrid. So nice to see you all. I'm Sheetal Kumar. And I am one of the co‑conveners of the IGC along with Bruna who is also here. And I am ‑‑ when I'm not wearing that hat, head of global engagement and advocacy at GPD. So I oversee our advocacy work across the different areas. Policy areas in between. I don't want to take up too much time with my intro. I'm going to move on to Bruna, perhaps. 

>> BRUNA SANTOS: Yeah, sure. Yeah. Just a short introduction. I'm Bruna Santos. One of the other co‑coordinators of IGC. And now German Chancellor Fellow with the Social Science Centre. Yeah, just working on Internet governance and regulation issues. Yeah, a longtime fan of IGC and IGF. Happy to see you all here. Hope to see some friendly faces as well. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Bruna, do you want to pass on to someone else? 

>> BRUNA SANTOS: Yes, of course. I guess we can go with Veronica. 

>> VERONICA FERRARI: Hi, Bruna, everyone. I hope you can hear me now. My name is Veronica Ferrari in Buenos Aires. I'm with APC. I'm happy to be here and discussing it where you all. Thanks, Bruna. Back to you. 

>> BRUNA SANTOS: Yes. Should we go with Raymond then? 

>> RAYMOND MAMATTAH: Hi, Raymond Mamattah. I'm here as a co‑host of this session. I'm volunteering for this particular session as a co‑host. Aside that, I'm from Ghana. I'm the founder and president of E‑Governance and Internet Governance Foundation for Africa. It's a Civil Society that engages in Internet governance and E‑governance activity among others. I'm also one of the African representatives, as well. Thank you. 

>> BRUNA SANTOS: Yes. Is any of our other colleagues joining online want to ‑‑ meaning to present themselves? I still see some names here. But, yeah, if you want to do this in the chat, we can also read your presentations. But I see Ategeka opened her mic. Maybe yes. 

>> ATEGEKA FRANK: Thank you so much. My name is Frank Ategeka. I work for a youth organisation. Health rights for vulnerable persons and specifically refugees. I'm also an Internet fellow. And I've been a global fellow 2018‑2019 for the Global Health Fellowship Programme in Uganda. I'm happy to be here. I'm putting more details about my organisation in the chat. Thank you so much. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Okay. Does anybody else who's online want to present or introduce themselves, rather? Okay. I can see ‑‑ maybe I'll ‑‑ thanks, Ategeka. That's great. Frank, sorry. Hi, nice to meet you, Frank. Thanks for joining. And for introducing yourself. For those who have the video on, maybe if that's okay, I will just ask you to introduce yourself because I can see that you're actually there. And then I think that's just Nnenna. Have you already introduced yourself? 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: I did. I'd like to express apologies on behalf of one who was here. She has a class. She said to please ‑‑ the chair and also from Civil Society. She said to extend her apologies. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Thanks so much, Nnenna. I think what we'll do is get started. Bruna had shared the agenda. So, Nnenna, you suggested we have a doc we can all access with the notes and the agenda. So we'll send that in the chat shortly. The aim of this event is really to bring us together as representatives of Civil Society Organisations. And to share information and to discuss a way forward. And what we thought would be useful is to identify some key processes that are relevant to what we're working on to the UN, to the IGF, and to digital technologies. And to discuss those in particular detail. As there's so much we can discuss. So I shared on the list the suggestion that we discuss the Global Digital Compact, in particular. So that's what we have suggested. And we didn't receive any negative feedback to that suggestion. We only received positive feedback. A suggestion that we go into more detail as to the context of the roadmap and Civil Society engagement and the links with the Digital Compact and the IGF. So I hope that that is clear. But Bruna, did you want to add anything to that? 

>> BRUNA SANTOS: Well, Sheetal, thank you so much. Nothing else to add. I'm finalizing an open doc of our agenda so everyone can follow it through. Which I'm probably going to take live notes at as well. Just so you know. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Okay. Thanks so much. So in terms of housekeeping before we get started on the substance of our discussion. I haven't facilitated a hybrid event before. So, Bruna, I don't know whether you have. (Laughing) No. Okay. 


>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Do you have suggestions of how to take in input? Usually there's a hand raise. If you're in person, how you signal to us that you want to take the floor? 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: It's the same function. You raise your hand. There are people who are on‑site only. There are people who are online only. There's at least one person who is in both places. That person is called Nnenna. Our moderator is Sheetal. They are co‑coordinators that we already know. They were not born today. So what's going to happen is that if anyone raises a hand here in the room, I'm going to signal that in the chat so our moderator sees that. And when you raise your hand online, Sheetal will see that as well. Sheetal, if there's something you cannot see, please let me know in the chat. I've got my eyes on both. Especially, unless when I'm speaking, then I have to concentrate on the content of my speech. Thank you. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Okay. That's clear to me. Thank you so much. If you have any questions, do feel free to put them in the chat. But we will proceed then with the agenda. And the first thing is that we wanted to give a bit of background to the engagement of Civil Society in the properties that is linked to the Global Digital Compact and how it fits in which is actually something that you suggested, Nnenna. I'm going to briefly share what I know and can share. Bruna, please do ‑‑ I'll come over to you if that's okay then open up in case I've missed anything. Just to make clear that as a network, as IGC, Civil Society groups have inputted to what was the predecessor or the beginning of this whole process that led and is linked to the Global Digital Compact which is part of the Secretary‑General's Our Common Agenda. And that ‑‑ so it started with the high‑level panel on digital cooperation that was set up by the SG in I believe it was 2018 to discuss the issue of digital cooperation. 

And to make recommendations on how to improve it and the role of the UN. It produced a report which had recommendations and specific areas that ‑‑ roundtables were set up to discuss those areas. A few of those roundtables were actively engaged in by Civil Society groups including the Human Rights roundtable and Access Now was a co‑champion. The trust and security roundtable. Where I believe the Web Foundation played a key role. And also a roundtable on digital inclusion. Amongst others. Now, the roundtables, some of them have been quite active. Some of them have been less active. Some of them have come up with outputs. Some of them haven't. Now the next stage is as the SG launched the common agenda, the next stage is really to incorporate, I suppose, the work that has already been done into the common agenda. And one of the aspects of the common agenda, which is relevant, is the development of a Global Digital Compact which includes seven different key priority areas or principles that will have to be fleshed out over the next year. Exactly how, we don't know. That will come on to that. Just to say that as part of the work done on the high‑level panel, a Tech Envoy's office was set up. 

The Tech Envoy position, itself, hasn't been filled. I understand very soon we should expect an announcement about that. The original mandate holder was dismissed because of sexual harassment allegations against him. But we are expected a new one to be filled in. The Tech Envoy will play a key role in the office in the Global Digital Compact development, the consultation process, et cetera. Engaging with that will be key. Now let me stop there in case I missed anything in terms of providing the context to the Global Digital Compact which is what we were hoping to be able to discuss here today and we suggested we discuss. Bruna, Nnenna, you've been actively involved. Anyone else, would you like to come in and add to that context? 

>> BRUNA SANTOS: Well, just that, like, this agenda ‑‑ this point in our agenda made sense, considering all of the engagement Civil Society has to spend this past year around the Tech Envoy and the high‑level multi‑stakeholder body as well. Like, some of our organisations and groups have been, as you said, Sheetal, following that very closely. So it just makes sense for us to be debating this right now. And I see APC and a lot of us are also very active on the debate. So, yeah, just looking forward to the chat about this. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Thanks. Yeah, I agree. Think it's a continuation of the discussion we've been having since the high‑level panel was launched. I put in a link to a letter that a number of us sent including the IGC to the office of the Tech Envoy about the consultations that were held. Specifically, on one aspect of the roadmap. And on the development or the strengthening of the IGF. This is just one way that we engaged. As I said, we engaged as constituents in the roundtable. We sent other letters as well. So it seems that this discussion on the Global Digital Compact and its development is particularly well suited for this space here. At the pre‑event for the IGF. Does anybody want to add anything to this context setting before we move into the discussion? Martin? 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: Martin has a hand up, please. Add context, but Martin first. 

>> MARTIN: I just had a question. What's the purpose of the Global Digital Compact? Because you've talked about it all these processes. I just want to know what were they trying to accomplish? 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: I think that's a really good question. I think if you ask other people, you'll get a different answer. But Nnenna, feel free to jump in. I also have my own understanding I can share. Nnenna, go ahead. 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: That's a very important question. I think that's why we need context. So there was the high‑level panel on digital cooperation, which was multi‑stakeholder. It had private sector. It has Civil Society. It had everyone. That held consultations. The Secretary was Jovan that we know of Diplo. Produced a report called the Age of Interdependence, of digital interdependence. Making key proposals to the UN Secretary‑General. On the basis of that report, the UN Secretary‑General set up working groups that led to what we now know as the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation. The Roadmap for Digital Cooperation has eight pillars. One of the pillars being a revitalized, better functioning Internet Governance firm. It is one of eight pillars of the Digital Cooperation roadmap. 

There are other seven. We will not worry ourselves with those. Under the IGF pillar, there are proposals from working group about how to make the IGF better. There's something called the IGF clause. There are quite a number of proposals. One of the proposals of giving to the UN Secretary‑General was have a multi‑stakeholder high‑level panel of eminent persons to support the work that the IGF is doing in driving policy. Now, that's one explanation. On the 75th anniversary of the UN, which was the UN 75 last year, the General Assembly requested of the UN Secretary‑General a plan for development rebuilding. Rebuilding the development world after the pandemic. And they requested that this plan be made ready and submitted by 76, which was December this year. The UN Secretary‑General engaged in a series of consultations across the UN ecosystem. That included, of course, the digital cooperation work that is already ongoing. So on 21st of September on the opening of 76 this year, the Secretary‑General submitted the report called Our Common Agenda. Our Common Agenda is an action plan in ten points of which reinforcing digital cooperation is one of those. So one of the key action recommendations of that pillar is having the global community adopt a Global Digital Compact. 

Let me pause and say that again. The Global Digital Compact is a global drive on the digital cooperation plan of the Common Agenda. I'll still say that again. The Common Agenda is a plan for rebuild ask the pandemic. It has ten pillars. Pillar seven is on digital cooperation. And the main point in that is a Global Digital Compact. Now, if you permit me, the Global Digital Compact has about seven subsets. In other words, these are seven priority actions for rebuilding and improving digital cooperation post‑pandemic. It includes connecting all people. So the question is what are the priority things we need to do to connect all people to the Internet? Including our schools. What do we have to do to avoid Internet fragmentation? That's number two. How do we protect data? What is the agreement that we need within a Global Digital Compact framework to avoid, to protect data? How do we introduce accountability criteria to misleading content? How do we promote regulation of artificial intelligence? As a global common good. These seven sub‑actions are what the UN Secretary‑General has put forward under the plan now that we call Our Common Agenda. I'll close in saying that this common agenda and for this case, the Global Digital Compact, is expected to begin the process that will give us the full Digital Compact by September 2023. So it's in process already. We know what we're aiming at. 

The question now is what do we want to put into this? And what do we want the global UN General Assembly by September 2023 to agree on that is the Global Digital Compact? I hope I've made some sense. I'm happy to share more. Let me stop so far. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Thanks, Bruna. That was really helpful. I put a link in the chat to share the resolution that was passed following a discussion by member states about the Common Agenda. It doesn't mention the Digital Compact specifically in any detail. Or it doesn't actually mention it. But it does acknowledge the Common Agenda and as was discussed already, the Tech Envoy's office is going to play a key role in coordinating inputs under those serve areas that Nnenna just mentioned in order to inform what will be the development of something more detailed around each of those areas. So, Martin, does that answer your question? Do you have any follow‑up or any reactions? 

>> MARTIN: Well, those are very ambitious goals. Building networks everywhere for every school in the world is probably not something that the United Nations has the capital or the construction ability to do. I'm still a bit foggy on how this relates to the IGF specifically. So I think maybe Nnenna ‑‑ by the way, thank you, Nnenna. The very clear, comprehensive, explanation of what's been going on. Could you explain how what the role of the IGF envisioned in this compact is? 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: There are quite a number of people in the room. Now I'm getting concerned being the only one speaking for a long time. The IGF, if you take a step back, we are 16 years into this global multi‑stakeholder policy discussion and dialogue space. That is actually what the IGF is. We agree that we're not taking decisions during the IGF. We agreed that decisions ‑‑ agreements here are not constraining for those of us who've been around. So every year at the global level we meet either online or offline or remotely to have discussions on some of these issues listed here. We also have IG forums at national and subregional levels. So when Martin is asking what is the link between the Global Digital Compact and the IGF as an ecosystem, I will say that it's not the forum that is linked to the Global Compact but the discussions we have here. The organisations that engage here. 

We are ‑‑ the Web Foundation engages here. The Web Foundation works in connectivity. Everyone knows that. The Alliance for Profitability Internet. The Web Foundation is working in the digital cooperation, the global connectivity pillar. The Web Foundation is collaborating with the office of the Tech Envoy. The Web Foundation has launched something like the contract for the web, which we believe can feed into this process of a global compact. And so the link is that the issues that bring us to IGF are the same ‑‑ some of them are the desires of the Global Digital Compact. If you ask me as the chief advocate of the Worldwide Web Foundation, I would say after the agenda ‑‑ the Global Digital Compact is the next breakthrough global agreement that we can work toward. I'm not saying we're going to achieve what it is we want to put in there. I think it's groundbreaking in the sense it's the one Digital Compact. That means there's a sense of agreement that's coming into this. 

And I do believe that all our 16 years of discussion and dialogue and engagement and exchange in this kind of forum whether at the global, regional, or national level, can fit in. That explains why in my role at the Web Foundation, we're hoping to go beyond the normal discussion, online collaboration, and IGF engagement. We'd like to go beyond the people who are connected to the people who are unconnected. And ask them what is their take on the Global Digital Compact? What the issues that matter on the connectivity? On the fragmentation. On the data protection. And so our calling as the Web Foundation is to ensure that voices that have not been heard before, voices that as we know may not be able to connect online. Today the IGF website is not happening as is expected. 

And some voices are already disenfranchised. There have been voices that have not been able to make it to global IGF who would like to have face‑to‑face in‑country, marginalized group kind of consultations to fit into this. And I think the IGF model in itself as a process provides great example for engaging people. For making voices heard. And, Martin, you and myself, we've been here for 20 years. We don't want us to continue multilateralism at the expense of multi‑stakeholders.

And that is the role that this particular session should play. That we keep pushing the UN to go beyond states only to true multi‑stakeholder. I think that's why we are here. If you want to ask me in anticipation, should we engage? The question is, either we engage or we're phased out of the process. So it's a do‑or‑die matter for us. Thank you. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Thanks, Nnenna. I think you made definitely a convincing case for engaging. And it's clear that Web Foundation will be engaging and trying to shape the Global Digital Compact. Before we discuss how we might engage, what we should be saying, I wanted to check in and make sure that nobody has any questions. But also after everything that you've said, it's really important that before we start discussing the detail that we agree that it's an important discussion for us as Civil Society Groups or constituencies to be involved in. If you disagree, because there are so many other things we could be working on. There are so many other forums. There are so many other spaces. But Nnenna just explained the relevance for us. For the Web Foundation, in particular. 

And for the IGF. How we can utilize the IGF. So let me just give us a bit of breathing space in case anybody wants to come in. Perhaps, to register any discontent with the proposal that we discussed. The Global Digital Compact. And how we engage. Going to take silence as a no, by the way, that there isn't any. And there is agreement. I'm going to take silence is there agreement? 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: I think there's a hand up from Sivasubramanian. 

>> SIVA: Yes. This is Sivasubramanian. I was to express my content with the initiatives taken by the Secretary‑General. Be it to initiate a high‑level panel or find a group, or this Digital Compact. It makes IGF useful. And it synthesizes and moves the IGF deliberation to a face of action. And I think it is something wonderful that is happening to the IGF. Thank you. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Thanks so much for that input. Does anybody else want to come in? Either from Katowice or online? Bruna, did you want to add anything? 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: There's a hand here. 

>> COURTNEY RADSCH: Hi. This is Courtney Radsch. It's important to engage in this process. To the point of multilateralism, since so much policy is made at the national level that has broaden implications on Internet governance. How can this process be used to entice or compel national governments and kind of alternative regional efforts to engage meaningfully in this process? I raise that because as the Internet Governance Forum is going on, you have the Danish having their own Freedom Online thing. You have the Freedom Online Coalition doing their thing. You have the U.S. Government doing their new, you know, Summit for Democracy. So you've got ‑‑ they're going to create this new Alliance for the Internet. You have all these other initiatives. It seems like everyone wants to own the process of the next stage of Internet governance. Which makes it difficult for Civil Society to engage effectively because we're under-resourced. We can't be everywhere at once. So how do we envision trying ‑‑ or do we envision trying to funnel some of these efforts into the digital collaboration compact? How can we use this effectively? Thank you. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Any questions? I see, Frank, you have your hand up. If anybody has reactions to Courtney's question, please do come in. Either take the floor or use the chat. 

>> FRANK ATEGEKA: If I may. Thank you so much. I hope I pronounce your name. Is it Nnenna or Nnenna? I don't know. Thank you so much. You really highlighted on the issue of the Global Digital Compact. I think the biggest challenge like you noted is the linkage ‑‑ specifically, I'll talk about Civil Society Organisations, yeah. They deliver the content of that, the compact. The organisations that are actually linking the IGF to the most vulnerable people. So, for example, for us, we work with refugees on issues of digital rights, online violence, digital rights. But the biggest challenge is how do we bring the Civil Society together in Uganda to ensure the Global Digital Compact and how the country can be able to consolidate this. Specifically, we have digital rights ‑‑ we do not have, like, specific laws and policies on digital rights in Uganda. We have laws that are applied across. For example, we have the Computer Misuse Act. Someone applied in terms of digital rights violations, online violence. I feel maybe you can be able to guide on how best can we as Civil Society organisations in Uganda ensure that the Global Digital Compact is actually domesticated within our own laws. 

Within our own context. And we as the Civil Society Organisations now have an opportunity to be part of the IGF 2021. How do I ensure that this information directly links to those that are most vulnerable? The refugees that we represent. Now that you mentioned that we need to bring the voices of those that are not connected into the discussion. Maybe one last thing I want to mention, there are quite a number of organisations doing digital rights advocacy in Uganda. But the challenge is that those that are directly connected to those that are not connected, the most vulnerable, those in the rural communities, the poor women, the refugees, do not have access to these opportunities. 

To these advocacy opportunities. They do not have streams to access funding. Yet, these organisations can play a very critical role in advancing these discussions to the refugees, to the people in the rural communities that are really not connected. The issues around the funding for these organisations, organisations directly in contact with those that are most vulnerable. Organisations working with LGBTI groups. How do we engage and ensure the discussions within the Global Digital Compact are demonstrated within our own laws? Thank you. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Thanks so much, Frank, for that. And just wanted to make a suggestion having listened to your questions and points, Courtney and Frank, about how we move on. But before we do that, does anybody else want to react to the suggestion that we focus our discussion on the Global Digital Compact? Or do you want to disagree with that suggestion that we engage? I don't see any hands or any reactions. 

>> SIVA: I have my hand up. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Sorry. I thought that was an old hand. 

>> MARTIN: I put my hand up, too. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Is that Peter or somebody else? I don't know who that was, I'm afraid. Who just spoke? Martin. Okay. 

>> SIVA: Sorry. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Just a request to keep it quick so we can get everyone in. 

>> SIVA: I want to respond to Courtney's suggestion that Civil Society faces limitations within too many things happen at different places. What we could do as a Civil Society is to turn the opportunity of the Secretary‑General's initiative to bridge some of the gaps in Civil Society by asking the Secretary‑General to give a presentation to Civil Society leaders in the core groups that he is initiating. And second, by asking the core group for these initiatives to emphasize multi‑stakeholder process. In all their efforts to bridge the IGF with governments. They have to emphasize the multi‑stakeholder process. These points we can emphasize as a Civil Society group in communication to the Secretary‑General. That would be more positive. Rather than sections of Civil Society similarly opposing these initiatives. Thank you. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Thanks so much. Just as a point of clarity, there aren't any groups set up. The pillars that Nnenna spoke about, the seven, are ‑‑ it's really the beginning of the process. And they are literally just headings in the common agenda paper. What I understand from talking to the Tech Envoy's office, playing a role in the international community, about what detail could go under each of those headings. What kind of recommendations, data, should underline them, human rights, et cetera, is that is open for discussion. How the consultations take place. There aren't any groups set out. Just to clarify. If I'm wrong, do come in. Martin then Peter. Martin? 

>> MARTIN: So I really think my problem with the Digital Compact is that the agenda was set for us by a bunch of famous people, of course, with so‑called high‑level people. And, of course, there was some engagement with the multi‑stakeholder community. Fundamentally, that's the agenda of those people, not necessarily ours. One example that might tick people off here. I don't agree that regulation of AI is a high priority. I think that people who talk about the regulation of AI typically don't know what they're talking about. And don't know what they want to do. And whatever we want to do about AI's penetration of society, regulations by governments is probably not it. 

But that's just one example of various ways in which, you know, it's nice that many important people in the world got together and agreed on an agenda. But I think that the great thing about the IGF is the Civil Society people in it can set their own agenda. And their own priorities. And work on them independently. So I don't feel particularly required to fall in line behind the Secretary‑General's agenda. And in particular, I still don't see any reason to support this leadership panel that has sort of been called into question. Again, it's probably going to happen, anyway. But I don't feel particularly great about it. I think that it's another example of how it will become easier and easier for a small group of people to develop an agenda that we're expected to fall in line behind. But we haven't really generated organically and support on our own. Thank you. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Thanks so much, Martin. Peter? 

>> PETER MICEK: Thanks. I do try to support the Secretary‑General's initiatives. We have since the digital cooperation work started. Namely being co‑champions of one of the roundtables that was taking forth. The human rights recommendations in that roadmap along with many of the folks on this call. We've also engaged a lot with the Tech Envoy's office. And so what I'm worried about is kind of continually, it seems like almost every year creating these new initiatives that get spun off and then gradually peter out. It goes from the development stage very quickly. The Tech Envoy's office as one example. Engaging with this. It looks decent from the overview. 

I would ask ‑‑ I would really press them to say, like, well, you already created these structures around the roadmap taking that forward. How are those building into this common agenda? And why don't you, you know, provide those with the necessary resources? Because, frankly, those are fallen on, you know, whoever wants to pick it up and run with it because the UN has really seemingly (?) So, yeah. On top of that, we should be engaged from the start in the development of these things. That's not always the case. So, anyway. Not against engaging, but I would really press them to open up access and to show us, to prove how is this going to build and simply not just distract from the previous initiatives. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Thanks, Peter. So I haven't heard anyone completely disagree or suggest that we focus on something else entirely. But a number of concerns and questions around it. And so apart ‑‑ hopefully I'm not misrepresenting what you said, Martin. I do register a sense of is this something we should be engaging with? I'd ask us to put aside the leadership panel discussion here for the next 30 or so minutes that we have. And focus on this aspect of what the SG has suggested or put on the table, which is the Global Digital Compact. Because we could talk also about the leadership panel. But the agenda we have here is about the Global Digital Compact and it's separate. 

So what I would say is everyone who's spoken and those who haven't spoken, for presumably you have strong views or don't want to register any discontent with the ‑‑ with Civil Society or us engaging in some way with the Global Digital Compact. But I do think there were a number of questions around how we make sure other processes including national‑level initiatives, like whether it was a Danish tech centre. Many, many others are linked in. How we ensure it's not just something that will peter out like you said, Peter. That is actually something worth engaging in. And there was some recommendations in providing existing spaces with proper resources. How we engage with vulnerable communities. All of these, I think, are areas where the Tech Envoy's office will be looking for recommendations on how they do that. And I think we have a lot to offer there. 

So if we agree in general that engaging in this is something that we should do, even if the top ‑‑ if the setting of the agenda came from the SG after the process that we've just heard about from the high‑level panel until today, that I think what we could do is put forward some suggestions on how the consultation happens. How engagement with different communities happens. How we make sure the duplication or the existing initiatives that exist are taken into account properly. How we make sure that it's actually effective and doesn't just become something else that could be a waste of time. Like I think people are suggesting it might be. And we suggest ways that it could be done properly. The consultation. And then under the seven pillars, we could suggest what needs to be considered. So when connecting all people to the Internet, what needs to be considered? When protecting data, et cetera. And in order to link in with the how and making sure, to Courtney's point, that we don't duplicate or that we don't stretch resources too much, we actually map the existing forums and spaces and actors, or we at least list those that we know are relevant and we think that should be consulted and be part of the consultation under each of the areas. 

So if you're looking at the doc that Bruna shared, I suggested that those are the two kind of main areas we look at. The consultation, how it should be done. And the what. So under each of the seven areas, we consider what should be priorities. And, perhaps, include existing forums. Nnenna, you have your hand up. I'm just going to come to you now. 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: I do. So because of what I followed the digital (?) from day zero, if there's anything like that. I was anticipating that as Civil Society, we can organize ourselves not just from Civil Society. It's a good thing Frank is there. We have people from IGF. We have people from Global Digital Rights. We've got other people in the data and open data. I think we also have some people working on privacy. Other people working on access and connectivity. Others working on fragmentation. And more even working on AI. So my ‑‑ one of the how is we could have organisations who have capacity or have resources. Either person or financial. 

I happen to be one of those who have been lucky that I have 30% of my work plan for 2022 dedicated to UN and digital cooperation. And that explains why I'm here and putting some energy. But I'm cognizant of the fact that not all of our organisations can put apart 30% of a director's time to do boring UN stuff. Because I don't know anything exciting that comes out of the UN. You sleep, you wake up, it's the same thing. Right? Sorry. That's the truth, anyhow. So the thing is, who else is willing, may have interest, resources, or capacity to engage? So we need one or two organisations. Like I have said, Web Foundation has this in 2022 plan. Please note the Digital Compact will only be launched in two years' time. So it's a long‑haul policy engagement. I have reserved a room on Thursday at 11:00. It's room 11. If you are around, I'm happy to meet up here while we're here on Thursday at 11:00 in room 11. But if you are not, my name, my surname is my email address, [email protected]

It's also my Twitter handle. I'm happy to link up. I can't promise the Web Foundation can lead in everything. It's only me. I don't have an assistant. It's only 30% of my time. That 30% is all of UN. Not just Digital Compact, alone. And I think that the IGF ecosystem is one good place where we can find organisations who may be willing to engage in this. So that is the who. So the who, I can engage Web Foundation. We're going to follow the plan. Now, the how, I think that like you said, we can map existing convenings initiatives. But still, we need to move away from the normal ‑‑ the regular folks. The people who've been here. And we need to move into new areas who have not been engaged, who have not been contacted, who have been kind of either marginalized or disenfranchised. And that is where my heart is at the moment. I'm still consultant. An organisation, you want to co‑host a consultation, please, I'm happy to work with you. The last thing, and I'll shut up, is that we need to send a strong message to the Office of the UN Tech Envoy. Whether it's a principal. 

I don't care. Even if it goes away from the Office of the Tech Envoy, I still don't care. What I care about is global voices, Civil Society voices, need to be heard, considered in this. And multilateralism will not be the case but multi‑stakeholderism will be. It's not been the life of the UN to always consider Civil Society at the same level with states. I think someone said it only takes one crisis for all the gains as activists we have made in broadening the civil space to be lost. This pandemic may close up the UN from where it's been opening up. 

And that is why this common agenda, which is the development relaunch plan of the UN, needs more Civil Society engagement. Even if you're not an IGF. Please, if you know other people, even those engaging in the UN Democracy Summit or those in Freedom Aligned Coalition or those in the AI arena, please let them know this is an unprecedented opportunity for us to put digital issues and get people to engage with them and agree to them. It's a compact. It's the first time that the word, "Digital" and "Compact" are coming together in the UN. Since 16 years ago. This, once again, is a groundbreaking moment. It's going to take two years. But if we're still here, we can play our part. Those who come after us will take it up. I'm done. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Thanks, Nnenna. Bruna, over to you. 

>> BRUNA SANTOS: Thanks, Sheetal. To follow‑up on some of the things Nnenna said about engagement and everything else, I do think some of our engagement ‑‑ not just some. A huge part of our previous engagement with the Tech Envoy Office in the UN, a lot of the things we did in this past year and a half on this topic, were always about, like, inquiring for more clearer results and consultation. Not just us. More open consultation. Multi‑stakeholder consultations about any possible and future outcomes of the developments of the digital cooperation discussions and so on. 

This is one that didn't really fall within whatever we asked. So maybe there's also, like, I don't know ‑‑ I agree with Nnenna. Maybe we need to go off of the usual suspected kind of, like, path, to people we've been engaged with and talking to in the past days. Maybe there's also a time for a second and a newer statement from Civil Society on this. Just saying, just re‑emphasizing some of the things we asked for in the past years. And then saying that if we really want to move forward, and if it's really about pandemic recovery, then it has to be something that's inclusive. And not just, like, a unilateral initiative or, like, more developed by the UN than anyone else. Because, you know, they were all in this together. So, yeah, just wanted to bring this about the engage the and transparency that we spoke so much about in the past year. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Great. Thanks, Bruna. I wonder if that ‑‑ I suggested a kind of structured way of thinking around how we could potentially provide some input. If we do want to work on this. And that would be as I put in the chat two kind of main ways of inputting. One on the how. Essentially telling ‑‑ whether they listen to it or not. They have asked for this, by the way. Telling the Tech Envoy's Office to do its consultation in this way. Already we heard they need to consider existing forums. Including national initiatives. Engaging new vulnerable rural communities and give ways of how to do that. We already also heard we need to bring there, consult, build, on the existing roundtable. We can put that all under how. That would be a statement that should be shaped in a statement on the Digital Compact. The second would be more substantive. I think, Nnenna, you were asking for who can help shape those inputs under the seven pillars. What should we be saying on human rights? 

Where is that discussion already happening in the Human Rights Council, for example? Where is the discussion already happening, et cetera? And provide that ‑‑ or start to work on something like that. So that could be something we do. If there's anyone interested, well, first of all, I guess it's more important for me to see whether that's an idea that people find interesting or useful. I only see Bruna nodding. I know there are other people around. You might be shaking your head. You might be wondering what am I even saying? Anyway, what do people think of that approach? Does anyone have any other suggestions on how we engage with the Global Digital Compact? 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: If I may, Sheetal, there is not any clear document so far up until yesterday evening that said that that Global Digital Compact is clearly in the mandate of the UN Tech Envoy. Just so you know. We hope it will be. But it's not clear. So if we are making a statement, I think that our statement might be on the, first of all, our desire to engage as Civil Society. Secondly, on how we want to engage. Maybe, thirdly, on how we want to keep engaged. But I don't think that our ‑‑ writing a letter that it should be ‑‑ the destination is not the UN Tech Envoy's office. The destination is the Executive Office of the UN Secretary‑General. Because, anyhow, whoever will handle that piece of work will be reporting to the SG's office. So just so we know, we are not targeting the Tech Envoy's Office. We're targeting the Executive Office of the UN Secretary‑General. He's the one, ultimately, what will do the report during UNGA. Even if we work through the Tech Envoy or not. So it's important we write ‑‑ get the address and copy as part of this panel. If you understand what I mean. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Okay. Noted. I think the general question was also just to make sure that everyone here or a significant number of us here are interested in that. I think in terms of the timeframe ‑‑ Bruna asked a question about waiting until the Tech Envoy is appointed. From what I've heard ‑‑ this is rumors. From what I've heard, it's going to be quite soon. We could do ‑‑ I mean, sometime in the next few weeks or at least around January. So we could be prepared to send something. And start working on that. The how. The statement. In the next few weeks. So that we're ready to send it. Perhaps, that is one of the options. Considering what we know. Anyone else? 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: There's a hand up here. 

>> COURTNEY RADSCH: A quick suggestion is to request a meeting with the Tech Envoy, at least once they're onboarded into the process to have a meeting with Civil Society in addition to just sending a letter. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: That's a great suggestion. I'll note that. 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: May I once again? Sorry. I think I should keep quiet now. Main stage on digital cooperation, happening tomorrow. There's a main stage on digital cooperation as well. Let's use all of the available opportunities. So while we are here, I think Martin, you're on that panel still? Okay. So what are the key messages? I think we have about 20 minutes remaining. What are the key messages we should take from the Civil Society to that panel so that we have it on record that we had a meeting today, and then on Thursday, we'll put it down in record so when I speak there, no one will ‑‑ that woman, she's speaking for herself. I will know I'm bearing voices of the people that meets today. Because the officer in charge will be there. And we would have it ‑‑ we would like to have it on record that we're asking for A, B, C, toward X, Y, Z, right? Also will be covered. When we ask for a meeting, we'll be like, yeah, we're following up from what we told you that we had the meeting and we're looking forward. Let me stop there. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Thanks, Nnenna. Anyone else want to come in? 

>> PETER MICEK: Yeah, gist ‑‑ 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Peter then Martin. 

>> PETER MICEK: We wrote a letter a year ago trying to warn them. The process for nominating an envoy needed to be more transparent. They ignored us. I wanted us to re‑up that letter now. No, I don't feel comfortable writing to the new Tech Envoy asking for a meeting. I want us to be on record right now saying you failed last time. And it blew back in your face. And, you know, you need to bring us in this time. I mean, it makes so much more sense now that if the Secretary‑General wanted some treaty‑like process, he would have had put them in charge of shepherding it. 

I think they envision the Tech Envoy having a big role. From what we've seen, the office is not funded well and obviously is in some disarray. So I don't see them having the legitimacy right now to lead this, like, treaty‑like process. I think, yeah, next few weeks, I don't want to put anything new on our docket. But I don't know the timeframe for this. So if that's necessary, that's fine. I'm just saying I think we should write to the Secretary‑General and make it public and say make these points about the Tech Envoy process. Not giving us much confidence in, you know, the Secretary‑General's commitment to multi‑stakeholder Internet governance. And that is kind of the launch point to demand a bigger role in any of this Compact business. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Great. Thanks, Peter. I think that was clear. If anybody has any reactions to that or wants to speak, please do put up your hand. Martin, next. 

>> MARTIN: Well, when you talk about demanding a bigger role, I would like that to be more specific. Particularly, if ‑‑ I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that I have to go into a panel that I was invited to as a bound to some collective position developed by the IGC. I don't think I was invited to be on that panel because I speak for Civil Society. I think it's because I have some expertise in global governance. Particularly, as it regards information communication technologies. And there's a very, very broad set of topics on that panel. So, you know, the idea that I have to adhere to some party line doesn't appeal to me. Okay? So I will say whatever the hell I want on that panel. Let me put it that way. That's nice and simple. But if we do actually agree on some main points we wanted to make, I'd be happy to echo those points and reinforce them. So let's put it that way. And in regards to what Peter said, if, you know, I do agree that the Tech Envoy role is problematic. But if we want to demand a bigger role in something, I want to know what that role is. I mean, could we be more specific about that? 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Yeah. I see two things. One is, well first of all, Martin, please do say whatever you want, of course. I don't know whether Nnenna meant anything different. I certainly didn't understand anything different from that. There are two things. There's the session on Thursday where if we are able to come up with two or three points particularly on the need for transparency and more participatory process, and the Tech Envoy's Office being more transparent and some key asks. Then if we can put that together before Thursday, then ‑‑ and if you could echo that and others there could echo that, that could be very useful for getting this message across, if we all agree. 

And then second is the broader role, broader discussion, what role should be played? Da, da, da, da, da. That I think we need to continue to discussion. But there's a shorter‑term timeframe to the Thursday meeting. Ten there's a longer‑term one. If we can come up with something short, really top‑level points we can agree on, which Peter has suggested something around for Thursday, then we can coordinate that online by the list. And hopefully that will be helpful for those participating. Let me just have a look. Valeria, you said you're just enjoying. Welcome. Everything's making sense. Sorry, Bruna, go ahead. 

>> BRUNA SANTOS: Just to highlight some of the things in the chat as well, I think there were a lot of concerns around transparency mostly. So reinforcing the call for transparency around these processes as Valeria highlighted. Jim brought up the lack of transparency around the Office of the Tech Envoy is another concerning, another pain point of this discussion as well. There might be here a consensus around how we want to highlight the lack of transparency around everything regarding this discussion. So, yeah, just to echo what's been posted in the chat. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Great. Okay. All right. Sorry. I missed that, Valeria. Does anybody else want to comment on this? We're talking about a message really to the UN and to the SG about the process so far. Specifically, on the Tech Envoy. We have some potential messages that we'd have to craft and an online discussion that would really focus on transparency. Then we could also reiterate that we're committed to engaging in a process that is meaningfully transparent and inclusive, perhaps. 

So that is where we've got so far. Then we need to further discuss ‑‑ for those who are interested in engaging with the Global Digital Compact, discuss providing a more substantive input on the how. And so that is something that we can also discuss afterwards. But in the meantime, does anybody want to ‑‑ I tried to do a take there of where we are. Does anybody want to add anything to that and perhaps suggest more messages for Thursday that we might agree on some more specificity around the transparency point, perhaps? 

>> SIVA: Yeah, I want to suggest ‑‑ one minute. In parts of the Civil Society, some dissent was expressed on the idea of even of the Tech Envoy and high‑level committee. In the conversation of the Civil Society, in the formal communication, we could also summarize the minority opinion in a spoken language. And also indicate that such opinions, inappropriate language, that's not to the views of the Internet Governance Caucus or the Civil Society. I think that would be a little polite on our part to do that. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Thanks. Thanks, Siva. I think what we can definitely do is engage with each other by the list and see what we can come up with in terms of those top points about transparency, what we might want to say at the Thursday meeting. And that could also provide a good basis for crafting something more detailed around how we engage or how we want to engage. And we suggest engagement is done with Civil Society on the Global Digital Compact. Certainly, if you want to be part of the drafting of that, those points, you can do that online. Can I ‑‑ yes. Okay. So we've got ten more minutes. Does anybody want to suggest anything else? Okay. 

>> PETER MICEK: Well, yeah. I would just say, yeah, also along with the process points, it would be good to, you know, ensure that human rights are at the centre of this process. Plays a big role. Especially with their new initiatives like VTech and others. Thanks. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Okay. Thanks, Peter. So, so far what I've heard, and this is only the beginning of drafting. I know it needs to be done before Thursday. But something, some few points that could be taken forward and, again, this is just ideas that have been floated here. But we need to work on them more online. Is the concern around how the Tech Envoy's office ‑‑ the Tech Envoy's appointment so far has been carried out and the need for greater transparency. 

Perhaps, pointing out lack of transparency and involvement before was ‑‑ did have an impact that led to the office, perhaps, not having as much trust and engagement as it could. And that there's need for more clarity and transparency in the Tech Envoy Office's role in this. The need to engage with, like, the OHCHR and other human rights actors or stakeholders. And I think, yes, that key point around ensuring that there is improvement in the transparency and participation in any future process on the Global Digital Compact could be helpful. So those are what I drew out of the discussion so far. Does anybody want to add anything to that? The need for more support, perhaps. Like, actually matching requirements with funding so that the office can do a meaningfully inclusive ‑‑ a role of being meaningfully inclusive. Is that something else? Adequate funding. Okay. 

>> VALERIA: Sheetal and everyone, just one more point, if possible. My understanding about the concerns in relation to also the IGF leadership panel, the process around it. Is that we are all unaware of what the timeline is and also how the Office of the UN Secretary‑General sees the linkages between the process and the other ones happening. So, perhaps, a brief mention to that could be also good to include or to consider. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Great point. Yes. So more clarity and transparency on that. We can definitely ask for that. Nnenna? 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: I just said here at the Global Digital Compact would be submitted by UNGA 78. That is September 2023. So I'll repeat that again. September 2023 is the timeline by which the Global Digital Compact will be finalized and sent to UN General Assembly. So it is expected that that General Assembly will adopt that compact. And that gives us two years. That is beginning maybe one year, nine months, if I must say. So if we really want to do anything as Civil Society, we're looking at doing it next year. The most, by June 2023. And that gives us enough time between. So on the timeline, please note that it is by September 2023. Thank you. 

>> PETER MICEK: That's also right in the middle of the WISA's 20 process. Interesting. 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: That will be UN General Assembly 78. Yeah. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Isn't the Plus 20 in 2025? 

>> PETER MICEK: I thought it was going to be a two‑year process. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Oh, it will start then. Oh, sorry. I understand. That's really important. Yeah. That's key to note. And I'm sure there will be quite a lot we can say about that. Okay. Thanks for that. So, Bruna, did you want to add anything at this point? We have five minutes left. 

>> BRUNA SANTOS: No. Nothing. Nothing so far. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Okay. So what ‑‑ it seems we've agreed on is that it would be useful to have some key points that we want to share with the digital cooperation session at Katowice or here on Thursday. But we have some points already that need ‑‑ 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: Apologies. The digital cooperation main session is the day after tomorrow, which is Wednesday. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Oh, you said ‑‑ I thought eye said Thursday. Sorry. 

>> NNENNA NWAKANMA: It's the bilaterals that I'm holding with organisations who are waiting that is on Thursday. Yes. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Okay. So if we can work today and tomorrow on some of those key points and share them with you and share them with everyone else who's going to be there, then we will do our best to do that by Wednesday. And then looking forward, we have a general commitment, it seems, to drafting some kind of letter on the how of Civil Society engagement to the Secretary‑General. It would reinforce some of these points that we've already made. And then there's some interest in engaging substantively in the development of it, which will be a timeframe from now to 2023 in terms of the pillars and what we could offer and say under each of those. So we can summarize this, Bruna and I, and share notes and kick start that process. We're putting together some of those points ahead of Wednesday. 

I think that's useful for the session. And we will be using, Valeria, the same Google Doc Bruna suggested. We'll be sharing the list. We can post another list as well. That has been engaged, which is the Digital Cooperation List that Web Foundation manages so as many people as possible who want to be involved in this are involved. We'll use this Google Doc. I'll post it again in the chat. And the list to coordinate input. Oh, Bruna, you just put it there. Thanks. Yep. Siva it's in the chat. So do have a look there. I'm sorry the notes are super messy at the moment. But they will be less messy. Then we can start putting together the key points for Wednesday. And that is where we are. We still got a few minutes. But I'm sure you all have many things to do. Does anybody want to offer any last few reflections or points? Or ask any questions. Hmm. Okay. 

>> PETER MICEK: I would ‑‑ if we're going to be pushing for, like, more open processes, like, maybe we should bring the private sector along, too. You know, I think they've been helpful in pushing for more openness and some UN processes. Like WWG. So that's a thought. I'm sorry I'm not there with you all this week. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Yes, the joint letter could be depending on how it takes shape, on the how, it could be very much open to private sector. If others agree, we can chat about that, perhaps, later. That's been noted, Peter. I know that it could be helpful to bring them onboard. So thanks for making that suggestion. Also, sorry that I can't be there with you all. Jealous as well of those who are actually in Katowice. Anything else? 

>> BRUNA SANTOS: One last thing, Siva asked us to help summarize the links about the Digital Compact. I started on the same document that we're taking notes about the meeting. So there's a link to the common agenda in the resolution you sent. If anyone else has any other relevant documents that, just feel free to add them to the Google Doc then we'll be fine. 

>> SHEETAL KUMAR: Okay. Thank you. Great. Does anyone have any other points or questions? Before we end. Okay. Well, we'll be in touch. And please do look out by email for the latest information on drafting these points ahead of Wednesday. And more generally. Do get involved if you're interested in the drafting as well. And enjoy the rest of your day. And have a great IGF. I'm sure we'll see you ‑‑ we'll see each other around in various sessions. So if you have anything that you'd like to share with the IGF, any sessions you're organizing, please feel free to share that information by the list. And we'll see you soon. Thank you so much. Bye.