IGF 2021 – Day 2 – Policy Network on Environment Coordination Session: Future of PNE

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.



>> MODERATOR: Okay.  Hi, everyone.  Welcome to the session on the future of the PNE.  Thanks for joining us online and here in Katowice.  I'm not sitting at the right table to be seeing everyone in the room.  Feel free to maybe raise your hand.  I have Michael here as my seasoned IGF assistant.  Thank you so much.

      This session today is meant to be a bit of an informal session meant for exchange and to get your feedback and kind of your experiences and your hopes for next year. 

      As maybe most of you know, we have a new IGF intercessional program that is launched this year called policy network on environment and digitalization where we have been developing a report on the environment and digitalization for the past few months.  We have been active and we're proud to show you this report next ‑‑ today ‑‑ tomorrow, I'm sorry.

      Thursday, 2:00 p.m.  We're hoping, of course, many of you will join us when we present this report.  And today, now, I have just prepared something for you to interact with us to kind of tell us what you think we could be doing next year.  Obviously, this year's focus was the report.  I'm really happy to say I think we delivered on the first output document.  And now we're really hoping to know or get your feedback on what you think could be the next steps. 

      So basically what I have prepared is a mural.  So maybe not all of you are familiar with this.  It's an online collaboration platform where you can access and kind of leave your thoughts and kind of it works with online posts.  I will share this link in the Zoom chat.  And all for the people in this room, we're going to do it collaboratively, I think.

      People can approach the microphone if they want to or let us know and we'll just have a discussion.  I might switch places so I can actually see the people who are in the room.  Let me just copy the link. 

      The link is also linked on the PNE future session that you can find on IGF.  For the people in the Zoom chat, please try to access the link.  We'll see if it works for you for those that maybe never used it, it is pretty simply to use.  You just go in there, type in your name and you should be able to access this Zoom mural.

      I can't share my screen.  Apparently I don't have permission.  I guess that would have been the organizers task in Katowice.  It is fine, I'll go on the mural.  Let me know in the Zoom chat if it doesn't work out for you. 


Okay.  Great, as you can see on the screen now, there is this mural.  You can just zoom in and out of it.  There is different questions I would like to go through with all of you who have been part of the PNE and want to give their feedback.  People in the Zoom room can unmute themselves.  The way we will do this is just collaboratively.  So you either type in directly, if you prefer to do that.  Or we go through now and through all the questions and you kind of give me your feedback verbally, as well, if you want to. 

      Basically the first question we want to address is the question of how do we pursue with reports?  Tomorrow we will present an over 80‑page report that contains a lot of information.  The question is how do we ensure maximum dissemination of the report?  What is your ideas to encourage interaction with the report, we talk about environmental data, food, and water systems, we talk about supply chain transparency?  A lot of issues that are also talked about within the IGF, we hope to encourage talk further next year.  This is really where you kind of tell us what your ideas are.  There we also have ideas within the PNE.  We have think tanks that are planning to take a part of the report and continue there. 

      So many things are possible. 

So for the people in the room, let me just ‑‑ I will quickly switch places so I can actually address you. 

     >> While you do that, a casual reminder, as long as you feel comfortable sitting around the table, you are more than welcome to come here, too.  It is open to anyone.  Thank you. 

     >> MODERATOR: Now I can actually see people in the room.

I don't know if ‑‑ we only met within the PNE online, I'm not sure if any of you have participated in a PNE.  This might be new to you.  Feel free to ask any questions you might like.  And for the actual content of the PNE, we have the session on policy network tomorrow.  That is where we will actually discuss the contents of the report.

      But for now, anyone on the Zoom want to express her or his thoughts on how to encourage interaction with the report? 

That is part of the session planning, it is a true remark.  As you can see, it is a very full session.  Of course, feel free.  I am really sorry.  Feel free to come tomorrow to attend our session.  And this document will always be open for introducing your remarks or your notes.  You're welcome. 

     >> I'm sorry, can you show us the interface, how to interact with the report?  So if you want us to comment on it.

     >> MODERATOR: Actually, I'm sorry.  It was maybe a misunderstanding.  It is not about interacting with the report.  This session was really meant for people who maybe have been part of the PNE or knew about the project and kind of want to give their opinion or thoughts on how to pursue next year. 

      So the actual interaction with the report itself would be kind of tomorrow. 

     >> ATTENDEE: Sorry maybe I expressed it incorrectly.  The system you are showing right now.  That is what I am after.  Obviously.  Yes, I'm completely new to this. 

     >> MODERATOR: Sure.

Let me explain.

     >> ATTENDEE: Thank you.

     >> MODERATOR: Do you have a computer to access it?  Okay, phone, that is also fine.  So basically, when you click on this link like the mural, there are the Post‑its where you can scroll in and type what you want to give as a feedback.  That is already the basic.  You can also produce your own kind of generate your own Post‑its by copy and pasting or just clicking up here.  This little text icon.  And there are the different sticky notes you can use. 

But yeah, at first, it can be a bit overwhelming, but it is actually really simple to use.  I see people contributing in other areas.  I will get content‑wise to see the issues we could focus on next year.

      I see people in chat that I met through PNE.  Especially those that are part of the PNE, any issues or focus areas that you think we should prioritize or should really make it into next year's efforts?  Horst you adjusted your microphone.

     >> ATTENDEE: To adjust for next year? 

     >> MODERATOR: Did you want to tell us what your thoughts were for what we could do next year? 

     >> ATTENDEE: I made proposal on an issue that I only came about in the last week.  So I have no document of myself to share, but there is colleagues even from public administration, know nature preservation here in Germany told me the issue of pricing nature to commercialize nature.  And also raised my interest because I was informed in the initiative that they would put nature to the stock exchange.  That is just some words here.  But those who know a little bit about what is going on there, there is not only positive things, probably, as we know from big business and nature.  See, for example, the Amazon Basin, not only in Brazil, but the surrounding States that have a share in Amazonian Region.  That could be critical. 

      I see that certainly there is some issues on governance needed in this initiative.  Thank you. 

     >> MODERATOR: Thanks, I noted nature preservation issues and the topic of governance, maybe prioritize governance more.

      I see other people are inputting in the mural.  Elif, I notice you joined the food and water work stream.  I wonder from your perspective, whether there is something you like to add because you have been joining later.  You might not have had the chance to input as much as possible. 

     >> ATTENDEE: Thank you so much for giving the floor.  I since I joined, it is definitely taking up a lot of space in our discussions how the digitalization will be seen as an opportunity but also how there would be risks associated with that.  I think that comes up in every governance discussion.  I imagine also in 2022 maybe looking at newer technologies.  I put one suggestion with how the predictive algorithms are actually beneficial, but there are also downside of particular algorithms, we will look at new technologies, and challenges that are wrote by digitalization, we will keep the governance angle, when we are analyzing what would be, of course, the opportunities there.  That we want to capitalize on, but what would also be the risks to at least implement in policy planning. 

     >> MODERATOR: Thank you so much.  Can I ask a follow‑up question?  With the governance, a specific angle of governance that you want to cover?  Because it is quite a broad ‑‑

     >> ATTENDEE: Yes, I think in this case, because we will be just setting the agenda.  I would not know the best idea.  Of course, for some context, for example, the regional governance itself is also quite important.  I know international is not applicable to every set up.  I think in that sense it could maybe a discussion whether we want world governance or have local, regional, national or international levels or want we want to be a bit more limited in our scope year to go more into the details of the specific issue with governance. 

     >> MODERATOR: Thank you, any reactions to what Elif said on the issue of governance, whether we should limit or keep a broad scope? 

There is something to be said about limiting the scope.  We have Michael here also.  I don't know if you want to add to that.

     >> ATTENDEE: I do want to add to that.  My name is Michael Oghia.  The think at the moment, the PNE document is quite broad.  I think for the sake of let's say establishing I foundation for which we can work going forward, I think that being broad is good in this sense, because we put everything or as many things ‑‑ not everything, but put many things into the document to say, okay, well, if somebody is interested in track A, you can take ‑‑ go in that direction.  If you are interested in something else, go in that direction.  But I do think that it would be very beneficial for us to in going forward in the future to have a more specific focus especially in areas that are not necessarily being covered either by other organizations or initiatives at the moment or two, can take what's been done and say okay, how can we apply this then, using the unique nature of the IGF and stakeholders that we bring together to really avoid duplication.  Because something to stress is that on the local, regional, international level, there is so much happening now on ICT sustainability, it is fantastic.  However, that also means that it is very easy to do something that is either being done already or that has already been done full stop.  So that, for me is a big reason I say it is important to have a rather limited scope.  Not because it is not important, it is so that we make sure we are capitalizing on our strengths while still producing something that adds value. 

     >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Michael.  Any other comments?  I see that others have joined us in the meantime on Zoom, so feel free to share your thoughts as well. 

     >> ATTENDEE: If I can come in for one second while waiting on other colleagues to maybe raise their hand or join in.  I was thinking, one thing to add is building up on the comments that we don't want the position.  Maybe we can stay a bit more in touch with the other Dynamic Coalitions or networks in the IGF as well.  Maybe that is part of the planning for 2022, perhaps write up there all the fining or reports are out.  Maybe an idea to have a common meeting or meeting between the different dynamic Coalitions to make sure we build on each other's work and not advocating the work.

     >> MODERATOR: That is a good point.  There is another box on important reference documents initiatives.  This is a good idea to keep track of who we want to link with next year or important stakeholders.  I will put IGF stakeholders there as well. 

     >> MODERATOR: Okay maybe ‑‑ sure? 

     >> ATTENDEE: Hi, my name is David, I have also been involved in the PNE discussions.  I think what Michael said resonated with me.  I think that we need to take some time probably in the PNE to do some check, okay, what are we actually strong and hopefully also we will have gotten some feedback for our initial report by then.  I also, it is also nice to know the PNE, what it is supposed to achieve.

      At the moment, a lot of people that work in environmental and tech, somehow overlapping areas, and we have produced a report that is for policymakers, but for very general set of policymakers.  So are we supposed to use our expertise in environmental aspects in order to feed that into the PNE?  I'm sorry, into the IGF community more?  That probably needs to be a bit more targeted towards what is the IGF?  Many of us in the PNE don't have an in‑depth understanding of the IGF.  I work with the ITU, it is clear there are standards, blah, blah, blah.  What does the IGF ‑‑ how can we contribute to the IGF better? 

      Or is it something that the IGF wants to use in order to reach out to other communities?  Is it more outwards looking in terms of taking what is done in the IGF and bringing the message to other policymakers out there in other fields.  Is it supposed to promote coherence?  I think there is a lot of sweet spots that we need to find. 

      In the second case, if it is from the IGF outward looking to bring it to other communities, I think we need more IGF people in the PNE. 

      I think there is a lot of things to consider.  We can go both ways, see what we have in the IGF.  It is a great community.  I like working with it.  It has been very successful in a way.

      I mean, everybody knows that when you just drop in some people that are supposed to write a support, everything can come out at the end.  It is people dropping the ball.  This has been very good work in terms of I think we have a very respectable report at the end.  So how can we improve that?  How can we scope it, make it more clear and targeted?  I think there is a lot of potential here.  It would be nice to have that harnessed even more.  Thank you. 

     >> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, David.  I'm asking myself the same question.  I think that is something that we or the IGF Secretariat also wants to discuss.  For full transparency, I haven't really ‑‑ I think the IGF is planning to have these discussions, basically, over 21‑22, going into 22.  And this is really meant to be all the things we're discussing now is meant to feed into their discussions as well.  I'm sure they also have ideas on how to proceed.  But I agree, that is one of the most important questions to clarify. 

     >> ATTENDEE: I would like to speak again, but before I do, is there anybody online that would like to come in, just to make sure we're being fully hybrid. 

If not, I will continue.  Running the risk of sounding self‑congratulatory, I want to say thank you, David for that.  I fully agree with you.  As I put in the chat, I think given, especially what you said, it made me think if we don't clarify the audience going forward, I think that is a need for us to figure out how ‑‑ what exactly do we want to do?  Where do we want to take this?  Having said all that as well, I don't ‑‑ I want to be clear that there is so much opportunity in this space that is not necessarily being addressed. 

      I don't want us to run the risk of becoming ‑‑ of seeming like you know, there is not a specific direction to take or that it is actually not as important of a topic as we thought because we don't know which part ‑‑ on the contrary, there is so much that if we try to do everything, I think that is how we'll find a bit of confusion or in terms of the identity of PNE, so to speak.  With that said, I want to say that I do very much support for the sake of ‑‑ for the record, it is not just because of the main session tomorrow, which I'm part of.  But I think the environmental data component is a good bridge between the Internet Governance Forum as an Internet body, as an Internet discussion platform.  And the environment itself.  Because I don't honestly know who else is really ‑‑ who ‑‑ where the environmental data governance discussions are happening.  I do think that the IGF is a good home for them. 

      Because, yeah.  So that's ‑‑ that's kind of where I think is a good place for us to consider exploring as well. 

     >> MODERATOR: Thanks a lot Michael.  I see Florian has raised his hand on Zoom, Florian, please.

     >> ATTENDEE: So I want to offer a bit of a contrasting view or a different angle on the role of the PNE, possibly also going forward.

      So if you think about what is done on the environmental front also internationally down to the local level, these are like regime complexes.  With various many scattered actors that work in the environmental and climate policy field.  Like as a complex system, so to say.  And then we have on the other side, all the expertise from the technological experts.  And Internet experts.  And so I can imagine the role for the PNE/IGF also as broker.  Facilitating communication.  And establishing bridges and communicative links between the technical and computer science expert and this whole complex environmental implementation system and regime complex.  So that this would go a bit, again, focusing further.

      But imaging also this other role of being ‑‑ bringing the two types of expertise circles together.  And then I like this idea maybe also because we want all the expertise that computer scientists have to more adequately be implementable by the environmental policymakers and policy implementers.  So then we can think of the PNE as the ‑‑ one of the hubs that is establishing the links.

      And whenever environmental organizations need expertise on the technical front, on the specific issue, we can know where to resource that expertise from the computer science and technical side.  And enable the expertise so that is it is already implementable.  So this would also address the idea of how to make an impact, maybe, as well.  So that was just a small remark on that.  Thanks.

           >> MODERATOR: Thank you so much.  Michael, did you want to respond to that?  Because yeah, I think ‑‑ I mean, thank you very much, maybe both are possible in a way as well.  It probably depends on how will take up what role within the network.  But I think it is a good idea also to say let's be mindful of not focusing too much.  That could exclude people that aren't necessarily only interested in environmental data, for example.

      Because now I agree it is a really good great chance to focus on that.  Because it maybe attracts also the attention of policymakers and data as such, big data is a bigger topic every year.  So still, I think it is a good idea to keep the PNE and keep the network mind‑set in a way, also.

      To not be excluding of other topics. 

So another thing I wanted your feedback on or be sure we collected what you would like to offer is something that Horst is taking up in the chat.  I think he's offered for example, to lead workshops.  This is exactly what I would like to know from you and other members of the PNE, do you have ideas of the specific output you would like to implement within the context of the PNE?  There is a chance to collaboration and coordinate what we can do under the umbrella of the PNE, Horst can you repeat what you said in the workshop? 

     >> ATTENDEE: I referred to the World Summit on Information Society, it is an annual, big conference like IGF but devoted to the topics, especially to Information Society.  Where of course, I say, all what we do in IGF is also related Information Society.  This is why I see this synergy of these two big United Nations initiatives. 

      And the like, like the IGF, with this, there is a possibility ‑‑ I forgot to send the link.  I should post the link to the 2022 WSIS conference, it is open for submission already.

      So the question there is what can we do in the terms of governance.  You see in my latest chat remark, also, if we say we have the aspects of governance that is why the problems of the complexity reduces to our competencies in this domain, IGF.  These can be taken into for instance, just a proposal into World Summit on Information Society, because governance is where it should be sharpened to the Information Society.  It is not just the experts but the interest of the information society that governance really is critical about what happens and what should be the future of environment at all.  This is just one possibility.  The other possibility is that certain institutions say oh, we make a local conference, science conference or something like that.  Well, this is beyond my personal possibilities at the moment.  I did so years ago but I think joining such big events is also one of the possibilities. 

      To mention in Geneva in March, end of March, hopefully in WSIS, of course.  Thank you.

     >> MODERATOR: Thanks, Horst.  There is another idea of a collection of case studies.  I think we were planning to include a bit in the report but not managed to do consistently.  It is a nice idea to focus on case studies, like applied examples.  Are there others who want to contribute or let us know about their ideas for possible outputs?  How do we submit case studies?  I mean, that would be up to the format that we choose, right?  We could choose to again, start a collaborative document, the same way we did for the PNE report, where we split into subgroups.  And focus on a specific topic, where then we decide on what is the format of the case studies that we want to include?  Start a collection.  Michael? 

     >> ATTENDEE: Hi, this is Michael again.  First of all, to answer the question about case studies.  It could be a collaborative document or it could be a collection kind of just basically collating existing resources and kind of using those as a model.  I mean, for instance, a good example of this is with association for progressive communication they just put together an incredible e‑waste ‑‑ entire e‑waste guide.  Guide is probably the wrong word.  But resources where they look at the elements of e‑waste, electronic waste, it is the circularity guide they put together.  Excuse me.  It is also a collection of case studies.

      So again, there is no need to necessarily you know, recycle what is already been done.  It could be a good way to help compact all the resources out there.

      The other thing to say, kind of on the same note, I think Florian was mentioning this.  It is kind of, I think that we could really take advantage of the network part of PNE more and create almost the youth Coalition on Internet Governance had this for a while.  I don't know if they still do.  It is almost like a repository of people.  I know the IGF has this of subject matter experts, who is an expert of cybersecurity or privacy?  PNE could potentially do this for organizations and people, whether those involved or elsewhere.  Let's say somebody wanted ‑‑ a policymaker wanted to know, okay, I'm in a ministry in X country, I would love to know who are the people in the organizations working on e‑waste in my country so I can connect with them, invite them to a consultation, et cetera.  That could be potentially relevant.  I think another way to guide that would be to talk to policymakers themselves and say what information do you need?  So we can actually then fulfill that information over the coming years as opposed to just guessing, well, they might need this.  Maybe we can offer them that, et cetera. 

     >> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, Michael.  I see that during your intervention, Desiree and Elif and then Horst.  Hi, Desiree.  Welcome. 

You are still on mute.

     >> ATTENDEE: Can you hear me now? 

     >> MODERATOR: Yes.

     >> ATTENDEE: Good.  I would like to support what yeah, Michael has just said.  I think we probably have to somehow address to have a network or a list of experts as well that are either on the IGF website or within the PNE and that people would know how to network and how to reach out to them.

      The particular APC study that was circulated here, I think it would serve as an inspiration, at least to me, citizens, science network in southeast Europe about air quality monitoring.  Within Internet Society in Serbia.  So we are analyzing a lot of data.  And it would be useful for us as well to share our case studies.  And to not just showcase it regionally but to make this connection as well. 

      One thing I'm finding a little bit of trouble filling in all the text boxes here on the mural, which is a lot of fun, by the way, is one topic that I think we could address is for the digitization how does it support the reach of sustainability and what is digital efficiency as well.  These are useful terms our network can think about in terms of there is efficiency whether it is technical, data, users, and some guidance of principles.


     >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Desiree.  Nice to meet you. 

     >> ATTENDEE: Likewise. 

     >> MODERATOR: I think next was Elif then Horst and Florian. 

     >> ATTENDEE: I think building a bit more input on how to move forward.  I was thinking from what I hear from colleagues, maybe one of the ideas also would be to try to collect this Best Practices maybe.  So we can also call it use case collection or best practice collection and maybe that is a way for us to reach out to the network.  It also of course, increases the network as well.  Because probably be able to do it through maybe like in an expression of interest to collect the best practice on maybe the use of technology for the environment or it would be then coming together and also looking at whether we want to do it on that or whether we want to look at the governance of technology for the environment.  I think that is a discussion on maybe which domain we would want to do that.

      But if I am hearing these ideas, I was then thinking maybe there is one way to be contributing also in 2022 with this policy network.  Where we would be able to collect Best Practices and also reflect on them and also create maybe a collection of the use cases or Best Practices to be used also by policymakers and then probably eventually also looking at the strategies and the working methods of the PNE probably also with the experts that we have on board.  And we will be taking on board, could be then analyzing the Best Practices to lead to policy advice, to lead to maybe further common expertise or common application grounds for us as well. 

     >> MODERATOR: Thanks very much.  I'm trying to illustrate what you are saying.  So please contribute if you don't feel like it illustrates it well.  I think next is Florian?  Or Horst, sorry? 

     >> ATTENDEE: Thank you.  With all the discussion, I would like to mention a little bit to put a little bit more care into the broadness of aspect. 

      Are we really going to repeat existing networks of experts as we know?  There is biodiversity in SDG and every single SDG, whatever.  Should we repeat this?  Because it is not just policy, it is a policy network in the Internet Governance Forum.  The governance is first for me.  That is why I am here.  I'm network and a lot of other things.  But governance is the thing that comes here.  If we try to collect Best Practices all around whatsoever topics or something, the question would be first tell why the whole thing is important for governance and not just collect ‑‑ because not to repeat existing Expert Groups.  Please.  That is just an advice.  Everyone knows it is nice to network, but the focus here should really be governance aspect first. 

     >> ATTENDEE: Yes, if I can come in.  I edit it.  It would be the Best Practices to collect on the governance of how the environment and technology is interacting.  Maybe that could be that unique angle, like you say without duplicating other efforts creating this niche area for this policy network. 

     >> MODERATOR: Thank you.  Thank you for editing.  Florian? 

     >> ATTENDEE: Just a small remark.  So if you think about like a repository or website with a use case examples.  And possibly focusing on the governance of the different application area.  That can be great.  But in terms of outreach and possible other outputs, so I don't know if that is too old school.  And what do you think?  But if like have annual newsletter type of collection of use cases, that is curated to have only a smaller number of highlight that people have time to go over and find interesting.  And then if they wish, then go to another bigger repository to look further.  So then we can also think if this newsletter and each edition, every half year, or every year, I don't know, which is then of course more accessible for than the full report.  For any interested party.  And then if for example, if each addition should include the curated cases on the broad range of issues, or we highlight one application domain of governance, of environment via technology in every additional domain to make it more focused and then every around to attract the interest into that.  But that is something that I don't know, I don't have an opinion yet.  Is it better to make it diverse or domain focus each addition?  Thanks. 

     >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Florian for this input, Michael, you are next.

     >> ATTENDEE: Thank you.  First of all, I want to clarify to especially to Horst.  I don't want to seem like I'm contradicting what you are saying.  I think you make a very important point about making sure that we do recognize the value from addressing governance. 

      That said, I want to support what especially Elif said.  I have been thinking about what you said for some time.  And I thought to myself, whenever PNE was first announced, for instance, if I'm a policymaker and I want to know how to make our ICT or telecoms or utilities more sustainable, what do we need to do?  We as in the Government or actually a multistakeholder Group of actors?  Because there is no single source that has a full list of say policy recommendations for Governments, regulators, obviously legislators, et cetera.  Perhaps this gap is something you want to consider.  That is compiling policies, recommendations, Best Practices, and actions around the world that address the intersection between telecoms, ICTs, and sustainability in the environment. 

      And those could be for instance, examples of integrated environmental sustainability and environmental sustainability strategies or actions in a country, telecommunications, national policy plan.  That could help address these things.  That would be a bit of a different perhaps, you know, a separate direction.  But again, if that is something that policymakers would find useful.  If that is something the PNE is willing to explore.  I think that could be a potentially interesting way to build on some of the work that we have done so far. 

     >> MODERATOR: Thank you, Michael.  I think that is a point.  You made this point early on in the PNE process where we have discussed we were going to focus on the report first.

      But I also like to say, hear this part.  This is a good valuable resource to add on to the report as well, having more concrete examples from around the world to inspire policymakers.  We can still make sure it focuses on governance, too, so we don't lose sight of that aspect.  It is specifically targeted for policymakers that would come naturally, if we set it up right, I think.

      I see we have about five and a half minutes left.  I want to make sure everyone has been able to get across or that we were able to discuss the most important points.  As with this mural, that stays open until at least the beginning of next year.  So feel free to always input whatever thoughts you have, if possible, kind of in the right box.  But I will go through this regularly to see how we can also kind of make this a bit easy to digest.  And there will be a synthesis of this for the IGF Secretariat.

      I'm thinking to do with the minutes we have left.  So just seeing whether someone of you wants to add something?  As of now, I see no raised hands.  There is a box very various other thoughts you might have on PNE.  Feel free to put anything there if you are not sure where to put it.  Also for those who are new here, who have never seen PNE, make sure to sign up to the PNE mailing list, which we already have, to make sure that you are kind of ‑‑ you get every update for next year as well. 

      Yeah, I think maybe as a last note, I think this could be a valuable box to have as well.  We have a large network by now.  All of you have your individual networks, too.  I think that would be really helpful if you could drop a note here for any important reference document or initiative that you might know of, maybe some are starting next year.  Maybe you are also part of that.  I think it is stressed, important not to duplicate efforts.  This is becoming a bigger challenge every year.  I think it would be helpful for us and the whole community, if you could just ‑‑ we could try to document what else is going on outside of our bubble and how we might integrate those initiatives into our own considerations. 

Is there anyone else?  Also maybe who wants to contribute something?  It could be something outside of the box, so to speak, as well.  Yes, Elif I saw you raised your hand or is that an example? 

     >> ATTENDEE: Thank you for organizing it in this way.  I like that we can give the digital contribution as well.  I thank you for this way of organizing this meeting.

     >> MODERATOR: Thanks.  It was a bit of a struggle to have this hybrid.  It would have been more easy to have it fully on Zoom.  Thanks for participating everyone.  Horst? 

     >> ATTENDEE: I typed in the chat, I wonder if we can work with Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations I'm not aware if there are subgroups with IGF in dealing with the governance needed and felt by Indigenous Peoples.  It is quite an important thing in connection to environment because threats to Indigenous Peoples typically are directly combined with threats in environment.  As we know, all over the world. 

      That kind of topic would be little bit unique.  I'm not the absolute expert there.  I feel from discussions with my colleagues, these issues could be something worthwhile doing.  I don't know if we find a solution at the moment. 

     >> MODERATOR: Thanks for the input. 

Okay.  I think we can wrap it up because I see no more raised hands.  Please remember that we have the PNE session tomorrow.  We're hoping to welcome all of you there at 1:50. And you can still sign up through the website.  This document, as I said, is open for anyone to contribute as long as you want to.  Thanks, everyone for participating.  And I wish you a very nice afternoon.