This is now a legacy site and could be not up to date. Please move to the new IGF Website at

You are here

DC Coordination Meeting XI

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


>> MARKUS KUMMER:  Hello.  This is Markus speaking.  I hope you can hear me.  It is top of the hour.  We have a few people on the call.  We're still waiting for more to join.  More people have indicated that they can join these slots.  It may be a little bit short noticed.  We'll see ‑‑ let's give them one, two more minutes to join this call..

Okay.  It is 2 minutes after 9:00 central time.

Let's get started.  We hope that more DCs will be able to join.  Let me start by recalling we tried to organize a call ahead of MAG meeting which in essence has taken place last week.  Because of Christmas, new year holiday, time was too short, it wasn't possible as an input meeting.  We all felt we had actually a very good presence at the IGF and an excellent meeting to take stock of what happened in Berlin and I tried to recap on the email I sent to the list, saying that we had a good discussion, there was a suggestion that maybe we should engage in intersessional substantive work, up to what we have been doing more which is administrating the procedural matters, and the idea that came forward in Berlin was that we could have substantive collaboration between interested DCs, that would mean that not every DC would join in substantive event in Spain, but there be a concept idea to the European Union, and those that are interested, they go ahead and not everybody else needs to join in.  That was one proposal put on the table.

The other discussion we had, it was whether or not it would still be worthwhile continuing to ask for a main session on DCs.  We all felt a little bit disappointed, again as the attendance was not ‑‑ at the same time, there was a general feeling in terms of substance, the session was excellent.  This was well worthwhile continuing to have a DC session, and also the point was made, the session, it means that you benefit from the UN services for translation implementation, it is all interpreted in all the six languages, and so as an outcast, people can read it out.  There was I think a consensus that it was worthwhile sticking to the DC main session.

Last week, we had our first Mag meeting, and with that, I would like to hand it over to my Co‑Facilitator, Jutta, who is also the MAG member and she can reflect on the outcome of the MAG meeting and what it means for our collaboration.

I see also ‑‑ we have others on the call who are ‑‑ we have various MAG members on the call and people have been on the MAG meeting, such as Nick.  All feel free to chime in.

My main take was that there is a general feeling that more efforts need to be made to integrate the various components of the IGF such as forums, also, of course, the Dynamic Coalitions in the main proceedings.  Jutta, please, you are much closer to the MAG feelings and collections and discussions.  Please, takeover.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Markus.

Can you hear me?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: We can hear loud and clear.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Wonderful.

Thank you.

There are several things that you already have mentioned to give me a segue to continue with reports from the MAG meeting.  The first point, about intersessional work, that was ‑‑ there were deliberations on the intersessional work and how that could be more enforced and also brought together with the national regional initiatives.  For one point it was said that a Dynamic Coalition is also ‑‑ they don't need to focus on only the annual, Global Internet Governance Forum, but also could bring forward the work they are doing to the national/regional initiatives.  Some Dynamic Coalitions may already have started doing so because they're reactive in a certain region and others may not have even considered that as an opportunity.  I do think that would mean that we also ‑‑ that we meet with the secretariat to learn more a little bit more from the Dynamic Coalitions in exchange with the national/regional initiatives.  I have already been approached with regard to the European Internet Governance Forum, the EuroDIG, which will take place from I think the 8th to the 10th, if I'm not mistaken.  Whether the Dynamic Coalitions would be interested to also bring their work forward and maybe have a session or bring their work into a session that might already be set for the program.  That could also be a good opportunity at other national, Regional Internet Governance Forums.

The second point that was ‑‑ that Markus mentioned, it is the question of languages and translation.  As said before, when die.  That Dynamic Coalitions are running a main session, and we of course will again ask for a slot for a main session at the IGF 2020, then we have the benefit of translation into the United Nations' languages, and it was very strongly stressed during the MAG meeting that having all the sessions, all the workshop sessions in English language only is a huge barrier for many people from the African continent, for example, where for example in many, many countries French is the primary language so we should take advantage of the opportunity to have at least one session of the Dynamic Coalitions that's translated into all the United Nations' languages.  It was also considered whether it would be an opportunity to have some workshop proposals submitted in French language, but I don't think that was so much supported, although people acknowledged, MAG members, acknowledged that the language barriers is a huge issue but there was no other suggestion, how to solve the issue.

Third point, that Markus also has mentioned before, how could ‑‑ the work of the Dynamic Coalitions being brought together with other intersessional activities, we have the Best Practice fora and there was some support for an idea that Best Practice fora will in the future be asked to define a certain term, how long they will run their work.

Usually it should not be longer than three years, and if it needs to be running longer, then there would be a reason as to why it is necessary to run such a forum longer than three years then different sessions between Dynamic Coalitions and Best Practice forums were discussed and the main difference that the Best Practice forums get certain support, that means that they get ‑‑ a person paid for by the secretariat that supports the work perhaps to writing the report of the Best Practice forum, so on.  The idea was that possibly it could be in two ways.  Dynamic Coalitions could consider whether they would go for a Best Practice forum once their work has reached a certain degree of effectiveness, results, output.

On the other hand, also some Best Practice forums might consider to continue their work after the three years this term if they find enough organizations that would like to support running the work of the Best Practice forum further.

Before I go more into detail what the MAG discussed in terms of main themes and theme of IGF2020 I would like to have a short round of questions and answers from you, whether ‑‑ what do you think about the intersessional work which was mainly discussed during the MAG meeting.

Any questions, any comments on what we have said before.

Olivier, I see you have raised your hand, also I think it is Mariam.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you very much.

My question, it is just to make sure, so you basically are saying the Best Practice forums would have a limited lifetime, let's say three years, some Dynamic Coalitions may wish to move to a Best Practice forum because they would get support whereas Dynamic Coalitions do not get paid support or support paid by the United Nations.  Then, does this mean that a Dynamic Coalition then would become a Best Practice forum and then would shut down after three years?

>> JUTTA CROLL: I cannot give a definite answer to that.  We just started deliberations on this idea during the last MAG meeting.  One suggestion was that Best Practice forums should not take for granted that they are prolonged from year to year to year.  When a new Best Practice forum applies to be accepted as a forum, then they should define that term of work.

It could be one, two years only, it might be three years, but usually it ‑‑ if it applies to be accepted, it should not go for four, five, six years, anything longer, but have a determined work plan and a period of time in which this work can be achieved.  If a Dynamic Coalition comes to the conclusion that the type of work they're doing would be better transformed in a Best Practice forum, they should have the same work plan as certain determined time span explaining why it is necessary to work in the forum of a Best Practice on this specific issue, and then of course they may continue to work on the same things as a Dynamic Coalition after the 1, 2, 3 years.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBLOND: When the Dynamic Coalition, Best Practice forum and then back to Dynamic Coalition?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: If you will allow me, Jutta, to chime in.

I was volunteered as a facilitator of work stream which is Best Practice forum on Best Practice forums because we have realized over the years we did not really have a totally clear understanding within the community of what is what.  There was in particular one proposal that came up, one participant made a proposal and wanted that to be a Best Practice forum, then others, they say it sounds like a Dynamic Coalition to us.

As Jutta said, the main difference is, DCs are self‑constituted, self‑sustained, whereas a Best Practice forum is appointed and anointed by the MAG and it has secretariat support.

That is a big difference and the MAG has no say over what the DCs do, except the secretariat takes the boxes, do they respect all the principles and then a DC, they can ‑‑ the Best Practice forum, it is more of a MAG appointed process, and as we said, it benefits from secretariat support.  You have somebody who holds the pen and it is also approved by the secretariat, whereas the output of the DC and some DCs, it is considered outputs but they're not in a way supervised or supported by the secretariat.

This essentially the main difference, but the question as was also raised in the chat, can you move from one to the other and go back to the other, all that is very much open and I think that will need to be further discussed.  You will recall right at the beginning there were many people who said IGFs would start with working groups, strong opposition to that, and the DCs, in a way was of the emerging compromise, okay, we don't appoint working groups, but we let DCs emerge and they did emerge, and then over the years, we gradually imposed some sort of basic principles that should be adhered to, but there is no substantive oversight over the output and that the BPFs, it is different as they're chartered by the MAG and the MAG then has the oversight and can say yes, they should continue or not, but right at the beginning, it wasn't clear that the BPFs should not continue forever and ever because one constitutes, yes, it was nice, let's continue for another work, but we are in the process of trying to make it more formal.  Having a more clear process.

Again, I take my hat off as Co‑Facilitator of the DCs and also Co‑Facilitator from BPF on cybersecurity, as you're all aware, cybersecurity, it is a big issue, but BPF has had a different focus from year to year, and that in a way is ‑‑ you may have a broad theme, but you may then focus on the subtheme from year to year and the MAG may say, yes, we like the subtheme, or we don't.

This is something that I think we have to work out.

I hope I have been able to clarify a little bit.  I also realize there is no clear answer to it as we're in the process of discussing this, sharpening also a little bit the parameters of what the BPFs are.  Thank you for listening.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Markus.

Sorry I did not remember that you are very much better positioned to explain the BPFs and the idea that is around BPFs during our MAG meeting than I am.  You have been involved so many years in the BPFs and also you volunteer to be a Co‑Facilitator for the BPF ‑‑ on BPFs if I remember, right.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I have been volunteered, I did not volunteer myself!  That's right!  (Laughter).

>> JUTTA CROLL: We have a comment in the chat from Avri.

The best a DC can do is suggest a BPF to the MAG, right, like you explained also, if a DC comes up as a certain subtheme, an issue that they think would benefit from having that, and it is not a huge supported ‑‑ it is a smaller support, but still is some support that BPFs get from the United Nations, that they think they can achieve more results within a certain time span, then each DC has the right to propose a BPF to the MAG.  The issue is that so far there is only ‑‑ there are only resources to fund four BPFs a year.

So that's one reason why it was suggested to have a limited time span because if you have those and they go on and on and on and they never have a new BPF could be achieved.  That's the reason.

I see also, I think it is Marianne Franklin that raised her hand.  Would you like to speak?

>> Can you hear me?

>> JUTTA CROLL: Loud and clear.

>> Marianne:  Thank you for the clarification.  I think it is important to have a clear distinction between life span, governance model and role between a BPF and a DC.  That distinction can go forward now that it is clear.

To me, the topic is also how do we contribute to intersessionals as it DCs.  The internet rights and principles coalition has an active role and has had for some years in the EuroDIG.  It is a question of resources and focus.  I think to get involved in intersessional ‑‑ that's my phone going ‑‑ just a minute ‑‑ to get involved in intersessionals does require some focus of resources.  Not all DCs can do all intersessionals, perhaps it is a good idea to run an inventory amongst our self of what DC is doing what wherein between the annual meetings..

Secondly, I would like to note the difference it has made to get such solid concrete support from the secretariat, given its stretched resources as DCs.  I wondered if we can confirm that even the support in kind is going to continue, that's a question.

Thirdly, I wanted to say that I thought that the DC main session was extremely good this year.  I have to say when I saw 16 people up on stage my heart sank.  Thanks to the brilliant moderation and the great content from all of the DCs, I think we proved that there is something there that needs to be heard.  The issue around audience, it is a general issue I may note.

I had a research student at the IGF, other reasons, so I got to hear another view.  She noted that the disability main sessions were very poorly attended.

So a lot of main sessions are actually quite poorly attended, not just the DC main sessions.  It raises the question about the size of the room.  Does a main session have to have such a huge room?  It is a very pragmatic question.

The DC main session was not the only one with poor audience.  Sometimes that's actually out of our control.  I do think we could do a lot more PR, but I would like to take heart when I saw at ‑‑ I thought it was great.  I thought it was really interesting and really informative.  I have a new person at the IGF next to me that also found it quite informative.  That's just some feedback.

A lot to say.  I'm just saying it all at once because I have to leave early.

Thank you.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you.

Markus, I think that the question with regard to the support in kind that Dynamic Coalitions get from the secretariat, would you be able to answer that?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well obviously I cannot answer on behalf of the secretariat.

My feeling is, and Lima may chip in there, but I would take that as a given, that we get the is support on the calls and we also ‑‑ I'm speaking with the hat from the IGFSA, we fund the realtime captioning for these calls, which is also a useful additional benefit.  I mean, it started for enhancing the accessibility for the IGF meetings, but obviously it goes well beyond the a accessibility community, it is something that benefits everyone.  I think that kind of support I would expect to continue.  I don't know, Lima, whether you can confirm on behalf of the secretariat, but I don't think that's any rethink of what kind of support the secretariat can provide to our efforts to coordinate and enhance our collaboration.

>> Lima:  Hello, everyone.  Hello, Markus, Jutta.

In regard to the in‑kind contributions, so secretariat, we're providing in‑kind contribution but it really depends on what type of in‑kind contribution each DC will need.  It will really depend on the request, what they're requesting as an in-kind contribution, if it is something that we can provide so we would be happy to coordinate and we would be happy to provide those in‑kind contributions.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you for that clarification.

>> If there is anything more I can say more, I would be happy to.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes.  Thank you.

With regard to the ‑‑ just one more time to look back to the IGF2019, I do think one of the things that made the Dynamic Coalitions session special compared to previous years, and that was mainly the Dynamic Coalitions benefited from the session itself.  It was a very good exchange among the Dynamic Coalitions, those who were on the panel but also those who were members who are participating in the main session, I do think many learned a lot more of the work that other die.  That Dynamic Coalitions are doing and how the work of certain Dynamic Coalitions is related to each other.  When we had that meeting of those who were still there in Berlin, at the Dynamic Coalition meeting afterwards, that was one thing that was mentioned very often that it became clear out of that main session how the work is related to each other, and there were certain links made between one or the other, Dynamic Coalition to continue working on certain aspects.

I do remember from the Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety that I'm working with, that we already had strong linkages to the Dynamic Coalition on internet of things, discussing the safety issues and we had members of the Dynamic Coalitions taking part in the Dynamic Coalition individual sessions.  I do think these linkages were reinforced by the main session that they had in 2019.  I do think it was worth running that main session, although the attendance was not so high by participants outside from Dynamic Coalitions to that main session.  

Any further questions at this point in time.

I don't see any hands raised so far.

If that's not the case, then maybe ‑‑ Gunela, you raised your hand just right now.  Would you like to speak, please? 

>> GUNELA ASTBRINK:  Thank you.  My voice, it is deeper because I have a cold coming back from Geneva unfortunately.

I just wanted to also add that one suggestion was that with the main thematic tracks, in the introductory session there would be a short presentation from the DCs on that relevant track, maybe 3, 4 minutes, not yet defined, to just talk about an issue relevant to that track.  That could set the conversation going in the introductory track, but also be a type of promotion for the Dynamic Coalition meeting happening during the IGF so that people understand a little bit more about what that Dynamic Coalition is about and might be interested to come along.

Thank you.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Gunela, for that explanation and addition.

There are no further comments.  Maybe it is time to report back from the MAG meeting in general, not only related to the Dynamic Coalitions.

For those who have not had the opportunity either to take part on sight or remotely, so the Host Country had already set the main theme for the IGF 2020, which will be Internet United as an overarching theme and then the MAG discussed whether we should continue with the three tracks that we had last year, the thematic tracks, and it was discussed whether it should be the same thematic tracks or whether we should decide on having maybe additional tracks or issues.

In the end, we came up with the suggestion that we will continue with three tracks because there was very positive feedback in the stocktaking with regard to that the program was more comprehensible due to that, the three tracks, that people better understood where to go to find which content information, deliberations, debates, and therefore it was agreed ‑‑ I'm sorry.  I just read Marianne's comment in the chat.  She means Internet United sounds like a football team's name.  Seriously.  You're right!  It does remind me of Manchester United!  Still, that was not an issue that the MAG has taken but the Host Country had suggested that main theme.

The three tracks will more or less follow the same scheme as 2019.  It was said that more or less we could with the same three tracks we could cover any issue that might come up.  It was also decided that it should be ‑‑ the titles of the tracks should be a little bit shorter, and that's why we came up with data, which was data governance last year, inclusion, which was digital inclusion, but under an overarching theme of Internet United, everybody would understand that with the inclusion, we mean digital inclusion, it doesn't need to have the same explanation of digital.  The third thing, it is trust, which covers everything that was assembled under security, safety, resilience last year which was thought as a little complicated as a title for a track.

Then we had debated, we have been working in working groups during the MAG meeting and have had long deliberations on whether we should have a fourth track, which is dealing with anything around environmental issues, about sustainability, climate change was mentioned as an issue as well and that also came out of the debates and discussions from IGF2019, also from the stocktaking that many people mentioned this as a high priority issue.

Then there was not quite a consensus on whether this should be an overarching theme, a theme that is interwoven in all the three tracks, or whether it should be additional track.

In the end, we said we would stick with the three tracks, but we'll keep it open.  There may be an additional track for emerging issues, something that may come up that we don't know what it may be.  Over the course of the year, it may be some urgent issues that should be dealt with at the Internet Governance Forum, and with regard to the environmental issues it was said that we would have in the workshop proposal call, that we would make it clear that we do think that the environmental issues are words to be addressed in the data track as well as in the inclusion track and also in the trust track.

It would not be an explicitly additional track.  It is addressed in all of the three tracks.

As I know that there are other members from the working groups and from the MAG on the call, June was also at the meeting, Markus, if you have anything to add to that to make it more comprehensible what the MAG came up with, please feel free to chime in at this point in time.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: You summed it up beautifully.  Nothing to add from my side.

>> JUTTA CROLL: I'm scanning the chat..

Climate issues, it is a sensitive topic, younger delegates see this as a top priority.

Personally, Marianne, I agree with you.  We need to have it on the table.  The question was more whether it is explicitly a track for environmental issues, or whether it is involved in the three other tracks.

There were some controversies and some people were explicitly expressing that they would not like to have a specific fourth track on environmental issues, especially not naming it climate change.

The message that will go out would be that we need as a MAG consider environment issues important to be dealt with at the Internet Governance Forum and that we have in the call for workshop proposals, it will explicitly mention ‑‑ be mentioned, but it will not be a separate track in addition to the three we have agreed on. 

>> MARIANNE:  Could I make an additional point here to the meeting?

>> JUTTA CROLL: Please.

>> MARIANNE:  I think we need to be sensible.  The meeting is going to be in Poland.  Poland is deeply dependent on fossil fuels, also under its own pressure within the EU issues around green policy.  As long as climate crisis, climate issues, suggestions are allowed on to the main program in some way or another, I think that's a good step forward.  The aim would be hopefully in the next year to have it as a main track.

I think it is going to be unavoidable if the IGF wants to stay relevant.  I know we all probably agree here on this meeting.  I just need it to be there for the record.  All around ‑‑ all around the IGF young people are ‑‑ didn't have anything to do with in terms on working on preparing the IRPC meeting which was mainly ‑‑ it was really the IGF will be held accountable in not too many years if it does not broach this topic quite squarely and looks it in the eye.  I think this approach from the MAG is acceptable for the coming year but only for the coming year.  After that, it will start to look like ‑‑ I think ‑‑ what's the word ‑‑ dodging the bullet so to speak.  That's just between us at this meeting.  So supporting the idea of being practical, but only for this year.  After that, I think we need to really show the IGF as a place for these big topics to get discussed and properly.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you.  Thank you, Marianne for your strong position in this regard and hopefully it is also recorded so that ‑‑

>> MARKUS KUMMER: If I may, Jutta, I couldn't agree more with what Marianne said.

At the same time, we need to as a group actually consider how we can have an impact on the MAG and on the program discussion.  That gets back to the issue that came up at our taking stock meeting in Berlin.  Do we actually want to go beyond our more procedural, administrative coordination and engage in substantive coordination.  As a had group of ECs, also to provide input into the MAG deliberations.  I take it that was what was in implicit in Marianne's statement.  For us, it does make a change in how we operate among ourselves.  I, for one, I would greatly welcome this change, that we also engage on broader issues that go beyond the procedural administrative collaboration, but also what we think is important for us collectively and that we then also signal this to the MAG and say here is an issue that we're willing to cooperate, to provide input, maybe not all DCs, but many DCs that have something to contribute to one particular issue.  This is a method issue, I think it will be ‑‑ I think it will be very much at the heart of our future cooperation as a group of DCs, and it also is very much aligned with the feeling that the various components of the IGF should be tied to ‑‑ integrated in the program planning and shaping.  We don't have to come to closure on this issue, but you want to flag it to be on the agenda of the future calls that we'll have in the months to come.

>> LIMA:  I want to add something if it is ‑‑ if it is ‑‑ it is about the tracks, which MAG had suggested during the Mag meeting.  Some of the colleagues, they're here, so they'll add more about that.  That will be out soon, maybe most probably tomorrow.  I will share the link with everyone in the list and then for everyone, they'll be able to provide their feedbacks.  If there is a stronger support, the MAG could proceed with this in their next remote call that would be after two weeks.

Thank you.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you for that clarification, Lima.  We had not come to that point it is important to explain that as well.

In 2019 we had at the beginning of the year a call for issues, and then based on that call for issues we built up the three thematic tracks, data governance, digital inclusion, security, safety.  This year the call for stocktaking was combined with the call for issues and went out more or less directly after the IGF2019 was finished.  It did not get so much attention like we had with last year's call for issues around 42 or 45 people answered to that stocktaking procedure, and they, of course, also mentioned which issues are important but last year, to the call of issues, we had 350 responders.  That was a discussion at the MAG meeting, whether we should have a call for issues again, or whether we could decide on the three thematic tracks without having an additional call for issues.

What Lima has just described, was a solution to both questions, not to lose too much time going through the lengthy call for issues again and then being able to set the three thematic tracks afterwards but going through the call for themes that Lima just described and, of course, if we get really good respondents, to that call, if many stress environmental changes, whatever you call it, if it is worth another thematic track, then it may be ‑‑ then the discussion may be reopened.  It depends on the community, whether they think it is an important issue, I think if all of the Dynamic Coalitions activate their communities to send in ‑‑ to reply to the call for themes, then that might help to push things a little bit further than we are at this point of time.

In addition, I do think, Dynamic Coalitions could also consider in which way their work is related to environmental issues, and probably this could become a theme that the Dynamic Coalitions could address in their own main session, like I have seen in the chat, several people have already expressed their interests in dealing with these issues so that we could discuss in further calls and virtual meetings of the Dynamic Coalitions whether this will last and carry on enough to make it a theme for all the Dynamic Coalitions' main session.  It is one thing that needs to be taken in mind, that the Dynamic Coalitions can ask for our main session, then it is up to themselves to decide which issues they will deal with in their Dynamic Coalition main session.  This will not go through the MAG for having a decision whether we can do this theme or that theme, it would necessarily also be asked to relate the sessions as well to the three thematic tracks, but anything in addition, it is up to the Dynamic Coalitions to decide on their own.

I just see that Marianne Franklin asked the question in the chat, that I tried already to answer.  Marianne, is it answered for you right now or do you need any more information?

Anything further to these issues?  I'm a looking to the clock.  We have more or less 9 or 8 minutes left for the top of the hour.

I don't see any hands raised.

If there are no further questions, there is one point I just had a look at my notes from the MAG meeting that I do think might be of interest to the Dynamic Coalitions, and especially to the use coalition on Internet Governance.

And I have seen that at the beginning of our meeting, Meri introduced herself who represents the youth coalition.  Meri, would you like to shortly say a few things?  I think you're on the first time on a Dynamic Coalition call, and then I would like to voice some information from the pow accomplish Host Country in regards to youth participation in the IGF 2020..

>> MERI:  Yes.  Thank you so much. 

I'm Meri.  I'm from Armenia.

I have been elected to the Steering Committee for the Eastern European Group, this is my first meeting.  Thank you for having me.  It was really informative.

This is all on my side where the transition period with the previous Steering Committee, so we're just starting our work.

It will be really nice to hear about the ideas from the Polish government concerning the youth participation.

Thank you.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Meri.

The polish will government representatives informed the MAG that they will have ‑‑ that we'll start soon, probably even in February a youth contest that shall be open to so far suggested to young people age 16 to 26 from around the world.  The contest shall have three categories, one is posters, second is short film and third is essays.  So far they expect to get around 5,000 entries from young people of this age group to the contest.  They will set up a high‑level jury to decide on the entries and on the winners, and they probably will have the decision already made before summer break so that the winners of the contest shall be able to prepare for their participation in the Internet Governance Forum where there will be an awarding ceremony in the IGF and travel and accommodation for the winners shall be covered by the polish government.  That's more or less what they suggested.  They did not yet say whether it will be one winner per each category or whether there will be a first, second, third place.  Nonetheless, I do think it is a good thing to make young people aware of the IGF itself, but also the issue of Internet Governance, and hopefully to find a lot of young people who are willing to send in their contributions to the contest.

>> MERI:  I heard about this.  Not the complete information has reached me so far.  Thank you for sharing that.  I will share this with the student Committee and then when we have the full information when the contests are announced, we'll spread it as much as we can to have more young people at the IGF.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Meri to support for the idea.

Are there any further comments?  Any other business that we have to discuss?  Any suggestion when we should have our next call?  Would it be enough to make it in four‑four weeks' time?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I think that's a reasonable assumption just to ‑‑ there is work in progress now and we can take stock within four weeks.

Lima, do you have from the secretariat point of view have other suggestions?

>> Lima:  No.  I think it will be good to have it in four weeks.

I would strongly suggest to members to reply for the thematic tracks, which will be out tomorrow.

So that we could have a stronger response from all of these.

Thank you.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Lima.

Thank you to all the Dynamic Coalition representatives who had the opportunity to take part of this meeting ‑‑ part in this meeting.  Thank you, Markus for your facilitation of the meeting, thank you to the secretariat and from Germany, I say have a good night's sleep and to people around the world, have a good day.

Thank you.  Bye‑bye!

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Jutta!  Thank you to you all!  Good‑bye!

>> Thank you, everyone!  Bye.  


This text is being provided in a rough draft format.  Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.


Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 411