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 XIV

October 9, 2020, 13:00-14:00 UTC


This text, document, or file is based on live transcription. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), captioning, and/or live transcription are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. This text, document, or file is not to be distributed or used in any way that may violate copyright law.


>> Hi, everyone, test, can you hear me?

>> Yes, we can hear you, Markus.

>> Excellent. Hello, it's me again, Markus, we're going to top off the hour. Should we wait for a few more minutes to see if more people join the call?

>> Yes, I would say so, we are very few people so far. Maybe it's growing.

>> Maybe you could send out a reminder that the call is starting now.

>> Yeah, so that

>> It helps, actually, I was trying to figure out the e mail, a reminder would have helped.

>> Would you mind doing that?

>> I just sent an e mail a few hours ago, did people get that?

>> Let me check. I do think I got it.

>> Just send one more that the call is underway.

>> Hi, everyone, it's Olivier, I'm actually in a terrible place too on a call. I might jump off and on. I'm the number that starts

>> Right. Tell us more about the terrible place you're in.

>> I'm in hospital at the moment.

>> Oh, no.

>> Just for a checkup for my mother because she broke her arm quite a few months ago so we're doing an x ray and all that stuff today. And it just happens to happen just as we are on the call. I'll remain mute, thank you.

>> Okay, good to have you on the call.

>> Don't feel bad, Markus, it's okay. I do hope your mother is doing well, Olivier, I hope she's doing better. Hi, everybody, Michael here. If we're still waiting for some people to join, I just I figured I'd ask a quick question now since it's just kind of personal to our DC, and that is we didn't submit anything for the main session because in part, I wasn't really sure how we could contribute to it. But if there is time to submit something, I can speak to the co coordinators. I mean, they just we've all just been bogged down by all these other things to see if it's worth doing.

But I think, you know I don't want to submit something that's not relevant to the topic, which is kind of why I did it.

>> It fits very well into the line that we were thinking along with regard to the main session, Michael. Don't worry, I think Sam will bring us to the agenda and then when we come to that point, you are welcome to have a look at the structure so far and a step in wherever the dynamic coalition feels it's the right place for them to bring some input for what

>> It's Agenda Item 2. It's five minutes. The top of the hour, I would suggest we get started. Maybe Sam, can you make the usual administrative announcements of what is new and what needs to be known by everyone before we go into the substance of the agenda?

>> Hi. Hi, everyone. Today we have our stenographer and you can access the closed caption if you look down at the bottom of your Zoom screen, you can click on closed caption and view the transcript. Hopefully you are getting an automatic couple of lines showing. So this hopefully will help those who perhaps don't have English as a first language. This is the first time we're doing it live during the session, as well as having the transcript afterward. I do hope this is useful. Feedback is welcome. And a big shoutout to Julia who is our captioner.

>> Thank you for that. And I think that is very helpful to have the real time captioning available live. With that, we have circulated the agenda, you have seen the agenda. Can we approve the agenda as it is? It's also on the chat. I can hear no objection, so I take it that the agenda is approved. With that, I would like to hand over to you, Jutta. You will brief us on the Agenda Item 1.

>> Thank you, Markus, for giving me the floor. What I can report from the MAG calls, we are on the run up to the annual meeting, of course. There is still a lot of work to be done, but also, we can save lots of work having been done and we are more or less on a very good way.

The figures were this week on Tuesday about 1,000 people who had already registered to the meeting. That's less than we usually have at face to face meetings, but on the other hand, most people register very, very late. There is a deadline mentioned for registration, which is 26th of October and we've discussed the question, it's not a very strict deadline, it's more of a deadline that makes more feasible for the Secretariat to deal with all the registrations. There is an option to even register during the days of November 2 17th. Of course, the Secretariat would prefer to receive registrations as early as possible.

With regard to the sessions being organized, it was also it's still not yet it will be left open to session organizers to decide whether they will have will use webinar style or conference style for their sessions. There are benefits to one and the other, so it's up to the session organizers. It was mentioned that in webinar style, usually you lose more people throughout the session than you have in conference style. And it also depends on the format of the session that the organizers have chosen. Whether you want to go in that direction or in the other direction.

Another thing that was also explained in detail by Anya was the IBF village, which is going to be set up, which is still an open question how it could be achieved that the booth are manned throughout the whole meeting or whether you would like putting up a sign at your booth in a real IGF this booth will be met from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. each day so let people know when they can turn to those organizations to have their booth there in the IGF village.

The more organizational issues, and yes. That's all that I have noted down to report back to you. Maybe Sam or Markus, you have anything to add, then please go ahead.

>> Nothing to add from my end, except what you said about the registration. The early registration helps everyone. The more you are visible, the more it helps people to organize their own schedules. So while it's still possible to register at the last minute, I think it's helpful for you and for all the other participants if you register early.

Sam, do you have anything to add?

>> Just coming from the portion of my consultancy for IGF, so there was a discussion on the MAG call about how to distribute information about IGF. So I've developed a first draft of a communications plan I hope to send today. But one of the things that is in there and what was mentioned during the MAG meeting was requesting some sort of media pack that members of the committee can send out. So that would include DC if you want to pass information about the meeting on. A preview before the document goes out.

We're looking at potentially coming up with some structured documents that we can graphics you can use to advertise sessions via social media during the meeting. It will be in the IGF style and you just have to put your details in and then you can send it out. That's all for me.

>> Thanks for that. Are there questions on this issue? Or comments? If that's not the case, then we can go to the next agenda item, which is one of the man agenda items which will be referred to by Michael and that is the main session. Jutta, over to you.

>> Thank you for giving me the floor again. Sam had checked the papers that we've got. I must say a bit disappointing as we get eight out of 21. It might be the case that those that have just been newly formed did not feel up to it, but still we might feel they might have a part in that session and might have something to bring forward to the table.

What we did with these eight papers that we received, I did a very short analysis, trying to find a structure which issues by the dynamic coalitions and how we could bring that into a structure for the whole session.

What I have to say is that most of the substantive papers did refer to the current situation under the COVID 19 crisis. Issues of recovery, socioeconomic recovery like we put into the title of our session were not so much addressed within the substantive papers. If you allow, I would like to share my screen now to give you just a short impression on that. I think it's this one. Could you tell me whether you can see my screen now?

>> Yes, we can see it.

>> Okay. Wonderful. So I found what you see in the first column, I found four topics that were addressed by several of the dynamic coalitions, which is digital divide, fundamental rights, education and the future of IGF. Then under these themes, there were subthemes addressed. And then you can see in the last column of the table, those DCs who mentioned that they could contribute or were working on issues like under digital divide, access. We have the dynamic coalition of public access and libraries, internet rights and principles coalition and the dynamic coalition on gender.

Another subtheme to digital divide would be discrimination which is addressed by dynamic coalition on access and disability and by the dynamic coalition on gender. Then going on fundamental rights could be clustered under three subthemes. Data protection, privacy, child protection, freedom of speech and also here again you see in the last column of the table those dynamic coalitions that have addressed aspects of these subthemes.

Then we have education, which was not where I didn't find subthemes. Somehow education is related to the theme of fundamental rights. It's a fundamental right, the right to education. There we have the DC Connecting the Unconnected and the Youth Coalition and then future of IGF was also addressed by two substantive papers by the dynamic coalition on Core Internet Values and the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance.

That's based on the eight substantive papers that we received. And we've discussed before this call that there might be other dynamic coalitions who could contribute to that structure as well. I do suggest that we discuss in general whether we go forward with these four themes, whether we have to change the title of the session because socioeconomic recovery was not so much in the focus. And, also, whether further dynamic coalitions could contribute. We could also even go more in detail with subthemes under the main themes.

Then, also, we have to discuss how this fits into the overall structure of data, trust, inclusion and environment. That's from my side and I hope we can initiate a good discussion. Waiting for your input. I see Judith has her hand up.

>> Yes. I'm representing the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability. We sent in our paper. I don't see it listed here.

>> Oh, no, no, it's there. Especially in

>> There's no it's dynamic coalition, there's no C before the A, so that's what I thought

>> Oh, okay. That's it. Okay.

>> Yeah, and I would say we are not I wouldn't classify us under discrimination. I would say our subtheme is more on access. Because what we want is, we want access and we want, just like you're captioning and people have interpretation on things, you wouldn't say that people without interpretation are looking for discrimination. You would say they want access for another language. So it's not necessarily discrimination against the language. It's discrimination it's more access, a theme of access.

And then since I would also on education, I don't know what you're looking at, but education, I would also call it education and awareness because many people would do people need to be aware of what's going on and not just as education. Because a lot of people don't know and they say oh, okay, they think education is more about teaching but it's also awareness of a lack of education. Yeah, so I'm glad you added awareness on there, but that's what I think I think that would be helpful. Thanks. I guess that's all I have to say. I'm glad you got the paper.

>> I just think we have another person who wants to speak? I don't know whether I pronounce your name right

>> Yes, thank you. I actually had reached out during the time you wanted to put forward the papers. We were told since it's a new DC you cannot speak this year, you should try next year. So we abstained from some meetings but I want to say we are doing a survey on internet and jobs and we have so far covered around 25 countries. And happy to share the findings besides, you know, our take on how we're going to come out of this pandemic, how we're going to help. These are global results on the use of internet.

If you want, I'm happy to present that, you know?

>> May I ask other participants on the call as well to have a look and say whether they would find their dynamic coalition within this structure, although they have not yet sent in a paper like Michael said before, for example?

>> Yeah, but I see this you know, this is what we were told, that you cannot we were approved only on May 29 and when the call came it said you should have try next year. I have attended IGFs in Berlin and Paris. We were excited to present. If it's still possible, we would love to.

>> Just to avoid any misunderstandings, we are not asking for presentations in the main session. That should be a session where dynamic coalitions come together and discuss the common theme and look on ways forward. And I think the papers we asked for are essentially the entry ticket to the session and they should provide a common platform. As Jutta said, the papers seem to have very little on the way forward. It's more of an analysis of the situation as it is.

That's where we are right now, and I think we are looking on how we can put the session together on the basis of what we have.

>> Sure, sure.

>> I think Jutta has better ideas than I have on how to do that.

>> So far I'm waiting for input from dynamic coalitions. I don't think it's only up to us as core facilitators to structure the whole session. But it's a session of the dynamic coalitions, so it's up to dynamic coalitions to bring substance to the session and also to decide on the format, how we'll present of course we'll present our work but it's not like dynamic coalition after dynamic coalition does a presentation and says this is what we've done last year and this is what we need to change in the light of the pandemic.

The way forward should be to discuss how we can adjust our work in dynamic coalitions and what needs to be done in the future of dynamic coalitions. Personally I think what could be better to adapt to a situation like that, like a dynamic coalition because we're not in a given format. Yes, we have the dynamics to adapt for what is asked for now, but I want to see that within that session. It must be coming from the dynamic coalitions.

>> Michael and Maureen asked for the floor. Michael first, Michael, Maureen

>> Olivier.

>> Thank you all, I'll try to be as quick as I can. First of all, Jutta, many thanks to you for organizing this. You know, and I know it's additional work, so thank you.

Number two, just as a procedural thing, I definitely agree well, I definitely think that Rajindra that you should be able to present. You know, DC Sustainability we participated in the main session last year. Since the whole of DC is focusing on job and work and whatnot, I think it would be remiss if you were not included in that. But you're now on the on this table, so please do follow up with Sam and Jutta and Markus about this. But I just want to kind of extend my support to you Rajindra for getting you included in this.

Lastly, just as a personal note and I think perhaps I'm getting caught up on structure and function versus inclusion or whatnot. Because maybe I focused a bit too much on the specific topic, because from our point of view, I mean, earlier this year my organization in collaboration of many of our members and almost everyone that's involved with the DC, we put out a joint statement on media on basically support for media and journalism going forward through COVID and beyond.

But the thing is, while there's a lot of recommendations there and whatnot, especially related to internet, to, you know, internet providers, technology companies, platforms, I and in my head that's the thing that would probably be the most relevant to address here. I'm just a bit worried that we might come off as being overly concerned on our own perspectives, kind of our own advocacy for supporting journalism that it wouldn't necessarily tie into the session as a whole. And I think that's what's prevented me from kind of pushing this with the sorry, with the co coordinators.

Bear in mind, I'm here as part of the DC sustainabilities secretariat. I don't have a decision-making role anymore within the DC sustainability. We have a charter and elected co coordinators, so they do that. But what I can do is if you think it's relevant, I can advocate to them that we submit something so that we're not excluded. But I'm also a bit concerned that we won't necessarily have much to contribute beyond basically advocating for our own positions, if that makes sense.

Did you follow what I'm trying to say? I don't want to seem like we're being overly predatory or, you know, taking advantage of the situation for our own benefit.

>> I can follow what you're saying, but I'm not too sure, actually, whether you're not over modest. I think especially in this COVID crisis there are all sorts of obviously crazy rumors circulating. Where I think your coalition as a word to say, that's just a side remark. Another comment is actually like you, I was also a bit surprised to hear I don't know where that came from but the new dynamic coalition would have to wait. I don't think there's any truth, at not that I'm aware of. Our basic principle is that we are inclusive. I would also support you on that.

Let's listen to other people on the call. I see Maureen and Mary and I think I also heard that Olivier would like to join.

>> That's correct, Markus.

>> Yes, okay, you're in the queue.

>> Thank you.

>> Maureen, please.

>> Thank you, thank you Markus. Thank you, everyone. I just wanted to first of all apologize that I didn't make it to the earlier meeting, so I was a little bit unsure about what was required. But thank you Jutta for actually explaining the situation so that I have a better appreciation of what is required.

I really do think that the DC for example could contribute to the discussion around a couple of these topics. I agree with Judith with regards for us as well, with regards to education, raising awareness. In theory much a part of that whole building, building the group during I was in the Pacific region and I know Tracy is doing very much the same thing in the Caribbean.

One of the things, too, in relation to fundamental rights, one issue too, areas that have been developed, more so because we'll be able to make more contact with people through enhanced awareness using the mailing list and Zoom calls as the growth of interest in relation to people with disabilities and also women in ITT who are in the industry and are actually sort of like I mean, those are the sorts of sessions that we think we could contribute to.

And if I could actually put in a submission to you based on, you know, the topic, how we might be able to contribute, I'd really appreciate that, thank you.

>> Thank you. Next there is Mary, Olivier, and then June.

>> Thank you, Markus, can you hear me?

>> Yes, we can hear you.

>> Thank you, Markus and Jutta. Just a quick note on the format for the main session, if we had a face to face session I would be in favor of duplicating or repeating what we did last year. I think I was very satisfied with the comment that we used, but it's going to be a virtual one which is leading me to think that the format will be what the platform we're going to be using would allow us to be. And I don't think we have that many options. We can't really get creative as far as I know. I mean, it's not that flexible and not that many options so that's the only sort of thing I wanted to remind perhaps the obvious.

But it's a bit of a tricky situation I think in that sense. Thank you, over to you.

>> Thank you. Mary?

>> Hello, everyone. Thank you very much, Markus and Jutta for putting this together. So I would like to comment on the title and focus for the main session. It is evident from this chart, from this table we do not have much contributions on the socioeconomic recovery and we are not yet done with the crisis, so I think maybe we can focus on what we have now and where we can go at the moment rather than talking about what we can do after the crisis. Unfortunately, we don't know when the crisis will be over at the moment.

What I would suggest would be to maybe choose a couple of these themes we have here, maybe also some from the subthemes rather than the bigger themes and choose the ones that raise a little bit more dynamic coalitions and focus on those during the session. I agree with Mary Laura that actually the format will play a great role in shaping the session.

At the moment, I don't know whether we can use breakout rooms or not during the IGF, but using breakout rooms will also be a nice idea to have the chance to talk about different subthemes for instance. Also, I believe if we focus on those that resonated with more DCs we'll also we'll be illustrative, and I think this would be a nice chance to see how we can collaborate beyond IGF2020.

>> Thank you for that. May I briefly turn back to Sam, because we asked a question which I can't answer, but I think it should be interesting. Is there a possibility of breakout rooms during the main session? Would you know that, Sam?

>> It's already answered

>> It's in the chat.

>> Sorry, sorry.

>> Yes, they are possible, we just need to let the Secretariat know as soon as possible so they can build them into the room structure.

>> Okay. I'm a bit slow on the uptake. I see it now, your answer. You're too quick for me. But this is something we will wish to discuss, whether or not we want to have breakout rooms.

Anyway, next in the list is Olivier. Can you talk right now?

>> Yes, thank you very much, Markus. Can you hear me?

>> Yes, we can hear you.

>> Great. Super. Technology works. Just a couple of things. Unfortunately, I haven't got access to a screen at the moment so I'm not able to actually see the spreadsheet. But if you could please share it after the call on whatever space it is, I'd be happy to have a look at it with our dynamic coalition and to actually see where we can contribute further. We do have several facets for work and so perhaps originally we weren't too creative in the way we looked at the topic, but now that I see the focus on the economic issues and certainly social and recovery, it's something that some of the work that we do has touched on.

Is that going to be shared? Or how will that be put in there?

>> We'll definitely share it with the list, yes.

>> Okay. That would be great. I would suggest that other DCs also look at it and perhaps open up their mind and see how we can collaborate into coming up with a good narrative that would make for a good session. Thank you.

>> There is a discussion, if I may step in, Markus, in the chat regard to the breakouts. And I do think we need to remind ourselves that usually the benefit of a main session is that we have the translation for the languages. And that wouldn't work if we split up in breakout groups. So that might hinder then some people to be to continue being taking part in this session. We need to have that in mind when we decide whether we need breakout sessions or not.

Answering to Olivier's question, we thought it would be best that we discuss this structure now during the call, then we'll send out the paper to all dynamic coalitions asking for their input. So you can reconsider what would be your part in the session. What we need to have in mind is that we have to finalize this within the next week, given the fact that we have the next MAG call on October 20th and then we need definitely at that time to put up the structure and the run through of our session up to the IGF website.

People are already filing in, those who have registered are setting up their individual schedule. If people don't know what will happen in the DC's main session, they won't sign up for taking part in the session. So it's important that we come up with a plan for the session soon. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you, Olivier, also for your suggestion. Thank you, Jutta, for reminding us. Time is of the essence. I feel we may well need another call in the not too distant future. Right now, priority is obviously on finalizing the main session.

Allow me a brief remark on the breakout sessions. In my experience of meetings, obviously a breakout session you have fewer participants and it encourages more participation. Yes, you will lose interpretation and transcription, but then when you report back to the main session you get that back again. So there's a quid quo pro but I think it can add dynamism to a session by allowing subgroups into a breakout session. That's up for discussion. June, you also asked for the floor?

>> Hello everyone, this is June. Thanks for giving me the floor and please excuse my background tropical noises. To Jutta's and Michael's comments, most of what they were saying I agree with.

What I want to add is that communication has been lost in some way with COVID. Because we're not having social interactions and face to face meetings and there could be some sort of miscommunication going on, especially with late e mails. E mails are not always returned people who are involved at the time they should, they're late or they don't come at all.

What I want to say to people is to check their junk mail and we should use alternative methods of communication.

Also, in terms of accessing documents and input into documents, what I want to add is that we probably should send documents out and invite people to edit so that they know they can do it. They're a part of it and they can make changes or, you know, edit the document and have the input. So with regards to breakout sessions, I agree with Jutta about translations. But it is possible, and it also brings us a little closer to one another in these small groups and we can discuss things a bit freely. Things that don't always interest the general public, we can do that in the small groups. Thanks for having me.

>> Thank you. That was the point, the last point you made was the point I tried to make. People who might not take the floor in a bigger setting are happy to talk in the breakout group and there are fewer people involved.

Okay. Jutta, now how do you bring that back together?

>> I don't have an answer yet to be honest. I would suggest we send out this preliminary structure of the session. People have a look, and then we need a further call to discuss whether breakout sessions are appropriate for this structure of the session or whether we can go through the 90 minutes as a whole in the plenary.

>> What are the deadlines? You mentioned the next MAG call, that is when?

>> October 20th. That is Tuesday not next Tuesday, but the week after next week. Tuesday late in the evening. October 20th.

>> What if you scheduled a call right away for a week from now to bring this together again? That would allow us to do some work online work on the table. You create it, send it out, get the feedback and then wrap it up a week from now? Would that be a possibility?

>> From my side it would be fine. The others just give their feedback in the chat whether they would be able to join.

>> I do feel we need more time to discuss this.

>> Yes.

>> I think we had a very good discussion now, but we need to digest it and we need to ask for input. I understand the various DCs need to consult among themselves. They want to contribute but they can't contribute. And I think we need to come together again in a call. Could next Friday at the same time be an option?

>> Perfect says Olivier.

>> Perfect says Olivier. Okay. I see in the chat, June says works. Maureen, yes, okay. So can we take it and we have a rough consensus that allows us to cut corners and we don't have to send out beforehand and we can schedule it, it's an action item coming out of today's call. The aim would be that we do wrap it up and we have a concrete proposal that can go to the MAG call on the following week as a proposal from the DCs on how we see the DC main session structured and coming together.

>> Okay, with that I would suggest, since we are running out of time, that we go through our other agenda points and put the issue of the main session so you will receive this structure within the next few hours and then we can continue is that okay?

>> Okay. That's any other comments on this? That's obviously for us the most important urgent issue to move on, is the main session. But I think we have covered a lot of ground there. Thanks to your creative issues, Jutta, that provides us a solid structure for the discussion.

Okay. Then we can move on to the next agenda item. Sam, can you show the agenda on the main screen?

>> I just have to say that it's a separate document. I'll paste it into chat at the moment and then

>> I have it somewhere on my device.

>> It's now at the bottom of chat, so if you have a

>> Okay.

>> It's your turn, Markus to speak on the DC study.

>> Right. Yes, we had as you may or may not have followed at the first and only face to face meeting in January, I was given the task of leading an effort to put together what we now call a study on the best practice forum on best practice forums, BPF and BPFs. The document has been put on the website. In the process of discussing this, it was felt it would be useful to have something useful done on dynamic coalitions. To show where they're coming from, where we are, and also map out the math of where we might be going forward.

Some of you haven't followed up, there's a loss of cross functionalities within the community. I've been part of this on the calls on BPF on BPFs. I don't want to go too much into details, but the essence should we not do something on the dynamic coalitions, that we have a document where everything is gathered in one place, where we have a little bit of history, but also, some of the common rules and principles we all agreed on. Again, the dynamic coalitions are totally different from the best practice forums. The best practice forums are under the umbrella of the MAG, the dynamic coalitions are independent, bottom up.

But what they have in common is they are important intersessional activities. These has come under scrutiny with the Secretary General's road map of coalition where the IGF plus is mentioned as an important step stone on the way forward on digital corporations. In this context, the DC and BPFs have been identified as important constituent parts of the best practice forums.

If we collectively can provide an input into that discussion, which is fact based and based on our collective experience, my strong feeling is it will be a helpful contribution into this discussion. We don't need to discuss at this stage on how we want to do this. Obviously, it would depend on voluntary work. But I think also what has happened with the BPF on BPFs has been able to draw on support from the secretariat, one assigned to the secretariat, and some voices have also mentioned that for that kind of work to happen it is essential to have secretariat support so we could make an appeal for secretariat support. That does not happen overnight, but we may get some in the next round.

After this year's IGF we move on that we actually get also some consultant would be able to hold a pen for drawing on this work and, obviously, we would rely on all of you to provide their respective input into the work and being part of a collective collaborative work on documenting the experience and the DCs are the oldest continuous experience of intersessional work in the IGF context since back to the first IGF in 2006 in Athens.

Essentially, yes, your contributions to the discussions are welcome, but I'm not asking for that we come up to a conclusion how to do it, but more or less to see whether we would have enough support from the dynamic coalitions, whether you think this would be a worthwhile exercise and whether we could count on your cooperation and support if this goes forward.

With that, I'm listening to what you have to say. Or can I take silence for agreement that you all think it would be a worthwhile exercise? Michael? Yes, you have a hand up.

>> Thank you, Markus, thank you everyone. I was also at the meeting that Markus referenced with everyone that you brought together. And I was highly supportive of this idea then, and I really kind of implore us all to support this idea, too. I see it as providing a very strong evidence base to kind of bolster the reason for why we exist to kind of demonstrate the work that we do and to help build bridges between other structures within the IGF as well as way beyond.

You know, I just want to say, Markus, that between basically now and December I am way over capacity, but if there's any way I can assist with this going forward after that I would be very happy to because, again, I really see this as a kind of an opportunity for us as the community of DCs to come together and help in a way also educate the rest of the IGF community as to what we do, why we exist, and why we should all be supporting one another and why they should be supporting us. Because, ultimately, you know, we're all working to advance policy goals and move the policy agenda. Especially under the IGF plus. I think that we as DCs can provide a very strong, let's say, resource pool of experts and expertise and insights and policy recommendations as well. I highly recommend it, highly support it.

>> Thank you, Michael. I see there's also support in the chat from June yes, and from Mary as well. Up to now I cannot hear anything speaking against it I think. Obviously, collectively I think it will be very useful for all DCs that we document past performance and show their contribution to the overall effort. That was Leon adds his plus one. I can take this as a given, but that will not happen I think before this side of the IGF as we're all up to our ears in work of putting things together. We have to make the claim and get started and say that we are willing to do this and to communicate this to the broader community, and grateful for all those of you who have said they're willing to cooperate. We need all the talent, the existing talent we have among the DCs to help to put that together.

With that, back to you, Jutta. We have some more operational issues on the next agenda item. Please, Jutta.

>> Now, thank you Markus. And thank you also for explaining the so called dynamic inclusion study. I think it's a beneficial effort to be undertaken and it will help us to better anchor the role of dynamic inclusions in the plus model. I think I can hand over directly to Sam for explaining what IGPs for the web page or web page updates in the future. Sam would you like to take over?

>> Hi, Sam here. A couple of points. I've had a few e mails from various DC representatives asking for some updates to their web pages. I'm getting on top of them and I was explaining to Markus and Jutta, in terms of my contract with IGF I have seven days to support the IGF and DCs and seven days to support the DC coordination activities. With 21 DCs in seven days, you can imagine that's not much time. So I'm doing my best to get on top of things.

It would be great if you can all look at your DC pages on the IGF website and check that everything is up to date on the index pages, that all of your contact details, your stakeholder groups, et cetera, all the documents you produced are listed there, if they're up to date. Talking with Markus and Jutta in the preparatory call for this, we were discussing the possibility of perhaps seeing if we can get the DCs to be able to get permission to update the pages directly on the IGF website. I'm not sure that's going to happen on the current website, but it could happen perhaps on the next website based on the funding that's coming through. That new website is supposed to have a lot more community functionality. So I guess it's open to you guys, do you think it's would this be useful for you to be able to update your web pages on the IGF website?

>> I just see a comment in the chat, Trudy says we use our own web page that is housed locally. Yes, but I mean the section on the IGF web page that refers to the dynamic coalitions you would be given under this proposed model, you would be given control to edit yourself and update yourself, all the information concerning your dynamic coalition. That would in essence empower you to do so. Michael in the chat, Mary as well, says that will be great.

Again, we cannot decide that, what we can decide is to recommend that to the IGF secretariat, that they give you the right to do that. Obviously, you'll be bound by the code of conduct and any dynamic coalition misbehaving will withdraw the right to do it. But we understand that you're responsible people and I don't see any problem coming from that. That would only be a section of the IGF website concerning you directly, whether you would be able to edit your own section. As Michael said in the chat, it would take away unnecessary secretarial work from Sam to whoever will succeed Sam.

That sounds a very reasonable proposal, and I take it based on the reactions of the chat that there's broad support among people on this call. And if anyone would not like it, so speak up now. Otherwise it would be too late as we make the proposal to the IGF secretariat official.

>> Judith has raised her hand.

>> Yeah. This is Judith for DCAG. We have our proposal, but we don't have the only page we have on the IGF says please look at our own websites and where we list that website. Which is our website that is I think, but maybe I'm wrong actually, yeah, I guess it doesn't it lists our website address. So I guess we could put more make this a duplicate or we could make it a reflector mirror on it. I'm just curious about how that would work.

>> I think that's a valid point, but at the same time I don't think it's a major point whether or not a link to your own website seems to be also a viable way forward. Mary mentioned the accessibility issue. Yes, that is utterly really very important. That needs to be taken into account if the website is detailed.

But on the whole, I take it there is support for this way forward. Do we have time to it's top of the hour. The next issue was the mailing list issue. Jutta, do you want to address this, or should we postpone that to the next call?

>> I just think we can Sam? Was it Sam?

>> Sorry?

>> Sam, should we postpone the mailing list to the next call, or will you speak about that now?

>> Did you want to talk about that issue that was

>> I think it's not the whole DC mailing list what we were talking about, or am I wrong?

>> Specific case, I mean, do you think that's possible to wait until next week? I think a week isn't going to

>> The issue is broadly, you know, we agreed on the principle that mailing lists should be open and inclusive and we have some particular issues and we just wanted to reemphasize this, but I think it may be best to have a more in depth discussion on that on the next call.

>> Okay. Yes. We can do so. Because it's just the top of the hour.

>> Okay. And then any other business, nothing in particular? Okay. I would maybe under any other business, make a special point on the accessibility that came up under the other issue, but we pass that on as a message from this call to the Secretariat that as part of the web page updates, really there was a very strong call to make sure that the latest standards on accessibility, we adhere to on the web page issue.

Actually, Gerry, if you could also concretely point out where you found the current web page, that would be very helpful I think if you could, you know, point the Secretariat to failures in the web page design which should be improved upon. That would be very helpful I think. With that, I have nothing to add. I would like to hand it back to Jutta and Sam and then see you all next week at the same time, same hour.

>> Yes, thank you so much, Markus. We have an appointment for next week, Friday 1:00 p.m. UTC and hope to see you all then. Thank you so much for joining. We'll spread this information on the next meeting via the mailing list of the dynamic coalitions and then hope to see more of you by next week to finalize plannings for our main session, also to discuss issues with mailing lists and so on.

We will send around the structure for the main session and asking for your input as well by next week. Thank you.

>> Thank you and good bye.

>> Bye bye, thank you, have a nice weekend. Bye.

>> Thanks, everyone, bye bye.

(The meeting ended at 10:05 A.M. EST)

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