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 XLI​

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 here, mainly testing the audio. I hope you can hear me.

>> Hello, Markus. Yes, we can hear you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Excellent. Well, we are at the top of the hour, but I suggest waiting a little bit more. We had a very good alignment on the Doodle poll. I think 60 people indicated they might be able to participate. We're not quite there yet. We'll give another minute or two.

>> Hello.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Hello. We seem to have youth participation on this call.  Okay. Let's get started. We have sent out an agenda ahead of the call, a little bit short notice, but it is displayed on the screen. And you always have the opportunity to add any other issue, any other business at the end. But can I take it that we can adopt this agenda? I hear no objection, so I assume so we are okay to move on with this agenda. And it covers all, I think, in broad terms, most of the issues that we are here to cover in this call. Let me hand over to Jutta to brief you on what's happened during the last few calls, and also, as there have been concerns expressed in the community about the impact of the coronavirus on the IGF. So, Jutta, can you update us all, please? Over to you.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Markus, for giving me the floor. And hello to everybody. I'm glad so many have joined our call today. I can report back from the last MAG group that we discussed Kuwait '19 shortly. There were some concerns from people whether the meeting would capacity. And so far there are no plans made for postponing or anything else. Neither was it discussed whether having a completely virtual meeting was an option, although I remember two years ago when we had a host country appointed very late, that already then a virtual as an IGF was discussed. So that might be an option, but it was not yet discussed in the MAG meeting as a reality that anybody would think of.

Then it was also ‑‑ at this point of time, no question about the deadline for workshop proposals, dynamic coalition proposals and so on. We got statistics from the secretariat and there were already only very few workshop proposals sent in, but someone assured us that that is business as usual. Most proposals come in the very late last days before the deadline. But they received a reasonable number of requests for IGF booth, and also a reasonable number of questions for pre‑event, so day zero events were already sent in to the IGF secretariat. That's about our second agenda point, COVID‑19. And I think Markus, maybe we should open just the floor if there are complete questions in regard of this issue. And then I can continue with other issues that were discussed during the MAG meeting.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA: Hi, everybody. Hi, Jutta. This is Michael Oghia. I'm now representing dynamic coalition, the sustainability of journalism. Is the MAG or the secretary considering at all an extension of the April 15 deadline?

>> JUTTA CROLL: No. There were no consideration of an extension of the deadline at the MAG meeting we had last week. I cannot say whether that might become an option if things are more pressing when the situation gets worse. But for the time being, there was no consideration of an extension. And that is also due to the fact that the timeline after the deadline is very tight. MAG members would need a certain amount of time to assess the workshop proposals. And we are still not considering postponing the next MAG meeting, which should take place mid‑June. And we will keep that date, even though it might happen that we cannot have a face‑to‑face meeting in Geneva. But we'll then meet on a virtual basis. So everybody is now in the position to say we will stick with the deadlines, and the dates that have already been set.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Jutta. My apologies, I was talking, I was on mute, but you said it all in answer to Michael's question. Have we exhausted the coronavirus issue with this? I think, to sum it up, it's so far business as usual and the work will continue online. And in all likelihood, the June meeting, given the rate of postponements of all sorts of meetings, the June meeting will also take place in an online setting. And as you will have maybe noticed, Euro will now take place in an online setting in June. But that would have been in a very highly affected area. But Switzerland is really also very close to the epicenter of the outbreak. Are there other questions to Jutta on the coronavirus, or can we park that issue and ask her to update us on the more substantive discussions? Hearing no other questions, then, Jutta, will you carry on?

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, of course, thank you. So, I would mainly focus on the question of how the dynamic coalition proposals for the next IGF should be linked, could be linked to the four main themes that were set for IGF 2020. And I think we had already talked about that during our last meeting. It's in the minutes that the three themes that were set for IGF 2019 shall continue, but are rephrased a little bit to make them more comprehensible with inclusion data and trust being the continuation of last year's themes. And then a fourth theme was set for this year. And that is Markus, you need to help me. Was it sustainability or environmental issues?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I have to admit you caught me out there.

>> JUTTA CROLL: I think it's environmental issues. But sustainability should be addressed also in that theme. Maybe we can look it up in the minutes again. But you know what we are talking about. It's something about environment and the impact, vice versa, of the digitization on the environment and otherwise how internet governance could help to keep the environment safe and healthy. So, those issues should be addressed with virtual proposals in that thematic trek. So, the task for dynamic coalitions would be to consider how the work they are doing is related to these four thematic tracks, how by the workshops and the sessions dynamic coalitions will apply for relate to these issues, and how they also can help to strengthen the debates around these four thematic tracks during the IGF 2020.

Then, a second thing that I would like to point out is that we had a discussion about language issues. I think we started that at our face‑to‑face meeting in Geneva in January and continued then with a question whether we can help other language speaking communities to be more present in the selection of workshop proposals, in applying for workshops, in applying for sessions, and to be engaged in the internet and the IGF community. And there is now set up a task force on language issues which will continually, throughout the year, work on the question where could we help with translation, could that be a community effort to translate whatever is possible to reach out to other language communities.

Yes, then, I can also report back that the working group on workshop proposal evaluation is just working on setting up the assessment process for this year. We have given MAG members an opportunity to try out the tool for assessing proposals, since there are new MAG members who need to be, kind of, trained on the form and to understand the criteria and the weighting of the criteria. So that is something that is already under way, just waiting for 15th of April when all proposals should be sent in. Then the secretariat will do a primary check whether proposals are in general eligible or whether they have failed some of the rules they need to adhere to.

And then I think a week later ‑‑ so that would be around the third or fourth week of April ‑‑ the assessment by MAG members needs to start in order to finalize the process before the summer break, so that all proposals will know before they go into the summer break whether their workshop was accepted or not. Yeah, I think that's more or less everything from the MAG meeting that is important to be reported back to the dynamic coalitions. Markus, if you have anything to update on that point, whether I have missed out something?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: No, thank you, that was a very comprehensive briefing. And I think it's important for the dynamic coalitions to know the overall ‑‑ but the relevant issue is essentially the suggestion to link the dynamic coalitions to the four main themes that the MAG has determined. So, that's something to keep in mind. Oh, and Lima shows me in chat, it's just environment, the fourth issue, not sustainability. But as you said, we know what we're talking about. It's just a wording issue. Are there questions, comments to Jutta with regard to her briefing ‑‑ update from the MAG?

Doesn't seem to be the case. Then we can go to our fourth agenda item, and discuss the DC cooperation. And this is also very closely linked to the fifth item, the deadline for submitting the DC meeting requests. We had a brief pre‑call between Lima and myself. And again, we looked at what it says on the website. And as you are all aware, there is a commitment by all the DCs to produce an annual report as a precondition for being given a slot. But we had never actually agreed, as far as I remember, on the set deadline, which could be obviously the 31st of December of the calendar year.

But as we never have explicitly mentioned a deadline, I think by the time you submit the request, at the same time, the report should have been submitted to the secretariat. Now Lima alerts us to the fact that very few, if at all, dynamic coalitions have submitted a report yet. So, this is a strong reminder of preparing your annual report so that you are considered a dynamic coalition in good standing. That will qualify you for getting a slot when you actually request a slot within the deadline. I don't know, Lima, would you like to add a word or two on your careful role of custodian of the reports?

>> LIMA MADOMI: Hello, everyone. Thank you, Markus. Yes, I was ‑‑ last week, when I was sending the call for the visit, which is open, I mentioned that we didn't receive any of your yearly reports. So I received one, which is from one of our dynamic coalitions, which is ‑‑ that's the only one we received. But I would really, strongly request our DCs to send in the reports. From the secretariat's point of view, we will consider all DCs as active as soon as they send their yearly reports. Because that is the document that we can see your work throughout the year. The output document of your yearly work.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Lima. Yes. I think it is at least important for the credibility, also, of the DCs to actually make it visible that the work that you have done can be checked and it is visible and people can look at it. And while discussing this, we also wondered whether it might not be helpful to develop a common template for the annual report. I wonder, Jutta, would you like to expand a bit on that?

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, of course, I can do that. So, we're considering that maybe for the dynamic coalitions it would be helpful to have a template or a structure for this reporting. And it would also make it easier for the secretariat and for other people to check and understand what a dynamic coalition has done. So the idea was that we should agree among ourselves what would be the issues that should be reported. So, maybe have you had meetings, about the members of the dynamic coalition, and about the real, active work that has been done, maybe also attendance to national/regional things. There was a desire to have this better‑linked together, that dynamic coalitions not only focus on the annual meeting, but also bring in their work and what they are doing and their results into the meetings of the national and regional initiatives.

So that could be another point that is in the structure of such a report. And then, of course, also a part where the outcomes of the work of the dynamic coalition are reported. We considered that this could be done by an online form, given that the secretariat, especially Lewis, might be able to set up such a form where you just fill in the information you already have. But we also said that it would be helpful to have the template, like, as a Word document or a Google doc where the dynamic coalitions could fill in their information in a joint effort so that more members of a dynamic coalition could work on it instead of only one person who is maybe the organizer or facilitator of the dynamic coalition.

And I would really be interested to get feedback from you, what you think about such an idea, whether you think ‑‑ what you are having in mind to report in such an annual report, whether that would fit into such a template that could be used by all dynamic coalitions.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Jutta. Comments, questions, suggestions?

>> JUTTA CROLL: It seems members are very shy today. What is the reason?


>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: I'm representing the accessibility dynamic coalition. So, when do you ‑‑ will the template be ready for us to use?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: The proposal was to develop ‑‑ I mean, it may not be ready for this year, but to develop something, to work together to develop a common template. But Jutta, I don't want to preempt your answer. Maybe you have a way of speeding up the process.

>> JUTTA CROLL: No, I don't think so, I can't speed it up. Yes, we only have three weeks to go before ‑‑ 3 1/2 weeks before the deadline for workshop proposals. And, therefore, I think if the reports need to be there, we don't have the time to set up a template so shortly. But we wanted to discuss whether you think it's a good idea to have such a template and what would be the most important sections of such a template that you would be able to report.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Well, in your initial comments, you already pointed out some elements, like meetings that have taken place, work produced. I mean, maybe we can come up with something very quickly, very informally. But Avri would like to say something. Please, Avri. Maybe she has brilliant ideas.

>> AVRI DORIA: I'm actually a little apprehensive about templates, because templates end up being this homogenized thing that almost nobody fits exactly in. I think that we're much better off with a list of points that one may or may not cover in their report and let the dynamic coalitions, which are pretty much free style, each of them design to its own needs for their report within that. Otherwise, I do think we have to go through a coordination group, you know, set of discussions to figure out what must be there, what needn't be there, etc., and it not be something that's imposed externally on all DCs must report thusly. So, I guess I'm apprehensive about the whole idea. Thanks.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, thank you. Well, that was helpful, I think, and that may also lead the way, that we could come up with a list of points that may be covered, but, Michael.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA: Thanks, Markus. Michael here, everyone. Yeah, I'm quite supportive of what Avri just said, especially because the entire reporting process across DCs varies so widely. For many of the DCs I'm familiar with, the report is actually research that's being published. So it's not so much an item for item, this is what we have done this year, but it's more like, this is what we are contributing this year. And it ‑‑ kind of, that report ‑‑ that deliverable, rather, is the report. It's kind of ‑‑ you know, it makes it obvious that by compiling this information, we have been working. So I think that if we were to go forward, instead of a template, maybe, as Avri rightly pointed out, a list of guidelines that are kind of agreed upon to say ‑‑ do we not already have something like this? Is this not already in existence?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Michael. It's also a very good question. Judith, is that the new hand or the old hand?


>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. Well, we just thought it might be helpful because the reports were so late. But I can hear there's no strong appetite for a rigid template. And obviously we always said that there's no one‑size‑fits‑all report for the coalitions, because they are very diverse due to the nature of the dynamic coalitions. But the question of points that may be covered, that, I think, would be a helpful way to approach this. And who can help us out, whether that has been discussed in the past? And did Judith say no hand or new hand? It was no ‑‑


>> MARKUS KUMMER: New hand. Sorry. My fault. Judith, in that case, over to you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: My question, are these reports supposed to be for what we did in 2019, or what we're planning to do in 2020? Because we're right now ‑‑ the dynamic coalition on accessibility is restructuring because we had been under the ITU. But we're moving to a new home. But because of the corona issues, the ITU is shut. We can't really commence the move. We're in that state now. So I'm just wondering how ‑‑ and also, I think we put in a report for our session that we did at the IGF to the regular session section. But this annual report is a totally different report. And so . . .

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yeah. There maybe, over the years, may have been some confusion. But, I mean, to let us look back at where we come from, it was just introduced as a requirement just to make sure that there would be no free riders on the dynamic coalition bandwagon, that there were people who actually had done some work throughout the year and they were not just people who got together once a year and held a meeting at the annual IGF. So the report of what happened at the IGF is actually the least important element, because that's precisely, was in a way the starting point, because there were some smart people who actually did not do much during the year, but they held an annual meeting.

And then that was essentially their free pass to get the free slot at the annual meeting. What is meant to be produced is more of an activity report just to prove that you have been active. And hence, you know, if you just say you're transitioning from the ITU to a new home and you have various meetings to discuss this, that, in my view, would be almost sufficient to say that, you know, you are active as a dynamic coalition. It's more a checklist to see has the dynamic coalition actually been meeting during the year. And that's why Avri's suggestion to have maybe a guidelines, a checklist, yes, we held three meetings or four calls, just to show that you exist.

Michael's point, I always get this. Yes, of course, if you produce a substantive outcome, then you obviously have worked together intersessionally, and that's proof of that, otherwise you would not be able to produce it. But you could, at the same time, have an annex to your substantive report and say in order to produce this, we had that many members who actively contributed to the document. We held five or six calls. We had a Google document, we had 20 contributors. You know, that can be done in half a page. That would essentially document the process.

And I really don't want to make this sound more complicated than it is. But I see Michael, is that an old hand or a new hand? Would you like to jump in?

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: I have a quick question. It would be okay if we just wrote up that we are in the process of transitioning and that we've had no discussions on this with the ITU, with other people, with Andrea and with the new home, and what our process is going forward. So that would be fine? Because right ‑‑

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I'm not the ultimate arbiter, but I would strongly defend that such a report would prove that your dynamic coalition is alive and kicking. Jutta, you wanted to jump in?

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes. If you'll allow me to do so. So, I do think what Avri said before is right. All the dynamic coalitions are very, very different. What the report should show at least is that the dynamic coalition has been working towards the objectives they have given themselves to work on. And that is a common objective to improve accessibility, for example, for the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility for People with Disabilities. So, I don't want to contradict you, Markus, but I do think a report that only focuses on the dynamic coalition moving from ITU to another organization ‑‑ it wouldn't show that this is a dynamic coalition on accessibility.

So the report should be at least related in some way to the work and the content the work is related to. That must not be a very exhaustive report of several pages, but it should show what the dynamic members have done, either jointly, or also maybe not all members of the dynamic coalition have been working on the same issue, but have contributed to achieve a common objective of dynamic coalition members. I know several dynamic coalitions who work a bit more, I would say ‑‑ yes, our members try to follow ‑‑ practice, but they do that in different manners.

It's not all joint collaboration. While other dynamic coalitions have a certain objective to write a report, to do a survey or something else. And there you could focus more on the outcome and the results produced. So, dynamic coalitions are differing in many ways. I do think the idea was very good to have a guidance, a list of some issues that could be addressed in such report. But the main and most important thing is that from the report, any outsider who is new to the community would understand what a dynamic coalitions on XYZ was doing during the last 12 months and is planning to do ahead.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: So if members of the dynamic coalition have been doing exactly what you said, but we can then talk about that in our report.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes. That was our understanding. So I would not say that one person needs to know everything that the dynamic coalition members have been doing. If you're a dispersed dynamic coalition, of course you could just send out a message to all the members and say hello, what have you done in regard to the objective that our dynamic coalition tries to achieve throughout the year.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much. I just ‑‑ our new home is going to be what a lot of our members and active members are going to be in, which is the new internet society special interest group on accessibility. And so many of us have done a lot of the work, who are also active members of this, also on the board of this other group. So we are very active in this. It's just that we've had a lot of challenges in meeting as a dynamic coalition under the old framework. So that's why also, we're moving to a new framework.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: No, and thank you, Jutta, for actually correcting me and building on that. I totally agree with you. Obviously it has to go a little bit more in substance. But this particular dynamic coalition, we know, we have worked so closely with them. And they have continuously worked to improve the accessibility of the IGF as a whole. You know, it's almost stating the obvious, but obviously, the report should include some substantive elements. And Avri asked a question ‑‑ this was one of the sessions I sat in at the IGF in Berlin meeting on the summer schools on internet governance.

And yes, that was, in particular, slightly different, as this was really a type of annual general meeting of the dynamic coalition where you had the substantive discussion of the work throughout the year. Their session report, in a way, is also the report for the activity throughout the year, as you said in your chat, if I got that right.

>> Markus, if I may add only one sentence, it became clear to me when you were talking about the DC of Accessibility, from my point of view, the most important outcome of their work was that last year, we changed from WebEx to Zoom. We would not have done so without the strong work the dynamic coalition has done. So these are the things that need to be reported somehow, I would say.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: That's an excellent point. That was really a tangible achievement, that we moved from WebEx to Zoom thanks to your advocacy work. So, that clearly deserves to be mentioned. Michael, is that a new hand or an old hand?

>> MICHAEL OGHIA: Hi, everyone. It's a new hand. I just wanted to say, Jutta, that was very helpful. Thank you for that. I really encourage that we kind of review the existing guidelines for the reports, because as Avri rightly pointed out in the chat as well, I think oftentimes, this past year, for instance, we needed to submit reports after the sessions. But then is that the same ‑‑ so we're using the terminology reports quite liberally and I think it needs to be very, very clear for the DC coordinators what do we need, when do we need it by.

In the past, you also had to submit a midterm or a mid‑year report in the past in order to receive a slot. So just review the existing guidelines, see what makes sense, what doesn't, and what's realistic and also what's fair, I suppose is a good word. But then also maybe we also need to consider reevaluating existing enforcement mechanisms to say look, this is what we all agreed upon. This is how we're holding ourselves accountable. And it is what the secretariat has now passed. So that's just a general comment on that. But overall, well done.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Michael. That's also very helpful. And again, over the years, there are many new people and the original aim got a bit forgotten. But it was not to impose any kind of punishment or whatever. It was really just to make sure that the dynamic coalitions fulfilled a basic requirement. And you mentioned the term accountability. And that's very much part of it. And I totally agree also with Avri that it's not something that's imposed from the outside on how it should be done, but it's much better if the dynamic coalitions agree among themselves how best to present their annual report.

The annual report is an activity report of their work throughout the year as opposed to the report from the meeting at the IGF itself, which is slightly different. But then again, there can be some cases where the two coincide, where the substance of the annual work is also part of the meeting at the annual IGF meeting. But there again, we don't impose a one‑size‑fits‑all. That needs to be looked at on a case‑by‑case basis. But, again, the report should document that from one meeting to the meeting the following year, there has been some intersessional work.

And I think you are all doing this. It's just a question of documenting it so that it can be seen and it can also be shown to those people who question the value or quality of the work. You can say this is what they have been doing, these are really active dynamic coalitions. So, do I take it that there is agreement that we should maybe review the guidelines that may not be possible within the short deadline? But I think already this discussion has been very helpful and should give you some guidance. And this is not something that is rocket science for you guys to do. It's just put it on paper.

It doesn't need to be long, but it has to show that you have been active and done some work. Jutta, please.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Markus, for giving me the floor again. I have just looked up the terms for dynamic coalitions and the dynamic coalition coordination group. And since I was a bit ‑‑ I was wondering about the confusion that was written about in the chat that some people said, okay, we have had a midterm report, we had a report on the session, we need an annual report, I don't know who to send it to and so on. And maybe we could just lay that down and ask people whether it's fine with them and put that into the terms of reference. So, either a new dynamic coalition or some dynamic coalitions get a knew coordinator, it's just an easy way to look up, okay, what is expected from a dynamic coalition throughout the year, and how should we document and report our work.

Not to have a very strict framework, but at least to give them some information. Okay, I can look up and I see that I need to produce an annual report that must not be 20 pages, but maybe one or two pages. I need to apply within the deadline for my dynamic coalition session and so on, just to make people more comfortable with what is expected from them.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. That, again, is very helpful. And I think also it will be in the summary record of this call that Lima will prepare for us all. And thank you in advance for doing that. That's very much appreciated. And that will also be helpful, I think. Again, it should not be an anxiety moment for the dynamic coalition to produce this report. It's not the big, substantive report of your work. It's a work in progress report. It shows the activity report for the previous year. And Jutta's suggestion, I think, is very helpful. But I think that we will not be able to do that within the deadline which you are required to produce the report.

>> JUTTA CROLL: There is another question from Noha from the youth coalition.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: The answer to that is yes.

>> JUTTA CROLL: To apply for a session at IGF 2020, it's necessary to send in the report within that deadline. And we also received in the minutes the report from Avri for the DC SIG on schools of internet governance. I didn't think, Avri, that is the report from your session. So I do think it would not be the annual report of your work, except if the dynamic coalition has done only that session, and all the work throughout the year was focused on that session. But otherwise, like Markus said before, the report on the session that you held during IGF would not be identical with the annual report, because that annual report should cover anything else that you have done in addition to the session at the IGF.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Again, this is a very special case. But Avri in the chat said the meeting included a yearly report to the meeting. And I think it has been the result of collaborative work, if I seem to remember, I attended that particular DC meeting. So it was, in itself, the result. But maybe you could add one page or a half page explaining this, that this actually documents a year‑long work. It may not be obvious if you just look at it as a report from the meeting in Berlin. But it included the yearly. It's a little bit a special case. But I think, again, it documents that there has been ongoing work throughout the year. And that is the main purpose of these annual reports.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Exactly.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Can we move to the other part of what we had planned to discuss under this agenda item? And that is looking forward to the DC session at the annual meeting. Jutta, would you kindly introduce that discussion?

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, of course. I can do so, Markus. So, as more or less all of you may know, the dynamic coalitions do not only apply for their individual dynamic coalition session, but also for a main session during IGF, which usually lasts two hours and is translated into the United Nations languages. So it's a very good opportunity to reach out to the community in a broader way than a single individual dynamic coalition can do. And for this call, we had said that we need to plan for that session as early as possible.

I don't think for these main sessions we have the same deadline as for workshop proposals. But still we need to plan ahead. And we would be happy if dynamic coalitions could suggest their own ideas, whether it's a session where all dynamic coalitions contribute from a certain perspective like we did last year. It was putting the work of the dynamic coalitions in relation to the sustainable development goals. Or whether we should go ‑‑ not go for a common theme for the session. How could we link the session to the four main themes, which would be very much appreciated by the MAG, I do think, to have a more consistent program with everything linked to each other.

So we would like to gather your ideas, put that in a more or less structured frame, and then we can develop our ideas for the DCs main session within our next call. Any ideas, any suggestions to that planning?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, the idea was not to come to closure on this issue on this call, but rather to get the ball rolling, get the discussion started. Any ideas, suggestions?

>> JUTTA CROLL: If no one is ready to answer to that today, what do you think would be our timeframe for setting up a proposal for the dynamic coalitions main session? Could we set this maybe as a main topic for our next call, then send that information out with an invite to the next call, and then focus on that issue in the next call, or would that be too late?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Time‑wise that should be okay. But that we would have a clear idea for the next full MAG meeting that will be in June, whether online or a physical MAG meeting. Could that work that we ask then for suggestions on the list and discuss it on the list and put it on the agenda of the next call? I see no objection, so let's put that as a main item on the agenda of our next call. There's no hard and fast deadlines, but we put it on the agenda of our next call. That will be presumably sometime in April, mid‑April maybe.

And presumably we will still be part of the corona lockdown. So we'll have plenty of time to be at home and think. And if suggestions come in ahead of the call, that will be helpful. We can discuss it at the call itself. As we all remember, the difficult is, as we have such a broad range of activities covered by the dynamic coalitions, is to find the common denominator.

And now with these themes, I think the MAG has made great progress in being more focused with these themes. We have some framework to look at it through that framework. Can we agree on that, Jutta?

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes. From my side, that would be fine.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: There's no objection. So then we'll plan it that way, put it on the agenda of the next call and have an online discussion ahead of the call and get suggestions ahead of the call if possible. Obviously we'll have the opportunity to make suggestions you may have at the call itself. With that, should we go to any other business? Is there any item that anybody would like to take up under any other business?

>> Markus?


>> I just received an email during our call from a MAG member who was asking whether I could make a link to the dynamic coalition on gender issues. I don't know whether anyone from the DC on gender is on the call. If so, please just maybe speak up or send a message in the chat, because it seems that there was somehow ‑‑ the contact didn't work out between that MAG member and the Dynamic Coalition on Gender. So, is there someone who feels responsible for the DC on gender?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: If not, can we ask Lima to connect the MAG member to the dynamic coalition?

>> Yeah, maybe that would be a good opportunity. I do think I saw someone, but I don't see her. I'm not sure whether she still was DC Gender or not. Okay. We will try to solve that beside the call. (Chuckling)

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. Thank you. Lima actually already volunteered to do it. Any other issue under any other business? If that's not the case, then maybe we can give you all a few minutes back of your life.

>> Thank you so much.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Take care.

>> Thanks so much.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Stay at home.

>> Bye, all.

>> Stay safe. Bye‑bye.

>> Bye‑bye, everyone. Bye‑bye.


(Session concluded at 1556 UTC)

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