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 XLII

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.  This is a voice test.  Can you hear me?

    >> Yes, we can hear you.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Excellent.

    Well, it's top of the hour, but let's wait one minute or two.

    How many people do we expect to join the call, Lima?

    >> LIMA MADOMI:  We are expecting 15 people to join the call today.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Let's wait a minute or two.

    >> LIMA MADOMI:  Yeah, sure.


    >> GERRY ELLIS:  Hello, Markus.  It's Gerry Ellis in Dublin.


    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Not that many more people have joined, but I suggest nevertheless getting started.  You have received an agenda shortly before the call.  Is that okay with all of you?  And can you, Lima, maybe post it on the screen?

    It is a fairly standard agenda.  There you go.

    If there are no objections or additions, can I take it that the agenda is accepted as it is on the screen?

    (There is no response.)

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Again, the call is being realtime captioned.  And it is being recorded.  And I take it without hearing any objections that you are okay with having the call recorded.  It is a great help to the Secretariat for producing a summary record of the call.

    With that, can we go then to the first Agenda Item and hear from Jutta or Lima.


    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  There is some feedback on the microphone.  Can you make sure that you're muted?  I was going to say that we can have feedback from Jutta or Lima on the update from the MAG.  I think what is high on everybody's mind is the impact that COVID-19 crisis has on the IGF and so on.  The annual meeting itself.  There are many rumors floating around.  We would be grateful having an update.  Jutta, can you take a run?

    >> JUTTA CROLL:  Yes, of course, thank you, Markus, for giving me the floor.  Hello, everybody.  Jutta speaking here.

    I think I can shortly report from the MAG calls we had, more or less one week has been one week ago on Tuesday last week.  There we mainly spoke about the number of proposals we received and how we will proceed with the assessment process.

    With regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, so far it was decided that the face-to-face meeting of the MAG for the decision making process on which workshops are taken into the program will not take place face-to-face in Geneva in June, but will be a five-day web meeting with separated in several parts of the meeting to make the more convenient for MAG members around the world to join in at times that is more or less convenient for them.

    We will have the open consultations on June 15th, which is the Monday.  And then we go on -- that will be a whole day meeting like usual, open consultations are.  So all DC members are also invited to join in to the open consultations.

    Then over the course of the next four days we will more or less mainly have half-day meetings.  I do think on Tuesday and Wednesday it is in the morning.  On Thursday it is in the afternoon.  On Friday, it will be later in the evening European summertime, given.

    And then there will be some meetings of so-called breakout groups where members from the MAG will join a group and discuss there how they will deal with the proposals in a certain track.

    We have had different numbers of workshops in the four thematic tracks.  That was astonishing compared to last year where more or less in the three tracks we had more or less the same number for each of the tracks.  Now we have the highest number with around 100 workshop proposals in the trust track.  I do think it was 69 or so in the inclusion track.  Around 40 in the data track.  And 19 in the environment track.  But Lima, maybe you have the correct statistics and can give us -- oh, yes, we see the graph.

    So I hand over to Lima to comment a bit on that and then I can continue with reporting from the MAG workshop assessment process.

    >> LIMA MADOMI:  Hi, everyone.  Thank you, Jutta, for the information.  As you see this is the graph that the IGF Secretariat made which includes all statistics from the theme proposals.  I will share the link with everyone in the group.  As for this presentation that we are having to basically all statistics from the received workshop proposals.  We received 237 workshop proposals overall.

    We are, the trust is 42 percent, environment is 8 percent, data is 21 percent and inclusion is 29 percent.  The highest number of proposals we received so far is from trust.  And then inclusion, data, and then environment.  So these are some more information that you can maybe look when I share the link with you.  If there is anyone has a question, I will be happy to answer.  I think that is it from my side.  I hand it back over to you, Jutta.

    >> JUTTA CROLL:  So are there any questions in regard of the statistics?

    Counting slowly to six.


    >> JUTTA CROLL:  I don't see any hands.  So I think we can continue then.  We can also report that among these 237 workshop proposals, there is a certain number that is addressing the pandemic in any way that is possible.  So we can assume that the pandemic will have an impact on the program.  It will be dealt with during the meeting.

    So far there are no plans known that the meeting will not take place in Katowice in November.  We don't know yet.  There might be, it depends on the developments we face across Europe.  Whether the borders will be open again where people are allowed to travel and whether we have a possible new wave in autumn then that might cross all plans already made.  But still the host country is ready to host the meeting on the spot in Katowice.

    With regard to the workshop proposals and the assessment process, it was once again refined a bit.  We will have another meeting of the Working Group for workshop proposal assessment later this afternoon.

    The MAG members were divided in four groups because the number of nearly 100 workshop proposals in the trust track was too high to be dealt with by one group.  So we had two groups assessing trust proposals.  We had one group assessing data and environment.  And another group that is assessing the inclusion workshops.

    There is also an ongoing debate that is not yet closed on how these different numbers of workshop proposals will be mirrored in the program.  There has been a suggestion that it should be proportionate.  So that will mean that if we have 19 in environment, that will be scoped through, from the 100 in trust only 15 to 20 would go through.  But that is not yet finalized.  So we cannot answer that question now.

    I think these are the most important messages from the last MAG meeting.  We will have the next meeting Tuesday next week.  And I would like to hand back to Lima to report on the Dynamic Coalition proposals.  I do think, Lima, you know that better than I.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Are there any questions?  Comments up to now?  Before we move on?

    (There is no response.)

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Doesn't seem to be the case.  Then okay, please, Lima, move on.

    One thing actually in context of the COVID-19 pandemic that is worth mentioning.  Some of the regional IGFs have already decided to hold their meetings online instead of physical meetings.  So there is EuroDIG, there is ACL IGF and also the African IGF decided to hold their meeting on line and the MAG meeting in June.  There will be an accumulated experience for online meetings should we not be able to have a physical meeting in November.  I see Marie-laure has her hand up.  Please.

    >> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR:  Thank you, Markus.  To the point that Jutta was making about whether the debate on whether the proposal allocated to a particular topic should reflect the percentages, I think they should because it does make sense.  It is whether, you know, if there is a higher percentage of submissions, it shows it is higher on the mind than those of the individual entities or persons submitting.  So it does make sense to me at least that that is reflected in the way it is allocated and distributed when the choices are made.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.

    Are there any other comments?

    >> JUTTA CROLL:  Markus, if I might, I would like to encourage the other participants in the call, if they could put their thumbs up if they agree to what Marie-laure said before, that the percentages should be more or less reflected in the program.  That would be a message that I could report back to the MAG in our next meeting next week and to have some impact on the debate.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Excellent idea.  So can you please ...

    >> JUTTA CROLL:  Maybe you can just put in the chat, plus one to Marie-laure, that would be helpful.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  There is a yes button you can click.  Maureen has already clicked that and Michael.

    >> JUTTA CROLL:  That's nice to see.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Works quite well.  Thank you.

    >> JUTTA CROLL:  Thank you.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Excellent idea.  We had some bit of voting here going on.  Okay.

    Can we ask Lima to give an update on the DC proposals?

    >> LIMA MADOMI:  Thank you very much for handing over to me.  Just regarding the proposals we received from the DC, so far we received 16 proposals from DC.  Among all received proposals, we had some duplications, which some of DCs while they were submitting faced a few problems and then they were submitting duplicate proposals.

    So the unique proposals that we have are 16.  And we have 23 percent proposals that are about trust theme.  6 percent are about data.  71 percent about inclusion.  And we did not receive any proposal which focused on environment track.

    The received proposals, most of them were focused on issues related to the cooperation, digital scale, digital literacy, and we also had a few proposals about buildings social inclusion, inclusion and environment.

    Also we had a few problems while there were submissions from the group that, some of the submissions were a bit late due to the problems that the DCs were facing while submitting their proposals, which was then solved by the help of Louis that we had.

    And as for the MAG evaluation, as Jutta also said, the MAG already started their evaluation and the DC proposal has been already sent to the MAG.  And they started the evaluation.  So also about the -- sorry, I'm looking at my notes so I don't miss anything.

    About the received inputs from the DCs, which is considered as one of the eligibility criteria for the DCs to request an individual slot.  So we received only four responses from the DCs who submitted their reports, which I don't know that will be mostly depending on MAG what they are going to decide about that.  If they are going to consider that or since we have some more inputs from DCs also, which is already available in the IGF website.  I'm just sharing my screen so everyone can see that.  So this is the input to the main session, input to the reports of the DC individual session and also the DC annual report.

    That's all from my side.  If anyone has any questions?  Thank you.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you for that.  Can you scroll down again to show us the DC report on this?  So you received only four reports from the DCs.  This is also something I would like maybe we can discuss under the DC cooperation a little bit further.  We started discussing that.  I think one of the problems may well be that the guidelines are not that clear.

    Are there any questions on that?

    >> SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY:  Yes, this is Siva from the Internet Coalition on Core Values.  I have submitted a request for the DC session and I don't see the name listed as one of the four applicants.

    >> LIMA MADOMI:  Hello, may I address this?  This is the reports that the DCs submitted.  It is not the requests, the proposals that you submitted.  The proposals are, these are only the reports, the annual reports.  And all inputs that we received from DCs.

    >> SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY:  Okay.  Not having submitted an annual report, does that disqualify a DC from submitting a request or being evaluated from a slot?

    >> LIMA MADOMI:    I can see that we have inputs from main session.  We have input from DCs individual sessions that we received from DCs.  

    >> SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY:  Yes, I have two supplementary questions.  One, are there any additional time for DCs to submit their annual report?  And second, can a submitted request for a session be improved in terms of content, in terms ever panelists?  Because I have submitted a request to comply with the format and the report is to be improved a little further by discussion in our list.

    Can you clarify on those aspects and tell us about the time frame and the modalities, if any?  Thank you.

    >> LIMA MADOMI:  I think if you could submit your report now even I can upload it and I think it might not be a problem.   But about a bit about your proposals, that will I discuss with my colleague and then I will get back.


    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  There are other requests for the floor?  I see Michael and Noha.  Michael first.

    >> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Hi, everyone.  Thanks, Markus.  Yes, so I just also want to comment on that bit of the annual DC reports.  I'm sure a lot of us feel somewhat triggered by that.

    I think -- and Lima, maybe this is especially towards you and the Secretariat.  There might be a bit of a miscommunication about this.  We discussed this somewhat before.  If you scroll down, Lima, if you see the reports there, a very good example is that, for instance, the Dynamic Coalition on platforms, platform responsibility, they created last year an entire section focusing on platform responsibility issues within a journal that is published by El Savier, I think.  That would count as their annual report but it is not reflected here.  Likewise the Dynamic Coalition of sustainability and journal almost we created last year, I said that the charter we created which establishes its governance structure and what not, that's what we kind of put forth as our annual report this year, for last year rather, because we are still in the process of forming.

    So I just think that one, not only is there miscommunication but if you were to just -- I don't know if the onus should be on the Secretariat but if you reached out to the individual DCs or to the heads or the chairs, whatever you want to call them, of those DCs, they would have something.  It would then be, could be reflected here.  Any thoughts about that would be great.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you, Michael.  We had this discussion at our last call.  I think also looking at the way the guidelines are formulated they are not crystal clear.  I doesn't say by when the report should be in.  It just says there should be a report.  And it doesn't also say what it consists of.

    But a report is a report.  And an annual report can just be that the Dynamic Coalition had ongoing discussions on this and have a link to the output or whatever.

    It is easier if it is produced in a way that the Secretariat can just check the box.  Have they submitted an annual report?  And to see, Avri made this call last time, that the whole work of the Dynamic Coalitions on the schools was an ongoing work and the session at the IGF reflected that work and the summary of that session was a kind of annual report.  Except it doesn't have the label annual report.

    So there is a fuzziness.  My suggestion for the DCs would be that we collectively come up with a proposal and tighten it up a bit so there is no ambiguity left.  And that we can report to the MAG this is how we see it.

    But I am totally in agreement with what you said.  A lot of dynamic work is done between the sessions and that is then the result when they submit the proposal for the annual session.  But something to be discussed further.

    But they still end up -- Noha?  Yes, please, Noha.

    >> NOHA:  Hello, I'm Noha from the YCIG.  We are facing the same issue and I cannot agree more with Michael.  Because we submitted our report in the proposal and sent it via email to the IGF, but we are not listed here.

    So do we need to send it again?  What is the procedure to confirm that our report is where it needs to be?

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  That's a good question.  I also see Avri in the chat complains about more rules and regulations all the time.  But essentially I agree, make it as easy as possible and easy for the Secretariat so the Secretariat doesn't have to search around to find the annual report.  I think good ideas are welcome.  Michael, you want to come back?

    >> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Yes, everybody, Michael here.  Two things.  One, I wanted to highlight that Avri and Maureen are making great points in the chat.  Again it goes back to the point I was making.  It is really about miscommunication.  I think most of us recognize last year we followed the rules.  We followed the guidelines.  I think as Maureen rightly pointed out, and Avri actually, that is what we had done with our session report.  That was meant to be our kind of submitted annual report as well.

    Having said that, I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to creating something new.  I think the way that we were doing it when I was leading the YCIG in 2017, Eleonora was emailing us in June and she would -- we had to at that point give our mid year evaluation which is what, from what I understood, is what allowed us to have a slot at the IGF.

    Then at the end of the year after the IGF was held, that's when we formally submitted our annual report to in this case to the Secretariat by Eleonora.

    So I think for me, Lima and Markus, I think that if the Secretariat just gives us very clear guidelines on what we should do and what you need from us and when you need it, that to me is what is missing here.  I think that might be the miscommunication.

    I don't mean to put that onus on you and I definitely don't mean to criticize or anything.  I just think that let us know when you want things from us and if the, for instance, if the annual report like what we did after Berlin is enough, most of us think that was enough.  If that is not the case, there's something we are missing.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thanks.  Again, I totally agree.  The idea is not to overburden you guys with extra work that is unnecessary.  The starting point for having this requirement was to make sure that there were no free riders, who didn't do the work, that wanted to have a free session at the IGC.  If you say look, IGC, we are entitled to make give a session.  It is to make it clear this is a DC that is active and they are entitled to have a session and we checked it and it is there.

    So now the question is obviously there are changes and as you -- you didn't blame anyone and I don't blame anyone either.  If you look at the website it is not entirely clear.  There is no deadline given when the session should be, the annual report should be delivered.  For instance, it will make sense if we said, if we all agreed by the end of the year each DC delivers an annual report or has it up on their own website.  Quite right what Avri says.  Let's make it as simple as possible but make it also easy for the Secretariat to check that it is implementable as a rule.

    >> LIMA MADOMI:  Mike Markus, could I say a few points?

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes.

    >> LIMA MADOMI:  Yes, I received reports from Michael and some of the other colleagues, but they were not said as an annual report.  So I was confused either they are annual reports because I mostly received some documents from all our DCs that they are doing good work and they are sending their work in different formats.

    So it is either in the middle of the year, the end of year, or any time they produce a document they are sending and I am uploading that to the website, to their page.

    So I was not sure if it was the annual report or not.  But if anyone has already sent me a report and I upload that and they are considering that as your annual report, they can maybe send me a message here or maybe write me an email and I will be happy to also upload that here as an annual report.

    Because I received the same type of report from Nick, who sent me his session report and said that this is the annual report.  Yes, that could be something that they have done throughout the year and they were focused on that.  Then they write a section from their annual report and I upload that here as an annual report for them.

    So if I could maybe know that this document that I received is considered as an annual report, because it was not titled as an annual report or something.  So it was a bit confusion for me.  So if I could know that this is a report that they are considering as an annual report, I will definitely upload it as an annual report.  We do not want the DCs to write a supplementary report, besides the reports that they are writing, we don't want them to put on some other rules that they should right as separate other reports.  But if I know that this is an annual report for them I will be happy and definitely uploading that as a DC annual report.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  There is still some discussion going on in the chat.  And I think they Judith said that they sent a report but it is not listed.

    One thing I could suggest.  Can you make it sure that any misunderstandings gets sorted out.

    That can be done individually between the Dynamic Coalition concerned and the Secretariat.

    I also sense a not total agreement on what is required.  Platform as I said, checking boxes.  What I meant is that it should be easy for the Secretariat to check:  Have you done the annual report?  It may indeed be the title of a heading just to say annual report when you send in the document.

    Are there any other comments, Jutta, from a MAG point of view?

    >> JUTTA CROLL:  Sorry, Markus, I feel a bit uncomfortable because I'm also a member of one of the DCs to discuss the question whether the session reported an annual report or vice versa.  So I would like not to comment on this topic.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  My question was more how do you see the MAG's reaction to that?

    >> JUTTA CROLL:  Oh, okay.  Yes, that's fine.

    Recalling the debate on Dynamic Coalitions, we have been discussing this with this group already.  There is always a little bit of mistrust by MAG members that Dynamic Coalitions are a segue to circumvent the process of proposals going to the evaluation process by the MAG.  So the reports are somehow an instrument to build up this trust that no Dynamic Coalition has any intention to circumvent the MAG, but that they have their real interests in bringing a contribution, a valuable contribution to the program.  And from that perspective I would say MAG members, of course, appreciate reports produced by the Dynamic Coalitions just to underline that this is Inter-Sessional work that does not take place only with a session held during the annual IGF meeting, but that dynamic coalitions are working in very different manners according to the objectives they have.  But they are working throughout the whole year to achieve these objectives that all individual dynamic coalitions have and a report that helps better to understand how dynamic coalitions are doing that and also to understand that there are different ways to achieve such an objective.  That is really helpful for the MAG as well, to better understand the work of the dynamic coalitions.

    I do think that does not count only for MAG members but also for the greater community.  As said before, many people out there do not know that dynamic coalitions are something that you just can join if you feel comfortable with the objective.  The dynamic coalitions has, that you have something to bring forward to achieve that objective.  So the more transparency we have on the work and the achievements of the dynamic coalitions, the better I would say from a MAG perspective and an community perspective.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you very much, Jutta, for that.  I think that was also very clear and outlined what has always been a little bit of an inherent tension.  You have played the devil's advocate, the session report, that could be a Dynamic Coalition doesn't do anything between an Inter-Sessional time but they have a meeting at the annual meeting and then they produce a report and they say that is our annual report so we have done work.

    As I said I don't think it is a case for any Dynamic Coalition to have a report of the session that you have in the IGF as such is not proof that you are doing Inter-Sessional work.  Whereas if the Dynamic Coalition says we have done this work, this is the result of, we had five calls during the year.  We have a document, a rolling document.  We produced input into this, as was explained so well and the work in the summer school it state and the session at the annual meeting is the result of that and the annual report could be five lines explaining that.  It doesn't need to be a huge document, but it has to document that there has been going ongoing Inter-Sessional work and is not the report of one session.

    And if the report of the one session makes that clear, so be it.  But then label it as annual report.  I think we should be, we have to see that -- yes, our report was a page and a half, Judith says.  Yes, DCAD has done work.  We are now on zoom because of the DCAD.  Yes, we understand that and you don't need your own report.

    My suggestion would be, and that is essentially on Agenda Item 5, we as dynamic coalitions come up with the guidelines posted on the website and we don't throw the ball back to the Secretariat and ask them to do the work to provide the guidance.  But we do that ourselves.  And work out something.  Then we can go back to the MAG and say look, that is what we see as the process.  But I think it is much better if it is done in a bottom-up process where all dynamic coalitions can agree on it.  Again that is more Agenda Item 5.  We can maybe not decide that now on how to do it.  I see that more as some work we ought to start doing.

    Are there any other questions to that?

    (There is no response.)

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Judith is talking about the DCAD guidelines, the accessibility issues.

    Yes, and Michael, we just need to clarify certain things.  I totally agree.  It is just that we need to be a little bit clearer to avoid unnecessary ambiguities.  Maybe also set the deadline by which the annual report should be produced, be that the 31st of December or the 31st of January, whatever.  But that we know what should be done by when.

    With that, any other questions?  Comments on the DC proposals update Agenda Item?

    If not, can we go then to the DC main session?  Jutta, would you agree to introduce that session?that Agenda Item?

    >> JUTTA CROLL:  Oh, you catch me up front.

    I'm sorry, I am not sure whether we discussed the question of the main session during our last call and whether we already have suggestions how the main session this year should be run.

    Do you remember that issue?

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, we had actually a fairly good discussion in Berlin, but that was not a conclusive discussion.  There was also a little bit linked to one suggestion that was made that the DCs should engage in substantive Inter-Sessional cooperation.  But totally agree we have not made any sort of further progress.  So we can deal with this Agenda Item as a brainstorming Agenda Item.  We have many great minds on this call.

    >> JUTTA CROLL:  Yes, wonderful idea.

    Anyone?  Any ideas?

    >> If I may?

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes, please.

    >> SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY: I think the best way to move forward on the main session is to discuss everything including the time slot position including the Panelists on a mailing list between DCs so that some kind of common picture emerges about what the DCs collectively wish for in that session.  That is one point.  That is to decide the theme and whether we want it on day 1, day 2 or what we want as part of the main session.  These are some of the ideas that would come up.

    As a second point, in earlier ideas, the DC main session was poorly attended.  So we should also do something to reach out and make it an important part of the IGF.  As a way forward is to start a small thread on the DC coordination list and discuss among DC supporters the main issues.  Thank you.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  My question to Jutta regards the timing.  By when should we have something ready?  Should we have something, project however loose for the June MAG meeting?

    >> JUTTA CROLL:  Yes, of course.  That would be very helpful.  The main sessions are definitely part of the debates that will be held by the MAG in the June meeting.  And the more concrete the suggestions for the main session of dynamic coalitions are, the better that will be accepted by MAG members.

    I think Siva has made good suggestion that we probably discuss this question how we can build up such a main session reflecting the work of the dynamic coalitions on the mailing list, gathering some ideas.  Maybe we can set up a Google Doc or something that we can collaboratively work on.

    And then we can have another meeting and maybe in three weeks time so that it is early enough to make that more concrete before we have the MAG meeting then in June.

    I do see that Lima has opened the meeting minutes from the last DC call.  It was already said that all DCs are requested to suggest their own ideas in regard to the main session in a common effort towards designing a more consistent IGF.  All sessions will be linked to each other.

    If we can take up on that and try to gather some ideas and reflexes over the next two to three weeks and then try to build that into like a proposal for DC's main session, that would be useful.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  It is also, as far as I understand, it is also in that report of the call, the desire to really have a close link between the sessions.  So also the DC session should then be linked to the main themes.

    Is that correct, Jutta?

    >> JUTTA CROLL:  Sorry, I switched off my mic because I am awaiting another incoming call.  I didn't want to disturb you.

    Yes, that's correct.  So the dynamic coalitions main session should fit into the program.  That would also mean that it should reflect their thematic checks of the program.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Are there other suggestions?  Comments?

    >> MARIE-LAURE LEMINEUR:  Yes, if I may?  Marie-laure speaking.  One consideration would be to look at the design from last year's session, how successful we assess it collectively.  Whether we were happy with it or not.  And the gaps or the weaknesses that we saw in it.  If we are predominantly happy about it, sort of reproducing the design that we had last year and address perhaps the weaknesses or whatever aspects we could improve.  One of them being low attendance from the MAG participants.  Thank you.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  This is one thing we also discussed in Berlin, the low attendance.  But I think all participants in that meeting said yes, it was low attendance, but nevertheless the session was worthwhile.

    That there was value in the as such and it is documented for posterity.  It benefits from interpretation in all UN languages.  And you have it as also a captioning remains of the session.

    Any other comments?

    Maureen says in the chat she supports a Google Doc so that we can work collectively.


    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Other comments, questions?

    >> SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY:  Talking about the Google Doc being there for posterity, I noticed that the archives of at least our DC sessions, the links to the sites are broken.  This must have happened when different teams of volunteers changed the website and did some migration, did some work on migration.

    So the links that were there earlier are probably in a certain format which was changed to a different format, which is probably why some of the records, some of the archives are not available.  I had some difficulty locating proper links to submit records of my previous workshops and DC sessions.  I think the Secretariat could look into that.  It could be a simple problem.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I'm sure Lima will talk to Louis about it and see whether it can be fixed.  The good news is also that I read on the list that there is a big contribution, I think, from the United Kingdom to improve the website.  So that might be helpful.

    Other comments?  Suggestions?

    My question then, if we start this discussion with a Google Doc, we need a strawman, a first draft.  Is any volunteer willing to produce the first document you can work on?

    >> SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY:  I don't mind doing that.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, okay.  So you are volunteered to get us started.  Thank you very much for this.

    Then we take it from there.  Is that a new hand, Siva?

    >> SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY: It is an old hand.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Old hand, okay.

    Anything else on the DC main session?

    (There is no response.)

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Doesn't seem to be the case.  We have a way forward on that.  And DC cooperation we already discussed a little bit.  One of my concrete proposals would be that we sort out or improve and make the guidelines on the website for the getting a DC slot at the annual meeting clearer.  And less ambiguous.

    I wonder whether we should have similar continuing, maybe also Google Doc.  Doesn't have to be a long document; it's just a paragraph.  I wonder, Michael, would you mind if I volunteer you?

    >> MICHAEL OGHIA:  Not at all.  I'm happy to help with that.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  You look on the website, you see four or five lines.  You make them a little bit clearer, that there is no different interpretations of what is actually required.  I think that could be helpful.

    Then we could go back to the MAG if we agree and say look, this is how, what we propose to do and explain it.  Jutta could then take it to the MAG and explain that from now ongoing forward that is the way it is being handled because there has been some misunderstandings on what the annual report was.

    Okay then, we look forward to that.

    Well, the other DC cooperation will then be we work on a document, on an input document for a common main session.  Is there anything else we should discuss on the DC cooperation?

    (There is no response.)

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Jutta, do you have anything in mind?  We have maybe that fell under the table?

    >> JUTTA CROLL:  The only thing I would like to mention, there are as you said before many of the regional IGFs and initiatives are planning now to do their annual meeting virtually.  So online.  And I do think that offers more opportunities for cooperation also, cooperation within the dynamic coalitions and with the national and regional initiatives because if the whole meeting takes place, what shall we do more -- whatever tool is used, it might be easier for people to join in and have access to the meeting.  Easier than when you take remotely part in a meeting while all the other people are gathering on the spot.

    So I would just like to encourage people to take part in these national regional virtual IGF meetings and take that opportunity for a Dynamic Coalition also to cooperate.

    I'm sorry, I need to take another call.  I have to say bye-bye.  Sorry.

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you, Jutta, for that.  That is a great comment.

    It offers, I think, the DC work, the Inter-Sessional work is ongoing anyway.  But it is great if you actually clock in with all the online versions of the national and regionals.

    And Judith also points out the IGF USA is planning to go online and many others.

    Is there anything the any other business?  Anything else from anyone under any other business?  Anything anyone would like to bring up?

    (There is no response.)

    >> MARKUS KUMMER:  Doesn't seem to be the case.  So we have reached the top of the hour almost.  So can we then leave it here?  And say goodbye to everyone and we then take the work online on preparing a document for a main session.  And also updating the guidelines.  Thanks to Siva and Michael who volunteered to drive this work.

    With that I thank you all and wish you, as we say nowadays, stay safe.  Bye, all.  Bye-bye.

    (The meeting concluded at 1300 UTC.)

    (CART captioner signing off.)


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