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 XXXIX

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: The agenda is up. 

You have met the new person in the IGF Secretariat, she's an intern and I met her online and now she's here in person.  I don't know, Lima, would you like to say a few words as we wait for others to join and others to start.

>> SECRETARIAT: Yes.  I'm a Fellow with the IGF Secretariat for the next six months.

>> You're more than welcome.  I apologize, I said intern, but you're a Fellow.

>> SECRETARIAT: That's fine.  That's totally fine.

>> We're at the top of the hour.  We're waiting for a few others to join.  We'll see, we have 11 people on.

Let's start the meeting and we understand that some people may join later.  I'm a great believer in starting on time.

The agenda item number 1 is the adoption of the agenda.  We have a draft agenda.  You always have the opportunity to add other issues under any other business.

Is the agenda as proposed acceptable?  If I hear no objection within a reasonable few seconds I would consider that's the case.  If you have any issue you would like to take up under any business, now is the time to say so.

Doesn't seem to be the case.  We have the agenda.  We have a game plan.

The second agenda item would be an update on the overall situation of the planning process for the IGF2019.  We're fortunate that the cocoordinater of the C session whose very closely involved also on the side of the German Host Country, we couldn't have a better person here to update us all on where we are with regard to Berlin 2019.


>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, for giving me the floor.

Just to mention, the meeting's recorded so everybody is informed and everybody has a record of what's said.

With regard to the IGF, I can mainly report from the last MAG meeting we had last week on Tuesday where it was confirmed that close to 3,000 people now had already registered.  I do think it was around 2,700, a lot of interest in taking part of the meeting although we didn't have figures how many had registered for onsite participation on online.  Preparations for the sessions are going very well.  Several speakers have confirmed their attendance, still the MAG has a lot of work to do in regard of setting up the main sessions.

I do think the program is now finalized.  You may have seen the schedule already on the IGF website.  What I also would like to mention is that we were informed that it is a bit outside of the IGF although it will play a major role within the IGF, it is the high‑level panel on digital cooperation report.  The deadline for online commenting on the report was extended.  You will have the opportunity until the 14th of October, it is still a few days to go to take the opportunity to report back.  I do highly recommend to do so, because somehow the report will also set the scene, and the comments to the report as well will set the scene as to how we proceed with Internet Governance in the years' to come. 

So for the content side, and on the other hand it is simple due to the Secretariat having set up a very simple to use online participation tool.  It is easy to add your comments.  You don't have to comment on the whole report, you can comment on parts of the report, and if you go through the document I do think most of the Dynamic Coalitions will find some issues they can anchor to and give comments in regard to the work that the Dynamic Coalitions are doing.  Then the report itself will be dealt with in one of the main sessions.  It will have an impact on the program of the IGF by commenting also to the report.

Final remark was with regard to the idea of planning.  As you may be aware, the Host Country government has invited on Day 0 to a high‑level meeting.  The invitations went to all Ministers concerned with digital issues in the whole United Nations' states, embassies, so far it is around 30, maybe 35 Ministers have already confirmed their attendance to this high‑level meeting on Day 0.  We hope definitely that they'll not only come over for that first day of the IGF but Day 0 of the IGF but stay for some other days and some other sessions, but this will definitely improve involvement of high‑level representatives from governments into the whole Internet Governance Forum.

I'm ready to answer any questions in detail if you may have.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much, Jutta for that.

Any questions.

>> NIGEL HICKSON:  Yes.  Good afternoon.  Nigel here.

This session, the session you just mentioned, the high‑level ministerial session, is that ‑‑ does that fall in the morning as well of Day 0 or is it after the panels in the morning?

>> JUTTA CROLL: No.  The panels in the morning are a part of the session.  Ministers, Civil Society, technical community and private sector each with a more or less same share of participants, that means around 30, maybe 35 from each group are invited to that high‑level exchange.  It will be starting with the Plenary session for the 100 to 120 people, and then they will go into different panels that have the more or less same structure like the IGF program, which is data governance, security, safety, education and inclusion.  These panels will be, like I said before, all four stakeholder groups will have the same roles in the panels but the panels will be open also to participants in the IGF.  It is not a closed shop, but all participants in the IGF will also be able to attend the sessions.  The space is large enough to accommodate, participate in the session.  We don't know yet how interactive the sessions will be.  They'll be, of course, moderated, and we'll try to have interaction with participants.  We cannot say for sure how much time and room is there for a lot of interaction.

Then on Day 0 as well, our other sessions, some of them also in the morning, more of them in the afternoon after the high‑level exchange has finished I do think around 2:00.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much, Jutta.

I would also have a question which has a direct impact on us, the deadlines for coming up, the final program write‑ups for the various sessions, speakers, so on for the website.

>> JUTTA CROLL: You mean for the high‑level meeting?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: No.  Sorry.  Overall for the program.

>> JUTTA CROLL: No.  I don't think ‑‑ maybe the Secretariat can help with that point.    I don't think any strict deadlines were communicated.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: This brings us then already to the next agenda item of planning of the DC main session.

Lima, would you have insight or give us guidance on this, in terms of by when do we have to do what?

>> SECRETARIAT: You mean about the reporting or the DC many session?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: No.  To have the program finalized presumably we will to produce a list of speakers for the main session, planning.  The reporting is a separate issue.  Is there a deadline?

>> SECRETARIAT: Well, no.  I don't think so, that we have heard something about that yet.  Definitely I'll talk with colleagues tomorrow, and I'll update.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay.  Yeah.  I think for us it is always good to be a step ahead.  It would be good if we could wrap everything up let's say a month ahead.


>> MARKUS KUMMER: It would be a few weeks from now.  I don't know if that's the official deadline or not.

>> JUTTA CROLL:  I don't think we were given at the MAG meeting a district deadline, but it was said that all of the information should be up on the website as soon as possible.  So we should not relax and say that we have a lot of time to go until 25th of November.  The earlier we advertise the session, the earlier people know about it and will decide that maybe they attend or not.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: If you don't have a hard ‑‑ as soon as possible, it is a very fluid deadline.  I think we ought to really come out of this meeting saying by then we should really have a finalized session, and it is a fluid agenda.  We already essentially ‑‑ we're essentially on agenda item 3, planning the DC main session.

I will ask Lima, a lot of work has been done by the MAG, there is a dedicated Working Group on the reporting out and obviously the output is also closely linked to the inputs and prepared sessions.  We have to bear in mind what the output requirements are.

Lima, can I call on you to brief us a bit on the various reporting requirements that have been developed over the past few weeks?


Thank you, Markus.

Yes, during the last work group meeting about the reporting and some of the participants in this meeting were there, and during that meeting we ‑‑ it was discussed by the MAG Chair and it was finalized we'll have just like the previous years, we'll have three types of reporting, which is the prereporting, which would be due one month before the IGF, and not like from this year's, it was two weeks due before the IGF, so now we'll be giving that probably more time, which is one month, and then we'll be having the second chart reporting, which will be due 12 hours after the session and the organizer should submit the report 12 hours after the session, and then we'll be having the long reporting or the final reporting which will be due two weeks after the IGF.  These are the three reporting which is discussed here in the work group for reporting and also IGF will be sharing the agenda ‑‑ will be sharing the guidelines and processes for the meeting report tomorrow with all of the organizers so that they can start working on the prereporting for their sessions.

That's I think the latest update on the reporting that we're having.  I don't know if there are any questions.  I hope I explained it.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you.

Jutta, as you're closely involved with the MAD, anything to contribute to that?

>> JUTTA CROLL: No.  I don't think I have anything to add.  Lima described it very well.  People need to be prepared to have that short report shortly after the session, so we'll be ready to do that with the Dynamic Coalition session and then we'll give a bit more time than we have had in previous years for the detailed report.  This is due to the fact that the detailed reports also should have an impact on developing Internet Governance further, so to deepen the messages that come out of the IGF meetings and therefore it is good to have a bit more time to consider the real outcome of the session and the messages as well.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: My immediate reaction is that the 12‑hour deadline is very short actually, depending where the session is.

I wonder, Titiana, we have not finalized, she indicated her readiness to be the moderator whether we could ask her to take the lead and obviously in a collaborative forthwith volunteers from all of the DCs who are willing to lend a Monday and are most welcome to lend a hand, but could that be a ‑‑ a 12‑hour deadline is actually ‑‑ if the session is late afternoon, 10, 12 hours, it is 5:00 in the morning the following day.

>> JUTTA CROLL: It is more or less ‑‑ I do think it is based on what was done by EuroDIG for several years now, but more or less what's in the report that's to be delivered in the 12 hours after the session, it should be what was said in the meeting and what was agreed by the pour tis pants.  It should be very short, but consensual messages taking out of the session.  I do think this needs preparation in advance.  It could not be done overnight.  It needs to drive the discussion during the discussion in a way that makes it easy to come to some conclusions or consensual messages at the end of the session.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: You expressed it much better than I did.  It is a direct impact from the planning of the session is the requirement.  We have to bare that in mind when we plan for the main session.  We're deep now into agenda item 3.

I mentioned Titiana, we mentioned her, I don't think we have locked her in.  She did the moderation three years ago in Geneva and did a fantastic job in moderating the DC main session and as she did a very thorough job of preparing the session, reading all the papers, waving her way through the various papers and asking relevant questions to the representatives of the Dynamic Coalitions that she could also in a way ‑‑ I'm thinking allowed here ‑‑ set the stage for the output.  The input is closely linked to the output.

Are there thoughts on that?  Should we approach her?  Should we take a totally different approach?

>> My view is she's volunteering to do the moderating, then we as coorganizers of the session should perhaps organize the note taking.  I don't think she can take on the role of note taking as well.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: No.  That's a very valid point.   

I did not mean that she should take the notes herself, but she would be closely involved in the overall organization of the output.

>> What I remember we did last year, we had a moderator, a co‑moderator, and that could probably also be a way to not burden everything on to Titiana because we all know that it's not the easiest session we're preparing here with several different Dynamic Coalitions dealing with several different issues, bringing that together, it is a difficult task.  Maybe we could also consider a female and a male moderator which made a good thing last year.  Just a suggestion.  I don't have anybody in mind.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: It is also I think we have to approach Titiana to make sure that she confirms that she's available.  She indicated her readiness but I don't think we have ‑‑ all of this is clearly ‑‑ we don't want to overburden her with it.  At the same time she did when she moderated the session two years ago, she had the clear plan on how the whole session would run and that would be to make sure whoever holds the pen in the output is in close contact with her.

That was sort of my main point.   

Again, we do have ‑‑ we have received how many papers from Dynamic Coalitions?  Maybe 11 papers.

>> Maybe I should report on the papers and the analysis of the papers.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Please.  Please.

>> So we have 11 Dynamic Coalitions, we have heard from so far.  I do think we need to take a decision with Dynamic Coalitions now and those that have sent in papers, whether that makes it a closed shop or whether we still should accept papers from those Dynamic Coalitions who have not yet responded.  I do think we have now 17 Dynamic Coalitions, so six are missing out of the whole number of Dynamic Coalitions, papers from 11.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Again, we had it opened and people made the effort.  Let's close it now.  We have extended it.  We're flexible, we had at one point 9 and then 2 more came in.  As it is, 11 Dynamic Coalitions is already a big number.  Each Dynamic Coalitions will then nominate a speaker on the session, that's already quite big and challenging of a panel, for those who have not submitted a paper of this, too bad, we understand that people sometimes are too busy.  I think we have to come to closure at some point and unless there is agreement on this call, I would very strongly urge collectively Dynamic Coalitions, that we say this is it, now we have closed the contributions and we have the speakers.  Otherwise, it is a never ending story.

Is there an objection to say that we have now the participants in the session?

>> Do we have any representative of the Dynamic Coalitions of the four that have not sent in a paper or have you all that are in the call right now already have sent in papers?

As far as I'm familiar with the names, sorting them to the DCs, I do think that all who are on the call have somehow taken part with a paper.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Looking at the chat, it was sent in August I think.  If Dynamic Coalitions are keen to be part in the main session ‑‑ we can, of course, extend the deadline for a few more days and say last opportunity to submit the paper.  I have no objection to that.

Is there somebody on the phone that would like to say something?

>> Sorry, we can't hear you ‑‑

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Whoever it was muted him or herself.  I think it is the pains of getting through.

>> Maybe we go further into the analysis of the paper.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Please, Jutta.

>> JUTTA CROLL: We had asked all Dynamic Coalitions to relate their work to the Sustainable Development Goals and we have very good coverage, several Dynamic Coalitions, several SDGs are addressed by Dynamic Coalitions.  The only SDG that was not addressed is 14, and I think that's fine, because we have a very good coverage for all the other SDGs.

Second thing, it was with regard to the session, input, most of these 11 Dynamic Coalitions have already pointed out policy questions they would like discussed.  My suggestion would be if you agree that I try to structure the policy questions so we have a first draft for the structure of the whole session.

I do think it would be a good idea not to have the Dynamic Coalitions one after one after one presenting, but to cluster their work around the SDGs that they have already pointed out that they're addressing in their work.  It would then be in the session that Dynamic Coalitions may be asked to speak to several points in the session.  When we go through the SDGs, and you ‑‑ you see, for example, SDGs 16, it is prominent among the Dynamic Coalitions, which is peace, justice, strong institutions, and then we could have a part of the debate about SDG16, and then those coalitions who are addressing this issue would speak to that point, then we go to another SDG where other Dynamic Coalitions have related their work to and we structure it to content and not by numbers of Dynamic Coalitions.

I hope I have been able to make my ideas clear.  I'm not sure.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: It is very clear, crystal clear even.  It is very logical, very coherent.  There's nothing more boring ‑‑ especially with so many speakers, one after another give their own promotion of their own institution, but what you are suggesting is a very logical approach to the main theme of the session by having a thematic approach of discussion around the cluster of issues.

Are there comments on that, further suggestions on how this could work?  To me, it sounds like an excellent plan.

>> JUTTA CROLL: I do think I could be do the clustering more or less by the end of the week.  Then we could send it around to the Dynamic Coalitions list and ask whether it seems logic to them, whether there are any further policy questions.  There is some overlapping in the questions, so it might be not too much of a difficult task to cluster them, and at that point I think it would be the moment to include also the moderator, to let her and probably him, I think there was support for a couple of moderators, to let them know how the session may be structured around the SDGs and then see how that will go.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you.

I see there is quite a lot of support in the chat.  I saw some hands up.  I think it was ‑‑ was it Melinda?  The hand up?  The hands went down, maybe they were up by mistake.  If you would like to speak, now is the opportunity to speak.

I see a lot of support in the chat for this very structured approach.

One thing I have in mind, we need for the program obviously names who will represent the Dynamic Coalitions and that was something that came up that was on the list chat, I think it was Michael that asked the question.  Of course each Dynamic Coalition, you're free to decide on who will represent your work but we'll need the names for the program.

Do we need to set the deadline for having the names of speakers?

>> JUTTA CROLL: Sorry for interrupting you.

We already have the names.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: We already have all the names?  They're in the paper, yes.  Sorry.  Sorry.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes.  In the papers.

I just saw that at least one had named two people, and that is ‑‑ as I see, Michael is also on the call, there are proposed names.  I know that Michael also is a journalist, I was wondering whether Michael could be the co‑moderator instead of speaking for the Dynamic Coalition.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: That sounds like an excellent suggestion.

>> Could you repeat that, please?  Jutta, what did you suggest?  This is Michael.

>> JUTTA CROLL: I suggested that ‑‑ I had seen that on your paper for the Dynamic Coalition on journalism and sustainability, you had suggested two speakers, yourself and also ‑‑ I have to look up that name, sorry ‑‑

>> Michael:  I think you're probably thinking Myra.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes, Myra and your name.

I know that you're a journalist, I thought if it may be a good idea that Myra represents the Dynamic Coalition and you would be the co‑moderator for the whole session.

>> Michael:  That's very kind of you.

I mean, I would be happy to I suppose.  I never have done it before.  I hope I would do it well.

Everything we're talking about really fits well into the purview of my experience.  I'm very familiar with the DCs, I'm actually quite involved ‑‑ I'm involved with many DCs.  It would work for me.  Just as long as we could do adequate prep ahead of time.  I obviously want it to go well.  Just to give a very brief update about that, I hope everyone ‑‑ apologies if I'm talking too much about myself here ‑‑ but we actually ‑‑ that's in line with what we emailed you about, Markus, Jutta, we have a project ongoing that's related to our Dynamic Coalition that we think is absolutely relevant to inform everyone about, and that would also be to presenters, copresenters, they're both the authors of this report that will be coming out soon.  That's basically ‑‑ the issue is, it still stands that we would have two presenters, but they would be about the same thing or the same project, if that makes sense.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: We have to be a little bit strict here.  We have 11 Dynamic Coalitions part of the sessions, we can't have one with two speakers, that could really be a Pandora's box and then everybody else says we want 2, 3, then it is out of hand.

I think Jutta's suggestion is a very great, elegant way out, helpful.  I think as there has been a lot of support in having a male and female moderator, and I think to have you, Michael, as co‑moderator, that would be a very good way forward.  As Jutta has said, you have a past with a journalist and you would be able to promote the session.  You can put it out on social media, blogs, et cetera, to be involved in the session.  I think that's an excellence solution.  If you don't ‑‑ if there is no violent objections to this proposal, I think we could move ahead with that plan.

>> MICHAEL OGHIA:  I think as long as everybody supports that.  It would be fine for me.

Just to very, very briefly, Markus clarify, I think perhaps I am misunderstanding a bit about the nature of the session in that when I was saying for instance that these two individuals would be representing their project, it is very ‑‑ it is okay for us to ask one or the other, if either of them could make it for instance.

I agree with the suggestion, you know, it may be best if we could, you know, determine ‑‑ we need to get in touch with these potential speakers, any of the DCs to figure out who would be the final representee, you know, Myria and I both are happy to give the floor to somebody else.  Yeah.  These are really little details we're speaking of.  What's important is that we stay focused especially on the content and obviously a quality among the DCs.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes.  Yes.

This is just essentially in terms of finalizing a program we need to have one name per DC to be put on the program.

Can we do that on the basis of the papers we have?  If we take Michael off, and put him as co‑moderator we're fine then, Jutta?  Do we need to give more time?

>> JUTTA CROLL: No.  I do think ‑‑ I'm now working with the input we have already gotten by the forms.  It would be difficult for me if Dynamic Coalitions now start to change what they had put into the forms because then every other day I would have to check whether there were changes or not and I would not be comfortable.

I suggest the following, put up a list of policy questions by clusters from the input we have so far.  In addition I would put up the list of the speakers that were named within the papers and we send that around to the Dynamic Coalitions list and if anybody would want to make a change to the speakers they should do that then as a response to the list of speaker names and a list of clustered policy questions that will be sent out probably by the end of ‑‑ I can do that over the weekend I do think.  At least on Monday you would all ‑‑ the whole DC list will get the list of speakers named beforehand in the papers and a list of clustered policy questions.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Excellent.

My last question here, do we actually give a very last deadline for additional papers or do we consider this closed now.

It has been open long enough.  That's the general feeling and now we consider it closed.  Too bad for those that have missed it.  Especially as some of you pointed out, you presented your papers already in August, and now it is October and there's only six weeks to go ahead of the meeting.  Is there agreement that ‑‑ this is it now, we don't extend any deadlines.

>> JUTTA CROLL: A compromised approach, we don't encourage Dynamic Coalitions to send in any other paper so we work with these 11 we have got.  When I list out the list of policy structured questions and speaker names, if then someone says my God, I missed the deadline, we would not reject it strictly.  I don't think that anybody has just forgotten about it.  I do think that these are the ones interested in having a joint session and maybe the others are not at this time.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: You approach the flexible approach.  You're very kind.

We'll go with that, if somebody turns up with a last‑minute paper we'll consider it.

Again, that should then be pretty soon.  Yeah.  Minda also agrees with the flexible approach.

The time and date of the session, I don't have the program in front of me.  I think we have sent it out already.  Lima, do you have it in front of you?  Jutta may have it in front, the exact date and time.

>> JUTTA CROLL: I'm sorry.  I don't have it in front of me.  I would have to look it up.

>> SECRETARIAT: I'm just looking.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: If you can look it up, put it in the chat.


>> MARKUS KUMMER: I think we're fine actually, we're in good shape with planning the main session.

I will get in touch with Titiana to make sure that she confirms that she's ready to do it.  Otherwise I think we are set.

Is there anything else we can discuss in regard to the main session.

Michael in the chat would love to work with Titiana.  I agree.  You would be an excellent team.

Jutta, anything else we should address?

>> JUTTA CROLL: I don't think so.  I do think we're fine with planning the main session at this point.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Unless there is any other last minute comment, question, I would then suggest to move on to the next agenda item.

In previous years, you may remember, maybe not all of you have been around for that long, but ‑‑ let me think, Brazil, the first DC main session, and we split it into two and we had half of the session that was more inward looking and it didn't really work out well in terms of attracting interest.  We did realize that there was an appetite for having a stock‑taking session.  We did the same, in Paris, it was very informal, we have reserved a room, a lunchtime the last day so that we can actually meet and take stock.  That's usually been very helpful.

You know, what's fresh in your mind, what should be done differently also to the individual sessions, there are some DC sessions taking place during the morning of the last day, it is a lunchtime session, the slot has been reserved and presumably the room is already up on the program and you'll see it in the chat, that's the stocktaking session on the 29th, that's the very last day at 1:00 and the other question was the DC main session, I think that's the day before.

The stock‑taking session is last day, lunchtime, 1:00.

When is the DC main session question was asked, Lima, if you can check that on the program.

Is there anything you would like to discuss with regard to the stock‑taking session.

Now the main session, it is on the 28th of November at half past 4:00.  The stock‑taking session, it is the following day at 1:00.

For the American contingent, the main session is on the U.S. Thanksgiving day.

Anything to discuss on the stock‑taking?  In my view that's a fairly straightforward session where we just get together and say what worked well, what worked less well and what should we take into account for planning in the following year and usually there's quite a lot of interest to have this exchange when it is still fresh on your mind.

Are there comments, questions, suggestions?

>> Can you hear me.


>> Thank you very much.

I tried a number of times to actually speak and I was in a terrible reception area so I got dropped every time.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: You tried to comment earlier I think.

>> Can you hear me now?

>> You sounded like Darth Vader.

>> Do I now?


>> I wanted to touch on the recording, the idea was to have a short report first and then a long report afterwards.  I think this needs to be made clear to all of our participants. 

Last year, we kind of submitted a medium‑sized report to start with.  Of course, if you had to do it in 12 hours as you correctly mentioned, very difficult to do it, especially if it is 5:00 a.m. the next day.  We'll either have people missing the deadline or we'll have ‑‑ often we have back to back meetings and it is very difficult for them to write‑up what's happened before or perhaps we have suggested that everybody has a Rapporteur, the way that EuroDIG does it, to have five bullet points at the immediate reporting, and then the second level, second‑layer reporting, it can be a proper text with a proper detail of the session.

Five points, it doesn't take not even 5 minutes to write basically.  Especially if you have a Rapporteur during the meeting that can explain the five points at the end of the session and then it is in the notes.

Thank you.  That's all I wanted to say.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Excellent suggestion.  Thank you.

Actually looking at the timing, if the main session is at half past 4:00, it will finish at 6:00, so the report needs to be ready at 6:00 the following morning.  It would be essentially the last day, and as far as I understand, the Germans are planning a Thanksgiving event, the last day people usually like to go out, discuss things with friends, colleagues rather than staying put in their hotel room and writing a report.

This is also something we can give back as a suggestion to the Working Group dealing with the reporting requirements.

I think this has not been cast in stone.

There is a Working Group dealing with the reporting and they gave guidelines, overall guidelines, to all of the sessions and these are extremely valid points. 

Thank you for that, Olivier.

Are there other points?  I know under any other business, there was a question about switching I think one DC and I think it was Luca, he had some overall ‑‑ maybe some clashes with the way it was planned with the workshop.  He was looking for a different slot.  At this late stage, it is extremely difficult to switch sessions as everybody has conflicting interest.

Lima, could you please ‑‑ I know that's one of the issues and I see a Michael wants to say something.

Lima, can I give you the floor on this particular issue?

>> SECRETARIAT: Yes, Markus.

Thank you so much.

I think one of the sessions for ‑‑ I think it clashed with the main session.  They wanted to change that for the next day.  I'm sorry, I think there was discussion on this.  I think she's now offline, and I'll try to do ‑‑ I'll try to ask her to come back and give a bit.  She was mostly involved with this session.

I would just ask Anja if she's here in the meeting, she wanted to give update so she could give just an update on the session?  If she's not, I will just text her and ask her to give the update and I'll just ‑‑ it will just be ‑‑ I could then say something about this.  I expected her to be online.

>> I'm sorry, Markus, Lima for interrupting, I have resolved this issue.  She messaged me quickly and is asked if we could push our DC session until the last slot in the afternoon and I said yes, it is no problem.  For us, we haven't confirmed any speakers yet, that sort of thing.  It is no problem.  We have already swapped and it is really an advantageous afternoon for us, there is a lot of content, media, platform and regulation‑related sessions, and they're all happening in a way that's actually, you know, congruent and not overlapping which is good.

Thank you for that.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I saw you in the chat with the hand up.  That's brilliant.  That's great.

We solved one problem..

Also, in the chat it is pointed out that we need a flexible approach as regards to reporting as we have already said we will take it back to the Working Group on reporting.  This is a work in progress.  It is great to have overall standards but also great to have feedback from the forum so to speak, look, let's be reasonable, if you have a session that ends at 6:00 in the evening, 12 hours from there, maybe make it 14 or 16 hours to give a few hours in the morning to finish it.  Jutta has presented that part of the Working Group on the reporting.

Are there any other issues, any other business?

>> Markus, I have more of an organizational question.  I should probably know, but I have never come across anything like is there a charter for Dynamic Coalitions, something that says how you become a member of a Dynamic Coalitions?  Are there any rules set by Dynamic Coalitions?  Some overall framework with regard to this?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: We do have an overall framework.  We have had this discussion a few years back that we want to make sure that all Dynamic Coalitions adhere to a baseline of common principles and standards.  Essentially they ought to be aligned with the IGF standard operating principles of being open, inclusive, bottom‑up and multistakeholder, and for the Dynamic Coalitions again they should have open lists, open archives, open membership.  You cannot exclude anyone that wants to join, you have to be open to membership, and you have to be open and transparent about your work, and that means besides the open mailing list and open archives I think that's more or less about it, but I think it is all on the IGF website.

Apart from that, it’s extremely flexible as it was felt the Dynamic Coalitions are so diverse you cannot have a one‑size‑fits‑all approach except these very high‑level principles, and that's in line with the overall operating principles of the IGF.  I don't know if anyone else of the Dynamic Coalitions veterans would like to add anything here.  We had some issues in the past that some people participate but in the work of Dynamic Coalitions, they're contribution, it was not reflected, things like that.  That's why we felt it was important to adhere to some common operating procedures.

Are there any additions?  Anyone else would like to make?  I may have missed out something else, talking on top of my head, I don't have any documents in front of me.

Maybe, Lima, good homework to look up on the website what you can find and maybe send it as a reminder the links of what we do have.  I'm happy to help on that.  We just send out to the list as we cannot end the call here ‑‑ it may not be a bad thing just to remind as there are newcomers as well, remind all members on the list of what are common principles and procedures we all abide to.

Would that satisfy your question, Jutta?

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes.  Of course.  Thank you so much.  It helps a lot.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: With that ‑‑ we're incredibly efficient.  We came to the top of the hour, and I think we have had a very good call.

Thank you very much.  Thank you, Jutta, for your hard work and input, and I think we're in very, very good shape.

Could you confirm all 11 DCs that put in a paper will be a part of the panel, but not a panel where you would give presentations, but a dynamic session with a moderator and as Jutta outlined, it will be based on thematic clusters.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes.  We can confirm that.  I don't know from whom this question came because it is a bit cryptic, the name in the chat.

I do need to correct the number of Dynamic Coalitions.  I just flickered through the names to make sure which Dynamic Coalitions are missing, and one of these 11 seems to be not the submission of a Dynamic Coalition but of a single person that has not declared for which Dynamic Coalition this input should be.

It may be 10 at this point in time.  I realized that we're missing the coalition on Internet Governance.  I do think it would be a pity if we don't have the coalition in the main session of Dynamic Coalitions.  I would give them a special treat and ask that one of their representative, if they really don't want to be a part of the exercise.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: If they want to be a part of the exercise, then they better present the paper.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yeah.  They should do that as soon as possible.  Maybe we at least give them two days.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay.  Okay.

Essentially the entry point is submit the paper, and those who have submitted the paper will be a part of the main session.  With this small caveat that you just made, it is not clear that one of the 11 submissions is actually Dynamic Coalitions, but that can be changed.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes.  I will go back and find out who that was.  It is an individual who has put his name into the form, but he has not pointed out any Dynamic Coalition.  Maybe he's representing one, but it is not clear from the paper he had filled.  We'll try to clarify that, for which DC he may stand and also we will go back to the use coalition to try to draw them in.


With that, I think we have come to a happy end to the session.  We have had very good planning session for this main session and for the DC presence in the IGF.  On this, if there are any last comments I would suggest that we then close the session, and thank you all for your active participation in the session.

>> JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Markus, for your very good moderation of the meeting.  Thank you so much.  Good‑bye to all.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, all, and good‑bye. 

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