DC Coordination meeting #57

DC COORDINATION MEETING #57

13 October 2021

 

>>  Markus Kummer:  This is Markus speaking.  We are here for our DC coordination session.  But let's wait a few more minutes until we have more people joining the call.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Let's start.  It's 1 minute over the hour.  I suppose more people will be joining us during the call.  We have two main agenda items, one will be this DC paper that we've been talking about at some length and the other one we will be preparing the DC main session.

Jutta, anything else we need to bring up?

>>JUTTA CROLL: No, not from.

>>  JUTTA:  No, not from my side.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  There may be other items we may have left out.

All right.  Let's start with the DC paper.  Sorina was very busy integrating all your comments.  Good news.  I think you have been very reactive and sent many, many comments.  And the paper is nearly ready to go.  But with that, over to you, Sorina, to tell us more about all the work you have been doing.

>>SORINA TELEANU:  Thank you, Markus, indeed many thanks for the many comments you had on the paper.  I had to go through hundreds of edits and comments.  On the one hand it's good it shows everyone was interested in the paper and you read the full paper and was impressed, a long one.  I had a bit of a challenging time trying to put everything into the new version which Markus said is fine‑tuning a bit of the final things be and is almost ready and then we should go into the public comment period as we have discussed before.

And, yeah, we would like to give the MAG and everybody a bit of time to go through our paper and see if they would like to make any comments and suggestions and, as discussed, have it ready for the IGF meeting in December.

So nothing else from me other than just stay tuned for the second version of the paper, which will go out for public comment this week.  And at that point I will be sending an email and it would be great if you could then distribute it further within your DCs and to whoever else you think might be interested in reading this paper.  Thank you once again.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you, Sorina.  And, once again, this is not a negotiated paper, but it tries, to the extent possible, to accommodate all the comments received.  And some of the comments may then be placed into another section as Sorina's editorial judgment felt it maybe fit in better here than there.

But I can all your comments are incorporated or accommodated in some way or other in the document.

And, again, you still have the opportunity to comment on the version that goes out for comments.  So you have the opportunity to double dip.  But the current version, that will go out for public comment really reflects the discussion we had in this DC coordination context, and it incorporates ‑‑ reflects comments received, comments you sent in.

I don't know.  Would any of you have anything to add or discuss or comment at this stage?  Or do you prefer waiting to see the version that goes out for public comment?  As nobody's talking and nobody's asking for the floor, then I would assume that wait ‑‑ biting your fingernails and wait for the release of the paper and see what comes out of the public comment period.

Well, thank you all, once again, for contributing to the DC paper.  And I think we all agree before that Sorina's done a tremendous job in putting all this together.  I said at the precore, she deserves the Nobel Prize for literature for all the work she has done.

With that, can we move, then, to the other main agenda item, that is preparing the main session.  You had this Google Doc out.  And, again, we had good feedback.  I think 11 DCs, if I'm not mistaken, put in their DC into the template.  But, Sorina, can you kindly guide us through the paper?

>>SORINA TELEANU:  Very good.  Let me get the link to share it in chat for everyone.

So, a quick recap.  We discussed before about planning the DC main session at the IGF in two main parts, one looking at elements from the paper basically seeing how this is good to further contribute to enhance cooperation or whatever we want to call it in the framework of the IGF.  And then another part looking at how DC and DC work is related to the IGF 2021 issue areas.

And on this second element, we have kindly invited Dynamic Coalitions to contribute to this planning document and indicate how their current and future work is related to IGF 2021.  And as Marks us has said, 11 have done this.  I don't know the if there are more planning to do or not, but I think this is a good number and also at DC main sessions.

And the more or less challenging task at this point would be to see how we actually feed all this input into the main session.  Half of the main session, making sure we don't have just a series of 11 Dynamic Coalitions speaking on different topics but having some connections between the issues and the discussions.  So that's something for everyone to talk about and also with the main session moderator web and[] the next step I guess, building on already contributed in this document would be to develop the usual sort papers where you would be diving a bit more into disconnections but I'll let Markus speak more on that.  Thank you.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you, Sorina.  Not really that much to add.  But we said at the last call that we're not expecting this template to be the final version but just a work in progress.  And I think we have a good basis with 11 DCs.  That's a very reasonable number of DCs to incorporate into this main session.

Now, we would like to ask you to flesh out a little bit the input you have given so far and maybe produce a one pager that says how the respective DC fits into the issue areas.  And this will also be a great help to the moderator.

Moderators, once we have found them, again, as in previous years, are to approach Tatiana, but it's not clear yet whether she can take on the task.

Another suggestion was to ask former MAG member Jennifer chow from Dot Asia.  She is also the Secretariat of the support organisation.  Jennifer will possibly be physically be there whereas Tatiana will not be anymore.  She has to travel back to teach.  But that should not be an impediment in any case because we are planning to have an hybrid, to have an online and onsite, two Co‑Moderators would be an appropriate accommodation for a hybrid meeting just looking at how we're planning the session.  The original idea was to come up with a more strategic element that we think how the DCs will fit into the digital cooperation as we go forward, and the second part will be to fit on the issue areas.  My suggestion would be to turn it around and start with the issue areas that shows the DCs do some substantive work and then we could build on that by looking ahead, looking to the future on how the DCs can contribute to the digital cooperation as we move forward.

But that is obviously open for discussion.  And with that, I do open the discussion questions, comments, suggestions.

>>JUTTA CROLL:  Markus I had already given you for the turn around.  I think it will be beneficial for the run of show of the session.  It makes it more easy for people first to understand how the work of Dynamic Coalitions is related to the issues we have for 2021.  This is issues we have not only for the IGF but for Internet Governance as a whole.  And then it might be easier to find a way to work hard digital cooperations will play into the future.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you for that.  Can we open the discussion, focus the discussion on that?  Do we have agreement on starting with the issue areas and have ‑‑ is somebody not mute?  Could you please mute yourself if you're not talking?  Or, Sorina, can you mute speakers who are not on mute?

Anyway, do we agree on that?  Or are there other opinions?

>>SORINA TELEANU:  We do have a hand up.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I cannot see the hand up.  But whoever it is.

>>  Wout de Natris:  It is me.  Not so in favor of any order of the meeting, but the question I would like to pose and ask to think about is:  What would make it most interesting to people who usually who do not show up at this meeting to show up?  Would that be the content?  Or would that be the higher‑level discussion, what should be done and the Coalition's future?  I'm tending a little bit to the last one because we want to attract people who usually do not show up and we will be preaching to the choir if we don't because we already think that we need to delve more into the whole programme of the IGF.  But that's a strategic question, though.  And not about the content.

So I would like to see what others think about this thought.  And as I said, I'm not in favor of either.  But it's a strategic question on who do we want to draw to the meeting.  So, thanks.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you for that.  It's a good question.  But by actually suggesting to turn it around and finish with the most strategic thing, my thinking was you want to end on a high note, rather, but build up to it.  And you would build up by addressing the substantive areas the Dynamic Coalitions deal with.  Then you move to the future.  And that will be more or less be the important bit of the session, so to speak.  The first bit dealing with the issue areas would give a baseline for the session, just to show they're not just talking about out there.  We're talking about people who do some substantive work‑related to core issues the IGF is dealing with.  And that would feed in, in a way, into the strategic discussion.

So I think the two of them go together.  And I think I would say that the way, if you turn it around actually illustrates your point, that we end up with a crescendo on the more important part of the session.  The first one is more the showing.  It's a proof of concept.  That Dynamic Coalitions are actually not just out there but they do some work.  And then we look at how it can be integrated into the more strategic part of looking forward.

Does that answer your question?

>>  Yes, sir.  Yes, it does.  But I was wondering what others think about it.  But your reasoning is very sound.  So it's just a question.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  But we are obviously interested in hearing to all of you.  And we have more people on the call.  So the discussion is open.

>>JUTTA CROLL:  We have a hand from Rajendra.  And I have also opened my hand.

>>  Thank you, Markus.  This is Rajendra.  Thank you good morning and good afternoon from India.

So where I see IGF over the last years I've attended and the very good teams that you have put in, how I see the discussions and the deliberations shaping up is shape the thinking on about Internet, influence the policies and foster collaborations.  And I see the social inequality and the pandemic as one of the core themes.  And social inclusion as the other which binds almost everything.

Last year when I did the Internet jobs for my DC jobs and this year we will list the.  Two truths we found were the biggest were the women and ‑‑ that's the area where I see a big thrust that should be given.

Again back to one more area that I think needs attention, which is small companies from the ‑‑ world on the LMICs which needs a focus area in terms of the Internet.  Thank you.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  And Jutta?

>>JUTTA CROLL:  Yes.  I wanted to reflect on what was said.  I think we have both options.  But still I could follow Markus here argument that we should end the session with the perspective of Dynamic Coalitions.  And that is digital cooperation, of course.

And also now that our session is moved to Wednesday morning, that is the second day of the IGF, I do think we are in another position than when we thought we had the session at the last day of the IGF.  So it's a little bit of a difference because at the second day, people will really be interested in these issues that the whole programme will be dealing with and, therefore, putting the links together to the work of the Dynamic Coalitions ‑‑ that is open for a session and give us ‑‑ to the digital cooperation.  And now I see Mark has raised his hand.  Mark, please.

>>  Mark Carwell.  Thank you, Jutta and thank you, everybody.  Makes a good point.  This has got to attract a significant audience.  And I think the structure's right.  And as Jutta says, it's about digital cooperation in practice.  This is collaboration working through coalitions, through multistakeholder coalitions.  So the headline for this session should be something like that.  Within the context of a nondecisional discussional Forum, which is the IGF and the main programme.  You've got this session which is showing and demonstrating collaboration in practice.  It's happening.  These coalitions have emerged out of the IGF community to advance the issues.  And some of the coalitions are very minded to produce solutions.  So the headlining of this, the titling or how we profile it is important to capture that, I think.

Collaboration or digital cooperation and practice.  Digital cooperation is such a live term.  It's come from the heart of the UN.  And here it is in practice.  Digital cooperation in practice.  IGF‑D digital cooperation, something like that.  And then, yeah, straight to the issues.  This is what's happening with regard to Dynamic Coalitions on specific issues and then the forward look.  The strategic relevance of collaboration through coalitions and practice in the future.  I think that way around is good, Markus, good.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  And I like your suggestion for a title.  Digital cooperation in practice.  Sounds very snappy and very relevant.  And actually the acronym for digital cooperation is DC, which is the same for Dynamic Coalitions.  So we could call it DC in practice.  But that's fine‑tuning.  And we'll leave that.  But I like the, in general, if you have a title like that, I think it relates us back to sort of one of the main themes of the IGF and also it's of relevance to what we are doing and the DCs are doing.  Thank you for that suggestion.

Other comments?

So to write a one pager on ‑‑ as a sort of homework for those Dynamic Coalitions who want to be part, who have actually filled in the template, does that make sense?  To me I think it makes of course you could be much longer.  But to be concise takes sometimes more effort and it is also, I think, will be a help for the moderators.  It will be a help for those who attend the session.

If you have 11 Dynamic Coalitions that produce a one pager, it gives already 11 pages.  But a concise summary would, I think, try and be as snappy and accurate as possible but be concise.  And that, I think, in the past has worked quite well as a sort of teaser for the main session.  And we would need that, obviously sometime in advance.

Sorina, you are more familiar with all the deadlines the MAG has set.  What ‑‑ going forward, what should we have ready by when?

>>SORINA TELEANU:  We need to start writing sort of a session description probably using the template that the MAG is using for the main session.  I will check with the Secretariat on that.  The next MAG meeting is next week.  Maybe we could have a very, very initial draft by then and I can try to produce something and send it to everybody for comments and suggestions but will be just a first draft and we can improve it as it goes along.  I think we do have quite a bit of time for that because we would need it mostly for the moderator to read it before the session and be able to invite the session around that.  With it being in November, it is no rush.  The sooner we could have it ready the better.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, let's try to be more precise with deadlines here.  The old UN rules was papers should be ready six weeks in advance, which may be a little bit ambitious.  But my guess we should at least aim to be sort of final, final ready with whatever will be the paper that describes the session at least four weeks ahead of the session.

And if the session is on Wednesday, what is it?  Eighth of December, then it's really quite right round the corner if you want to be ready four weeks ahead.  So we don't really have that much ‑‑ I mean, okay, that may be aspirational and it may still be a little bit late.  But it may look as if you have a lot of time but we don't really.  Jutta?

>>JUTTA CROLL:  Yes.  When Sorina mentioned the template for my incisions, I remember that ‑‑ in‑sessions, I remember the template asks for the policy questions that the session will deal with.  I don't think we have that yet in our preparatory document.  We have addressed the issues, but we have not had a look to the policy questions that might be addressed.  And maybe we can discuss this a bit now in this call.  And then ask the Dynamic Coalitions in their own paper that they look for IGF 21 and have ‑‑ make a decision.  Which is one they will be able to address on their part.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you, Jutta.  I think that's what we did in previous years.  We asked the Dynamic Coalitions they feel ought to be addressed.  That again would be helpful for the moderators.  As Jutta suggested, we could look at the template and see if we already can come up with some high‑level suggestions.

But, again, Sorina, is there a recommendation ‑‑ is there a recommended number of policy sessions each should address?  Or is that up?

>>SORINA TELEANU:  I'm not sure this is appropriate because if you remember when the MAGs launched this new approach where we have issue areas, each issue area already has some policy questions.  So the idea was to frame the discussions and the workshops and whatever else around some of those policy questions.  So it would be more a matter of picking than defining policy questions from the start.  And that's why in the document we have shared with Dynamic Coalitions the policy areas way are there and the idea is for everyone to identify the specific policy question.  Their work is along that.  So not identifying something new.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you for reminding us on what we actually agreed on in the past.

Maybe we should pull up the template again to remind us of that?

>>SORINA TELEANU:  So this would be the policy questions under each issue area.  And they are all listed here.

And, yet, of course we cannot cover them all in the main session.  But that was the idea of these documents that the Coalitions would be writing, helping us then pick a few issues to focus the discussion on.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Right.  Thanks for reminding us on that.

But, again, back to the deadlines, if we look at the calendar, we have a month I would say maximum to be finished with everything.  Turned up?  Is it an old hand?

>>  It is a new hand.  But set the deadline first Markus.  So ‑‑

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Well, can we agree on setting ‑‑ let me look at the calendar.  We are now 13th of October.  So Wednesday tenth of November, everything will be ready by then?  Can we agree on that?  I see June agrees in the chat and Minda, as well.  And I hear no objection.  So then I take it we have an agreement.  That we set ourselves the deadline of tenth of November.  And is there any intermediate deadline we need to discuss?

Okay now turning to Sorina.

>>SORINA TELEANU:  Well, yes, maybe one week before the 10 November deadline we could put it as an intermediary deadline for the Dynamic Coalitions to submit their papers and give us one week to go through everything and put it into one document that will later on be used for the session itself and also fit it into the main session description if that works for everyone.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  So third of November, then, will be the deadline for the papers the Dynamic Coalitions ought to submit.  Does that work?

And question, Rajendra, is there a structure for the paper?

>>  I asked this.  It may happen that you make it various format from various DCs.  I just want to make sure that there is some high‑level understanding of what the structure should look like so we are all on the same page and we don't have to bang heads.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  It's a very relevant question.  I think the simpler, the better as far as a template is concerned.  But I mean the starting point is the template we have up that started the main session.  And I think the paper would not go ‑‑ be that different, that we have to address the policy question first.  And then expand a bit on what the Dynamic Coalition in question can contribute to address this policy question.

Again, Sorina, I'm turning to you.  You worked hard with all these things.  Do you have specific suggestions?

>>SORINA TELEANU:  Well, I can send the "template" but as you say it would be something simple.  Identify the issue area you are focusing on, the policy questions, ideally, and then explaining how the DC is working or contributing to those specific policy questions.  So it's just a matter of identifying where exactly your work fits and around that.  But, yes, I will send a one paper on these three elements.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  It definitely follows if you'll follow more or less the same template, the same pattern.

But, again, in the past, we always said it's one of the foundational principles of our cooperation that there's no one‑size‑fits‑all for the Dynamic Coalitions.  Each Dynamic Coalition has a different work to do.  And that came across to all the calls we had in the past that it is a great variety.  But let's try and fit it in.

So as Sorina suggested, we start with identifying the policy question and then expand on how the Dynamic Coalitions in question addresses the question or is relevant in this issue area.  Does this make sense?

And is your hand still up because you want to not just talk about the deadline I take it?

>>  Wout:  Yes.  Thank you.  After the division of the session, I think that what we are discussing now more or less goes into the first part of the session, what the Dynamic Coalitions are actually about, how they relate to the main themes.

I think if we're with 11, perhaps even more because we don't know who shows up, it's impossible to do everything.  So probably asking Sorina, it would be good to make a selection of presentations because we can't present everything because then we obviously won't meet.

The second is looking to the future.  And these are very strategic questions that we put to the room basically and to ourselves.

Is it an idea to start thinking about who we want in the room?  Because we have the opportunity to specifically invite some organizations or specific members or whoever we think we need in the room maybe one DESA from the tech envoy's office.  Who do we need to start this discussion?  Because it's the migration of the Dynamic Coalitions into the room and also into the outcome.  That needs some thinking, as well.  Who do we need into the room?  We have to work hard to get them into the room.  They don't show up just like that if they have 10 decisions and perhaps a nice breakfast in the hotel.  So I think that's the third question that we need to address, who do we want?  So that's something that perhaps we should be do some digital background.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Very relevant point.  Who do we want to have in the room?  I think it's very much the elephant we want in the room.  Because the outcomes is one of the elephants in the room.  It has also come up in one of the comments we have received.  Mark, do you have your hand up?

>>  Mark:  Yes.  I put a note in the chat just on the format.

This thing's got to be easy to read.  So please urge people to keep their DC accounts as concise as possible.

And then I suggest you have an index of the policy questions.  And then which DCs are relevant to each.

So somebody who is not familiar with the DC setups will be able to navigate this easily.  That it's not an awesome, daunting document.  But something you can quickly go through and see how that question on access or whatever it is, three DCs.  Just to make the thing as easy as possible and concise as possible to read.  Policymakers, from my experience, they have no time for reading lengthy documents with lots of contributions.  They will just ignore it, basically.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  Yeah, I was just going to say Mark has also experienced working for governments and writing notes to ministers.  I made the point when I prepared the call with Sorina that the Swiss government, you usually had two‑pager with executive summary of half a page then you knew the ministry would not read more than half a page in any case.

But it is actually a good exercise.  It forth you to really distill the essence out of your work and think what is important.  The Americans tend to say have an elevator pitch.  Imagine you're in the elevator with your CEO and you have to sell your work.  You have maybe three floors up.  You have 10 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds.  What is important about what you do?

And as Mark said, policymakers don't read lengthy documents.  It really has to be short and snappy.  So that's a very welcome comment and suggestion.  And I'm sure Sorina will put it into a nice format to address all the points Mark made to make it easy to navigate.  That's also, I think, an important issue.

But can we go back to Wout's suggestion on ‑‑ and Maureen also agreed to keeping the paper simple and concise and one pager makes sense.

And it is more difficult to be short than to be long.  Anybody can ramble on for pages.  But to be short and concise forces you to really think about what is important.

But Wout also made excellent suggestions about speakers we ought to have.  And what comes into mind is obviously the tech envoy's office and UN DESA.  We can obviously reach out.  I don't know who should do that.  Sorina, could that be done from the Secretariat?  Or should JUTTA an?  Or Jason come into mind?  Jason from tech envoy's office, he has also been on calls with IGF‑related calls or Wy Min, from UN DESA, I think he's the one from the UN who follows most closely.  But Sorina, do you have suggestions?  And who else should we invite to be in the room to discuss the d C's future?

>>SORINA TELEANU:  Two quick points on who should be sending the invitations.  I think it would be best if you it's you or Jutta as coordinators of the group so it's not the Secretariat sending a random request out of no where.

And just sort of a cautionary point, if I may.  I think if we go with the tech envoy, we definitely need to have DESA, as well, to avoid diplomatic ‑‑

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  My suggestion was to have Jason and Wy Min.  Both and the UN DESA.  And should we also invite the MAG check.

>>SORINA TELEANU:  If we have so many recommendations for the MAG, I think that would be a good approach.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  And Secretariat in a speaking role?  It doesn't have to be to you.  Somebody else?

But I think if we have Jason Wynn and Ariette, I think that would be quite a good combination if they agree, that is.

>>  WOUT:  As a suggestion, I think perhaps that we could provide some representatives from the different stakeholder communities, as well, to make sure that we have some government representatives that we know are present also from ministry, from academia, from Civil Society to make sure that it's a very broad discussion.  Because if we have different Dynamic Coalitions coming from all the different stakeholder communities, let's make sure that the stakeholder community know that this work is ongoing and will be much more ambitious in the future so that they need to start paying attention to it.

So it's also about getting more attention to more Dynamic Coalitions from the future from the different stakeholder communities.  So perhaps we should just brainstorm where people can suggest names or organizations and from there Jutta can send out invitations to the Secretariat perhaps with the negotiation so that we know the address to send it to.  Perhaps would be more difficult but that's something that the Secretariat has.  So that's to be used to send these invitations.  And texting to make sure they are interested in coming.  Thanks.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you.  Yeah, I mean these names mentioned so far is a starting point.  But I think tech envoy's office and DESA really ought to be there.  And I think the MAG Chair would also be more than relevant.  And maybe the Secretariat, either the MAG Chair or the Secretariat that we need.

But then we can fill in with some governments are more interested in these processes than others.  I notice the basically IGF strategy group.  I think well the Swiss were very active.  The UK was very active.  It's chaired by ‑‑ co‑chaired by also the Russian MAG representative.  The Italian ex‑MAG member.  So these will be sort of obvious choices.  And then who else I'm sort of thinking aloud would ‑‑ well, from the business community you always look at the ICC basis.  She might also suggest a name of one of her members.  Civil Society is very ‑‑ if you have, say, if Ariette can attend in her capacity of MAG Chair, she's also a highly respected voice of Civil Society.  I think that would already be a fairly good mix.

But other people may have other suggestions.  And if I understood you right, your suggestion is to secretary the Secretariat, ask Sorina to prepare a Google Doc we could then use as a starting point to fill in other names, other suggestions.

But, again, that would be 45‑minute session so we cannot have too many speakers, either, on the panel.

>>JUTTA CROLL:  Markus, if I may step in, the template for main sessions that is used for the other main sessions is available as a Google Doc.  So we could take that directly and it has a part where speakers can put in further suggestions can be filled in.  Sorry.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Good suggestion.

Sorina, can we do this?

>>SORINA TELEANU:  Yes.  I will get to the template and since we need a better description for the MAG, I will just have one document and shift for comments.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  That brings us back again to deadlines so you will be able to have a draft available for next MAG meeting which is next Tuesday; correct?  But that will be really a rough draft, not a consolidated draft that Dynamic Coalitions will be able to provide input.

And then by when the final version will be ready by November 3rd?  Can be then?

>>SORINA TELEANU:  Yes.  I guess we could have the same deadline for the one pager and then have one week to also integrate comments into the last.  And contact main speakers so we can have them, as well.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I think it would be good to contact speakers well in advance.  No point having names up.  Yes, it would be lovely to have the Secretary General of the United Nations in the session.  And we contact him and unfortunately he's too busy and cannot make it.  So that we actually assure ourselves that speakers would be available when we make, as a preliminary contact, would you be ready, willing, to speak in our session?

And then we also would need another call.  Should that be just immediately after the deadline of third of November?  Can we already agree on a date?  Or should we send out a doodle poll starting on November the fourth?

>>SORINA TELEANU:  I think it's best we have doodle since we don't have everyone here.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I see.  The day after November the fourth is ‑‑ which may not be an ideal day for our Indian friends.

>>  Working for us.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  We'll send out a doodle poll and then we'll see what will work best.  But it should be then ahead of the November the tenth deadline yes between third and tenth, yes.

>>  I really appreciate you thinking about that.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Pleasure.  I know it's important to you.  It's an important festival, yes.

>>  Really appreciate that.  Thank you.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Okay.  Well, I think this is more or less all that was on my agenda and we have gone through it.  Is there anything I have forgotten or missed out?  Sorina, you keep control.  Make sure we haven't left out anything?

>>SORINA TELEANU:  If I may just add a quick remind tore everyone that today from 1 UTC we have that intercessional session with IGF intercessional activities.  It sounds complicated.  But the idea is to present to the brother community what is happening at the IGF intercessional.  And this is a part of this.  So if you can join, that would be greatly appreciated.  It is a one‑hour session on this.  So shouldn't take too long.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  It will not be a session where we have much opportunity to go deep into details.  But it would nevertheless be good to have one or two Dynamic Coalitions presenting very briefly.  Give the elevator pitch about their work and about past achievements.  And thank you, Sorina, for making that point.  And I will have the pleasure to introduce sort of the overall picture of how intercessional work started.  And that's Dynamic Coalitions were the first to start the intercessional work.  I would start with them.  And it will be good to know:  Is any of you planning to attend the session?  Or you don't know yet?

>>  WOUT:  I think Mark is waving.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  He is waving and attending, yes.

>>  WOUT:  This is the afternoon one.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Yes, we're talking about the afternoon session, yes.  There would be nothing wrong with having a new Dynamic Coalition, and new and ambitious coalition, but it would also be nice to have one of the more, I would say almost legacy Dynamic Coalitions, those who are with us from the beginning to say what they have done so far and what they have achieved.

Well, we'll see it as we go through in this afternoon's session.

Is there anything else also under any other business anyone would like to mention?

>>  WOUT:  I see I was still unmuted.  Sorry for that.  I think just looking at it from a more general, we made tremendous progress in the last months.  And it shows that having the coordinator in Sorina is adding to that tremendously.  And I hope that this is a function that will remain for as long as it is necessary.  At this point in time it's proven to be extremely added value to the work and the coordination that's been done.  So in that sense, again, Sorina, congratulations on your great work over the past month.  But also we have extreme clear what the discussion and the focus points are.  And that is the tremendous gain that we have over the past five or six months.  So I wanted to applaud ourselves for also because we put all the work together.  And this has been substantive.  Also for you, Markus and Jutta, for coordinating that.  I think you've done a great job.  So thanks.  And let's make sure the IGF works, as well.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you for that.  I couldn't agree more.  It's not so that we have not had Secretariat support in the past, we had Eleanora supported the DC coordination but then she had took a break for further education.  And then we had for a period didn't have committed support.  And now this year when Ariette asked me to develop this paper on DCs, it was obvious that we needed more dedicated support.  And Sorina filled in that position extremely well and showed, as you said, the importance of having continuous support.  You saw that also at the NRIS once Ania was there to give dedicated support, then really it took off the cooperation between them.  Things don't just happen without work.  And that needs to be recognized.

And, yes, hopefully that will happen also in the future.  And you rightly said we have come a long way ever since we started this cooperation.  The main idea was just to make sure that we developed some common procedures and principles and respect those.  And I think that has been highly beneficial for the collective work the DCs do.

With that, and I see also in the chat there are appreciative notes to thank Sorina for the fantastic work she's doing.  We are five minutes ahead of the top of the hour.  There is nothing wrong with ending five minutes early.  But anyone else would like to add anything, the microphone is still open.  So your last opportunity to say something.

>>  Mark:  Markus, I'll put my hand up.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Sorry, yes.

>>  Mark:  I'm not going to attempt to fill up the last five minutes, but there's another thing, another DC, the digital compact, which is what the Secretary General of the UN has announced.  And that's something we as a community of active coalitions want to bear in mind.  I don't know how we do that or whether we articulate some kind of reference to it.  But the Compact is quite specific on identifying issues, avoiding Internet fragmentation, Human Rights online, data, artificial intelligence, and connecting everybody, all people to the Internet.

So that's something I think we ought to bear in mind as we anticipate the final preparations for the session at the IGF.  And how we kind of formulate the final paper and so on, I think some reference to it to show we are mindful of what coalitions can do to contribute to delivering on the Secretary General's proposal for the compact.  And how, ultimately, if the UN agrees, it's all on the road, the summit of the future of the Internet, the future, what do you call it?  The summit of the future, I think that was it.  And digital is part of that, will be part of that summit.  Yeah.  I think it may be too much, anyway.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  That's obviously part of the forward‑looking session.  We look at all the DCs possible, digital cooperation, digital compact, and digital coalition.  So it's D3 C something, yes?  I know it's a very relevant comment.  And we have to bear that in mind when we prepare the second part of the session.

Anything else by anyone?

>>SORINA TELEANU:  Just a quick followup what Mark has said.  There is another main session which is playing exactly into the digital compact and whether and to what extent the IGF could contribute to the development of this document.  So that would be another element of the IGF programme where DCs to contribute.  I'll see who is organising the session and maybe I can join the organising team just to make sure there are some connections there.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Thank you, and please do.  Yes, just keep an eye on it.

>>  WOUT:  Markus, once again, something about that just stuck my mind right now.  I'm also participating in Working Group 3 of the Paris goal.  And the French tech ‑‑ is there promoting and creating an Internet Governance body where industry and Civil Society et cetera can commune could tow discuss Internet governance topics.  And I made an intervention saying that we have such a body.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I was going to say don't we have such a body?

>>  WOUT:  We have such a body.  And yes there's just discussions going on there and this has to become more concrete et cetera.  And I said that's exactly what we try to do.

So apparently this person who is driving this discussion Working Group 3 is fairly ignorant of the work and putting down the IGF.  This isn't any of our business but should we somehow reach out to this Working Group and invite them to participate in the session to show what you could actually do there, perhaps?  Or a policy network, et cetera.  But this is something which has been discussed in a very serious way.  And I think okay, if it succeeds all of a sudden we have two IGFs dealing with different topic.

So I've already reached out to someone on this and well try to find his way into the foreign ministry to organise 17 in Paris.  But that is also proactively invite him to a session like this and see if anybody is interested to join.  Is that a good idea?  Diplomats may have more interest in this discussion.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  I know that (someone) is reaching out to the Paris call from the BPF on cybersecurity.  But I wasn't aware that their thinking was moving in institutional terms of setting up another IGF.  It's definitely a relevant suggestion and a good idea that we also ‑‑ well weeks also have to bring it up with the BPF on cyber security to close the gap and to dot the lines and cross the Is, whatever you say.

Okay.  Thank you for that.  And with that, we have now reached the top of the hour.  And we had, I think, once again, I think it was a very good and productive meeting.  I have nothing to add.  Jutta, over to you to conclude the session.

>>JUTTA CROLL:  Thank you for giving me the floor.  I also have nothing to add.  I think it was very productive and we have got a step closer to our session and to the IGF 2021.  Thank you.  And special thanks to Sorina for her hard work.

>>MARKUS KUMMER:  Bye‑bye, everyone.

>>JUTTA CROLL:  Bye‑bye.

>>SORINA TELEANU:  Goodbye, everyone:

(end of meeting)