IGF 2018 - Day 3 - Salle XI - Dynamic Coalition (DC) Coordination Session

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Paris, France, from 12 to 14 November 2018. 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 to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 



          >> MODERATOR:  Okay.  Then we have to be slightly more formal and each time introduce ourselves.  Markus, speaking.  So far I think what I sense is there is on the whole feeling that the common theme works well for a main session.  But there is also I think a certain sense in the room that with the format that we had there were too many speakers in the panel.  And maybe have one keynote speaker who would give us an introduction to the theme. 

   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Jutta for the record.  If I may comment on that.  I do think that the interjection with the four panelists yesterday was very beneficial to the session.  I would consider to have again speakers from outside the Dynamic Coalition interacting with the Dynamic Coalitions.  I agree that we had a lot of speakers.  And I don't know whether it worked out.  But one take‑away from the session was that there are overlaps in regard of the work.  It might be an option that two or three or four Dynamic Coalitions agree to have one speaker speaking for these Dynamic Coalitions.  It is a challenge, but it could help to reduce the number of speakers and have more clear messages than we could achieve yesterday with four panelists.  And I do think 11 speakers, I agree it was very difficult to follow for many people but maybe it is a possibility.

   >> Since I am leaving early, from the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values, I agree with Jutta.  But one way this could work together is not only to have an extensive discussion on theme or on speakers under the session, the content, we could also think of ways by which some of the Dynamic Coalitions could be merged together, if not just come together to agree on a speaker for a session.  We could also think of merging some of the Dynamic Coalitions so that the number of coalitions become manageable.  There is no duplication.  That's a long agenda.  But still we could make a start by thinking about that and ‑‑ thank you. 

   >> NIGEL HICKSON:  Sorry.  I'm not sure this one ‑‑ oh, yes.  We have two.  We have stereo.  Nigel Hickson and the Internet of Things.  We are not probably here to discuss the merging of Dynamic Coalitions, but that's always up to the Dynamic Coalitions if they are working with a number of Dynamic Coalitions to look at that.  In terms of the theme I always think we were enriched by, you know, the participation of others.  And I do think that having a ‑‑ having some sort of keynote or having some sort of, you know, facilitator in giving us an impetus is a good idea.  I do think that you are organizing it by the DCs.  And MAG is somewhat complex.  And if there is the bandwidth for the next year, hopefully there might be, slighter wider bandwidth because of the circumstances it should be up to the DCs to organize the common theme and to organize the session but bring in this outside expertise as well.

   >> MODERATOR:  Thank you for that.  And on the merging that reminds me of an old saying of the UN, everyone is in favor of coordination but nobody wants to be coordinated.  Nobody wants to be merged.  Welcome to Gerry from the Dynamic Coalition.  We are here in an informal setting as we are not that many.  We decided to use the microphones nevertheless because that allows the scribes to make a transcription.  So we have a transcription for the record.  We are just in the process of taking stock of the main session.  While we felt that on the whole it worked relatively well but most people have spoken so far going forward stick to the concept of having a session organized by the Dynamic Coalitions, maybe with an outside keynote speaker who would set the ground for the ‑‑ setting the scene for the discussions.  One thing we should not forget, last year I think we had a very lively session, but we had hardly anybody in the room and which was disappointing.  Whereas this time organizing it with the MAG under a theme we actually had a good showing.  And that's ‑‑ that was definitely a positive effect.  We should not neglect. 

The question if we do it just as a DCs session again will we have again the same showing or when ‑‑ it was very disappointing last year.  There was hardly anybody in the room.  And the DCs themselves did not manage to mobilize people.  Maybe doing it with the MAG, she did a very good job from the ICC basis.  And she mobilized people for the sessions.  Just a thought.  I think Jutta wanted to speak in.

   >> JUTTA CROLL:  I think it was due to the common theme people knew in advance what would be dealt in the session from the program much more than knowing that 17 or next year 19 DCs are engaged in one common session and nobody knows what it is about. 

   >> This is Mary Ann.  It was the theme that brought people in.  There was a distinction between organized by DCs and a session that DCs fully participate.  There is a distinction.

   >> It was co‑organized this time.

   >> It was co‑organized by definition because the DCs are multiple.

   >> No, no.  It was not ‑‑ it was not organized by somebody else.  It was co‑organized by the MAG and DCs.

   >> I am thinking about next year.  The distinction is between a session that is co‑organized by the DCs together or ‑‑ and a session in which DCs fully participate.  So we are trying to do both or we make the distinction clearer, but my point about it being the theme that brought people in remains the same.  That was a very good move. 

   >> I would be interested to those who were speaking on the panel.  She made the point that you felt you were lost because there were so many speakers.  Being short does not necessarily mean you don't have impact.  But you did a very good job. 

   >> Thank you.  This is Nadia from the Youth Coalition for Internet Governance.  What type of Moderator we wanted there?  If we are talking about a keynote speaker, if we go back to the point where we have a Moderator who is an expert in that field, so that person can give the keynote for say ten minutes and then open it up for the Dynamic Coalitions to have an interactive engagement and that way that might be a ‑‑ instead of having a separate panel for that so that the introduction is more rich in terms of providing content. 

And I wanted to comment if we decided to go back to a Dynamic Coalition focus it could still be revolved around one theme that's in common for all the Dynamic Coalitions and try to bring in our communities together to try and find partnerships.  So say, for example, we are talking about Sustainable Development Goals No. 17 is ‑‑ 17 I think, yes, is partnerships.  And then trying to either create a new project together across the Dynamic Coalitions or finding practices in which we can do calls.  Like we need this and this and which Dynamic Coalitions could provide that or where can we open up discussions between us.  That might also be a different avenue of trying to interact between Dynamic Coalitions and a theme. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Jutta.

   >> JUTTA CROLL:  I have one more comment.  I do think we should not forget how well prepared the session was by the Dynamic Coalitions.  All the Dynamic Coalitions prepared their pages.  That gave a lot of information on what was to be expected in the session.  And I do think you did a very good job going through all these papers and drawing the conclusions for then having the questions to the Dynamic Coalitions.  So I do think we have to have in mind this preparation process.  And Nora, you started that of setting up metrics of SDGs and Coalitions' work and all this preparation led to a very good session yesterday.  And without that it wouldn't have been the same.

   >> It was a professional session. 

   >> I was impressed as well.  They all had done their homework but we did that already last year.  But last year we did not have the common theme.  So the step forward was to have the common theme and I definitely agree with Mary Ann that that made it easier for people to decide whether or not to attend the session.  But again I don't want to play the devil's advocate, but I think again having had a partner in terms of Tamea, they are very efficient ICC basis and I am sure that helped to give us people in the room.  They have a good network.  But also I think as a preliminary conclusion I think everyone agrees that a common theme is a good idea.  And the general appetite would be for a DC driven main session.  And I like as Nadia said instead of having a panel that sets the scene just have maybe one speaker and then the DCs could react to that.  But would you please.

   >> So Niko from the CPR.  I should mention in the beginning I have fallen off the mailing list.  It was my fault probably.  I changed jobs and then I was not informed, I did not participate in this session, but I think the idea of a theme it is a very good one.  One way that we have found very useful to engage with people is to create a shared document where then ‑‑ that can be posted on the IGF website for comments.  And I think perhaps this could be a way also for Dynamic Coalitions to collaborate if we have a common theme.  We could develop a joint paper, for example, at the very not necessarily too specific, some goals that would be shared among all coalitions.  And then the ability to comment on each other's contribution.  That could be perhaps a way forward also for next year.  And to develop something concrete because let's not forget one of the problems let's say with the IGF is the lack of outcomes.  And we as a Coalition we have done consistent every year we have produced something.  And I think we are happy to replicate the same effort.  And if you want us to suggest or coordinate in that regard, we are happy to show how we have done it.  This is I think something that would strengthen not only the role of the Dynamic Coalition but also the whole IGF process.  So that's just a suggestion I wanted to put forward. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  I think this really would take us a step further.  The previous two years was every Dynamic Coalition produced a paper.  That was the entry ticket on to the ‑‑ being part of the main session.  And now we are talking about ‑‑ and this year it was a ‑‑ two common themes, contribution.  Now we are talking more of a collaboration.  Nadia made a similar suggestion.  And just to pick one SDG, for instance, could be one option and partnerships I think the DCs will be well equipped to do that.  It can be something else, but your suggestion is to work together to produce a common document.  And that obviously would also require some discipline and definitely also some work.  But it is great to have these ideas.  And I think presumably we will have a MAG meeting in January.  So I hear that's what ‑‑

   >> That's the idea.

   >> MODERATOR:  And if we have a stock taking and we can come up with concrete ideas that would be helpful.  Gerry, would you like to say something? 

   >> GERRY ELLIS:  Thank you, Markus.  I would like to say how well the session went yesterday.  And thank you to Nadia and to Jutta and yourself and all those involved. 

A couple of comments though.  One of the things that worked very well in the big Salle was subtitling on the screen.  That's something that people with disabilities were demanding for many years, and it is now there, but it was used by almost everyone who didn't have a disability.  My friend here and others said to me, when Macron was speaking they were not listening to the translation.  They were reading the subtitles.  That was a good example. 

Second point, I don't remember any remote participant making contributions during our session on Day Two.  Did they?  I don't remember one.  So maybe that's something that we need to keep in mind, because poorer people can't fly to France and stay in an expensive city and hotel.  We need to hear from the poorer people as well as not just the rich people and the rich organizations. 

    But in general I would say it was a wonderful idea.  And we in the Dynamic Coalition on accessibility and disability really want to build on Coalitions with other DCs.  Thank you. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Thank you for that.  And I agree on the remote participation.  It has been somewhat disappointing this year.  But I was also just in a session this morning at least we had two or three people who made comments remotely.  But part of it was due to problems with network and websites to begin with.  It was a DDoS attack on the website.  I don't know, Eleonora, if you have more details on or what the feeling from the Secretariat on remote participation this year compared to other years. 

   >> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  I'm sorry. 

   >> MODERATOR:  You can take the microphone.

   >> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  By the time of our session actually the connectivity issues that we were having and the WebEx issues we were having would have been resolved.  I would like to make a slight revision on a DDoS attack.  We didn't experience a DDoS attack.  It was a server issue.  Just to be clear about that. 

    But I think the remote participation was probably to be perfectly honest not very good in our own session.  We maybe should have done a better job of promoting the session and reaching out to some people ahead of time to intervene remotely.  Because in other sessions it has not been very strong, but there have been as you said interventions.  So I think maybe we could have done a better job bringing in people remotely.     

   >> Maybe also the difficulties at the beginning put people off a bit.  If you try to log in unsuccessfully.  The news was spread by the head of the organizing country team. 

   >> We were not entirely sure ourselves.

   >> But it was never corrected.

   >> Yes.  That's true. 

   >> Be that as it may these are points ‑‑ yes.

   >> GERRY ELLIS:  Markus, I have said this and Andrea has said this to you in private many times but I have to say it for the record, from the point of view of blind people and people with disabilities in general WebEx is a disaster and has to be gotten rid of.  Please, please come up with a different remote participation tool than WebEx.  Thank you. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And also for the record on behalf of IGF SA I had offered to pay for a different tool out of the funds we were given to enhance accessibility in IGF related meetings.  But I was told it could not be done at short notice.  But now the IGF 2018 is over and I hope that the Secretariat and the powers that be in New York will take the appropriate decisions and I think your message came across.  Thank you. 

    And welcome.  You are from the block chain and I can't remember your name.  Can you please ‑‑

   >> Yeah.  I'm Carla Reyes from block chain technologies Dynamic Coalition.  I don't know ‑‑

   >> MODERATOR:  Yep.  We were in the process of taking comments from the main session.  And the summary so far is I think the DCs would like again to have their own main session.  They drive themselves.  And maybe with one keynote speaker to set the scene and they could react to instead of having a full panel.  As by definition there are many DCs around, but also some suggestions made that maybe the DCs could again the common theme that has brought support but maybe produce a common document towards a common theme agree on something.  One suggestion was for, for instance, one particular SDG.  SDG 17 on partnerships and then produce a document, but all DCs work together.  So that ‑‑ a lot of ideas around but please you have ideas as well. 

   >> CARLA REYES:  I just think ‑‑ so I think that all sounds great.  Going back to a DC session would be helpful.  With regard to recruiting someone to speak for two minutes to fly all the way to Paris to speak for two minutes, to garner additional participation for my Dynamic Coalition it would be super helpful if there was more than two minutes of speech allotted to the person.

   >> MODERATOR:  One of the suggestions made was also that maybe not every DCs need to speak but two or three could agree on one common theme they would cover. 

   >> CARLA REYES:  And that would be fine, too, as long as ‑‑ like I just ‑‑ there are a lot of coordination calls that go in to making that main session happen.  And I don't even make it to all of them because there are so many.  It is a huge time commitment on our part to build up to that point.  If that is what is going to happen, then those three can do all that.  And the rest of us get left out entirely.  Sort of be out of the burden I guess.  Either sharing the burden and sharing in the space for time allotment or not so much would be good. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And sorry, I forgot your name again.  We have two Nikos here. 

   >> So it is Niko for the record from the DC3.  I will throw a wild idea just to consider.  We in the DC3 are very worried by the reduced time slots that we have.  It really ‑‑ we have a lot of participation in the DC3.  We have published a book every year.  This book is supported by the ITU, ISOC very important organizations.  We would love to have our 90 minutes back or more and think that maybe the main session could be a bargaining chip in this.  That's why this idea is wild.  So I would set this to consideration.  If it were to be viable to exchange having this session for returning to 90 minute slots for the DC3s, I think we would be in favor.  So there. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  You anticipated the next step.  I was going to say once we have finished discussion on the main session let's go to the individual sessions, but there is obviously a link, but I think this year it was mainly due to external circumstances because we have reduced number of slots in a three‑day meeting.  And presumably next year there will be more room.  And again presumably I can't anticipate, that most DCs would like to get their 90 minutes back.  Maybe we don't need to discuss at length.  We did also ask for a 90‑minute slot at the outset of this year's meeting but it did not happen.  But you always have to ask for something in order to get it.  If you ask for less you will get even less.  Are there more comments on the main session or have we more or less exhausted the subject?  I think we had a good ‑‑ yes, please. 

   >> So hi.  This is Esmeralda.  I want ‑‑ I agree on the theme and this is my second IGF.  So I don't have a lot of experience with the previous years.  But I like the theme.  But I would like to also suggest to have more time if possible.  I mean like we just put together a toolkit for this year.  And it is very ‑‑ I know there was the team and we structured our intervention on the theme and around the theme, but it is very, very hard to sort of provide any in my opinion in‑depth discussion or any in‑depth contribution in three minutes.  So that's all I have to say.

   >> MODERATOR:  Yes, I think that is ‑‑ you reflect a common desire to have more space.  Are there more comments?  Yes, please. 

   >> Nadia from Youth Coalition on Internet Governance.  Not a reflection of what has happened, but in terms of future, if we have a DC coordination meeting next year, that we actually set the topic, I think now it is too short notice for us to have this discussion especially if our Dynamic Coalitions aren't aware, but that would give us more opportunities to actually talk about the synergies that we would like to create if we came together as a Dynamic Coalition to ‑‑ coordination group to discuss the themes that we would like to take over for next year. 

So any concerns that were raised regarding how do we coordinate so we can create time schedules in advance, how much time do we want to invest in and who would like to organize that for the next year and do we want to write a paper or anything like that or how do we want to encourage that we could discuss that all together.  When we see each other face to face and knowing the face to name and assessing our time commitments.  Something we should look forward to. 

   >> MODERATOR:  This year the DCs agreed on a common theme, to propose a common theme, the sustainable development.  It was the MAG meeting in July but the decision was only taken after the MAG call.  It was taken rather late that we would have to coordinate with the MAG members.  So this year ‑‑ next year we should be in better shape, also something a MAG meeting in January.  And we can report back as DCs that we have assessed.  Yes, it was a good session.  Yes, but ‑‑ and the DCs would like to get their 90 minutes back.  Other comments? 

   >> JUTTA CROLL:  Talking to the process of finding the common theme, this is all due to the fact that we had such a late schedule this year and that we also decided the MAG to have a more community‑based approach to the themes.  That should be addressed at the IGF this year.  So we have the process of setting these eight themes and then having subthemes.  All in a community‑based process.  So we came out really late with a theme.  We call them eight baskets of the theme.  And somehow this common theme for the Dynamic Coalition main session should fit in to the whole structure.  So if we can start earlier with the MAG meeting in January we will probably be earlier on the road.  And then it would fit somehow in between January and maybe March or April meeting of the MAG.  That it can be decided, that at least there can be a suggestion for a thematic structure where then the DC session would fit in. 

   >> Can I ask a question? 

   >> Oh, yeah.

   >> This is Nadia again.  My question in regards to that, would that ‑‑ would ‑‑ could that be the topic?  So we were talking earlier about whether or not if we have two sessions where we have a Dynamic Coalition session for ourselves again, could then this DC coordination group, for example, this particular meeting would then be what, you know, a bilateral meeting in one of the smaller rooms, but then the DC coordination group session would be actually the Dynamic Coalitions and older members coming here together to discuss the themes that we then could propose to the MAG which then would ‑‑ would be discussed at the MAG session.  Would that then perhaps be the manner in which we could engage as a Dynamic Coalitions all together to set them up the results for the main session then next time? 

   >> MODERATOR:  There is timing issue I think.  We cannot wait for the next IGF to do that.  So we normally do that in calls that we agree on.  We can ask for a side meeting of the DCs present when we have the MAG meeting in January for sure.  But normally we prepare and we agreed, I can't remember, was it May or June that we would go for sustainable development.  We had a call and fairly broad agreement on that.  And we thought it was a good way forward but it didn't happen that way.  And I don't know whether next year's approach will be the same again, but these baskets, they are motherhood and apple pie.  And if we decide to pick a SDG, I'm sure that will fall in to one of these baskets.  It is the chicken and the egg.  Do we have to wait for that to happen first or look, we have this and we can put that in that basket.  Given the fact that these baskets are so broad by definition I think whatever we pick would fall in any of the baskets that will come up.  We would have to say it is not basket A, it is basket C or so.  Other comments?  Questions?  Yes, of course. 

   >> ELEONORA MAZZUCCHI:  It is Eleonora from the Secretariat.  I wanted to respond to something that Carla and Esmeralda said in different ways.  Listening to you I understand that UN colleagues and DCs you are looking for a platform at the IGF.  Carla you said it was really hard to find someone in your DC to travel to Paris for two minutes.  That's perfectly logical.  And Esmeralda it would be nicer to have more time for an intervention than something in a main session.  In the Secretariat we see DCs as repositories of expertise.  I mean you are all researchers, activists, policy experts in your various fields.  And if you feel like, you know, you need more of a ‑‑ more of a speaking platform in the Secretariat we would be happy to help you find maybe a place even in another session to speak.  It doesn't have to be the DC's main session or individual DC main session.  And I think it was great that this year in another main session, in the Human Rights main section the experts on the panel were from DCs and that's as it should be.  Please come to us and we can help coordinate that. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Yes, that's an excellent point.  I think there is a lot of expertise in the DCs that should also be used for all the main sessions.  Mary Ann, yes.

   >> Hi.  Mary Ann here from the Internet rights principles.  Thanks.  That's really encouraging and it is true, you are right.  We had DC people speaking from the DC in the gender youth and Human Rights main session and I believe in the other one.  That's encouraging to know that's possible, but I am thinking in terms ‑‑ this is for the general stocktaking, I mentioned to Markus, another point, perhaps it would be an idea to consider the workshops being 90 minutes and main sessions being one hour.  They are quite formal and a big room.  IRPC had an hour.  We covered refugees rights and online environment with Google Amnesty International and other representatives in barely 50 minutes.  And we had another session on the environment in the morning on Monday.  And an hour really is barely time to get started and I think that's where the gritty granular work can happen with messages coming out, can be concrete and main sessions have their role.  And maybe we are trying to ‑‑ they are not official or fowl.  If going to be a leverage I would go an hour main session and then workshops be 90 minutes.  Because you only have 80 minutes working time maximum given entries.  And that would actually resolve a number of our issues here.  We love to have main sessions go on and on, but because they are formal sessions by definitions are in the big rooms.

   >> Second it.

   >> That is actually an interesting proposal and sometimes the shorter the better.  But from a logistical point if you have a three‑hour slot and fit ‑‑ you have a three‑hour slot is for the interpreters and if you have to fit in three one‑hour slots and you always lose time when changing the room.  And there is one experience I made as well, sometimes the previous session, one meeting I was promised a room at 1:30 and people should have left the room at 1:20 and they just refused to stop.  Sorry.  One hour session, I see also certain logistical problems just to squeeze in three sessions.

   >> That's a main session.  The main session refused to stop? 

   >> No.  It is people who are at the panel and then once they are on the panel, they ‑‑ they continue the discussion.  Exchange business cards and have a picture taken and whatever.

   >> That's a generic problem everywhere with all our rooms.

   >> I am just saying, being very pedantic.  If you have three one‑hour sessions in a three hour slot it is physically almost impossible and then you reduce them to 40 minutes.

   >> You could have maybe one hour and 15 minutes and know that 15 minutes is spent getting out and getting in, but the working time is one hour effectively. 

   >> Yes. 

   >> Can I respectfully suggest that we dive in to micro managing the scheduling and the MAG and so on and so forth and this is only my second IGF.  I can only compare to Geneva, but I believe and I have talked to a couple of people that this scheduling and the slots alignment and the form alignment has been troubling for some people that needs to be addressed in a different way.  So any requests for particular rounds of minutes might be premature at the moment.  But...whether it is 80 or 90 or something.  We have all been suffering from overlap and people not getting in the rooms and so on and so forth which is what happened to our Dynamic Coalition as well.  People were not allowed in the room anymore.  And that's capacity planning that needs to be dealt with.  And we can maybe get to that later.  Whether it is 75 or 80 minutes that we should leave to the MAG in a way. 

   >> I beg to differ.  I beg to differ.  I think it is very ‑‑ the main session is a very different genre of meeting to a workshop.  And this is a ‑‑ I don't know how many IGFs with all due respect.  I don't think it is micro managing.  The micro managing is managing capacity in rooms exit and entry times.  Hour and a half planned or an hour and a quarter plan.  This is to do with actually resource management for underresourced and ‑‑ I do have to beg to differ.  It is my concrete suggestion to.

   >> Three one‑hour sessions in a three‑hour slot.  Going down to 80 minutes it is a big step forward.  We moved away from the three hour slots which are too long. 

   >> Hopefully it will be easier for next year's IGF.  We should not discuss this with the experience we had this year and DC session shortened to 60 minutes.  Hopefully it will be another situation this year and we will take all the situations to the MAG.  One hour session it is ‑‑ it is a quarter main session.  We try to establish a thematic main session in 60 minutes.  It is just too short to address the theme properly in many situations.  Thank you. 

   >> Carla. 

   >> CARLA REYES:  So actually more basic scheduling request.  The schedule came out pretty late compared to late to prior years.  We worked really hard for our session to bring folks from all over the place.  So in Columbia and Hong Kong.  We were asked to move it to the Monday session from ‑‑ it just happened.  That's why I was late and my people sort of freaked out, right?  And it was a big deal that we have been recovering from since.  So you all agreed to let it stay where it was.  The result is I have missed out on half of this discussion.  And however I should say the schedule had already been changed.  So when we got here on Monday, it said that our session was at 9 o'clock in the morning and it wasn't changed until way, way later in the afternoon after our speakers complained.  There has been confusion about when we ‑‑ some of the people that were attending didn't attend because they thought it was Monday at 9 because it was changed on the official schedule without our confirmation whether we can make that happen and our speakers were not coming until yesterday. 

So more basically once this schedule is out like we needed to be the schedule.  And then that's that.  And please don't change it without our confirmation that we could make that happen. 

   >> NIGEL HICKSON:  This is not a DC issue.  Two very prepoints and then I have to go.  I think the Secretariat will face with insurmountable, because we are here, we are faced with incredible problems because of the location, because of the late decisions by France on what sessions are going to take place and when the person was going to come and where it wasn't.  So I think that contributed to this.  On how we do the DC main sessions and individual sessions, I think we have to wait to the extent the discussions in the MAG and early on and we need to be able to input those discussions.  And to, you know, highlight the value of the Dynamic Coalitions and that's ‑‑ we are not saying we want the main session because we are Dynamic Coalitions.  And we have a good time and, you know, we deserve this.  It has to be fitted in to the overall context of the IGF and whether the IGF decides to have main sessions or workshops next year.  Yeah.

   >> MODERATOR:  The main session has been all discussion.  It means there is a room that has interpretation in all UN languages.  Whatever you call the sessions doesn't really matter.  You can call them workshops or whatever, but you get a slot in the room with interpretation and all the bells and whistles.  But I don't think we need to go down too ‑‑ you can all obviously comment on the stocktaking process.  Collectively it is Dynamic Coalitions.  I don't think we should comment on the overall length of the structure of the main sessions or not.  I think we should limit ourselves to say what we agreed on, that we essentially would like for the individual DC sessions to have sessions of 90 minutes and that we would like again to have a main session which is DC driven on a common theme where we work together and that is a real step forward on a common document. 

DCs have never done that before.  It will be challenging.  But I think again it shows a collaborative spirit and as Niko said working towards a common outcome.  So I think that's a great ‑‑ it would be a great innovation if we agree on that.  And I think it would also lend weight to our request for a common session.  Here are people who engage all the year over and they agree to work together on a common theme, whatever that common theme and to produce a common document.  And then how we orchestrate the main session will be another story.  If we are assuming we have again split the three hours in to two, that means 80‑minute session.  In 80 minutes there is only that much you can do.  And the feeling I have is what we have done so far is cram in as many speakers as possible.  And that is not necessarily the preferred option, but one option could be that you group some Dynamic Coalition, two or three that have related themes and pick a speaker who would represent all of them and would give more time to the individual speaker and that would be one of the options.  And Niko has a question.

   >> Just a common question.  What would be the process for identifying the theme there?  It was pointed out in the future this would be kind of discussed at the Dynamic Coalition coordination meeting, but for next year then how are we going to go on and identify the theme? 

   >> MODERATOR:  We would do that in a call, on calls on the list as we have done before.  Last year we agreed relatively early on.  We had two those options, do we go for a common theme or not.  There was agreement let's go for a common theme and let's go for sustainable development and that went relatively smoothly.  So now I think Nadia made a very concrete suggestion just to pick one SDG which could be a great idea.  There may be other ideas.  And let's discuss this on our regular calls and have a list discussion.  In January we don't need to have that ready but we can announce that we agreed on the basic premise that we would go for a common theme and also the common work on a common document which I think is a step forward.  And then by May we should have agreement on a common theme and could actually start doing the work proper.  Does that sort of sound reasonable?  I see heads nodding which is always a good sign.  And with that then can we conclude our coordination ‑‑ I think it was a very good discussion to have.  It was a very good stocktaking and also a way forward.  Please.

   >> Niko from the DC3.  Maybe for this document we could think about ‑‑ we could think about work with output from the Dynamic Coalitions of the corresponding year.  To make a document that has to do with our actual output from the work of the year.  And I think that that would be easier to engage at least thinking about our community.  It would make more sense to think about okay, we need to propose a part of a document to extract from our outcomes and it would be easier to align people to work on that.  If we were to work on a completely different document theme, et cetera, it ‑‑ we might get like someone to work on that.  But I don't see that we could get much commitment from the coalition.  And I think that having commitment from the coalition is what would also bring the coalitions to the room which is one of the things that sometimes is failing.

   >> MODERATOR:  I think the last point is very important.  We do need the buy‑in that you want the coalitions to be there.  But I don't think there is one size fits all.  There may be a Dynamic Coalition that has done a lot of work on one particular area but maybe not so much on the common theme.  We are willing to engage.  By in new case you always draw on the work you have done before, whether that is a document that exists or something ‑‑ something to add and then Gerry. 

   >> GERRY ELLIS:  Okay.  Briefly.  I don't know how the date for IGF is chosen.  Last year it was in Geneva close to Christmas.  And today it was the day of the Armistice Day.  It was very difficult to get rooms for people with disabilities.  It was very difficult to get rooms because of all the extra people.  We ask that you try to choose a date well in advance and give us plenty of warning so we can get the accessibility and that sorted out well in advance.  Just a certainty. 

   >> MODERATOR:  Thank you.  That is a really reasonable request.  This year I think ‑‑ last year it was again availability of meeting rooms in the Palais de Wilson in Geneva.  And the only week that was free was the week before Christmas.  And this year it was the decision of France to link the IGF to all these big events, Armistice Day and relative notice.  Next year we have the date and the Germans will announce it today, the date.  It is late November.  It coincides with Thanksgiving in the U.S. which will not be very popular with our friends from the United States. 

   >> Fine with you.

   >> MODERATOR:  Jutta.

   >> It doesn't work with ‑‑

   >> Yeah, I think we to ‑‑

   >> We have to go. 

   >> MODERATOR:  We are ‑‑ we outstayed our welcome.  Okay.  Thank you all for participating in I think what was a very constructive meeting.  Thanks a lot. 

   >> I ‑‑ I just want to mention to you, it is off the record but I have had quite an argument outside the best practice Forum on local content because around 15 people were left out because no one was allowed standing in the room for security reasons.  And this was happening in many rooms today and went with that to the organization and I don't know if it scaled up or not, but this is something that maybe would be interesting to come from this group, to the MAG or to wherever it needs to go.  Because having people fly from all over the world to stand looking at the door doesn't seem to be very reasonable.