The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF virtual intervention. 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.
***
>> We all live in a digital world. We all need it to be open and safe. We all want to trust.
>> And to be trusted.
>> We all despise control.
>> And desire freedom.
>> We are all united.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Hi, everyone, can you hear me?
>> MARIA TAZI: Yes, we can.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Is there much background noise your side?
>> MARIA TAZI:: Yes, there is.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: All right. So, I need to find a solution where I have less background noise. Okay, it should be better. So, hi, everyone. I see that we have ‑‑ so, welcome. We had an issue with the link. We were not capable to activate the link, so I'm sorry for that. That's why we have a bit late in the process. I see that we have three persons in the room. Is that true, or are there more people? Okay, three. Three, okay. And online, we have three persons, a room which is very cozy.
And we are going to talk about the process we have been organizing and deploying between 2017 and 2020 and that we wanted to go on working with. With that, I would propose that we do a round of presentation, because we are not that many people, so it wouldn't take too much time. And I propose that maybe Maria, you can start the round and then we'll see the people online, the people in the room.
>> MARIA TAZI: Yes. Hi, everyone. Hi, Ellen, Richard, and Raymond, who are with us online. I'm Maria Tazi. I work at Missions Publiques, specifically around the project led and I'm also Communications Manager, and I'm very happy to be here.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Thank you, Maria. I would go over to Richard.
>> RICHARD DELMAS: Hello. Bon jour. Hello. I'm in Brussels. I represent ‑‑
(Speaking non‑English language)
And we are also partner with the association which is present as Katowice. And we have been active with Missions Publiques during the consultation for "We, the Internet" in the Edge. Thank you.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Thank you, Richard. You are partner in Belgium for the project. I would like to give the floor to Raymond.
>> RAYMOND MAMATTAH: Hi. Good afternoon. My entity is eGovernance and Governance Foundation for Africa. We are a Civil Society that engages in Internet Governance, eGovernance, digital inclusion, privacy, among others. So, I'm here to network and learn from your session.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Thank you. I hear the movie, but I can't see it. Is it me? Okay. Sorry. Sound on my side. So, now let's go the room. We have three people in the room. May I ask you to present yourselves from the room? I suppose you need to go to a microphone or have the microphone? Yes.
>> Yes. Can you hear me?
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Yes, we can hear you.
>> My name is (?) from France, and I am from the French Association Eurolink. I'm here in Katowice with my colleague here. And we work a lot with domain names, languages, security, but also about how to have Internet, ethics Internet. So, we are very proud to be here. And we work a lot ‑‑ we want to work a lot with Missions Publiques about this.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Thank you very much. Next person we have in the room?
>> Hello.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Hello.
>> RAMONA: My name is Ramona Petrahova. I'm from Lithuania, but I work for an international not‑for‑profit organization, and I am manager for Public Library Innovation Program, and we work currently, mostly with capacity‑building for public librarians in Africa to do innovative programs and digital skills training for different target groups. So, I'm following you on social media, and I was interested to hear more.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Okay. Thank you very much. And we have a third participant in the room? That's Luis, no, that I see behind? Yes, it is. Okay. Bon jour.
>> We are working in the same organization. And although we participate in (?) which are either recent or which have been created already ten years ago or more. So, that's mainly questions which are related to Internet. But mainly in areas where we need more freedom, more attention for the institutions, and also more universality by having a lot of partners in many countries. So, that makes us, in a way, always interested by the groups which are created a bit like here. And we usually are attending the sessions and make contact with the participants.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Thank you. So, I'd say we are a room which is little enough to have more discussion than presentation, but I think maybe it's good if ‑‑ (Audio difficulty) yes, Richard.
>> RICHARD DELMAS: Yes, thank you. I tried to send you an online question yesterday, but the IGF website didn't work, so it's not a problem. I can ask you. Yes. In fact, with our association.
(Speaking non‑English language)
We work with end user for training ICTs and language, but now we would like to proceed with a selection, for example, of end user or representative of refugees, et cetera, to participate in consultation like you do with Missions Publiques. And it's not so easy, because this is based on non‑expert, or sometimes they are expert, but they don't speak English, et cetera. So, a good thing with you, and we learned the process with Internet. It was good, huh? It was good, with good animation and good format. But we would like to expand with you and other partners this kind of consultation and how to proceed with end user, you know, non‑expert.
It's very important in refugee or Internet Governance research, because we want to reach also the ground, the bases of accessing Internet, citizen, et cetera. Okay, thank you. That's a question and a remark. Thank you.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Thank you, Richard. I wanted to propose that maybe for Raymond and Ramona, I give a couple of key elements of what we've been doing. So, even if you may have followed us on social media or seen a bit of information around the process, that you know the cornerstones. And I would maybe then focus on the process, and we could discuss about it and how we tackle that question of, as you said, Richard, end users and Internet Governance.
So, I will share my screen for a couple of minutes and give you some elements on "We, the Internet" and what we've been doing in the past years. So, the idea we have with "We, the Internet" is to test, to improve, and finally, to institutionalize Internet Governance with and for the citizens. Our starting point was that there is the Internet, and it's a global phenomenon; it's a global good, but there is no corresponding ‑‑ I mean, and we know it ‑‑ governance which fits this forum, so like IGF were invented, tested, and implementing.
Our question is: How do we manage to bridge back the discussion between stakeholders to the citizens? So, this building that bridge between end users as you reach out, stakeholders and decision‑makers. And for this, we developed and we designed the Global Citizens Dialogue and we had in 2020 the first edition. Before that, in 2019 and '18, we had run test runs and we had pilots, but the real implemented launch implementation was in 2020. We had around eight partners at national level. We had around 8 countries that participated in stakeholders and Citizens' Dialogue, and we had around more than 5,000 participants in those countries. And as we talk about end users and ordinary citizens, first, it's very important to recruit the participants so that they represent a diversity of the country. So, as you see, there are participants where more or less half female, half male, and other. We had a huge representation of people under 25, which is relevant if we compare it to the global population and compare the number of youth in developing population. And we had a sort of diversity of occupation of the participants from student and pupils to unemployed, retired people.
So, I want to go deep into the detail of the results. I would like to highlight some of the more process‑oriented results. The first one is we asked the citizens after the discussion ‑‑ so, they had to discuss the process to make it clear ‑‑ was, during a full day, they had a full day of discussion. And they had four topics to discuss. The first one was Internet and themselves, how they interact with the Internet versus their usage and what they think about Internet as a whole. Then the question of data and how they use data and how they consider that data should be handled. We had the third question was around disinformation, so the question of the digital sphere and information. And the fourth one was about artificial intelligence. And we had a more open session on the future of Internet Governance, so the question of governance itself.
When we asked people after the session, for example, on data, if their understanding had improved, and you see a huge majority of the people that said, my understanding has improved. So, there is a strong learning effect of such a process, where they have that information which is compact and given to them and then they have capacity to discuss with other citizens. And then they come to solutions or they answer some questions or they answer some exercise that they have to do together. And then we see that there is a high level of knowledge gained doing this.
Also, in terms of attitudes, we see that when people go through that such a process, they are in the majority willing to change their attitude. And as you see it, some of them will want to share more data; some of them want to share less data. So, you see that it's not only going one direction, but there is a clear effect on attitudes.
Here you have a couple of examples of the dialogue in October 2020 in different countries of the world. And I'd like to also highlight something that maybe for you, Ramona, will be interesting. We asked citizens, what would be a good way of fighting disinformation? And we proposed them different solutions. So, you see that here, whether the table of solutions and the table of stakeholders, so who should take action and how should they take action? And the reasons were very clear. And we asked people to work as a subgroup, so a group of people take together and coming to an agreement on what should be the priority.
And, of course ‑‑ not of course -- but very interestingly, first priority is education. But it's also for the people the most priority and the most impactful. And we asked them to judge if this was the case for public bodies, for Civil Society organization ‑‑
>> RICHARD DELMAS: Hello?
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Okay. And for the private sector. And in all three cases, they said, okay, yes, it's a priority and it's impactful for public bodies, as you see it. So, it's 75% ‑‑ no, 70% of the groups, so the group after the discussion. Yes, it's a priority for Civil Society. And yes, it's a priority for the private sector. And it's impactful. But suggesting that for them, they see education as one of the main ones.
Maybe then as last input on my side before we can enter the discussion, we asked them if Citizens' Dialogues should become part of the decision‑making process and future of the Internet? And clearly, they said yes after that experience, that it could be a way to have that connection. And I think that is the quick, and I'll stop here and start the session. For me, as preparing this session, the question would be what can be the cause, when we have the audience gathered together a couple of questions, but at the same time, we can have a very open discussion and answer questions with you and understand how we can go with the next step, but those questions were for us maybe to inspire.
So, how do these results inspire you for your strategy, for your work, and what do they mean for us as a community working on Internet Governance, and what are the most meaningful in relation with IGF agenda? I will stop here my presentation, and I'd like to open the discussion and see what your feedback on how we can push the discussion. So, we have it here. Yes, someone in the room. I think it may be Andre. Andre, is it you? Yes, it's Andre! How are you?
>> ANDRE: Hello! Good day, Antoine. Nice to see you.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Yes, I'm so happy! Nice to see you.
>> ANDRE: I have some improvements myself. I'm now at McGill University in Canada.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Good for you!
>> ANDRE: For the public, I am the national organizer of the debates in Russia, which happened in October 2020. And we have a long cooperation with Missions Publiques, and I hope this cooperation will continue in somehow in our opportunities that I have in Canada, maybe.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Yes. So, tell me, how is IGF in Poland? How is the week?
>> ANDRE: Yeah, so, it was very nice. And I am really glad, I'm really happy that the forum was organized in hybrid format, not totally actually online, and that's a really positive thing, absolutely.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: May I ask first, one other question, how the results resonate with IGF. What is your feeling? The things that are being discussed this year, are they very disconnected from the priorities that we could see citizens set last year? Are they for you something where you see a level of support of the citizens that we had last year in comparison to the discussion?
>> ANDRE: But actually, the last event I attended with presenting results of the Russian debates was in February. There was the Week of Safer Internet in Moscow, when we had discussion with members of Parliament and I presented the results. But after that, I was unable to participate in this because I was in process of my immigration, actually.
But anyway, I think in Canada, with this opportunity, I'd like to ‑‑ I'm in the organizing team which will be asking Government of Canada to bring the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum, to Montreal in 2024. And before that, I hope that will be a project maybe in Canada, because think about it.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Thank you, Andre. Indeed, I saw on the news there is a campaign to make Montreal the place for 2024. So, I mean, maybe it's time to sort of connect why we do that, it's also a question of what is our middle‑term planning? And clearly, we aim at 2025, our landing point, to understand how until then we can progress and make the case and test and show that it makes sense to have that kind of processes for Internet Governance and that could become part of the normal way of doing Internet Governance by 2026.
So, we have Richard who's joined us. Can you maybe different yourself so we have an idea? I'm Antoine, Coordinator with the Internet process.
>> RICHARD FITTON: Yes ‑‑
>> RICHARD DELMAS: Yes, so, I'm Richard Delmas ‑‑
>> ANTOINE VERGNE:: No, Richard Fitton. Indeed, we have two Richards here. I'm very sorry. I meant to ask the other Richard to present himself.
>> RICHARD FITTON: Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, I'm Richard Fitton. I'm a family doctor in England. I've just been presenting to another international conference of free software for electronic health records. And I joined the webinar yesterday on Information Governance and Health. My particular interest in information governance in the United Kingdom, and indeed, in Europe, and America, really, has been the processing of personal health data, both by patients and by families, and both by elements and also by private organizations, and I've also had interest and followed the debate in our parliament on the use of artificial intelligence and data processing.
One particular instance we had was Google Deep Mind, which is a really fantastic set of software that's using people's personal information two or three years ago in a way that didn't actually, perhaps, coincide with the general Data Protection Regulations of Europe.
As over the last 20 months, digitalization of medicine has gone at a very, very fast speed. And I understand that most international organizations think it should proceed just as quickly. I've presented in 2016 to a conference at St. Petersburg in Russia on the requirements, or the hope I have for the requirement for the United Nations to be involved. I know they have lots of other responsibilities, with some form of oversight of the seven or eight different standards that are involved in health data processing. They produced their legal standards within countries. There's clinical governance standards; there's transparency; public discussion; and also, citizen engagement and understanding.
That I've been involved with a lot in the United Kingdom because myself and three or four colleagues have been at the lead of the line of encouraging, and in fact, helping to implement in the United Kingdom people being able to access their own personal health data. I interestingly joined the COVID period of time because that was the way in which patients or citizens could get their passport certificates. 18 million people have suddenly registered to get access to their records online because that's a way in which they could actually share their passport certificates.
I have a require or desire that there is some sort of continued international discussion about the role of the private sector and personal data. And one of the things that was said yesterday by one of the presenters in the discussion about health data was that maybe we shouldn't only be looking at how data collected in the public sector should be shared with the private sector, but we should also be looking at how data collected by the private sector should be shared for the public sector. And I think that's quite an interesting, interesting discussion. So, that's me.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Thank you.
>> RICHARD FITTON: I'll mute myself again. But thank you for allowing me to introduce myself.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: That's good, Richard. Thank you very much. This is indeed why we decided to tackle the question of data and what it means for citizens, because this is a very big question, and at the same time ‑‑ so, as we did the design with the Internet, we started with the question of who should own the data? That was the key question at the beginning.
And then we discovered that, actually, the question which is very ‑‑ which is behind it, is how do we as a society handle data? So, what you said about, okay, in which direction does public data goes to the private and private data to the public, and how do we create something which is completely new, in a way, because that dichotomy, that society is a new system. And how do we handle it?
There was a very strong feeling by citizens from the residents we have had last year that ‑‑ so, they say that data‑driven society is not a bad thing. So, there isn't ‑‑ after the dialogue, there was not that feeling from participants that we have to avoid it, that we have to fight against it. But their point was, the big question is, how do we govern together the data we produce in the society? And this is where they then had a very strong priority for that question of ministerial governance and this question of inclusive governance with all actors and citizens. So, the way they answered the question last year was not to regulate strongly or to avoid data or to let it go, but to understand what kind of mechanism of governance can be put in place to handle together that data. And that was a very interesting reason from last year.
I wanted to go now to Ramona in the room. And Ramona, you were saying you were working with libraries. Is it for you ‑‑ how does that kind of process, that kind of idea resonate with you, if you think about the work that libraries are doing around literacy, around education?
>> RAMONA: Yeah, definitely, you know, your initiative is interesting for me, just because it also informs what people expect. So, from data, you know, we can show to libraries that are building digital literacy and other programs, and they can consider, you know, responding or addressing some issues in a way that people think should be done.
From another side, we also do capacity‑building for public libraries and one of the curriculum models that we use in our curriculum is design thinking for libraries, and it's also about developing programs in dialogue with citizens, not just, you know, knowing what libraries want to provide, but also having citizens and people participating from the beginning in the process of program development. So, that's, you know, consultation that you did, it's also interesting for me, you know, how it's done, and I would like to see more public libraries across the world really using this way of addressing community needs and paying more attention to what people need.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Thank you. I'd like to ask a follow‑up question. We saw from the results last year, so when we talk about disinformation, people see education as the way to go. What is your feeling about the capacity of libraries as the place to be one of those places to tackle disinformation, or do you think it should be done elsewhere, or do you have some programs working in that direction on disinformation?
>> RAMONA: Actually, libraries are starting to do, you know, disinformation and privacy, data privacy trainings for citizens. And there are different ways of really creating this program. For example, some European libraries was partnering with tactical tech NGO based in Dublin that is interested in those and they developed some curriculum for ‑‑ it's kind of a toolbox for young people. And some libraries, you know, just adopt this content and use it in their programs.
So, I think it's very different in different countries, because I said, for some years we have focused on working with public librarians in Africa. So, there, usually, now, like Uganda, you know, they focus on basic skills, digital skills, provision to their citizens, women, youth, and other groups of people. To some extent, definitely they are touching the Internet safety, disinformation subjects, but it's not, you know, really very deep yet. But the need in community and society definitely is there, and I think libraries will either as an independent, you know, training providers, or together with partners in Civil Society or even private providers, they will definitely do more education on this.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Thank you very much. Before I give ‑‑ so, Richard, I will give you a word, then I'd like to go to Raymond and have your feedback on our discussion until now. But Richard.
>> RICHARD DELMAS: Yes.
>> RICHARD FITTON: Which one?
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Yes. I'm sorry. So, Richard Delmas.
>> RICHARD DELMAS: Okay, thank you. No, I have a question to Ramona, because we have a sub program which is called Biblios Fair, which is an open public library with an accent on (?). In fact, we want to have public access to books that are bilingual or multilingual or in language that are rarely not used because we work with a lot of diasporas and refugees, and there is also a library, a public library like that near Lausanne and also in Geneva.
So, my question is more about how do you in your public library, do you have a system of classification or indexing, or do you do it in local language, in English, or do you use a specific format? Okay, thank you.
>> RAMONA: Yeah. In terms of libraries, you know, it's very standardized profession and classification and catalogization is, like, traditional area for libraries. So, in many places, libraries use universal decimal classification, and those classifications are usually translated in the local languages and manuals, just adapted to.
But of course, if we talk about, like, smaller, indigenous languages, of course, it's not available in those.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Okay, thank you very much.
>> RICHARD DELMAS: Thank you.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Thank you. I wanted to go to Raymond. So, Raymond, we had in 2018 one of the first round of pilots. We had a partner in Ghana, which was the school ‑‑ I don't remember the name of the school now. It was an international school in Ghana. And they did with us the very first pilot with Internet in 2018. And Ghana is known to be a very involved country in Internet matters, in Internet Governance. So, I wanted to see for you, does that resonate that kind of process, or is it something where you say, okay, we're already engaging ordinary citizens in Ghana in Internet Governance, or is it for you something that could be interesting and think, okay, yeah, a general feeling on how you see that process and how it could be used in Ghana? Raymond, can you hear us? Are you not... Okay. I'm under the impression that Raymond is not hearing us. Okay. Maria, your side up to now with the discussion? You wanted to react on something?
>> MARIA TAZI: Well, maybe Richard Fitton, you spoke about the importance of the debate around artificial intelligence and health. Maybe, Antoine, you could share with Richard the results that came out from the question that we asked citizens regarding AI ethics? Maybe that would be interesting, yeah?
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Very good. So, I will share that. So, we had a session, indeed, on artificial intelligence. Here. And one of the questions we asked is should companies or should this organization, following organization, hire AI ethicist as part of that team? And the overwhelming number, the persons, you know, it's a graphical ‑‑ it's a glitch ‑‑ so, it's, of course, not 250, but it's 25, 50, 75.
So, as you see, the overwhelming majority of participants say the need to have a system aboard to understand how we navigate Internet artificial intelligence and its development. And we had ‑‑ okay, yeah, that's the key reason.
On artificial intelligence, another thing that struck us pretty strongly when we looked at the results, where the citizens said that the priority for artificial intelligence should be to discuss about artificial intelligence and have much more debate in society and within stakeholders, between stakeholders on artificial intelligence before we take really strong decision on dependencies. And this was an interesting message, because it was a message not on having more or less artificial intelligence but having more discussion on artificial intelligence, its limits, and the opportunities it was bringing to our societies. And we took that as also a call for action for us to understand how we could organize more of this discussion, more focused, maybe, only on artificial intelligence and with more detail. So, Richard Fitton.
>> RICHARD FITTON: Yeah, sorry. Yeah, fantastic. Thank you, Maria. One of the issues we've been discussing in the last six or seven years, sometimes with the World Health Organization, sometimes with International Federation of Biomedical Engineers, the European Federation of Laboratory Medicine has been, as Maria said ‑‑ I used the word of ethics into medical record processing.
I sound a bit enthusiastic, even though I'm retired. I go to a lot of electronic technology conferences. I was at one in London, in Canary Wharf, just two months ago. Really nice people, very clever, but they haven't dealt with ethics. They don't deal with ethics. They haven't sat in a doctor's surgery talking to a 16‑year‑old girl who, you know, wants to have a termination of pregnancy or whatever. And I don't blame them for that, but we've sort of ‑‑ a friend of mine, Martin Severs was the Medical Director for the NHS Information Authority, and he was also one of the Directors of the International Health Standard Organization at Copenhagen. So, we had a lot of conversations about this.
And Martin very kindly got me invited to speak to the World Health Organization Family of International Classification Conference in Trieste in Italy in 2007. And we sort of teased out ‑‑ I know I'm talking about health information. That's my field. I don't deal with financial/fiscal information at all. But we reckoned that there were certain professional records standards, and we have a professional records standard in this country. And one of the members is a very good friend of mine. But we also have clinical standards of maintaining records, which is Clinical Governance Standards. And then there are technical standards, security standards. But there are also ethical standards. And actually, a lot of the ethics, as far as medical records are concerned have been very well described for paper systems and for consultation systems. They just ‑‑ I say "just" ‑‑ that's a big just ‑‑ they need to be transferred into the interface between the public and the different forms of data and different forms of data processing. So, I really like what you're saying, Maria. And actually, that question is fantastic. I'm glad you showed it to me again because I came in late because I've just been doing another webinar with GNU Solidarity, who do free software for electronic health records around the world, which is great. I think that concept of having an ethicist in those organizations and the fact that so many private sector organizations would like one is wonderful. I just think that's right. And I think if people haven't had the ethical training, they're going to struggle.
And I would say for my money, considering I've been interested in patients wanting to make their data available to other people and wanting to make it available to themselves over the years, it's surprising how difficult it is to get people to think through those particular issues. And as I've struggled to get people to be involved in their own records, I think, blimey! You're not interested in your own health records. It's actually your life, your life expectancy. I find it quite entertaining and a little bit funny that people haven't really wanted to access their medical records, even though it's about what's going to happen to them, what they can do. When they needed to get a passport certificate, 18 million people, a third of the population, suddenly registered to have access to their own records. So, somehow, there's a set of stories, somehow, which we have to get.
And interestingly enough, Maria and Antoine, when I was working with patients ‑‑ I built a patient‑centered medical center over 20 years ago to do exactly this, to train patients. And I produced ‑‑ I had a cartoonist in the surgery who I still work with, and we produced simple diagramistic abstracts in the visual format. There's very good evidence now ‑‑ it's not even evidence, it's just fact, that when you look at the literacy of the population, that we need ‑‑ only 3% to 4% of the population can understand the standard sort of government scientific text, legal text, reproduced. But oddly, 25% of the National American Literacy Survey in 2003, 25% of people couldn't recognize the name of a country in a piece of text if you gave it to them. It's nothing ‑‑ they're really nice people, but actually, they can't do it. They don't have the literacy skills. And then the next 20%‑25%, pretty much the same.
So, when we do have conversations, we have to have conversations through people they listen to, maybe YouTube or maybe cartoons or something like that, but you have to remember, the information for the people to make the policies. I recently transcribed a series of World Health Organization Evidence to Policy webinars ‑‑ how do you decide what research to do about COVID? How do we decide what evidence to collect?
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Yeah, this is related to one of the key principles of the dialogues we are implementing, that question of how do you create the bridge between a very in‑depth technical discussion and a very broad, easy‑to‑access discussion? But nonetheless, do that work of translation, considering that every person on Earth can be competent to decide if they get the right information, if they get the right frame to do that and take that time to discuss. And that's the key, let's say, condition or conviction we have by doing those dialogues.
I'd like to go last time through the room in Katowice and ask Andre if you have some comments or from the other participants before we close that room and let you navigate in Katowice further?
>> ANDRE: Thank you very much. But I think this dialogue should be continued. And I appreciate this approach of the barons, because first of all, I have some experience with Information for All program, in Russian Information for All program of UNESCO. And I think this participation, this involvement is really important. And I think this project should be developed in that direction, because I know that work, that Information for All is doing for that, for the information literacy, for the libraries, for example, the (?) is also an important actor in Internet Governance in general. And I think we are going in the right direction. We should congratulate others with our successful, if wars, in involving citizens in Internet Governance. And I hope when the pandemic ends, we will continue our debates which will be in person, and I hope to see you all, actually, in this room, but not in Zoom. Thank you very much.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Thank you very much, Andre. And indeed, we have plans for next year. We want to reboot the process and understand how we can prepare 2025 by having activities already in '22 and major new cycle of dialogues in 2023 or 2024, but at the latest, because if we want to have meaningful reasons for 2025, it needs to be included in the discussion in 2023 so that we can work towards 2025. Last comment and then we can close the round.
>> RICHARD DELMAS: Yes. No, you're right, I think, and do what's right, also, that the question of duration of the consultation. Because I remember when I was at the European Commission managing a platform, ICT partnership of end user interfacing with the Internet organization bodies. But the question is, you have to sustain the interest and participation. And if you want to go up to '25 and '23 governance, you know, you have to maintain a certain pace of interest and consultation, and your role is very important as a bridge in between, and that's not easy, but that can be done and that should be done. Otherwise, it is not real Internet for all. Okay. Thank you.
>> ANTOINE VERGNE: Thank you very much. Thank you. And thank you, everyone, for your participation in Katowice. Have a nice rest of the day and week and end of IGF.