DC Coordination Session
21 December 2017 - A Dynamic Coalition on in Geneve,Switzerland
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Again, for the transcript, this is Markus Kummer speaking. We are here to discuss DC coordination and continue the discussion we had yesterday. Let me start by saying it I think it was a really very good meeting. Last year we had a very good first meeting. Yesterday I think we improved. And to a large extent, thanks to you all, you prepared the papers and you stuck to the discipline of being short and snappy. But big thanks to Tatiana, she again did a superb job. What I liked towards the end there was a real substantive discussion among the DCs and the discovery that you have to some common themes to approach them from different perspectives.
Now, what we are discussing here also has to be seen in a broader IGF context, various efforts under way to improve the IGF in its ten-year cycle. Obviously one of the efforts has been working group on IGF improvement. There's another working group which is led by Lynn (phonetic), it's more strategy group on multi program. And there has also been discussion in that group of launching a poll to ask IGF participants what they see as priority issues. That has been recalled. Not everybody agreed on that.
And I was also in that group and I found it in a way awkward that this group as well as discussing substance. I think the strategy group, that is my personal view, which was a minority view in that group is that the strategy group should discuss processes and mechanisms but should not go into the substance; the substance should come bottom up from the community.
And I think in particular from the best practice forums and the DCs, they are best placed actually through their work and their experts on specific subjects. And they would be best placed to suggest issues to the broader IGF community, be that issues for main sessions, be that issues for best practice forums, be that issues also for workshops. Nothing prevents the MAG, for instance, to suggest issues that could be taken up by workshop organizers.
I had sent out e‑mail to this list with a template for questions, what are the issues you would suggest, in what way is it relevant for the IGF, and is the issue also dealt with by other organizations. And obviously one of the defining features of the IGF is the multistakeholder character. Cybersecurity is dealt with in many different instances but nowhere is it dealt with by all stakeholders all under the same roof.
And we also can discuss in what way we want to cooperate in the future. We have made I think great progress in sort of bottom‑up harmonization of DCs. We stick to same basic rules. The question is do we want to go further? Are there other areas to explore?
And also, I wondered yesterday also whether the DCs may not also wish to have substantive intercessional discussions in a way to continue what we had yesterday. We could, for instance, we all agree on a theme, let's explore that and as DCs we can also make a common suggestion. This would be a really good theme for a main session, for instance, or next year maybe we don't want to have individual papers but coalesce around a particular theme.
These are just sort of random ideas but I think we have not yet reached our full potential as DCs in cooperation. And I would be interested in hearing your views which way we ought to go.
I wonder, Avri, whether you would like to jump in?
>> AVRI DORIA: There's another issue that I think we need to start talking about or the group needs to and that's various people were sort of unhappy with only having an hour. Right. And that was a result of there being ‑‑ there's only so much I've been calling it temporal real estate. There's only so much time.
And basically when the MAG was faced with we have got twice as many workshop applications as we can accept, we have got the forums, we have the DCs with their automatic slot that became a real strong contention point in this year's MAG.
Now, I won't be on next year's MAG. I don't know what next year's MAG was going to care about. But every year I was on, the argument about DCs automatic slot and real estate for sessions has been an issue. And at some point something is going to have to give because we keep adding DCs, we keep wanting more time for them.
And it's quite reasonable to add DCs. In fact, I'm part of trying to add another one now. And it's quite reasonable to want a full session. It's also quite reasonable for the MAG to have to deal with workshops versus that.
So do we want to do something? Does this coordination group want to do something? Because so far the DCs have managed with the MAG and it will be up to next year's MAG coordinator to keep that, that they're still bottom up and self‑regulating. So vetting ideas with the MAG and telling them and getting their buy‑in is one thing.
Getting them to the point where they feel they need to start pushing on the DCs is another possibility. It is the MAG and they could say that the practice of automatic acceptance is one we can no longer support, et cetera,
And so to avoid that or to prepare for that we got to start talking about that.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. Andrea wants to come in. Allow me to build on what Avri said and thank you for bringing that up. In many ways that was the starting point when we started these coordination issues. There is this fight for prime real estate as it's been termed. And if you put yourself in the shoes of the MAG, it's a growing frustration.
Here we are as a program committee, but a lot of the slots are already taken. And we spend a lot of time on selecting workshops but here are slots for Dynamic Coalition, they're gone and also increasing the NRAs ask for open automatic slots and now the Open Forums. Everybody wants almost an Open Forum. So in the end there's less and less for the MAG to decide.
I think ‑‑
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. I mean, this is from the discussions in the MAG. There is a growing frustration and there's attention for the slots. It's a fight for prime real estate, so to speak. And for the Dynamic Coalition I think it's important to be seen as good citizens. And obviously the MAG can impose criteria. If they say we cannot give you all these slots, maybe you have to draw lots. Or another point could be you can only have it if you prepared a special paper. Up to now the criteria are relatively loose for the DCs to get the slot. But this is something I think would be in the DCs interest to be more proactive.
>> AVRI DORIA: One thing I forget to say is there's an undercurrent sometimes stated explicitly that some of the DCs are just an end run around getting a workshop. That basically they're not really doing stuff dynamically all year. They may or may not be coalitions but what they really are is just a way for you to get yourself an automatic ‑‑ in fact I've seen conversations that sort of substantiate that there may be occasions where that is indeed the case.
So that is another thing one has to be aware of.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: DCs should not be a way just to bypass the workshop. You've been waiting.
>> ANDREA: Hang on. Are we on? The situation and I wanted to comment on that and one other aspect when Shadia (phonetic) spoke and there's another gentleman, I can't think of which DC he was at but he wanted to have better collaboration amongst the DCs. And we sat down and talked about it.
For those of you that don't know me, I run the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility. And also we have by default always taken on the accessibility access for every person that needs to get into IGF.
So we are kind of weird. What are we? We are meddlers. But the thing is, do we graduate into a division of the IGF and do all the work of accessibility, maintenance and getting through to people and getting them through the door and getting accommodation? Every single DC needs to have accessibility within it because it applies.
So DCs are important for a lot of point of view because they basically have I think the say of different people who are the ordinary ‑‑ well, not that you're all ordinary, but the average consumer is going to be talk through the DCs. Would you not agree, Avri?
>> AVRI DORIA: I hadn't thought about it.
>> ANDREA: So you do know deep down, I think. Because what are the DC's for? AND they are the voice of people who get together about their ‑‑ you know, especially now with net neutrality. That's a big one. I think it was the net neutrality guide.
We have to I think define who we are and what value we give to IGF. That's one thing. I think that is really what we have got to push in the MAG, is the value that the DCs give in communicating with the ordinary view of people within ‑‑ and they're multi country, not just a commercial interest, they are multi country.
>> PARTICIPANT: Okay. In the context of IGF not being a policy‑making body and not having even recommendary powers, two classes of events, one is Dynamic Coalitions and the Best Practices Forums actually create a bridge within a debate without recommendation to actual policy‑making or action.
Best Practices Forum actually synthesize the discussions into good practices and bring in industry and all participants together to actually ‑‑ and creates them to practice good practices. And Dynamic Coalitions do a continuous debate and then regulate policy recommendations, in fact.
So it's very important that DCs ‑‑ many talked about the intercessional activity, it should not only be on the Internet but also it could be ‑‑ we could also explore face‑to‑face opportunities where most participants if not all participants if not a quorum, where most participants meet at forums and ICANN meetings. We can even ask ICANN to give us a room for the DCs during their meetings and offer us coffee, a small room. Something like that.
That's one way to move forward on that. There was another thing that I wanted to mention. We are mainstream DCs but then the DC meeting that we had had 50 participants. When we talk about mainstreaming it's like mainstreaming like the inaugural session or in the main hall as part of the stream. Is it possible we can do it that way next year? And one more point is there a possibility that DCs can have a representation in the MAG?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: On the main session we cannot force people to come to our meeting, that's the thing. But if it was in the main meeting hall.
>> PARTICIPANT: Maybe I'm not putting it clearly. I'm talking about on day one or a very important day or along ‑‑ (overlapping voices).
>> MARKUS KUMMER: But there's only the opening session where there's no other parallel session, otherwise they're always parallel meetings. But, anyway, let's go on with this. Again for the transcript please state your name and I should have done the same thing, so it's easier.
>> PARTICIPANT: (Speaker off microphone)
>> MARKUS KUMMER: It's not for you. You know who I am. It's for the transcript. That was Markus speaking.
>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: This is Christopher Yoo. Thank you, Markus. First I want to support what you and Avri said 100%. It was claimed yesterday that there was wide support of the DCs to being upset to being cut to 60 minutes. I agree with you, I don't agree with the comment yesterday. Everyone wants more time. That's not realistic.
So I understand that there are choices that have to be made. And so I think that and I take to heart your questions about the point you're making about the politics and making sure we are regarded as being supportive.
I also take to heart what Avri says about being an end run ‑‑ the concern that the DCs are getting an end run around to getting a workshop. And the important thing to me is that the DCs are operating in a way that is consistent with a philosophy of the IGF.
One of the things I saw in a DC meeting is a business representative asked a question and was told that the belief of that DC was every speaker who has a private interest or direct interest in the outcome was supposed to leave.
I found that statement to be inconsistent with the spirit of the IGF. And it was observed that the DC presentations often were not as disciplined about making sure all multistakeholder groups were represented. And to the tent to which there's a substantive concern beyond the structural one of getting a session I think we need to make sure that the programs we as DCs put together meet the same multistakeholder commitment that the IGF has a whole that we expect of the workshops and to make sure that all of the voices are represented.
I actually think that I would propose that we as DC leaders, have an obligation if there's a stakeholder group that's under‑represented to take the responsibility for engaging them, bringing them into the dialogue because the idea that a discourse that could happen with only part of the stakeholder community would effectively promote the goals the IGF is inconsistent with the philosophy.
And so I would urge us to take as our responsibility to get broad representation and meaningful participation among the stakeholder groups, because there's a role for each stakeholder group to caucus them self. And when it rises to the level in IGF and in the decisions we make, it's important we meet the standards and philosophy we set. I'm not sure that we have the processes in place to ensure that that's the case.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Martin?
>> MARTIN: Yes, thank you. Martin for the record. Indeed I think if you think back from where we have come from, we made a lot of progress over the last few years in getting that more clear we need something like outputs to talk about. Actually we need to be open.
And despite the fact that we respect the autonomy from different Dynamic Coalitions of how they run the show, that we at least have some common quality standards like openness, like this document before you get a session. So we are really progressing, and I think more progress issues just like you mentioned.
Everybody who has a direct interest and it should be at the table in principal instead of the other way around. It's about bringing stakeholders together and talk about it. And I think indeed maybe we can add that to our list of what we all think is important that we actively do reach out. So have this kind of common ways of working for Dynamic Coalitions where I'm very happy to put it on the list.
At the same time I also see that the IGF has won some credibility, and has a high competition for sessions. So if we don't come with a good definition of when a DC should have a session or not, the MAG is going to arrange it for us. So the MAG cutting down 90 minutes to 60 is painful, particularly because every time at IGF you have new people in the room so you're obliged to tell again, take part of that time for what it is about.
But I can see no better solution was offered by us to them this year either. Let's try to come with a better offer for next year. That can be either in making it more critical to have a session as one of the sessions you have every year to progress your topic. Maybe even, and I'm just thinking creatively, we can have a DC day somewhere, day zero or zero minus one or whatever, because it is important that we are serious about progressing the agenda on these topics that matter, that we get the opportunity to sit together and progress it. So I would really try to find creative ways to make that possible.
And, indeed, it would be so much better if we interlink better the work of our DCs where relevant. It's happening a little bit and it's happening ad hoc. I think there's a lot of overlap on topics where they touch each other. Let's try to do some extra efforts to make that come together better. I don't have a solution for that.
I'm aware many of us are here on their private time sponsoring their DC by their attendance. And I'm aware of a secretariat who will not be able to do much more as long as there are four people either. But let's try to find a way also in the coherence and get more out of it.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: All good points. What I sense from the discussion there are two threads. There's maybe merit in the DC's thinking about raising the bar for getting a session. Just I think most of you guys would fulfill it. But there may be other newly formed whatever Dynamic Coalitions and I know the Coalition would fulfill the criteria. But this is something that we could work on and be more proactive and present to it the MAG as we DCs present there are common criteria and the other is working together on a thematic issue and this could be thinking aloud an attractive proposal for instance from a main session that we look at an issue from different perspectives as was sort of the beginning of the discussion of the discussion yesterday.
Jeremy, he's working one of the efforts in the strategy group on whether you would like to talk a bit about what you are doing? You're going to have a session I think at lunchtime?
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: Yeah. So Jeremy Malcolm, for the record. I haven't been able to get too far with this project yet but we do have a drafting committee that is underneath the multi‑year work program working group of the IGF which is developing an option paper for looking at ways in which the IGF can better fulfill its mandate on the agenda paragraph 72(G) to be able to make recommendations where appropriate.
This may be a mechanism to have broader endorsement of outputs of Dynamic Coalitions or it may be something that is brand new, so it may or may not be something that we think can be done within the existing structures such as Dynamic Coalitions, Best Practices, and so on. This option paper is not going to be making any decisions, it's just going to be mapping the terrain and suggesting to the working group some things that it could in turn recommend to the MAG be considered either as pilot projects for 2018 or whatever the MAG may choose to do with our suggestions.
So if you want to be a part of the group that is developing this option paper, then we are going to have a meeting in bi‑lateral room one at I think it's 1:00 p.m. today. And if you don't have time to attend the meeting we also have a mailing list that you can be part of and I can join you on to that.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that. I think it could be definitely something we also consider working together, see what is a theme where we have a common interest and look at it from the different perspectives.
I think there were people asking for the floor at this end of the table. Yes, Andrea and Nigel. Andrea first and then Nigel.
>> ANDREA: One of the things I was going to suggest and I did mention it is that we ought to caption our calls. Captioning is not that expensive but if you don't have any money it's expensive. So I'm proposing that we find a way to put some money into captioning; then we have proof of what we have talked about. We can actually make accurate reports. Because when you have a captioning record, you've got evidence.
And I think if the evidence of what we do in our calls ‑‑ and unfortunately I'm not always able to attend them but then people who can't attend them can know and then we can actually see what direction we are going in.
Because memory is not so good. I hate to say it, mine is getting worse. So that's my suggestion. Two, maybe whatever we decide to do, however we decide to project, we have a record of what we do.
And you were the one that wanted to have more combination work between all the DCs. I couldn't remember your name. I'm sorry. (Overlapping voices). You were the one that made the comment, I think, downstairs. (Overlapping voices).
You were the one that I noticed. Sorry. Coming out of ‑‑ (overlapping voices). I didn't mean not to give you credit. So I will now shut up and give the floor back to Markus.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Nigel and then Luca.
>> NIGEL HICKSON: Nigel Hickson again. I think we have to be always careful where all the different DCs fit in something like the IGF. And I mean the pressure on the real estate or the time constraints or whatever I think is real.
I hope the MAG can look at the whole program afresh on how it addresses the program. I think realistically if you can't get ideas over in an hour or an hour and 15 minutes then there is something wrong, unless there's a real need for longer sessions.
And so I think ‑‑ I mean I take the point that sometimes you need to summarize where you are but I think some written comments can also help that. And so I think everything has to have its place but we need to be flexible.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Luca?
>> LUCA: Good morning. Luca, for the record. First, I was quite late so I apologize for being late. Secondly, to suggestions. One, if you want to work together I think we should start having a sort of map of what we are doing so at least we have a shared document where people can say well this is exactly what I'm doing or exactly part of what I'm doing. So I think the outcome papers are very good, but it's time consuming to read 13 outcome papers.
The Coalition produced 250 pages books and I don't think you will have the time or maybe will be willing to read them so it's better if we distill the content of what we do in let's say bullet points, let's say ten, and we share them so we can know what we can create.
And in the suggestion recording the structure of the forum of what we can do, we can have some sort of progressive approach you want with the Dynamic Coalitions that are producing extensive work and have to present the Coalition, request feedback and have debate, maybe have a slot a little bit longer. Maybe having a very similar debate to the previous year, having a slightly shorter time slot, I don't know, 45 minutes for one and 90 for the others, that could be an option.
I was involved in three different Dynamic Coalitions and it was very challenging to have, for instance, for net neutrality both feedback, the map, the presentation and debate with 160 people in the room. It was really challenging to conclude this in 60 minutes. 15 minutes more would be very good.
Maybe if the MAG is so persistent in giving us less time than the others, at least give us 75 minutes. And if someone is presenting another outcome that is very similar to the previous year, maybe we can do the work in 50 minutes.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. This is an example on what Martin said in a way of raising the bar a bit. This would be a proposal of perhaps two tracks, one for short meetings and one for Dynamic Coalitions. This could be an option. But you have been patient. Mary Anne, please.
>> MARY ANNE FRANKLIN: For the record, Mary Anne Franklin, Internet Rights and Principles Coalition. I just want to say that we had ‑‑ we were in the space ship room yesterday which had its advantages and disadvantages. I think main sessions are by their nature quite difficult to create more dynamic interaction. So I would just like to thank Titania for a wonderful job. But it's very clear that we are working together and we are coordinating, because the minute the conversation opened up we started to see these are groups that talk to each other and have talked to each other.
I like the idea of a database, as Luca suggested; a document that perhaps puts all the outcomes of all the Dynamic Coalitions over the years are listed. I think it's time to create a communal memory.
My second point is that I am not in favor of having a two-track idea that there are some DCs doing more than others. I think we have either one hour all together or we all have an hour and a half. There's no reason to start hierarchies of one DC shorter or longer. I'm willing to compromise on the hour and a half being cut back to an hour.
I would like to remind the room that we always in the old days had to submit substantial proposals for our workshop sessions. So where this narrative got to the MAG somehow the DCs are floating in there without doing any work, I would like that corrected right now. It's only this year that we actually were not requested by a certain time to submit a specific proposal.
So I'm all for returning to that basic criterion, I have no problem with that. But let's not have this narrative that we have been somehow sliding through the back door. I object to that most strongly because it's incorrect. I also like the idea next time for having a theme that is a focus for the main session that all the DCs speak to in all their diversities, so I'm happy with that idea if people want to move to that.
Finally, I would like to note for the second year in a row people in the room are saying this is the first session, only session where they have been to where there seem to be many, many, many topics on the table because all the sessions in IGF seem to be focused on particular themes. I have no problem with that. We must always, as Martin reminds us, always lead the room in and not just helicopter people into a conversation that we assume they understand.
So whatever we do next year let's have ten minutes setting up the room with who we are, what we do, and why this DC main session is working the way it is, why it is specific and why it is so diverse.
So I hope I've covered all the points and reminded us that we have always had to submit substantial proposals for our meetings but we have been always thankful to run our meetings as we wish.
We wanted to run a live Wiki session in our session and we could up to a point but a lot of people in the room discovered they had to re‑ register online in order to participate on the comments section. First I think it was fantastic it was set up. I would like to thank Eleanor. I would like to see it made more possible. I hope I covered the territory. I hope it's clear. I can't see the transcript. So yeah.
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>> MARY ANNE FRANKLIN: And totally with Andrea about making it easier to participate. If you don't even get your audio going, so it's a disability if your technology doesn't work as well. Thanks, very much.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Just your last comment I think that is to a large extent my fault. I tried to set the scene a bit and explain where we are but I definitely was not explicit enough and I should have made it clearer in my introduction.
>> MARY ANNE FRANKLIN: Each DC ‑‑ I talked about with Tatiana that each DC has a minute or the moderator takes half a minute to tell the room what these DCs do, whether it's the chair or the moderator. So I'm not pushing blame. It is an important anchor point for a session that is based on such diverse interest groups, so to speak.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: I didn't take it as criticism as such but I realize myself talking to people that it was not clear to participants in the room. And Tatiana would like to comment. But my feeling it was best on as an introduction and not by the moderator because it would break the flow of the narrative. Tatiana?
>> TATANIA: Thank you. Actually, whoever moderates this session next year, it can be implemented to what the moderator is doing. Each Dynamic Coalition a main introduction is a good idea but not when we have these kinds of time constraints. Whoever moderates this session next time might want to start with like saying this is Dynamic Coalition like for the Internet of Things, they're doing this, this and that and their goals for this year are this, this and that. And then in your paper you do this and that and please answer these questions.
I think that might work. You know. Just because of time constraints I didn't feel like I was in a capacity to extend my introduction because I could have introduced more about the papers, you know, because some of them had more interesting points that I pointed to.
And in this way I also think this is where coalitions can cooperate with the moderator so the moderator makes the questions but would the Coalition like the moderator. And this is what previously we think would be done. I think this will marry two concepts, what coalition wants people or audience to know about them shortly and then a question for the moderator. I think this will be a good compromise and solve the issue of time and introduction and everything.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: All good points. Just two points. A, we don't know yet whether we are going to have a main session next year. It will be up to the new MAG. And, B, if we do, I hope that you'll be the moderator.
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>> TATIANA: I would of course be happy to moderate but I don't know the objects of the same coalitions, the same session and the same moderator, I don't know if the objects of this is good, so you might want to consider inviting someone else next time and then me again later. Yes. I think just the ‑‑ (laughter)
>> PARTICIPANT: The room will be different.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, next year's session may be different as with the idea of maybe work towards a common theme.
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Now I lost track of...Martin, yes?
>> MARTIN: No problem, Tatiana. My appreciation to the excellent moderation. And the proposition you just made would be valid even if you have one team next year because then we may comment on one theme but it's still interesting that people don't only hear an abbreviation around the room but one sentence more and not two minutes more.
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>> MARTIN: Okay. Two sentences is possible, too.
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>> MARTIN: Well understood. And it's also a unique positioned because as far as I know you're probably the only one who has read all the input. I don't say that the input is not read by anybody but not all the input by everybody.
Anyway, just to confirm, yeah, really very much on track but also the point you made that you believe it's not true that there's some coalitions are not as serious as others.
I think we need to be a bit careful in presuming that we know that. I don't know that. I haven't tried everything.
And what Avri said, she's actually heard actively. So I tend to believe there may be examples. And for sure I'm aware that there's a tendency for people to try to do anything to get a session, and that's not true for most of us.
But let's keep our minds open. It's not going to happen with DCs, that we don't leave it to the MAG to need to find out whether we are serious or not.
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>> MARTIN: Of course.
>> PARTICIPANT: I take your point entirely. What I was talking about was that's one point, point taken there. Until I have evidence I cannot work either way. My point is about the fact that we have always until just this meeting had to submit a proposal for our meetings making clear what we were going to do so there had always been a process by which DCs ‑‑ the issue about which DCs do more, that's another issue.
I just wanted to correct the record historically having been doing this for a long time there was always a means we had to submit a program, outline, and show we had a range of people speaking or why we did the session we wanted to do. I'm happy to make sure that continues. That's my point, that's all.
>> MARTIN: On that one, that's why I asked for the floor. I really wanted to comment on that. Other sessions have the workshop description up at the moment that the MAG establishes the program. We don't. We get a slot somewhere at some time and if we are up to it we present some material on that.
I think it would be good that we would go in the same flow of time as the normal workshops in the realization it should be part of a longer line of things. But let's make sure we submit our plans, as well, at the same time.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: I don't know why that has slipped. I don't know whether Eleanora (phonetic) can or wants to explain. But all points well taken.
But from the MAG's side, they may submit a program but we are not here to approve it or not. Workshops, the MAG is the ultimate decision maker where their workshop gets accepted and that is the frustration seen from the MAG. And, Eleanora (phonetic), do you have an answer to that question?
>> ELEANORA (phonetic): I can just speak briefly about the timeline for putting together the program. Traditionally, we have focused on workshops first. That's sort of what's always happened. But do I like Martin's suggestion that maybe slots or whatever space be considered for DCs at the time that workshops are also being considered. I think just because the workshops are such an involved process, we give them a lot of time in the beginning and then tend to work on other elements of the program afterward. But I think it makes sense to be more ‑‑
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Do you know why this year they were not asked to submit a program?
>> ELEANORA: I think there's a little bit of confusion there. So each DC does ‑‑ is asked to put up a description but it's ‑‑ that's not really part of the requirement for getting the session. For getting the session a DC should be able to submit evidence that they are working and active. And of course all DCs did that this year. And that's how the process works.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Maybe we can tighten up this process and make it part of the conditions and maybe the same deadline as workshop proposals to have it synchronized a bit. And then that we have a deadline and if we don't submit a program outlined by that deadline, then you're not in. Something like that I think would work. Please and state your name.
>> ISRAEL ROSAS: Thank you. Israel Rosas, for the record. Also I'm a member of the Steering Committee of the youth coalition on Internet governance.
I think we should take advantage of the months before the first meeting in order to do our planning. I fully support the idea of having a theme to outreach our work as Dynamic Coalitions and also I think that Luca's idea about the mapping of the topics could be an excellent idea to better communicate our continuous work as Dynamic Coalitions.
And also as an opportunity to do more outreach to the people that is interested in several topics that the Dynamic Coalitions are dealing with. Just today I was talking about a girl from Peru that doesn't know much about the Dynamic Coalitions but she is very interested in several of the topics. Perhaps we could have a more communications effort and having a common theme and also the mapping of all the topics could be a good ‑‑ a very good tool to more outreach. Thank you.
>> SIVASUBRAMANIAN: Sivasubramanian. I disagree with Martin's suggestion because of one danger. When you have DCs in the workshop screen and place that suggestion to MAG, there is a danger of DCs being evaluated, DC proposals being evaluated, on the same criteria as workshops and DCs losing their importance and becoming equated to workshops.
So one way to bridge the disconnect between MAG's understanding of what DCs do and what we actually do is to lighten the MAG's work or to make it easy for MAG by actually discussing DC proposals within the DC coordination group and making it clear that whatever proposals go to the MAG are almost final.
So part of the coordination can be done by the DC coordination group and we can vet the proposals, we can look at what DCs are working and what DCs are not working. Maybe reduce the number of DCs from nine to eight. If that decision comes from here, it's more acceptable.
And some lighter suggestions, one is the problem of transcripts. And there's probably a simpler solution of recording a conversation with a device which can eventually be transcribed by a volunteer if funding is not available, so recording is easier ‑‑
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>> SIVASUBRAMANIAN: No. No. Record, recording is possible and then after that the transcription. So the suggestion from Martin day zero minus one is very good. And I want to re‑emphasize my idea on suggestion on face‑to‑face intercession. Thank you.
And one point, I want to say it, there is a certain degree of imbalance in MAG. I've noticed for the last six years that several proposals are approved, certain organizers are encouraged. In some cases the workshop proposal is obviously from with a lobbying interest, those proposals are approved and certain NGOs that work for money and sometimes ‑‑ and I may be very wrong because I'm not part of the MAG, I could be totally wrong, I'm just shouting the feeling. So I'd be happy to withdraw my comment if somebody more educated says that I'm wrong and that MAG functions impartially. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Just one comment. Nobody suggested that the MAG approves or rejects the Dynamic Coalitions. The idea was to more synchronize it with the workshop proposals and to go back to what Mary Anne said and also make it a condition for Dynamic Coalitions being accepted that you have a program outline in time at the same time. But the idea is it was not, I don't think anybody in the room suggested that it goes to the MAG for approval or not. I think that we have a consensus around that. But Luca and then Mary Anne.
>> LUCA: I would strongly oppose the idea of having a Dynamic Coalition day minus one for a very pragmatic reason. IGF is already four days long with day zero. We cannot ask people to add an extra day. An extra day in Geneva is a lot for someone coming from developing country. I would feel uncomfortable to ask for people who are already working for free to pay an extra day. I like the idea in principal but pragmatically speaking I see it very unfeasible and maybe unfair for those who have less wealthy budgets.
>> (Overlapping voices).
>> MARKUS KUMMER: But we could think about a day zero, to have an event on day zero. Mary Anne, Israel, Jeremy, and Andrea.
>> MARY ANNE FRANKLIN: Thanks very much. I think we moved into an area of stock taking and quality control on the general level. The Schedule F is really, really great to have, I just want to emphasize. And this is the place where one can update the material that was sent in for the workshops submission.
Now, I'm an academic. I organize conferences all the time. I assess content all the time. So I'm always looking at the end of the day when the conference or the event is about to start at the schedule. And I want to see updated material. I want to see who is speaking.
And in this case one can see this year in terms of the original workshop proposals that got on to the program that there's a very uneven quality of communication. So we are all ‑‑ it behooves all of us Dynamic Coalitions, best practice forums, those who have submitted meeting workshop and main session submissions and have been accepted on to the program, it behooves all of us to have that material pristine because this is for the whole world looking in.
So there's an unevenness, but in terms of those officially accepted workshops from other parties that are still coming into the IGF with a day to go with material that tells me nothing at all. So I would like to suggest that that quality control is imposed on all participators contributors that the material need to be up to date and complete so that it isn't always about how the DCs are not conforming to a certain magic standard. But I want to thank once again to Eleanora for all her stellar work. And the schedule app, they underestimate just how important it is.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Israel?
>> ISRAEL: Thank you. Israel Rosas for the record. I also oppose to the idea of having minus one day because it also implies, Markus, for the host country it implies something out of our control.
Also I think the MAG on the good faith basis on the comments of some kind of preferences. And perhaps we could think about a track of webinars during the weeks before the meeting in order to do more outreach and kind of short story about every coalition or something like that. And also if we are going to do specific effort on outreach, I'd be more than happy to volunteer. Thank you.
>> PARTICIPANT: Day zero minus one could be in several forms. It could be day zero, it could be day four and a half, it could be the evening of the last day, it could be a reception by DCs to the whole IGF or it could be in any form.
Just the ideas that apart from having a DC meeting and apart from having a DC coordination session, apart from having a DC reporting session we could also have more relaxed which could be informal, it could be formal, it could be in the evening, it could be at night, it could be anything. So we don't have to dismiss it out right. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Jeremy is the next speaker on the list.
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: My point is a short one and I think it been made. Day minus one there's a Civil Society meeting so that may not be suitable.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Andrea first and then Luca.
>> (Speaker off microphone) (laughter).
>> ANDREA: I'm sorry, I've done a complete blank. It grabbed me at the time but I've lost it. We have diversed.
Just the one thought though that I've been thinking about over and over again. I think we have to make a collective paper with every Dynamic Coalition giving their views on why their contribution is important, if nobody said then, then submit to it the MAG as an official document. I mean what we do. Maybe even just a paragraph. That way they know who we are, what we are and what we do.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: That could be in a way building on what Luca and Mary Anne suggested, mapping of topics and database and having a joint ‑‑
>> ANDREA: Exactly. People don't read a lot. They read something short, sweet and snappy. So that's the point about when you get to databases are the people in the MAG really going to look at that? You want to do like a New York Times news think that will say blank, blank, blank, blank and this what is we do and we need not only do we want you to join us but we need to report back to you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: But I think this goes along what you suggested. I think mapping of topics, bullet points. Luca, you wanted to suggest?
>> LUCA: I think another good idea would be to use the document page of Dynamic Coalition pages so every Dynamic Coalition has a document, report or document page on page. And if we start to put in that document page all the outcome produced over the past years that frequently are only on the website of the Dynamic Coalitions and not in this document page, I think we can also not only have bullet points of what we do but also link them to more specific materials so that actually builds up on what Andrea was saying about having maybe a snappy paragraph or even only indication of what we do in the bullet points.
And then for those that are interested, let's say in recommendations in terms of service they directly have the link to the document or if they directly want to search the document by the way the IGF has ‑‑ the website ‑‑ the website itself has a document section so there's a document section where I don't see why we can't have a Dynamic Coalition page with all the documents we have been producing being Dynamic Coalition is part of the IGF and Dynamic Coalition document part of the IGF.
>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: I like the idea of a summary document and principal but I pulled up the list of the Dynamic Coalitions and I'm trying to figure out if there's a theme that you can really use. And Mary Anne says I do conferences as well and you often has someone asked to sum up something, and you can find a thread but often it's quite contrived or thin. So in a way forcing out a theme sometimes it works when you have a strong theme.
For example, I'm doing an exercise now where I'm thinking around one of the SDGs that I had. All of our work is connected on some level of generality, you can find some connection to something. But some of them I'm thinking but finding a ‑‑ if you're going to find a theme it's going to take them outside of something they emphasize but it going to be hard. When I think about the diversity of things that are interesting to people I want to be realistic in a sense that you end up having a document that will be in a fairly high-level generality and it becomes a Christmas tree when you get an easy theme and everyone hangs something on it.
So I think centralizing and drawing some themes but we have to think about this dynamically over time because different themes will emphasize different things at different times but it's going to be work and it's going to be not easy to do. I want to go back ‑‑ like many people I wanted to raise a hand a long time ago and we lost this.
The idea of putting us back into the regular consideration of how programs are evaluated I think is sound. I just want to make sure we maintain the same standards that other panels are held to. I've heard complaints not only on DC stuff but workshop panels, many don't have representation of all the stakeholder groups. The whole idea is to get in the room with people who don't entirely agree with you because if you leave them out of the conversation and come to an agreement you haven't really accomplished anything. The point is to get all the perspectives out. And we need to hold our ourselves to that standard. If we expect this to be from the bottom up and driving the agenda of the IGF it's more imperative we live up to it.
>> LUCA: Yes, a comment on what Christopher was saying I agree in principal with almost everything he said just.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Just for the record this is Luca speaking.
>> LUCA: It's Luca speaking, not Markus. We have to be pragmatic again and what we are differentiating our self from workshop because not only we are a continuous work, a continuous stream of ideas and work over the years but also because we produce outcomes, right? So I totally agree to have the same criteria as workshops but if you have to produce an outcome which we are differentiating our self because we produce concrete things.
And everyone is free to participate in the production of this outcome. If you have in a specific coalition a stakeholder group that does not participate, it is ‑‑ you will have a debate with this stakeholder group at your annual meeting to include them.
But if the people, when they have the possibility to participate to the outcome production those people do not participate then it is ‑‑ and you have a lot of other people that have dedicated time to the development of the outcome, then it's hard to say, well, the people that have dedicated a lot of free time for free voluntarily to the outcome, you will not do what you have done because I have to respect the criteria and give some room to other people that have not participated at all. I would rather have a 90-minute slot where everyone can participate and provide feedback.
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: So if everyone were allowed to participate I would be more sympathetic. On some level we have an interest in the outcome, that's the whole idea. Second I think if there's not meaningful participation, it's our obligation as DC leaders to engage them. And if they're not in the room I think that's a failure on our part. The DC if they do not find a way to frame an issue to bring in all the stakeholder groups the DC is failing. If you have an outcome document it should have been pre‑worked in to engaging groups. It's a tall order.
But the reality is, if we are going to hold out production outcomes of DCs as the output of the IGF, the process failed to engage all the major stakeholder groups, I don't know that we can properly call it an outcome of the IGF despite the contributions to the time people make, the goal is really to try to find solutions that work across the community. This is what I'm worried about we are looking as the IGF.
Comments shared in the halls they're worried that the evolution of the IGF has become more disengaged and more polarized. The Dynamic Coalitions are supposed to be the place where that happens. And I'm concerned that if we had an outcome and the scenario that Luca describes that's a problem. The solution is to try to figure out a way to make it our internal processes proceed consistent with the way the IGF did in the earlier years.
>> LUCA: This turns into a method discussion on how to get to what also what Jeremy is driving, how to have IGF outcomes. And let's look back. The DCs were the first to start intercessional work and work towards outcomes. Right at the beginning there were talks let's have working groups of the IGF and it was a no‑no. The idea was let it emerge. And that worked reasonable well but we are now at the stage where we want to see can we take it a step further and that is indeed a difficult stage. But Andrea you wanted to comment?
>> ANDREA: When you say if we don't get the people we have a real obstacle getting the people. We can't communicate with some, we can't physically get them here. We have wonderful disasters which we had this morning with the driver had the only pass to get in had a car accident brought in so I'm writing e‑mails to people, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So you have to think about reality and saying there are circumstances. You have hard core people who always join things. And if you want to get a massive DC that attends here I think we would all go crazy because we have so many people not enough space, not enough rooms, not enough whatever.
And the UN is very antiquated. So Mexico had all these wonderful volunteers from the University. That was fabulous. That was one of the best IGFs I went to because of those kids. So it's all relative as to what is going on. You especially I'm going to get involved in accessibility.
>> (Speaker off microphone).
>> ANDREA: Of course. I was just making a point on that point because the more we learn the better we are. Luca, you're already in. Don't you worry. Everybody in this room is in.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Avri and Christopher.
>> AVRI DORIA: This is Avri. I want to make a quick point about we want to. I think the part of the sort of bottom up self‑formation of Dynamic Coalitions is that now that we have gotten big enough where the sort of ‑‑ we have to start coordinating ourselves and doing it. It isn't just that we want. I think it's actually necessary.
One of the things about getting people here has actually reminded me of another point that various people mentioned to me and asked me to channel and I forget about it until just now which is we had a very small relative to the number of people in Dynamic Coalitions and elsewhere participation in our meeting on floor participation.
And people were wondering if these Dynamic Coalitions are so dynamic and such coalitions, why didn't they attend the meeting about Dynamic Coalitions where you were all sort of coalescing and coming together and sharing why were there so few people there? There were the leaders and a few.
>> PARTICIPANT: It's money.
>> AVRI DORIA: But they were here. If we have to have meetings where an hour is not long enough and everything else then there are obviously Dynamic Coalition people here who are meeting ‑‑ as I say I don't know the answer, I'm not judging it, I was asked to channel it. It was an empty room. If we had 13 participating in there and then the bunch, you know, if we had had ten people from each one that room would have been crowded. So that was as I say I'm channeling that comment but sitting at the front and looking at an empty room does bring it home.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Christopher and Luca and Mary Anne.
>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: One of the criteria we should have is meaningful participation from all the stakeholder groups. I understand it's hard but it's more important that we rigorously think about this. In fact we know ‑‑ so I think all of us ‑‑ we have a problem with governance. As a single stakeholder groups it's hardest to get engaged.
If we proceed without the governments we are not going to succeed in our goals. As a leader of an organization we have to not just think about pushing things through like getting outcomes for the sake of getting outcomes. We don't want an outcome where if the governments don't support it, it's a waste of time.
So to try to find a way to engage those considerations, take it serious and understand the things they care about is important. Yes it's important to get outcomes and yes we are taking to it the next stage but my take away is it becomes more important that we stick to the spirit of the IGF and make sure that we organize ourselves in a way that engages meaningful participation from all the groups.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Luca.
>> LUCA: Just one suggestion and comment. I think that well a comment on what Avri was saying before about why people don't participate. I think it's maybe explained by the fact that the Dynamic Coalition participants join Dynamic Coalition because they are interested in a specific topic, not necessarily interested in the other 12 we are discussing in the main session.
So if I'm very interested in accessibility, maybe I'm not at all interested in blockchain so I would prefer to attend the workshop that is at the same time on accessibility rather than going to see what they are saying about net neutrality and blockchain.
Another suggestion that is very practical to engage people I think it's to let them know directly what we are doing so perhaps the secretariat could consider to send an e‑mail to IGF participants one