DCCG meeting 55

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during an IGF virtual call. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 




2 September 202, 13:00 UTC


>> MARKUS KUMMER: It's Markus Kummer speaking. Let's wait another minute or two. I hope more people will join. Hello again, Markus here. We have to apologize, our co-facilitator, Adam, is not able to join today, and Jutta said she should be able to join later. She has a conflicting commitment right now. With that, can we get started? Sorina, can you actually show the Draft Agenda you had sent out on the Blackboard?

>> SORINA TELEANU: I'm going to copy it in chat.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: It's a straight forward agenda as you may recall. Can we approve it as it's been proposed? Are there any comments in suggestions for improvement? Additions? You always have the opportunity to comment under any other business if you have anything to add. If you know already what you would like to raise under any other business, feel free to say so now. Mark, please.

>> Yes, thank you, Markus. Hello, everybody, Mark Ovel, DCISSS. I want to know if you are able to update us on the dynamic coalitions information session, I think it's called, which I think was scheduled sometime in October, but I haven't seen a date for it yet, as part of the preparatory phase for the IGF? Is there an update on that? That was my question?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, thank you. I think that's part of the first Agenda Item, brief update on IGF 21. That will be part of that, yes. It's definitely an issue we want to address. Okay. With that then I take it we can approve the agenda. Mark, you would like to come back or is that the same hand still up. I pass over to Sorina who gives updates from the Secretariat perspective on both the DC paper and the IGF 21 what's being prepared right now. Please. Sorina.

>> SORINA TELEANU: Hello, everyone. I will start with a quick update on the paper. As you know, we have been working on this paper trying to document Dynamic Coalition's activities over the past year and looking into possible suggestions for how to better integrate DCs into the brighter IGF ecosystem.

The plan is to have a draft ready for you to review towards the middle of the month, so that's work in progress, but a quick update on what has happened over the summer. I have had one-on-one discussions with 17 DCs, many, many thanks to those of you who have responded to my invitation for this discussions, and I have collected quite a lot of additional input for the paper.

If you remember, we also had the public surveying which we tried to get input from MAG members in the community. We got some 20 responses to that. So that's another source of input for the paper. But that's basically the only update I have at this point. Once we have the draft paper, we can have a separate call to discuss it based on your feedback as well.

I will stop here, but if you have any questions before I go into the updates on the preparatory phase.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Many thanks, Sorina.

Anyone has any questions or comments? I would also like to add my thanks to those of you who collaborated and provided input. Any questions, comments?

Sorina, could you tell us a little about whether there was something remarkable coming out of the responses that you received that would show you the direction of where we must go. That's basically it. Thank.

>> SORINA TELEANU: It was more or less on the same lines of what the DCs said in the survey, we had May and June for DCs with suggestions and recommendations on how to improve the support for the DCs if that's possible, but also how to make them a bit more visible within the broader IGF, and not only at the annual IGF meeting but before that. I won't go into specific recommendations because that will take me forever, but the paper will, the draft paper will include those notes and then we can discuss whether we want to keep them in the final paper or not as some sort of recommendations for the whole group. But I can share again the link to the previous document if you want.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Good question and a good answer. Thank you both. I take it there are no big surprises in all of the comments.

If there are no further questions or comments we can move onto the second part of the Agenda Item. Please, Sorina.

>> SORINA TELEANU: As you know there is this plan, well, it's more than a plan. It's actually happening. We will have a preparatory and engagement phase before the annual IGF meeting in December. Technically it starts, well, it started yesterday on 1st of September. There will be several activities undertaken by various IGF intersessional activities, Best Practice Forums, best policy and DCs, but what is relevant for us as DCs, firstly the session that Mark mentioned earlier, it's supposed to be a broad session about all of the intersessional activities so not only DCs but Best Practice Forums and policy forums.

It was initially scheduled for 15 September, but it is now pushed a bit later for a date in October. The date has not yet been set. I have asked my colleagues in the Secretariat this morning but it's not decided. As soon as I have the date, I am let you know. With the date not being decided, the content is not decided either so that's work in progress. As I said in an email I shared in July, DCs are invited on an individual basis to contribute to this session and you can come and speak about your work, but beyond that I do not have more updates to share with you. If you haven't yet told me that you want to join the session, send me an email so I can put you on the list and when we have more updates we will make sure to share that with everyone. So that's one, the broader intersessional session as part of this preparatory phase.

Then DCs are also invited to let us know if they have any sort of public meeting being scheduled for this period between September and December, and if you do, it would be good to include it in this calendar of intersessional activities. For example, technologies, they are organising an online session in October, and it is already included in the calendar of the preparatory phase.

So if you do plan something, it would be good to put it there to help a bit with the visibility. So just send me email with a couple of sentences on what the session is going to be about, how it will be held and my colleagues in the Secretariat will share it in the calendar.

I will share the link to the dedicated page on the IGF website so you will see what we have included in this phase. And I think that's it basically for me, from me on the preparatory phase. And the other thing, once we have the draft paper ready and also reviewed by you and comment integrated, we might want to hold a sort of a public session inviting the community to this transversion of the paper, if that's the word to use. I will stop here. Questions, comments.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Sorina, this is getting more and more complex, I think. With the various preparatory phases. First, I would definitely encourage all dynamic coalitions to be actively participating in these activities. Secondly, I think I also strongly would urge us to have a public session to have a discussion on the DC paper.

I think that would be very important, A, for transparency sake, and also for garnering more feedback and input and also enhancing the visibility of DCs. Yes, I think please let us know if you plan any activity so it can be listed on the website. Are there questions? As I said, it's getting more and more complex, so it's understandable if you have follow-up questions, if it's not 100% clear, but we have a little bit more time for preparing this session.

The dates are 2nd half of October, correct?

>> SORINA TELEANU: For the general activity session, I'm not sure if it's 2nd or 1st. It's still something being discussed but I guess it will be later since time is passing. And for our session, it's for us to decide. It can be October, November.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Questions? Comments? Can we take silence for agreement.

>> MARK CARVELL: Yes, thank you, and thank you, Sorina. I think this is a very useful timeline for the paper because I see it's intersecting with discussions about the future of the IGF and reinforcing and expanding its role in terms of intersessional activity that leads to substantive outcomes that then influence policy makers and decision takers and industry, so on.

So I think this comes together with the IGF when discussions will be held. I was wondering how are the DC paper -- how the DC paper would be profiled and given, given some real attention, if you like at the IGF itself. Is there, are you planning something like that? Our session as a DC community, I think, would be useful, in November, whenever. And then also we can prepare for articulating a DC community input based on the paper at the IGF itself.

So how will it -- any thoughts on how it's going to be presented in Katowice is my question. Thanks.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Sorina, do you have an answer. Thank you for the question.

>> SORINA TELEANU: I don't have an answer. I think that's something for all of us to discuss what we want to do with the paper at the IGF itself. We are planning if we want to dedicate a part of it to presenting and getting more visibility to the paper or ask for yet another session. I'm not sure how that would fit with the overall program, but, yes, it should be something for discussion.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, that was actually a thought that came to my mind. We do have a slot for the main session. And I do remember some years back, I think it was the main session was inward looking on DCs and after that we decided it should be more outward looking and more substantive main session, and in the past few years that worked remarkably well, but given the fact that we do have this DC paper, we may also consider combining the two, and those are making the DC paper as part of the main session. That's another Agenda Item on our agenda.

We have to start thinking about how we want to orchestrate the main session, but it's, this year in many ways is a bit special as it was a feedback loop of the roadmap and I think it may well be married in trying to combine the two, how the DCs fit in with the substantive discussion of this year's IGF and the roadmap at the same time. These are preliminary thoughts and we have more time to discuss this. Are there other thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

Can we then go to the next Agenda Item, that is precisely the DC main session at the IGF. As you will recall in the past years, we had actually quite, I would say, very good session, extremely well moderated by Tatiana who first did it in 2017 and we are fortunate enough to have been able to recruit her ever since. We have not approached her yet, but I would strongly, I think, urge that we try and get her on board again.

We also have to be open. We understand she is very busy and she may not be able to do so this year. But further on that, there is a link in the chat, Sorina early on on the very first link is on, and I'm sure you are all familiar with this, IGF 21 issue areas, main focus areas, emerging and cross-cutting issue areas, and that, I think, would be a logical framework for the DC main session, and if you look at the main focus areas, economic and social inclusion and human rights, universal access and meaningful connectivity, then emerging across cutting issues, emerging regulation, market structure, content data, consumer user rights regulation, environmental sustainability and climate change, inclusive Internet Governance ecosystems and digital cooperation, and lastly, trust, security, stability.

So I think most DCs would find a home under any of these headings, and this, I think, could be a good starting point for our discussion of what kind of DC main session we want to plan, and also in the past we made it mandatory requirement that DCs who wanted to be part of the main session should, would have had to prepare a short paper explaining their contribution just to see that they are planning to be proactive and are really doing some preparatory work.

But with that, I stop my brief introduction into these issues. Sorina, have I missed anything or anything you would like to add from your point of view?

>> SORINA TELEANU: No, that's it. Maybe just a note that the MAG is also working on the main sessions they are preparing. They have a bit of an ambitious timeline hoping to have the proposals ready by the end of September. I don't think we can commit to that, but we should also think a bit about our timeline for the work on the main session.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. That's a timely reminder. Yes, we also have to fit in in the overall planning. So end of September essentially is the MAG's tentative deadline for having all of the session distinctions.

>> SORINA TELEANU: The final proposal is ready which means they can still be fine tuned afterward and the speaker still identified after, but at least have some sort of a plan at the end of the month.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: It's almost four weeks, but time flies and it's not really that much time. So I think, well, let's have a first discussion and bear in mind the late assembly deadline, I think we would definitely then need to have another call in two weeks' time, I think. Then we could also have a look at your first draft on the DC paper. Let's see how we can develop this and gather input and ideas. Who has brilliant ideas?

Is that Wout?

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: I have never been to a DC meeting so far. Maybe I'm not the only one on the call. So could you please elaborate a little bit about what the goal of the meeting is and what is expected from the DC but also how was it handled in the past. I they I'm asking a question about the whole world basically, but just tell me in a few minutes and I will get the gist. Thanks.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: The idea was essentially the starting point was to give the DCs visibility, but then it's also clear we have so many DCs and we cannot just have one DC after the other just explaining what they are doing and what their priorities are. So that's why we asked them to prepare a paper where they outline their focus on any given theme which was chosen to be the DC main session theme, and usually it was chosen to be at the high level of abstraction so that most DCs could actually rally behind it just something on the sustainable development or whatever that is.

Now, we are a bit more precise here with the issue areas, and then we ask the moderator to be very proactive in asking provocative questions to the DCs. That works extremely well as it was not just a defense of a paper or a description of their activities, but the real dialogue based on the substantive input of the DC. So what can you do to make the world a better place or whatever that is, and as I said, it worked well thanks to an excellent moderator and, B, the DCs who actually played the game. They did not just read off the papers, but engaged in the dialogue.

And, again, the idea was to show the breadth and the depth of the work DCs are doing, dealing with so many different issues and it's clear that in a short session you cannot go in very deep, and unfortunately, the past few years the session was not particularly well attended, but at the same time, I think all DCs when we had an ex post evaluation of the session they agreed that it was worthwhile doing the exercise, and obviously there is live transcript. There is a transcript, people can still go. There is video archive. So it's not so that it's lost irrespective of how many participants are in the room or with an online session how many actually tune in.

It's always more difficult to say because some people may watch on YouTube where we don't have control of the room. But, again, to cut a long story short, the main objective was really to give visibility to the DCs and show, emphasize the value they add to the IGF environment to the whole IGF community, to the whole event as an intersessional activity.

And I don't know, is there anybody else that has been part of a session would like to add anything or have I missed out anything? That's, as I said, the very high level objective and it's up to us to see how exactly we want to manage and create the session. This year with the DC paper, there may be the option of weaving that into the presentation as a sort of a forward-looking thing of linking the DC to the roadmap as well. That could be an option, but I think just having some procedural discussion on how the DCs fit into the broader IGF environment might be a little bit maybe of interest for the insider, but may not be particularly interesting for people who are not familiar with DCs.

So I think there should be also a substantive discussion. That is just my gut reaction, and I don't have the answer on how to do it, but we could take one of the issue areas and see how it fits in with the DC paper, walk it through just thinking aloud. I'm here to listen to you and I have talked already too much.

>> Well, I see Mark has raised his hand, but perhaps we could do a little open discussion on how it has to fit in and how it the results come out of the DCs in the future. It would have to be rolled out or made known, publicized or how they feed into policy processes and ask the world basically to deliver their views on it, because it will determine how outcomes of the DCs are working towards proactive outcomes, and input. Will have to work in the future, so perhaps that is an idea to engage more people to the DCs general session than normally show up. That's just reflecting on what you just told me, Markus, to make it more interesting.

>> MARK CARVELL: The figure is training, it's driven by the roadmap and proposals coming out of that. There is a prospect of another part of the architect being created by the high level world. DCs are very diverse as you say, not only in subject matter which contributes to the richness of the IGF model and what it achieves, but also an approach. Wout and I are driven by aiming to achieve concrete outcomes so that fits very much with the office of the envoy to technology are saying and a lot of Governments are saying the figure has got to produce things and make material change.

Other DCs are more sort of research oriented and more exploratory less driving issues for the sense of urgency than perhaps we are in DC on Internet standard, security and safety. Where we are basically trying to connect with policy makers who want to act, who want to regulate. We're aiming to say there may be other approaches you can do to achieve greater security and safety online. But other coalitions have a different approach and that is justifiable too. New stuff is happening, let's get experts together and think things through.

I would hope that the coalition profile, I would hope that the coalition profile in Katowice with the paper can articulate that and our session should have more time to devote to how coalitions can commit to a more strategic IGF, how issue leads, if that's how we described them within the IGF community can turn to the coalitions, to are example, and say, look, we have discussed this as one of the focus areas IGF and issue. What can you do to help us out?

I guess I'm saying in our session we might explore the mechanics of the IGF in a way from the DCs perspective. We are year-round activities, we are no solely event focused. We are constantly meeting up, trying to move forward. Some of us want to start drafting outcomes and recommendations, so on.

How can we help the IGF community? So a session that showcases what we do, fine, and the diversity approach, fine, but how does this connect with a more strategic IGF, and that's going to please Governments more. That's going to please industry more and also leads to more funds maybe coming our way.

But those are my thoughts. I hope it's helpful. Mechanically for the session, I don't have a clue how we might do this, but for the session to have profile and impact we have to connect with the move of the IGF to much more strategic impact to a multi-stakeholder process that will police the General Assembly a few years down the road and to sign off on another mandate, even more strategic.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Mark. All of this is helpful, and this year is in that sense a special year, and I think the DC paper fits in very well into that. You have a roadmap moving towards a more impactful IGF. I wondered having a thought if you look again at the issue areas, could we maybe not then be more concrete that maybe some of the DC could actually come forward and say, look, we have produced this or this outcome just a bit of show and tell, that's what we have been doing in the past, which fits in very neatly with this particular issue area or that's what they are planning to do in the future, which, again, fits in? That's picking up on what you said how the IGF or the DCs should be a pool of resources for the IGF. Do you have anything on this particular issue? We could turn around and say we have this and this and this on this particular issue area, and how could we strengthen this link, so on, and then link it to the discussion on the future of DCs and the DC paper?

Just a thought, but as we are in a brainstorming mode, I think it's good to brainstorm and to hear what others think about it. Wout, you have a mand up, but I would like to hear from others. It has been mainly Wout and Mark that have participated and that's welcome. Let's hear all of the brains on the call.

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: I will be very brief Markus so that others can join as well. It's not that Mark and I have not discussed this up front. This is not just a one, two, we are doing. It's what is being said, what I'm thinking of. I think from what Mark said and what you are saying, Markus, that it is possible of the mechanics of the session to come up with one or two specific questions that we could invite specific people to come and join the session with so they can prepare their answer. It's a technique I have used over the years with the papers I have been writing on IGF cooperation in the past.

Bringing people into the room and asking their view on a specific point. So if that is what we would like to be part of the session, that would drive the mechanics of the session by preparing people and inviting them on that specific question.

That's just an idea, and I'm very happy to work with Sorina and you, Markus, if requested to assist with that part of the session if you would like to go that way.


>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. I see there was some comments on the chat, and I would, I mean, the chat comments will also be archived. You made a few comments in the chat, do you want to jump in and also say.

SIVASUBRAMANIAN M:>> I want to add to what Mark Carvell said, linking the work of the DCs to actual Government policy forums, and the idea would be to bring the top policy makers right to the IGF for a dialogue so the time gap between the work done at IGF and the follow-up to be done with Government is also minimized and it happens in one place as dialogue at the IGF. It's an important time to think about what happened to the Internet during the last two years. I think the last two years we have experienced some form of complacency or we have looked at the way Internet works with some kind of resignation because there was an extreme situation arising from the pandemic and there were wars in some countries and issues with democracies in some countries.

So it almost seemed justifiable that Internet is shut down in some parts of the way, controlled in a certain way and rules have changed. We have not looked at it and what the IGF could do is not to question the actions and not to protest and all of that, but to say, this has been temporary, there has been some kind of temporary need. Will the Internet come back to its original after a year, after two years. That should be a very important debate. These are my individual views, thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Sivas. Interesting thoughts. These are very high level and they are worth considering. We need to be very specific on how we want to approach the session and the point about policy makers, that's obviously has always been a difficulty. We don't know in advance, and as I said in my previous remarks we have actually had very disappointing attendance at the DC session for one reason or another, although the people who did attend all agreed it was an interesting session, but we need to think about how to raise the profile, bring it up a notch, I think, and make an effort to really show that the DCs can make a difference.

But, again, this year may be an extraordinary opportunity because of the focus on the roadmap to bring in the DCs as part of this effort to create more impact.

Other thoughts? You can still think about it after the session, and also maybe write to the list, have written comments. As always Sorina will make a nice writeup of this discussion. And talk it through with respective colleagues and respective DCs and see how they feel as a sort of rebranding, refocusing of the DC main session for this year.

There is also one, we have policy questions. These can also be maybe a segue in for DCs, are there policy questions we want to address? Do we have a link, Sorina, on the policy questions right now?

>> SORINA TELEANU: They are on the same web page that you have mentioned before, so the descriptions of the issue areas and then there are policy questions.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Let me go back to it. Policy questions under each of the issue areas. May we strongly urge all of you to go through it to see whether there is a particular policy question which strikes with your specific DC.

>> SORINA TELEANU: If that helps I can create a Google Doc and ask DCs to do Google Docs to see where they are work fits in and then we can narrow the list and choose those policy questions as a starting point for planning the session.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I think that would be very helpful. That's an excellent idea. You pick a policy question as a DC and see how you would like to develop further. Mark, please.

>> MARK CARVELL: Yes, thanks.

From my perspective working on the dynamic coalition on Internet standards, security and safety, I noticed, for example, that day three, the third day of the introductory preparatory sessions, as I think you mentioned when you listed it, includes trust and security.

I thought, oh, well, I'm going to attend that, and maybe I can, and Wout maybe as well or members of our coalition can contribute to that introductory session in some way, I don't know how they will allow for that mechanically. I see that as also relevant to the IGF, our work at the IGF in Katowice itself, the fact that there is the policy question on trust and security. So I'm very conscious of that.

And I, you know, when we speak about our work in the coalition, we will reference the relevant policy issue. That's what we will do. I haven't discussed that with Wout. I hope he agrees.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Six she concrete policy questions listed under trust and security, and that is definitely something I would like to encourage all of you to look at it and see how you can react to it and contribute and maybe we can build the main session around that, but I think Sorina's ideas are excellent ideas, and that should help us to identify the issue areas where DCs want to be active or feel they can contribute. And just thinking aloud maybe then we could ask you to develop a short paper saying which policy questions in particular, and how we would like to address them as a part of the session planning.

Other thoughts? Other ideas.

Your picture implies that you are about to say something with a microphone and a head in front of your face, so my apologies if I put you on the spot. Do you have anything to add.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBLOND: Not in addition to what's been said. I'm following this, but I haven't got very much else to add at the moment.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Always nice to hear your voice.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBLOND: I exist too. I could say hi too, I'm here.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. Good to see you.

Does anybody else want to add anything or are we all just ruminating over it? In any case, I think we have a good preliminary discussion on that, and we then have some homework based on Sorina's paper then you fill in where you actually relate to the issue areas and we will then have to get together in about, I would say, two weeks' time to drill this down further on this. And also based on Sorina's writeup, you may wish to comment in writing on the list. That would be my sort of preliminary summary of this preliminary brainstorming on how to create our DC main session.

Please feel free to add anything should I have missed out anything, but, again, preliminary summary would include that we feel that the DC's role in the digital cooperation should in a way be very much the focus and links to the DC paper Sorina is preparing and look at the issue areas and policy questions. All of this would be connected.

Have I more or less summed up the discussion in a satisfactory manner? Judy.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: So Sorina will prepare a paper and we will see where the DC fits in and can best add to the discussions there, is that what it was?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, I mean, we have the discussion on the MAG list. The MAG has identified issue areas and has formulated policy questions to each of these issue areas, and they are very broad, and I think most of DCs fit in under one of these headings. For instance, inclusivity is one of the issue areas, and then your DC on accessibility for people with disabilities clearly fits in very neatly, yes.

So that is for you an easy segue in. And then we have to discuss on how we build the architecture off our main session and how to fit this in, and we also said that this year is in many ways very special as the focus is very much on the Secretary-General's roadmap for digital cooperation and the role, the future role of the IGF, and we also have the DC paper, so the tool in many ways will be linked and we should also reflect on that in our main session. I see Jutta has joined us, welcome. Jutta.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Two weeks is not a good time for a meeting because of the Jewish holidays, so maybe we could schedule a different time?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, in any case, Sorina will send out a Doodle Poll, but one thing is the MAG wants to have a description. We are a bit late already because they wanted to be ready by the end of September. Sorina already gave the, said it may not be finished by then, but in any case, it is the tentative deadline and we should really do our best to try and meet the deadline understanding that it might not be the final version, but at least that we have a first draft ready, and that means we need to speed up a bit our work. It's understandable.

We have the summer break in the northern hemisphere, but now I think matters are getting, being sped up and the deadliness are a bit tight. Again, Sorina will send out a Doodle Poll and take into account if it's maybe three weeks from now or let's see how it works but, Mark, you have a hand up.

>> MARK CARVELL: I agree everything, your summation was very, very, comprehensive and well expressed. I just, I mentioned in the chat the idea that we have at the session in Katowice somebody from the technical envoy's office because of our sort of setting the context of this with the roadmap and the future of the IGF and the strategic context if you like to which I think the DCs can make valuable contributions as instruments.

So to have somebody from the technical envoy's office present. I don't know what happened in the past. I can't remember if, for example, the Chair of the MAG was always present at these sessions of the coalition?

>> MARKUS KUMMER: That wasn't the case. But we can always try to get somebody.

>> MARK CARVELL: I think it would help, first of all, raise the profile of the session, if it wasn't a big crowd draw, crowd puller in the past. But also, we get some interaction. You are hearing what the coalitions are doing and then how voluntarily a lot of people are committing a lot of time to coalition activity to hear reactions from the technical envoy's office who probably are briefing themselves up I guess on coalitions, but it would be good to have them in the room.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: That's an excellent idea.

>> MARK CARVELL: I will stop there.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I pass that on to Sorina. Do we actually already have a slot, a time slot for the DC main session?

>> SORINA TELEANU: They have not been assigned as such. There are slots for main session, but it's not clear what main session is in what slot.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, as soon as we have a slot that we approach the office of the tech envoy and follow up on Mark's suggestion.

With that actually I would like to conclude the discussion on the main session and thank you all for your thoughts on that, because we have under any other business, we have, I think, two separate issues we would like to address, and with that I pass it back to you, Sorina. It was Adam had a request, yes, please.

>> SORINA TELEANU: Thanks Markus.

I will be quick because we have to wrap up at the top of the hour since there is another meeting in this Zoom room. But, yes, we is have two things. First of all, there is this MAG Working Group strategy and I have sent requests via email they are doing a mapping trying to see linkages between IGF activities and activities highlighted in the roadmap for digital cooperation. And DCs have been invited to contribute to the map. It's basically a table where you can adjust any anything of the DC, seeing how to contributes to one of the areas of the roadmap. I will again paste the link in chat.

The deadline for you to contribute is 10 September, so it's still a week away, which means you still have time and I would encourage you to take a look. And the sec is from another MAG Working Group, the one working on the hybrid meeting, they have developed a list of possible frequently asked questions about how the hybrid IGF in December will happen. The kind request from them is to take a look at these draft questions and see if there is anything you would like to add, both to the questions that have already been drafted, but also if you think there are new questions that should be included in this guide.

And then it would be published for everyone attending or participating in any way at the IGF to get a better understanding of how this hybrid meeting will happen. There is no clear deadline here, but the sooner the better because the guide has to be published soon. And I share the link to this.

And that's it for me.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Actually, the first question, the questionnaire from, on the linking to the roadmap could also be a useful input for the DC main session then, especially if you have an invitation from the representative or tech envoy.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you for pointing out the activities roadmap and the digital cooperation in IGF. The question I have, it went as editing do we fill it up as suggesting or editing?

>> SORINA TELEANU: I think it would be better for the Working Group if you go with suggesting so they know what's new.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LEBLOND: I was surprised to be on editing, but just to raise points here so we don't use editing.


>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. With that, then, we have more or less reached the top of the hour and as you said, you need the Zoom room, so we have to conclude. Jutta, do you have anything to add at this stage?

>> JUTTA CROLL: I'm really sorry I was late, but we have a horrible situation with a Deutsch bank strike and no public insurance protection so it's very difficult. So I have nothing to add at this point. I will look at the minutes from the call and then I will give my input to the main session planning. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, and glad you could make it afterall, even if it's only the latter half of the session. With that, I thank you all for actively participating and for, with, I think, a good brainstorming for leading us through our main session planning. Thank you all, and goodbye.