 Okay, thanks everybody for your patience. Yeah, I believe the audio is working now. So again, many thanks for everybody's engagement. We didn't know how many people wanted to stay around, so we're adding some chairs because there are more people than we expected. This is, the session is being webcast as before. And let me just set the context a little bit for this part of the day. We thought it would be useful in addition to having created space for a fair amount of informal conversation, bilaterally, pluralaterally as the case may be during the day. That's why we created space in the morning, space before and after the press conference. They also have a structured scoping workshop about what this initiative should and shouldn't focus on. And we did that this morning with strong leadership from you, minister, and you, Fadi, and many others in the room. Then we needed to announce that this was an undertaking that was going forward, so we did a press conference. And now we thought it would be important to begin to move from the what and what not, by the way, which is just as important to the how, to the more of the organizational questions, because as many of you, if not all of you know, having been involved in this field and in other multi-stakeholder endeavors, there is an A-specific sole formula. You really have to think about, deliberately and consult widely about how best to organize a process like this. So that's why we thought at the end of the day it would be useful to come together for a debrief on these various levels of discussions we've had today. What does it mean for how we would want to organize this collective effort going forward? Now, you may wonder, well, what about the configuration? So in moving to more of an organizational conversation, you need to have some way to get a coherent and focused conversation. So you need to have some people kind of around the table. But in our view, you also need to make it open. And so we've got room for people who are here early in the day and want to be in the room, to be in the room, but also it's being webcast. But we thought, since we have a certain responsibility, as sort of an incubational platform, if you will, to begin to organize a little bit more of a focus conversation about the what, certain dimensions of the what. So that needs, as you can see in the agenda, based on the discussion today, what do we see as the medium term objectives for the initiative? What should be the key goals in the next six months, including but not limited to Davos. And also with respect to the activities that we've identified that people think would be a good idea, which is to advance the dialogue, engage this wider set of leaders from different disciplines, ministry portfolios, and the like. And what projects? What are the specific academic and other cooperative undertakings which would be enabling of trying to move to a more action-oriented set of dialogues that would begin to direct expertise and resources toward solutions for moving from issue identification as been articulated here to some solutions. What types of international cooperation would be useful for developing countries? On the governance building side, capacity building, but also on the access side. You know, there were a whole range of questions that were, and suggestions basically for directions in this area. This is not so much to rehash those. It's more to talk about how do we organize a good process to advance that. Now, importantly in that regard, we're also posing the question about, well, we do need some sort of a steering committee. We call it as transitional steering committee, and I'll come back to that nomenclature in a moment, to help, you know, have at least a focused set of people who feel a sense of responsibility to help focus the input we're getting and help the forum and partners shape that into a process that will be robust. And very importantly, as a subset of that, we have explicitly said that a third dimension of this exercise, beyond the policy dialogue and beyond the concrete projects and what enabling activities, is a consultation for the next six months about what should be the ultimate configuration of this collective undertaking, which can range from no structure configuration whatsoever, all the way to something like a formal institution, and there are no preconceptions about that, but we need to have a consultation about what would be an appropriate framework, if you will. I think of this in the broadest terms as, you know, what kind of international cooperative framework would help to advance the spirit of the NetMobile principles along these dimensions, you know, more action-oriented dialogue, homing in on potential solutions, and enabling pieces of cooperation, either in terms of resources or expertise. Now, the term transitional steering committee, for me, has a certain explanatory relevance, and let me tell you why. It is transitional in that we don't really know beyond the six months what we'll agree or what there will be a consensus around in terms of an enabling organizational framework. In that definition, anybody that is involved in that sort of steering conversation has to understand that they're only there in a transitional fashion. We, as an institution, believe that applies to us as well. We don't presume, assume, in fact, probably to the contrary, that we'll have some sort of organizational role beyond that. If there's demand for that, we'll consider it, but we're not presuming that by any stretch, because I would note we are not an operational agency on any issue, let alone on this one. We, and we're not a stakeholder per se. While we are made up of a whole range, a constellation of communities of leaders from different stakeholders in different regions and different disciplines, we don't represent any of them, including the business community. The business community pay most of the bills because they're members and partners for specific services and activities, but we do not represent the business community. We do not take positions on behalf of the business community at all. So we're a catalytic platform for dialogue and for some concrete cooperation and collective action where, you know, in a public, private or multi-stakeholder way, people want to have those kinds of dialogues and cooperations. And that's how we see our role in this regard. We have a certain responsibility, I think, for the next six months to help ensure that there's a good incubation process. But it's a transitory role, most likely. Having said that, we have ongoing dialogue activities in our summits and whatnot. And for us, this is such a relevant issue that we think we should be ensuring that there's a couple of good years, at least, of robust dialogue in our platforms that should go on and link with whatever happens to this part, but it's not necessarily the same thing. So there should be good two-way aspects of that. There's significance, and I'm sorry to go on here, but I think the context is important since this is a very complex terrain. You know, just purely from a project management standpoint, this is a very complex proposition here. And that is that there is, you know, nobody has ordained that we all get together in this room and think about how to organize international cooperation better. Nobody has given any one of us any broader legitimate authority to do that. We're coming together because we have a commonality of interest to a larger or lesser degree. And so we're all here in that spirit. And so as we think organizationally, we have to think, and this is particularly relevant in a multi-stakeholder undertaking, that there are no tablets that came down from the mountain, if you will, that said you shall gather here and you shall make X, Y, and Z decision. There's no decision taken from an intergovernmental process or from any other stakeholder process. It's our instinct, as we discussed in the morning, that this would be useful undertaking to try to organize. And we now, in the best faith in keeping with the principles that were articulated so carefully in the NetMundial conference, we now think about how to organize an enabling platform for deeper cooperation. Now there's some precedent for the kind of journey that we're embarking on and this is why the terminology is relevant here. Just by an accident of history, I was involved in myself in what was called then a transitional working group that Kofi Annan, when he was Secretary General of the United Nations, convened totally outside of any decision taken by an intergovernmental body about, I guess it must be about a dozen years ago, when there was a kind of a gathering sense that the infectious diseases in developing countries were getting so serious and so endemic and so lacking focused and scaled resources applied to it that he thought that there needed to be a discussion about how to improve international cooperation in this regard. And this eventually became the global fund which sits across the lake to fight HIV, AIDS, TB and malaria, but there was no playbook on how to create that exercise. Everybody knew it needed to have some legitimate form, but everybody knew also this was an exercise in improving the performance, the effectiveness of international cooperation, and the effectiveness is a very important component of legitimacy of international cooperation and governance. So he took the initiative to invite on his own authority a range of governments, civil society and business people together to have a thought process, and I don't remember exactly how long it lasted, but I wouldn't be surprised it was around six to eight months or so to see if a consensus could be built on what that framework would look like. And eventually it took the form of the global fund. And it was, by the way, it was not nearly as multi-stakeholder balanced as we're talking about here today. There were a couple of civil society representatives. There were a couple from the private sector, one from the foundation world and one from the business or operating company world, a range of developing country and developed country governments. And basically people felt their way and just came to the table with good intentions because they shared the fundamental sense that we did need to improve the effectiveness of international cooperation on this crucial global priority and that we were going to sort of figure it out as we went and that the test ultimately of the legitimacy of the exercise is whether it commanded engagement and support when it took shape near the end of that consultative process. So there was a transitional working group during that phase, not dissimilar to what I imagine we're going to end up doing here, that then gave birth to not a treaty or a formal agreement, but basically a recommendation to the international community as what would be useful. And then the test of it was whether people felt that it was useful enough that they would actually want to engage and support it and participate and it met that test, created the Global Fund and the Global Fund has had quite a bit of challenges but basically it is now a feature that is well accepted as being an asset, a facet of how we've advanced progress on that crucial issue. So that's philosophically where I think we in the forum come to the table and that's basically what I invite everybody else in that spirit. It's very much the Ndial spirit, I think, minister, but it's drawing from experience elsewhere and I think we need to proceed in that fashion. So in terms of who's around the table and why and what not, I think we as sort of an incubation platform just thought, well, when we were thinking originally about whether we should embark in this direction, we had an initial set of consultations in cooperation with ICANN with some governments, a philosophical spectrum of governments, with some other key actors, public, private, civil society, and it was only after talking to them did we have at least an initial sense, okay, maybe we should now proceed to begin to think about how to formulate this and then expand from there the consultation process. And today is basically, you know, the additional concentric circles of wider and wider consultation and deliberative thought with other parties and that's the spirit in which we thought, well, we would invite those that we initially talked to, the governments, some of the civil society groups, some of the private sector folks, academics and whatever, that gave us an initial sense that there might be something here that's worth doing as well as some people who look like they might be potentially good candidates for such a transitional steering committee by virtue of their expertise, their stature, and reflecting the other interests, they're reflecting in some way the diversity of stakeholders and regions or geographies that one would want to create here. But it is not, nothing's been decided in that regard, it's basically a start of the conversation to consult on indeed that question, how should we compose a transitional steering committee, and very importantly for this afternoon, how should we frame and structure this consultation process over the next six months because one of the principal responsibilities of this transitional steering committee should be to help frame and structure those consultations and indeed help to lead pieces of it and to interpret it and come back together and begin to shape as this transitional working group that was created on the help structure of the Global Fund begin to interpret those consultations months from now into options or even a consensus suggestion in that regard. So I think it's in that spirit that I would like to suggest that we begin the discussion this afternoon and it will not have a final conclusion, there will not be a vote or a firm decision. I think what we want to do is to get a rough sense of what people feel would be the right way to conduct consultations on the organizational questions here, where, how, who, etc. What's the right way to structure the transitional steering committee in this regard? We'll take on board those suggestions. You see the names of people who represent both some of the founding partner governance that we consulted with as well as some of these potential candidates for it but I think what we want to do is to get a robust discussion around that and that will help inform going forward what might be, you know, where the center of gravity would be on this. Now, I feel like commitment having said all this that we need to strike a balance between robust consultation and inclusiveness on the one hand and effectiveness. This is an initiative. This is an exercise in collective action. It's, therefore, you need to perform. We need to perform here. So we need to strike that proper balance and so our role a little bit on the forum is to help think through and I think you've got to give us a little bit of space to help provide, you know, nudge in this regard and provide a little bit of leadership of how we bound both of these questions, the consultation framing and also how we compose the steering committee. But we're very much wanting to strike a good balance in that regard. With that, let me start. I think what I will do by first asking a couple, for a couple of comments is then to break up the agenda a little bit so we get some focused conversation about a couple of these points. But before we get into a specific conversation about the consultation process and before we get into a specific conversation about how we compose this transitional steering committee I'd like to ask you, Minister, whether you'd like to offer any initial thoughts as to how we might proceed in this regard. Well, thank you for your introduction. I think that the first thing that came to my mind was to work with a similar organization that we created for Net Mundial. We proposed at that time a global board composed of multi-stakeholder, several stakeholders and then we had specific boards for the executive multi-stakeholder committee at a high level, so I think that in this case here we can think of the transitional steering committee as equivalent to the board and then we have specific committees for each project. Because it seems to me that we need to present results. If we work on the organization without presenting any results from six months from now, people will get frustrated. I think that we have to do both things at the same time. Work on the organization and also to start working on the projects. And concerning these committees to oversee the projects my suggestion would to have something similar to OneNet. Instead of appointing names for these committees OneNet would collect names from the different groups or communities and then those names would be part of the committee. If we do it this way, we will have a support from the several civil society organizations from business organizations because we are listening to them instead of just picking up some certain names. So that's my idea. I think that we should work from now on the organization aspect of this program but at the same time start working on some problems to show results. Fadi, would you care to offer any initial framing thoughts? No, I'm ready to go. You said consultations. Are you going to discuss the projects? Yes, if we have time I think we certainly ought to discuss the projects. Can we start then with the consultations? Get some guidance from how people feel what would constitute a truly robust consultation process with respect to the ultimate organizational arrangements in this regard? I'll start with my thoughts on this. I think some basic rules. First, the consultation must be broad and wide. Therefore it cannot just be for physical meetings, it has to be virtual. We need to make sure that we have virtual reach to all the people who want to participate in the consultation. Some of it will be obviously on the ground and in meetings. My second request would be that we do not restrict the consultation in meetings to web meetings. We appreciate that the World Economic Forum is inviting us to their China meeting, to their India meeting and they will open up the debate and the discussion in these meetings. But we should from the beginning ensure that the consultation is broader than the family of the World Economic Forum. There are other families, there is the technical family of which many of us here are representing. There is the civil society families. There are regions like Andile will talk later about Africa. His Excellency Minister Helmi will talk about the Middle East. So there are regions where we can reach not everything necessarily through the web, just enabled by the transition of steering committee so we have a common message and a common goal. The third thing I'd like to propose on the consultations is that the consultations not stop in Davos. That we actually complete the consultations for a full six months. So Davos becomes a high point and an important point, but not the final point. There should be a follow-up after Davos, because a lot would have happened. So my suggestion, if Anbu Vero would invite us, is to maybe do it at the end of February at her very important meeting in Barcelona at the GSMA, Annual Mobile Congress. So we could kind of finish with a chance to get all the input, including Davos and then the transition with steering committee. So I'm trying to suggest that the consultations should be broad, should be virtual, should be real, should be meetings beyond WEF and should last for the full six months. You know, we're now on the 28th of August. I think your meeting is on the 28th of February, right? So it's exactly six months. So we can do it at that time this way. We can have a closing. So these are just my suggestions. In terms of the substance of the consultations, I think you made a very important point, Rick. I want to echo. The consultations are about what happens post the six months. You know, today Rick used in the press conference the term pathways, right? In order not to necessarily say, we're going to create a global fund for the internet or an organization. We don't know. We should consult and listen. And the process will lead us to the pathways of best way to take these solutions forward. If one of these pathways ends up being we need to create a mechanism or an institution or an organization, we'll deal with it then and we'll decide how as partners. You know, Italy has been at the table from day one and I met with Prime Minister Renzi who was, for example, very supportive. He says, look, Italy is here and ready to support this effort if you need to have a home for any institutions. We're ready to do it. So many people have already offered to help with the results. But right now let's be open, let's consult, let's listen, and let's take it all the way to the end of the six months and then decide together what's the best way forward. But the scope is about the form post the six months. The projects will be dealt with separately and we'll talk about that. Is that okay with you, Rick, or am I in the same scope as you? I mean, I think that... I feel like we sort of need to go a little slower, to be honest. Can you hear me? Yeah. Hello? Yeah. I mean, I'm just looking at the civil society discussion that's happening on my computer and it's not moving as fast as you guys are moving. To go from, like, Davos to GSMA, is just like people are blowing up here. Davos says everything that civil society does not say. It says exclusion, it says elitism, it says government to corporate, it does not say internet users, it does not say civil society. I think similarly with GSMA, to have a conclusion of a global consultation with all due respect is highly problematic. And why I say we need to move slower is like I'm not clear about what this actually is. I'm not clear who the founding partners are. I'm still not clear on the terms of reference to be ready talking about the consultation and having the meeting points. It's certainly not bringing civil society along and there are a number of different groups that are here on this discussion. So I'd like to just slow us down a little. You get La Belle Transparency International. Thank you for this invitation to speak. I think that obviously the steering committee will decide a whole lot of things, but hopefully this is for input, hoping that it can help. Obviously one needs to use the regional meetings, so the face to face meetings and you're going to have a number of them, I presume this fall, Rick, taking place. Plus of course using the net virtually go out, but go out in an active way and using all of the constituencies that we've been talking about, whether it's government, business, civil society and academic sector as well, which I think is very important. Think tanks, which may not always fit in the pure academic sector, but who may have been doing some work. My second point is on what goes out when you invite people to, when you consult. And I think that the framing will be very important so that one, you can build on Brazil, principles being there, I would hope that that would be part of the sketch that goes out. Secondly, that you may want to include sort of a number of key questions without those being exhaustive. And by that, here are some of them, of course, one is how can one optimize the use of internet for the good. I'll come back to that in a minute. Secondly, what needs to be mitigated which is creating major problems in our societies with the internet. What are the barriers to access for people? This morning, Klaus was talking about universal access. How does one arrive at universal access? And if I go back to optimization, one would not necessarily need to go into those details in the framing of the consultation. But if you're looking at optimization, you mentioned that, Sir, this morning, in terms of the importance of having governments being transparent, being accountable, and of the people being able to participate. And of course, the internet is tremendous in this regard. And Brazil does on-time revenue and budget disbursements on a day-to-day basis. So on-time information to people in order to prevent corruption in this case, but also to make sure that people can participate because they have the information, and this is a tremendous tool. In terms of the areas, for example, for protection, we certainly know that the internet has been, unfortunately, very useful in doing money laundering and helping with illicit trade and so on. I'm just using a few examples here, and I will not go further. My main point is that I think that as one goes out without telling people what to say and leaving a lot of space for additional areas, both of functionality and of content and of issues, that I think if you can start by doing at least some key questions in order to be able to elicit some good reactions to the consultation. Thank you. I'd like to just comment on someone about the civil society. I'm representing the government, but to be honest today, I think there was no single exception. All the speakers, they were talking about the multi-stakeholder's involvement, and I think we have seen a couple of representatives from the civil society who have been actively involved with us in this discussion. To be fair to that discussion today, civil society is really a main pillar of our way to going forward, to be able really to go with our plans for a better utilization for the internet. Having said that, and as I mentioned, Egypt will be very honored to contribute to the efforts with other stakeholders as well to take this step forward, because we believe what we have witnessed today by having all the stakeholders involved in the internet governance. I think this is a great, great place to have all the ideas together and to come up with some activities to lead us to be in the right direction. So, Egypt is definitely when I mentioned that we'll be more than happy to host one of these regional, like the NetMondial in Brazil, definitely number one priority for us to involve all stakeholders involving the civil society. So the love anyway to see all the involvement of the stakeholders in this and definitely we encourage, by the way, the involvement, especially as I mentioned today about the developing world and the need really for better utilization and access to internet. This is the only way, honestly, as I mentioned, to fight corruption, to increase transparency and productivity and to achieve social equity. And if I may just to add one comment today we were talking about accessibility, but in developing countries, I believe accessibility, we have to add very important word which is affordability as well. Technology, yes, has all the solution, but how we can use technology to be able to reach marginalized areas, to be able to serve people with disability, to be able to achieve social equity, affordability is another key word that we have to be very, very focused to find solutions for the developing countries for better utilization for the internet. Thank you. Other comments? Yes. Thank you. So I very much appreciate the opening spirit of viewing this as an experiment and certainly the point made about legitimacy will come from followership. It is not granted from above on on tablets and it is not there yet. We don't have legitimacy until we generate some kind of outcome that inspires people around the world to engage and say, yes, we want to move forward with that. So that's the real test. I also really like the framing of the point of this exercise is to go from the what to the how. I think all of us have been engaged in conversations around the world about all kinds of subjects, all kinds of problems, and I think that's one thing that is shared. Everyone wants to go to the next level in part because of the urgency of the fragmentation and losing the open internet, that threat. I have to say in what I've heard right now there's a step we've missed. One expression was used, and the substance is what happens post six months. I think in order to solve problems and go from the what to the how, we have to at least identify and frame and agree to the problems we're solving because every person in this room and everybody out there on the web listening would prioritize them differently. And we have to have some kind of agreement about what are we trying to tackle? What are the types of topics we can address? I heard today, access, global access, which is largely an infrastructure problem. I heard fragmentation as an issue. I heard the primacy of human rights and I think for human rights groups, for civil society, it has to be there. The primacy of human rights. And then we get into the nature of new government structures, but we have to define the problems we're solving in order to go to new governments. So that implies that, again, getting back to the business at hand here, which is the question on the table is how to structure the consultation. So that implies that we should be having a consultation not only about how an ultimate framework ought to be architected or structured, but also what it ought to focus on because that way to influence the shape of it. So I think that's a good point. So let me go first over here. Carolina, did you want to come in? No, I actually was about to say exactly you said, and I think that goes back to Brett's point, that when nobody here should be called founding partners because this already implies a legitimacy that's not there yet exactly because we have not taken these broad, bigger decisions. And this does create a lot of anxiety among those who are extremely qualified and are not here today. So as Brazil did really well in a very short amount of time, Brazil spurred and fostered the constituency of multi-stakeholder groups that allowed the stakeholders themselves to elect their members. So I think that's something really important and besides, and they did that there so why we are not able to do that? There was a process track and a substance track. We have agreed in a series of topics there and human rights and access were among those topics and privacy was one of the spurring elements of that meeting actually. So I really would call us today to set these tracks moving as fast as we can to build this legitimacy. Thank you. To say the same things, how do we so that we can be able not only to be active in this forum but to be able to build institutions in our region? So we are involved in that process and we were waiting for this event to see how this event is going to come up with some of the both the content issues and processes so that we can take them and execute on these issues in our region. We are consulting as I've said all the stakeholders, nothing is cast in stone. We do believe that the process coming out of here will enhance that consultation process and also framing the issues more relevant to the regional issues. So this is very helpful for us both the way the consultation process is discussed and the issues themselves and we hope that once we have convened an event later in the year or in the next year we will then be able to fit back to the end of this process as to how we get done things in our region. That's how we see. Before passing to additional, let me just say that one of the things coming out of this discussion is resonating with me and that is that I assume that this consultation process would be a distributed one. It's not for this institution or even this, I think what we're looking for in part particularly from people who want to be part of a transitional steering committee is to help increase the outreach through their own devices and platforms and so I appreciate very much your comments and yours as well, minister and others in that regard. We've got a colleague here who's been wanting the floor and then we'll come back to the panel. Thank you, Jeremy Malcolm from EFF. Just on the very concrete point about the composition of the transitional steering committee the suggestion was made that one net could take on this task. In fact, Civil Society has its own group now to put forward representatives to panels. It's called the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group and it contains representatives or liaisons from all of the major civil society groups and networks that we know of in this space including the ICANN Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, BestBits, the Internet Governance Caucus, Diplom Foundation, APC, Civicus and the JustNet Coalition. So we do have a structure in place to do that but as Brett said, I'm not sure that we have... we're ready to jump in just yet. Until today we didn't have all of the information that we needed about what this initiative was going to be all about and to be frank we still don't really have all that information that we need to make that decision so we'll need to go back to our constituencies and consult with them and tell them what we know and come back with a list of questions about what we don't know. There are big questions remaining such as the ongoing role of the World Economic Forum as Brett raised that is going to be an issue for civil society people. So we need to consult about this. We're not going to be able to put forward representatives to the transitional steering committee today. We may not be able to do so until after the IGF so we may be looking at a couple of weeks before we can come back with names. We may actually decide that we don't want to participate in the way that this has been framed. We might have some suggestions about other ways of framing it. So just to scale back the expectations and again echoing what Brett said. Okay, thanks. As I stated at the outset we didn't necessarily presume that we would have a fixed decision on the composition. This was more to get a sense of a center of gravity here and whatnot. I think Anne Bovara. Yeah, thank you very much. Yes, a couple comments if I may to try and contribute to this. We heard this morning and it's been echoed here a little bit that yes there's the what is it exactly that we will do and we don't really know when we want to and this initiative I understand wants to shape it. I think one useful suggestion I heard this morning is to try and map what already exists and which entities, organizations, forums exist that do something on internet governance because it's our subject. And maybe that's something that could be part of the consultation process. Make it something that helps identify what already exists that of course we wouldn't want to duplicate. So that's my first suggestion. The second one and yes and I just heard Jeremy on this. Of course we're not we're also I'm representing a number of members and we're not completely clear as to the end objective of this. I think what we need to do is try and refine it and maybe we can make it an objective of the Transitional Steering Committee to propose a clearer objective because yes this is part of what we're trying to do. And the third one is more a question and we have some people that are probably more expert than I am in this. What is the best way to ensure we work in a way that is both fully transparent and of course making this available is a good step in that. But there's probably things that we could do beyond that. Is there a way when we start working on some sort of outputs either proposed documents or scope or result of a mapping exercise or preparation for a press release that we could review drafts together. Maybe that would be something that will help a number of people around here being comfortable with what is being discussed here. So that's just a couple of suggestions on one, trying to do the mapping of what exists through consultation. Maybe trying to ask the Transitional Steering Committee to propose an objective and the scope and then really a call for comments and suggestions on how we can be transparent in the process as per best practices. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Just briefly just to say that following my colleague Helmi from Egypt just want to inform that September 15th Fadi Shihadi is coming to Macedonia. We're going to organize a regional ministerial conference first time in that region in order to talk about internet governance and involved civil society, the non-government organizations, something that hasn't been done in the region but I think the awareness that all of us in this room can contribute, everybody in their own sector can help come up with the steering committee members or ideas or projects or topics that need to be discussed. Looking at the agenda, I think we have half an hour to go and picking up steering committee members and we have been talking for half an hour. I think it's going to be Mission Impossible Part 3 maybe even Tom Cruise cannot do it. Just following on that, I believe that, I believe that Americans are always protecting Hollywood stories. I think it's important that everybody coming from a specific region that we continue to talk to our peers, talk to our members, coming from civil society, you always have some very active groups and you have majority who are not active in the mainstream topic. Same in the governments and we have talked many times with Fadi that some governments who don't show interest in a particular topic, they lean towards their partners, their friends in relations and when it comes to decision, they will follow what the leader from their neighborhood or the partner will do. They will also vote on it. So I think if we all just do as much as we can from the group that we come, it's very easy for the steering committee next time when we meet or whoever is decided to run, can come up with the solutions. What I'm saying is because six months will come very soon. Remember when we started in London, the high level panel, six months came in no time. So Barcelona will come sooner than we think and if we have not spread the word and talked to our peers, then Barcelona will be again but are we going to be prepared where we can have the support from everybody involved? I'm not sure. So that's my two cents. Thanks. I'd like to echo some of the points that were already made. Maybe that's my background from research. If you start setting out a consultation, you usually want to know who asks the question and you want to know what it's for and you want to know the question. I think it's very difficult to go out there and say we're doing a consultation but really not knowing what it should deliver. I mean I don't think we even agree on what questions to ask because it's very difficult to scope this wide field. So somehow you have to start setting up a process that narrows this down to come to something that's concrete. You could even think of that consultation is give us the community, give us the questions that you want to have asked and then pose them back to the commission, to the community. So I really think we should think quite deeply about before we just agree on doing a consultation why we're doing this and then get the questions right and maybe it's an outlandish idea but to ask the community what questions they would like to ask might be a way forward because at least then you got a legitimacy of the people asking the questions because you then have the questions that come from the community themselves. So just building on those comments it seems to me we're perhaps trying to over engineer this and overthink this. So let's step back and talk about the first principles. We're all here today because we all believe that the Net Mundial event was an incredibly important event. We also are here today because we saw the report of the high-level panel chaired by President Ilvis and there are recommendations in there that we don't want to just leave on the table. And so we're all here today because we think there's something next that should happen but as it's been pointed out by many people in the room just because we think that we have no legitimacy yet established with the global internet community that there is a shared view that some sort of action or next steps is necessary. So it seems to me that is our primary issue and I think to the comments that have been made that's probably the first question we need to have both because in having that consultation which needs to be as Fadi mentioned broad and widespread and involving lots of different organizations it helps build legitimacy around the notion that there really are next steps that ought to be taken and more importantly since we all believe that the multi-stakeholder process yields better outcomes because of the engagement of the community it lets us get the input of the community to help frame and shape exactly what those next steps ought to be. So each of us in our own mind has a sense of what we want those next steps to be but we haven't tested those against the community and more importantly we haven't asked the community what it thinks. So I think the next six months ought to be we ought to be focused on a laser in terms of reaching as many people as possible in the context as we can reach them and many have been mentioned there's the IGF next week regional IGFs over the course of the next several months ICANN, Regional Net Mundial internet society meetings there's a lot of opportunities to reach out and the question is how do you structure basically teeing up the question which is what comes after Net Mundial and what comes after the Ulvis report and getting that feedback I was very much intrigued by some of the projects that were presented this morning by Urz and Stefan and the others and it seems like that might be useful pump priming ideas to put in front of people but by no means should that be presented as anything other than here are some ideas that have already started to emerge from the community and as additional ideas emerge through these consultations they ought to be wrapped into the discussion so that a group that comes up with some wonderful ideas on delays meeting in Africa we can take those ideas and present them at the meeting in Argentina three months later or a month later whatever so the question is how do you create that iterative consultation that builds on what we're hearing from the communities but unless we can solve the problem and the concern that you're hearing from the civil society people which I think is representative of the larger community in terms of the hesitation people have about this project is not going to succeed so I think we've got to spend the next six months focusing on that question and really understanding what the community really thinks ought to happen as a result of these very important events of this year and then get on with it. Thanks, yes just to I think echo what has been said to a large extent but I think we need to deconstruct what we mean by consultation and engagement I think we can engage on certain kinds of ways to solicit opinions we can also engage to actually extract ideas we can also engage to actually become wiser about what is already happening and I think we need to organize it in a more deconstructed manner and I would argue that to a large extent what is missing is a if you can call it a founding value proposition that then can be made public and people can annotate that would be like step number one probably is to have like an annotated kind of process meaning is the agenda or the reason that will send the invitation is it open can people annotate it can they make comments so start with that which is ultimately having a discussion about the value proposition of distributed governance which I think is really important and is really the new wave of internet governance that would excite people and then go into specific questions around give us examples about where distributed governance works give us examples about what issues are in need of actually a more coordinated fashion and I think deconstructing of that might be making it meaningful and I totally agree with the need for consultation which is the is the idea behind the tool of the mapping is that a mapping tool like that can only be created by actually engaging and do it in a crowdsourced manner but again it's a structured and deconstructed way of engaging soliciting not only your opinions but also expertise thank you very much Barak Otien once again I think in terms of principle we have the net Mundial to borrow from and we are spending too much time discussing about what needs to be done and what shouldn't be done if we have identified the gaps then let's move ahead and do it the IGF was in my opinion got a lot of credibility by being supported by the UN we are now at the World Economic Forum it's a credible institution it can help it can give us the credibility of the gaps so I think other than spending time discussing the what's and what not six months will be over when we are still going around in circles so if you are here I believe you are a leader you are a champion and you need to get things done so let's look at what needs to be done and how we can do it if you are in it you are in it if you are not you go into war when you are double minded so I am sorry I have to bring it out that way but the discussion is supposed to be at the IGF that will be in Istanbul on the floor that's where we meet and we discuss but I believe we are here to look at how we can get things done unless I am mistaken and if that's the case then let's look at what needs to be done within the six months period but let's bear in mind that people need to be included even as we go along that's my take, thank you Thank you, thank you very much I am Paul Wilson from APNIC an organisation that occupies a sort of intersection of two important communities one is the Asia Pacific the other is the technical community and I think I am sorry to sort of bring us back to this question of who is here it's not a question of representation but it is really here sufficiently yet and I just want to motivate that I think we hear a lot about the fact that half of the internet's population is in the Asia region at the moment but more than that the vast majority of internet growth for the next several years is going to be in that region it's in that region that the the biggest pressures of growth and the governance impacts of that are going to be felt and I really think that needs to be considered it takes some time for language and other issues for that community to be brought in properly so I am afraid it may impact on the time frames that we are talking about here and I do sympathise with the concerns about the timing factor here on the second community the technical community and I just want to remind us that it is the technical community that's actually responsible that is challenged and responsible for maintaining aspects of the internet that we take for granted entirely in this room so whether we are talking about the neutrality of the infrastructure and the ability to have network neutrality or the global point to point nature of the infrastructure the ability to actually have a global internet these things are not to be taken for granted or insured at the technical level and so when we talk about the internet as people have done many times today ten years down the track we might be talking about an internet that is quite a different internet unless the things that we take for granted are protected and that as I say is largely in the hands of the technical community and I think they too should be really encouraged to be here in more presence thanks so my contribution of course and folks knew that we are not here representing the whole civil society so my comment now is actually more even in the individual basis coming to this meeting I really saw three things based on the documents that firstly and then were put out and then we received so one is moving forward the NetMundial Principles an outcome document if we say that we need to bind ourselves by what's in there in terms of even of substance of course we can have consultation on priority but maybe that's the first step even because this meeting is called NetMundial Initiative the second thing I saw coming was a desire to understand best practice for multistakeholderism and I think that the contribution of academia is crucial here and Berkman as we heard and soon they are going to be announcing more they are doing 10k studies on best practice for multistakeholderism and as I heard from her there are some good news coming out of it thankfully and finally the third issue is the platform for assistance and I see that has a mapping exercise one thing that could be done really well Transparency International have this knowledge I'm also part of Open Knowledge Foundation folks there also have that knowledge is what are the platforms there so if you annotate the NetMundial Principles with what's out there that's already addressing we're going to soon realize what issues are missing and what things have not been addressed by others because access for example hundreds of organizations multilateral multistakeholders civil society companies are addressing that one convergence point is the Alliance for Affordable Internet so we need to identify that and we need to use theories of open innovation, crowdsourcing and all those things to bring the smart that's out there so if we don't agree that there are these three things that were actually clear or I think the hope was that they were clear we won't move forward but maybe we decide as a collective we don't want to move forward but there are three very specific things that we could contribute to the world in terms of issue mapping Thanks Yanis Thank you very much actually I was willing to make exactly the same point we're really over constructing this process if at the very beginning of today's meeting we were saying that we would present an action initiative and we have very clear guidance, that is the outcome of NetMundial we have principles and way forward which was agreed in multistakeholder manner by all let's say communities so let's take that and implement it in a way which is feasible for this let's say in this setting what is feasible first of all as I see this initiative may bring the internet governance questions to the attention of the audience which IGF and UN is not reaching out and that would bear clearly potential interest from their side and participation in the processes and contribution to those processes and that already would be enormous contribution to the existing or strengthening of existing multistakeholder governance model secondly the NetMundial was very clear suggesting that IGF should be strengthened let's think how this initiative can strengthen IGF what concrete steps should be taken maybe again the best of concrete steps would be to bring maybe 10 out of let's say 50 top companies of the world and to participate because all of them are using internet services in one way or another directly or indirectly if for instance big automobile companies will show up to IGF and will contribute from their perspective in this debate that would be already a big achievement and then sort of step forward that really this initiative could bring so let's do not over engineer these things but take a great document and start implementation Thank you, Philip Metzger from the Swiss Federal Office of Communications I just have a very simple question it's actually following up also on what Yanis referred to although I didn't think as far of course as Yanis but I would also like to pick up on what Larry mentioned earlier that we need to use all these different for that exist and my simple question was in view of next week in Istanbul we've mentioned Davos, we've mentioned Barcelona Istanbul will be here much much more quickly and so my simple question is how will the NetMundial initiative be portrayed or even consulted maybe you can refresh our memories if you don't know that yet the German maybe or Fadi or Virgilio briefly how will that be portrayed discussed including of course not only what has been prepared in view of this meeting today but also taken into account the actual discussions and the outcomes of today's sessions Why don't we address that point and then I want to come back to try to begin to wrap sort of interpret if you will and suggest but would you like to make some suggestions in this respect and Fadi or Alan, my colleague Alan Marcus who leads our work in this area so Janice first we appreciate any suggestions you might have certainly there will be a number of sessions where NetMundial initiative will be discussed in depth so starting with day zero whereas a day long event on NetMundial then there will be a specially dedicated main session on IGF and internet governance ecosystem where NetMundial will be prominently featured and there will be a report from NetMundial and certainly there are a number of workshops that will be dealing with NetMundial issues or related issues an opportunity to present this initiative there also will be a number many around the table will be speaking either at the opening session or in those sessions I mentioned there will be I can open forum where most probably this also will be presented and a number of opportunities will be given during the IGF I mean one thing we want to be careful of is not to disrupt the IGF and all the work that it already has planned to do so there is no intention to disrupt it is exactly as Janice said there's already workshops we'll look at them we'll listen and as part of the consultation process certainly in the high level leaders meeting we'll have a short five minute intervention we'll just describe exactly what happened here why this was important and how it will support the overall IGF and then all the other sessions that Janice referred to will be a participant as everyone else is Yes and Alan you will be with us as well I mean the we'll be joining us there If I could suggest something that helps us move forward I'm going to base my comments starting where Larry left us I want to remind us we are not starting from zero we are basing all of this on the work that thousands of people have been doing for the last year so the sense that this group is suddenly deciding anything should be killed right now this is work that is based on hard efforts that have been made by thousands of people of all walks of sectors for the last year let's be just clear on that now in order to avoid anyone saying this group of elite people met near the lake and made the decision let's pick specific things that came out from the multi-stakeholder reports that both NetMundial produced and the panel of President Ilves Reput and just follow these let's not move ahead from these so let's start with a simple thing Karolina said it are we all in agreement that the NetMundial internet governance principles are the ones we're going to base our initiative on anybody disagree with that ok, abeimus principles that's already huge thank you Virgilio, thank you Brazil this is the work of thousands of people that led us to these principles we base ourselves on that that's step one step two, these reports both President Ilves report and Brazil recommended strongly the following things both of them, number one we need mechanisms to map recommendations both of them have specific recommendations to that ok, is this something we can agree not because we decided but that some of us around this room are willing to pool our efforts together and go give it a shot not finalize it not deliver it but let's start working on it, let's see where we get in six months, we may get to a good set of designs we may get to a set of recommendations a set of specifications we may build a prototype if we're really really good but let's start the work on a recommendation that thousands of people gave us in both of these reports that's one recommendation anybody has a disagreement that we shouldn't do this because Net Mundial was wrong or President Ilves was not really awake when they make this decision I think we're in sync this is a real thing, it's on the table it's needed this is a recommendation they both reports said that multi-stakeholderism will not hold in the long term unless it is practiced nationally, regionally and globally both reports recommended strongly that we start thinking how countries how regions can start learning how to do internet governance in a multi-stakeholder way so that when they come to ICANN and the IETF and the APNIC they're not shocked by the model of multi-stakeholderism you all remember those of you who were in Sao Paulo that some people were shocked by Sao Paulo what is this, how do you decide things like this doesn't work for us because they've never seen multi-stakeholders sit down and work and come up through consensus with the decision so I think it's important to agree that this is a second clear recommendation and today we heard from Brazil today Costa Rica approached me as well they said we're willing to work to put together these recommendations into a set of best practices into figuring out how we can help the world embrace multi-stakeholderism at the national level the minister from Egypt leaned on me earlier and he said I really would like to think how we can do this in Egypt well how do we guide him do we just ship him to Sao Paulo do we ship him to Costa Rica and we'll come up with a more institutionalized approach to address this issue here's a second recommendation that came from both reports that I think we can act on now and in six months where will we be I don't know, let's start let's not worry today exactly what this will produce there are many good people here of goodwill, let's get to work and solve that third recommendation from Il's report they said do not try to create a central internet governance model focus on a distributed internet governance model okay that's easier said than done if people want to focus on a I think most of us here agree we don't want some massive new institution to govern the internet civil society would agree I think we would agree technical all of us would agree we don't want another major institution that runs the internet okay we want a distributed model well how do you build a distributed model people ask me how do you build a group of people to go solve privacy okay how do you select people when they meet, how do they make decisions how do they include everybody so we asked Harvard to go start thinking about this how do we create distributed governance groups what thoughts academically we can put together research that helps us think what's happened so that's a third idea that came out of a specific recommendation we did not decide here in our ivory tower this is a report that worked on for months very hard work by a lot of people of goodwill right and the fourth and last recommendation was toolkits give us toolkits we cannot have these distributed governance groups start and then work on paper and they need toolkits they need platforms so we propose today that we create a toolkit to help them these are specific four ideas they come out of reports we didn't try them not even Rick in his greatest moment of lucidity wrote them they were written by multi-stakeholders meeting for hundreds of hours so I don't want us to uproot ourselves from this we are all children of these processes and it is incumbent upon us to carry that baton forward and see where it takes us that's what we can do in six months but if we spend six months selecting who will sit at what table we will show up again in GSMA or wherever you know let's do it in an island it doesn't matter if it's GSMA and then we will be arguing who picked whom and then nothing again and finally I just want to be clear with the head of IGF MAG sitting next to us and Elia Armstrong here from UNDESA we should not be doing things to replace the work of the IGF so let's not start the consultation process to discuss what are internet issues they have that already if you want to discuss that they have so many issues go pick it's a big battle full of fish take a few and we can solve let's focus on solving not doing what other people do and then I want to be blunt because you won't do it I will be blunt we say these people in Davos are elitists and exclusive people if we exclude them we're exclusive people they are part of the decision making process if they want to discuss all day things in Davos let them by all means we go fight all over the world to get attention of decision makers and now the decision makers are saying let's get together and talk about your issues my issues and we say they're elitist we should say perfect now if it's the only place the discussion is taking place I agree with you Brett they're not they're proposing we're going to make our platform available engage them let's put our issues in front of them we need you we need you to be part of that dialogue and I know you're thinking about it and questioning whether we're exclusive or frankly sometimes the way civil society acts you become exclusive we are inviting you we are making sure you're part of this we are civil society too so let's be together let's not miss it and if it doesn't work stop us that's why we need you at the table with us every step of the way and as Eileen said very clearly this is an exploratory path let's go explore let's learn together and if we act frankly with all due respect to governments here like the intergovernmental organization that sometimes lock up because of procedure and rule then you know why are we bothering the job they're ready to take it but it's not going to happen because for the internet to be governed properly all of us need to work and fast so I beg you to reconsider well let me let me make some suggestions for how we might interpret this discussion and move forward now look obviously there's a there's a creative tension here there's a creative tension obviously between process very robust deliberate thought process about what how and what not and on the other hand in fact having performance effective outcomes on pieces not the whole problem set but pieces of that problem set and we've been certainly encouraged to identify those pieces of the problem set which would benefit by variable geometry cooperation to make progress that's not absolute progress but is significant progress and that helps the performance of the entire ecosystem generally that's how I come to this table we're not fundamentally sitting here the only part of this which is really more akin to a universal standing standard setting process and even then it's not entirely is this basic question of whether and how there should be some sort of organizational framework put around a set of activities going long term beyond that it's a narrower question about what pieces of the problem would benefit by some additional focused effort and pooled resources and expertise and and I think we have to find the balance between process and effectiveness by thinking about our exercise in those terms let me suggest more practically to go forward here first on the basic idea all of this we would be subjecting to public comment and comment curated comment as well from specific pools of expertise and perspectives stakeholders and whatever that are particularly relevant as I listen to the discussion I hear that what would be useful as next steps in the consultation realm are to post a very general set of questions which is what does what do people generally think ought to come next after the the landmark meeting and the high level panel discussions or otherwise in this field we're not representing that this process is going to be the only place where it's probably not going to cover the waterfront of the responses we get but I hear from everybody that they'd like to ask a general question fine let's close that question and get some perspective then there was a suggestion that we break that down a little bit into certain areas like what are best practices that people think are promising for water application and how might they suggest what's the missing element of scaling the application of that ask that general question and maybe make some specific sub areas of that where you're particularly inviting focus a lot some of these issues are about mobilizing resources better particularly for developing countries and disadvantaged or marginalized areas these are collective action problems there are resources out there where you don't need a universal agreement on a structure you just need an agreement among a sufficient number of actors who decide that you know this is a worthwhile area to for us to put our resources on let's ask that question as a platform for assistance as you said what are things that developing countries would particularly benefit by if the world if the international community were better organized to pool resources and support either on the governance side helping to do what you did in Brazil because not all countries have the resources that you had in Brazil to mobilize those governance frameworks and similarly on the access side let's solicit comment on that from as well as the wider international community are there other ways we can support the UN processes or otherwise from what I hear I'm not a specialist in this field but I understand that the resourcing of the IGF which is a precious international resource itself has been sort of episodic and not not systematic well then why don't we pose the question directly how how could international cooperation be better mobilized whether plurilaterally public private or otherwise to provide a more sustainable footing for that very valuable thing that's a specific let's get some comment on that so I don't think we need to I'm using these not as an exclusive list or exhaustive list but as an illustration of how we strike a balance here between let's have a let's have an organizational consultation and discussion but also let's as has been suggested by a number of you let's get some specific suggestions on the table from both those of us who are the cognizanties so to speak as well as the wider international community and that will put that on the table and the steering committee if you will this transitional steering committee will have a I think a special role in helping to to interpret that help shape it in a way that we can have a focused conversation around to identify whether we think there are particular areas where we ought to be spotlighting which then would help galvanize more expertise and more resources so I think that's what I would suggest now that we haven't gotten to the mechanisms here I think we're prepared here in the forum to use our you know our virtual platform for this purpose but I would ask the question are there other websites or virtual platforms which would also be willing to post some of these questions as part of the collective undertaking whether it's the website that was really robust around the NetMundial initiative or not or others here we need to have a distributed approach to this as well so I think one other point here is maybe two one is the mapping so let us indeed encourage some academic effort on some mapping here and then subject that to the rigor of scrutiny by this group and the public community more widely I think that would be extremely helpful would help to focus the input coming in and beyond that I would say that's kind of an initial set of steps for how we move forward from here okay we need to have a little bit of dialogue bilaterally with a number of you to see whether you're willing to be engaged in this some of you have already stepped forward and said on the consultation front you'd be willing to yourselves help to shape and sponsor some consultations excellent and I think we should try to collect that so people can see what that looks like where people have volunteered to do it and what not now on the on the steering committee itself because we're sort of running out of time here here's what I would suggest going forward we have taken the step as the sort of incubator incubational platform here to identify some governments and other stakeholder institutions who look to us like they could provide kind of an inner ring of good filtering and vetting and interpretation of things and you see them you see the names here around the table and I think what I would suggest as a next step is we invite them to come back to us and indicate whether they'd be willing to play that kind of role informal kind of role to help help shape both the substantive development and the consultative approach and the interpretation of what we hear back and that we also seek other suggestions or comments on the group here from you and others and that I think what you need what we need to do here in order to be able to proceed in this regard because the forum doesn't want to just do this do the interpretation by itself that would be inappropriate and frankly overwhelming given the culture of this particular community but so we need some senior a diverse group of senior people to help interpret and advise and shape and identify where there may be center of gravity or rough consensus of things that really have value so I would suggest that we take that as a next step hear back from those of you who are sitting around the table whether you be prepared to engage in that fashion whether you suggest others in that regard and additionally once we have a sense of that and certainly take feedback from those sitting here in the room as well we'll put out a notional list of who we have in mind in that regard I hear in the one case in civil society that they would like to have their own deliberate think and maybe come back and propose their own names which is great I think from my perspective I'd be perfectly happy to say that for a few of the civil society slots that we absolutely want to have in this little interpretive transitional steering committee that if the preference is for that particular community itself to put forward some suggestions to enable you guys to do so what I would want to say though is that we would want it within a couple of weeks or so to be able to take this next step and I hope people would give us the latitude of taking the initiative ultimately to post that list within that time frame and begin to gather you in conversation in this more limited way I don't think having been in a variety of governance settings there are robust debates on what's the maximum size for actually an effective shaping process, agenda setting process and my sense is that we really ought to stay below 20 in that regard based on prior experience again this is not a decision making these people are going to help shape the contours of what we do ultimately anything that we do is going to be subject to the rigor of scrutiny by the public and by this community more generally so we're going to have another layer to a feedback just that you need some people to help interpret what the question is, what you shape as they ask last point in this regard on the very specific agenda for action oriented enabling projects of the type that Fadi has just mentioned we spotlighted four initial suggestions in this regard early in the day these clearly need for their own purpose to have their own request for comment we ought to put more specific material out on them and get comment on them and we ought to put the very specific question out what other types of enabling types of thought processes or analytical underpinnings would be useful and who might volunteer to do them so I think that would be crucially important and within our own networks we're a network of networks including a network of expertise networks of experts and institutions we want to tap our communities among others for that question so I would lay that out as a suggested framework for some interim steps here all the while trying to balance here between good process due diligence if you will due consultation on the one hand but also getting the ball rolling on what is effectively not a universal norm setting exercise it's an exercise in trying to encourage to reveal areas where key actors and experts want to pull effort to make progress on some of these public issues even if it's not the absolute or ultimate answer to the question so let me pose that as a suggested way forward I see a number of heads nodding any burning comments or suggestions in this regard or does this seem generally like a reasonable way forward just support okay so there are a variety of things there I thank you for giving us a little bit of latitude to help move forward in this regard and with that I don't want to take much of anybody else's time everybody's been very generous with their time but at the end just invite minister if you have any closing reflections or last words of guidance to do so I agree with your suggestion thank you very much if you have any closing reflections so what is our homework walking out of here I've just identified the homework so people will need to get back to you around the table as to their interests if they wish to participate in the consultation or help with it such as what South Africa and Egypt suggested secondly you're going to ask people around the table and others if they wish to help with the transition steering committee give you some input are we also asking people who wish to help with the specific projects to identify themselves the good thing about this being webcast is that we'll be able to go back and go through the list of things that I mentioned so everybody has it that'll be good homework good project management thank you I think there is one thing which has to be clear as well on the platform that will be used for consultation and I think we need to make this because web is the right platform because it's really credible and you have a lot of history and I think bringing this to the next ABUS meeting is going to be vital and Fadi making web involved in this process I think was the right choice from the beginning because there is so much of credibility and history on this and to answer your question and to scare Solomon a little bit if you guys don't do it please give it to us you know but I think this has to be taken as clear so that we can move forward I've been involved with Fadi and some of the really distinguished people here in this process I think it's fair to say that this has to move forward with some concrete decisions rather than just making it rather than just waste time and some of the important steps that I think is going to be it's going to be vital next Thanks for that but clearly we're not the platform we're a facilitative platform and we understand that role and let me close by saying this is effectively a good faith effort by everybody to carry forward the spirit of San Paolo I have just one minor comment that I would suggest you to expand the participation of the civil society we'll do ok thank you very much everybody good travels and what not look forward to the further engagement bye