 So, so thank you so much for having the conference online. Obviously, we were looking forward to seeing you all in Reykjavik, but the next time who knows. And we are now talking about what I'm going to talk about is the new process that started last year. And, you know, really thanks to Felix for, you know, a really interesting talk. And then you will talk about more the academic angle and sort of the big picture of the process. But I'm going to dive straight into sort of the civic tech aspects of things. So, let me see. So the Citizens Foundation is a non-profit and we, our mission is to connect the governments and non-profits with citizens. And we are developing a state-of-the-art not-for-profit engagement platforms and technologies. And we were founded as a direct response of the financial crisis in 2008. And now have offices in Iceland, the US and the UK. And we have helped improve decision-making in literally hundreds of projects in 20 countries. And amongst others, Peter Reykjavik and we are working with the Scottish Parliament on their engaged project. And we've been doing a lot of participatory budgeting. I know there's been a lot of talk often in, you know, over the years in tech tech about PP. And we've been doing it mostly in Iceland. And now, after it's become sort of a part of the democratic culture in the, you know, in the city, in Reykjavik and Copa, in all the cities around Reykjavik, we are now consistently, the past three years, getting always over 12% participation rate. And the record, you know, recent record is 19%. So using online solutions, we're actually, you know, reaching mass participation in online democracy. And we believe in, you know, non-partisanship, we're totally non-partisanship. And then sort of future solutions and using technology for good. So last year, the parliament started a new process on changing the constitution. So as discussed, the process from 2010 to 2013 didn't really, you know, get, go to a conclusion that constitution draft was never ratified. So a committee of all the leaders of all the political parties started this process in a non-partisan way. And the citizens foundation with the University of Iceland has been helping out with engaging the public. And we used effectively four different channels of engagement. We did online deliberation with our open source, your priorities platform, which I talked about in a minute. We also created an education game to give people a high level view of constitution making. Then we used Facebook and YouTube to actually reach people and we used paid campaigns to let people know about this. And then there was a deliberate to pull a type of a citizen assembly that was 300 people came together over a weekend to discuss with experts and amongst themselves. And so your priorities, it's a simple tool being developed and redeveloped and rewritten over the past 11 years. Simple interface for adding ideas and how a deliberation about those ideas. And then you can sort of both points up and down. And the key sort of innovation on what's really made it work for us is that it doesn't have a regular commenting system, but it has like a deliberation system. That's really makes it really impractical to argue. And I will show you a screenshot in a minute. And also we are asking the citizens to evaluate the ideas. We are not asking them to come up with the first thing that pops into their mind. We're asking them. So what's good about this idea? What's bad about it? So that seems to also help in terms of sort of nutsing people into, you know, a bit of a, you know, more of an evolved remote. And the minority and majority views also have equal weight in the user interface. So, so even if there's a small minority that has some points against something, their points are at the same level as the points for. And we use quite a bit of artificial intelligence and machine learning and our platforms, including machine translations, recommendations, speech to text that people can speak in their ideas. We did that toxicity automatically and use natural language processing, including for creating this is coming out soon, creating 3D maps of ideas that are similar so you can sort of visualize clusters of similar ideas in the case if you have thousands of tens of thousands of ideas coming from the public. And the key outcomes using a platform like this is effectively better decisions and, you know, using collective intelligence, you know, to deal with an ever more complex world and, you know, ensure civic tech will play a role in, you know, helping, you know, giving the world's response to the current crisis. And so, so here's a screenshot of the Constitution process. This is a helpfully machine translated from from Icelandic to English. And even if Icelandic, I mean, we are 360,000 people. It's a minority, super minority language, even, you know, trans in a translation from Google, using Google translate over to English works surprisingly well. And the key thing for this consultation is a, you know, when we're designing it is that, you know, when you talk to somebody on the street you ask them oh so what do you think about the Constitution, can you provide something to it or can you tell us something about it. Many people are like, you know, they, they really can't even, you know, start to think about what the Constitution is thinking it's a very complex legal document. I mean, it is, but it's actually amongst the more simple legal documents you have. And then when you start to break down the Constitution into a more sort of manageable chunks to understand, and obviously use photos, that's very important. Then you are able to actually, you know, things like should we collectively own our resources together. I mean, a lot of people will have a view on that, even if they would not have a view on the general big document of a Constitution. So here you have different groups you have the Constitution, you know, constituencies, natural resources, direct democracy, the presidency, and then I choose one of the groups, and then I have different ideas that then people can debate. So should we have national reference on controversial issues, and should MPs be able to, you know, force a national referendum, you know, should Iceland be one Constitution, you're not. And, and so on and so on. And this was one of the most popular categories about national resources. And so you see the ideas at the bottom. So if I click on the ownership of resources. So here's the idea that is actually a one part of the legal document. This is just a tiny, you know, part of it is just one article in it. And so people then have the idea, and then they cannot points for or points against on on on each side of the screen. And it's a, and, you know, provide the comments and this goes on and on. So here's another one if I should be one Constitutions, you know, there's a link at the, that's link included in the schedule, but also at the end of the presentation which actually you can look at this yourself using Google translate and, and, you know, sort of dive into what happens when there's things about the, you know, Constitutions, and then quickly on on on gamification, also with the University of Iceland, we, we worked on developing a game called make your Constitution with the idea of, you know, I mean people have been talking a lot about the National Resources article in Iceland for many, many years for decades actually. And we thought maybe we can, at least for some people are interested in politics and so on. Maybe we can give them a little game that will show them sort of the high level of Constitution making. And so we created this game which is basically about helping people demonstrate to citizens how their values affect policy choices. So you go into a game, you have a little quiz where you can answer questions about how Constitution making and you can collect choice points. Then you choose a country that you want to make a Constitution for. This is Iceland, but you could also make a Constitution for Iran in 1979, just after the in a revolution. So you're not necessarily making a Constitution for yourself, you're making a Constitution for a country that you choose. And then you select articles you want to use. Then you're in the game. And you basically, different articles cost different choice points. And if you select articles into your Constitution that fits with the cultural values of the country that you're making a Constitution for, you can get bonuses. So it's actually like Constitution making via slot machine mechanics, if you like, but it's fun and it's been tried in the university as a teaching material and people really like it. And then when you've made your, when you finish your Constitution, you have all the articles and then you get like a quick review on it. So, and just a couple of slides on the results of the initial process results. I mean, I mean, we were here, we were going to talk about more issues about where it was actually in the parliament now, but there's no parliament except COVID parliament, you know, all businesses of parliament has been cancelled except for COVID-19. So, so, so the only results we have is actually what the process was. So we had over 39,000 citizens visited the website and and looked at an average of three constitutional ideas and close to 1100 contributed directly. So the US is 1000 times bigger. So, so if this was US number, this be 39 million citizens participating with over one million contributing materials. We spent over 40,000 to promote the project on Facebook and YouTube, and we could have used more targeting, but, you know, for this sort of project we sort of just need to target everybody. And finally, we did compare the toxicity on the different platforms with data from Facebook your priorities on the delivery poll, and we used an automated way perspective API, which is a way of detecting toxicity in text. And we had ourselves experienced actually quite a lot of toxicity on Facebook while we were promoting the project. Some people were calling us traders and so on and for not doing something or why we were doing this project of the government and so on. But we had a, but then when we got the results, we saw after looking at all the different comments, only 3.8% of Facebook comments were toxic or very toxic, but with a lot lower numbers on on your priorities and deliver the polls. So in our mind, we had seen a lot of toxic comments, but there was actually not that much. And when it comes to very toxic comment than than in the delivery to polls that were known they were almost done in your priorities and only very few also on Facebook, which I think is a is a good thing. And so we have set up a deliberation your priorities group for the session where you can ask questions as well, you know, sort of asynchronously even tomorrow or the other day. And it also has links to all the software to the open source software to the raw data for the data analysis of toxicity. And, you know, thank you so much and and welcome any questions later. Thank you so much, Robert. That was super interesting and so much information in such a short space of time. So I'm sure there'll be lots and lots of questions and people, people reaching out. Right, so quickly, I'm your co presenter, Professor John Olafson, if you want to, if you want to go ahead and then we've got about 10 minutes for questions at the end. Okay, yes, thanks. I'll just share my screen with you. So do you see my screen? Yeah, you can see. Okay, great. Good. So I'm gonna pick up where Robert finished. You have heard a lot about the Icelandic Constitution saga already. It all started just after the financial crisis in 2008 with an election to a constituent assembly which then was reorganized into a constitutional council, which produced very quickly a new draft constitution with quite a lot of public input as Felix described. But this project failed for several different reasons. The parliament was not able really to pass it before the term ended in 2013, which came with quite drastic political changes in Iceland. So now, a couple of years ago, the new government decided to embark on a second attempt. It's less ambitious, I should say, in terms of transparency and public involvement in actually writing a new constitution. But it's perhaps more important and more ambitious, I would say, in the sense of actually trying to revise the constitution with certain well-organized public involvement. So the idea was really to use state-of-the-art engagement methods and not only one, but to mix several. So the methods that we have been using, and I have been involved in this as an academic, we were asked at the University of Iceland to help design the process. And the idea is to, on the one hand, we have been, apart from the project that Robert has just described, the crowdsourcing project where people are actually invited to put forth their ideas about certain issues in the constitution. We conducted a deliberative poll, which I'm sure many of you know what it is. The deliberative polls have been conducted for a number of years, and they mix traditional survey with very well-organized, face-to-face deliberation meetings. And the idea with the deliberative poll is to get the statistically significant results about the considered views of the public rather than just raw opinions. So the idea is that you actually improve on the ordinary opinion poll by inviting people to come together and discuss the ideas, and understand better the trade-offs that they would be willing to accept and so on and so forth. So the deliberative meeting is very similar to the national forum that was convened before the constitutional council started in 2011. It is approached in a much more methodical way. We both survey the participants before they deliberate and after, and we keep very detailed records of the conversations actually. So what we hope to accomplish with that, using both the crowdsourcing results from the deliberative meeting where more than 200 people actually took part, and on measuring the changes in the views about the constitution that we can see happening over the period of the deliberative poll, makes it possible to design a new constitutional bill based on public input to a considerable extent. So the crowdsourcing exercise provides the open access platform, and the deliberative poll provides the face-to-face deliberation. One is of course self-selected. The participants in the deliberative meeting and the face-to-face deliberation are randomly selected. So the mission really is to run this multiple face-to-face and the online democratic innovation with national government. And what we also need to do, and I think this is an issue which is very important in any kind of public engagement, the officials also have to be trained to understand and appreciate the input made by individuals and civil society organizations. What we have seen, and I think this is in particular the experience of the constitutional council constitution draft, is that it's often very difficult for people who are deeply involved in public administration to actually take seriously and understand the kind of writing and the kind of proposals that you get from the public. One of the criticisms of the constitutional draft in 2011 was that it mixed traditions in constitution making, and many specialists about constitutions found that difficult to accept. There were very well-defined reasons for that in the explanations written by the constitutional council, but it was difficult for specialists and officials really to work with that. So we need to use the methods we have to help them understand the difference between special interest influence making, which they are used to and deal with all the time, and open and empowering involvement by the public, which they should be more able to understand. So there is an epistemic challenge here, which we are working to overcome. First, we need to ensure diversity and inclusion. Of course, participatory projects are not very useful unless they attract wide and equal participation, but it is also very important to appeal to the different groups in society and to use the different skills and perspectives that we have not only from the general public, but also from special interest groups, from experts, as well as from the officials and elected officials. So there is a balance to be found between empowerment and effectiveness. Again, going back to 2011, the constitution council then was really empowered. It didn't want to do whatever it wanted to do, but it failed to be effective. So that's a lesson to be learned. What can we do to keep the balance right so that the citizens who are involved feel empowered, but that they are also effective, that what they propose is also really going to have an impact on what is then really done. So we have been dealing also with what I would like to call the activist practicum gap. Robert briefly mentioned that the government has not quite been able to win the trust of the public, but the failure of the former project created. So we have been accused of selling out to the government. The fact is that we have a gap between those who are activists, who are constitutional activists and who want to go very far, and those who are prepared to take the smaller steps. So this is also something that we need to address. How can we make these groups somehow work together as well? Now the question is this, can crowdsourced proposals be made alive and relevant to public administration and elected officials? And I think that's really the challenge of a project now, not only to conduct the experiments that we have described, but also to follow up on them. And that's also one thing that the academia that the university can do to actually follow up on the ways that you can put the or bring the input of the public into the actual constitutional proposals or bills. So let me just end with this. We are running a three year research project, which is very much part of this constitutional revision. It's called democratic constitutional design. And you see the link there. So I think I'm going to stop here. Thanks.