 Well, first of all, thank you very much for having me. It's an absolute privilege to be part of this. Thank you so much to my society team to pulling this off. This is an absolute triumph so far. I think it's absolutely fantastic. And it's absolutely brutal to follow up such a brilliant and vivid speaker such as Nanjala. And I'm afraid you're stuck with a much more stiffer German presentation now. But I think that a couple of the things that Nanjala mentioned kind of lead in quite nice into what I'm going to try to say today. So I will try to give you a little bit of a macro perspective or meso perspective on digital tools in constitution making before Jon, Rob and Colvin are going to give us a more detailed perspective on recent developments in Iceland. So let me kick this off by showing you how participation in constitution making looked like for a long time. It looked more or less like this. Constitution making was essentially our glass shaped. It was a task that was mostly reserved to elites and if involved at all, citizens may have elected some representatives at the beginning of a process in a constitution drafting assembly or adopted the draft via referendum. Now, while this worked for quite a long time, it does not seem to be a particularly viable solution anymore in the digital age. Nanjala mentioned a couple of problems. We are facing a representative crisis of representative government. There's increasing distrust and detachment of citizens from institutions and governing elites. There's a decline of collective engagement in politics and traditional politics through political parties, for instance, and there's increasing text that really drives search for democratic innovations in constitution making and elsewhere. So the needs to accommodate new forms of political engagement is fueling longer standing codes for increasing participation in constitution making and beyond. So today I'll focus on three brief case studies just to illustrate how technology is gradually changing the design of constitution making and how we are trying to bring in people into these processes more effectively. So let me start by asking why participation is important. So I think that constitutions and constitution making processes in particular are a prime field of public participation and their belief to serve as a key mechanism to battle the chaotic pluralism that marks many societies today. So the first argument for public participation is a theoretical one. The source of a constitution's authority is widely recognized to be the people and in a democratic society the people should have a say of about the rules they live under and this applies preeminently to its most fundamental rules. So practically speaking this means that constitution making should be participatory and involve as many citizens as possible. The second argument is a more recent argument. Public participation in constitution making is assumed to make constitutional texts substantively better. This argument has gained significant traction over the last couple of years namely that including a wide range of people allows constitution drafters to tap into the collective intelligence of the people. So put differently the ideas to use crowds for idea generation and the last argument is that participation in constitution making should help to form a way of a group of individuals and ideally the more open inclusive transparent process is the more we will create a sense of ownership legitimacy and strengthen democratic constitutional orders and ensure their stability. So as I go through the three cases I want you to keep in mind maybe the question of reaching a better constitutional text and building some sort of communality in a society when we think of impacts. So I'll now briefly go through my three case studies in Iceland, Mexico City and Chile to illustrate my points. So the Icelandic case was arguably no it was the trailblazer for many other tech enabled processes that followed and if I say anything wrong we have three experts here who will correct me shortly. So Iceland combined three forms of public participation randomly selected deliberative fora at the very beginning of the constitution making process self-selected online participation during the drafting phase and a non-binding referendum at the ratifying stage and the process was triggered by the Icelandic financial crisis and the breakdown of the people's trust in the in its political class and this mistrust against the politicians arguably also characterized the whole constitution making process as politicians were largely excluded from it. So in the original plan the only source of public input for the process was meant to come from a one-day deliberative national forum and this forum brought together 950 randomly selected Icelanders to produce a set of core values and visions that were to serve as the basis for the new constitution. But the constitutional council which a group of 25 elected non-professional drafters and decided to continue the debates to the public and to open the process to the public. The council members started to publish work in progress constitutional drafts and to solicit input via a dedicated website and other social media platforms and what emerged was an iterative drafting process. 12 versions of constitutional drafts were elaborated by a means of a kind of feedback loop between citizens and the constitutional council. Now during this process but due to the ad hoc matter which the input was solicited there was no systematic data analysis but since the input size was relatively manageable and drafters were personally able to respond to most queries comments and suggestions and ultimately 29 or roughly 10% of suggestions ended up in the final constitutional text. My colleague Alexander Hudson from the Max Planck Institute wrote something about this. Now while the relative impact of this form of participation is remarkable it also highlights some of the problems of self-selection in broad-scale participation. The proposal came from only 204 individuals 77% of whom were men mostly between 40 and 65 years old so in this very central drafting phase of the process a relatively small group exerted significantly more influence on the process than others. Now once the drafting process was over Icelanders then approved the constitution with a two-thirds majority in a non-binding referendum but the process ground to a halt eventually at parliament which failed to ratify the constitutional draft. I think that even if the draft constitution was not ratified in the end and the fact that Iceland's size and so homogenous socio-economic makeup is hardly comparable to other contexts as then the case still sets new standards for public participation in constitution making. It offered unprecedented access of the public to the drafting of a constitutional text and it also highlighted the importance of the involvement of political actors and some of the shortcomings of self-selected public participation. Now my next case is Mexico City. In Mexico City the constitution making process marked the transformation from the capital district of Mexico City into a federal state. Here policymakers focused predominantly on the idea generation phase and on mass participation and to increase and diversify participation they combined different forms of participation and found ways of linking them to the work of the drafting body. Now the first step was an online and offline survey which was used to stimulate interest in the process and creative thinking about the citizen's relationship with the city. After completing the survey each respondent received a unique identifier which allowed them to link their answers with specific provisions in the draft constitutional text that addressed that input and I think that this was a particularly interesting method for fostering and sustaining the public's interest in the process. Then policymakers teamed up with change.org to solicit substantive submissions for the constitution and this process was basically a petitioning system by setting particular thresholds. 5000 signatures meant that the submission would be sent to the drafting committee's legal experts for review. 10,000 signatures the more petitioners were invited to present the ideas to the drafting committee and 50,000 signatures meant an audience with a mayor. This method basically kept input manageable for drafters but it also left relatively little room for more nuanced debate and exchange of arguments and the competitive or viral format meant that many less popular proposals did not get seen but nevertheless I think that this relatively simple method was accessible it was well received and effective and by the end of the process more than 400,000 users viewed the proposals and 280,000 people signed onto 341 different petitions and the new constitution entails 14 articles based on citizen petitions generated via the platform. So although the drafting process was largely closed to the public and relatively tightly controlled by a political actors this did not frustrate political input and public input and possibly because the participatory process had already garnered quite a lot of momentum. So participatory tools that were used were quite effective and generated new and innovative constitutional ideas. Now let's get on to the most complicated but arguably most fascinating case in Chile. Chile tried in some ways to square the circle by attempting to combine deliberation and mass participation. President Bachelet at the time launched the process as a response to long simmering the demand for constitutional change. Now the first part of the process was an online survey which generated more than 90,000 responses. The second step was a deliberative process starting with small deliberative assemblies at the local levels called cabildos and these were self-convened local meetings composed of 10 to 30 people. More than 8,000 of these meetings were held with more than 10,000 participants. And these initial meetings were then followed by larger deliberative for the municipality level and at the regional level and finally more than 218,000 citizens participated in the process. And all of these deliberations were structured along guidelines provided by the government and the results of each of these assemblies were uploaded onto an online platform feeding into a consolidated data set. Now the goal of the process was to get people talking about constitutional issues and to use the outcomes of the debates to produce a body of core constitutional concepts which were to guide the drafting process. And now although there's no official data on this, judging from my interviews with participants, the deliberative aspect was a huge success. The constitution eventually became a national debate and even those against constitutional reform felt that this was a very useful civic exercise. It was pretty wide in range and also suffered less from the self-selection bias of other mass participation processes. But the key challenge here was the analysis of the mass of unstructured data that was produced and also because data analysis only came as an afterthought and had to be developed on an ad hoc basis in a very short time frame. I don't have the time to go into the details now but I'm happy to answer any questions on that later in the Q&A. Now eventually the drafting process was held behind closed doors and this arguably sucked out the life of the participatory effort. And while the draft reflects some of the ideas raised during the participation process, it's unclear how the appointed experts accounted for the public input. And this alienated the public who were not able to clearly trace the input in the constitution and politicians as well who felt that public participation and the drafting of the constitution itself was an act of political maneuvering. So ultimately the constitution was not adopted. The story is not over though. In October last year Chile was hit by nationwide protests, as many of you know, which among other things called for constitutional reform. And the interesting thing is that citizens spontaneously revived the cabildos from the participation process, deliberating on a solution for the crisis. So the process clearly had the societal impact and we will see in the new constitution making process if corona doesn't stop it and how this will turn out. Now let me quickly go to my initial questions. Does participation have an impact? So at first glance, yes, public participation appears to have an impact on text. You know, a superficial comparison between public input and the changes in constitutional text suggests that participation does indeed bring about new and innovative constitutional ideas. Of course we can't establish a statistically 100% viable relationship between public input and text and input can also have broader impact for instance by changing the attitudes of drafters which can probably only be measured by qualitative means. Also there's no objective criteria to measure the quality of a constitutional text, but if our normative standpoint is that better texts indeed become better. Much what is less clear is whether participation also helps to foster ownership or creates a common sense of values and possibly a sense of community or indeed strengthen democratic systems. Arguably such societal input is much more intangible and harder to measure but and can probably only be done reliably by means of a post-hoc and long-term analysis. But I think that some insights could be achieved via a qualitative analysis while the process is ongoing or via a kind of debrief after a process through surveys and polling for instance. Now there are some inherent limits of just one minute left feeling sorry oh one minute okay just very quickly quickly rushed through this. There are inherent limits that we have to be very careful about. This self-selection is a massive problem in mass participation and policymakers will have to pay particular attention to finding ways of diversifying the demographic of participants in these processes. The second limiting key factor is information overload and this goes both for citizens participation. The more information overload there is the less meaningful and debates can be and the less diversity we will have and this also poses a problem for drafters in constitution making. I'm part of a project at the moment at the Alan Turing Institute where we are trying to solve these problems or tackle some of these problems through machine learning tools and if you're interested you can check it on our website. And then there are a couple textual limitations that we must have to kind of keep in mind. Mass participation will always need to be embedded in a more comprehensive participatory design approach and we have to be aware of of political we have to look very detailed where and how public participation makes a difference. It makes much more difference in rights provisions than in more technically legal technically difficult provisions of the constitution. We will need elites because constitutions are after all political matter as much as a legal matter. We need agreement and that needs also to be done behind closed doors sometimes and the context always matters. We need to kind of really try to make sure that the constitution making process is always tightly embedded in a good relationship between existing representative institutions and these tools. And I think I'll leave it with this sorry for running over slightly.