 Yes, Rens Grünes, all right, good. Is this for the remote? No, it's for you. Hello, can you hear me? So I start. Hello? Can you hear me? We can hear you. Everybody, for those that do not know me, my name is Thomas Schneider. I'm a ambassador at the Swiss government. Yes, it's this mic, so they seem to be able to hear me. I'm apparently the chairman of the president of the periodic support association. So somebody is not muted where we hear some noise probably from remote. Please all mute yourself while you're not speaking. I'm very happy to be here in Trieste, a city that I know more or less well because we do a stop every time we go on vacation in Croatia, Switzerland. The last time was last summer. It's a very interesting city, also beautiful. And it's really a pleasure to be here and do the Eurovision 2020 here. I will not speak too long, but give the floor quickly to Sandro Skandalo because he needs to leave. He's a very important man for this institution, the president. So let me give the floor to you. Thank you, Thomas. And welcome everybody. I'm actually director of research here at the ICTP, the Abdul Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics. Can I have the slides? Just wanted to say a few words about the place where you are. First of all, I'd like to thank you for considering this place as the location of the next Eurovision 2020. We are an international organization. We are under UNESCO. This is the campus. You're here now. You don't see actually the building because it's hidden by the forest here. This is a beautiful park which you can visit. The access hours are between 9 and 6 in the afternoon. This is the main campus of ICTP on the other side of the park. This is the main building. And this is another building which used to be owned by CISA, the university, a local university. It's now actually CISA is one of the partners of Eurodig 2020. Antonio is here. And we're actually going to the Eurodig will take place here in the main auditorium of the CISA building. Okay. Next one if I can move here. Thank you. So essentially we are an institution run by scientists. I'm a physicist myself. And we do research in physics and mathematics with special attention to scientists from developing countries. So you see a number of visitors coming to ICTP. And half of them come from developing countries to get training in advanced trainings in physics and mathematics. We were funded more than 50 years ago by Abdul Salam. Abdul Salam was a theoretical physicist, probably the most influential theoretical physicist of the past century. Born in Pakistan, he made it all the way to the UK. And he got a Nobel Prize for physics in 1979 for the discovery of the Standard Model. Actually, the discovery which he made while he was director here at the ICTP. He funded ICTP in 1964 and he was director until 1995 when he passed away. And he did all his research when he was here. So he got the Nobel Prize here from Trieste. We're currently run by the Italian government, the IAA and UNESCO. So we're an international organization. And formally we're actually under UNESCO administratively. Next one please. I think I'll keep it short. Okay. Stephen Hawking has been a strong supporter. Next one please. I don't want to take too much time. Yeah. So you'll find on campus guest houses. This is one of them. There are cafeterias, lecture rooms, which will of course made available to EuroDig. When you come here in June, in terms of structure, we have about 30 staff scientists, including myself, Marco Hermano, who are actually the local people. You'll get to know them of course. A number of students, about 200 students. We have a large computer cluster which we share with CISA by the way. And we have also a large library. While you are within the network, the local network, you can actually access also online journals, the ICTP library. Just look at the website of ICTP. You'll find the library. And then you can connect. Next one please. We do research in physics and mathematics primarily. The core areas of research. I myself am a condensed matter physicist. But we also have special initiatives where we essentially try to support scientific development in particular in the developing countries. I'd like to point out what we have a strong research group dealing with ICTP and for development doing wireless internet of things. And again, our leaders are Hermano and Marco there. Perhaps you can raise your hands there. Marco and Hermano, they are our local people. Next one please. I think I can be quick here. We run a number of programs for students. We have agreements with universities. We run PhD, joint PhDs, master's programs. Next one please. I don't want to take too much time. We also have programs for experienced scientists. Trying to fight brain drain from developing countries. Conferences. Next one please. It goes quickly to the conferences. This is one of the main programs of ICTP. We run something like 60, 70 conferences every year on campus as well as in some cases in developing countries. In a number of areas and we try also to expand our reach in terms of scientific reach by inviting here. In fact, Eurodig is one example of a conference in which we would like to bring experts here on campus. That brings next one please to us brought to ICTP over the years. More than 140,000 scientists have been here at ICTP participating in our training programs essentially representing the whole of the world. As you can see, it's quite balanced in terms of geographical distribution and we actually believe that, you know, we have a lot of participants from developing countries who are normally partially supported when they come here but we also have a large number of scientists coming from the developed world and we consider that as a sign and indication of the quality of the programs that the scientists coming from developed countries are coming at their own expenses essentially. So that actually is a sign of the quality of our programs. Next one. Yeah, this is the future. We're now creating partner institutes in some crucial places in the world because of course we cannot grow here. The campus is limited in size so we're trying to create these places where we replicate our programs in different parts of the world. We've already opened these centers. There's the Brazil one and the Rwanda one are actually quite strong and there are a number of activities also connected with ICTP in terms of things going on in Rwanda. Next one, please. I think I'm also almost done. Just wanted to make sure that you are familiar with the fact that Trieste is a special city in terms of concentration of scientists. I think it's the city in Europe with the highest concentration percentage of science per population per unit of population. In fact, it's actually thanks to the presence of a number of scientific institutions. ICTP is here. This is the ICTP campus, about seven kilometers from the center of the city. Tuas is also there. We have a geophysical observatory. We have CISA, one of the partners of Eurodeco has recently moved from the ICTP campus to another place about 20 minutes drive from here. We have a large university. We have the Aria Science Park which essentially deals with technology transfer. We have a center for genetic engineering and biotechnology, some institutes of the National Research Council and the national synchrotron facility. One of the largest experimental facilities, national experimental facilities are all in Trieste. All this has led, next one, please, to the fact that Trieste will be this year in 2020 the European capital of science that will be being selected by the Euro Science Open Forum to be the ease of 2020 capital of science. So, in fact, Eurodeco will be part of this large program of events that will take interest and they will actually be the main event will take place in July. At the beginning of July, one week, we'll have about 3,000 experts, policy makers, scientists who will come to Trieste to discuss the advanced, you know, latest developments in science and impact that science has on society. This is also leading to a renovation of a large area of the old port. If you drive back to town, you'll see it about halfway, three kilometers from here on the right side. There are huge renovation works where actually the town, the municipality is building a huge conference center and there will be a big preparation for the big event in July this year. It will actually be just before the ease of 2020 main event. So, it will be part of this number of events that are in the calendar of Trieste 2020 capital of science, European capital of science. I think I'm done with this. Thank you. Now? Oh, I'm sorry. I was about to finish my speech. Well, let's just me repeat this. Let's say wish ease of 2020 slogan this year is open knowledge for your future and there is no way we can build that without having a sustainable internet governance. So, what we're doing with Eurodig and what we're doing today with the program is very important and I wish you the best. Thank you. Thank you. So, I've had those who have been following this which I guess most of you process for a number of times quite an interesting year but before we get to that maybe we do a quick tour of the tablet that everyone just says who he is, where he comes from so that those who do not know each other know who's in the room and that their remote participants also know who is in the room. Maybe let's start on this side. My name is... You need to take the mic so that the people can... My name is Armando Pietro Semoli. I work at ICTP in the telecommunication and ICT for development laboratory along with Marco Zanaro and we work in technology especially for internet access in developing countries and internet of things. Okay, my name is Marco Zanaro. I'm also from the telecommunication and ICT for the section of ICTP which is part of the applied physics group here at the center. I'm from the internet society. Hello everybody. Olivier Crapane-Blanc. I'm with the European At Large Organization and ICANN. I'm also the chair of ISOC England and also a board member of Eurotik. Eurotik Association, should I say. I'm Michael Rotert from ACO, German Association of the Internet Industry. I was a Eurotik host in 2014, I guess, in Berlin and I'm following Eurotik since its beginning. I guess I missed one. So I'm always happy to be part of the planning committee here and first time in Trieste and we'll see how it works. My name is Elisabeth Schauermann. I'm based in Berlin, mostly working with the German Informatics Society but today I'm here on behalf of the Eurotik Secretariat. I'm taking minutes for us all and I'm also highly concerned with the Youth DIC, our youth program that we run every year. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Peter Koch. I work for DINIC, the German Top-Level Domain Registry as a policy advisor. I am also the chair of the German ISOC chapter and involved in the German IGF. Roberto Gaitano, Uralo Borda, big fan of Eurotik and big fan of Trieste. Hello everybody. My name is Paolo Perucci. I come from Prioli Venezia Giulia region and I'm involved in broadband connectivity projects. Hi, my name is Al Capuz. I'm from the Netherlands and I'm the Youth Ambassador for Internet Governance and here I'm responsible for the Youth DIC logistics. Good morning everybody. My name is Arnold van Rijn. I'm from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy of the Netherlands and I was host team lead for Eurotik 2019. So good morning everybody. I'm Polina Maler from Centre, an association representing European country co-top-level domain registries and this is my first planning preparatory meeting at Eurotik. As of this year I'm a subject matter expert in technical and operational issues. Good morning. My name is Ross Krillman. I'm from the European Telecommunication Network Operators Association at NOE. Hello everyone. I'm also from Internet Society. We've been supporting Eurotik for quite a long time and also along with Frederick we are the SMEs for access and literacy track. Yeah, good morning. Uriel Lansipura from the Finnish chapter of the Internet Society. I've been with the Eurotik, active in Eurotik since the very beginning, 2008 and now I am one of the so-called subject matter experts responsible for media and content. Jaco Matsoone from the European Broadcasting Union. We are also a member of the Association of the Veterans and we are here to support and represent also Rai that today cannot join this meeting unfortunately. Good morning. My name is Jan Erpkut. I'm the subject matter expert for human rights and data protection. My focus is blockchain and GDPR. I'm researching at the University of Geneva and also an independent consultant. Hi everyone. My name is Gergana Petrova. It's my first Eurotik meeting. I work at RIPE NCC. Sorry, first Eurotik prep meeting. I've been attending Eurotik I think for the last four years. I work at RIPE NCC, which is the regional Internet registry for Europe, the Middle Eastern parts of Central Asia. What else can I share? I'm also involved with CEDIC, the Southeast Europe Dialogue and Internet Governance. I will let Chris, my colleague, tell you more about RIPE NCC. I think I'm lost. Hi. My name is Chris Buckridge. I work for the RIPE NCC. We've been an institutional partner for Eurotik I think since the beginning. I'm also part of the Eurotik Association Board. I'm looking forward to the day. Chris is also part of the IGF and ICANN multistakeholder band, of course. Aren't we all? Hello, I'm Reinhard Rodewald. I try to moderate the remote participants and I'm working for Eurotik Secretariat. And also... Is it working? Yes, of course. Is it working? Yes. Okay. And also welcome from my side, Sandra Hoferich, Secretary General of Eurotik. And I would also take the pleasure to introduce rather quickly our remote participants. We have around 15 people joining us online. We will not ask them to introduce themselves because that might take too long with connecting, disconnecting, or remote participants are invited to speak up. But I will quickly read who is online, which is Amali Desilva-Michel, which is Andrew Kempling, Anna Karbona, someone who calls itself a pastorino. Then we have Gonzalo from Telefonica, Loreen Rava from IEEE. Hang on. Michael Occia, everyone probably knows him. Minda Moreia, someone who calls... Ah, I think that's Marine Nemi Marquess from Orange. Natya, I guess Natya Tiaia, exactly. Olga, I could imagine Olga Kisarillik, but I'm not 100% sure. Someone calls itself Tom Pak. Vittorio Bertola, someone on the phone line. And that's it. And I would already like to encourage the remote participants to introduce themselves when they are willing to speak. Thank you. Thank you, Sandra. So, as I said before, we've had a very interesting year. Last year with a few important things that have happened that have, hopefully, positive impact on the discussion of the Internet and digital governance in the world and also in Europe and thus also on this euridic that we are having in Chester in June. One thing, of course, is the report of the high-level panel of the UN Secretary General. That is the first panel that the UN Secretary General set up on this issue, which has issued a number of interesting recommendations that have been intensely debated since the publication of that report in June last year. We were the first ones actually euridic to start an open discussion process online that has then been picked up by others. There have been a number of discussion moments on this report since then, in particular, of course, also at the Internet Governance Forum, the IGF in Berlin, that took place in November. That was a very big event, very well-organized, well-prepared for a long time by the Germans. And it showed also the numbers of participation that are still going up and significantly been going up in the last years that there is a need for a dialogue on a number of aspects of Internet and digital governance and cooperation. At the same time, it was also clear that was one of the points of the report that dialogue in itself is not enough. We also need to act, we need to be able to act. And one of the key gaps that the report identified is, to some extent, missing link between expert dialogue like what you have at an IGF or at a euridic and the political and economical decision makers, which normally act in their silos, in their circles, that they consult, but sometimes disconnected, not just to scientists, but also to other kinds of experts, to civil society, to economic actors that are not part of the core of the decision-making circles. And this is one of the things that we as a Swiss government, and I'm now speaking from that perspective, hope that the report will help on global level and also on European level to better bring together the different communities to make the discussion more inclusive, but not just the discussion, but to make sure that all voices are heard, many decisions are taken, and the signals, I think, are very positive in that regard, that people want to continue to develop these processes in a way that decision-making improves, that decision-making is more agile, more inclusive, and of course our hope and expectation is that euridic will be another milestone on the European level in not just improving and having a dialogue, but also getting decision makers closer to the ones that actually know what they are talking about. And one of the important elements of the IGF last year in Berlin was the fact that they managed to bring in 150 parliamentarians from all over the world to the IGF to listen to and discuss these issues, that we are more familiar normally people like us than the parliamentarians, and of course we hope that that is also an incentive and a wake-up call to not just the parliamentarians from Europe that have been at the IGF, but that we managed also to get parliamentarians to trace it, to discuss this, let's say, European Digital and Internet Policy and Governance and Cooperation. So this is basically what we hope to achieve with euridic this year, and we have a little bit of time. I think the length of the session on the website is a mistake, so it doesn't last until 10, but it lasts until the coffee break starts at 10.30, we have like 40, 35 minutes to discuss our expectations, also in particular, of course, of the host, and we've already heard some elements. What do we want euridic to achieve this year, so that we have a little bit of a sense of do we want the same, and if so, how do we get there? So let me open up the floor to all of you and tell us what you expect. Where are you here, those online and those physically present? Thank you. Which mechanism for euridic or the high-level panel? High-level panel. I'm still connected. Yeah, there was a request from the floor to know a little bit more about how the high-level panel follow-up is working. Well, it's a UN process, so things are never really clear and communication is always a little bit of a challenge, but for those who are not, we are fortunately quite close because we've been one of the key initiators of the panel. There are five recommendations with separate recommendations. Some of the recommendations have an A, B, and C. Four of them are substantive recommendations on connectivity, development issues, human rights issues, security issues, artificial intelligence is also something that is present in the report, of course. And then recommendation number five is more about the architecture of the current system, ecosystem of cooperation but also of governance of digital issues. And what the UN has done after the publication of the report, they have set up or invited teams to be set up that will discuss, focus on each one on one of the recommendations and try to see to what extent and how they could be implemented. And so they designated one or two or three champions, so-called champions for every of these recommendations. And the champions are supposed to lead and facilitate the discussion on each of these recommendations. And then there's an open list for supporters or members of these teams. I don't remember the exact name, so whatever recommendation or substance you're interested in joining the discussion and the action on implementing it, you can always contact and you find the information on the IGF website but also on the digitalcooperation.org website which is the website of the high-level panel. So you can join these teams and collaborate and people have asked to organize a number of roundtables and conferences to discuss the recommendations and to discuss where people agree, where people disagree, where there's a willingness to implement. And for instance, right now this week from Tuesday to today there has been and is the IGF Open Consultation meeting in Geneva that is starting to prepare the next IGF that will take in Poland in November this year. And as a part of this, my government together with the IGF chair has organized a freehouse discussion on Tuesday this week on recommendation five which is the one that we think is the most important, is how to further develop the architecture of digital cooperation and digital governance. So there are some indications on the websites about how to organize, anybody is free to organize discussions on the recommendations of the high-level panel and in case of recommendation five where the German government and the UAE government is the so-called champion, they have set up a website. Excellent. They have set up a website where they list all the events, all the discussions that they themselves or others organize about implementation of recommendation five. They collect summaries of all the discussions. They try to basically moderate a decentralized and inclusive debate. This is not the example of recommendation five. Others do it the similar way. It's a little bit complex because they really try to be inclusive and decentralized but they do in that case that the German and the UAE government with the support of the IGF secretariat and some UN people in New York, they try to the best to really get the discussion around the world and then see where things are going. I don't remember now what the next milestones are but of course in Euridic we'll somehow, one way or another, also discuss this probably and then of course the IGF in Poland will be another big moment for this but there may be things that happen in between and for those that are not familiar with the recommendation five its main element is that it proposes not to create any new institution, new UN or other institution to deal with digital issues but to basically connect, better connect existing institutions be it governmental, intergovernmental or private sector or tech institutions into horizontal networks that cooperate on a voluntary basis to solving concrete issues in a multidisciplinary, multistakeholder way so that's the core of the logic that has been quite well received and so a lot of things are going on and one of the elements is also to try and map and bring people together that are already working on issues instead of creating new institutions to use the existing mechanisms but connect them in a way that they allow for holistic and more inclusive outcomes so Sandra has also some information on this. Thank you Thomas, this is really brand new information since the IGF Open Consultation and the MAC meeting is still going on I've been there and the German government represented this website which has the name global-cooperation.digital it's on I think the beginning of the week and you might remember that we had this consultation process among European stakeholders on this high level report and one of the outcomes which came out at the IGF was that it's important that the national and regional IGFs are represented in this process that is following now in order to come up with really recommendations and a way forward and I was really, really positively surprised that the champions team, the German government and the government of the United Emirates already took up to include national and regional IGFs they already included it into their plans of activities and you will find that on the website under follow-up and roadmap and those who were present at the IGF consultation now agreed already that the regional IGFs namely the Asia-Pacific IGF, the Arab IGF, the West Africa or the Africa IGF, the Southeastern European Dialogue and Internet Governance, the Eurodig that I forget anyone and we will also talk to the Latin American IGF that was not present but we have good connections to Raul Echiberia for instance that we will try to help and facilitate this process together with the German government and the UAE government to at least fulfill this part of the consultation process of grassroots consultation leveraging national and regional IGFs so this was one concrete outcome already from this IGF consultation that we had and basically I am very happy that we are already this far and that this was taken up that national and regional IGFs will play an important role in this process when we discuss the program later on we should think how this will be reflected in our Eurodig program, absolutely Arnold van Rijn, Netherlands Government Thank you for this information regarding where we stand with respect to the report I think it is crucial that the UN must open its windows fully to let all the stakeholders be part of this important process we are a bit worried because we heard the French and I think it was the UK delegate in Berlin stating that this is quite an intransparent process but we are advancing, I mean it is getting better and I really applaud the suggestion and the proposal by the German champion of this recommendation 5AB to set up this website with a timetable what is going to be next we try to be on board as the Netherlands Government but unfortunately with respect to this recommendation it is not yet there but we are working on that with the Executive Office of the Secretary General the Netherlands as you know is a long standing support or financial supporter of the IGF I have personally been a MAC member for 3 years and we would like to be a part of that process we even have submitted a paper regarding our views on what is going to be the future architecture structure of this governance of the internet we are also involved in the cyber security track we are a co-champion and also a key constituent with respect to human rights but we would like preferably to be on board with respect to internet governance so coming back to the explanation where we stand I have a question you mentioned Thomas roundtables and I am a bit puzzled it is very good to have these roundtables but there will be virtual roundtables how is going to be set up how can we be involved in these roundtables? Yes, thank you Arnold I tell you everything I know because as everybody knows it is not so easy and the information is not necessarily given all at once people at the UN themselves they don't really have a clear idea but what we know and I think what should also be on the website and what is in some communication of the UN again their idea is that there should be a global decentralized discussion about all the recommendations and the way the Germans and the UAE do it they invite everybody to organize events they call it roundtables you may call it conference or meeting or whatever so roundtable is just a name for a meeting that is my understanding it is just a name for a meeting that anybody can organize whether you are an NRI or a government or whatever you may organize a meeting in the Netherlands with all stakeholders to discuss the implementation of the models of recommendation 5 that is it there is no specific connotation to how exactly a roundtable should look like it is just a name for that they chose to communicate that whatever you organize is welcome and they are interested in hearing about the results that will then be collected it will be announced on the website before and then there will be a summary of what you deliver on the website so this is at least my understanding of the process Thank you Thomas in addition to that I think from the regional perspective there is certainly a role for Eurodik to come forward with if possible a message I mean Marcovel did a wonderful job by compiling all the different views from the Eurodik community members and perhaps that is one point we could take up in June as well when we have this wonderful meeting here in Trieste It is another speaking again just one thing I would like to mention is a nice coincidence but not so coincidental I would say if you look at our overarching team of last year's Eurodik cooperating in a digital age which was so timely having it at the Netherlands and then put it into context with this high level report and now moving forward to work towards our this year's more towards sustainable governance of the internet I really think that we are now at the stage to bring, not to have one event but really to make a flow of events and connect the dots a little bit more this was as I remember one of the demands that we had in the past that we really should make connect one event with the other and I think with this year and with this report and with our inter-sessional work we really achieve this goal and we are on the way of getting closer to that Just a question about the timetable or timeline here the I am looking at this at the timeline here on the German website and in April should be already the transmission of results of key constitutions led by consultations and other initiatives and then end of June the co-champions draft options paper circulated to key constitutions in other words if we have your league in the beginning of June where do we fit in this process? Maybe we have a new important person that joined us so let us quickly give the floor to Fantinati to quickly present himself because we already presented each and everybody just said Thank you very much, good morning all of you, I am not an important person I am sorry for being in the I really thought that it was at 10 No problem I am sorry I am a member of the House of Representatives of the Italian Parliament and I have been recently appointed as a special advisor of the new ministry, the Italian Ministry of Digitalization and Innovation and I saw the way the new minister named Paola Pisano is really she is really interested in a new activity of the IGF I am sorry, we have been set up and this ministry has three months of live and so we have a lot of things to do and a lot to be involved Honestly I really think welcome to the party, first of all and I am very proud that the next Erodege will be in Italy I think that it doesn't count if it is Italy or if it is any other country of the Europe or of the world but I think that in a sort of way a strategy of internet and all the information technology subject is needed so we have to discuss because the information technology topics transform our society and we have to develop our strategy because I do know that it's a transformation can bring a lot of new opportunity but also rise some concerns and now we have to discuss about them in I see the point of view of the citizens and of the people it's really important as European commission has done to put the people in the centre of development and the approach of human centre approach and the approach of in a sort of legal and ethical framework and it's really really important because in a sort of way if the citizens have the technology I think that it's sort of a win with strategy and companies, institutions, cities and our private and professional lives I think can be improved otherwise it would be a problem so I think that we have a really important liability of that and I think that we are going to do our best thank you very much we have 15 minutes left for other expectations and views Chris from RIPE NCC, sorry we have only one mic so you need to pass it on one everyone will help us thank you thank you, good morning I'm just going to sit down I don't think I need to stand up here just sort of to getting back to the very broad question of expectations about this and I think there's been some really good points made and I think Sandra your points about the link between past events and this event and the theme for this event is very important I think actually even in the time since the September planning meeting that idea of a sustainable model is something that's gained even more sort of relevance and centrality to sort of the global discussion of relevance but more broadly in terms of expectations and how we look at what we want this event to produce or how it should operate I think one of the really key aspects for me of a sustainable approach is an approach that produces some practical outcomes and some practical suggestions or ways forward so I hope that as we develop the program and as we look at different kinds of events there is a real focus on coming out of this discussion or this session or this workshop what is the practical outcome is there a sort of clear next step or can we sort of look at trying to identify where this issue that we're discussing can be resolved do we need to take it to governments or does it need to go to a certain technical forum or does it need to go somewhere else how can, what is the solution space I guess for any of these issues that we discuss here so I think that bringing it back to some sort of practicality some sort of way forward from this because I think Eurodig and many of the other IGF events in a way we can see them as a clearing house kind of events sorry, of issues we get a huge diversity of different issues different problems that relate to the internet and how we use them but these kind of internet governance events are not the place to solve those problems they're the place to better identify what the issue is what the problem is and work out where the next step is or what the next step would be to actually find a sustainable solution to those problems so yeah, I think it's important to really keep that in mind as we develop the program and as we develop the sessions themselves we do have a raised hand by Andrea Campbell I give him the floor good morning everyone, can you hear me okay? yes, perfect marvellous what I wanted to share was I think one thing in particular that I want to be is really important which will be a fantastic outcome would be to see if there's a way of solving the current vacuum in the complete lack of any policy governance on the internet there are lots of groups like the ITF that have a very technical focus on how things develop but at the moment there's no policy governance so the technical groups are making decisions and effectively setting policy direction without necessarily the right diversity enough group of stakeholders involved in those decisions and arguably without really the right skill sets and capabilities to make the decisions so a fantastic outcome for me would be to actually find a solution to that and see if there's a way to actually set up proper policy governance for the internet thank you thank you for this intervention that's noted thank you so I am here because I have difficulties to understand why on one hand we see all this applause and support for the dialogue between decision makers and the technical communities in the other stakeholders or as Thomas I think put it a couple of minutes ago that the people who know what they are technically talking about or the people who know how things run while on the other side I see that we have a flow of legislation at least in my country which is 100% emotions based far away from evidence based policy making and that may or may not be restricted to the internet governance but let's focus on that for a moment so the question is where is this cognitive dissonance coming from so what's the issue here how can we bring this in line and how can we actually have an effect on what is happening on a national or maybe even on a European basis when it comes to regulation or attempts of regulation we see increasing attempts to make infrastructure providers responsible for content and content regulation is the thing that is all over the place in combination with the other elephant in the room which is cross border law enforcement and I don't get this in line with all the applause about the nice continuation of the dialogue and so on and so forth and maybe people can enlighten me on that and we can find try to frame sessions that actually drill down into this and make a more stressful maybe dialogue but the dialogue between the different stakeholders and between the different parties rather than keeping that in silos not saying that that is always happening at Euridic there are worse examples but getting a bit more steam in the pot so to speak thank you thank you I see Frederick Doug thank you very much so thank you hello can you hear me yes I can I don't know ladies first we have Frederick and then the lady online ok sorry hello we just want to present we are on behalf of the Ministry of Economic Development just to present ourselves we leave the floor ok hello ok you please go ahead thank you so the government is eye-tracking the Euridic process obviously thank you exactly so Frederick Doug again from the Intent Society thank you Peter for injecting something as did Chris by the way something that we can completely achieve here and now I believe indeed that there are conversations that Thomas introduced that is our relations to the governments as such I believe that is an issue that might be addressed during the Euridic in a particular session of course but our role here to me would be really what we can decide here we want to achieve during the next Euridic and I believe we need to be very concrete so there were suggestions from Peter that I fully support I believe we still have elephant in the rooms cross-border issues at European level that we need to address that is critical Thomas mentioned that we need to focus on the relevance of being decentralized and I like this because I find myself here in Trieste in this wonderful place and I'm surrounded by a lot of experts of infrastructure to network and I would like to leverage this there is a lot of conversations that need to have that consistent how could we really play the role that we want to play and that is connecting the people and we are surrounded by a lot of people working there so I would really suggest that we leverage this ability this is how also we can use Euridic we go in places where you have experts that can bring something based on the local experience so I would really like to also leverage this local experience thank you Gino Franco please if you want we had a remote participant trying to speak before now we can hear you just to introduce ourselves we are on behalf of the Ministry of Economic Development speaking from the general direction on ICT technologies to say that we leave the floor good morning good morning you have the floor if you want to just take it and take your chance and make yourself known just we would like to listen a little bit the issues that you are already started to speak about and then we will ask you to say something about our propositions about the categories but we can speak also after a few minutes to do this after the coffee break all right so we have three four minutes left then there will be a coffee break from 10 30 to 11 and then we can start with you so this is very welcome so we have two speakers here in the room and Andrea Bicali online that are in the list of speakers thank you Olivier since you have the microphone thank you Thomas Olivier Crepanablon yeah I've grabbed the mic just two things I'm looking forward for this Euridic the first one is to keep things to keep the sessions very practical and don't delve too much into the theory of things I think what speaks to the audience is what it means for everyday end users what does it mean for people that use the internet and that's of course going across all of the different fields of all the different topics that we have so the consequences, the impact that it has on internet users and of course I'm saying this because of my Uralo affiliation that provides the input from internet end users into the ICANN processes but secondly also I think it's important that we also have a very strong European perspective in our discussions because the debate globally often seems to be somehow more US centric actually there's like a polarization it's either US centric or centric on the rest of the world but Europeans really as we know are one block and of course here I'm speaking about someone who lives in the United Kingdom and we need to be very as a group very much involved in developing common European policy and perspectives and then also be able to bring this over to the global IGF and of course I'm well aware that Europe is a very diverse block and this is why we need to have that discussion from our different corners of Europe thank you my name is Al Capals from Netherlands and what I saw in the program is that there are a lot of categories however looking at them I don't see a real trend in also the educational and digital skills I guess we can maybe add a category to that also referring to the statement of Olivier that we can also focus more on the end user instead of the bigger picture I'm told Andrea Bikali first online and then then also Uri and then I think we need to close for the moment good morning can I go ahead yes please good morning this is Andrea Bikali from ICANN unfortunately I've been mandated not to travel by the doctor which looks like the only way that you can avoid traveling in ICANN so I wish I was able to be there with you but I'll be following today and what we'd like to achieve and it's very timely because we just finished a two day retreat here in Brussels ICANN and we had a lot of discussion on how the internet landscape is changing from the policy to the business to the public sentiment across the globe opening Europe also so I would really like to see to achieve that Euridic becomes the recognized part where all the stakeholders in Europe but really all the stakeholders and that's I would like to stress come to discuss you know what is what do we want and how we can achieve that from the European standpoint there are a lot of initiatives and you might be well aware of the priorities of this new commission that just started so there is a new European Parliament it is the turn of the new decade so there are many signs where we can work on a clean slate and my fear is that Euridic that already has how many years in 2008 so more than 10 years of history is not part of this discussion it is not seen as part of the discussion and that would be really a shame because you know we have as a community a lot of to contribute we have a lot of history we have principles experience with a multi-stakeholder model but we are seeing that governments at the European level, at the national level they are doing more and more legislation, regulation on several issues of the internet and without really realizing that there is an internet governance debate going on or realizing that but thinking that that's not the place to have these things done because in this far it's only talking and talking we see that the global level the global IGF is getting the attention and the political support from the highest level from the UN Secretary General from the heads of state I would like to see the same at the next Euridic so we would like to see commissioners coming and presenting their plans which policies and initiatives if they are discussing new strategies for the governance of the internet or to not be taking on issues like what happens with the GDPR where we have been discussing issues about privacy and protection of personnel that was for many years and then suddenly we see that there was no really consultation, no real multi-stakeholder model being implemented in that and we see the result of that so just to conclude that the Euridic this time it is seen as the starting point and the connection the main node of a network of policies and new regulations probably new standards and new technical evolution that I'm sure we would see in the next decade and so that's a conclude and I hope it can be as useful as I can remotely. Thank you Thank you Andrea, next is Giacomo I want to go in same direction of what has been told by others, we have a unique opportunity and I think a duty that is to try to address the policy at the very beginning of the new legislation in the European Parliament is a unique opportunity this new commission and this new parliament are willing to do some things in this direction it seems there are human material that is very good and they can make important changes and I think that our role as Euridic is to try to give them ideas of what can be done I also remember that if we look at the other European institution we are looking at that is the Council of Europe we will have just few weeks before us the free recommendation that are expected to be approved by the Council of Ministers of Media that are most of them in our field because one is about artificial intelligence in the media sector and so I think that we have a lot on which we can build and I think that we have to shape the program in a way that could influence that this is what they expect from us that we give ideas not only ideas but ideas around which we can structure consensus or simply identify where we are fractured line so that the legislator can intervene and I think that this is also in the interest of the Italian government if they want to play a role in this European arena thank you thank you Eurya I think what you said is very important also in the view that the EU is now trying to put together this new digital services act but what I wanted to say actually was about continuity that is to say every year we produce messages and documentation on the Eurya again then we start planning for the new one and perhaps it would be we could make an effort to take into account better what we were talking about last year and especially the focal points and also subject matter export actually try to see how things have developed from the last year to get some sort of more continuity in the process usually we always say that no this is not a series of unconnected annual events this is a process and perhaps we could try to make it more a process in these various areas which we follow from year to year thank you Eurya so we have one last very short please intervention from you and then we go for just a little sort I think we are not alone anymore all society is talking about digital governance and therefore we have to focus more on specific points where we can move things where we need to connect interests so I would argue for a more focused approach compared to an approach where nobody was talking about and where we had to educate in a very broad manner thank you thank you so much Sandra has taken note of what you said and put up a list of bullet points trying to capture this maybe just one word from my side the same discussion was held also in Geneva on Tuesday and yesterday on expectations on the IGF and basically the answers went into a similar direction a better linkage of thematic linkages also of the sessions and workshops while the IGF is bigger so they try to have more identified thread with a clearer focus as the last speaker said in 10-15 years time the issues were all new so it was more like a first raising awareness exercise now people are much more familiar with the issues with the challenges so we should maybe be less general and focus more on less issues but more specific issues of course then the question is which ones are the priority issues and that is normally the challenge to focus more solution oriented that is something that was also heard at the IGF and that the threat that the meetings and the sessions are better connected this is of course all easily said and less easily done because it's not always the same people but I think that's one of the messages that we've heard and that the focal points in the social the subject matter experts will take note of and will try to implement as good as they can with this just to say to say to sentences about the bullets that she did and then we go for coffee in the tradition of the IGF I took notes of what I heard from you and I would like to ask you if you agree with what's there or if you disagree with one point if I misinterpretated some some things then let me know because otherwise this will be the secretariat's guideline to prepare next year zero dick so sorry this year so raise your hand if you have concerns if something was missed if something was misinterpreted because this is our roadmap we'll leave it here during the coffee break so you can also you can also come after the coffee break in order not to delay things so this if that's okay this is it so also let's keep that in mind when we have the discussion on the program later on we send the documents or we provided the documents on our website it's really important that you possibly have them either on your computer or we will try to enlarge them as big as possible on the screen so that you really have depth insight in what has been proposed and how we get a focus program I said already in the invitation that the program this time is less finished then we presented it in the past so there is more work to do for you here and we hope with this approach we get a more focused and better program than in the past and now we have we are running late already 10 minutes we have 30 30 minutes coffee break so for those connected remotely we will now put our bathing swimsuits on and jump into the sea which is like the sea from us so we will be back once we are dry thank you Hello can you hear me this is the channel Sorina can you hear me Yes I can and I hope you can hear me as well I can hear you and you will be here to wire the loudspeaker too Excellent thank you Okay let's continue thank you very much for being back on time we left this bullet points on the screen and at least we have one feedback from the remote participant from Andrew Kampling the one who was talking to us earlier he would like to extend the last bullet point to more focused approach leading to action I think that's a good final bullet point and I will include that here as we speak and ask you again if you have anything to add if you are still in agreement with it otherwise we would share Thank you it will be very quick so you think sessions that I attended they were quite brilliant so when forming the sessions we always take care that we have gender balance geographic events and everything and I think we should be considered towards some sort of age balance as well because those people are quite brilliant and some people don't really know what is the discussion so age balance so we should make sure that we have youth participation in the sessions because they are super knowledgeable and they are refreshing absolutely point taken and we have two that are responsible for youth participation, Auke and Elisabeth yeah I will take that into account and also one more point is maybe because we are here in Trieste we have more participants as a speaker instead of the usual suspects that would be my hope too unfortunately I must say we have very few locals here today apart from those that we already knew there we hope we will be better in reaching out when the event is on just a short comment on that we had a meeting on Monday with local community and we had local participation from the regional government the municipality we had university CISA we had civil protection so that was well attended so I think it was maybe a bit late for people to apply for today's meeting but I am positive about local participation very good and also in the planning process I mean this open concept is not so usual for everyone so they have to learn about it and get them on board during the planning process Roberto? Just one remark a lot of the local participant because of the hosting organizations that is more oriented to academics and the research and so on will be participating more if there are some topics that are addressing this items of interest I saw there are several in the proposed items but I think that if we want more participation from locals we need to also give a certain importance to the topics that are of interest of this type of participant thank you I encourage you as well as the other host organizations to fight for these local topics when we discuss the proposals and the program in a short while anyone else that would like to add I think we have a remote we have Michael Hi everyone good morning and it's a pleasure to join remotely thank you again obviously for having this capacity everyone basically I just want to add one thing to this list that's not there already and that's connecting to the existing intersessional activities of the IGF I think Euridig does this really well in general but this is really more of a call to action let's say for especially the organizing teams one thing that we discussed during the DC the annual DC meeting or the annual meeting of the dynamic coalitions at the IGF November was the need to connect with one another more so to really kind of coordinate our work and kind of limit and kind of find where that overlap is and work together and I think that we need to extend that to the NRIs as well in terms of how the dynamic coalitions work so you know basically if for instance what this looks like to me in my head would be that given how the program shapes and kind of eventually forms where are the basically asking especially the organizing teams to to see where those connections to existing work already exist and maybe kind of encourage collaboration there so I think that's again that's something that Euridig does well and I think that we can build on an already good existing practice thank you okay thank you very much Michael I've taken note of that and with this I think our list is more or less complete but of course it's not finished I mean nothing is carved in stone we can still add something at the end of the meeting since we are running a bit short of time and some of our subject matter experts are not be able to be with us because of heavy agenda conflicts I would like to proceed with the results from the call for issues that will lead us to a hopefully good program as I said already in the past we came up with an almost finished program put that up for discussion and there was more or less kind of agreement because nothing was really wrong but we had the feeling that if we leave it a little bit more unfinished we might get new input and be able to have a little bit more focus program and therefore we will start with a very empty program structure and also not only an empty program structure but also a program structure that is a little bit different than in the past taking into account the feedback that we got in particular from last year so again we will have a U-Stick from the 8-10 June this U-Stick program will be organized by former U-Stick participants under the leadership of Elisabeth for all programming matters she will represent or will take care of it from the secretariat side and Auke will be responsible for all the logistics choosing participants and so on and so forth but this will be a collaborative effort where Rainer and myself from the secretariat do not really interfere this is actually self organized for former U-Stick participants which is I think a great achievement then we foresee for day 0 again half day of sessions where we offer the rooms to organizations for free where dynamic coalitions for instance can meet where we will have the NRI assembly but also where we could invite the team, the champions around recommendation 5A and B from the high level report to host a session and that leads to the results that they are planning to present in August so that would be also something for day 0 at the IGF meeting in Geneva I got already confirmation from the child online safety dynamic coalition that they would like to organize a dynamic coalition meeting on day 0 I also spoke to the dnsi dynamic coalition that are also considering doing it again I did it in The Hague I'm not yet quite sure about the IOT dynamic coalition because Martin Boderman the former chair changed because he is now a member of the board so we have to see with the new chair if he or she is planning to continue with that but you will see some other pre-event slots are still open but I get constantly requests from people telling me personally I want to have a day 0 slot so I can reserve some to you but we can collect all this but mainly those day 0 slots are taking rather quickly and they are assigned on a first come first serve basis on the day 1 we propose a slightly different structure we would propose to start at 9 o'clock with workshops and have sort of a welcome and opening plenary after the first coffee break we had this issue last year that people were stuck in traffic due to thunderstorm or whatsoever and the commissioner and the state secretary was speaking in front of an empty room although during the day all participants came this was very unfortunate as well as for organizers as well as for the speaker and we would like to avoid this and hope that people do all the efforts to be ready and be in time for a workshop they are responsible for so we think starting with a workshop convening having a coffee and then going to a welcome and to an opening plenary would be a better approach to do it IGF is basically doing it similar they also start with welcoming in the middle of the day and not in the morning then we are considering two opportunities whether to have a lunch break as usual or not to have a lunch break because this year there will be a different process in terms of catering usually catering was served in one central place and there was one or two hours where participants could grab food this year we have a huge but very nice cafeteria with good food for a decent price and we will ask participants to self cater so to go and buy to the cafeteria and buy their food themselves not only between one or two hours where the cafeteria is open they have a longer window of opportunity to grab some food we were discussing Raina and myself if we skip a lunch break and leave it to the participants to find any time of the day or if we offer a lunch break where everyone then goes possibly to a cafeteria we still believe that a lunch break is good because otherwise we would lose a lot of networking opportunities if participants don't have one time where they can meet while queuing for the food or whatsoever and have this discussion that's why we propose to stick to our one and a half our lunch break and then continue with workshops then we have another coffee break a possibility for another keynote and then a closing plenary we also propose that we might do a wrap up of day one we have this live reporting from the Geneva internet platform and it might be a good opportunity to bring together even all the messages and short reports that are prepared in time to look at them at the end of the day so that those who could not attend any other session are at least informed what has been discussed that's also up for discussion another new element is that we have the plenary room as a room where we will have presentations what we so called flash sessions and they have been in a room somewhere at the end of the corridor with no remote participation we suggest to move these slots either we call them flash or we find another word but we propose to move them to the main plenary room and this is not only a matter of optimizing the program it's also a matter of our room logistics because the workshop rooms at least three of them are very small and we would not be able to accommodate all the people in the workshop rooms so therefore we hope that some people could stay in the plenary room but we do not want to have more extensive, lengthy plenaries but we would rather propose to have small slots of 10 20, 30 minutes where people from the local community people from the global community can present projects legislations that's going on in their country put that up for discussion companies can present a product so that we invite more communities for the big stage that is basically one of the biggest changes that we propose in the previous program less plenaries, shorter plenaries only 60 minutes more workshops we would extend from 12 to 16 workshops and short presentation type of events in the main plenary room and if this finds if this new concept finds agreement we would basically suggest to do the same program structure on the second day I will leave you a minute with this rough program structure but due to time constraints hand over to Tatjana Tropina because she has to run she is one of our subject meta experts that is reviewing the category of security we received 18 proposals in this category and I would now give the floor to Tatjana and then come back to this program structure before we go to the other subject meta experts Tatjana, you have the floor please Hi everyone for those who don't know me Tatjana Tropina assistant professor at Leiden University currently Sandra, do you want me to start the video? That would help Super, then I will just do it sorry I am from my university room and sorry for the hassle that you didn't have time to discuss the structure of the program because of me I have to admit that I do like this new more flexible structure and I do like the idea of having more workshop and shorter planaries and also I do like the fact that to follow this new structure we were given the possibility to ditch some of the proposals which we didn't find relevant or did find repetitive or didn't find interesting enough because for the last three or four years I have always been struggling with repetitive issues being submitted and always trying to find the common ground or common angle and mixing and matching them and now I didn't have to do this and that significantly I believe significantly improved the quality of clustering the proposals I will start with those which I did not I did not find interesting or relevant there is always a number of online hatred and online hate speech and online violence and terrorism and so on submit to the cyber security drug I do believe that they rather should go in media category because this is where all the fake news online content regulation debate usually took place so I basically didn't cluster them as security although if we want them to be somewhere in between of course we can always cluster the proposals on those developments into one truck and make it sort of interdisciplinary there are of course number of proposals on the child safety I heard Sandra already mentioning dynamic coalition this issue and I believe that whatever whatever they have this might fit there or alternatively perhaps proposals like cyber security classroom for kids might probably deserve a flash session if the submitters are willing to do this some of the proposals were irrelevant or repetitive from the last year for example there was a proposal which again talking about cyber security and collaboration multi-stakeholder approach and all these important things which in the context of where we discuss them from various angles sound a bit bloody to blood to me and a very strange proposal which was talking about stopping the child industry extortion coercion and trade of child labor and anything you can imagine terrible about this world wasn't this proposal but I wasn't really sure how it was related to your I'm sorry submitter is in the room or listening to the or listening to this meeting not the best part of all this what I did find interesting I did cluster them initially into four clusters but now I think that some of those might be removed from the clusters for example I found two very different but very interesting proposals both of them submitted under the umbrella of DNS and cyber security but one of them was more narrow is DNS abuse and icon facilitation center for DNS ecosystem and right now when I look at all these I do believe that this probably deserves a flush because this is a bit too narrow and then the cluster one can rely on the proposal about DNS over HTTPS and the influence of these new technologies DOH DOT on the entire system of IG and security issues I believe that this is a very topical issue and this might might make it a very interesting session but I know that DNS over HTTPS has already gained some attention during the heuridic and the Hague but I also think that the focus here is a bit different it is more about influencing the entire cyber security ecosystem and IG as a whole so I will leave it up to the community to decide what to do with this and if we can build the entire workshop based on one proposal and also a remark here that if we are going to convert it into a workshop indeed we really have to have a strong focal point for this so unless the submitter of this proposal is willing unless the submitter of this proposal is willing to I'm sorry please close the door sorry for this unless the submitter of this proposal is willing to take up the responsibility as a focal point and I wouldn't really recommend to make it at the workshop because we need a strong lead on this and now I'm trying to be a bit quicker because I see that I'm taking a bit more time than I thought I would but digital crime and law enforcement several very good proposals and right now Europe is indeed struggling in these trans setting and legal arm race on electronic evidence I do believe that this is a very important topic it should be there we could find good speakers and strong leads on this topic however however leads it has to make it a bit different from the last year workshop although I do think that last year workshop on electronic evidence and you new directive on this might be interesting to sort of continue the discussion or at least built upon what we discussed last year so I would say that the digital crime and law enforcement should be a workshop maybe to provide for the continuity we have to have the previous focal point involved into the preparation of this one I believe that this will serve this particular track this particular topic the best and it also I didn't understand the tracks fully I have to admit but to me this fits into the track of digital cooperation and law proposals which I found a bit less sort of on the high priority but still very interesting so I did cluster them they were very interesting proposals on development of the 5G and networks infrastructures and technologies and how do they perceived by individuals well how individuals can prevent the risk of becoming victims how do we also collect this information I saw that one of the proposals was distributed to me about how we actually assess those risks how do we assess those risks on individuals and I think that together they can be combined probably into the risks of new technologies and risk assessment and the user experience so make it more human centric than technology centric because we know from the past the technical sessions and cyber security are perceived as a bit mere among the audience because we have mostly the governance people so the technical sessions have either to be educational or have some strong technical speakers all be more like governance and human oriented and the last cluster is cyber security and data protection of course in light of GDPR and trends in Europe we always have these issues popping up and I was wondering if these should be moved to data protection, clusters or shall we just make it an additional flash or a small workshop if we have time I'd rather make it a small session or give it to general data protection discussion if we have these under the human rights and this is all from me so any questions you might have about these clustering I'm ready to take and also on a personal note I'm very sorry that I'm missing this meeting this is, yeah, you know how much engaged I am with Eurodeag and my commitments stay the same but I have a very busy day today and tomorrow and so sorry for messing up with the program a bit and asking to put me there first, thanks a lot ready to answer any questions Thank you very much Tanja I would have a question right away maybe you try to say it already but in order to make it for the secretariat very clear and here you basically see that we are really working with the SMEs it's basically a live process so we have to ask the SMEs how they see it we suggest, the secretariat suggested after going through all this to merge one workshop from your category with one proposal from the category technical and operational issues is that something that you would basically support or where you would say no leave it as it is and don't mix it too much I would say I have to have a look again but as long as it's about DNS and they complement each other I'll be fine with this it's basic, Polina is raising her hand oh yeah I think, is it Polina who is responsible for this category I think that if she would before this I would be supporting this yeah, if it's about as far as I understand it's about DNS over HTTPS and DNS encryption so yeah, I would support to do this yeah, unless Polina is against where's the mic by the way okay, Polina raised her hand okay, yes so I just wanted to quickly try them in here on the proposal to merge some of the proposals in Tania's track to mine so when I was going through doing my clustering then I obviously also received a number of proposals related to the tensions between technical governance within the standard setting bodies and the policy objectives from the legislative perspective and obviously most of those proposals were related to the DNS over HTTPS and as indicating as one of the example of where those tensions arise so I've clustered these proposals that are primarily looking or primarily submitted from the perspective how to make sure that there is some particular legislative oversight or legislative or participation from the decision makers and policy makers in the technical bodies and I also looked into the clustering and the matrix with regards to DNS encryption and cybersecurity and I've identified two proposals that could potentially be clustered together with my cluster and so these are particularly the ones with ID40 and 45 which were also based on these tensions that there are some policy objectives that are not taken into consideration within ITF and I think the DNS abuse is a bit standalone there so I would not advocate for putting it together with the cluster on the technical governance of standard setting bodies and so I would advocate for moving to two proposals from Tania's track to mine and for the others I think we should maybe give a bit more thought because I think it's also important to look on the cybersecurity part which is not part of my proposals What I would advise if I may, I think that it happened before that we merged the proposals and make them sort of interdisciplinary inter-category I do believe that I don't know what you would like to have there if we are putting proposal 161 into technical issues more and of course, what I really thought when I read this proposal about technologies and changing the face of modern internet and their influence on governance and security I did think it would be very hard to make them purely cyber security because they have so many different companies, they have governance component, they have technical component and if we are going to discover only their influence on security well, most of them are technology for security and privacy per se, so how we are going to discuss this I would favor merging them if you rather handle this alone fine, if we want to handle this together, subject matter experts and help and focus on it fine too and DNS abuse, yes, absolutely I saw that it was already marked as flash session and I also believe that this should go additionally so I would fully, fully, fully support this, yes Okay you might see that we are going very much into detail of this proposal and I think it would help for everyone if you look at the proposals yourself so that you know what the ESMEs are talking about you have been provided all those documents on the website also the link was in the email that we sent to all participants but I think this is exactly the type of discussion that we want how to get most focused program, I think what we should do now, we park this for later, Tanya and Polina can keep this in mind we will find sharper and more focused working title for this session and which proposal, which ID goes to which session could be also resolved later on after this meeting but so that we can go with one workshop where we know okay we have a set of proposals that goes into the same direction we can bring them together, that's the focus and then we reconvene afterwards and find the particular ideas for it we have another handrails, first it's someone online and then Peter Koch Andrew Campbell, please take the floor Okay, thank you Yes, it's Andrew Campbell speaking I put into the proposals which have been picked up in this discussion about the consolidation between the two areas, one of mine was number 45 and I agree from the discussion you just had that makes good sense as part of a wider discussion the second one of mine which was number 132 I'm less convinced about because that was more to do with the impact of consolidation and centralisation which I think is a different subject which has already been picked up by the internet society over the last few months from the discussion I've just heard I think that's quite distinct from this area but I may have misunderstood what people were getting at This is Peter again First of all I thank Daniel for making the assessment especially moving DNS abuse a bit to the side I think that DNS abuse has little to do with security and little to do with DNS but as was mentioned at the previous ICANN meeting it's mostly about content control again so it should be dealt with separately so that's a perfect pick in my view and then I would like to issue a word of caution and full disclosure I've submitted a proposal around around DOH and surrounding areas as well I think it's important to really really distinguish between the different aspects we've had discussions about DOH all mixed in one before and those discussions and nowhere because it's all dominated by this completely sidetracked discussion about the effectiveness or not of filtering there are other aspects that need more a wider scope and I'd really, really urge everybody that we enable people to keep focus on the different aspects and put that in actually in different working sessions and not mix everything that looks like DOH into one, thank you There was another hand raised from remote? Yes, we told you about the law please Of course I am also one of the proposers of some of these in number 40 I think that the merger that has been proposed makes sense I think that in the end I went through also the other proposers and there are two main themes that I see around this discussion one is DOH itself which possibly deserves one session which could be the merger of these two I agree with Peter that maybe if we could separate the different sub-issues it would be good for the workshop but maybe we can just structure the workshop so that we deal with different aspects and the other aspect that I see that was raised in several proposers was basically the more general problem of the governance of the ITF and of the technical standardization activities in a way that they don't conflict with policy objectives and with other stakeholder needs non-technical stakeholder needs I think that if I get it right that this could be covered also by the second session in the development of the IT ecosystem category so I don't know if that's the intention so maybe that could be another grouping that could be called into play to discuss that part of the DOH related to proposers so I think it's the second in the orange battle on the left and maybe that could also be a solution so some of these proposers could go there and while the ones that are more related strictly speaking to DOH could go in this separate workshop there are more remote participants maybe Andrea will be coming next yes hello sorry for this closure some people coming into the office while you were discussing that at YARA maybe I can but I heard that you mentioned the DNS abuse session that I proposed and I did indeed Andrea okay good and the comment from Peter that maybe should be a content rather than security yes I see that point I put it there and without much background because that's something that within ICANN is still developing but ideally that's part of our goals in the next 5 years but ideally we would then have some more concrete real examples of implementation centered for DNS and I think this is an interesting turning point in the debate of the role of intermediaries that's been going on for some time so although I don't have yet that enough content for this session but indeed I think it is a meaningful move towards a more concerted role that the community has in tackling some issues on the internet and I would like to see the Euridic as the space where this discussion is actually happening as well and it's promoted ICANN is doing this move certainly it's a concerted move with different stakeholders with the registry and the registrars the more important community and you know maybe very well familiar with the ICANN manner but not everybody coming to Euridic and it's probably giving a session that presents what does it mean you know what it's changing in the governance landscape why ICANN is doing that and why now and what the different stakeholders that are not particularly involved in the DNS can participate to contribute so it can I don't know if a flash session would be enough to tackle of that and I'm very happy to see whether we can merge that into a larger session where the different aspects of what's happening what are the challenges and what are the internet players that I can never do to tackle those maybe that could be a better way to have that okay I see Tanya you have raised your hand is that an old hand it is it is a very new hand I'm very happy that my proposal cluster and turned into sort of almost multidisciplinary discussions unfortunately I can't address the question posed by the first speaker because there are proposals which are not mine so I wasn't responsible for distributing them several issues mostly replying to Andrea and Petr Koch Petr I do understand your concern about the DNS over HTTPS issue session to be about everything and about nothing at the end but I think that there are only you know few sessions we can actually devote to this I mean how much DOH can we have at one euro dig a big question mark so I believe that okay we can of course consider separation of those two but I also believe that those who are focal points and organizers for the session on DOH should be the agenda setters they should set the focus of the session and this is how you can basically guarantee that this session will not be about everything and nothing as to Andrea's point about ICANN and DNS abuse I think that you and Petr Koch can correct me if I misinterpreted it I think that what Petr meant when he said about content it is this tension which ICANN community considers ICANN being about narrow technical mission and almost any debate about DNS abuse will essentially go to the direction of the content regulation whether it should or not it's outside of my area of expertise here because I'm just responsible for clustering those proposals I cannot tell you what you actually have to put in the debate what you are suggesting essentially I don't know if I can and content regulation and DNS abuse and the difference between two would warrant the workshop I would say yes if we move away the DNS over HTTPS and combine okay we might have the workshop about intermediary liability and involvement in the content regulation also because and the difference between technical issues maybe there could be something built upon in this regard but first of all this proposal wasn't submitted right right so if we widen it we have to be very careful in terms of how we do not overlap anyhow with media session I don't know how much they are going to consider the upcoming European Digital Services Act where apparently these issues will be raised and intermediary liability will be raised as well maybe it will cover a bit more than the current EU Commerce Directive it is up to the EU before these ideas are just boiling so what I wanted to say I will leave it up to the community to decide if the existing proposal like this which I would definitely recommend for the flash session so Andrei I know offence because it is really too narrow if we are talking about community it is if the community decides to widen it it should be widened from ICANN more about technical security content regulation and how technical standards setting bodies are involved and how do they address these issues with then our technical mission if it is not a flash session it shouldn't be focused on ICANN only this would be my this would be my limitation I would impose here thank you very much thank you Tanya we have another hand raised from remote Kristi Wilson you have the floor please first person here on behalf of Yorua youth mental health so Yorua youth mental health is a service user group based in London and the UK but we work with people all over Europe so this is the first time I have heard of Yorua digging the programme so I am not aware of other people how it exactly works but in reading the proposals I was a bit surprised in the media and content session in the category I haven't seen a proposal focusing on like the mental health of young people and adults I saw a lot around fake news and the content that we see on the internet and how we control that but I didn't feel like it considered the impact it can have on people's health and I also think also to look at how young people and people of all ages can control what they see online and how that can also impact their health and wellbeing particularly their mental health I know previously at the beginning of the meeting you mentioned that you would like to get an age balance and make sure you also get insight from young people so I am just wondering and I might be wrong how many proposals have you got coming from young people is it totally academic and then maybe that is something to consider in future to make sure we do get that balance Tanya want to answer this sorry I would like to answer sorry sorry okay Tanya go on I would just like to answer I don't have any statistics on how many young people submit proposals about inclusion of these issues about mental health and so on we are purely community based efforts so we are clustering what we have as the subject matter expert for example and I am not a media category I am just answering for any subject matter expert here we cannot actually include I mean we can shape the focus but we cannot bring the new issues because this is up to the community and I believe that you are new here to answer your question here and next year you can always submit the proposal as to academic, non-academic I believe that most of our proposals are not submitted by academics they are submitted by community members civil society, technical community and business so I wouldn't call it academic conference at all like really at all so and here I'll I'll stop here Kristi it's I'm not speaking I also want to thank you as a first time Euro Digger to participate in the call for issues but also in this planning meeting and I'm totally happy that you raised those questions first of all I know there is at least one proposal that goes into online addiction I think it even came from a proposal from a proposal here in the room Auke can possibly speak about it later that might go into the direction and the other issues that you raised basically belong to the category media and we will come to that later today and hopefully you can stay online so then when the discussion is more focused on these issues that you can still contribute and yes as Tanya said we do have a great participation of young people in particular the youth program at EuroDigger is pretty much successful so don't be worried about that one for the moment I would say since we already got very much into the depth of the interrelation of proposals from two categories from security and from technical issues I would ask Tanya if you have anything to add No, thank you very much I would like to say goodbye to everyone and I'm totally gutted to miss you all and this meeting in Trieste and good luck with all the discussions Yes, are there more questions? Hang on for one more minute please because there was a hand raise here in the room from Olivier Hello Olivier then Sharon and if that still goes to the category of security I would ask you to stay online Okay, I'm staying online then Okay, hi Tatiana I'll keep it very short I was the proposer of the too loud Yeah, Sharon I forgot to tell that your proposal probably goes to the digital crime and law enforcement unless you want to take the flat session That was my suggestion so it's like we can do that with a focus on lawful hacking for example or a standalone flash session If there is any flash session slot left and you can be the head of this flash session happy I would happily recommend it otherwise it will go to cluster 2 Yes, I was going to suggest that I overlooked this because I wrote the email about it I somehow thought it was sorted I should have gotten to my notes for this meeting but unfortunately overlooked It's perfectly fine Could someone tell us the number that makes it 75 Okay, anything else that goes to Tania's intervention Thomas Just to say that for those that are new that this is hard work as you realize behind the different proposals to turn this into a two-day program just a thanks from my side to Tania as well for her excellent work over the years and to everybody new and old people are young and old and new and perennial people this is really an exciting part of the planning Thank you Since we touched it already I would directly lead to Paulina that was for the first time clustering the proposals on technical and DNS issues Paulina if you would share with us your findings so that we can basically continue the discussion on this and maybe I would ask all participants don't promote your own proposals that's not what we are here for we are here to build an entire program it's not about my proposal should be or my proposal could be that's not the case we should really focus a little bit more from the top so I will also give a very brief summary of what trends I saw in the proposals that were submitted in the category of technical and operational issues so I think primarily there were quite a few topics that were similar and or received one or more similar proposals with regards to particular topics so these are 5G governance received two proposals and I'm happy to see that it's been suggested to get included in the plenary session so I would like to support that proposal from the secretariat I think it's definitely a topic that Eurotic should be focused in a plenary discussion and that's great and I also would like to highlight the fact that one particular proposal was also focused on the digital so called digital sovereignty as one of the priorities from the European Commission and I think this will definitely tie nicely to the ongoing commission priorities and debates in Europe so I would like to definitely to support the proposal to include it as a plenary session and I think we've already touched the DOH and the different aspects of this discussion so one particular clustering that I've done and that I've already mentioned and we discussed just now is the technical governance of standard setting bodies so the tensions between self-regulation and legislative oversight so this will be for us to later to decide whether we want to separate the pure governance discussions with a workshop on the DOH and cybersecurity then another interesting proposal was or two proposals that I clustered under the name of challenges and uptake of modern internet standards so focusing on primarily IPv6 HTTPS RPKI I think this proposal that has now been marked in the matrix provided by secretariat with the workshop as a workshop proposal I think this can be quite an interesting opportunity to get some practical outcomes from that workshop perhaps maybe list the challenges as possible solutions for greater uptake of existing standards and so I would like to also highlight the practical possible practical outcome from this cluster and yeah so I think these are the main priority highlights that I wanted to give you today Thank you Polina any questions and comments Roberto? I have one question one comment the question is related to the universal acceptance because I see in the scheme that has been distributed that some of the proposals appear both as cluster is the first cluster of technical and operational issues but they also appear as being lumped together with the dynamic coalition on DNS issues so I see the same numbers of the proposals in the dynamic coalition on day zero so my question is which way are we going and if I may I would I would say that a lot of the proposals that are now being part of the cluster would not really fit well in the program of the dynamic coalition on DNS issues because that is strictly operational DNS issues is focusing on this whereas some of the other proposals that are in the cluster have an impact on also local content and so if it's a separate cluster we can have a wider debate that's my personal opinion it's just I don't know how we go on that and the second is a comment although it's not recommended that people talk about their personal proposal I would like to say a couple of words because there might be misunderstanding on the quantum technology because when I proposed that I was thinking about the implications that it has for instance with the DG Connect initiatives with a network several networks that are being developed and there's another group in Vienna that is developing interesting things on the development and deployment of quantum networks and I personally believe that we will be able to bring several points of views on this of course we need to we need to build the conditions for having for moving that to a specific cluster but I would like to be able to have the time to verify if this is a possibility thank you Roberto if I may just quickly comment on Roberto's comment yes exactly on the universal acceptance I had a feeling that we moved it to this dynamic coalition but I also was a bit confused with the agenda but yes of course this was also one of the highlights one of the clustering that I did for the technical issues but I assumed that we will be having it on day zero that's why I didn't mention but you're right you raise a very interesting point perhaps perhaps we could have a separate workshop if we have on maybe even on day zero maybe even directly before or after the dynamic coalition you mean separate on universal acceptance or that would add another workshop on universal acceptance the point is why we put it into the dynamic coalition as I said the DNS iDynamic Coalition focused in their first year on universal acceptance they might find another focus for the next year that's what they told me they are also not yet clear if they would like to have a session on day zero of Euridic because this involves travel for quite some participants what we do from the secretariat when we have an idea that they could do it we move certain proposals to this day zero because then we think it could be at least not in the three days even if not in the main program but since there is a lot of uncertainty involved I would for now at let me know the first proposal is called universal acceptance and multilingualism online and you say there must be another thing on universal acceptance is that what I get? I think it was from the perspective that we had I had three proposals on universal acceptance and we have the dynamic coalition meeting on day zero and as I understood that there might not be an opportunity for really a community discussion on that because it will be primarily a meeting from people involved with the dynamic coalition so I was just maybe suggesting an opportunity for community to also discuss the issues around universal acceptance but this is the first one which is here proposed as a workshop take the mic please that was my question because some proposals I see for instance 57 and 87 if I'm not wrong they are listed twice one as a cluster and one as a part of the dynamic coalition in my opinion they don't fit in the dynamic coalition but they are best located in the cluster so my proposal would be following the question that we keep the cluster not duplicate this cluster but keep this cluster as a separate thing from the dynamic coalition that might not even talk about universal acceptance as their focus now I understand and to explain the rationale behind we don't know exactly what the proposal is but as long as we see some certain keywords we say that could fit here or that could fit there and it's up to the proposer to decide in which part of the program may it be a dynamic coalition may it be a workshop or a plenary he or she might participate that's why we put them into certain issues this is not exclusively it's an option that's why some of the proposals appear on different projects maybe this was misspelling you said you would propose one session as a plenary you were very clear about the last one challenges and uptacks of modern internet standards where you said that could be a good workshop where we come up with concrete proposals thinking what we discussed today in the morning this is a clear demand that we will come up with focus and clear proposals did you mean that one of the sessions you would propose as a plenary no, no, no regarding that particular one challenges and uptake of standards to stay as a workshop and the plenary comment was only for the 5G because it was also a cluster in it's not reflected there but it was a cluster when I did my clustering and it's already reflected in day one plenary session it was just a comment of support that I agree how it was put as a plenary and secondly, last question you have not found any glitches in the way the secretariat now merged and worked with those kind of things no, I think we address yes, my primary comment was with the possible connection with Atania sessions and yes, and then the clarification from Roberto on the universal acceptance okay, I would ask maybe you maybe also Peter who had strong opinion on that and maybe we can also discuss how to come up with a suggestion how we are handling these two sessions if we give them another focus if we divide them which goes where we can look at the proposals in detail later on but that we know at the end of the day what is the focus out of these two things because I also remember that these are two sessions where we had really very substantive proposals being made and we should not lose them any other comments on security technical issues because then I would move to another SME that has some time constraints that would be Serena and she is joining us online, Serena you have the floor thank you Sandra, hello everyone and as Tatiana I'm also sorry I'm not able to join you online in Priestem I am in Geneva these days for the MAG and it is really unfortunate that there has been this clash but well, we deal with what we have I won't turn on my camera the Wi-Fi is quite unstable at UNOG unfortunately also I'll go quickly through proposals that were submitted under the internet governance ecosystem but I'll do so by commenting on the clustering the new clustering proposed by the secretariat just trying to be faster and bring more efficiency into the discussions the only general comment I would like to make is that this year I think for the first time in many years we have received quite many proposals under the development of IG ecosystem category and many of them were quite substantial unlike previous years when we normally only got proposals about improving the internet governance bringing more stakeholders, bringing more diversity this year we also had something different and I'll go through this a bit later as I go through the clustering proposed by the secretariat on that note let me open my many documents and this also relates to what Tatiana and who and for discussed under the cybersecurity and tech clusters there have been some proposals on the challenges of internet standardization processes and although the secretariat proposed merging them with some other proposals under my category that doesn't really fit so I would suggest moving proposal 40 and 45 under everything that has been discussed so far related to internet standardization processes, challenges issues related to those if we want to give a slot to take diplomacy and interdependence that could go as a flash or whatever we call them now and then the other proposal here was 120 which to be honest was a bit confusing but again I don't think it fits under any of challenges of internet standardization or tech diplomacy so it might go maybe into something related to trust if we have something on this on the program but definitely not on anything else so again just to be clear I think 40 and 45 should go into whatever we call it but discussing internet standardization processes and related to what has been said before on DOH I also have the feeling as some of the previous speakers have said that maybe it's not such a good idea to combine discussions on internet standardization processes governance and related issues with the discussion specifically on DOH because I felt those were going more in-depth into DOH and whether it works for privates or not and you know specific things but I would defer that to the subject matter experts for cybersecurity and technical issues since it's not really related to the development of the IT ecosystem then what was really interesting was that we had quite many proposals on digital sovereignty issues and on this note the clustering proposed by the Secretariat works perfectly fine to me with only one small exception and that's proposal 158 which is mostly about data governance, rights of individuals to decide what happens with their data so I would put that under anything which has something to do with privacy and in any case deferring it to the human rights subject matter expert I think we should do our best not to lose this workshop during the discussions today I think it's the first time actually so many proposals are put forward on related issues including on matters related to regulatory fragmentation how more regulation regulatory proposals and legislative proposal at the national level might impact actual technical functioning of the internet so I would really really recommend that we keep this and we do not merge it with anything else we do not bring any more proposals under this workshop we just keep what we have remove 158 and that's that and then going back to what I've said before we had many many proposals on how to improve the internet governance processes IGF initiatives what we have learned from previous processes how we can bring more stakeholders important of the usual proposals and recommendations on these issues and what the secretariat suggested on actually ending Eurodeague with one hour planning session on this probably works and bringing also the high level panel's recommendation again five whatever maybe that's not the best way of calling the recommendation but bringing this also into the discussion and then looking a bit forward improving internet governance while keeping in mind the digital cooperation discussions in the framework of the follow up on the panel's report and these were the main three categories under the development of ecosystem broader category and then we got a few other proposals some of them were even related to universal acceptance but those are already have already been covered the dot org case which I guess can be covered as a standalone topic and some other very very specific proposals which I would leave to the secretariat to get in touch with the proponents and see if they would like to tackle them under the zero fireside chats presentations or any other issues so briefly this is it from me just to wrap up quickly keeping digital sovereignty as it is ending with the plenary on internet governance forward looking into the future and that would be it thank you and happy to answer any questions you might have Serena thank you before I open the floor for others I have just a question for clarification you said digital sovereignty and take out 185 or take out 185 and keep that one as a separate thing that was not really clear to me let me go back what number again 158 58 sorry 58 that's again mostly about data governance and the rights of individuals to decide on what actually happens with their personal data so I would well we need to take it out because it's not digital sovereignty as the rest of the proposals and if there's anything in the program on trust on privacy on these kind of things I would move it there but not to miss what was the one where you said you would definitely keep that one this was the important thing I meant not the proposal but the actual workshop on digital sovereignty that was my key messages keeping that and not merging it with anything else or not bringing anything else here okay thank you very much understood then we have hand raised one from remote Vittorio Bertola and then I saw anyone else that would like to join you now then let's go with Vittorio now I am a bit confused let's say because from one standpoint we're saying that maybe one workshop for DOH is not enough and already DOH would be sort of more and now we are on the other hand we are clustering three different clusters into a single workshop on DOH or at least this is the proposal so honestly I think that the proposals that are currently in this part of the program especially I think 40, 43 and 45 have quite some coherence and they are not really immediately related to DOH I mean DOH was maybe the initial issue that sparkled the thoughts but I think they really are about the relationship between public policy objectives and the private sector meaning both the ITF the standardization process and also if you read 43 in general the private companies and the big platforms and I think this is an interesting aspect I mean in a way it's a symmetric to what Peter was saying about the governments doing stuff on their own and not listening to the multi-stakeholder process and I think this is the symmetric aspect of the private sector also not listening to the multi-stakeholder process so I think it would make for an interesting workshop if we could keep it so that would be maybe we can put here also from the other two clusters in the bottom part of the matrix what is not immediately related to DOH specifically but I think this is a much broader discussion which is in the end separate from the DOH discussion Vittorio and reply to what you just said Polina is raising hand and I give her the floor first so Vittorio Polina from Centre just to respond to your comment yes I think we just confirmed that the proposals particular proposals that were identified both by Tanya and Sorina will move to the technical workshop on the issues between the policy issues and the technical governance bodies as in standard setting bodies so I think yeah if this was just to clarify that we've already discussed this and I think Sorina just confirmed that indeed these two proposals do not fit into her track so she's okay of these two proposals to move somewhere else and I requested previously that I will be happy to merge these with the with the other proposals within the technical track I hope that I respond to your question okay next is Jan I would like to address two issues one is 158 and I agree this is data protection or privacy issue in my view and it fits well into the plenary of rethinking GDPR so I don't have an issue to put it there I think it fits well and the other thing I'm missing a bit is the governance of decentralized platforms which is I don't know why arrived in an IG ecosystem I'm not sure if it's well placed there but I think it's an important issue and we should give it some space so what do you think about this this issue what is the number of that proposal 148, governance of decentralized platforms let me quickly do a search I think this went into a standalone topic if I'm not wrong I'm juggling between multiple documents here yes indeed it is at the moment as a standalone topic governance best practices for an ecosystem based on governance of decentralized platforms and we put in brackets as Rina so I guess I would make it an open question to everyone I don't think the two actually relate to each other so maybe we invite the proponents to come up and suggest some fireside chats or presentations unless someone else from some other category has a suggestion of putting these into their categories, proposed workshops or any other sessions I don't think it fits as it has just been said with anything else under the development of the ecosystem but I also don't have a very clear idea of where else to put them other than just keeping them as a standalone we decided not to discuss single proposals in detail but look at it from a broader perspective I saw Roberto wants to reply and also Thomas Schneider just reading in the room I'm under the impression that that could fit under community networks in that category but I think that we should ask the submitter if I understood well the proposal Roberto maybe you understand what W-O-A-N is based on W-O-A-N well because I've heard a presentation from Ramon a while ago and I assume he's talking about the same thing and is creating a wider network in a rural area so I just suggest that we check with him before you know before taking decisions I don't think they have anything to do with each other yeah on that I think we agree and if Roberto thinks it might fit under the community networks broader category then let's see with the proponent and look into that but definitely not putting them together anything so in the sense since they are not related to each other in my opinion and 94 could be moved in a different cluster we could leave the other one as standalone so fine with me thank you Roberto okay perfect then Thomas Schneider and I saw another hand raise somewhere in this direction no was there any else who raised a hand online there was a question online online is a discussion going on unfortunately we will not be able to bring the discussion of the Zoom chat to this room please log into the Zoom and you can see what's going on there but now Thomas thank you just a comment and a question on the notion of digital sovereignty and I have not been able to go through all the proposals behind it I didn't have the time but this is an issue that on national level on European level also at the IGF I think is gaining relevance and it has several aspects to it one is economy or sovereignty of the whole country that has come up with the issue of 5G and dependence on technologies from non-European countries whether from east to west and also of the growing let's say proliferation of oligopolies of a small number of of platforms that spread throughout all our lives it started in the media sector now you have one platform for hotels you have one platform for other things so there's a feeling there's many people that basically there's a loss of of control of their new gatekeepers spreading in almost all areas of our lives that they may offer practical tools and applications but there's a growing dependency and they may eliminate alternatives and then the notion if you take it from individual sovereignty or self-determination or autonomy that again because of the spread of comfortable applications from these platforms people rely more and more on a small number of platforms and there's a fear that there will be a dependence if not an active control but at least a dependence on these platforms and in my country and that's also what I heard also in the parliamentarian session many people ask questions like okay what do we do of course one element is competition policy and how to deal with oligopolies or monopolies the other part is probably the more constructive one how to foster and this is the notion also of decentralized platforms how to foster and support local decentralized alternatives that may offer similar services of a value added that people will have and as governments and the whole society will continue to have alternative to the global platforms that offer great services but that may also have some risk in them so this is an issue that I'm feeling that is growing in importance and definitely also on our side and my question is how this could maybe appear a little bit prominently in the program of Euridica how you see connections to workshops and our proposals for issues that have come in. Thank you Thomas Valentina you rest your hand rest the mic no no then remote participants won't hear you yes good morning I just wanted to echo Thomas and Valentina since you are late introduce yourself please hi everyone I'm Valentina Sharpe from the European Commission I wanted to echo what Thomas was saying and maybe clarify a list I don't want to impose any definition on this but maybe what we think on our side by digital sovereignty which for a lack of a better word yes it could be a bit more compared to autonomy more than sovereignty one thing is of course local localization of data and content which is not our idea so it's not to create fence or wall around Europe or around European countries but it is more on the infrastructural side so on the autonomy not being dependent too much on non-European infrastructure that's pretty much it so we have a totally different take compared to what Russia or China would mean by digital sovereignty this is in the context of Eurodig of course the global context is a totally different discussion and point of view but certainly yes not only is taking track I would say about time that is taking more stage this issue because it would be more and more relevant in the future so very concrete you suggest to change sovereignty and authority no autonomy no no no we can just keep it sovereignty I just wanted to clarify that it does not mean to create another Chinese firewall European firewall we mean an autonomy more than autonomy from the infrastructural point of view and not so much on the content or data point of view I have a question to Surina but everyone in the room and for us as secretariat to do the to take the right decisions then I see that there is a lot of interest or a great demand on a session on digital sovereignty that this should be a focus and when I see that we took out some of the proposals like the 40 something two or three on what we clustered in tech diplomacy interdependence challenges of internet standardization process for me it looks like this session is losing the substance so we possibly can take that out is that what I understood so Rina question to you but also to the others because then we could eliminate it from this list already this takes us back to the previous discussion related to also the proposals under the tech category so there would be two different sessions one on everything related to standardization processes the governance of those processes and whatever happens bringing more stakeholders in helping those bodies make decisions and then having the separation on DOH so that would mean would still need two separations and if I'm not wrong now under the technical cluster you only have one so the idea would be to keep one on governance issues which is the one you have now under the development of IG and the other one on DOH which would go under the technical category do I know the categories don't really matter at the end OK and shall I tell you something so Rina in our one of our previous versions of this matrix we indeed had an arrow a connecting arrow between this technical the security and this governance session because we could see that it somehow relates but then we thought it's going too much of a connection so let's take it out again but I see it's going too much of a connection and to be honest these were also the things where Rina and I were shifting around and working a lot of this so this goes into a discussion that SMEs have to have a closer look at but I'm happy and the last question for the plenary where we propose to have this session evolving internet governance which includes then also the high level that we propose would go in the plenary is that something that would you agree to or as long as we find focal point able to not let the discussion go too much into issues that we have been discussed before mostly in the context of the NRI assembly like bringing more stakeholders and youth and these kind of things so yes I would keep it as a plenary but have a very strong focal point and I'm happy to help that focal point for the discussion absolutely and possibly also the working title needs to be a bit more sharp in order to get the matter right okay then there was another hand raised was it Jacomo, Jacomo you, Valentina has the mic Jacomo Mazzone from EBU I think that the digital sovereignty is a concept that and is also wording that has became a key point for many of the reflection at European level if you remember what Angela Merkel said in Berlin what has been by the French in another occasion of course is with the caveat that Valentina said that is a different concept but means that the sovereignty of the European citizens remain within Europe and I think that this one of the links or the possible links of Eurodic with the European debate and in my opinion this deserves more than a workshop has to be at least a plenary or if we don't want to put in the form of the plenary has to be something where we ask the political intervening people the European Union commissioner or whoever and the national representative to come and to bring their discussion on that and share with us because in many countries the regulatory approach is based on that and I think that we need to intercept this discussion and bring it to Eurodic we are also trying to monitor the online discussion a little bit in order to bring that into the room I really encourage the online participants to rather raise their hand and speak to the room so that we can also hear and learn what they think instead of discussing it online because then we would have two different rooms where two different discussions are taking place so if you have deep concerns with what we are speaking here please come into and speak to us instead of putting too much effort into the chat but there was one question in the chat that I would like to answer what means a follow up workshop and this is exactly on these two sessions of the tech diplomacy and then challenges on internet generalization processes and digital sovereignty when we were clustering those and we see that there will be some shifts but when we stick to those focus workshops they are two sides of a coin they have been two sides of a coin and that's why we said let's look at this aspect first and then into the digital sovereignty second and they should be close to each other so that possibly the same people that spoke about the tech diplomacy and interdependence then also come into discussion where digital sovereignty is going to be discussed this is the idea of a follow up workshop it's a proposal it's not a must we will see where this day leads us to any other questions or comments from remote yes who is it we have Andrea Bicalifern so on digital sovereignty I actually went back to my notes from the from the GF in Berlin to what Chancellor Merkel said because I think this is something that it's extremely relevant and it would be a good occasion for the Euridic to focus probably a planner on that what do we mean as in Europe and I want to see what Merkel said you know she was very clear it's not protectionism it's not state control flows but the capacity as European is individual to determine our digital sovereignty to do not let it be shaped by economic interests or by geopolitics rather so I think probably a debate including the political representatives on what do we mean for sovereignty and maybe after the Euridic we can even get rid of the world's sovereignty there are so many charged meanings could be a good session I mean even at one point she said the important is to preserve the core of the internet as a global public good and a fraction internet is basically the failure in this case so it is being clarified in a session where we invite the political leaders to define what a sovereignty concept for Europe I think would be a very good way to put Euridic at the center of this debate thank you Andreas I see Yurio Mattia Fantinati and Valentino thank you I think this is an important subject and would really merit a plenary and as it was mentioned by a couple of speakers this is a political subject this is a highly political subject because the concept of sovereignty in the digital sphere internet whatever that was coined first by Vladimir Putin or his people there and I must say that it was kind of shock to me in Berlin when I heard Angela Merkel talking about digital sovereignty which I before have associated with different kinds of societies and things of course we have to the European digital sovereignty comes from the fact that everybody is really annoyed by dominance of Google and Facebook and all the American platforms and this has raised this sort of call for digital sovereignty for Europe however I mean this the danger is that this is confused by what the Russians called their own information space like information space would be something like air space and so that I mean is an important subject and we need to devote some sort of high level resources to that thank you can I abuse of being the media in this case only because it's you I think I just want to elaborate on what Iro said that the problem is one of the elements that makes sovereignty of a state is the information about the citizen of the state and to communicate the capacity to have a dialogue with the citizen of the state this is why the other state talk with the government because they think that talking with the government they are in capacity to talk with the population of that country but today looking at either if you want to know more about the Italian citizen you know more through Facebook profiles if you want to communicate to them has been said by one of the previous Italian minister is easier if you send an email to surnamename at gmail.com than any other Italian mail system available electronic mail system so probably putting raised in a blunt way but the issues that are concerning every modern state are less that we want to dilute it in a different world but Mattia probably has the answer of course not I am a politician and I don't have the answer politician doesn't give the answer politicians say it depends but I would like to stress the fact that this topic is really I think very important not just on internet on internet government but even for the for the further upcoming I mean artificial intelligent whose data belongs to or some other technology and so just I would like to suggest one topic I think I have just text with minister Pizano the digitalization of Italy and I think it could be important to make maybe a panel in order to discuss of this topic points with politicians now I asked to the availability to minister Pizano and to say that yes definitely agree with that so I would like to give my contributor like minister Pizano maybe even in the aerodic that's it of course yes no no no no no you are in Italy and Italy is a gentleman thank you so we really have one first clarification from a native speaker Chris who said that it's sovereignty and not sovereignty we can start from that since I'm not a politician but I am a bureaucrat I can already say that well talking from the political scientist point of view sovereignty means that you have the control of the force of the use of the force in a country now digital of course is a totally different I think it's very important actually it's coming even too late this discussion so it's very very important but I wouldn't make it a session where we have 10 speakers and they all say what they mean by that because we will just have 10 different point of view and nothing more than that so we don't want to make a session having different definition of digital sovereignty I don't really necessarily see the follow up with the one before but nevertheless maybe it's not it's me that I don't see it and lastly yes I said we should not I mean it's a slippery slope to talk about this issue and make it a content data localization because then we really we are really going into a gray zone for us I said again but I don't want to impose our point of view it's more the autonomy on the infrastructural side precisely because we don't want to go into data localization and content localization in the ends of non-European or certain actors that are not necessarily democratic let's put it this way very diplomatically Valentina I think it would be at most important if the European Commission participates in the shaping of this but again yes I will actually I'm very happy because I see that because I'll all made it in some way or another in a plenary now I don't want to you know become the European Commission to become the dominating the program certainly we will help in one plenary at least to maybe take I don't know if this is still the case that the partner take responsibility for one plenary but I will be happy to do it at least in one of the three this could be or certainly we can participate but again if we start all politicians they will all give you different point of view or different definition of this which I don't know that's what we want really we can discuss the details later it's just important that even if it's a workshop or plenary that there's participation in the process and not only as a speaker I can only take one plenary of the three that's a high proposed or we have now a queue and operation first I would like to give the floor to an online participant who is waiting for quite a while then Jaune Thomas and then what? we take the Andrew so Andrew first then Thomas then Jaune then Frederick and then I close the queue on this part or is there another Yes we have Serena also Serena of course she has the last word so Andrew is your go lovely thank you firstly thank you for the clarification on what was intended by the reference to a full-on workshop that was helpful and I agree that there's likely to be a lot of overlap of interest between those two sessions so it would make a lot of sense to do one after the other so there's good logic behind that not least of which because from a digital sovereignty point of view if you go to a lot of standards for I think you would have an outright rejection of the right of governments to have any say in the governance of the internet and that that's something that should be left entirely to the technologists so I think there's a healthy debate to be had about the friction between those two points of view so it's a good way to do it to ensure that you get the same audience and speakers ideally within both sessions so that was my point so thank you I think we should not focus on defining a name and we shouldn't talk about sovereignty we should talk about what the issue is basically and the discussion that we are having is not the put in vision of having the government or the state controlling things but in Germany we call it self-determination so self-determination that the people have their own lives and it actually goes more into the infrastructure part and we for instance we now have about to launch a network that is growing daily by people who care about this and we find any four or five use cases one is health another one is mobility another one is electricity management energy management and another one is education if you take the mobility sector it used to be Swiss people that were measuring traffic in Switzerland including data from Swisscom telecom provider now the traffic messages are based on google data it's the same if you want to find out where to go from A to B how to buy a ticket you go on google maps they give you all the choices so basically there's a new gatekeeper new intermediary which is always the same out of one or two free that is mixing and basically pulling everybody apart is always between offer there's one new gatekeeper and this is something that people start to worry about it's about as an injured like okay will I be completely dependent on one single platform global platform that tells me how to do A or how to get from A to B how to deal with my health data how to bring the data from doctor A to hospital B where I currently am and so on and so forth and that is then linked to what we call like public service, basic offer where people expect the state to organize your transport system not that that doesn't mean that it's state run or your health system or education system and there's people expect some guarantee of the state that it keeps the responsibility for these everyday infrastructures to function and the dependency not just on the technology but more and more on the software on the data management of actors where you have no control or no knowledge what they do with it is something that worries people and basically I would call rather talk about autonomy or self determination and put it in the people in the focus not the governments it's not about our government controlling our lives it's our governance governments making sure that we control our lives that we decide okay if I go from A to B that I get alternative offers than just Google who tells me what is possible in my life but that I have my own services that there are actually services so this is the focus that we would see it and then it's not the put in discussion it's the discussion how do we make sure that our people have a choice in how they lead their lives how they organize their lives that they have a choice in offer and how to deal with their data that's the focus that we would suggest and we think it's fundamental for the individuals but then again for the functioning of the whole society and not from an allowing people to take free decisions point of view that's the focus that we would like to see all the people that I work with in this network that we started on national level and we are trying to look for partners to start this on European and maybe global level because your data don't stop you can start locally with public transport and postal system and health system and water treatment and energy management but in the end it's a global issue so this is on national level this is a big big big debate in Switzerland one comment from my side I would ask us not to go too much into detail about this topic because later on we will have from another category coming in efficient regulation of global platforms so we are touching already on that issue and we should possibly go a step back for this moment and give the floor to Jörn now and then to Frederik and then Zorina and then Zorina and then I have a final question I think the title is good digital sovereignty because it's heavily used and I completely agree with your point of view and of course if we say those platforms shouldn't be used anymore they should be limited we also deprive people of the freedom to use them so it is a question of human rights versus digital sovereignty of governments and this this problem I think needs to be presented and to make sure that the outcome is exactly what you suggested and not that the governments just control it if I can just intervene for one second but this is not about killing Google it's about making sure that there are alternatives which is a completely different narrative just to Frederik please sorry so thank you I'm a bit confused now because I believe I might add confusion to the whole conversation because you right Valentina if we continue this conversation everybody will come up with a different definition of sovereignty I thought it was just about data and the way we in Europe handle data and that was my belief that it was and it's about principles in Europe we have principles about data that is fair competition GDPR privacy this is how we see the way we will handle data and my belief was European sovereignty is something at the core of the current commission objective and with this in mind I would just suggest we be opportunistic we claim that we want more high level contribution to the Eurodic that kind of session including in the dictionary might attract those people who really want to contribute to that the principles on how Europe not the rest of the world intends to actually handle data with the principles that are really European principles among them privacy so if that is the case then I would believe that is really a wonderful topic to just leverage and put at a high level than just a workshop but I would leave the word to Serena in this group of people but I believe it would be we should not miss that opportunity if that is the case thank you thanks Frederick Zorina you have the last word on this but please stay online until I finish this round because then we go to lunch I have a final question Zorina you have to floor please thank you Sandra and thank you Frederick for already covering a part of what I was about to say and also related to what many people have said about transforming this digital sovereignty discussion into a plenary session and that Frederick has said adding a high level dimension to it I would be very much in favor of this kind of approach my only concern is that I guess we cannot really add the new plenary so looking at what we have now in the program one possible suggestion could be to drop the plenary on evolving internet governance whatever we have there and transform that into a workshop but at the same time do not put this new plenary there at the end of the program especially if we want to add a high level dimension to it so if we go ahead with this I would look a bit into moving this plenary somewhere else but not at the end of the day maybe instead of current plenary tree and another proposal would be to maybe add more than just an hour to it and because I see before most of the plenaries we have some sort of keynotes maybe we can drop those and make this plenary one hour and a half since look at us we are already discussing for more than a half an hour on digital sovereignty imagine how this will happen at EurodigitServe and that's it from me thank you thank you very much Serena and your final words basically presented kind of the solution how we are going to handle this category I see there is mutual understanding in this room that digital sovereignty should become a plenary I made it already clear here on the matrix that participants can see in the room recent developments in Geneva with this efforts from the team around recommendation 5A and B the German government and the UA government also offered that opportunity to invite them for a session on day zero which is a little bit broader which is a kind of consultation session where we can basically handle all the proposals that have been the former plenary four now being workshop I would even move that to day zero in terms we get the German government to do this session here they may tentatively already a commitment that they would be able to send someone because at the same time rights corners taking place in Costa Rica and they will be present at that one as well doing the same thing there but I think we can handle that topic on day zero with the German government maybe even the other and arise from the other discussions they said by the way they would be happy if the Asia Pacific IGF the Arab IGF if they could join in Euro Dick and if we could do something together that would be in perfect opportunity to also have a cooperation with the other and arise so I see this is rather clear we have to look at the program later on where to put that plenary and respect to the keynotes well I would at the moment go with a short and focused plenary of 60 minutes but we could offer the keynotes to those high level participants that demand a keynote if they would like to participate like inviting a commissioner or having someone high level from the Italian government speaking about this issue and then we have keynote plus plenary and that thing could cover digital sovereignty as an issue and I see there is a nod of head knocking in this room I am very happy about that Thomas you have something to say not just I think it would be an excellent idea to use the zero day for the discussion on recommendation 5 because that is something that is difficult to do if you want to have an interactive dialogue in one hour or one and a half hours so if you have like three hours or something like like we did with the Germans and Henrietta in Geneva and ideally if we can invite other regional IGFs for the predate and funding and so on and so forth but if that is possible of course that would be great so that we can trigger a great discussion about recommendation 5 giving this more time but not taking the time of the substantive debates in Euridic that would actually be a great thing thank you very short last word because we finished already that part where is the mic very short it is simply a consideration just to figure out what we are talking the problem for instance is that through the platforms you can have personal data about your health and now there are in Europe company that are buying this data from American companies because they are allowed to have this data about personal health and they use for not selling life insurance to European citizens this is the exact picture of the problem we have to figure out and I think that this is a problem for European citizens more than a problem for Putin and this is the angle that we need to insist and I think that there is a lot to discuss about that since you mentioned emerging technologies and healthcare there is one proposal also under this category IG development systems we have the insurance company generally sitting in the room and we hope to get the CEO and maybe having a flash session in the plenary room about these kind of interference yes okay I thank you very much for this I think this was a very productive first part we will continue with the other categories after lunch so I also would like to thank our remote participants that are really active it really adds a lot of people to the room I'm also very thankful for the technical people and Reiner to set that up so that we can see them on screen and I encourage remote participants to continue being so active we will have a lunch break now until 2 o'clock and we'll reconvene in this room at 2 o'clock you need to select the type in password and use it again the mobile doesn't have it now I use it no more because the ICT is secured in the mobile okay so this one is coming no it doesn't then ask me like this is a company network you type this maybe this one yeah but it's yeah it works on the company yeah yeah maybe it doesn't like Swiss mobile that means it's just a little too it was the second network yeah that's not that's not a problem and I will try again I'll try again that's not an issue yeah I'll try again more more more more more more more more more The suggestions are very, very, very, very nice. I find this really helpful. I think it's a very helpful moment for the potential of us. We have to be able to discuss this. I'm not sure who we are. I'm not sure that this has ever seen change. Maybe, please. Also, and, you know, I don't know why, but I think you have the idea that there is a natural rate of, somehow, extended to the area of telling people what they should be doing and so forth. And now, I mean, I just, I think, yeah, I thought that we are now in a situation that should be good for everyone. And I think that this, it's kind of necessary to talk to some extent. And you see, there are, there are a question mark here. This is basically a proposal or a session that I don't believe has a lot of substance behind it. So that can easily load it. Well, they have, that it's all related to the 5G, so I think that should be better. But that's what I'm suggesting. I didn't find out why this was added on the slide. Yeah. So this one is up. This is down. Because it has repeated the other proposal. Yeah. It's never all more or less the same. I was going to say this, that the one can also go together. This one's a piece of headline. Number two, I think it is. Yeah. Number two, I don't say that. Number two, I don't say that. Number two, I don't say that. Number two, I don't say that. Number two, I don't say that. Number two, I don't say that. Secretaries as in please, would have convened again. But since we started for 8 of June, SSEC planed for a new��의construction to be shot. I'm sure! I think that's really important, because I know that we've got the majority of the men here online, it's actually quite bad. The rest of the world, and in Europe, especially when you look at tech companies, it's like... All right, I have lots of friends that are, you know, that are tech, and they're like the only woman in the office. Twenty-five guys. But you know, we can't duck. It's so much pressure. So that's really important. That, I think, is also a good... If you have the flash sessions in the main hall, this is an excellent... But the point is you need a good presenter on that. I mean, you cannot put anyone on stage. Because that room is like that in the stage. You can have a guest seat. Let's go for lunch. That was the last joke already there. He can ask Benny Carver. The two together would do really well. How did she manage to bring out one of the greatest... We'll get Chris Modille, Benny Carver, and you around on stage for the women in tech. So now we've got one of everything. And also the mental thing. All right. This is off the record. The mental controls batch. Last year I was... Again? Yeah. Then I need to know all the arrangements with this house. Let me introduce you to the most. Because it's really easy. I mean, they have standardised processes on how to rent rooms and so on and so forth. So what we're going to do, I guess we get this room for free for the entire U-Stick days. We will not circulate to any other place. We stay here. We will have the lodging rooms in this building. We take the cheap ones for 50 euros. The parking space. You have the nice view during the daytime so you can enjoy all this. Catering would be here in this cafeteria. You have to find an arrangement on how to manage them. If they get a ribbon so that they know they are on our bill. Or if we give them money and they can buy something. I think the ribbon thing would be the easiest one if you get this. And then for a welcoming kind of dinner on the day of arrival where you know people are delayed because of their plans and so on and so forth the cafeteria will be closed at that time. There is a nice restaurant just around the corner. That's a good one, I think. However, it has a difficult name. It has a difficult name? We have to negotiate with them for a buffet dinner. And then we have to see if we have a cooking school here. I want to do something on the water. That could be another idea to do something different than a cooking school because we have water here. But this would need some creativity. What kind of activity to do on the water. I'm not sure if it's going to be a good option. I think it's all the time that you have to work together. You can always make a right or something. I mean, that could be something to a great statement. Because this would be like, I want to go on the water. And because it's summer, it's not going to be 20, 25, and 30. You can always do it here and there. I didn't make too much competition. I think it's a work. We have two goals. I'm not sure how many goals can we make here. I don't know if you could do that as a partner. And then we have a cruise. Are you close? What did you do at the summer school? Have you been there? Have you done the dinner cruise? I don't know. The water was right there. Why not? Why not? I think you could do a different boat. But then the dive arrived. That's something I didn't do. Because this is what I would do. Can you introduce it to the rules so that they know? Because they could get in and contact those people where we have been talking to when arranging this here today. And then prices for the get together tonight is going to be $6. And what does the phone part of the meeting mean? Yeah, great. The question is are we going to do this right after the start of the session? To be honest, the audience should not only have been doing this, but they too. So the point is we have to handle them kind of equally. I saw only five. I didn't see it. Did you look at Vicky already? What was presented like? And then yesterday I got more proposals from the Drake for instance. Which? Yeah, yeah. No, I saw only those five. But I'm just for a day. And I spent half an hour on it. I mean, it's good that we did that. But I don't know. You have to... Is that also out of the proposal? You have to figure out how to deal with that. We are in Italy. They are part of the game. They get their space. Yeah. But you have five proposals from the least. How can you... I'm just wondering... John Franco and Lili... No, not like Lili. Yeah, I think the lady that I don't know. So two from the five was very... Because then I could put them also all on one paper and put them on the wall. John Franco was doing... Four of them, yeah. Four of them was heard in the O'Clock. Yeah. Is we get people in the room here, then we stick to O'Clock? Okay, so I can tell you something. Yes, okay. Can we have a quick wrap up on the floor? You can. You can. You can. They are the longer people. I just... I'll look at the website. Sure. We might be not... It's carefully, it's carefully done, but it doesn't look like that right now. Just look at that PC amount about that being inside. Probably you've got one that's right here with you. One big fan? One big fan. Yeah, I also have one big fan. So we can only do a step. I'm going to show that side. Okay, so... Move, etc. Yeah, maybe because I'm on the C side. Then in C you can have a bit of a... Right, it's done on the T side. It's good. It's good. It's good. It's good. It's good. It's good. It's good. It's good. It's good. Thank you very much for the question. Can you not take your... It's just a sweet meeting. It's okay. It's okay. Let me see the PC. Oh, well you set up this? Yeah. So let's continue. We are already nine minutes after the hour and the discussion in the morning was really joyful and enlightening for us and over lunch it continued and some great ideas have already emerged and Mathia Fantinati just came up with a great proposal that I would like him to share with all of you, anyone seen where the mic is? Okay, so Mathia if you would just share the idea so that everyone is informed about what's possibly going to happen. I think that everything that we do here is I think that the best opportunities that we have is to share with a policymaker and so I think it could be suitable that we is possible to invite all the ministry of the digitalization in government, digital agenda, whatever in a sort of a day zero before the event. So I think that we can choose one point to discuss among them and in a sort of way we could report the day later in the aero dig what came out from this discussion or whatever. I'm here to hear from you some suggestions and it really would be great. I think that it could be a marvelous opportunity to connect the policy makers and the aero dig and the association, organization and the citizen. I think that's a very good idea and I would really add a lot of value to aero dig and if we can make that happen that would be perfect. I don't know how we can organize but if I share with you my email maybe you can write down the name of the ministry of your own country government so you can write down who is maybe the best person that could be involved because we know that digitalization in internet governments is split and divided in a lot of topics and a lot of ministry. So if we can arrange a sort of internet discussion about who can be the best person in your government that it could be a minister or a secretary of state and the secretaries. I think that you are the best person who really knows your government structure. If I can leave my email address, I'm leaving some of my business cards so who doesn't have it yet can bring it one. Thank you, thank you really but I cannot stay here any longer and I would like to thank you very much for this opportunity. Thank you for coming and for joining and for making this great offer. Okay, then I suggest we continue where we stopped. In the morning I just have to bring up the presentation. Baila, could you give me hosting rights? Or do I have them? I'm not even connected anymore. Okay, I just have to reconnect. Here we are. Okay, when we look at the category, so we went through the security and crime category. We went through technical and operational issues and we went through the development of the internet governance ecosystem. We still have access and literacy, human rights, innovation, economic issues, media and content and then there are some cross cutting and other issues but this is not the majority. I would suggest we start with access and literacy for two reasons. First of all, we touched on these issues already a little bit in our previous discussions and secondly, access and literacy in particular is a focus for our host organizations for ICTP. And therefore I would like to ask Frederik or Ceren, whoever is assigned to do this. Isoc was the subject matter expert on this category, the mic. It's here Ceren. And I bring up again the matrix so you might use that for going through the category if you like Ceren. Yes, thank you Sandra. We had 19 proposals. We had community networks and then we had capacity building and rural internet access. I clustered them separately because the ones under community networks 233391 and probably with the addition of Ramon's proposal 94. They were more focused on best practices. They were dealing with policy challenges and etc. And the rest, capacity building and rural internet access, it was more building skills, sustainability issues and general capacity building activities. That's why I put them separately but they might work well under a workshop, the same workshop so they can discuss all aspects. And then we had digital inclusion and building digital skills and building digital literacy curricula. We had some repetitive proposals so many people came up with more or less the same substance. So I think in this other workshop I think they would work well together because there was a repetition. And now you put 5G governance under access as well. I understand this is a very big priority for our host. So it will be in their hands and I'm pretty sure the community networks as a workshop would work well. I would have suggested maybe having a plenary just focusing on community networks and then a follow-up workshop. But this would work also well in a single workshop item. That's pretty much it. Any comments? How is it? Ross? Ross from Aetno, telecommunications operators. Firstly we were very pleased to see that 5G is such a priority. We looked at the different elements of what would be in this plenary based on the proposals. And in fact we didn't propose any 5G related to access and literacy. That said some of the elements of this 5G plenary do touch on the negative. 5G is a much bigger story than its problems. So looking at what's here we have EMF, sovereign identity, 5G and digital sovereignty, usage scenarios. But that element of usage scenario seemed to not be so much about the opportunities of the verticals but rather more negative governance implications. So we would quite like to see a broader debate. Maybe the word governance is restrictive. But a broader debate looking at, absolutely looking at the challenges but also the opportunities. Following on from what was discussed last year there was a workshop on regulation in the internet economy, how to create the right building blocks for 5G networks. It's an incredibly positive narrative looking at the underlying infrastructure. So I think both elements need to be there. Absolutely the problems need to be discussed but so do the opportunities. And if I may just to, of course we did propose something on 5G and what that means for prosperity in Europe. So that was put into another bucket on the European digital economy regulation. Looking at the other topics in that bucket they're very broad, blockchain etc. So if a more balanced narrative were to come into the access and literacy plenary in 5G, I think that would give a, as I say, a much more balanced approach. That's our view. Thank you very much. As you said none of the proposals under the 5G plenary were suggested under access and literacy. So this was a discretion of the secretariat. And I also think it would be good to know what was the number of your proposal, if you don't mind, to be discussed under this. There's something more focusing on 64. So challenges and opportunities raised by 5G would be, and you should definitely obviously become a member of the org team. Just to add why we did it, why we did propose it under access to 5G issue. We referred to the discussion we had on various other occasions like also the planning, the kickoff meeting in September that we had in Trieste when this issue of 5G was discussed and the meeting with the partners in Berlin at the IGF. And since no proposal came into that, we took that also into consideration what has been discussed on these occasions and said that might be an opportunity. While we put community networks in a workshop, we remember we had two years ago in Georgia a plenary about this and we thought it might be a good idea to follow up with the workshop on how this project worked, in particular the Toshiti project. We also also played a big role. And a second project like this is also underway in Georgia as well. And I think there are, in particular we have a lot of, not a lot of, but we had some very interesting, at least two or three, Reiner from the Italian regional governments on how they can connect in Alpine areas and so on and so forth. And we thought bringing those experiences from Georgia and the discussions together with the questions and the concepts that are dealt with in Italy, for instance, and then also possibly our great interest for countries from Eastern European countries might be better dealt with in the workshop. That was our rationale behind. It's, I mean, especially with the suggested program schedule, I think that will work. Okay. Frédéric? Yes. Jack, just very quickly. As I said a few hours before, it's very well-dependent on where we do organize it. So when in Georgia you write, it was about sharing the experience of Toshiti and the Georgians wanted to push for this. Here I believe there is some maturity in the topic, meaning that there are no more and more even European Union awareness of the regulatory and policy issues while when we start discussing about that, it was just development and capacity building. So that would be the reason why we would suggest to have this in a twofold way, a policy and regulatory because there were many more people who would like to discuss this, even from our understanding in the European Union, that try to adapt their legislations to this kind of new way to launch broadband. And by the way, for ethno, including 5G, and then the capacity building and the exchange of best practices why we have here next to me many experts of community network and infrastructure. So that's why we would suggest to go in a twofold way. That was the reasoning behind it. Question for clarification. Would that mean community networks could possibly two workshops follow up each other? Is that something that you would suggest, like one is looking into regulatory? We open to conversation. We believe that if we have policymakers who want to discuss regulatory and policy issues, a plenary might be interesting provided we have the traction or two workshops indeed because there are really two different angles. Okay. We now have... Yes, Giacomo, then Olivier, right? Anyone else who raised their hand that I missed? Have you someone online? No? Okay, then Giacomo and then Olivier, please. Just because you mentioned Italy. In Italy the approach is different, is to serve the rural areas through investments that are made directly by state-owned or companies that are with private participation and not necessarily through the 5G. So I think that if the accent is on rural areas, it doesn't matter if it's a community network or not, but how you serve rural areas because this is a problem that applies to all the country and the solution could be different from one country to another. I would say only community networks in rural area you are already selecting only one of the possible approach and for instance it's not one that is followed in Italy, why you mentioned Italy. Thank you. I haven't read the 5G proposals, so I wanted to go back to 5G but I've reviewed the innovation and economic issues topics and there's one about smart cities and my feeling is that smart cities is enabled by 5G. It's very difficult to have a smart city without having a network to sustain it and so I'm not quite sure whether one could also add smart cities to this and that includes four proposals that's got IOT and AI, IOT market and development, securing smart cities and promoting smart cities and digital transportation development in southeastern Europe and EU. How does that fit together in a plenary with what there is at the moment in 5G? Yeah, so add the smart cities to 5G so that we've got a positive thing about 5G and not just dangers of 5G and it will fry your brains and you'll never be able to get out ever again or something, I don't know. I think the big question here is on 5G, on what aspect to focus on. There are a lot of proposals that could somehow fit under it and I think here we really have to define what is the focus and here I would maybe ask our host what would you consider a focus because we had some discussion in the forefront already. Are you able to? In the same direction. 5G is being discussed together with sovereignty and I don't think we should repeat this discussion under 5G but put it under sovereignty. So we should try to focus the discussion on 5G and put things that overlap to only one of the workshops and here to the other workshop on digital sovereignty. I'm sorry. Okay, I do agree with Giacomo about extending connectivity and for example discussion about TV white space could be of interest from the European point of view and that could be a way to extend connectivity. So not focusing only on 5G but making it broader in a way. And I'm not really sure about smart cities. I mean the smart cities, you know, deployments right now are not based on 5G, are based on other technologies so I'm not really sure it fits in the 5G plenary. And also the reason that the cluster was made this way because we had like four proposals directly using the term community networks and then in all of them it was rural areas so this was coming from the community. So maybe under 5G this connectivity issues, alternative ways might also be discussed. Just for understanding, for clarification. So community networks, regulatory framework might go under 5G. Is that what I guess? No, no, no. I might be the cause of us discussing 5G and CN because I've read recently some paper that tried to demonstrate that you could also promote 5G through community networks which is quite new and I wanted to drop this, you know, for a little smile. But that was not the point actually. It's me bragging about that. But there is no intention to discuss 5G in community networks altogether at all. Not at all. So we are basically still with 5G governance. There's at the moment no opposition on this. Okay, first a remote participant and Roberto. Andrew, please take the floor. Thank you. On the 5G governance as it's listed under access and literacy somebody touched on some of the myths around 5G and the bad things it can supposedly do. I think it'd be a fantastic opportunity to dispel some of those myths in this session and actually show what the real science is. Because a lot of the myths on the internet keep referring back to some fairly poor papers. So to have some current documentation that actually says why that's wrong would be helpful to touch on not to make a big focus for the session, but it would be helpful to have something there as a reference point. Yeah, I see that some of the proposals on 5G touch on digital sovereignty. My personal opinion is that if we talk about 5G we shouldn't forget about the elephant in the room. That is the question about how the Chinese technology is going to be accepted or not influenced by certain political decisions. For instance, the push to excluding Huawei from developing infrastructure in Europe. By the time we get to June this is going to be a hot topic. At least in Italy it's going to be. So I assume in the rest of Europe. So we should take into account this aspect that is going to come up by then. I think it was you, Robert, about also someone else how internet is impacted by East-West relationships. Is this what you meant with this proposal when you made it? No, no. East-West is a different thing. I think where it is located is fine. I'm just mentioning the fact that the deployment of 5G is a serious issue that has political consequences. The moment that, like for instance, I'm just making an example. The Chinese are proposing to work in the infrastructure in connection with what they do with the Port of Trieste as the end of the Belt and Road Initiative to build the 5G infrastructure. The question is that the government is a little bit hesitant on this and there's a lot of pushback because of the concerns that come from the US, from the Trump administration about not allowing Huawei to develop to sell their infrastructure in Europe because of security concerns and the possible backdoors that they can build in and so on. I think this is, we cannot have possibly in my personal opinion a workshop in June without having a discussion on this topic. If it's not explicitly, I don't know what Valentina wants to put as topic in terms of digital sovereignty but I see this as a political issue. I don't want to have the monopoly of digital sovereignty now but actually I propose the 5G and digital sovereignty issue and this was precisely my focus although I cannot point fingers so I cannot say Huawei. But yeah, it's definitely an element that we should discuss. I don't know whether under the 5G plenary that's up to us all to decide but in any case it would come out in either one or probably both. These non-European providers of infrastructure enter in the European market and if we allow such deployment of the entire network to them and what are the consequences, etc. What he was saying, the back door and blah, blah, blah, blah. Any other comments at this stage? Because then I would have a question or a proposal since this is at the moment proposed as a plenary. We usually have that opportunity before a plenary to have, yeah, we always have the opportunity before a plenary to have a keynote or a 30-minute slot, something. We could invite two different views, one in favor and one against, giving arguments against, giving arguments in favor and then have the discussion about 5G. Would that be an opportunity, which is also kind of a keynote thing but does not necessarily have to be from a highly political person but can also be from an expert person. Is that something which we could include this East-West elephant in the room who are very kind of thing? Okay, I see nogging. I see Jacomo, but first we have Gonzalo from Telefonica who raised the hand, Gonzalo. Great, you can make it. You have the floor. Yes. Yes, I just wanted to mention that giving the wide range of topics that we are going to discuss in the 5G session plenary, maybe including the smart cities proposals would be too optimistic and probably, I mean, we would not be able to address all the issues. So my suggestion would be to keep the smart cities in a separate session. Okay, thank you. I give the floor to Jacomo. Thanks. I think that the Huawei issue is a very highly political issue. So if you bring expert what the expert can say is a political decision at the end of the day. So if we want to touch really this point that requires a certain ability to find the right people as to be government. We have government in Europe that say that they don't see any problem and countries that say that they see a problem. So ideally you have to bring one representing that political camp and the other one representing the other political camp and put them together in discussing. But this needs some government's help to... This needs some institutional and political level intervention to convince the people to come. No, not the commission, of course, but there are countries that are... that they say that they don't see any problem and others that they see a big problem. So we need these people. As an expert, what will an expert add to the... Eventually you can have a third person or a journalist that could moderate the two interventions raising the right question. But it's a political issue. Okay. Jon? Well, I think since it's so politicized this issue it makes sense to have a more technical expert explaining the real issues behind. And then we can have, of course, the other side represented in the plenary. So one could make a point in a keynote and then we should make sure that in the plenary we have the other side represented as well. I see this coming... I see this coming up as... As Jakob said, highly political issue and whoever is going to be the focal point for this session has to deal with it. Full stop. And you might remember that our approach this year would also be that we organize the plenaries a little bit more top-down, that we don't give it to the broader community to do. So possibly the focal point role for any of the plenaries including this one would stay either with a host or with any of the partner organization. And since we are alerted now and are all aware of the issues I hope this will be in good hands. And for the moment I just put under this plenary including one or two statements about deploying companies which is a very vague thing but possibly this reminds us on what we would like to achieve inviting high level people with one view and the other view and then leading to a plenary. Marco and Amano, is this still going into the direction that it was important for you to deal with? And do you think that you as a host or any of your colleagues would have the capacity to deal with it as a focal point or would you rather just stay in the backseat and be a participant? Second option. Then I might look at Aetno if Aetno is in the position to maybe take the focal point role on this one? I can't speak for the office. I can't give it a thin answer but there is a capacity question at the moment. But that has to be discussed. It has to be discussed, yeah. Okay, so let's put out a sign but keep it in mind. Whoever else, maybe Isoc has an interest in taking the lead on this, just let us know because this is a hot topic and that might end up being the opening plenary. So although we won't call it opening plenary in case we have only man sitting. Okay, so just keep that in mind. Any other general remarks on this category access and there is another word literacy and there is one part on literacy which if I share my personal point of view the proposals that went in there are not the strongest ones I must say. This is a lot of things that we have discussed already a lot of...anyway we clustered it but if you have to take a decision and we have to take some things out then this is possibly one where we are not losing strong proposals. Please Isoc team correct me if I'm wrong but... The mic please. I think we need a very strong focal point for this to make sure I wouldn't... I mean personally I wouldn't like to remove some of the proposals because then again it's hard to pick because it's all more or less touching the same issue so a very strong focal point that might direct the discussion into something more refreshing and we haven't heard before and of course we can be in close contact. Adding to that that we still have something a bucket that is being called access and literacy so it would be so unfair if we just skip the literacy part of this bucket it's too late. We can keep that in mind in the coming years whether we maintain this but for the time being it would be unfair to remove it. No we can do what we want but I agree that the three others are stronger much stronger in terms including in policy and governance, yeah that's clear. But I would like to remind us the point is and we agree that we would like to be a little bit more focused in the past we tried to include each and every proposal this year we take the liberty to say it's repetitive, it has been discussed it's not so strong this year maybe it's stronger in another year let's keep it out for a while we only have limited slots available and at the moment we have like three or four even five more than available so let's keep that in mind we have to take some hard decisions today in this respect. I agree but so sorry I'm a bit stubborn even though it would depend on me I would just feel okay if we would skip that part but we don't address literacy unless we address literacy in the proposal we have so I believe we can give it a gondry kind of situation with one shot or a D0 or something at 7.30 a.m. or I hope I'm not taped but it's in and this is only literacy that we have so I guess. Okay, Jan? Regarding literacy I think we have a literacy topic buried somewhere else and I had a cluster of protection of data relating to children and how to educate and there is a line going from human rights and data protection to innovation and economic issues and I think there is a literacy issue on children that we don't just want to exclude everything that relates to children but how to educate them how to empower them that they can participate and then they can do it in a way that suits their abilities so maybe we could move this to literacy and then we have a literacy part as well. This brings me to an idea indeed there is an arrow from protection of data relating to children and how to educate to basically not economy but the arrow should lead to aspects of social media, vulnerable groups, children and old people which kind of is a broader literacy topic but then there were some proposals that were quite interesting that went into the direction of building curriculas building curriculas for blockchain building curriculas for XYZ maybe this could cover the entire literacy thing in a more specific and more focused way and there was one proposal that came from the Portuguese government and I know they are doing some great work on this they called it here a cyber security classroom for kids from the Portuguese government and there was another I think this was under, oops that was too far I have to see where we we definitely had some more proposals ah here it is under other development of an educational curricula which is kind of so we could possibly have a presentation from something like somebody like the Portuguese government they possibly have to share something about what they are doing and then maybe feed that all into a educational literacy session is that a okay Frederick agrees I see others knocking in the room as well typical day zero sorry isn't that the typical day zero sort of session that we do we moved it too often already this looks always a little because we always do that that's why I remember it this way no then that's very good especially if it's practical with someone presenting what they do like the Portuguese government apparently it's a different session basically the connection was already made by the Secretariat and I just realized this now exactly and then have maybe a flash or a presentation in the plenary room and then go into a workshop to discuss it a little bit more in details these curriculas okay I think that's a very good solution so we keep this and merge it with the other one from the curriculas we go into the details then later on Raina do we have comments from not at this moment okay then I summarize this category access we confirm the plenary on G5 we are aware of the political questions that's attached to this it will somehow also connect to the digital sovereignty so we have to make that clear in a program that we have that close to each other we have at the moments proposed two workshops on network community networks one that talks about regulatory frameworks and one that talks about best practices we will see if we can really accommodate two workshops but if then they should be a follow-up and we have merged building digital skills and there was nothing as a typical standalone topic I think we are pretty much in agreement how we deal with this category aren't we perfect then I would suggest since we touched it already going now to the innovation and economic issues category then to human rights and then to media and content just short intervention people in the chat says they need to hear what is discussed in the room so please use the microphone good point Raina Olivier you are subject matter experts for a while but you did this category this year for the first time so the floor is yours where is the mic I tried my hand this year on something else and now for something completely different and we actually swapped roles with the internet society with Frederic and with Charin so I used to do access and literacy and now dealing with innovation new things and so the clustering was actually quite interesting in that there were a lot of submissions in that category I think it was at 37 or something it's quite a large number and as time went on I also saw that a number of other submissions that had originally been classed elsewhere ended up in innovation the largest cluster was to do with the European digital economy and regulation relating to this you might have remembered last year there was some poll that was put in during Eurodig and there were quite a few people that had said they were interested in more regulation in Europe rather than less regulation in Europe among the participants so it's interesting that there was a follow up on this with a large number of submissions that dealt with regulation and so they and I think it's quite correct to put this as a plenary the European digital economy all around regulation and also linking it if you look at the screen the suggestion of linking it with efficient regulation of global platforms and this is a huge huge topic and you can see how many proposals are there this is going to be but I think that as a plenary it will have to be structured in a way that we don't just mix all the things together at the same time aim towards some deliverables that can probably come out of that so I'm looking forward to this having it as a plenary too. You will have noticed on the diagram on the left hand side the smart cities which I tried earlier to hook to the 5G but that's been refused now so I'll go back to my corner and keep the smart cities to ourselves a number of proposals came into this they were like somehow linked I mean part of the smart cities thing is to do with I know there was one proposal which spoke about smart cities not just reserve for cities but pretty much for smaller smaller towns as well smaller locations but I think that it might be worth looking at it as a workshop or maybe a flash session or something that could incorporate in that the workshops which I mentioned here so IOT and AI, the IOT market securing smart cities and promoting smart cities and digital transportation because they somehow IOT smart cities and AI are interrelated with this it might well be that it would work in maybe access but we'll have to look at that a bit further the algorithms was interesting algorithms competition and trust there were a number of proposals this year on this again it touches with calls for some people to say well the algorithms should be regulated we're dealing with of course recognising you tracking you on the internet and it's got a high component with regards to privacy as well but this would probably fit very well as a workshop we had last year a workshop on algorithms which was more of an educational thing but this year we really are looking more at the inner workings of how algorithms promote or promote competition or do not promote trust in the internet I think that a lot of people are starting to really wonder why the internet is tracking them so closely so it does have a very high component part of privacy and data governance in some way then if you scroll a bit further to the right you'll find there were a few workshops that were proposed few topics that were proposed that were somehow isolated first and the emerging technologies the number one actually focuses on artificial intelligence how do we deal with the place of the human brain functions power and existence within a sustainable internet with IOT and AI and the second one I think was just added on that wasn't one of the workshops that I reviewed which was what is the status of computer interaction development for the disabled with easy access including costs for humans disadvantaged by impediments to sight, hearing, speech and mobility I think that would be more with access and literacy and maybe we should look at seeing if we can tag along with one existing topical workshop the one which focuses on AI could easily be folded into the smart cities thing because that's all a component part on it there were two proposals on innovative uses of blockchain and cryptography I know that blockchain actually was one of the topics that the local was it the local host or the government said that there was interest in that so I'm not sure where we're going with regards to the blockchain topic and whether any of the other groups had anything to do with blockchain technologies in response to the request well not the request but the note that was made this morning about the societal effects of some aspects of the internet internet addiction was actually proposed by ARCA who has moved back now hidden behind me and that's interesting because yes that's a certain thing I'm not sure that we're addicted to the internet but I've certainly noticed in younger generations much internet addiction social media addiction you might have seen you are but I haven't seen you walk around like the usual social media addict which is a person that walks at about one kilometer an hour just looking at their phone and about to cross the street and by the way I've seen that many times and you must have seen this in large cities and it's really a concern and you think well it's a joke isn't it but it isn't actually they're very much addicted to their phone and when you see the number of people that turn up social influencers on YouTube events or flash events they used to call them flash events back then flash crowds and so on then one really has to be concerned about this I would think that internet addiction might be a good flash session because it's one of these things that needs to be addressed it's an upcoming issue and it's only likely to become worse with time and then women in technology and the gender gap is important I note that here yes there is not that much balance and in wider technology issues or internet issues we'll find that 90% of the time we've got so many male panels and not enough balance panels so I would have thought this could be also a good other other flash session since the flash sessions are taking place in the main hall so they would get the recognition that it deserves and hopefully we can get a what is it called is it a WANL women only panel so if you got a manual you got a WANL anyway so that's the those are the current clusters and I'm happy to discuss any of these and I guess maybe the first question is really can we cluster efficient regulation of global platforms with the European digital economy regulation that would have been my question to you as well if you feel comfortable I feel pretty comfortable about that I mean that's that's going to be a huge topic we need to make sure that the people that are going to speak are going to be good with not rambling on about things so basically totally excludes me from speaking on this thing but it needs to be something that we can then look at the different component parts of each one of these proposals and plug them and then have a what you call it have a roadmap if you want that takes us through that topic okay Valentino? No I guess I understand where Olivier is coming from and why he wants to to merge these two into a plenary but maybe we need to clarify because it looks very weird the European digital economy regulation now we already have many people that say that our only advantage is regulation but put it this way weird because it looks like our digital economy is regulation which is not necessarily true the European one and the second again there are many people who already say that's our only advantage economic advantage but yeah you know let's not give this negative view on our digital economy and the second point is then I mean on the other side efficient regulation of global platforms I'm guessing people who put this workshop proposal I mean this call for this issue are not talking about European platform so it's a bit we need to clarify I mean we need to think about a smart title for this plenary to include all these elements because there are a lot of elements there Valentino just to touch what you say it's not only regulation Olivier clustered it in a way that he said European digital economy regulation and be promotion and we just it's not there anymore because the secretariat dissolved the promotion part because those proposals were not so strong we put them into other sessions then we have an answer to what I said yeah yeah precisely I mean we think that our only competitive advantage is regulation but that's wrong let's try to promote better or more again we have to see what we get and what is more stronger there's things that were not so strong we try to put them in other fields no I mean I tend to agree but we need to find the smart title for that but it's supposed to be a very interesting plenary a lot for instance went into the southeastern European that comes later when we talked to about the category human rights a lot of those promotional thing went into the into this one it's actually an interesting development from I think I mean I didn't write any of those proposals but interesting development from what president Macron was saying at the IGF in Paris which was you've got the California Internet like you can do anything you want and you got the Chinese Internet which is completely 100% run by the government effectively and then you've got the European Internet which should find itself somewhere in between the two and it's funny because for the US of course the California Internet works really well because of course they got the gaffas they've got the biggest companies out there and they do not want to put any kind of regulation on them because these companies are bringing an enormous amount of cash worldwide but the Europeans are seeing these companies as a potential threat and this is why regulation was seen last year as being something that they needed to be with regards to platforms with regards to content with regards to these things so I think we can probably we have to find a title if we can find a nice balance on this and have a frank discussion on that that would be a good idea By the way, California just did do some regulations on the gaffas Privacy, yes, privacy Which copycat, what? I'm just saying and I had another point on this which was that though I'm very interested in this triplanary 5G digital sovereignty and the last one with the smart title and I think they're crucial for the future of Europe we risk to have three very similar planaries or in any case the issue raised will be relatively similar in the dream I'm just throwing this there Okay, we have two handrails from remote participants, Reiner can you give them the floor please? Andrew, please go first Surely, thank you Well, just to pick up on the last point I think the structure as proposed looks really good I agree with the comment that there is some overlap potentially with the digital sovereignty but I think as long as they're positioned clearly that's a positive thing because I think digital sovereignty is the hot issue at the moment so addressing it from three different points of view or three different facets of it is potentially quite a powerful thing to do so as long as there's good management of the three different sessions that should work well and would be potentially a nice golden thread through the whole of the event so I think that's a positive Andrew, would you say that that would provide a potential theme for this year? Absolutely, and I think it should be personally because I think it's a hot topic at the moment and Europe needs to make a decision fundamentally, does it want to be an extension of the US internet or fundamentally does it want to have a distinctive European internet that's interconnected with but separate from in terms of policy and privacy and all those things from the US I think lots of the other issues come out of that because things like 5G for example and while we do you want to be a sort of delivery agent for US trade policy and it's trade war with China or to take an independent line there are pros and cons in both approaches so I think it's a strong theme and it's very much of the moment The next would be Andrea Thank you Andrea I think it's the same it's due to the same name but I do agree with Andrew very much of what he said actually he picked up what I wanted to say I think this is really the theme and it's a theme that we have to be smart and put it down to the sovereignty and make come across what we mean by sovereignty and probably that could be even the challenge of the session because it really touches upon different layers and just to give you an idea on how things are moving fast is what Olivier just mentioned the Macron speech about the California internet the Chinese internet that was two years ago and you read the news and you see that the California internet actually is not that fancy any longer not even in California and you mentioned the GDPR like regulation in California but also you see all the antitrust and hearings and investigations on Amazon happening in the US this debate is now happening at the core of the California internet of the origins of the internet and in Europe interesting enough there is an interview today on the Financial Times to Angela Merkel which she really suggests you to have a look and read because she you may like her or not she says some experience and she rightly so says that we do are at a turning point in Europe Europe has to decide what it really wants to be whether it be on the security whether it be phallic chain facing Brexit and she also mentioned that about what is our role in shaping the evolution of the internet and what it doesn't work so if we can cluster these things together and we can be you know it's I think we have all the elements in the different planaries if we can put them almost seamless together around the concept of sovereignty of any capture into that what the challenge is whether it be regulation, whether it be 5G whether it be trade, whether it be innovation they all they all different phases of the same diamonds to have to be smart in doing that and in that we can also help to the overall goal of putting Euridic at the center of this debate because if we can do that I'm sure that we can even get the attention of the global internet governance problem about this and we can really overcome these it's almost a sense of well in Europe it's only about regulation, it's only about whether Europe would be able to regulate or not actually something more and are we able to decide and shape and do something to shape the future of the internet or you know we're just observing and fading in the background if that can be put into you know more concise and put it into the theme and also into the main session I think we strike a big goal. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? I don't think we have the California internet in Europe we have the Irish internet meaning we have all that regulation in place and it's not enforced because all companies are sitting in Ireland and in Ireland the GDPR is poorly enforced yet so it's not that we don't have the regulation but it's not working and this is basically what was one of the focus for the efficient regulation of platforms of course this goes beyond GDPR but GDPR is one important part of it. Thanks John. Jakob. As we have already discussed last year last year we decided to put the GDPR as a main topic because we said it's done but I told that it's not done the GDPR in reality the GDPR game starts now when the first affairs will come into judgment at the privacy authority in Europe so I think that if we want to talk about regulation on the platforms this is the right moment to bring on the debate the regulatory authority of the privacy that have open action against the platforms and to ask where they are and where this stands because everybody in the world is waiting to see if GDPR will be fully implemented or not. This is the crucial issue. If you remain a good low very nice on the shelves nobody will care if it's something that show to have teeth then people start even the bigger it will start to take it seriously so I think that if we want to touch this point we need to do with the association of the privacy authority around Europe and ask them to come. Thanks any other? Okay to summarize this category now I hear there was no disagreement in merging the topic of the digital economy and regulation and the regulation of global platforms but we have to formulate the right focus we have to put more thoughts into that one. We didn't really speak about with this other workshop algorithms competition and trust there would be another point that I would like to raise last year subject matter experts decided that the matter of artificial intelligence is not merely a matter of internet governance and therefore we as the secretariat try to avoid artificial intelligence and that is one of the main buzzwords in our headlines here and we put it under algorithm competition and trust which of course then if you go deeper into the topic includes artificial intelligence. My question to you is that an approach that we still would like to follow because last year again we made that experience that when it comes to the focal aspect of artificial intelligence it is not possible to explain each and every time that guys artificial intelligence and emerging technology that we are looking at but not the one and the question is how we are going to deal with it or do we put it into some title inviting those who want to speak about artificial intelligence because then it would be here possibly most likely in this category there are quite a few people that equate algorithms to artificial intelligence is a Google search engine an actual artificial intelligence when it actually manages to find what you want and then you look at another search engine it doesn't actually necessarily put the right what you are really looking for at the very beginning. The reason why Google is so useful to people and most people use it is because it seems to be giving them better results than others or at least the perception is that you get better results with Google than with others so obviously there is some kind of an engine behind it that is AI. John? Personally I don't like the name algorithm because it is not an algorithm it is the exact contrary but it is heavily used so AI is not really precise either but at least it is not wrong but anyway we can name it however we like there has been a couple of proposals concerning AI or deep learning deep learning is actually precise and human rights and I was kind of missing them I don't care whether they will be at immersion technology or whether they will be at human rights but we should make sure that they are not lost because I think it is an important aspect. Maybe we revisit this issue when we come to Europe. Can we cluster these with what we have here so it would be AI, competition, trust and human rights as in you know what is because these are three aspects really of artificial intelligence does it bring trust does it bring competition is it like human rights? Olivier, I promise that is going to be a workshop where yaba yaba blah blah takes place As I said, I am not going to be in that workshop so its not going to be yaba yaba but that is the point I think we have to be very specific about whatever we want to discuss because of course you I will give you a point just thinking about different aspects and that question first. Andrew, please take the floor. Thank you, just very briefly. If you want to make it obvious that it's to do with AI as well, I would simply extend the title to be algorithms, machine learning, competition and trust, because I think algorithms aren't really AI, but they're important, but they're distinct and safe. But I've not read the proposals, I'm just making that as a general observation. I heard machine learning and deep learning, what would be more precise? I'll pass the mic to you. Unless we have other machine learning things there, I would go for deep learning because it's mostly deep learning. I don't have a problem with that, I don't think, I think the key thing is to say some form of those words alongside the algorithms piece. Okay, sure. With this, can we skip algorithms or do we need to keep algorithms if you have deep learning? Maybe keep the algorithms, although I don't like them, many people refer to them, so they find it there. Okay, so we are in agreement, we keep something that covers algorithm deep learning, competition and trust, which is still very broad and has to be focused a bit more by looking at it into more detail. Okay, and then my last question to the smart cities. Well, the focus is do they bring competition or do they hinder competition? Do they bring trust? Do they hinder trust? Two questions. Okay, but we have to formulate the title a bit sharper than smart cities. Is that something that we would like to keep? The proposals that are mentioned here are not the strongest one, I must say. I mean, they were not very descriptive or is that something where you would be okay in case we are going to skip it? But because we have too many workshops at the moment, we have to condense it a bit. As I said earlier, I thought that they might fit with 5G because it's part of the 5G thing. Maybe rather than being part of 5G, there could be just a mention of the smart cities. But I know that there are also other ideas as in no, smart cities exist today. So it does sound like it would be a repeat of some of the 5G discussions as well. Okay, so we keep them under. Michael Orcher? Hi, I just wanted to say that I think it's going to be really regardless of what we name the session, which whatever. I just want to say with my dynamic coalition on the sustainability of journalism news media hat. Obviously, this is an innovation economic issue. But if we're talking about competition, trust, algorithms, and all forms of AI, that's very much a media issue as well, especially as it relates to disinformation, to the sustainability of journalism, specifically in Europe. So I would be really keen to make sure that while we're finalizing that, it's very, very clear what elements of competition we're referring to and kind of keep that scope rather focused. Because as you said, Sandra, I think it would be easy to have that be kind of so inclusive of all these different issues that the workshop itself doesn't really how doesn't really end up knowing what specifically to talk about. If that makes sense, I can clarify that's not clear. It could be a six hour workshop. Yeah, definitely. Michael, thank you very much. And I also would like to confirm that we received your email requesting a dynamic coalition for the dynamic coalition on the sustainability of journalism and media. We come to that category later on. And since we are always in support of giving dynamic coalitions, a platform to meet at the regional IGF, I more or less would like to confirm already that you got this space under zero, where we also know now that some of those proposals can go under it. Okay, then I would like to finish with this category and move to the category of human rights. Yarn is the subject matter expert. Just Sandra, just a quick question then. What about the issues, the gender issue and the addiction issue? We are dealing with the flash sessions on a separate. We do it after the separate process. All right, go. Today we concentrate on workshops and plenaries and everything else that follows. Understood. All right, thanks. So Yarn was taking over this category after Farzani did it for a long time. But since she is based in New Jersey and also took a new job, she was happy to hand it over to someone. So Yarn did it in cooperation with the Council of Europe that also had a stake in that, right? Well, we exchanged some emails. Well, first concerning the global platforms, when we merged with the digital economy, there are some topics that are a bit more GDPR specific and maybe we could have, well, we have currently, we have a workshop ended in the plan to, with the question, do we need to rethink GDPR? GDPR versus information freedom, the future of consent. There's a lot of discussion on and consent doesn't really work. We need something different. And I think we could maybe have this also as a plenary if we skip one plenary over there because we merged the two platforms. Because I think it's the other very important topic in that domain. And otherwise, we have data protection in the SEE countries. GDPR has certain obstacles for countries that are third countries. And these countries have a lot of problems concerning their goal to catch up with Europe with the regulation and at the same time being considered equally protective to data. So I think this is a quite a good workshop topic. And then we have the decentralized digital identity, a topic which is gaining a lot of attention. And so I think it's good to have it there. We already talked a bit about the protection of data relating to children and education. And I understood that we move it, especially the education part. And we had the part of how to align AI with human rights that I just mentioned that I would like to have maybe as a flash session or as a workshop because we don't have too many workshops available. But I think it's an important part. Then we also had the diversity trends on platforms and their impact questions. We have female platforms where we have a majority of female users. And is it a good thing to have platforms that have no equal representation or is it a bad thing? Should groups have their own platform? So what does it mean? So it might be an interesting topic too much with the women topic that we just had before. And one thing that has been dropped was governance of decentralized platforms, something from which was listed on IG ecosystem. I think it's a very interesting and innovative topic. And we had the topic of disconnect between tech scientists, developers and politicians. And we talked this morning about how we can overcome this disconnect between Eurodig and politicians and politics. And maybe it's kind of a meta topic that would be nice to address in some way to see how all this discussion and this knowledge that is available can really have an impact in decision making and regulation. And we see this disconnect that is making sense more difficult. I think I covered everything. Yes, I think so. Thanks, Jan. You have seen that we dissolved some of the or that we put together some of the proposals already. And you reminded me that the educational thing went into the building digital skills, education, creating curricula. So we saved one. And you proposed one that you would rather see as a plenary than a workshop. Which one was that the question of do we need to rethink GDPR? So we kind of have GDPR now for two years. And it's time to take a step back and see what worked, what didn't work, what was too much, what was too little and discuss this. Okay. Floor is open. You need coffee, huh? Eurya. And then Valentina. Just one thing about GDPR. I think that one of the unintended consequences was what happened for the Huiz. And now, of course, ICANN, basically most of the oxygen in ICANN has been taken out by this effort to somehow devise a system whereby that Huiz type of information would still be available at the same time respecting GDPR. So that if we are taking GDPR, are going to take GDPR in a sort of new sort of talk about that. So this definitely would be one of the aspects. Could you give it back to Valentina, please? Yeah, tell me about it. The Huiz discussion. No, I was wondering how many plenaries do we have until now already? We proposed already four plenaries, but one is under other, which goes together with climate. I will come to that later. We have four and basically all four are kind of resolved. So for me, yes, I agree. Maybe we should do a sort of impact assessment or evaluation of the GDPR, but I don't think that deserves a plenary to be honest. It can go under regulation. That's my opinion. And secondly, if Ireland is not implemented the GDPR, it's open to infraction because the GDPR is regulation. Because you said Ireland, many companies are based in Ireland because then they can go away, but then they're risking a lot because it's a regulation. It's not a matter of waiting to implement. At some point, it should be immediate. No, let's stop this. Sorry, but nevertheless, yes, I think in general, we can do this assessment, but not in a plenary and certainly not all around the Huiz because Huiz, yeah, that's a bit too specific. Okay, that we need to be focused, but when the secretariat was looking into these proposals, we were also thinking about things that we heard in the past that, for instance, it would be interesting to hear about some court cases that have been taking place around GDPR. And that would also be probably be something more for a workshop where possibly a prosecutor can come, let us know what are your obstacles, how difficult is this law to fulfill and these kind of things. Chakomoy, you want to say something? Court cases, we are not at the time of the court cases yet. We are at the time where the authority or privacy have to pronounce on certain claims against the application of GDPR. This is the focus of this year. The court cases will be, I think, next year or in two years' time because the time of the justice are long on this kind of things. So I repeat what I told before. I think that we need to invest the authority or the privacy in Europe. And as Valentino was trying to say, it's not anymore a matter of the single country because when an authority to privacy in a country is not enough equipped to deal with a certain topic that happens in this country, they will be supported or even, I would say, overlooked by other bigger authorities. And there are already cases for that that are going on. And I think that it will be very interesting to open the debate with them and we need to involve the European data protection authority and the authority of the privacy around Europe, the ones that are already working on this. I think you just qualified as focal point for this. But you would be okay with a workshop or instead of a plenary, what would you? No, simply it's too early to decide today. I think that if we are able to get the right names, we would deserve a plenary. Difficult to... Okay, Peter. Thank you. Just opening the scope a bit in a way that we might want to. I'm not going to sit down. We might want to have plenaries for the next and the next after the next year. And I very much agree with the assessment that it's probably too early to make a judgment about court cases and the really crispy and hard issues. So it's probably helpful if we don't block the next or the 2020 plenary by having this in a plenary this year and then potentially being repetitive in the next years. And obviously the workshop seems to be fine. Although I don't think the title is the right one, it's like putting this under pressure. We need to rethink GDPR. I know that's like a teaser in a way, but the state of privacy in Europe would be something that's probably a bit more neutral to the extent that people conceive privacy as neutral. But the rethinking is going into that. It's already setting the scene that something is going wrong there. There might be things going wrong, but I think there are also lots of things going right. You have a proposal for a different formulation. Yeah. State of privacy in Europe as a working title. State of GDPR is boring, sorry. So we need a more catchy title. And it's not just that it's not effective, but in some cases it's overreaching. So it's threatening information and freedom. I just have a proposal of like a well thought maybe I don't know privacy 3.0 or something in Europe or something like this. Like the next steps or like the future of privacy in Europe, something like that. I think that would be more positive title. Let's go to a remote participant first, Andrew. Hi, sorry, just coming off mute. Given that we already discussed the proposal for the other plenary, which was regulating the European digital economy, I would have thought that ought to be sufficient and maybe taking the relevant pieces. If it needs to be in a plenary session, inserting the relevant bits on GDPR into that would make more sense than having two separate plenaries on regulation. Otherwise, it's starting to send quite a negative message about, I think to visit Valentino, a Valentino suggested there's more than just regulations to technology in Europe and be a fortune to give the impression it was different to that. Okay, this is Peter again, just to respond to Jörn. Yeah, I agree there might be overreach. There's also a lot of fear-monging and there's also a lot of lack of enforcement. So it's going in various directions and maybe we can catch that in a title, but then again, designed by committee for a title is probably the best. So for a title, I catch privacy in Europe-GDPR versus information freedom for the moment, very fragmented. So it's not the final one. No, I still think it's very interesting discussion, but I still wouldn't do it a plenary. Sorry, Giacomo, but we have a lot of very interesting topics, it seems to me, this year for plenaries and this would be a very interesting discussion certainly, but so a very auto-referential because we're not going to do a refit of GDPR any time soon. So it's not going to be informing really for now anything. And the second thing is, yeah, in general over-reaching or not effective, probably both true, but since you mentioned yourself, Sandra, maybe also do not forget comparison with others. I don't know if it can fit in the same session, but a comparison with other framework would be interesting, like the California one, but also others that are coping or not coping the European one. Now, since you're the focal point, Giacomo, it's up to you to take it on board or not, at least I guess. Okay, so I think there is consent in this room to deal with the GDPR, whatever the title is, in a workshop. I didn't hear any opposement against decentralized digital identity. I must say this is also something that once they call the group, the CCTLDs would be quite interested in, although they are not very active in submitting proposals, they are active in giving money. And for instance, the Denig, Yurid, Switch, they are all looking into how to first reach the end user, but also developing tools on managing digital identity. So that might be a workshop, and Peter correct me if I'm wrong, that might be a workshop that attracts CCTLDs a little bit more, that are looking into these kind of things. You're looking like you doubt what I say. Okay, I didn't want to put the spot on you. My question to all of you now, and in particular, Yurn, is this how it looks at the moment? Is this still in a way that it makes sense to you or did we change it too much? Is it, I can enlarge it a little bit. We have three workshops, basically, and one plenary or one aspect that is merged with the plenary on a digital economy regulation. This is how we would cover this category. Well, I still got the governance of decentralized platforms, which I think is, I don't know, you want to move it to a flash session? I think it's here in securing and data protection in C region in relation to EU regulation, I think. This has nothing to do with it. Governance of decentralized platforms. Of decentralized, sorry. Sorry, we misunderstood. Possibly it went into the digital identity, but because we have the decentralized there. Okay, we could have, as a workshop, maybe we have enough time to put both in them. Okay. Yeah. Do you think that's doable? And then we had the AI and human rights part. Since we didn't merge them, we should give them some spot. It went into the algorithm deep learning competition trust thing. Those proposals went in there. It's under economic issues. Yes. But human rights are not economic issues. They are not excluded. This would be a merged proposal, which has two colors, basically. Okay. I thought we had a kind of a discussion that it was too broad and we didn't want everything in one workshop. But if you want to merge it. But for this category economy, it seemed to be resolved to me. If you now say that's too broad, then we have to find other ways. Maybe if there is something very specific, maybe we add another flash session to cover that thing that might not be identifiable anymore in the merge session. For flash sessions, we have nothing so far and here there would be enough space to do something. Okay. But you don't have something specific in mind now, a headline that you could give us? For the human rights and AI, let me see. It was, well, discuss the ways in which we can educate algorithms and AI with human rights principles. How AI will help and risk human life and... Okay. There's the appropriate standards that match very well with the economic issues. Maybe this is fine. Let's go into the details of the proposals later on. Okay. Is this it for this category on human rights or any other questions? I have the feeling you're getting tired. Then let's shift... Any online interventions? No. Then let's shift to our almost last category, which is media and content. And this is clustered by Uri Yolensipudo. I enlarge it for you a little bit. Before going to this category, I just want to make a general observation after this stage of the discussions, which have been very productive to my mind. It seems that we have a few elephants in the room. There are like four elephants, at least, and they are not European. And these elephants have been present before, but now we are more and more sort of knowledgeable, aware of their presence. And of course, what I'm talking about is our Google and Facebook and so on and so forth. And it's interesting that somehow these elephants are lurking behind every category and every cluster, one way or the other. We see some parts of them, like, you know, the elephant and the five blind men who saw different aspects of the elephant. Anyway, so I think that even so, we have managed to make this sort of clustering and grouping quite well using the categories, which actually we have inherited from the original IGF and original WSIS even. Okay, so the clustering of proposals for the media and content this year. There were 20 proposals for the category and most of them concerned the social media, like so many years before. And taking a look at them, first of all, a category copyright or cluster copyright. I think that it's a fairly clear cut continuation of the discussion we had 2019 when all these scars of the big fight were still there, they were fresh. Now this directive is in force and it will be implemented in less than a year from the Euro League. And there are three such proposals on that from credible sources. We have the WAN IFRA and we have the IFLA, the International Library Association. And I think that that's going to be one fairly compact category for a workshop asking how is it going now? Are you going to implement these and what problems you see and so on and so forth. The second one is a new topic, at least in Euro League context. Also, I would remember that we had once it in IGF many years back and that's Internet and diaspora, Internet and migration. Of course, migration is one of the big political topics in Europe now, as everybody knows, most countries. And it's an interesting aspect to what is the role of the Internet there in a positive and negative aspect. This is a proposal from Marina Rosca University of Deusto. Deusto is in Bilbao, Spain and I intend to try to exchange some ideas with her and find out more in detail how she thinks that this topic could be treated. Third, social media. Most, as I said, most proposals were again about social media and most were of the negative aspects of social media. Trying to cluster them somehow, I felt that perhaps we could talk for a change of some of the social media positive aspects and I have a few proposals for that. I think that what Sandra just mentioned, Michael's proposal about sustainability of media of content would fit in this category also. Last, of course, most of these social media proposals were again about disinformation and other negative forms. We have been treating them at many, many euronics so far. I think that to avoid a repeat performance, we should focus on what is new, new threats like, for instance, deep fake technology that now seems to be coming and perhaps deep fake demonstration, actually demonstrating the latest possibilities on screen of what you can do with deep fake technology would be a possible interesting session and a sort of visual session. There are some proposals concerning also new legislative and regulatory approaches but perhaps they could also go under other other categories as we have been discussing. Last, there were a few proposals about vulnerable groups, let's say children and the old people and what the idea of this proposal of old people is somebody over 50 years but anyway, we all are treachery bit vulnerable but I think that this as it has been already proposed here on the screen, this problem with children, young people and even old people could be treated in another category. Thank you. Thank you, Uriel. Questions, comments? Andrew, our remote participant, very active one. Andrew, you have the floor. Thank you. Just two observations based on what's been said which were the national implementation of copyright, would that be possible to incorporate within a regulating the European digital economy session, just a thought and similarly the whole piece of disinformation and deep fakes and so on, could that be linked with the session we talked about on algorithms, deep learning, competition and trust because to me that's a key facet of trust fundamentally and a good demonstration of deep learning as well in a bad way. So just two suggestions if you wanted to squeeze up the number of workshops. Yeah, that's fully possible of course but I'd like to have this deep fakes as a visual demonstration whether that would be standalone or part of another workshop that's of course could be decided. I understand deep fake at a presentation as is that would be something for the plenary room, right? Something where you really demonstrate how it works, how it looks, how amazing. It's a good idea. I take that to to a standalone topic because this is not yet there. We would. Pardon? That could be also something. Please take the mic. Yeah, I think that by June there will be available from various sources, good examples and good demonstrations on how it can be made. Olivier, the mic is with Uriel. Thank you. This year I attended the Mozilla Festival in London and they had a demonstration of deep fakes. So it was a little workshop, a little round table and there was a chap on the computer and he took a few pictures and he said, right, have a look at how I create a deep fake like this and he created it within 10 minutes or something. We had a deep fake created in front of us. So it was really interesting and it was well attended. Now whether it can be recreated in a plenary with lots of people, well you know Murphy's law, don't you? So you're going to do the thing on, you know, do it and 20 minutes later it's still not finished and it's a tough one. So yeah. Chris Buckridge. I was just going to note and again, so we're probably possibly digging down into the dirt a little here, but certainly in terms of well the US election sharpening a lot of people's minds about these kinds of issues and about sort of misinformation and how the internet can actually affect democratic processes, there's probably going to be other aspects. I know I think Cloud Play yesterday announced that they'll be providing free protection to US political campaigns. So there is some other work going on. So I think the deep fakes thing is probably a very useful draw card and a very sort of good example of it, but we should also look a little bit more broadly at the sort of general other impacts that the internet can have on democratic processes. Yeah, I think that this is, this would be in a way a sort of consumer education that is to say that to prepare for a time when many of the things that we have always believed in are not credible anymore. It's a hard job actually to tell people that what you see is not true. Okay, I have a question to Uri and to Michael Orcha who's online still and who proposed to have this dynamic coalition meeting on day zero. To which extent do you think the media proposals could go into the dynamic coalition on what was the right name, journalism and sustainability of journalism and news and media? Michael, since you have the floor, please go ahead. Sure, so to be very honest, Sandra, I hadn't thought about it that holistically. I was thinking of it more in the sense of for us as the dynamic coalition, the DC sustainability in very shorter terms, to be able to just meet, provide more of a let's say an informal gathering as opposed to a to a workshop in and of itself more of a place to host anyone that's interested in media and content issues or specifically sustainability issues as it relates to journalism, news media, kind of update everyone on our action plan for 2020 that we're currently developing and basically just provide a space for anyone. So it wasn't specifically with the idea, with the intention to create, to I guess do something substantial, but that's not to say that we can't, we just hadn't been planning on it. Do you think it would be possible if you take up this information on social media and how to fight it? Because I think that goes very much into the work of the dynamic coalition also. Unfortunately, Sandra, I wouldn't be able to confirm now. I would have to check with the co-coordinators and also talk to some other people to see if that would be okay. So I'm sorry, I don't have the ability to confirm yet. Okay, point taken. I put it in as something that we should have to explore further. Perfect. Thank you. And thank you for thinking of us. Yeah, Michael, I have been working on the mailing list of your coalition and I know the proposal you made for this other conference. I propose that we talk about that offline and let's see if we can find some sort of cooperation points. Thank you. You see, my aim is to condense it down a little bit. We have another one from remote Natya Chayya. Natya wants you to take the phone. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Hi, I just want to comment on the deep fakes. In terms of the direction, I recall that some media organizations launched a manner in which they're addressing deep fakes, but also there is a new website that was open source I think in which they're teaching people how to create their own person. So you can actually create images of persons online. And I think the website is called, this is not a real person. And then if you try to find this person, this person is not existing, it's created by itself. So in terms of direction, whether or not we should go towards AI or towards media, I think it overlaps and I think it depends on who ends up being part of that particular session on what direction it will go, unless she specifically say now that you want to go in a particular direction. Okay. Yudia, you want to respond? Yeah, just thank you, Natya. Can you send me the URL and take a look at that? That was a question to Natya. This person does not exist. Is the URL? Just the website. Okay. Good. So for this category, I have the feeling that there's agreement on keeping the national implementation of copyright, because that's really an ongoing issue. We are a bit unsure how we are treating the social media and positive and negative aspects and so on and so forth. And I understood that aspects of vulnerable groups, children and elderly people goes in this educational part that we all clustered under literacy, right? Good. This brings us down to almost 16 workshops that we would need. Are there any other comments or questions on the media category? I'm rushing a bit now because we are on top of the hour. Okay. If this is not the case, then I would now go back to the overall program before we go into the break. So I adjusted already as the information came in today. So what's new compared to the morning is that we have, oops, what is new at the moment that we have another dynamic coalition, the one on sustainability of journalism news and media that would possibly make it between two or three dynamic coalition meetings on day zero, as well as the NRI assembly. Valentina already confirmed that the commission is planning to do the HLIG meeting on day zero as well. That would mean possibly the open part in the morning, the closed part in the afternoon, which would not overlap too much. Then we heard from Mattia Fantinati that he might do a ministerial meeting on day zero. And we are also trying to get into German government with recommendation A and B. That makes it quieter. I think we need another day. We really have to look into detail how we can accommodate all this or if we can even accept other pre-events because that's already too much, I would say. Let's look into this a little bit more in detail. Then on day one, we had mutual agreement that the plenary one on G5 is kind of the opening plenary. And we also discovered that digital sovereignty should become a plenary and should be somehow connected with the G5 discussion because it interferes. So I would propose now to do it on one day, plenary one in the morning, well before noon, and plenary two, digital sovereignty in the afternoon, where we have space to have keynotes around those plenaries. And we have a very clear track on governance issues on day one. And on day two, this is something that we have not yet spoken about. The secretariat proposes since we got aware that there's a conference going on in parallel at ICTP that deals about climate change and climate issues. We were proposing to explore opportunities to do one session together with this community. This would help us to connect to a totally new community. And we would possibly cannot follow our rules or impose our rules on those people, but we could try to see if we organize something, I don't know what yet, at the moment it's called plenary, together. Because it should be, of course, one of the big rooms where the two communities meet. We do have some proposals that go into the direction of climate and sustainability. But it was not a focus so far. But since we have that opportunity with this parallel conference, I would really like to propose it. And I see a lot of thumbs up in the audience. So I think we find out with the hosts how we are going to go together. And if we might have to adjust, we might use the lunch break or whatsoever, what's possible. This would be a next step. And then the fourth plenary that was proposed is this, where we still don't have the right title, but where we put together efficient regulation of global platforms, the digital economy and regulatory aspects. But we have to think about the title, but a lot of proposals went into that. This is it at the moment on the plenary side. We would then have space for 16 workshops. But first of all, I would like to ask you if you in principle agree with those changes in the program structure. Okay, does not agree. Okay, take the mic please. Where's the mic? Earlier you had the mic. Yeah, I was thinking, would it be interesting to explore the opportunity to add workshops besides the plenaries to make more workshops available? And if people are not interested in the plenary session, they can go to other workshops. I would say no for two aspects. First, we are already increasing the number of workshops from 12 to 16. And to be honest, the capacity of the secretariat is limited in this regard. And also the capacity of the community to organize more sessions and a good quality. And secondly, I don't want to end up with another empty plenary room. That's clear. Jacomo here, just take the mic. Thank you. No, my question is in this scheme, where you see the intervention of the personalities, we have to fit into the plenaries or we will create other space out of the plenaries. The blue parts, the keynotes. Yeah, but the keynotes are related to the topics. While some of the people that, for instance, this morning he mentioned that the minister Pisano want to come to present his plan for digitalization of Italy. This is very loosely related to any of this topic. But if she asks for that, we will put it. Yeah, but could go into the welcoming. I mean, we are in Italy, of course we want to learn what's going on in Italy. That would be a perfect topic for the welcoming. Also the state secretary of the Netherlands did the same last year. I don't think this... But any other personality that doesn't fit into the topics, then we will not accept. I think that we need to find, to leave a space somewhere if we have somebody asking to come and willing to come, no? Do you have some concrete ideas in your mind on what issues they would talk? Could be any. For instance, if the digital data protection commissioner of the European Union want to come, yes, would be good in a workshop, but probably will not come if it's only for a workshop. While if he is, let's say, hypothetically is available, it's good to have flexibility to say, yes, you come to the workshop, but you can also address this specific point. It's an example. Yeah, but I mean, we need to be aware we can't have 20 keynote speakers. If one or two come, then we may probably find the space for them. And Jacomo, we do have this plenary room where we have presenter one, two, three, four, five, so we have a lot of space there. Chris? Just to respond to that a bit, I mean, I think we do have a lot of keynote blocks there, so I'm looking at, I guess, four keynotes. So I mean, I think that if there is something specific, we can probably fit them into one of those. I mean, I think also, and this is the discussion we've had for many years, is the value of, you know, having high level participants. I think one thing that last year's experience shows is that having a high level participant doesn't bring more people to the event. And if it doesn't bring more people to the event, then it also damages the reputation in terms of those high level people who turn up and have to give a speech to an empty hall. So I mean, I think, yeah, we may get last minute requests, but I think we also need to be thinking a lot more strategically than just saying, well, this high level person would like to come and speak, so let's give them a slot because I feel what we end up then with, again, is an empty room with a high level person who we wanted to give a slot to. And that doesn't help us at all as you're a digger. And they also would like to emphasize that, oh, always pressing the wrong buttons here, that each of those slots, those keynote slots consists of two times 15 minutes. I mean, they are 30 minutes long. That means we can accommodate two keynote speaker if we would like to, or we can also do an interview with two opponent opinions. And of course, even if it's not 100% related to the plenary that follows or that was before that, we could accommodate also such issues. But I agree with Chris. At the past, we rather had the problem to find enough high level speakers. And I think we could deal with it on a case by case basis and find good solutions that work well. Do we have also slots for flash sessions because I don't see them in the program? This is a new element. The flash sessions now all went into the big plenary room. And I would suggest we find another name instead of flash sessions because flash sessions, that's the format that was known at Eurodik. I think we should call it presentation, fireside chat, something like TED Talk, but TED Talk we cannot use, but something like this that makes it clear it is a presentation in the big room and can be 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes. I would refrain from using flash session because this was something very special at Eurodik and this we don't have in this form anymore, but we have something similar. Okay, what's the choice of not making a separate flash session? The room. We have no other room. Oh, no other rooms. Okay. Sorry. Those new flash sessions will be the ones in the empty plenary. And then hopefully full plenary. It's sort of an experiment. We hope that with these hopefully hot topic interests, we get attention in the big room. It's also a logistical problem because the workshop rooms are rather small. There's one big workshop room with like 90 people, but the others are like 25, 30, 40 maximum if you stand. So we need the big room in order to accommodate all the people. So that's why we hope with interesting presentations also from startups and so on and so forth, we can keep enough people in the big room that is a, I'm sorry, that is a win-win situation, both for the presenter, but also for those who are interested in short while entertainment, I would call it. Thomas. Thank you. Just to share an experience with you. I was at the, an AI conference of the Council of Europe last February in Helsinki where they had a format like this. It was quite a big conference and they had slots where people had like 15 or 20 minute slots that were just coming in and then the next and then the next and they were presenting their projects and their ideas and that worked actually fairly well and sometimes you just state for the next one to see what they are doing and so on and so forth and if they are interesting, of course you need to have a list, people need to see okay this is this and this is this. So that is something that we could actually try and it allows you to bring in other ideas. An alternative could be and this is, I don't know if you plan to do this, if you ask people ahead when they register which workshops are you intending to attend, that gives you a hint of how many people you have to expect in which workshop and you could then think if one is significantly bigger than the others in case you don't do the presentations in every slots that for instance for the biggest workshops to give them the plenary room as workshops. So there are several ways to go with this but actually the format of giving 15 to 20 minutes where people can present something in 10 minutes I have a few Q&As and then the next is up. That actually was quite a nice experience for me and I can confirm I also had such an experience at a web bit festival where also one after the other came in with firework of course we don't do firework here but it was really interesting, you just stayed somewhere not so interesting but others were really exciting and we hope to do that a little bit the same way. Valentina? No I just wanted to go back to the VIP issue of Giacomo which we have every year by the way comes here this issue so basically I think we have three keynotes right? Even more we have the welcome and the welcome includes usually two to three keynotes we have a keynote here so this is also two keynotes because no one speaks 30 minutes I hope and we have also the wrap up in the first day could be another keynote here and another keynote here but each could be two basically so we would have enough space for keynotes like six or eight keynotes. Yeah also because I've been three years this year I think it will be a bit like Tbilisi two years ago so June is a very busy month unfortunately for many of VIP and especially in this field I can blah blah blah there are many many many events and yes being realistic yes it is a I mean it's a very nice city of course but logistically speaking is not super easy to reach so I think realistically I don't think we will have 100 VIP Giacomo we will have a way to accommodate it and going back to what Chris said yeah running the opposite risk of not having enough people in the room is not Roberto raised his hand a while ago and then I would give the floor to the remote participants there are two that raised hand Roberto. Two comments maybe maybe connected first of all we were talking at one point in time to have some keynotes from the fathers of the internet quote unquote we are working on this is this still going to take place in the keynotes or we have the keynotes and we would also be able to use the evening before okay so we continue this okay because we have already a couple of we can this is also a format that we could do in the main cleanery room instead of three short interventions no that was just the second thing is that talking about the climate change and so on it makes sense to have that in the plenary if we manage to connect with the other conference on the other hand if we don't manage to connect with the other conference I don't know how feasible that is because I'm not involved in that but if that doesn't work it would not make sense to use a plenary for the four or five sessions that are clustered in climate and digitalization so maybe we can be flexible when we go on if we see that this doesn't work we may be flexible to sort of promote quote unquote something in the main space in the plenary absolutely that's possible we will see how we how successful we are in finding focal points and defining certain topics and then we could indeed promote some workshop to a plenary and maybe even a certain group of people would like to meet with those people and then it goes to a workshop room but honestly I think it's a great chance for us to connect with another new community that would be my preferred option of course if it happens but if it just if it doesn't that my overarching question is what flexibility do we have between now and the end of February full flexibility okay reiner can we give the floor to Andrea Bicali please thank you Reiner and I wanted to pick up on what some on something that Chris said about inviting high level speakers for keynote and then running the risk of having an empty or an empty room which we which indeed happened and and I agree with you that having the big names doesn't per se guarantee you more attendance there is a caveat here and it's something that's I think it's time for us to reflect upon and it's the communication and it's the promotion that we have to do of Euridic and if we want to track big names and I think it is the time and the topic is there we also rethink how do we do our communication and probably we need to invest in that probably we should you know take a look on a PR agency of someone which is can really is aware of which are the best ways to promote a similar event and we never did something like that in the past and I think it is time and and speaking from being in Italy on myself and having the conference in Trieste and all the effort that local stakeholders and the host puts in that you know I'm personally even more motivated to invest into something like that and you know we saw in Berlin for instance how much I mean you for those of you were in Berlin you would see billboards at the metro stations with the IGF of course they had a different budget but you know we should dedicate some time also on this part because I think where we are not very good is to get our message out to the people that you know have no real direct interest into internet governance and who participated in the work in this realm but nonetheless they're very interested in those topics but if you don't read on newspapers about Euridic if you don't read on and you have two journalists and Jaguar on you you have experience on that if you don't hear at the radio if you know if you don't see that happening then you know putting big names by that there can be actually a boomerang you can run a very meager event where you have the big name speaking to an empty room and we don't want that so I hope we will have some time if not now otherwise our line to get in that we even consider that this proposal to invest and contract an agency that can help us in doing that okay second intervention from remote and then tomas and then we have because we are running already over land coffee break and it's andrew now hi thank you just a very brief intervention and looking at the structure that you had for day one with the two plenaries on 5g and digital sovereignty as a suggestion I would flip the order of those and suggest start with digital sovereignty as a sort of overarching theme and then lead on to 5g as the second of the of the two plenaries rather than the way that it showed but that's that's merely a suggestion thanks andrew possibly not doable because it's the focus the 5g is the focus of the host so we have to give due diligence to the host so I think that's that's it tomas and okay do you have something short or first tomas then because coffee break is waiting okay I tried to be brief two remarks one about the fathers of the internet and I've heard them now so many times that I'm a little bit doubtful whether it makes sense to unless they have something new to say but I'm the more and more the issues get away from the classical internet issues the value added is is questionable to me at least then on on the climate and sustainability issue I think this is one of the topics that is also rising in importance and attention also with with the whole climate discussion you have action plans at the EU we have this issue at home others too so and that would be something new so we should really try to make that link so that's my message and I will not say something about VIP we can this and PR exercise if we can discuss this in the coffee break okay okay now you between I'll make it short now I really like the opening part in Georgia about the Tuchini project and I hope that we can also make a connection here at the opening or whatever to a local issue or local something with a local community like Andrea also said um to make it a really valuable experience also here absolutely this this is the plan and we spoke also to our Georgian friends already they are aware and I saw cat a conference in last November about so we are in a process of keeping that up and bringing it further so I would suggest you can use the coffee break now to discuss further the program structure after this we will have a final look at this matrix not this one I have updated one so in order to know where we are now in order to get agreement and consensus on that and if we then still have time we would be happy to present you a short snapshot for our new website we are not asking for your democratic decision websites and buildings should not be done in a democratic way but we would like to introduce you what we are planning to do and maybe get some ideas some further ideas from you I would suggest we have now coffee break until 445 then we are only 15 minutes delayed coffee break is then only 25 minutes and we will ask if we can do the gathering a little bit later okay see you at 445 okay so welcome back let's continue our session one thing that we missed so far is the two Italian ministry made some proposals that came after the call for issues we want to give them due consideration and they are also participating online today I hope they are at this moment there and I would like to give them five minutes but please only five minutes to introduce their proposals which you can also find on our wiki on the list of proposals underneath the table you will see that those are new proposals they are not in the clustering yet they are not considered by the subject matter experts because they came just last week but we will take them into consideration when doing the final program Reina could you see if they have hello yes please you have the floor okay thank you we our I'm not going to say we would like to participate by submitting topics about cybersecurity and blockchain issues related to the categories innovation and economic issues and security and crime our submissions are the number 183 and 184 okay and then we just want to spend few few words about this topic because the the ministry of economic development within the framework of the european blockchain partnership is developing various innovative initiatives within the group of the EU member countries and it is provided in 2020 that the ministry will host at least one network node of the ebsi european blockchain service infrastructure creating a blockchain platform and concerning the security topic the ministry of economic development has established within the ECOM that sees the institute of ICT within the ministry the national evaluation and certification center called cbcm in order to analyze security conditions and the absence of vulnerabilities of products and that's why we were speaking about the security and about equipment and systems intended to be used for strategic networks so considering that we have read the other proposals we just think that there are some actually related to our topics and we would like to suggest something that we have identified in for cyber there are some other submissions that are similar to our issues that are number 166 and 105 and for blockchain 148 149 and 150 what i want to mean that if we can arrange our topics within that categories we can ask to to to connect our our our speeches within these other topics already accepted okay we would be very interested in anyway participating for example in the organizing team where we can cooperate about these two issues the the blockchain or the the security and crime or innovation economic issues the two categories this is our idea thank you thank you very much uh Jan Franco this is uh very much appreciated that you submitted those proposals when you submitted them i have already forwarded them to the subject matter experts and since you already were very clear with which proposals you see yourself to be aligned they will look into more detail after this meeting and after we decided for which sessions we would like to go and i would kindly suggest you to keep a close contact to the host or even better to subscribe to the neurodic use newsletter where we inform constantly about the next step how to get involved how to join the org teams and so on and so far we would be right we would be very happy if you could join any of the org teams even if one or two proposals are not 100% considered i'm sure you will find ways of collaboration with uh other submitters via this channel too okay thank you and please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions by email i mean we communicated already okay may i introduce our colleague Emanuela Girardi that she's going to speak about the other three uh submission that we proposed from the ministry of economic development okay i leave the floor to her yes thank you absolutely and for your information participants can see those proposals also on the screen so they have them also visible please go ahead she's not here anymore i can't see okay oh yes maybe then i would suggest i read them out and we can follow up with Emanuela individually so one is on the category access and literacy how to develop digital alphabetization programs for elders to avoid the digital divide i think a lot of the discussion today went already in this direction we were looking into educational and curriculums for children but of course we also touched upon the older generation so i think that can be easily covered then under the category human rights and data protection the brain computer interface b ci initiatives enter oh c r i s p r gene editing experiments how far can we go is there a limit i think this needs some more explanations what these observations mean but this is something that we can sort out easily ok we can answer perfect later on and then we have innovation and economic issues create more awareness on the index of sustainability of sustainable economic welfare a genuine progress indicator instead of the GDP index i think that's a very specific topic that will definitely feed into one of the discussions about economic and innovation issues okay would you clarify what Chris can you hear me i this is Emanuela can you hear me yes we can hear you go ahead okay sorry okay okay good sorry i i just joined and so which one of the three topics that i added do you want me to to more specify the three of them or just the last one or the second if you are brief you're invited to talk about the three of them okay perfect okay i will try to okay the first one is about the digital alphabetization of the elderly people so basically i think that since i'm not really worried about the digital divide among young people i think that to avoid the digital divide i mean among elderly people we definitely need to develop some cultural programs to teach them since they used how to teach how to use like a i mean smartphone definitely they need to to learn how to use digital technologies and so i think that we should develop some programs to include them in this new ai society i mean digital society and to somehow to to make them part of the new society so this is the first part yes the first program the second part i'm very concerned about the brand computer interfaces that they are developing because mainly they say that they're mainly used to to help people with some kind of impairments and so if they have problem with their arts or something else but the problem is that in reality there aren't really some can i zoom the document sorry i just read in reality basically they there is no really ethical control on how they're used them and and how they will be used in the future so i think that especially for this kind of interfaces and also for gene editing that we should probably define some new governance and and i think that this is very important topics and the last topic actually i think that it's it's very interesting because basically instead of using the the traditional index to to basically monitor and control the economic growth we should start developing new index that are also taking into consideration the welfare of people and the digital education and how the our society are becoming really i mean digital society and also how i mean we are bringing people into this new society and so really to measure all these different index i hope this is clear i try to be very very i mean concise i don't know if you understood the topic sorry if i need to to go more into details are there questions from the people in the room okay you have a question or comment where's the mic there is the mic yeah maybe for maybe for the audience it's not really clear what crisper means crisper is gene editing with the gene editing yes yeah with ipf for instance i am one or i'm really asking myself the question is this a topic that has to be discussed at this i guess it definitely is an emerging technology however i don't think it belongs to internet governance um i think that it's it was kind of it was gene editing you're right i mean that was specifically i think that more than gene editing it was more the brain computer interface that it was more part of of this because basically i mean it's it it will be connected to the network and so through internet as well and so i think that this was my concern for this part more than gene editing so for this definitely you're right okay and manuela you're already starting basically a discussion of an org team which is great so basically this is the way of getting involved if you think that belongs to our agenda and that belongs to a session then please join that org team where you think it belongs to and the org team is the place to discuss further to which extent it belongs or not belongs to the workshop but this is the way how it would go and this is basically part of our multi-stakeholder dialogue okay perfect okay sorry for just jumping into the very last minute but i i mean i could enjoy you today no we are very happy that you joined us and we could also see you in full full okay on the on the screen so thank you for using your camera much appreciated okay okay okay thank you so i will i will join as you said i mean it will follow up okay perfect okay john go first okay thanks yeah so leviac rep and i'm not speaking just on the cryptocurrencies and the the blockchain topic this is indeed in the innovation section and i've also looked at the numbers that you've provided for 148 149 and i believe 109 as well that actually forms a cluster now so i know that we had looked at the we had looked at our list and we hadn't allocated innovative uses of blockchain and crypto to anything and so i wonder whether there's still a space for a workshop on this sandra have you have you counted how many workshops and how many spaces we have now i have counted the workshops and this would have been my next step so let me share my screen with you we have now 19 topics that are suggested for a workshops while there are at least two potential ones basically from the category media and content that could be merged with one is an economic and one is in literacy so that would bring us down to 17 and we have 16 slots no two can be merged with two others okay sorry i was not clear about this so um if you look at our matrix with with access and literacy we were quite quite clear there was no big discussion plenary was clear community networks and rural area first of all regulation and then best practices that might be an opportunity that we take only one session two folded so that we try to discover both aspects in one session that might be a compromise that we have to go in the end then we would save one more slot building digital skills in particular of educational curriculars was something that there was mutual agree on also because other proposals went into that category on internet governance we had no workshop but the plenary no sorry sorry sorry we had a workshop about tech diplomacy and interdependence challenges of internet standard standardization processes but we found out that there is also a connection with the two others one from the security and one from the technical category and this needs to be revisited on the desk we cannot do this here right now we might save one more spot but as it was proposed to discuss dho on two different forums we might get out of the three two let's dh sorry dh let's see where we end up this is this there's a bit uncertainty at the moment then we have three sessions three workshops for human rights one was security and data protection in the southeastern european region in relation to eu regulations one was privacy in europe the gdpr issue and one was the decentralized digital identity i think there was also agreement that these should remain in our portfolio then um we have on the category economic development and no innovation and economic issues we had the smart cities this was still something that we were not sure if this has enough potential to form a workshop or if you might skip that topic and uh we had these big thing algorithms deep learning competition and trust where we discussed a lot about it and we're also the disinformation deep fake and and these kind of things my at least to a certain extent feed into it on the category media we had mutual agreement that we keep the copyright issue national implementation in particular um we are sure we will end up with one workshop about social media we just have to see is it more about the positive aspects is more about this disinformation and how to fight it and deep deep fake and these kind of things and then there was one proposal about aspects of social media for vulnerable groups citizens and old people and this was something where we said this can go into the media into the i'm getting tired now into the building digital skills workshop that we had on media access and literacy on the security topic there was this is a flash this is a flash session uh especially this was a standalone topic then on the security topic we had three proposals while one was under discussion with the two other categories we will see what comes out of that and pretty clear on the technical category we had universal acceptance and doh while doh is also under discussion how we are going to handle it and then also challenges and uptakes on modern internet standards ipv60 in a sec and these kind of things so this leaves us at the moment with let's say 19 plus minus or rather minus because we have to go down to 16 but this is really something where we have to look more into the depth taking also into account what we just heard from the ministry i think we will be hopefully able to come up with a first consolidated draft next week that needs a lot of effort from the sme we have to reconvene all again we have to see if we can find a day or a time when to do it but i think we have kind of an agreement where we want to go there are two or three issues that would be resolved after we have the program ready the draft ready we will publish it for comments again and this will last for like two weeks and then we will immediately start reaching out for focal points and org teams yon you have a comment just just regarding the the proposals we we just heard the human brain or computer brain interface i think it could be quite well merged with the machine learning and human rights issue because you need machine learning to make it work and it is also something that we could have as a small presentation because i think those things are very nice to see it is the same with the deep fakes so we could have a series of demonstrations where people actually see how far these technologies are already developed very good okay any other questions or comments on the proposal side is something unclear something is in disagreement or can everyone live with Roberto and Chris please i'll just say them very quickly and it's somewhat in relation to Roberto but i just wanted to be on the record i think earlier when we talked about the the environmental sustainability session the you drew a very strong link between that and the fact that we might be able to interface with another event that's going on and i think that's very good and very positive and i hope that would be great to do my only the point i just wanted to make was i think even if that can't happen and i don't know that's still something that we're working on even if it can't happen i still think that sustainability environmental concerns should be a plenary session just to put that on the record thanks okay thank you just wanted to have an updated copy circulated because that's substantially changed from the final presentation which includes the updated and also the documents they will be all published on the website but please bear with us give us until no no in in case just to think about it in the in the next 24 hours if we can get just a working copy about the changes because i i don't remember them or okay no problem and then um let's just have a very quick look on why they do the brain computer on those issues that are as standalone issues you see we have a lot of interesting topics we will offer the submitter to organize a session on this or a presentation on this from the experience we know not everyone will take that opportunity so there will be free slots again but from the experience we also know that some proposals will still come in saying hey i would like to do something at Eurodig is their possibility and then we have the flexibility in this presenters slot be creative and let us know how we should we can call them apart from flash flash we would not like to call them is that a hand raise yeah thank you it's Olivier again um i was listening to what the ministry had had suggested with regarding blockchain and regarding the the different other workshops that they had identified so 148 149 150 there's also 109 cryptocurrencies which is a little bit different but i also now looked at the one that's got a blue dot now which is the decentralized digital identity and they all i think out of the four that are listed there 11 29 147 and 150 three of them mentioned blockchain so i wonder whether the ministry's proposal could be folded into this i don't know whether this still online given a solution next well if if they're online then have a look at 11 29 147 and i think you've mentioned 150 already so let us know if you you think you could fold this topic into the into the decentralized digital identity thank you okay if someone from the ministry i don't think it's easy for them now to read them all through a thing think in time yeah next next week should move that to next week exactly okay then i go back for a last time to the program how that looks now um you you were referring to the proposal of the ministry right now i i i don't think it matches with the decentralized identity but might match with the use cases of blockchain because it's it's a different type of type of setting where you have kind of a permissioned blockchain which is used by ministries to the decentralized approach and to put every kind of use case together makes it not really specific so i would rather not match them sorry sorry i have to stop that now i think we're gonna much into detail we are losing the time we'll follow up after it because this is really something where the both of you and maybe another sme have to look at it in detail and see where we can accommodate the additional proposals that came in later sorry sorry for that okay so last time again this is how the program looks like you had time over the coffee break to think about it any comments any last changes that you would suggest any concerns that you have day one day two are basically identical i see a problem on day zero with the many proposals that are up let's see how we solve this valentina where's the mic i have no problem with the program but i was wondering at some point it came up are there was still room to change the theme or to think about it the overarching team the overarching no good i like this approach no but i wonder how much it reflects because now you know there is there are there is a clear direction considering the plenary so i'm wondering how much now the overarching team matches the content frederick likes that you're so this is the overarching team two words as sustainable governance of the internet no i am the one who said the secretariat should decide the team so i i i agree with your approach i just wonder how much it matches the content now of the what we have basically it was chris and andrea coming up now me me i well the team no i me was the idea the secretary decides and that's it but yeah give the mic to chris i mean i i think it's an important point um the valentina raises in in as much as i think we're having having sort of looked at the program and having said some of these um uh the topics for the plenaries as we go forward now let's make sure we do keep in consideration that the the focus here of urodig is is about governance and the the approach should be looking at how how we can um build sustainable governance processes i think in that sense hopefully that the the theme can help to keep some focus as people develop the content um in my optimistic poly anerish kind of oh no okay you don't want to have your wine thomas frederick okay i'll be very brief i think the the uh expectation to to go towards sustainable governance can be used in all the sessions as the key questions in the end like okay what what is the way towards sustainable governance with that particular focus with that focus so i think it makes still sense so i'm quite happy with it yeah i'll be very pragmatic i mean that's the reason why we have a d zero which is something that is outside of the scope of the real working day so i'm not very concerned about the way we organize it it's a d zero it's a four two it's just we put there something that the community requests but that might not specifically align with what we try to achieve with erotic it's a d zero i believe we should feel a little bit more relaxed about it okay okay yeah i really want to say that i really like the link of the overarching team with the other conference taking place with the sustainable the little wing so i shouldn't i propose not to talk about the overarching team and also we should not forget that we aligned it somehow with the as of uh topics so this was also something and when you look at the overall i mean this is still the old matrix the new matrix looks a bit different you will get it but if you look for instance here in the middle you can see we try to introduce tracks here this one this is one track and this basically is the governance track where we discuss the interplay of digital cooperation legislation and standardization and this is also something that we tried a little bit last year already but we will make it in the program clear that this is aligned to follow if you are purely interested into internet governance then we have two smaller tracks one is about data governance and data security where we have one two three like four five we have to see how it looks in the end and then we have one track that is about access and all matters d and i so more more like these technical technical issues that people might be interested to that is also something that we try to achieve and i think it we have been pretty successful in achieving those those different tracks where we have the categories that come in the horizontal way and that we now have tracks that are going through it in a vertical way this is basically what this matrix shows and how we are how we process all the proposals okay any last comments on the program structure proposals issues okay if this is not the case then give me five minutes to show you three minutes okay okay there it is somehow okay that could be the new website that would be the entry page a picture from the Brussels meeting if you still remember yes those are real people they gave it in Brussels already and basically what we were trying to achieve that the new website is not just to have i mean first of all it was a technical issue that we had to go to a new website because we were out of date in terms of technical matters and updating it all would have been half as much as costly as building a new one secondly the old website i still like it very much had one big glitch i would say the glitch was that the get involved and the participation process was always in parallel to what our information about the event have been on the website so there were two tracks and the visitor had to jump between the two tracks in order to see one how to get involved but then on the other hand how to find informations about hotel travel and so on and so forth so our aim was to bring that together that you visit the website you get pulled into the process immediately and when you are in this process you easily find how to get a hotel how to register how to apply for travel support and so on and so forth so how is that working okay not like this so we will keep that element of this call to action button the red ones that you will find on many pages and oops this and we will have a short intro and then go directly into the three main menu points which is of course the Eurodig 2020 but also our ag initiatives and everything about Eurodig what you need to know we will also have a direct link to the messages from the last year where we promote not only the past event but also the messages there was always a demand that we have to promote the messages a bit better in order to bring them to the policymaker we want to make them easy more easily accessible and yeah in order to reach a broader community so that they don't have to go to a pdf and then understand the pdf and find them somewhere in the pdf we will condense it on one page a news section and a testimonial section where you are all invited to say some nice words about Eurodig and then the usual stuff like the partners the logos newsletter and our link to the wiki that would be our entry page um then we have the Eurodig 2020 or is that not working i do it differently i show you the old this is how the the event page would look like we have the image and the overarching theme in the header the call for issues is the first thing that would come and when you click on the call for issues you would come to a site where you will be able directly to integrate your proposal underneath so the aim was to make it as easy as possible then we have pages like about they would look like this where we link directly to the IGF where we link to our statutes to our membership to our board and how to become a Eurodig host as well as how to become a donor but basically this new website will be very smaller i mean not smaller in terms of content but we will try to limit the navigation opportunities to a minimum which is basically the event is the last event the european initiatives and about these are the main menu buttons and this is where we will concentrate on the archives we will only use in the future the wiki we will strengthen the wiki and also i mean we have from since 2014 we have transcripts reports and everything there and also the years before we that was a that was a point where we discussed quite a lot right that we said the archive is the wiki so in order to strengthen the wiki so that people also become and get more acquainted with the wiki all things that are related to the event should go to the wiki and should be find in in one place that was the idea behind everything that's content goes to the wiki right okay thanks are you gonna transpose what's currently in the archives because at the moment we got Eurodig 2008 onwards and for each one you've got programmed from so let's see 2009 Geneva program from Geneva messages from Geneva and 2009 photos are you gonna transfer all these over or link those over the point that would be linked and transferred to the wiki yes okay so you're not losing information the photos are on flicker anyway so we only only have the program and that's basically some PDFs that's not the problem we will not lose content from the archive okay if everything is also on the wiki and the wiki has such an important feature would it be good to edit in the menu bar you good point very good point you see it's here but it's overlooked oh yeah we have not find a solution yet together with the designer we are working on this they realized that we realized that we know that's not yet the solution it is here on the bottom of the page but of course this is not enough no and it's here like a stable uh ear you could say but if you look at it on the starting page it's lost yeah i would put the idea that idea was oh yeah sorry to answer this the idea was to to make it open at the first call of the page and then shrink it after three seconds or something like this so that it will get a little bit more important but that's not realized on on this draft just now and we are not sure if it is sufficient yeah the white will disappear and what happened to the blue uh with the logo we eliminated it we were so confident that our claim and our fund is strong enough to be recognized even without the blue but uh yes we insisted of having a blue logo at least in the head of photo it's a good question i mean would you think that's okay we we were discussing it but when we saw the design we kind of were in favor with it we're already convinced last year okay okay thomas thank you just just one thing about the the wiki and you would need to guide people to this because um and just i mean it's fine to put everything in the wiki as long as the program and the messages of every of the past euridics are visible there but then you need because not many people would like naturally go and know where the wiki is even and so on and so forth so if it's guided that you say everything else you find in the wiki blah here then it's fine so but it needs to be user friendly that also people that are not familiar with the concept of the wiki go there yes that's that's the idea and we also need to enhance the navigation in the wiki that's i i trust you that but just this message is no and then where they got to don't use a black thing this is that's my just my personal opinion stay with the blue because the blackest this is not a funeral uh don't nobody uses black in white what's the problem in just staying with the blue that's my personal opinion just take note of it do whatever you want but i i think black is a very very bad color that you should not use just it's gray basically how we agree process my dear know but the point uh the if you stay gray it gives us the opportunity to highlight with blue to see this uh euridic 2020 is highlighted in blue but nobody cares about this highlighted differently but stay with the blue that's my personal can i ask for show of hand on the blue version and on the black version okay i said it's not a democratic process right let's let's discuss is over the up okay any other comments olivia okay oh okay excellent all right youth doesn't want to give the microwave anymore okay now i have an issue with a photo which is not representative of today's europe and that's because you got three white males and one white female and i wonder whether we could have something a little bit more mixed with a i'm not saying exact parity between men and women but and age-wise they're all young i'm old so i don't know how this obviously is a stock picture or something no it's not oh i thought it was a stock picture it says you it's a euridic picture from Brussels get a stock picture doctorate use fake you know make make one up or add people on this i don't know just a thought but because this is a sort of thing that people would notice i remember a number of years ago some people that came into the internet society and said oh i really wanted to join this so gonna no into ican said i wanted to organize you know to join ican because i actually found there were people from around the world and they all looked very different and it wasn't just like this white male influence thing so it does play promise and then i may say one second something about the picture actually you're again my personal opinion this looks like a banking consultant company because there are three people rushing into a meeting consulting credit issues this has got nothing to do with dialogue i would general balance and things that put put a picture that shows that people are talking and listening to each other and more than three people that's again my but this looks like a like a car i'm giving this because he's older now yeah i have a question about accessibility is the website accessible this was conditioned to make it an accessible website that's where there are also constraints on some point yes okay to a great extent not hundred not also not when it comes to mobile and and these kind of things then becomes difficult you have to get compromises but yes to a great extent accessible but i like this argument what you said the the rational first day the company choose a picture that was uh young glycen oliver brigeur and who else i think these are four sitting on a panel and two men talking to lisa and i said this is no very possible first of all it's a way to personalize it looks like young glycen commissioner running so we said it must be something that is not so personalized but still and then we came up because the urodic is black and white have the urodic logo prominently in the picture if you don't have it on the header logo that was the rationale because we came up but i i don't buy your point and i think i can do that because i'm female but i get your point it's not dialogue and it's not we do have good pictures of lost urodic with the informal setting gouchy thing um and does the website meet the internet dot nl standards like the session we had last year where you can test your website we do that when it's ready okay we want a hundred percent score okay um so my question would be i would need two or three maximum volunteers that click through that site and give us a little bit more detailed feedback who would that be okay very good then we have at least h balance elisabeth then we have gender balance another woman okay i can't be the another woman no problem okay we will we will share this mock ups with the four of you and uh are happy to get any feedback um on the details possibly and also where you realize oh basically this is not the right way to click through a certain thing because we are already blind we were we are already looked at it too much so we need a fresh eye on it but the problem is it's not the clickable dummy it's it's basically a static page is so that's that's another that's another way we will solve that yeah we will solve that with uh with the company i'm also surprised that i cannot click through it but maybe it's because here my screen is shared it wasn't intended and then in addition to criticizing some details i'd like to thank you for a great job that you've done just that this has been on the website or thanks no yeah i was wondering if you can have there are websites you know that you can have at least three pictures yes three pictures that three or four ideally would be something that rolls you can have several pictures so in this way we can have this but also the dialogue and also the young the question do you really see an advantage in this because we want to bring them to the content further down i i like the feeling that i got distracted with these bling bling bling bling yeah not 300 of course but two or three yeah i agree but in but by the way so olivia would hate that would ever hated that so better better than you didn't choose maybe we just really this website and we were we were looking for instance at the rights con website and they also have like a tonus of free pictures one is a close up of people discussing one is a holistic picture where you see people queuing to get in so if you have two free pictures you can highlight different sites that you may even leave this one but add two people discussing intensely adding a total where you have 200 people in the room so it gives you a little more ways to to give a feeling of how this is the problem the problem is accessibility if you have more than one than one picture it is nearly not a problem for these people but that's the that's the question accessibility they need to be able to read and navigate but if they miss one of the pictures you can describe it say picture with people blah blah blah and then I additional questions when we say European IG initiative it means that there are the links to all the national regional initiative in Europe that we have as we have today and there is also the link to the documents that this they produce and the documents of the IG global IGF view that now the global IGC is coping us and producing messages this is how the page would look like for the national and regional IG initiatives we have the map this map would be interactive so when you click on Albania show on the map it would appear here we would have space underneath to link to the website itself we do not believe it would be the best idea to publish the reports and everything because then we would have an additional issue to run after the reports to run after their dates we think linking to their website and they are taking care of their website that all the documents are there should be enough sometimes they don't even have an English version just just one point don't call it IG initiatives call it IGF initiatives because internet governance initiatives you have millions out there so that's misleading call it IGF initiatives okay and then one last thing regarding the picture again do you have release forms from the people whose close-ups you have you need release forms GDPR issues so you need if you know you recognize whatever XYZ they need to have signed something saying I'm okay with my picture being used on the front page of the Eurodig website this is why using stock photo is actually easier because these are professional models that are basically have signed their image so they can be used for anything would we would we really need this because we have the consent to that pictures are taken and published would we really need additional consent if we use it on the website because it's published if I may add something I would anyway I would avoid clearly identifiable VIPs because then made and created why is this one on the picture not the other one if it's just like normal participants 15 or young two free people that are not appearing as VIPs it's different but but yeah when you agree that your picture will be published in kind of a series of picture reporting it's not the same as being a front page on on the organization for years to come so people need to know that and because you can't ask 15 9 people on a picture so that would actually speak for generic but yeah let's look into the picture thing maybe otherwise we just take some people from us and imitate something and pretend that and we all come then it looks then it looks again like a closed club if it's only us showing up so we okay so we will take a closer look in this we will share the website with have you taken notes of what the names are perfect okay then this would be it I'm really surprised for your energy we are 45 minutes beyond our official end I think the wine is warm already outside and the snacks are cold but outside we prepared some snacks and wine for a small get together and of course whoever would like to have a proper dinner there are two nice restaurants around but please self organize it was not really possible for us to do this in advance that's why we use that great opportunity that we have here with the terrace and the snacks and the food so enjoy it you are invited and let's self organize what we do tonight I thank you very much for your participation and hope that you stay in the process to come thank you and also I thank in particular the online participants this was I think the best and most active online participation we ever had I'm really surprised and impressed also thanks to the technicians without any glitches and without any issues we came through this meeting also Reiner who arrived a day earlier to make sure everything is in place so I'm really delighted yes thank you and let's go to the aparo