 which used to be called legislation, but also it can be on just ratification or ratification. So after the consolidation meeting, we have all reports of the interaction, like the reports generated by the police or in the secondary study or presentation on the discussion throughout the power process, which may be made by the facility paper or conference authority or research team or any other contributors. And we also have the full transcript of the full consultation meeting. So based on these materials, then we need to try to reach out to find out what the broad consensus is. And this is what the conference authority should be responsible for. So we need to sort of like have to respond to these stages of the process that we have done so many years on. And so in some cases the issue might be resolved with a guideline such as one of the cases platform economy, the National Development Council published a guideline in response to platform economy and also the issue might be resolved with a policy or a statement by the public authority. In the other cases, it could be, I think, poorly made into a draft bill. And then we can be sent to the legislative gem, which is the element of the Taiwan government. So like in the Lombard case or the E-plinking case, we have sent the draft bill to the legislative gem. So since 2015, 26 cases has been discussed through the China process and roughly 8% have been decisive over the matter. So this is what happened. Any questions? Yes? If you comment on those 20% that do not meet two decisive actions, how do they really affect the process? Yes, exactly one case where there is strong consensus, growth consensus, and there's a draft bill that is rejected by the parliament and that's an online liquor sales case. So when people criticize retail, that's the only case they use because that's the only case where there's a strong consensus and then there's a new batch of parliamentarians and a new batch of parliamentarians rejects the consensus of the previous process which involves the MPs office and so on because it's seen as very political. It's also part of the issue. And so from that point onward, all the retail consultation invites as much as possible MPs office from all different parties in the same committee to the preparation meetings and the consultation meeting if possible. And sometimes the MP herself comes, like the social enterprise one, because MP Karen Yu is a social entrepreneur herself. So she actually participates as a stakeholder, not as an MP. That's the best scenario, but otherwise we at least keep it informed so that they will not flip around just because only the other party attended the consultation meeting. So that's the one case that gets flipped around. The other 20% of the cases led to decisive civil society action and civil society as the government did not take action. Cyberbullying is one of the very good cases. People called for a law on cyberbullying, but after the veto process people decided it would give the government too much power if the administration gets essentially judicial power to do online censorship based on the cause of cyberbullying but actually do more harm than good. So people want to speed up the judicial process, want to speed up the social platform informed process like there's prevention lines, there's direct intervention lines and so on. These are operated by non-profits called IWIN in Taiwan and the general consensus is that we should empower these civil society, academic and educational institutions. The government should fund them, but the government should not pass new laws because they will actually reduce their incentive to web and actually spend taxpayer money on something that could be in the hands of the government's authoritarian rule. And so that again is a strong consensus for the government to do nothing and accept of course funding more efforts in the intermediary and social entrepreneurs. So there's many cases like that in which after the discussion we feel that it's too early for the government to do something or the government should just open a sandbox for people to experiment on and so on. So it's not always a bad idea if the government do nothing. Like if you look at the PO network, again we only lead to decisive action for about 55-50 cases that run through the PO collaboration meeting. Like the time zone of Taiwan did not get changed. And that is a good thing. So it is not the percentage of decisive action, it's the percentage of people feeling that they have reached a consensus that the government has responded substantially and point by point. And so once people receive this phone or phone response and feel that they have the situation improved it doesn't necessarily lead to legislation or regulation. Yes. In selecting issues that go through the V-Taiwan process, is there an attempt to avoid highly partisan issues at all? At the moment V-Taiwan exists in this special political area where there is no ministry owning digital. As additional minister I can call any ministry but I don't have my own ministry. So if there is any issue that clearly belongs to only one ministry that is not digital or emergent in nature then of course that ministry has no incentive to respond to the V-Taiwan process because they already have the PO process and the whole open government process going on. So V-Taiwan at the moment is specifically for issues that are emergent and that are digital and that has no clear belonging in the ministries and that are potentially better solving as a society because there's always this potential for the V-Taiwan to kick off. Which is good and bad, right? The good part is that the zero solution is always acceptable because nobody has any idea anymore. The bad thing is that it severely limits the cases that we can discuss and so that gives it less time and power. We're trying to fix that with the New Digital Communication Act but that is currently being debated in the parliament. Maybe one month from now we will have the law that actually authorizes V-Taiwan to talk about any thing related to Internet multi-stakeholder governance which has a clear definition in Internet society. That would give V-Taiwan more legislative power by having a law that essentially empowers V-Taiwan but not just V-Taiwan but any process that conforms to Internet government standards. So maybe the Internet Governments for in Taiwan or many other forums as long as it adheres to other kinds of transparency and so on is given support by that law. But that law is obviously the product of V-Taiwan. So it's almost like bootstrapping itself. So maybe next year there will be more cases to V-Taiwan. Makes this kind of work easier or more difficult compared to other democratic systems? Having one house compared to, for example? That's one. And the other one is that the administration actually proposes most of the bills not to the parties. And so it creates a neutral zone of drafting. In the current cabinet there's more independent non-partisan ministers than ministers of any party. And so we don't see that in many other jurisdictions. And so basically me being independent is actually not something that's unique or strange. Most of the cabinet members are independent. I wouldn't say most but like 40% or something. The other six percent belong to two different parties. So in any case we're seen as the drafting neutral zone and then once we send our draft to the parliament then the partisan fight begins. And so V-Taiwan clearly belongs to the administrative branch as in here it's less partisan and people don't usually put party politics in it because it requires a lot of change. There's plenty of time for the parties to get involved. So I think that in particular is very helpful to frame the administration who cares about stakeholders more than the constituents in that neutral zone and that may well be comfortable. It's like, for example, if you engage with your community or the public on Uber, was that the only consultation process at all on Uber? Or I would imagine any other... Yeah, there's focus groups. There's academics who took the V-Taiwan result and did their own research focus group and whatever other research. So V-Taiwan is not the only consultation. Nowadays they have only live-streamed one. Yes. Yeah, V-Taiwan basically is just one step toward consensus. V-Taiwan produce rough consensus, meaning that it's not so such a fine consensus that everybody can sign their names on. We're not a legislative body, right? And so it's basically what the Internet Government has put since that's its documents, like people can live with these things but that's the extent of the binding power. So if people want to refine this, of course they need more meetings and more...actually in addition to pre-meetings every Wednesday, sometimes we have post-meetings where the responsive authorities and agencies came back to the weekly hackathon and said that we want to ratify your consensus but we need some clarification of what this exactly means and things like that and as long as it's kept radically transparent we also allow these complete authorities to return back to the health community to essentially refine the consensus into smaller working groups and so on. So it's very dynamic. It is not required by any law or regulation at the point that we know it must be the first stop or the last stop or something like that but that may change next year having a law that talks specifically about what is made for your constitution. So at the moment it's very free-form but it may be less free-form in the future. Yeah, the VTEL constitution is always important and all the competent authority is related to the matter so Uber of course is co-determined by ministers of finance, economy, transportation, the name it and they will all be on the government side of the people and they may themselves run subsequent consultations as well based on the general consensus but because this is a live stream so many people have viewed it it's almost impossible to ignore what's produced by VTEL 1 in subsequent consultations so this will be refinance of the points instead of completely starting from scratch consultations. I guess the first part is are there competent authorities that aren't government bodies? Yes, as I said, I win or so want there are competent authorities but they are mostly non-profits and so on that are given by law to operate for example child safety on the internet and so they are competent authority by law but they are not public service. I'm sure things like that exist in all jurisdictions in our general opinion so we move on to the next part which is the Alex please I haven't used this one either and we'll be switching Slido to feedback form That's the end So feedback frame is actually by kind of one of our more Toronto's own if anybody's encountered Jason Baseman like this project he's been chipping feedback frames he's been chipping away at this for like a long, long time he's under multiple iterations of it obviously it looks super simple but there's like a lot in there which I'm sure from like and he was like all the perspectives also one of the things that's actually a lot more recent in corporation but it started showing that dramatic change results was just like a little flap that you put on to score a lot of people think So literally he said it'll be 10 years to figure that out and when I did people would have switched So there's a lot of like interesting stuff out there Also just to move on to bias it's like the idea is like I don't think anybody's going to sort of like feel differently about ideas necessarily in this room just because of where they're placed but I'm just going to go through the additional step of collecting, shuffling and then like read the story of the ideas and basically what I'll do after that is we get some of these little tokens we put it in the in the GPs and yeah so I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to he's very miscarried I do not intend to be specifically from all the others but he did like I talked to everyone here he has actually on the GPs right now in Mexico so he basically said he used these frames for the session I think it was useful there wasn't yet an opportunity for us to reflect a little bit more about the next steps and figure out maybe something that we wanted to do before we got on the session so kind of doing this going to take these shuffle them up, put them out again these ideas and how they bear is not a reflection obviously on like you it's also I think a really good opportunity to flesh the ideas out a lot more the strengths and opportunities parts concerned the challenges so write all them I recommend this let you find your pen that should be just for those sections because it can space pretty quickly otherwise piece of paper do not move we move so apparently there are statements about the word feel free to also do those do we start do we start do we start voting so I guess we can go around we don't want to go around one for each that's fine it's okay we don't want to die we don't want to die I don't think we have enough oh yeah we definitely do we still have tips one of all these frames is they can be used in there being which so that's that was something that is no longer yes to do your life and then we saw an outcome basically of an illness and those come out of the process would you reveal the result yes right now I'm like this is perfect that would be cool yeah I should have told you yesterday okay I'm going to sleep I'm going to sleep I'm going to sleep I'm going to sleep I'm going to sleep I'm going to sleep we've been about two months the joke When you connect to a computer, you can use it to communicate with other people. I don't know if I can use it or not. Because I know I don't have it. So I can use it like this. Because if I put it here, we have to share it with everyone. Everyone can use it. We can put it on the hardboard. That's a computer. I think you can use it. Thank you. I want to say that it's not... It's a little bit... I don't know. It's a little bit too much. It's a little bit too much. Actually, you can use it. It's a flicker, right? The last thing is to put it on the hardboard. It's a little bit too much. It's a little bit too much. It's a little bit too much. I want to say that it's a little bit too much. Then we will definitely have it. So maybe the IG or Facebook... The IG can't be downloaded. It's not possible. It can't be downloaded. Yes. IG can't be downloaded. It can't be downloaded. It can't be downloaded. It can't be downloaded. You can see it's easy to download. It's not downloadable. Actually, it's not... But there's no IG. What's the IG? There must be. There's no? Have you seen IG on the Internet? I haven't. There's no IG. It should be fine. There's no IG. Really? I think it's fine. Mom hasn't thought about this question. It's fine. There's not that many. There's not that many. It's fine. It's fine. Everyone wants to turn on the VCR. You use the light PC version. Why? It's a little bit too much. It's fine. It's fine. I don't think so. It's all about you turning on the VCR. It's fine. I'll try it. No. It's fine. It's fine. It's fine. No. It only has a little bit. It only has a phone. If you want to turn on the VCR, it's also a phone interface. I think it's like this. Yes. It can turn on and off the VCR. Yes. I think we should use a PC version and some other versions. There's both an app and a PC version. It's more suitable for our PC version. Yes. There are 1000 cards. I think it's fine. We're now... I'm talking about the VCR version. Yes. So we are all wrapped up. We're going to uncover the feedback frames and could we have your help just taking some pictures to record these and after we do the reviews we can just go around and see some of the consensus and also some of the comments. Yeah, it makes some connections. We're working on developing or we tried to get funding actually to the middle of the big grant that we, right, where we didn't get so we're looking for alternative funding streams right now. And we would be working in the city of Peterborough because it's just so much easier to work with a smaller unit. I think we're going to mess up the next few minutes. Just go around and review it. So Joe will be taking pictures of the actual work. I don't have any comments. Bring it up. Bring it up. Wait, you say? I'm surprised by the diversity of opinion. I think we're just better in the place. I agree. We did it. Yeah, there's like a T.S. state. Yeah, there's like a T.S. state. For day two, there's a feedback form here. So if you guys can take like a second as we continue to wrap up this work, just an overview review of the things that we've talked about and that will close out the session. And obviously if you always feel free to take whatever materials that you can use it from day one. It's the same girl. It's like anything here. It's the same as the switch to the exact format. Alright, so for the last 10 minutes or so, we're just quickly running up and feel free to feed the feedback forms at any time during or after disclosure. But this is very important because the feedback form informed is inside workshop design. It was due to the feedback form at New York City that we have a much bigger process than here. And your feedback will be taken into account for our next workshop. I saw that on the collaborative there is a question about whether issue-based mapping, the thing that we learned the first day has been used for e-Taiwan conversations, which is the second day. And actually just a couple of weeks ago that happened for the first time for the data integration. We have facilitated a delay in issue-based mapping in the e-Taiwan public consultancy process. Actually a lot of people in the open data community saw issue-based mapping for the first time. Even though it's just a bridge version of using real-time board, still it is where the methodologies start to meet. And this workshop also means a lot for us, for the PO and people in the e-Taiwan, and for your communities to also learn about each of these methodologies. And we will do more of this kind of cross-pollination. And I see the dynamic like the first day when we ask people to maximize the amount of strangers in each table. We see some of that dynamic happening here as well. So this is kind of our most important value, running this kind of co-creative workshops. And your feedback will massively improve the experience for our next CD as well. And so with that I would like first to thank our organizer. Without him we would not be in Toronto. We would be in Ottawa. We made this whole trip because Alex arranged like literally everything. So please a round of applause for him. So with Alex I'd like to share some thoughts about running this little process in your lectures. Because you've been asking us all the questions. I think if you're a patient with all the technical issues, pretty ironic that it's like a digital participation workshop. Like laughing at this Wi-Fi. Yeah, I mean I was, this little master group, thank you for, you know, it completely came out of the blue. As I said, I'm not particularly interested in that. It was like amazing to see how, you know, what approached the way like, hey, here's this thing. I kind of moved off the civic tag. I think these people are cool. They're positive for Toronto. And just seeing how people reacted positively to that and where we go into each other's neural networks. I think I really appreciate seeing that. Just seeing how willing people were, I guess, to try out something new. Even if they didn't come from like specific emotional minority, especially them. So yeah, from my perspective, thank you. I have learned so much in the last couple of days. Yeah, that's really true. So we'll be back. We'll be back next May for an open garden partnership in Ottawa. And we made the promise to our TECO people here that whenever we go to Ottawa, we'll spend a few days in Toronto. Yeah, so there could be a reunion. And you're all welcome to meet up again and maybe share some new developments that we've seen in Toronto and also here in Toronto. So any final remarks, questions? Thanks for sharing. Yes. What would you like to see us do here? I mean, act on the feedback frame. This is kind of the first actions toward a possible collaboration across all the sectors, across all the levels of the government. Truth to be told, we're also just starting this process in Taiwan as well. You hear a lot about municipal POs, about the evolution, about township and regional vitalization. But truth to be told, it's just one or two municipalities out of six. It's just, you know, five townships and so on out of 34 or so. So we still also have a lot of ways to go to make this cultural change in all levels of Taiwan's government system as well. And I'm sure that you hear also are facing this kind of uneven distribution of civic tech and about the people in cultures. So just making things as accessible and inclusive as possible. As we say, we're not just scaling out to all the countries. We're scaling up of the tools that handle thousands of people, hundred thousand people. We're also scaling deeply, meaning that touching populations and people who previously were not aware that this kind of conversational consensus, facilitation methodologies can really change people's lives. So we encourage you to spread this culture. Any thoughts? Feelings? Ideas? But if not, let's give a final round of applause to all the people from the audience. One more thing, I believe, it was Yun Chen, I think that there was a couple of people here also that were more very focused on helping crowds with notes. I know that we were, you know, very involved. Yeah, there is. That's great. Yes, our chess writers. Yeah, that's phenomenal. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, because that's what I want to tell you and thank you very much. For those of you who are like, want to be involved in the crowdsourcing notes process, I'm sorry, I was like a bit of a barrier to that. And also, just like the links up there for crowdsourcing tools, hoping that people can use that and if they have no specific tools that can be helpful, put it on there. And that's it. Thank you very much. And see you maybe next year. If you have any bad friends also, please shoot, play some dice, play some dice. I don't know.