 session, and we will also host a few more sessions like today in the future just to make sure that we incorporate the voices from different thinkers and also wider civil society organizations on the ground. And so the output of this session, we will incorporate the output into an invitation to the wider society to talk about different ideas for the future and how we get there. And so this way, we can move towards or beyond recovery and renewal towards a fair and just society. So I have, because there are so many people are interested in joining today's session, so we don't have much time to introduce each one, but I still want to make sure that we hear from everyone. So just for everyone, I have put down the table where we're sitting and also your name, your role, and why you're relevant to radical civics because of the work that you are doing. So feel free to just look at different people in the room, and can we just hear briefly from each of you just your name and your expectation of today, like what you want to get out of today? Just really briefly, it doesn't need to be long. So should we start from Jonathan? We can. Wait, can you hear me? Yes. OK, I was wondering if I was on mute. So for many years, I've been really interested in the intersection of governance innovation and activism, community organizing. I've had a few experiences working with the city and government, feeling like there was a lot of unnecessary divisions in between the two. Like some people were purposely keeping them separate rather than actively creating the bridges and creating new forms of relating to each other. And in that sense, I've been really inspired by the work of Audrey. And so I'm really excited for us to explore that further today. And I'm helping Fang to facilitate the session, and I'm with Dark Matter Labs. Bon matin, tout mône. Live from Montreal. Thank you, Jonathan. Dimanshu, do you want to go next? Yeah, I can go next. Hi, I'm Manchu. I also work with the City Council and work at Dark Matter Labs. And I hold strategic and digital design. And I've also been interested in this intersection of governance and participation and bridging this gap of participation for real democracy that we see exists. And I'm working on a project relating to contracting and how we could use the tools of contracting to further some of this. And yeah, and I'm joining in from Malmo, Sweden. Thank you, Dimanshu. I will just follow my screen and see who is next. So next is Nick. Hi, everybody. I'm Nick from SHIFT, and I'm calling in from London. And yeah, really excited to join you all, see you all. So I think the most kind of resonant and relevant part of this project for me is as we spend a lot of time working in communities on, say, for example, local food systems and find ourselves often very uncomfortably forced to subscribe to a government-based model of service-provided service users or a very market-bound model of which is kind of rooted within some very unequal distribution of kind of the ability to navigate that market. And our work suffers, and our spirit suffers, and I think inhabiting the space that you've been describing is something we seek. And it's very precious when we find it, but it's very under-resourced. It's very difficult to inhabit for very long. And this kind of civic space that isn't reliant on or bound by either of those two models is something we just want to understand better, inhabit more often, and support others to do the same. So yeah, it continued to be very interesting in exploring that with you all. Thank you, Nick. Next, we have Hyo-jung. Hi, I'm Hyo-jung Lee, a visual communication designer at Dark Matter Labs. And I'm focusing on how to visualize, to make people to understand and use the framework as a tool better through the conversation of today. Thank you, Hyo-jung. And next, we have Audrey. Hi, I'm Audrey, a digital minister in charge of social innovation. I'm here today because Fung-Rui invited me to. I'm open to any impossibility. I don't really want to get anything out of this conversation other than to get to know you all. Thank you, Audrey. Next, we have Cassie. Hi, Cassie, are you there? Fung-Cassie wrote in the chat. She's sorry she's only able to type in the chat for now. Oh, right. No worries. Somewhere between Cambridge and London. Cool. Thank you, Cassie. Next, we have Jo-hee. Hello, this is Jo-hee. Also coming from Dakmer Lab, located in Seoul, in South Korea. And my expectation is first of all, interest in how to bring agency to the civil society and let them build their thriving community with the agency of governance. That's one domain perspective, interest and also expectation. And the other one is how to make open a provocation. So that's me. Thank you. Thank you, Jo-hee. Next, we have Gerdan. Hello. I'm also from Dakmer Labs, currently in Delhi, India. And I've seen Audrey give live talks or seen videos. And I'm a big fan. I mean, I can go and let's open that. But I think my expectation and what I'm thinking these days is most about ecological media. And what I mean by that is taking tech and seeing the invisible structures behind it, be it the materiality or be it the extractive models or be it like, yeah. How do we reach more ecological tech? Thank you, Gerdan. And then next, we have Indy. Indy from Dark Matters in London. I'm super excited to be in this room, I suppose. My aspiration is that all my provocation is that I think we're at a moment where certainly in the West, the monopoly of government and the monopoly of private sector are both problematic, certainly in the Western context now. And actually, there is a space for a new radical civics to actually create a new power relationship and which will actually make everyone better. And I'm very interested. And I think Bitcoin is a bad example of a good civic. Anyway, and there might be a really interesting exploration of what that sort of distributed decentralized agency or production starts to create a new type of relationship. And I think this can go from money production. This can go from legals. This can go to all sorts of registries and how do we create a new civic infrastructure of society which creates the multiplicity of public. And I think this moment is right now and I'm super excited to be here to be able to discuss this and see what we can develop together out of that. And I have kind of a bit of an ambition around this, which is I think we should be building something quite radical in partnership with the ordinary around at a global level about building a fund to support this sort of radical capabilities around the world. So anyway, that's my ambition. Thank you, Indy. And I'm from Dacuna Labs and also working with Audrey. I'm really happy to be here and hosting this conversation with Jonathan. And so we are going to explore different strengths of discussion and I will just quickly relate to the work that Audrey is doing and how that intersects with the four different strengths of our inquiry. So the first one is around power distribution and decision-making and sovereignty as a foundation of emancipation. I think Audrey's work around the open source movement and open knowledge like Mondia and the MOE dictionary and a lot of other different, basically Audrey is quite handsome on a lot of civic tech projects. And also another initiative related to what Audrey is working on is the open government mission that invites different stakeholders from all sectors to be able to discuss regulations and policy and come up with solutions together. And I see that as an alternative representation or how liquid democracy can be practiced through a mechanism. For example, like in Taiwan practitioners or like online participators that join assemblies, for example, they are able to represent themselves or delegate their representation to other people who they trust in order to kind of, as opposed to voting for representatives every few years and these are the only people who represent our voices. I see that as a very dynamic way of practicing democratic innovation. So this is definitely the area that we are not going to talk about first. The second one is around radical civic space. So the way maybe it's worth talking about the space at the moment. So we can see like the old framework or this framework from the building triangle that we can see the different, like the separate, I wouldn't say suppression, but just the differentiation between different sectors. And the way if we want to use this framework to point out where the radical civic space is, probably it would be like around here where civic actions is not something that civil society only has to tap in or certain things like state doesn't only have the responsibility to take care of people's welfare and providing public services. Like all the different things are public interest focus, there's a space for that radical civic actions. And then that is a space where the people can make society together. So that's how we see the meaning of radical civic space. So within this strands of inquiry as Audrey in the beginning mentioned that the 1922 SMS is a very good example. Probably I would just give the opportunity for Audrey to mention about that. Cause I find this is very interesting cause in the UK we also have like contact tracing. Like if you go to a shop, you just scan you download app and then you scan then you will be, you will know where you are and then the systems will track everyone's movements for like disease control purposes. But what I find interesting for this example is that the same initiative happen from the perspective of civil society and not only civil society, but also how government and private sectors are working together to realize this space for public goods instead of saying like contact tracing is the purely responsibility of the government or different sectors. So Audrey, do you wanna just jumping and briefly talk about this? Which is very good example of a radical civic space. Well, the unifying value of the 1922 SMS is inclusion, we specifically want to take care of people with feature phones who could not install an app for QR codes scanning. We specifically want to include people who do not have for example, the capacity to use a browser or understand how a browser works and so on. We also want to take care of people who think the line which is equivalent of WhatsApp is the only thing on the phone that they are comfortable with and so on. So the design brief is essentially co-created by the people in the GovZero community over just around 24 hours a weekend and then we converged on the SMS based status. And then in the name of inclusion and name of social norm, then on Monday I work with the five telecom carriers and convince them to waive the fees that's sent to the 1922 SMS. And then of course we then work with the private sector to make sure the five telecoms which are in the private sector are able to delete the SMS after 28 days and make sure that the location code is randomized making sure that the privacy budget is well spent through multi-party computation and so on and the company that built the e-mask system a year ago from us rationing and pre-ordering basically completed the system and rolled it out and work with all the small private sector vendors including nine market stands and so on in another 24 hours. So in three short days, basically the first day the social sector sets the norm. The second day the public sector amplifies the norm and then the third day the private sector implements the norm and then we had a almost perfectly working SMS checking system. The only shortcoming is the roaming service people people who use telecoms other than the domestic ones but we're fixing that tomorrow with an app rollout by a type of municipality. Thank you Audrey. That's really amazing. The last, sorry there's two more. The third strands of inquiries around civic law or soft law we're still trying to find the best language for that which is essentially like talking about laws or stories they're based on our knowledge and behavior and customs and if those behavior are the foundation of like what constitutes law and how we organize together then could we intervene in that space to find the way that we can make law more legible and also more legit the process of making law can be more legitimate and also we can enforce those soft laws through peer to peer feedback. And this is super relevant to also Audrey's contribution in V-Taiwan another project around participatory lawmaking so we will tap into this later on. And last one, not sure if we have time to go into this but essentially this is about the founding mechanisms and how we value things in the space in order to see radical civics happening in a more financially sustainable and environmentally sustainable way. So just to quick wrap up what radical civic is I think we wanna push further the idea of what civil society really means and how people can be participating having the agency and autonomy to make the society no matter who they are from what sector so it's definitely not exclusive domain but quite opposite how we can all work together even we have different backgrounds and so the characteristic of radical civic is really public interest centered, social goal centered and just to mention that the work is supported by the emerging futures fund and we're collaborating on this project with SHIFT. So before we go into the future imagining session Audrey do you, would you want to say anything or is it anything come out of your mind when you go through the provocation? And fine, I'll just do a little time check in here ideally how much time should we have for this exercise before the collective imagining session? Probably five, five minutes. Okay, sounds good. Okay, so two things, the first thing is that the way that you use the Venn diagram shows that it's a kind of overlapping space between the three sectors but I have in mind a more kind of transcultural or rather with a cross sectoral, transcultural because it's not just about finding the overlap between the three sectors. It's about the three sectors stops being something that people identify with. That is to say I'm not saying that I am a public servant I say I have the experience to work with the government not for the government, right? Instead of saying I am a business person I say I have the experience of working with the market as the one, this is essential because that decouples our identity from our sectoral experiences and I think the Venn diagram sometimes would seem like that one person simply has multiple identities or it's a slash as we say here in Taiwan and so on but I think that is still caught in the identity experience kind of confusion that we have experience in across sectors. It's not that we identify with multiple sectors. That's the first idea that came to my mind. The second idea is around the, there's a specific metaphor, right? That you use that the root. So like being radical is going to the root of things and that inspired me to think about, because I also say radical transparency, right? I'm also a board member of radical exchange. So what really is the root here? And I think one of the values that's shared across all sectors, as I mentioned is this idea of inclusive of the future. And that is to say no matter which sectoral advances are by evolution almost the kind of sectoral exchange modes that we see are able, we're able to include the future, the future generations because the civilization that don't exist for us to see. So there are some roots in those cultures that at least says we don't foreclose the possibilities of our descendants. We need to be at least a good enough ancestor. And I believe that is one of the true roots that could not unify by rather a bridge across the three sectors. I hope that's five minutes. Yeah, definitely feel free to share more. Sorry, I shouldn't put a time cap on that. That's fine, yeah. Yeah, cool. Can I just say two things to that? So when I looked at the crossover, I was almost feeling the radical civics seems to be the base for those three sectors rather than being the crossover. It's almost the foundation. So building civil society is the base of the root for the other sectors. So that's one thing. The second thing was, I'm reading your perspective here on the civic. The civic is not just in space but in time. The kind of thesis of behaving in a civic behavior should not just be the people now but future generations in that model. So I wonder whether we can expand that thesis of civics in space and finalization. I think it's really powerful. That's right, it's shared space time, not just a shared space. Thank you, Indy. Anything else, Audrey? Is there any questions when you read the provocation or is there anything you would like to add if there's anything that we're missing that we should really talk about? Plenty of edits that I would like to make but most of them would be just edits, right? I think the core ideas are sound. Of course, I would prefer if there's less words that connects the ideas together because there's like full quotations to illustrate. So some outlining would help but I don't think there's anything that strikes me as particularly missing. Thank you, Audrey. I think we're still developing the hypothesis and clear our thinking as we go. So definitely there is a lot of room to be improved and we're hoping to continue to develop that, see that as like a collaborative note across many different peoples and to improve that as it goes. So definitely it's not a static thing and we're looking to improve it over time. So last section is about, is the most exciting one which is about imagining the future experiment. We have provide some examples like this one. I came across this when I was working on the street during the weekends and also tell me if it's like ridiculous or there's a lot of room that we can build on top of that imagining that future. So I would just to give an example of like different types of futures that we can see and co-create together. So one example I thought about that could be an experiment on the ground is that imagine if everything is on sale and has sovereignty, so like a land that owns itself instead of paying tax, like currently we pay tax and then the tax will be allocated to like maintain or investing public goods. And instead of doing that, we pay for civic goods through a subscription fee or we could pay for the use of civic goods like pay for the use of a park for example. And we can also crowd found investment through mechanisms like quarterly funding or a convection voting to make certain decisions around where money goes and to use that as a way to vote for the future we like to see. So instead of having a vote or one or two votes every four to five years to elect representatives who will decide on so many things for us. Basically we have the vote like one million or more than that in one year to vote for the future we wanna invest and we wanna see. So everything is self sovereign and we pay and invest in the future we wanna see. So if I want more community allowance in my community I could just like crowd found that or pay for the maintenance of that. The community garden doesn't own by the state or doesn't own by the rich but it owns itself. So there's no issue of like sometimes public goods or like forest would be sell by the government to a developer in order to like build house and that is not really public interest focus and if the city or society is not strong enough to fight back then probably the tragedy will happen in that way. So this is just an example of how a future can look like by passing existing infrastructure and giving up the power to different people and to the people actually. And then when I thought about this experiment so the team have created a framework to organize the different strengths of inquiries as different like different stacks over here. So the one is the first one is around civic law and then here you can see what we want to achieve like different areas of intervention that we can go forward. And then you can see the small dots are like elements of experiments. So for example, peer to peer feedback can be one specific element of a wider experiment. So here you can see I pick up all different elements across different stacks that inspire me to think about this future scenario. So the framework on the left is just almost like a tool or inspiration that help us to imagine the future in a more radical way instead of starting from a blank page. So we also organize a few questions here as a prompt to think about different possibilities of the future. So if we can start from the first run of inquiry and essentially the idea is like we will go through some of the questions we have here is basically this is like the guideline of our conversation but for this session as we go through them, we will build the different experiments for the future that we can conduct in the future. So maybe that's good. Let's go with the first strength and then see how it goes. So the first strength is around power distribution and decision making. So in the age of digital monopoly and power centralization we wanna imagine that imagine if you're in 2050 what would happen to make power distribution possible? Cause we can see like a lot of things are initially set up as decentralized. Like OY web and Bitcoin but we can see the trends of centralization. And so in your view like imagine we're in 2050 what are the pathways forward? What can be the pathways forward? How do we delegate and distribute power fairly? Okay and I'm supposed to what take the cards on the left or on the further left? Do we shuffle and deal seven cards? What are the moves here? So the idea is to feel free to just have a conversation using this as a prompt to start a conversation. And then your answer is probably starting to come up with something that you want to do. And then your answer is probably starting to is a response to a possibility of the experiment. So probably just like feel free to. Maybe can I suggest something? Yeah. Let's maybe project ourselves in the future maybe 20, 40 if it's far enough and imagine this radical civics where it would go where it would lead and you have all these prompts to help you but if you're already inspired either by the earlier conversations the provocation and so on feel free to start at any moment or at any specific space. Okay. So I'm not required to analyze the scenario through the three strands. It's a support but not absolutely necessary. Okay. See, my work so far has always been about the plurality meaning that I don't try to predict the future. I bring a little bit of the future through myself and through the work with the communities every day but I remain open to the future because I always believe that people in the future are smarter than me. So whatever I do is as materials as assets for people in the future to remix freely and this underlines my practice of creative commons of open source and so on saying basically that whatever I did are not products they're just inspirations and materials of sorts. And so I think in so which is the lowercase see conservative in conservative anarchism to me is just not about pushing the world to what any particular state in 2040 it's about conserving the potential for people in the 2040 who are unimaginably better suited to solve 2040 questions and problems than me to use whatever we did here in 2021 as materials without being burdened by for example copyrights patterns and other existing structure that would foreclose them as the copyrights forecloses useful works for people to use for knowledge and so on. And so that's the basic idea. So if by 2040 people do see that the co-creation makes the intergenerational tension into co-creation and this co-creational spirit is still very much alive and I don't really care really about the specifics of how exactly the re-decentralization takes as well as it's open to the year 2050 and then open to the year 2060. I know this is a very meta narrative but really that's the foundation of what I mean by the root of good enough ancestorship. In your view, what would be if the narrative is about building the materials that can be helpful for people to integrate and evolve how the civil society can look like. What will be the materials like the essentials of those materials look like? Could you give some examples? Sure, so I've previously said that any successful social innovation can be analyzed through the fast, fair and fun pillars and these pillars I think are also important if we are to build a intergenerational view not just problem solving but on civic space in general how we solve everyone's problems by making sure it's everyone's business and not specifically a few person's representatives business. So A inmates to be fast, meaning that we need to be building the public specifically digital but also physical infrastructures that allows the sense making to propagate through the society quickly. That's the collective intelligence strand and needs to be fair, meaning that people who contribute need to understand reciprocity, understand is a commons, understand it's not an extractive relationship and so on and so the fairness as a norm that is also important. But I think even more important than fast or fair is fun. If people find a intrinsic reason to make contributions then what's unfair or what's unfast can be fixed by co-creation. But if people do not get something intrinsic like fun sense of shared joy and so on out of it out of the initial contribution then they could not progress into agenda setting which requires a lot more energy, right? So I think although I said fast, fair fun but probably fun is the most important to optimize earlier on. That's great, great. Anyone want to jump in? I feel like I'm talking too much. Yeah, Audrey, I'd love to sort of in a world where, I mean I was in a conversation where somebody was sort of talking about the scale of trauma some people are facing. And how do we create the space for civil society? When peccarity and actual trauma like real art trauma is on the face of it and how do we, the fun aspect of it is important but somehow there seems to be almost a foundational space of kind of hosting and not hosting but holding the trauma and letting the pain be acknowledged but at the same time being able to move forward into a civil relationship which is also going to be critical because I think we're facing increasingly more divided and traumatized societies and the journey to civility as we're radical civility is going to require something. I would love your thoughts on that space. Yeah, when I say fun I don't just mean the onion which of course it includes the onion but I also mean fun by for example looking at a mirror board and smiling at each other and making self-introduction in a round to a virtual plant in the middle of us. I mean that's fun, right? So in the social work as Pauline's Bapot can only be built when there is a safe space. So mirror Google Meet as we're using now the universal broadband that we're currently enjoying and so on. These are all part of the safe space. These are the material foundations, the enabling condition of the safe space. Now you mentioned Facebook but everybody use Facebook very differently. I use Facebook feed eradicator. I don't even have a Facebook feed. So for me it's just a place for me to search some hashtags and view some videos not unlike any other video platform. And so I'm kind of not harmed by the parasitical authoritarian intelligence that powers Facebook's most revenue streams. And I understand of course that people would naturally want to form town hall like civic conversations on Facebook. But I see it is kind of fundamentally misguided because it's just like holding a real town hall in physical space in a very loud night club filled with smoke. People have to shout to get hurt, addictive drink, private bouncers, you name it. And with all due respect, there is a room for nightlife district in a city. It's just that this room is not the town hall. And so the underlying infrastructure need to have these norms in mind. So either everybody install Facebook feed eradicator or whatever, or we just built public digital infrastructure. And I've greatly appreciate the answer Audrey. And I suppose one question I had and I'll stop off this is that the kind of ideal radical civics. So for example, if property rights were not hosted by the state, but were decentralized and distributed is a transfer of power to what is a traditionally being imagined or money formation wasn't a role of the state was when or civil law and actually these are fundamental redistributions of power from straight to a new type of civil society. What's your feeling about that sort of journey and the kind of and that plurality of public publics that that generates and the politics of doing that maybe even will be the politics of doing that making that journey since you sit in this unique place of sitting in these worlds. Right. So you cited if I listened correctly kind of Satoshi Nakamoto as a bad example. Did I understand that correctly? Well, for my view, Bitcoin is a disruption of both private and state simultaneously. And I think Bitcoin heralds a different future. And I think civil society, I think there's lots of things potentially challenging about it, the deflation nation, the asset, it will concentrate well and other things, but that's different things that we should just think about, whether that will provide the justice and there's lots of things positive about it. In its form, I think it is a civil form. It is a new form of organizing money production and I think it heralds this, I think it's a herald of a radical civic if you want to define it. And I think governments are struggling to deal with it. You've seen recently China's response to Bitcoin because it disrupts power of money formation and money control in really traditional ways. And I think if we imagine it as a herald, it's a really interesting question about how do we build a new relationship between the radical civic route and government and private sector and other sectors. So that was a nature of the question. Okay. Okay, so to me, Bitcoin still runs on top of the internet protocol. It implements of course some of the norms that we already had in say Cypherpunks and other communities, but it's not the first implementation nor is it the last. It's the first mainstream application, let's call it that. And which is, I guess it makes it a good enough ancestor because first it measurably did inspire more people than any previous distributed ledger implementations. And also Satoshi did not sue anyone for patent infringement. So people are free to do proof of space time, proof of humanity, proof of whatever without getting legal action from Satoshi. And so I would say that Bitcoin fits the description of a good enough ancestor. But as for its radicalness or its specificness, I think it's just one manifestation of the so-called end-to-end principle in the internet. And I think the end-to-end principle which says that innovation can happen as long as two willing people anywhere in the network can send to it. I think that is truly radical as in the route. Bitcoin unleashed some of that promise of the core internet, but there are many more. And to me internet is more radical in a radical civic sense than Bitcoin by orders of magnitude. And the relationship of government to these sort of devices, because I think it was a joke. The PRC did not ban the internet, right? So it means that it was successful in mainstreaming even more stakeholders so that the kind of tolerance of the disruptive potential of future internet applications even very high, but also the incentive for a state to allow its almost parasitical existence is still very high, which is partly why PRC banned, you know, the Bitcoin related websites, but it did not ban GitHub for exactly the same reason. And so I guess the co-creation part, the fun part really of say GitHub or other internet-based open source infrastructure pose a very attractive force for state governments, even authoritarian ones. And at this particular stage, I think they need probably to be symbiotic in order to work with, certainly not for the radical civics. But if we see the radical civics as a symbiotic instead of parasitical force, that already is something, right? It's not something that people do when they get cognitive surplus. This is not something that people do to reform the government. This is something that is symbiotic with the other sectors. Anyone want to jump in? I was wondering about the market's role in appropriating the values created through open source protocols, open source work, and then accumulating the value in profits and private shareholder value. And how, what kind, I mean, do we have examples of material infrastructures that are trying to upend those dynamics so that the value that is created through open networks is sort of kept for the ancestors as open value rather than closed private value? Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. So systems that are fair to its participants. We do have plenty of these systems. And I see a related question in the chat that says how about, how do Bitcoin evolve basically? And so actually tackling that question leads to answering your question. So the Bitcoin successors tackle that through different consensus schemes, right? Proof of space time as in Filecoin, proof of stake as in Ethereum 2.0, and things like that. And all these are basically redesigning such that it's more fair. Fair for the planet, fair for the external society, fair for up and coming participants in the network instead of dominated by a few persons in the beginning of the revolution, right? And things like that. So in a sense that that's their, not just climate change mitigation and transformation, but also a broader sustainability transformation because without these actions, it would not be sustainable. Meaning that the externalities, negative ones will be so large that the surrounding society and business will start to boycott them as we have seen recently with Bitcoin. And so there's a larger social norm. There's a larger social force here. So how to make sure that these radical civics which show the promise of radical co-creation across sectors remains fair in a wider societal norm. Of course, that means that we need to deliver something that is perceived as more fair to the existing society norm. That is to say it needs to be Pareto improvements. If one makes a innovation that makes it more fair for a few people or a few percentage of people, but reduce the fairness, reduce equity for the other part of the people. I'm not just talking about Bitcoin, but Bitcoin is a good example. Then of course, then it will not be tolerated for a long time by the surrounding society. On the other hand, for example, the crowd-sourced sense-making of air pollution in Taiwan, the digital competence co-creation of the counter disinformation, what we call humor over rumor or making sure there's notice with no takedown but public notice and so on, we can actually tangibly prove that the time you put into it increase the social equity without leaving any particular part behind. And the reason why we can prove that is because Taiwan has as its constitutional core, universal broadband, education, communication as a right to citizens. So it's not just that the state has the responsibility to fulfill the infrastructure, but people expect these to be part of the dignity of citizenship. And so when we introduce such co-creation materials, people do not simply say, oh, what about people with no broadband access? Because people know, well, that's soft on the underlying layer, right? People don't say, what about people who are not part of the universal healthcare? Do they get masquerading? What about immigrant workers? Because on the underlying layer, they are already included in universal healthcare. And importance is not that it's state run. The importance is that it's a fair expectation that's always delivered by the social sector, even when the state through its numerous omissions, for example, forget to recompensate for telemedicine because the IC card was IC card based, right? Then people are prompted to innovate on telemedicine various other ways to kind of augment the existing omissions and by relinquishing their copyright and patents, the state were able then, through presidential hackathon and other means, just make sure that it continues to observe the social norm by delivering part of that infrastructure. So this is a really long run out sentence, but I trust that you understand the main idea. It's Pareto improvement across sectors that not just conform but evolves a social norm that's already upheld by all the sectors related to that particular endeavor. So just one question related to what you mentioned earlier about like the long welfare system like UBI as a foundational enabling condition to support the civic actions in society. I wonder, because you mentioned earlier about everything is included already. I wonder how does that look like and how does that work for those countries that doesn't have those conditions in place? They don't have universal healthcare. So universal healthcare was only introduced after Taiwan's first citizen assembly style deliberation. And but it's in the history books. So people can look it up. And just wanting to be mindful of time, we had an hour, correct? That's right, yes. And Audrey, I know you're really busy. So is it a hard stuff for you at? It's not a particularly hard stuff, but is ST here? I think ST is still here. Yes, yes. So how are you on time? Do you have a hard stuff or can you continue in my absence? Yeah, sure, but I'm not quite sure because I missed the context. Before, yes, so maybe, yeah. Okay, so yeah, maybe I can stay on for another five, 10 minutes. Thank you so much. Wonderful, thank you, Audrey. Jonathan, do you wanna come in and look at any questions that we have to answer? Just to bring to the table before we close? I think I would just let anybody else who has been thinking through this conversation if there's any question or thoughts or ideas or worry about the future of that space. I mean, I suppose I'll sort of keep going until somebody else has another question. So just punch me out of the way. I really enjoy the precision of your words Audrey, I suppose, because in a way, as I hear them, like the space, so the co-creation capability is almost the foundational civic. It's how can you go? That's the basic of civics. And then growing fairness is almost the intentionality who is involved in the co-creational capability. And it's not, it can never be everyone. So it's the growing capability of that. That's really the issue. Growing in space and in time. So that's actually the kind of vector quality of it. And in time, as I was sort of reconciling what you were saying, you were saying, actually we have to create systems which allow the, for maintaining the potentiality of future generations and conserving their potentiality. So that's the kind of almost the definitional civics that I sort of was able to understand. And then I suppose, one of the things I suppose, and this may be wrong as well, let's have that one as conversation, is what if we were to start to think about money production in that sort of way? What if we were start to say, well actually the current reality is certainly in the UK, very few people have access to justice. You have the idea of justice, but the access to justice no longer exists. So Amazon terms and sheets, it's virtually impossible, but actually the practical. So we know we're increasingly, democracies are struggling to deliver justice. So we have to reinvent the thesis of justice in the 21st century, which allows for a different form of micro-accountability and mechanisms of redress in a new way. And that's going to be different from the institutions that we had. We know that actually our registries that we're about to build, they could be built from a completely different thesis that would make the public and pluralize the public rather than centralize the public. So the plurality of publics. So there feels like a moment of radical institutional reform that could actually empower building this radical civic base and allow government to have new integrity in that process as well. Do you feel the hypothesis we're running is valid? That's a kind of a generic hypothesis. Yeah. It's valid and we're, of course, in the middle of the great accelerator for that, right? The twin dynamics that affects the humanity with the same urgency and therefore allows people to find common topics across time zones. Prior to this, it was not possible. So I could talk about the weather but it would not make sense for you. But if I talk about SMS checking, you know, suddenly it resonates. So I think the capacity for co-creation is dependent on the urgency. And because of the sheer urgency that we have now, I think the demos over them, right? The power of democracy over the pandemic and infodemic is felt in the same urgency in pretty much all the democratic policies. And that creates a remarkably, that the word I like to use is the conflict-free, replicable data type. It's a mass term. It's a term or CRDT. It's a mathematics term. It underlies the Google Doc, the Google Meet, the Mirror Board, right? It's the mathematical infrastructure that allows us to simultaneously make edits and just like Bitcoin, arrive on some consensus that is consistent across fairly trusting parties. And without the CRDTs, most of our time in the battle days in version controlling open source is spent on resolving conflicts, is spent on de-escalation. And if you think about it, de-escalation is what you do if the bit rate of democracy is less than that of conflict. You're basically playing catch up, right? Betch catch up to de-escalate. But if you do have a higher bit rate for co-creation and democracy, then you experience the kind of conflict-free, replicable because of the universal broadband is breast-fast data type. And that, I think, is the foundation for the kind of the radical civic that you just described, because without which, there's no motivation for people to participate in it. And this system does a bootstrap without the initial participation across all the different sectors. Exactly, and just to keep building with that. So one of the things that I think is challenging is too often in many conversations, we tend to look for consensus systems. So whether it's through representation or through voting. And actually consensus systems in complex emerging environments are really problematic because there is no single consensus. It is contextually variant. So co-creation allows for, as you said, this simple end-to-end principle where if two people can agree it, then actually there's a space. That's right. And it deals with the problem of complexity, not through representation or group think or group consensus, but actually through a new form of public accountability through the end-to-end principle with the transparency of process. There's almost a different route of organizing rather than the representational democracy. Which changes them on models of legitimacy from being the vote to being open, transparent, end-to-end principle-oriented. There seems to be a root question that you bring to the table, right? Exactly, exactly. Because in previous literature on deliberative democracy, representativeness is seen as important to legitimacy and therefore you're either obtained through the vote or through the random sortation. Both states back to ancient Greece. However, this way of working is essentially self-selection. People who are interested in former autocracy and explore, but share with the society through open innovation and so on, the internet governance model. But self-selection really is just a kind of lens through which that's the public administration and existing policy infrastructure understand the kind of co-creation we're talking here. In our world, it's called the end-to-end principle, right? It's not called self-selection, yeah. And so if we keep building with it, the integrity of that process, so I remember when we spoke last time when you were talking about why you keep these recordings because it's an integrity principle, right? It allows you to show integrity in terms of anyone can say, well, I did that. That the future is watching, yes. Yeah, exactly. So the governance becomes less about representation and control, but more about integrity and behavior. And actually, not enforcing, but certainly encouraging and feedbacking that integrity and behavior. So there's a new theory of governance that starts to emerge in the system. And the role of government less is about control or representation, but actually integrity, organization and building integrity and system through feedback, not necessarily through control. I think feedback and ennoblement becomes very powerful mechanisms. Can you see, I mean, are you seeing some of that stuff happening in your government leadership for saying? No, definitely, definitely. And I resonate well with the part that says relationship takes the front seat in the radical civics design because indeed relationship lives through our interactions and they are really what we're here for, right? And to call them human capital or whatever, relational capital is kind of a perverse category because they are in a sense the agent here. And then we are just the vehicle through which the agency of relationships happen. And once that view is taken, then you get into much easier co-creation. And this is why I keep saying that the Mandarin word Gongshi or good enough consensus or common understanding really is basically something that's alive, that lives through us. But the English word consensus is too fine. It's just a contract that people find. And so I always modify it as in the internet governance tradition, rough consensus or good enough consensus as I mostly say nowadays. And if we go with your relationships part, it means that the idea of identity is less about me and my certainty but almost a function of the Heideberg uncertainty of relationships, almost a cluster of relationships that allow me to exist that correlate on me. That's right, that's right. Yeah, well, our shared experience, basically this mirror board is alive and we're just, it's tentacles, sorry, vehicles. Exactly. So whereas current thesis on identity always about is a single proof ground truth or the idea of a ground truth or whereas actually what we want to embrace is not ground truth, but your idea of rough consensus of identity in a way, which is a function of multiple relationships correlating around that. And that starts to build a completely different thesis of identity formation. Overlap your relationship, but yes, yes. Okay, because I think these conceptual frames are quite critical because they will underpin how we build some of the root structures that are necessary for this story. Now, I really appreciate it. I'm sorry I'm hogging up so much time and so, guys, thanks for coming. No worries. Unfortunately, I feel like we could have a few hours of this conversation and we're barely scratching the first surface, but we already asked for 10-minute extra, so I feel like we unfortunately have to conclude. So I'll leave it to Fang for the last few words. Yeah, thank you so much for everyone's time and we really appreciate this conversation that is happening right now and feel like we probably should have more time next time or we can have fluid conversation. We'll always feel like that, no matter how many hours. So I think this mural board will just keep open and if anyone wanna add anything to it or raise any questions, I think we will just leave it open and people still can interact on mural. And really sorry that we went over time. Yeah, so I think for the next steps, probably we will just continue to develop the thinking that happens with this and think about the essentials that we can, because we also don't want to just stay in the space of theoretical kind of arguments, but wanting to see how that future can be realized through distributed actions. Like we are really conscious about us, we don't want to be the holder of this conversation, even though we are initiating this, but we want to make sure that there is a space for everyone in the society to be able to tap into the space and develop things further. And so we're still experimenting what will be the best way to keep the different conversations flow and even people from different conversations can have a conversation in a different space. So we'll definitely keep in touch with you. Of course. Well, live long and prosper then. Thank you so much, Audrey, and thank you everyone for joining us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Merci. Should I, just wondering, should I stop the recording here? Yeah. Or do you want to have like before we, okay, let me stop the recording.