The UN's Global Digital Compact: Considerations on the Zero Draft
2:53PM Apr 16, +0000
Speakers:
Joly MacFie
Judith Hellerstein
Chris Buckridge
William J. Drake
Anriette Esterhuysen
Mike Nelson
Keywords:
ai
issues
digital
process
document
igf
draft
coordination
discussion
global
gdc
internet
wizards
multi stakeholder
private sector
sdgs
policy
question
andrea
principles
Big Science sort of saying these escalators which off because. of
being necessarily harmonized. And, and based on a consensus, a consensus that might not be stable consensus that might be too much for some countries and not enough for others. And so these are some of the issues that we'll hear plus others. Before I pass this on to Bill, I'd like to thank Jason backwards, the executive director of the CIA, for the technical management of many aspects that bring us here together. I'd like to thank the speakers for joining us but in particular like to thank Bill Drake who has put this program together. Phil has a doctorate from Columbia right here, and has returned to Columbia as the Director of International Studies and as an adjunct professor at the Columbia Business School. Go ahead, no. Que le I'm trying to deal with the fact that Adrienne is having problems
with their connectivity and seems to have fallen out of the room and does not get back in. So but we'll get started anyway, and hopefully, that will be resolved soon. So hello, everybody. Thanks for joining us. For this month's installment to the seminar series. We've covered a wide range of issues on global digital governance since launching this series last year, I should say our next meeting will be in four weeks. On Tuesday, May 15 On topic TBD, but probably the governance of disinformation or AI, depending on what the UN does. So let me turn to this week's topic, which is the digital global digital compacts zero draft. Just a little background for folks who are not living and breathing. So soon after taking office in 2017, UN Secretary General Gutierrez moved to a global digital governance and cooperation central part of his ambitious agenda for reforming and strengthening the multilateral system. In 2018, he launched a trajectory of work involving multiple assessments and consultations on digital policy issues, which inevitably has involved multiple proposals for the establishment of new organizations, instruments and programs to address these issues. As always, proposals for new things have both advocates and skeptics, the advocates saying that, you know, there's a range of new issues that don't have a good centralized home in the UN system. So we need to have some kind of new mechanism for them, and that the existing frameworks that exist out there, they may be national or multilateral type deals leave, too many countries out and unable to have a voice. So we need an inclusive multilateral space. Conversely, skeptics tend to say Oh, putting all the digital issues into the UN Environment provides bad incentives for bureaucracy building and flag planting and geopolitical struggles. of the sort that have made most multilateral negotiations over Internet related issues purely unproductive in a lot of ways. Plus, there's financial problems, which is you know, the UN's got issues. I mean, parts of the United Nations in Geneva are being shut down as we speak, because they can't pay the bills. So there's a lot going on with the usual kinds of debates happening. In 2018. The Secretary General did a strategy note on new technologies proposed that he should have a new tech envoy to lead coordinate the Secretary General's work and the UN system wide activities. 2019 They had a high level panel on digital cooperation that put out a report to propose a series of different types of options for new institutional architectures, none of which got traction. There have been multiple efforts to try to talk about how to implement that work and then in 2020, he released a roadmap for global digital cooperation, which proposed formally to establish this PEC envoy position and to create new groupings on digital financing capacity, development and a new advisory body and global artificial intelligence. Issues and a leadership group to build support for the Internet Governance Forum. So and then the following year, the Secretary General released the common agenda, our common agenda report for the UN 75th anniversary, which formulated proposed this global digital compact, agreed at the summit of the future in September 2004. And this would be annex to the pack for the future. And they began work on a bunch of different issues released some policy papers, including one that proposed a variety of new quote capabilities including global repository of experience for duck digital public infrastructure, digital human rights advisory mechanisms, high level body for ai, ai follow up process related to code of conduct for information
integrity or disinformation issues.
I'm most controversial in that set of proposals. And if you remember in May 2023, was the proposal for a new digital Cooperation Forum, which had a kind of broad any and all digital issues kind of mandate as envisioned and seem to basically duplicate the Internet governance forums agenda to the large extent, except that it'd be done in a more top down New York intergovernmental way rather than the bottom up community way. based in Geneva that we have at the IGF. And that position, this new forum is the sort of Hubbard hubs and spoke relationships with the other specialized bodies. There was strong opposition from stakeholders to this proposal and we did a session about it in this seminar series where people debated it. Eventually that concept kind of was dropped away. Then the began, a lot of attention shifted to artificial intelligence. So tech envoys moving very quickly. They established a high level advisory body in October 2023, and almost immediately issued an interim report calling for a global AI governance framework anchored in the UN Charter, the sovereign states etc, etc. A final report for that is coming soon. And then consultations are launched. And there were a bunch of consultations from June 2022 to April 2023 inputs. And then this zero draft was dropped April of this year, just a couple of weeks ago, that proposed a number of things, including a new Digital Advisory Service on artificial intelligence and international scientific panel, an AI that produces monthly reports $100 million global fund for AI with voluntary contributions, a big annual meeting to debate ai ai, a new office in New York for systems wide coordination through the Secretary General of all digital kind of work and annual reporting process on global digital compact progress, including every two years, a high level review with participation to stakeholders and so on. So a lot contained in that zero draft document. An inter governmental consultation was held April five. There has not yet been a stakeholder consultation where people from the business community technical community and civil society could weigh in and provide inputs in an organized manner on the zero draft. So part of why we're having this meeting here today to try to help fill that gap provide a place for us to start having a meaningful conversation about what's in the zero draft, and how does it affect stakeholder interests and what should be done I should point out also that there's some other things going on soon. There's tomorrow be another meeting held through the wizards plus 20 multi stakeholder grouping. I can staff are supporting. We'll be talking about these issues and hopefully people will begin to focus on how we can get stakeholder inputs provided into this process. So anyway, that's the background so to start the conversation, we have an excellent panel of experts who have been prominently involved in the global digital compact discussions as well as your net governance more generally for a long time. In both civil society, private sector in Internet technical community stakeholder communities. Chris Buck Rich is an independent consultant to Internet technical communities and live on the Internet Governance Forum. multi stakeholder advisory group is the co chair of the advisory groups working group on strategy he's a member of the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers I can see he worked for more than two decades with the regional Internet registries, including APNIC and RIPE NCC unread Esterhuizen he's joining from the Netherlands Andre Esterhuizen. Is Senior Advisor for Internet governance at the Association for progressive communications. Previously on we had was APCs, Executive Director for 2000 2017 and she has served as chair of the IGs multi stakeholder advisory group and he's joining us from Geneva where there's a UN meeting going on right now. And finally Tamiya suto is global digital policy lead at the International Chamber of Commerce. She leads the ICCs policy development and advocacy work on digital policy Internet governance issues, and he has worked in the past in research and teaching roles in Budapest in Paris. She is also at the UN in Geneva right now. So we have two people joining us from the UN where as I say some of the lights are being turned off elevators and not working and so on due to the budget crisis. So interesting times. So the mechanics of this meeting, as always, we'll have four rounds of questions to the panel to the top. And then as always, at the top of the hour we'll have open discussion. We have a lot of participants in the room who have experienced in this area so I'm hoping we can have a good robust and interactive dialogue. involving everybody. That's the game plan for today.
Let's begin then with the panel. So why don't
we start with what's in the zero draft? What's been proposed what's in what's out? What does it mean? Proposals that panelists think are worthy and doable. Could be stronger, could be problematic, etc. I suppose probably. Particular attention might be devoted to the new organizational structures, instruments and programs that have been proposed that I mentioned previously. But there are many other issues in the zero draft as well. That could flag so let's start with the panel and why don't we just go in alphabetical order. So, Chris, why don't we start with you? And
so thanks, Bill, and yet, thank you for the sort of
details. It's a potted history
but really my detailed history leading up to
this point. And I mean, I think it does feel like sort of good to actually have a draft now to be working with this has been sort of, well, 18 months or so now that this process has been sort of working its way to this point. There have been a number of consultations during that time. Little I mean, I think for some of us there was there's been concerned about the modality of those. There hasn't been sort of strong records of what input there was or how that was going to affect each other. But I think looking at the draft that we have now, it's clear that the CO facilitators have been listening and have have taken note of some of the input that's come to them via those consultations. I think there was what I mean in reading tea the tea leaves before this came out. There was a feeling certainly from some people, I think that it was going to be a pretty bare bones that in its sort of now understood role as an annex to the pact for the future. It would be relatively slim, sort of a quite focused document. I think what we see here in the zero draft is not that it's more expensive than perhaps some expected and that's positive
to me, I feels like a lot has been put in here
as a sort of preliminary step as a sort of response to all of the feedback and input that they've received as CO facilitators. With the understanding of implicit understanding that it will be whittled back as we go into negotiations with which the member states will will lead and will take part in and that's understood and I think that's that's part of the context that you mentioned, the UN's liquidity crisis, which is now very explicitly being discussed. And is sort of having impact on UN operations. So I think there's going to be that sense of pragmatic realism, not necessarily something you're going to see reflected in the text of the global digital compact, but it's absolutely going to inform the negotiations that take place as people consider what what might be included and what realistically afford to be to be doing
in terms of new activities and new structures.
The I posted a link in the chat just because I had included a table in that blog post which gives you a sense of the structure of the compact and I mean, it's it's pretty logical in terms of setting out some principles for how it will work and then structuring it around five objectives. I
don't think there's anything too new there. I think the focus is obviously on
what un and its member states can do in terms of coordinating and I think that need for coordination across digital cooperation, digital governance, Internet governance discussions. It's kind of an underlying
driver for this whole project,
this idea that things are spinning out of control. There are a lot of different digital government, digital policy discussions going on and the connective tissue between them is perhaps failing or perhaps not even being put there in the first place as these new structures and discussions spin up. I mean, in that sense, the the
real focus that I've been looking at,
from a governance perspective is a lot of the follow up and review processes there. And particularly how this fits into a lot of those existing structures that are already there with this is up to 20 years with its review next year, and the the sort of sense of how this all fits into that and to the other UN processes that are going on because you now have some of the future global digital compact work stream that's really somewhat adjacent to with this which is a very diverse stream of activity involving a number of different UN agencies. But you do also have, for instance, the AI panel that Secretary General spun up which is separate to to all of these things. You have the work in the O ew G on cybersecurity, you have the work to develop a cybercrime Treaty, which is yet another stream. So I think what what you're seeing is really growing complexity and perhaps in some in a lot of cases, disconnectedness of these streams,
etc, is perhaps an opportunity to bring some of that back together and to sort of try and re reclaim the coordination
that's going to be necessary in terms of global digital digital governance, digital cooperation, but I think what we see in the zero draft is a bit of equivocation. They're both recognizing that this is important is there in the IGF, as that sort of multistakeholder flagship is there and can be
an important role. But then, on the other side, saying we're going to need a new office in the
Secretary General's or the sorry, the General Assembly Secretariat, we're going to need a new high level two year, every two years meeting to assess what's going on here. We're going to need other these other structures. So how that resolves itself, I think is going to be really one of the more interesting discussions that we see as we come into this into negotiations in the coming months. I'll stop there, I
want to talk to you. No such thing but Okay, great. Thank you. For getting started
on React, your thoughts.
I hope your connectivity is working. So to your instincts. Thanks, Bill. I have so much to add to what Chris has been saying. So
I think I think it's actually a strong document in many respects. I think that they did a fairly decent job of incorporating input because they are quite substantial differences between this and some of the previous policy briefs that we have seen. And I think that the challenge really I mean, I want to pick up really from from maybe let me emphasize some of the really positive things. I think that it does a better job at at harmonizing some of the SD GE approaches and goals and some of the wizards approaches and goals and I think there is a need for that. I think there has been a gap that's been left by both these big processes when it comes to digital and the Internet specifically so I think the principles kind of capture together. What we have is the business principles and some of these DG principles. And I think it's really good that there's a focus on digital public infrastructure because I think that is not just an important area. It's also an area that where it's easier to come up with clarity on what the role of the status, what the role of private actors are, what the role of civil society is. I think some of the stakeholder roles and responsibilities have become quite unhelpfully muddled in the business process. And I think this new document potentially gives us the opportunity to look at multi stakeholder processes and investment and cooperation and in a more nuanced but also in a more precise way. And I think one area where we feel there's not enough when I say we hear talking on behalf of APC and my network, we feel that there's not enough recognition of the failure of of redressing digital divide of connectivity. It's good that it focuses on it. It might be good to have a little bit more acknowledgement that there's been failed, failed failure. At market levels. So there's market failure, and there's also failure at the level of, of what the public sector has done. But to jumped OGS and digital public goods. I think it's good that there's a focus on that as well, except we have to unpack what it really means. But I think as Chris says the weakness of the document is that it's still not really telling us how we are going to collaborate and who's going to ensure that there's effective collaboration going forward. And if you look at the section of the document, yes, there is mention of the IETF there's mention of the wizards implementation agencies but then at the same time, there's this emphasis on on creating a new coordination function with with within the SGS office. And I think we have to acknowledge that there is insufficient coordination within the UN system there's definitely need for something better than what we have at the moment. But I think
document at this point in time, doesn't really give us
answers that that to me sounded awkward and convincing that it's going to be any better going forward. And I'd like to see him more emphasis on using existing wishes mechanisms using the IGF as a participation platform, although there's good text on that using CSTD. And we have reference to that. But I'd like to see something more concrete and perhaps that role that is identified in I think paragraph 56 or for the liaison,
the Geneva liaison,
I think it would make more sense to have GDC follow up, harmonized and connected to whistles follow up located in Geneva with a New York liaison rather than a Geneva liaison. And I'm saying that of somebody working in the Global South. I think member states do not need another digital track. They are already working within the wizards framework with with to lesser and greater success. We see this from the g7 87 as well. Their reaction to the global digital compact also emphasizes the need to look at wizards because this is work. This is time for developing country delegations. And if they have to divide up their digital development, participation and implementation processes between a New York process and a Geneva process, it could just fragment their efforts. So I'll leave it at that at the moment for the moment.
Well, you started out by saying you don't have that much to add and then you added quite a lot. So pick your
Okay, to me your thoughts? Bill. Thanks, first of all for having me here.
And listening to these webinars for quite some time now. It's quite quite a sensation to be on the other side of the virtual day we'll hear so thanks for having me. And thanks for for asking me to question us because it's really easy to to come in after Chris and Andrea. They've said most of it so all I can say is yes. And then I maybe just add two to three little bits so completely what Christina on red have identified and all the input that you've had in the intro, It's spot on. There's quite a lot in this draft to discuss. So when I was preparing for this conversation, you asked us in preparation to think about what's in there. What's not in there that should be and then where does this so what does this all mean and where do we go? So in as I was preparing the one thing that started percolating in my mind, what's in here is a lot of new language. If you read this document in comparative documents that the UN has put out, there's a change in tone here. If you look at it, there's a change in editorial style. There's a change in ambition. I think both Chris and Andrea had alluded to the fact that this is really a meaty document that really tries to go into the some of the nitty gritty that we have to deal with here and it goes into quite some ambitious targets and commitments not only for for member states but also for for other stakeholders and in particular, there's quite a few call outs there for the private sector. So what is
a bit difficult for me to when we look at all this new language to comprehend,
as there are some concepts and this new, new language that is being introduced that are a bit hard to interpret that we don't know what it means, right? There, then there's a lot of use of wheat in this draft. But we don't quite know what to say we have some unusual un documents this way means that the member states but here the we who does this include because a lot of the times their responsibilities that they refer to in this draft. When they say we It seems to match together both public and private sector responsibilities and stuff that stakeholders and member states do, but doesn't quite differentiate on who is supposed to take responsibility on what part for what part of the issue, different stakeholders are to take responsibility for. So I think there's one thing there in the language that we would need probably a bit more unpacking. The other thing and this Amir alluded to, is this idea of this to public goods, which is being tossed around quite a bit in this process. This is not something that this draft introduced we've been having conversations on the Digital Public Goods idea without anybody really defining what that means. We are aware of what digital public infrastructure, the public goods and being
used in the same way and the same sentences sometimes or sometimes even interchanging interchangeably.
Could be a bit problematic, and we would probably need a bit more definitions there.
Now what's missing in
some of these drafts? The colleagues here have have noted the draft goes into quite a bit of policy issues. I think there was a lot of good policy recommendations. There are a lot of good issues that are being brought in, including elements on connectivity elements on global data flows. That I think our I think I see them in the first time in a UN resolution or document in this way. And I think that's that's a step forward. But what's missing is this context, quite a bit of context for some of these recommendations that the app goes into. Also on the element of good language, for example, with connectivity, it talks a lot about the need to invest in connectivity, or to scale up the idea of of bridging the digital divide but it doesn't really mean go into the context of how does the private sector big decisions to make investments and in connectivity, it doesn't talk about the general ecosystem around making sure that you connect the unconnected and that's not only about rolling out infrastructure, but it's about incentivizing the drivers of collectivity. How do we do that? How do we create those policy environments? How do we make sure that the context in which the private sector makes investments is enabling it's stable, it's predictable. That is what the private sector really hoped for the GDC to do to recognize what needs to happen on a policy context for for these investment decisions to be able to take place. I like that content and equally,
I like the context for
some of the issues that are identified in the data chapter for example, where the AI chapter that already we already have information on
and right principles or
good base, either in un documents or in documents outside of the UN. That the GDC zero draft could have built on, but doesn't. For example, when you look into when I talk about data, issues and privacy principles, you have the APEC CBPR you have the sorry for those of you who don't follow this, the privacy guidelines from the Asia Pacific Economic Community, the OCBs privacy guidelines as well. Then when you look into the AI conversations, those little on nuclear dimensioning of principles that are already there in the UN's latest adopted AI resolution, or even in the UNESCO's AI ethics principles, draft plans, the lack of human rights protections, but doesn't really talk about transparency. So there's quite a lot of health, half unpacked topics here that I think needs a bit more context if we want to make this a seminal document. So that was just first impressions from from my side. I think what we need to be careful of is new language new way of talking about the same issues. And then being perhaps a little bit remiss off some of the good context that is already out there, and substantive issues. And I think if we marry those two, it's a bit worrisome, because then we try to fix things with new processes that all of you have mentioned. That perhaps that is not necessarily
of the context that that we already have there. That's just a sense for me to start. Thanks to me. Well, let me try and press you guys a little bit more
on some of the say several of you made reference to the question of coordination and whether there was sufficient coordination in the UN system. Of course, we all know the old expression that everybody likes the idea of coordination and nobody wants to be coordinated. You have all these different things going on in the UN system already in the specialized agencies and so on. A lot of the play as far as I can tell here, just going back to the beginning of this TTC process, and a lot of the meetings we had with the tech convoy and so on, seems to be to build stuff in New York would be system wide,
troll and dialogue spaces and the question that
always comes up in that context and his New York is much more political kind of environment. I mean, with the General Assembly being there, you know, discussions that have Internet issues that needs to think
could very well bring up the usual geopolitical kind of stuff, which tends
to sort of Mar operation and progress. And that's been a concern, right. And so here you have a proposal, that there'd be an annual meeting and artificial intelligence, and they every two years high level review of the global digital compacts progress, which sounds a bit like the digital Cooperation Forum kind of proposal. It's sort of like a broad based you know, everything digital, un thing. It's hard to see whether those things, how those things wouldn't become politicized and difficult. So I'm just wondering, I mean, I understand the arguments for coordination. There are some after wizards doors, of course, mechanisms put in place for some of the lead agencies to talk to each other, but as a general matter, there is probably inadequate coordination but do we have any concerns about
like mechanism in New York, most of the General Assembly as the lead way to do all this stuff? That's
what I'm kind of curious about. Chris. Thoughts? Um, yes.
I mean, I think
yeah, that's probably a bit
on what tomato was saying that I think
kind of very interesting sort of struck me it wasn't something I'd quite thought of myself. In terms of the new tone, the new sort of language the different, it does feel very different. To a lot of different those previous documents. That unreal mentioned this is that linkage to the SDGs. And it that's that sort of very flags for the EU as a framework, I think you know that if you're if you're in New York, that's very much a, an area that you're, you're facing. And I mean, it is true, I think that there's been some attempts to sort of action between SDGs and what goes on in western smoke goes on the IGF, but that's probably an area where there hasn't been coordination and I don't believe there is perfect coordination. It's it's an aspiration, rather than something we're likely to, to actually achieve. So I think, you know, if we positively that's a very good thing and the CO facilitators have been really very diligent in trying to make the links throughout that dot zero draft document to specific SDGs. And I think that's a really important form of coordination here in saying, Okay, we're talking about this, but it also links to this specific SDG and that's really useful and will be really useful going forward because we have somewhat of the future and the GDC this year of the wizards plus 20 Next year, which everyone is also looking to, once we get beyond that, we're going to be into a discussion about what does life after the SDG SDGs how are they going to evolve? What is going to be the framework for brain development at the very best overarching level and I think digital is going to play into that. And so this is probably a really useful step to start making those connections and understanding how they how they intersect and how they affect each other.
Yeah, I absolutely agree to sort of
the art if the result of
New York sort of approach, making those connections is to shift a lot of these discussions to New
York. Yes, you will politicize it because everything that is much more drawn into the general assembly and it's it's machinations Yes, as Andrea said, you will make it much more difficult for certainly a global south countries but also other stakeholders to actually be involved in these discussions. It will become about delegations that are
large professional,
other stakeholders that have a presence there as well, but that will certainly reduce the the sort of multistakeholder element of what what's happening there.
And it would, it would duplicate what is going on elsewhere. And I think one of the really
important elements of misses of the creation of wizards was the recognition that it needed to be deep in the UN system. It didn't it couldn't just pay about one. One sort of approach is based in one sort of UN agency, it needed to incorporate lots of different elements in the UN ecosystem. And that makes it difficult, it makes coordination difficult and certainly, that coordination has been imperfect. But you're not going to solve that by sort of abandoning that approach and saying, Okay, well, let's manage it all through New York. What you're going to do then is simply loop
mission of true multi stakeholder involvement that was set as a
principle and which we haven't always lived up to but which is port aspiration to have in this process? I don't know yet. What do you think
you're in Geneva? How does it look from the Geneva so
I need to just repeat your
question, if I remember correctly, which you were asking Is
that Is this realistic? would just be asking, do we have concerns about establishing
in New York next to the General Assembly, a coordination function for the UN system, and several annual or biannual high level meetings that will bring together all governments to talk about the full range of digital issues as well as AI on the other track? I think it's a really
challenging question, actually, because I think there
is there is insufficient cooperation, but I think for me the do you address distributed
governance
and making it more collaborative and cooperative through centralized coordination or through distributed coordination? I actually think the answer is distributed coordination. So I think the idea that that was the way in which Internet nevermind digital governance has proliferated, and touches on every single sphere from food security to cyber security. There is a need for full coordination and, and collaboration, I think to imagine that you can achieve that through a single centralized mechanism is naive, it won't work, or it will cost so much money you'd need to have you know, like a kind of a completely new division within the UN and it won't work. So I think having a mechanism in New York for liaison with the General Assembly.
We know already that whistles in the SDG
process did not cooperate sufficiently. And I think the fault lies with the SDG process. It doesn't lie with the wizards process. If you look at the wizards documents, they fully integrated the Millennium Development Goals, which at that time, were the UN New York based goals. I think the SDG process failed to sufficiently integrate wizards and I fear that the summit of the future might also fail to sufficiently integrate wizards. And just to jump from that boy if you don't mind me saying we talking about the GDC but we shouldn't forget that the GDC is part of the pact for the future. It's an annex and the zero draft of the main document, the document, which everyone will look at, doesn't mention wizards Not even once. So I think coordination Yes, I think but but I think in
national society, we have UNDP working with digital public
infrastructure. You have the ITU working with connectivity. So I would much rather see a collaborative and networked approach within the UN, rather than the that you think you can centralize it in New York. So just a little final reflection, you know, Mayor correctly said who's we? And there is that joke about the Lone Ranger and but I won't tell it but I think if you look at the document, when it gets to calling on actors, it calls only on the private sector and governments unless I misread it or overlooked and I find that highly problematic. Speaking from a civil society perspective, and also considering the critical role of the technical community in digital governance.
Thanks, yeah, no, I think that that's a bad idea. It should be noted that the distributed approach was one of the ideas that was put forward in the
high level panel paper in 2019. And it's just drifted away. So instead, we're focusing on building new organizational structures with you know, not to have you know, full time slots and so on in a centralized kind of capacity place, which is a different kind of configuration, which is not surprising. Demand if you have done this point.
Yes, I'm probably very much oriented. No.
I think I'm reacting Chris said so said Well, what they said in terms of what are the pitfalls of a centralizing coordination and I completely agree with that. It seems to me you know, coming from the private sector, it's like an organizational management issue. Here you are your your your organization is growing. You have more staff. So how do you make sure that all your staff is working in the right direction or manager, we're going to start an insert themselves into each process and try and micromanage what everything is doing just to make sure that centrally all information is there and I think making everybody report to the CEO of the CEO is aware of what's going on. Possibly, that's not the way to go. Nobody has that kind of time and you lose a lot of creativity and collaboration opportunity. If you try and centralize everything. I think what was necessary in this case is that you really articulate the mission and make sure that everybody is pushing the cart in the same direction and that doesn't have to be a centralized agency. Or it doesn't even have to be a new function that collects all the all the member states into one meeting the SDGs don't have one SVG
opportunity or one SVG agency and in the UN what they
do as they actually tried to get there. Anything else and then you knew if you don't have forms to talk about it, then you can come to get a report. But in the digital sphere, actually, we do have forums to come together and talk about it. And we had mentioned the UN group on information society, you have all the UN agencies coming together under that they have their forum every year at the West, this forum, they have those conversations. Then we have the multi stakeholder Internet Governance Forum, another opportunity to talk about so it's not about not having opportunities to share and coordinate it's about that was not functioning the way that we would want them to and that doesn't mean that you have to throw out all these babies with the bathwater, it just probably need to make them play nicer together. So perhaps we should focus on that. Now there is already this
coordination mechanism
through the wizards. So the notion that you have to have your credit staff to do some
interesting when all right, just last point on
the AI panel. Do people think that that's a good possible solution to the AI issues to have a a expert type panel
that's conducting studies and reporting
in a way in comparable to the climate change kind of work? Is that a right approach to think for AI issues?
I don't necessarily haven't have a strong
view. I mean, I think it's it's we're useful and to have a venue for those discussions and to have the input of of experts there. I think that there is no escaping the fact that there is a felt need to have discussions of regulation and and in relation to AI, where whether this is sort of the right venue for that for putting that kind of a mechanism or whether it's sort of
you know, something that's already existing in Wizards is a bit of an open question, I think.
I think this is not to shut out. You open your agencies and institutions, and there may be important work that can be done there. But it's there is the question of how well integrated back into what's going on. And I think, you know, we had a bit of a demonstration of the fragmentation of the AI discussion just in the last 12 months where we had the Secretary, Secretary General's high level Advisory Board, which became just an advisory board with a certain point, producing its report the same year that the IGF obviously network on AI produced an initial report, which actually arrest quite specifically some of the gaps that the advisory board was talking about. So for instance, the regular regulatory alignment, GAAP and some suggestions on you can see these two processes that really should have been coming together and sort of consolidating what they were doing but not so yeah, I think that's the kind of the kind of situation we need to try and avoid and that's where something like being on with us
in trying to achieve the goals of the GDC has
would be useful. Okay, just any other thoughts from
you? You too, and then
maybe do one more round in the sun. I want to open it up to everybody to get some of the other people in the room and engaged honoree and any thoughts on the AI body? Does that seem like we're moving towards a good solution on that point? No, I don't like it.
I mean, I don't mind the body,
but I don't like I don't mind decisions to delegate. discussion about how to address a i in the UN system I don't like which is linked to the summit of the future. So we should be really future oriented, is so preoccupied with AI, which is one not new, and secondly, not the only cutting edge or emerging technology related challenge that we have to deal with. So I'd like to document to to bundle together AI with other emerging issues and challenges, rather than then then focus on it in a way that I think would actually detract from the long term value of the document. At the same time, I think it is a good idea for the UN system to be able to delegate to working groups or panels or to an IGF policy network like the AI one that Chris mentioned, or to the UN, the Office of the High Commissioner on human rights, which does excellent in depth reports on digital related challenges. So I like the idea of taking an issue that is challenging Apple gated to process as long as they kept a low cost open and inclusive. And as long as there's clarity about who they report back to because I think that is often not not clear.
I would add one more process to what Chris mentioned
yesterday, Jeff was working on an AI report. The high level advisory body was commissioned while the UN General Assembly was passing a resolution on AI so when they're there, and that's there and the text is out there, and then you can to the GDC zero draft. I don't see much language being lifted in there from from an existing resolution that is already a un document that that a lot of work has been done around. So again, how do we make are we calling for more coordination, but then we are we're not really looking at stuff that is already out there. And it's working. And my other question,
what is the need? What again, the context that is
missing from the draft? What is the need for such a scientific body only if it's about monitoring policies and and research is being done? Look at the OECD AI observatory. It's an amazing resource tool that is beyond just OECD countries. It monitors everything from news articles to new research to new policies coming out and AI almost in a real time basis. It's out there it can be built on top of if we're looking at if we need research, the research is being done. It's being done at universities, it's being done and think tanks is being done. To private sector. Do we need a new UN body to commission research that is already being done elsewhere? Again, we're shutting down elevators. So how are we using the resources that we have in a in a manner that is actually moving the debate forward? And as we start that we have and I am not sure that that we are at the point where this conversation has been really taught through about the need? I think we need to have those functions that are mentioned we need research we need conversations we need to share the information that is out there. But I don't I'm not sure that tasking your new body with this and spending a lot of money on that is is going to come up with the solution. I think that the functions that we need to do correspond to the some of the solutions that are being proposed and so not that
this is the first time I've ever heard shouting down elevators I was shouted into the ocean.
And I didn't want to be here so I've learned something today. Alright, just let last quick spin around the table then. Imagine then that something like this zero debt trap survives, more or less intact in terms of the main kind of proposals for new activities as
in September, and then is implemented.
Where Where do you guys think we would be? A year or two from now in terms of the impact on the IGF and the impact on larger global digital cooperation? Do you think these mechanisms have put us in a better place with this raise challenges for the IGF is the kind of more bottom up multistakeholder and inclusive kind of process that many of us have been devoted to building quick thoughts on that and then we'll go to the whole
group Chris. I mean, I think text that we have here feels like it touches touches on issues that are perennial to the IGF versus going to the churches. Where does the money come from and
and setting aside the liquidity crisis which may or may not get resolved. For 20 years, the IGF has been sort of scrounging money trying to sort of build that bubble, consistent
funding base.
This is going to have the same challenge and there is some passing reference to that in the text about setting up new funds but saying we're going to set up a new fund in the private sector is going to contribute is easy. Actually. dollar fund
for AI.
I mean, they're ambitious. But I mean, I
can I can talk about setting my own $10 million fund.
I don't think I have much chance of doing it. So I think this is going to have that that same struggle now. If they're in meetings in the UN premises in New York, that will probably happen. But I mean, I do think there. It's been discussed sort of many people that there is limited resources, both in terms of money in terms of time in terms of attention. And this is going to if you proceed with this kind of new structures since then, because you're going to simply diminish all of them, and the IGF will be among those diminished. I think the wizards forum will probably be among those diminished as well. What I would hope might be a positive outcome from all of this would be sort of to see those business structures
and institutions working a little better and
with more complementarity with each other. So for instance, the AGF and the wizards forum which have happened at opposite opposite ends of the year. We haven't been as complementary with complementary with the either to each other as they might have been, but if this is a sort of spark to say, Okay, we need to step up the coordination within that that was a structure totally so that this discussion happening in New York can be sort of fed back into more
ease of structure, then that that would be a positive outcome here, I think. Okay.
Thanks, Chris. Have you had any thoughts
impacted IGF
or the larger environment of cooperation? I think the best case scenario here
is that
that this, this document reinforces the important work that has taken place through the Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commission on Human Rights in in ensuring that and the other guiding principles the UN forum on business and human rights, hopefully it can reinforce that hopefully as as as Chris says, it gives us stronger whizzes mechanisms, that it takes the opportunity for the IGF to strengthen its its internal operations, and its documentation and communication of IETF processes. And hopefully it will also fall some of the gaps that's currently left by the wizard is a process. Huge difference.
I'm not convinced it will because firstly, financing
and I think the text at the moment on the on financing in the document is very unimaginative. It's very business as usual. financial mechanisms, private sector, public sector doesn't really look at diversify markets. How do we have blended financing? How do we finance community based connectivity initiatives? For example, all the stuff that we know market failure has resulted in it doesn't address that. Similarly, it doesn't address the very big picture issue of how do you regulate mega multinational Internet platforms that are violating human rights, left, right and center and that are in fact in many cases, just increasing concentration of ownership. And control and in some ways, they might be stimulating innovation at a local level in developing countries, but at other ways they stifling innovation. I don't think it's a bad thing.
I think the compact has good text. I
think it's a good initiative. I'm not convinced that it's going to bring about the actual changes on the ground robbed. I think the other real gap at the moment and, and is how do you link the global to the regional to the national, it says virtually nothing about that. And that's where the under emphasis on the role of the IGF and the achievement of the IGF and establishing an ecosystem that does actually connect global to regional to local is completely overlooked. That is really where we should be investing so much more because otherwise nothing will actually change. Thanks, Andrea. Tamiya closing
Thanks. Well, um its own this GDC
it's going to be a document that is there as many other UN documents and it's going to have some weeks.
All the member states and all the stakeholders that we want this to be an ambitious document
in its own I'm not sure it's going to do much but this is this document doesn't exist on its own. It exists as part of the UN processes and I want to highlight two that we need to be confronted with in the next five years. One is the world some of the new information society review next year, and then the SDGs and the 2030 agenda, and in 2030, which is five and a half years away. And if you're if those of you who have been around this process and live and breathe this things you remember, in 2015, when we had the 10 year review of the versus Summit and the conversations on what's gonna happen after the MDGs we've had the development conversation here, and we've had a digital conversation here. And there was very little overlap in past years and in this document in particularly, I see the two processes really getting married to patients in UNF, Triple C and on other places around the digital and the green transitions. And I see all that conversation being married together as well. So what the GDC can do, and I think is really well set up for that is to bring the conversation on how digital and development will move together has to move to the and if you do it well. Did you see does well, we've can remind us, as Andrea said, and as Kristen said, as well, that we have processes set up to do with this system that can help bring this conversation into the URL. And then perhaps after 2030 We can have the development Digital Green conversations in one go. I see the GDC as the first moment for that. It has potential to drive this process both in substance matter and also in the process.
This is a proper multi stakeholder process that can lead or lead us into multi
stakeholder ideas, or the idea of multi stakeholder approach also being brought into the UN's larger agenda after 2030 A bit more clearly. So there's a lot of potential here. But I think what it depends on as for all of us who are aware of these processes, and both me and Andrea, they're here in Geneva, being able to remind folks in New York, that there are processes afoot in Geneva that are here to be used in protocols. So I think that's where we will things will follow or only forward right. Okay,
great. So let's open it up then to the room and hopefully we have seen
a lot of lively conversation going on in the chat. So hopefully some of the folks have been talking there will want to put their hand up as heavy to say here. It's always good to try to get as much
either I mean, if you want I can read comments that
are put in the chat but it's better if you can just raise your hand and come on camera and say hello to so I would encourage anybody who wants to do that to throw their two cents in and of course introduce yourself and say where you are, what you're doing etc. Let's see Is there anybody? Okay, so we got one here Jeff, go ahead. See you go.
Oh, I'm diving into a discussion that I left maybe
a decade ago. And so it's a great refresher course for me and I'm glad to hear you guys are thinking about these things.
I just retired from Indiana University. I'm
now living in Berkeley, California, the heart of the beast, so to speak. And
and a lot of the issues here I mean, people are very confused about AI here so
it doesn't surprise me that they would
and there's a lot of hype and
ridiculousness over the AI issue, which is a very multifaceted issue. But and then we have on one extreme the Elon Musk's of the world who think that we're close to what is it they call when when the machines take over our singularity thing, the singularity, right? Really, a lot of the big issues have to do with private companies with huge databases that use the huge databases to train the AI to do stuff, mainly to target advertising. And in the process, they have basically appropriated Meishan that people have volunteered. And so the huge privacy concerns there and, and the misuse, well, the question of who, who owns or who has the right to access that information.
Also, I'm to see what is included and what isn't included, I mean, now we have
basically an oligopoly emerging in the cloud, with companies
using the cloud as the place to provide services on the
Internet, including AI services, and the question of concentration of power via the cloud and the sort of creation of, of private world.
Gardens is a topic of discussion here in the Bay Area. Great, Jeff. I don't know if anybody wants to respond to any of those
points in particular or should I?
There are other people from a protest. I think that
that I mean, I'm all for multi stakeholder collaboration, but I also think we do need to
compact glosses over that. It calls on companies
to behave appropriately. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't call on companies to behaved appropriately between No, you know, as Jeff has just outlined, that they don't, and somehow the compact for me glosses over these really big challenges that we want to work collaboratively with the private sector. Absolutely. That's digital developments all about that. But we also need accountability and checks and balances, and I think it's a little bit weak on that. Okay, great. All right, so
follow the Nigel all go ahead.
Hi, thanks, John.
I think I think he, you know,
the Compact is inevitably going to suffer from having to make a decision as to who to placate and who to, you know, give a big stick to and I think the propensity you know, in the sorts of documents,
fine, get as many people to sign on to.
So accountability is going to be lost as much as possible. So as much as I agree with me, it's a critique that the document just fundamentally does not actually provide any room for, for basis for accountability for privacy. I think a technical decision as to who is best placed to ensure accountability does sort of come in come into the framing. So, you know, in my mind, the the, the sort of prudent course here is to get as much buy in to the to some principles, and to make sure that the whistles process doesn't collapse completely. I think the you know, the it's sort of like a three step exercise you know, my mind I admit I've only read over the twice currently avoiding studying.
taken taken on only a cursory but in my mind, there is enough good in the way the document is set up. That you can almost submarine in a couple of minor tweaks that give you you know, give you the foundation for what you need. I was particularly concerned that in the chat with the way the wording on on, you know, bringing in the private sector, increasing diversity, it's very clear to me that the the logic areas to say, well, so societies already are in fact, I think it's implied that civil society is over represented. But I think we should ignore that implication rather, you know, reading the implication that civil societies got its act together, and its governments and the private sector who need to actually come to the party, but more importantly, need to show you know, adequate difference for that matter, to the to the wizards and to ideas. So, you know, I'm inclined to say we shouldn't look at the
is add like, little weasel words in
and be a little bit sneaky about it. Yeah, I hope I sort of sneakily covered covered the ground there. I've not heard an endorsement of weasel words in a while
so sure, why not?
Chris Potts.
I was I think, smiling
a little when, when Paul was saying, it makes sense to sort of stick to or focus on principles. In this document. I'm smiling just because it reminded me and I'm sure some of us on the call have been going back to the Mandel 2014 principles documents, which was a very effective multi stakeholder process that came up with some very well considered principles which, as I say, Now, many of us are sort of thinking, again, about a bit in the context of the NetMundial plus 10. This month, that's
a separate discussion, but I think it's worth taking the lesson that you know, when in that sort of first NetMundial process,
in thinking about what can we do here to improve the digital governance situation, what they came up with was, basically we can come up with principles and if we can all agree on these principles, that's going to be an important step forward. Now I mean, yet leads to endless discussions about, you know, an IGF that is non decision or that we need, we need bodies that can actually set the rules here. But then you end
up with a zero draft here, which doesn't really do that much.
So I think I think we sort of find ourselves hitting the same wall again and again, and we need to need to take the lessons of history and we need to think about what's the best way to actually approach this. All right. Yeah, I think I
got it to Tamiya do they responses?
Thanks, Bill. Just really quickly,
I think there are
what is it that we can do as the UN right. It's the question question that we need to need to solve. I don't think that the UN has ever really been effective in regulating private actors. I don't think that we want to imply that it should. What the UN can do effectively is to set norms that we can we can principles that we can all collectively buy in and requisite for the buying is a seat at the table and developing those those norms together and in a multi stakeholder fashion. And that is actually what we've been calling for. Yes, there have been a lot of multi stakeholder consultations in the run up to this draft, but if you want the private sector to buy into those calls, that are being set out, and you need to have the private sector at the table
and actually being part of what is feasible and what can be done
and what is the policy context that needs to be in place for the private sector to be able to live up to those costs, because it's not always just depending on the private sector. sustained and diverse
participation in the
private sector is always a big challenge in these processes people for them, stay focused. I see Nigel Hickson from the UK Government must be at the UN because I see a ceiling above him that looks like that. Hi, Nigel. Your thoughts? Yes. Good afternoon. And
thank you, Bill for organizing this and hosting this and it's good to be with colleagues. Yes, no, this is my front room. You know, it's just rather large. Now. Yes, it's very nice room actually. But no, that will get thrown out. But yeah, just to the UN CSTD. We will be reflecting on the global digital compact in a special session tomorrow morning. So that will be instructive as well. Just a couple of words. And I want to be optimistic, I suppose. And I go back a few years to when many of us said the UN never talks digital. The UN never mentions the Internet. The sustainable development goals were you know, wasted opportunity, which some of us thought they should have talked about technology more so to have this focus on digital issues, on technology issues on Internet issues, I think is a step forward now. Zero draft I think took some of us by surprise, not others that perhaps had anticipated it. I lost the bet but it was only on a pint of beer because I shouldn't it will be about well, you know, you have to send in your six pages and it turned out to be double that or no, but I I think there is quite a lot there. And, you know, just to cut to the chase. I think the issue is is that we have to get it right. As Andrea said, this is going to be a lasting, lasting compact, whatever mechanism will be used to review it and we all have views on that and certainly, we believe it should be an existing mechanism that's one in in Geneva or whatever. Whatever is agreed is going to be there for a time and is going to influence further developments. And that's where it can be very positive because it can influence the the wishes plus 20 negotiations in a way, which I think we're already seeing and being optimistic, optimistic again, no one, to my knowledge either here in un zstd or in various other whistles plus 20. Yes,
there'll be discussions on how it should move forward, how
it should evolve. But no one is saying someone said it. No one is saying that the IGF is passed. Yes, people have views on how effective it is and how it should evolve in the future. So I think we can grasp these opportunities to embed if you like, digital and Internet and technology into the framework of our future discussion, so I'll leave it there. Thank you. Nigel the existing processes that you
think would be then sufficient so the CSTD and the wizards follow process, you think, based in Geneva, or what are you suggesting as a alternative to what's being proposed? I mean, as a as a government, we haven't,
you know, specified what specific bodies. I think, personally speaking, I think if you just say the wishes processing you know, the wishes, processes or processes, not a mechanism which can monitor developments in that. But yeah, whether it's the UN CSTD or whether it's a number of bodies, working together a coalition of you have a secretariat made up of a few bodies. I don't know. But see, what we don't want is a multi stakeholder process based in New York and new body and not new, but you know, having a new mechanism I think will be wrong. Okay, great. Anybody won't respond to
Nigel's points
press nothing. No, I don't have anything particularly
I think. I think Nigel, you have captivated everybody so fully that
they're just speechless. And we had our to or should I move on? Since I think Nigel always
captures things in such
a clear way. So I agree with what he said. But I'd like your comments and questions from others if possible. Okay, I see a couple more hands. And I also see some comments in the chat. I'd like to
read up, Judith and then Mike. Go ahead. Good.
Yeah, thanks so much. So I would love to have seen a lot more issues. I like what KK was saying what we don't have. We're not using a phrase global, interoperable. Internet, which is one in standard, which will be interoperable with different devices. Standard pace, and also, we're looking at as especially a lot of these come out, there's a lot less focus to ensure that the Internet remains
open for persons with disability because a lot of these things are more picture days. And in a lot of parts of disability and I,
as I Yes, I work with a dynamical co lead and a dynamic coalition with Dr. Shafia and
persons with disabilities and there's a lot of
talk in there about that there isn't any space for them, that they are being excluded. And we can have a US government only process which doesn't have bog voice from civil society of that we want to make sure that it doesn't exclude persons with disabilities because it seems to have that
post the link in the chat for Dr. Shapiro's. Comment on that. Great. Thanks, Judas. Alright, let me take two question because we're starting to move
towards the end run out of time. We take Mike's question also that people could respond to both in an integrated way, Michael.
Share very great discussion as always, and I wanted to
pick up on something Andrea said, and also pick up on something she just put on the chat. She mentioned the need for integrating the local and the regional and then global and that's the strength of the IGF. It's also been the strength of the ITU is global symposium for regulators which I think is probably the best thing the ITU does. It brings together the ministers or the vice ministers of telecom, and they share with each other to
take home lessons that they then can implement in national policy.
And I think there's actually kind of a unfortunate disconnect between all the people who go to the UN thinking we're gonna create global treaties and global standards, and we're gonna somehow get everybody to do this thing. And 15 years later, they don't have anything to show for that effort. In the
meetings and the bars after meetings, they've actually taught each other a lot
about what's going on and how to do best practices and of worst practices. So my question for Andrea is how we could make the IG more effective meetings this need to help the people who are right there implementing tools and policy at the at the local level and the national level, because I don't think the UN embraces that as a task, but it can be a very important one.
Thanks, Mike. There's a little bit of connectivity problem in DC, maybe they need
a little help and a little local infrastructure. Okay, so Jim's question about interoperability language. And so on and disabilities and then Mike's point. Go ahead. Just Chris. I want to read one question.
I can jump in. I mean, actually, I think Jim's point and Mike's point
together really nicely. From my perspective, and I think partly because what they're both talking about is the sort of the depth of this issue that there's that. And it's not something that can be easily captured in a single document. I mean, there are there are layers that have been left out GDC here and they're important layers that discussions of accessibility of access, looking to stakeholder groups with disabilities looking to the global south look into and that's what is able to be done in in some of the business structures and a backpack, the IGF and I think
one of the things that the IGF it's really clear now has fostered
this sense of network of national and regional initiatives and not not in a sort of top down way not in a sort of establishing happened in an organic way, but in a sense, to provide that sort of coordinating mechanism. And that's something that I think Mike is correct, has not been really embraced at the highest levels of sort of New York, and bureaucracy, but is is really important and it's something that we can advocate for, as we're way into these discussions leading into
the GDC and leading them into the whispers plus 20. Next year.
Great, Andrea.
And thanks. And I mean, just quickly to Judith, you know,
I think that is a really an important point. And I think, I think I mean, and there's also you also touch on a challenge. I think we need to also think critically whether all the language and concepts and approaches that have evolved out of Internet governance apply to all digital governance, and I'm not sure that's an assumption that we can make but I think it's something that we should think about. So, inclusion, yes.
Open Source and so on. So I think but I think what we should do
is interrogate that assumption and apply it in a in a more specific way rather than just automatically assume that everything Internet governance multistakeholder Internet governance applies to other digital governance. And then in response to Mike, Mike, I think the first step would be and I agree with you completely. Be if this document if the global digital compact delegates and a much more assertive way, this role of linking the global to the regional to the to the national to the IGF process. It needs to recognize that the IGF has played that role, and it needs to delegate the IGF that it continues to play that role with regard to GDC follow up and implementation. And then I think there are other actions that need to be taken at the IGF end and at the western end, but for the GDC I think.
I think what the IGF there needs, is more capacity to liaise with governmental
processes to be able to, to politically and historically play that role of of implementing what the GDC what the General Assembly has delegated it to play, and it lacks that capacity at the moment. Great, thank you, Andrea. Andrea, closing fuck.
Yeah, I think Andrea is right.
The GDC needs to make clear references to existing processes. It'd be don't have to shy away from the fact that these processes need to be improved, or coordinated better. But I think that GDC would miss a great opportunity not in not designating these processes for for its follow up and thereby lifting them up and giving them the tasks to really be had.
So that's unprocessed on the
interoperability question. I like to always say yes, but it's not only the technologies that need to be interoperable, here that we have to talk about. We're gonna talk about the interoperability of the Internet on technical sense, but here we are trying to deal with policy issues for an interoperable Internet where the policies themselves or the approaches are not interoperable themselves. When we are breaking off policy approaches into silos that cannot be navigated especially by businesses that use cross border transactions, or operating a constant jurisdictions and of the Internet, the Internet is being stopped or broken up by policies that themselves don't allow it to function in this pen, national or cross border level. So when we talk
elevate comes from the way the Internet works into how we want to make policies.
And I think the GDC could be a good example for that as well try and get some of that harmonization or coordination into the policy world that at this point is quite similar. You know, if the early stuff from the
GDC when the issues
are being framed, they had a lot of language about Internet fragmentation issues, which we've talked about in this series before. That's all kind of dropped out, which is kind of an interesting development. There have been some other interesting questions in the chat too, including Matthew going and asking whether multistakeholder cooperation and trenches corporate capture, and what are the viable alternatives and so on. But alas, we have reached the half hour so we're out of time. So we won't be able to get into those now. But I encourage anybody to continue to engage on these issues with each other. I note again, that to me, it pointed out to me that buried in the letter from the guide.
There will be a stakeholder consultation on the 24th. So
it's not listed prominently on the website of the UN, but people should try to prepare to come in there was something more than just a three minute Hello statements that don't connect each other and try and engage really, in terms of what's being proposed. And that there will also be discussion tomorrow in the West is plus 20 grouping for those who are engaged there around preparation on these issues. So Okay, listen, I want to thank everybody for a good discussion. thank the panelists for their contributions. And as always, thanks Jason Buck whites. My colleague who's the executive director of CTI for managing all the technical stuff behind the scenes here for the meeting. It's great talking to you all and again, we will have another meeting in a month's time. And I look forward to it. We'll probably talk about something related to separation or AI, we'll see. So I look forward to seeing you again.