►
From YouTube: IETF112-HRPC-20211110-1600
Description
HRPC meeting session at IETF112
2021/11/10 1600
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/proceedings/
A
A
A
Thanks
for
bearing
with
me,
okay,
brilliant,
so
welcome
to
welcome
everyone
to
the
hrpc
session
of
the
internet
research
task
force
at
the
ietf
112
meeting.
We
have
just
one
speaker
today,
followed
by
discussion
of
our
drafts,
and
so
I'd
like
to
ask
for
a
note
taker,
but
only
for
the
latter
half
of
the
meeting
after
the
talk
would
somebody
volunteer
themselves
by
typing
in
the
chat.
A
A
So
then,
let's
go
over
the
agenda
I'll,
give
you
a
chance
to
revise
it
if
you'd
like
the
after
the
welcome
slides,
we'll
have
andrea
esterhoisen
come
to
speak
about
the
internet
governance
forum,
she's,
currently
trying
to
get
in
the
room
right
now
and
unfortunately,
we
had
a
second
top
talk
scheduled
to
be
delivered
by
sasha
constanza
shock,
but
will
not
be
able
to
come
today
because
of
illness.
It's
that
time
of
year,
I'm
definitely
due
to
get
a
cold,
because
everyone
in
my
house
is
sick.
A
So
that's
that
happened
hopefully
we'll
see
sasha
at
a
later
ietf
meeting,
yeah
pity
yeah,
because
I
think
it's
a
anyway.
Nonetheless,
we
might
be
done
earlier
than
expected.
Because
of
that,
then
we
have
from
me
just
an
intro
or
an
update.
Rather
on
draft
feminism,
which
is
a
project
we
started
as
part
of
this
research
group.
A
Wasn't
formally
adopted,
but
juliana
is
here
I
see
who's
the
co-author
on
that
just
wanted
to
give
you
some
updates
and
ask
your
thoughts
on
way
forward
with
that
work,
and
then
we
have
a
bunch
of
updates
in
general.
So
this
is
where
I'm
going
to
rely
on
colin
a
lot
about
the
status
of
at
least
one
draft
on
draft
guidelines,
and
then
I
think,
meals,
there's
a
draft
association
that
might
have
an
update
or
two
it's
expired,
but
I
know
you're
still
working
on
it
and
then.
A
Lastly,
I
think
we'll
maybe
get
an
update
on
the
search
for
a
co-chair
for
hrpc,
because
you'll
notice,
I'm
here
alone
today,
although
it
is
really
nice
that
both
aubry
and
niels
are
here.
So
once
you've
been
a
co-chair
of
this
group,
you
never
actually
leave
you
just
stop
sharing
okay
good.
So
I've
heard
that
andrea
is
on
her
way.
A
Let
me
continue
on
with
the
intro,
because
we've
got
a
few
slides
that
you
need
to
see
so
the
notewow
slides
these
are
from
the
irtf,
but
also
they
comply
with
the
ietf
general
ipr
disclosure
rules.
So
familiarize
yourselves
with
these
please,
but
you've
probably
seen
them
a
few
times
already
this
week.
The
code
of
conduct
is
an
important
piece
also
of
the
notewell.
So
it's
good
for
me
now
to
remind
everyone
that
this
is
being
recorded.
It
will
be
up
on
the
internet
somewhere
very
shortly
after
so.
A
Keep
that
in
mind-
and
you
know,
behave
yourself,
then
just
wanted
to
give
a
general
intro
to
this
group
and
to
the
irtf.
A
So
we
are
we're
not
part
of
the
iata,
we're
not
setting
standards,
we're
working
on
the
long-term
issues
of
the
internet
and
one
of
them
being
certainly
human
rights
and
the
impacts
going
both
directions.
A
A
Never
remember
the
acronym,
so
the
the
point,
I
think,
also
happens
the
other
way,
whereas
that,
as
things
change
in
the
field
of
human
rights
and
other
things,
how
does
that
maybe
impact
as
well
the
way
that
we
design
and
develop
protocols?
That's
maybe
the
idea
as
well.
So
we
have
some
explicit
objectives,
then,
as
part
of
our
charter,
we're
obviously
talking
about
this
relationship
of
human
rights
and
protocols
in
general.
But
in
specific
we
look
at
two
of
the
human
rights.
A
Privacy
also
sometimes
factors
in
quite
a
bit
since
that's
also
a
human
right,
but
there
is
another
research
group
for
that.
That
does,
I
think,
the
bulk
of
that
work
in
the
irtf.
A
A
This
is
kind
of
envisioned
as
how
the
privacy
considerations
of
rfc
6973
were
were
thought
up,
and
we've
worked
towards
that
second
objective,
with
draft
guidelines
which
we'll
be
updating
you
all
about
in
just
a
little
while
and
then
the
other
thing
that
is
key
to
note
about
this
group
is
that
it
isn't.
The
work
happening
here
is
not
totally
just
self-contained
within
the
research
group.
A
A
lot
of
us
are
engaged
outside
of
this,
so
that
means
that
the
larger
human
rights
community,
hopefully
is
made
aware
of
some
of
the
things
happening
in
this
technical
community
and
then
vice
versa.
A
A
We
also
have
done
a
lot
of
work
to
invite
speakers
from
academic
community
from
civil
society
organizations
and
and
others.
We
had
a
speaker
not
too
long
ago
from
erickson
talking
about
5g.
You
know
we're
an
equal
opportunity
group
and
we
want
to
have
you
know,
influence
and
be
influenced
by
other
other
groups.
So
policy
and
academic
papers
also
result
from
some
of
the
work
happening
here.
A
At
some
point
there
was
a
film
which
is
really
cool.
There
have
been
interviews
as
well,
so
these
are
other
products
of
the
working
group
outside
of
just
you
know,
rfcs
and
ids,
and
that
sort
of
thing
folks
have
suggested
use
of
data
analysis
for
some
of
this
research.
We
had
at
the
last
meeting,
111
sebastian
come
and
talk
about
big
bang,
there's
an
upcoming
iab
workshop
on
the
same,
so
that
can
help
as
well
further
ideas
around
data-driven
research
that
we
could
do
in
hrpc,
which
is
excellent
and
yeah.
A
We
want
to
then
through
the
guidelines
document
of
rfc,
8280
or
based
on
a280,
to
also
then
review
the
protocols
elsewhere
in
the
ietf
based
on
this.
So
we're
actively
a
lot
of
us
from
hrpc
are
consciously
and
active,
consciously
active
in
the
ietf
to
think
about
human
rights
as
we
engage
in
those
groups.
A
Thanks,
okay,
continuing
so
yeah
the
work
to
date,
I
mentioned
some
of
these
already
we
were
chartered.
You
know.
Some
years
ago,
there's
been
a
film.
There
has
been
also
then
one
rfc
8280
that
I
mentioned.
A
Thanks
niels
for
putting
that
workshop
in
the
chat
very
helpful
and
then
we've
got
some
not
all
of
these
are
active
in
the
technical
data.
Tracker
sense,
though
they're
active,
because
I
know
they're
being
worked
on,
we
have
guidelines
for
human
rights
protocol
considerations.
A
That's
in
the
that's
just
been
reviewed
actually
by
colin
the
rtf
chair,
so
that's
progressing,
and
then
we
have
as
well
active
draft
on
freedom
of
association
on
the
internet
and
another
one
on
feminism
and
protocols.
You'll
get
an
update
on
both
of
them
today
and
where
they're
at.
A
Though
that
is
what
I
have
for
you
right
now
as
far
as
an
intro,
we
still
don't
have
henriette
in
the
chat,
because
apparently
there's
just
been
a
confusion
about
her
registration.
A
B
A
B
Yeah
hi,
so
for
the
the
co-chair
search
you
sent
me
some
really
good
candidates
and
then
I
failed
to
get
a
chance
to
talk
to
them.
So
that
is
entirely
my
fault
and
I
I
realize
I
I'm
running
behind
on
that,
but
yeah
I
mean
that
they
thought
there
looked
to
be
some
some
really
good
potential
co-chairs
on
that
list
and
I'm
hoping
to
talk
to
them
next
week
we
will
see
but
yeah
I
realize
I'm
behind
on
that.
A
There
was
also
some
feedback,
but
it's
not
your
result:
okay,
cool
yeah.
Thanks
for
that
colin,
it's,
okay!
We've!
We
had
this
this
meeting
fairly
well
organized
well
in
advance,
and
we've
got
quite
a
lot
of
time
until
april
and
as
far
as
I
know,
not
a
whole
lot
of
intervening.
A
Intersectional
work
so
we'll
we'll
endeavor
to
have
that
sorted
by
the
next
meeting
for
sure
and
so
yeah.
Thanks
very
much
for
your
support
with
that.
B
C
A
Yeah,
so
the
process
was
that
we
did
outreach
to
the
list
and
actually
to
other
places
as
well.
This
is
going
with
some
of
our
goals
and
objectives
for
the
group.
A
We
wanted
to
cast
our
net
wide
into
other
communities,
so
you
folks,
who
are
tuned
in
to
this
work,
might
have
seen
me
put
like
email
a
few
different
places
after
I
didn't
really
put
a
deadline
on
it
for
when
I
wanted
folks
to
email
me
if
they
were
interested,
but
it
was
clear
that
interest
sort
of
flared
up
and
then
sort
of
petered
out.
So
at
some
point
I
went
through
folks
who
had
emailed
me.
A
I
looked
at
their
cvs
and
then
I
gave
colin
a
sort
of
short
list
of
folks
that
I
thought
fit
the
criteria
that
we'd
sort
of
looked
at,
so
we
were
hoping
to
get.
Since
I
represent
civil
society,
we
were
hoping
to
get
one
or
even
two
additional
co-chairs.
That
would
be
either
coming
from
industry
coming
from
academia
and
that
had
complementary
background
and
skills.
A
So
sociologists
has
always
been
on
our
wish
list
for
co-chair
ships,
and
so
based
on
what
I
understood
to
be
the
criteria,
I
gave
colin
a
few
options
and
I
think
again
like
it
could
be
that
not
just
one
new
one
new
church
could
join
another
one
could
as
well
or
even
you
know,
since
there's
interest
and
folks
getting
involved
in
this
work,
which
is
always
flattering.
We
can
also
think
of
other
roles.
Right
like
please,
come
give
a
presentation.
Please
come
you
know,
help
document,
shepard
or
edit.
A
This
work
that
sort
of
thing,
so
that's
we're
hoping
that
actually,
everyone
who
reached
out
with
interest
can
find
work
here
in
the
hr
pc
that
that's
my
ulterior
motive,
but
it'd
be
good,
also
to
have
at
least
one
co-chair
as
well
before
the
next
meeting.
So.
B
Yeah-
and
I
mean
a
comment
I
give
to
research
groups
regularly
is-
is
that
you
have
a
lot
of
flexibility
in
your
process.
So
if
there
are
a
role
roles
you
can
find
to
bring
in
people
even
if
they're,
not
the
sort
of
traditional
role
you
might
see
in
an
ietf
group,
then
you
know
the
research
groups
have
the
flexibility
to
do
things
in
a
different
way.
If
that's
useful,
if
it
helps
advance
the
goals.
A
Any
other
comments
on
this:
you
can
come
to
the
mic
or
you
can
okay,
so
there's
a
good
question
in
the
chat
about
good
starting
place
for
newcomers.
Well,
this
is
a
really
good
starting
place
to
be
here
in
this
meeting.
So
thanks
for
joining
we're,
gonna
go
over
sort
of
current
work
items
and,
and
then
yeah
there's
also
a
website
that
we
have.
A
That
is
a
little
bit
more
detailed
than
the
the
information
about
hpc
and
the
data
tracker
and
the
other
thing
you
might
do-
and
this
is
maybe
some
slight
change
we
could
add
to
that
website-
niels
just
shared,
which
is
to
watch
older
meetings
that
are
now
all
on
youtube.
So
you
can
go
back
and
see
what
some
of
the
speakers
we've
had
come
to
talk
about
work.
It's
it
doesn't
always.
A
It
doesn't
always
result
in
a
draft
necessarily,
but
I
think
it
introduces
the
possibility
for
for
collaboration
and
research
and
then,
of
course,
you
get
sort
of
the
you
can
track.
The
different
drafts
we've
had
the
discussion
about
those
and
that
sort
of
thing
right.
A
So
I
think
what
else
could
we
talk
about?
I
think
actually,
if
we
could
get
an
update
from
you,
colin,
while
you're
still
on
camera
and
here
on
draft
guidelines,
I
saw-
and
everybody
should
have
seen
your
review
of
that
go
to
the
hrpc
list,
I
believe
or
if
it
didn't,
it
just
went
to
authors,
but
it
was
very
thorough
of
you.
I
thought
your
comments
really
excellent.
If
you
wanted
to
sign
post
some
of
this.
B
Yes,
I
think
I
sent
it
to
the
hr
pc
list,
so
hopefully
everyone
should
have
seen
that
yeah.
So
I
mean
this
is
draft
guidelines
dash
10.
So
it's
a
draft
irt
feature
pc
guidelines
dash
10.,
a
a
since
a
really
long,
detailed
review.
I
guess
it
was
over
the
weekend.
I
forget
possibly
the
end
of
last
week.
I
actually
thought
this
document
was
really
interesting.
B
It's
a
really
interesting
read.
There
were
a
whole
bunch
of
really
interesting
questions.
It
raises
and
a
lot
of
things
to
think
about
when
designing
protocols
and
developing
standards,
so
it
I
think
it's
it's
an
important
document.
I
think
it's
something
that
the
the
group
needs
to
finish
up
and
I
I
can
see
it
being
very
useful
to
the
community
when
it's
finished.
B
In
terms
of
the
content,
I
I
had
five
main
issues
and
then
a
bunch
of
details.
B
The
the
main
issues
I
mean,
the
the
document
is
structured
around
you
using
the
you're
in
declaration
of
human
rights
and
a
bunch
of
other
similar
documents
to
to
signpost
the
list
of
human
rights.
B
To
consider
and
then
builds
up
a
bunch
of
questions
to
think
about
when,
when
bill,
you're
designing
a
protocol
and
how
those
relate
to
those
rights-
and
I
mean
that
that
seems
to
me
as
someone
who
who
isn't
a
human
rights
lawyer
or
you
know-
isn't
active
in
that
space
as
a
plausible
way
of
starting
it.
I
would
have
found
it
more
helpful
if
the
documents
had
said
more
about
those
rights.
B
You
know,
as
someone
coming
in
from
an
engineering
background,
I
I
can
read
the
headline
definitions
in
there
and
I
can
sort
of
guess
what
they
mean.
But
obviously
you
know
different.
B
You
know
there
will
be
a
body
of
experience
of
interpreting
those
those
rights,
a
bunch
of
different
people
and
perhaps
in
different
countries,
will
have
different
interpretations
of
what
those
rights
and
those
responsibilities
mean,
and
I
I
would
expect
that
the
extent
to
which
they're
incorporated
into
various
national
laws
would
vary
and
the
way
the
different
national
laws
interpret
those
rights
and
the
way
different
cultures
and
different
countries
interpret.
Those
rights
would
vary.
B
So
I
think
it
would
help
the
reader
if
the
document
said
more
about
what
are
those
rights
and
perhaps
how
the
authors
interpret
them,
but
also,
perhaps
how
they're
interpreted
in
in
different
bodies
of
law
and
in
different
cultures
in
different
countries
and
giving
some
sort
of
concrete
examples
of
that
which
might
make
this
perhaps
somewhat
abstract
discussion
about
rights,
something
quite
concrete
which
people
developing
protocols
can
see
how
they
directly
relate
to
them.
B
B
I
think
once
we
start
getting
into
the
various
privacy
laws
handling
of
personal
data
and
how
they
relate
to
the
rights,
it
seems
that
the
the
gdpr,
for
example,
is
quite
different
to
the
the
equivalent
laws
in
the
us
or
in
china
or
in
other
places,
so
something
that
talks
about
how
these
rights
get
reflected
down
into
regulations
and
how
those
differ
around
the
world
and
maybe
giving
some
examples
of
how
they
turn
into
concrete
regulations
that
people
you
know
have
to
conform
to
might
help
make
this
real
to
the
the
engineers
actually
designing
the
protocols
and
make
it
clear
why
this
is
a
real.
B
You
know
a
real
concern.
They
actually
have
to
pay
attention
to,
rather
than
an
abstract,
would-be
nice
concern,
and
if
nothing
else,
it
means
that
you
know
it's
it's
easier
to
say.
Well,
you
know
you.
You
need
to
pay
attention
to
this,
because
you
will
be
subject
to
this
set
of
laws
and
you
should
be
start
paying
attention
to
how
they
relate
to
human
rights
and
how
it
affects
your
products.
B
B
B
I'm
hoping
this
can
turn
into
something
where
it's
more,
something
which
critical
design
is
taking
to
take
on
board
as
they
develop
the
protocol
rather
than
where
a
group
of
people
comes
your
parachutes
into
the
group
and
says
hi
we're
from
the
human
rights
review
team
we're
here
to
help,
and
I
think
that
yeah,
I
think,
phrasing
it
perhaps
in
a
less
less
of
a
you,
are
being
reviewed
for
human
rights.
More
of
a
here
are
a
bunch
of
questions
that
you
may
want
to
think
about.
B
The
big
bit
was
the
the
meat
of
the
dread
is
a
long
list
of
questions
to
consider
to
illustrate
various
human
rights
choices
and,
as
I
said
at
the
beginning,
there's
a
lot
of
really
good
questions
there
right
and
there
are
certainly
things
I
hadn't
thought
about.
I'm
sure
that
most
of
the
people
in
this
community
there
will
be
things
that
they
they
haven't
thought
about
and
would
deserve
to
think
more
about.
B
That's
a
really
nice
list
of
questions.
I
thought
the
the
order
wasn't
necessarily
the
most
obvious
order.
In
places
there
was
a
moderate
amount
of
overlap
between
the
questions.
B
So
a
you
know,
I
think
there
are.
There
are
some
ways
in
which
this
could
be
fixed
editorially,
which
would
make
the
material
easier
to
follow.
B
One
one
example
might
be:
there
was
some
there
was
some
discussion
of
prioritization
and
it
it
talks
about
the
network,
neutrality,
impacts
of
it
and
the
impact
on
choice
and
and
topics
like
that.
If
I'm
remembering
right
and-
and
you
know,
these
are
all
clearly
real
issues
and
like
they're,
clearly
potential
problems,
what
the,
if
I'm
remembering
it
right,
what
it
didn't
so
much
to
talk
about,
was
well
there's,
also
arguments
for
being
able
to
prioritize
certain
types
of
traffic.
B
B
Right
and
I
think
if
you
look
at
a
bunch
of
these
issues
raised
there's
that
there's
arguments
for
you
for
and
against
prioritizing
certain
types
of
certain
characteristics
and
in
most
of
the
cases
there
is
a
trade-off
to
be
made.
B
We
saw
something
similar,
I
guess
with
a
quick
group
and
the
spin
bits
where
you
know
certain
people
wanted
to
to
be
able
to
measure
the
network
for
various
reasons.
Some
people
wanted
measurement
not
to
happen,
and
obviously
there
are
clearly
ways
you
can
go
way
too
far
in
the
measurement
and
collect
far
too
much
information
and
be
very
invasive
of
privacy.
B
Equally
going
entirely
the
other
direction,
not
allowing
any
measurement
makes
the
network
unmanageable,
and
there
is
a
need
for
the
network
operators
to
have
some
information
about
the
traffic
flows
just
to
see
that
the
network
is
is
correctly
being
operated,
and
there
was
a
big
discussion
about
that
and
we,
you
know
the
group
eventually
after
more
discussion
than
I
would
imagined
would
have
imagined,
was
possible
about
one
bit
eventually
came
to
some
consensus
on
how
that
should
be
done.
B
But
you
know
in
most
of
these
cases,
there's
a
trade-off
and
it's
it's
balancing
different
different
needs
and
different
concerns,
and
that
balance
doesn't
always
come
across
in
places,
and
I
think
it
would
be
be
useful
to
adopt
more
of
a
sort
of
neutral
point
of
view.
You
know
here
are
the
trade-offs.
B
If
you
are
trying
to
optimize
for
this,
then
you
need
to
consider
the
following
things
and
emphasize
the
following
things:
if
you're
trying
to
optimize
for
that,
then
you
need
to
rather
than
necessarily
advocating
one
approach
and
giving
the
impression
that
if,
if
you
are
not
fully
behind
that,
then
you
know,
that's
that's
that's
a
problem
and
you
know
I
don't
think
that
that's
the
intent,
but
the
way
the
doc
draft
comes
across
in
places
it
could
be.
B
It
could
be
balanced
out
a
little
bit
more
and
I
I
think
there
are
also
a
couple
of
places
and
I'm
blanking
on
examples
right
now
where
it
could
perhaps
be
a
little
bit
clearer
on
what
the
general,
what
concrete
things
the
protocol
designer
can
do
to
emphasize
particular
outcomes.
You
know
if
you
want.
B
If
this
is
your
goal,
then
you
know
emphasize
this
thing
and
if
that's
your
goal
then
emphasize
the
other
thing
and
there's
a
couple
of
places
where
it
highlights
an
issue
but
doesn't
really
suggest
which
directions
to
go
depending
on
what
you're
trying
to
optimize
for
so
I
think
that
was
my
high
level
view.
As
I
say,
there's
a
lot
of
really
good
work
in
here.
There's
a
lot
of
really
good
questions
in
here.
B
C
Also,
on
behalf
on
guru,
shabbat
I'd
like
to
thank
you
very
much
for
the
for
the
very
much
in-depth
review,
which
is
which
is
which
was
really
good
and
really
helpful,
and
we
already
started
working
on
an
approach.
But
of
course
we
don't
have
don't
have
it
fully
fleshed
out
yet.
C
But
please
allow
me
to
provide
some
preliminary
observations,
and
one
thing
that
is
that
I
think
important
with
draft
guidelines
is
that
we
do
not
want
to
redo
rfc
8280
so
that
we
want
a
really
like
practicable
document
and
not
re-establish
the
whole
theory.
The
whole
history
of
human
rights,
the
interrelation
between
human
rights
and
protocols,
because
if
we
start
to
redo
that,
then
we'll
have
another
80
page
document
and
we'll
not
get
to
the
guidelines
right.
But
I
very
much
understand
that
we
need
that.
We
could.
C
That
that
human
rights
are
implemented
differently,
but
I
think
we
really
also
chose
this
research
group
to
be
about
human
rights
to
ensure
that
we
do
not
need
to
compare
the
194
different
regulations
in
all
the
countries
of
the
world,
but
use
the
most
widely
shared
norm.
There
is
and
that
countries
have
subscribed
to
and
therefore
focus
on
human
rights
and
how
they
are
translated.
But
we
can
definitely
add
a
sentence
to
make
clear
that
they
are
explained
differently
in
different
jurisdictions
and.
D
B
B
You
know
all
of
the
different
countries
and
how
these
are
interpreted
in
all
the
different
countries,
because
yeah,
obviously
that's
a
multi-hundred
page
sort
of
legal
essay,
but
I
think
some,
you
know,
being
you
know,
going
through
the
right
thing,
a
little
bit
about,
what's
meant
by
each
one,
giving
a
couple
of
examples
about
each
one
is
important
to
make
it
clear
to
the
readers
who
are
not
steeped
in
the
human
rights
culture
what's
being
talked
about
here.
C
B
So
I
mean
just
just
reading
the
the
the
the
documentary
it
talks
about
human.
I
mean
section
two
sort
of
lists,
a
bunch
of
rights,
but
it
says
very
very
little
about
what
each
of
those
mean
and
you
know
what
their
practical
impact
on
on
anything
is
so
yeah.
As
you
know,
I
I
can
look
at
that
list
and
I
I
can
guess
what
it
might
mean,
but
I'd
have
to
guess
what
it
might
means
and
what?
B
Because
I
don't
have
that
background-
and
I
think
most
people
in
you
know
developing
protocols.
Don't
have
that
background
in
in
understanding
what
people
mean
when
they
talk
about
these
various
rights
and
what
that
actually
means
in
practice
so
rather
than
having
people
guess
what's
intended.
I
think
it
needs
a
some
text
in
here
to
say:
okay,
this
is
what
it
means
and,
for
example,
it
translates
into
you
know
whatever
set
of
laws
in
this
country.
B
I
mean
obviously
not
in
all
countries,
because
that's
that's
a
ludicrous
amount,
but
you
know
if
you're
talking
about
the
you
know
protecting
personal
data,
then
it
would
be
useful,
for
example,
to
mention
that
that
you
know
that
gets
interpreted
as
the
gdpr
in
in
europe,
for
example,
so
and
I'm
sure
that
a
bunch
of
places
or
if
it
doesn't.
This
is
just
showing
that
that
you
know
this
needs
something.
B
C
Okay,
but
I
think
I
think
what
we
really
try
to
do
with
the
work
is:
try
to
focus
on
human
rights
and
once
we
start
treading
into
national
regulations
and
into
policies
of
different
countries,
then
things
become
much
murkier
right
and
that
that
was
also
the
strategic
and
the
tactical
discussion.
That's
also
in
the
charter.
So
I'm
I'm
I'm
a
bit,
but
I'll
definitely
try
to
to
hint
to
that.
C
How
as
examples
but
making
that
part
of
a
structural
piece
of
the
study,
I
think
would
be,
would
be
opening
us
up
for
far
more
work
and
I
think,
like
to
establish
the
relationship
between
different
rights
and
technologies.
C
We've
outlined
several
cases
in
rfc
8280
to
establish
the
the
relationship,
and
I'm
not
sure
we
would
want
to
do
that
again
in
this
document,
because,
for
instance,
draft
association,
which
is
another
document,
really
goes
that
into
depth
to
dive
into
what
one
of
these
rights
means,
and
that
would
then
be
a
whole
document.
So
I'm
also
a
bit
like
what
do
we
fit?
Where
and
do
we
have
a
kitchen
sink
approach,
and
what
do
we
try
to
do
in
which
documents
so
and
guidelines
are
really
like?
C
B
Yeah,
okay,
I
mean
that
that's
fair
and,
and
it
may
be
that
what
this
needs
is
something
relatively
brief
and
a
bunch
of
pointers.
But
you
know,
all
I'm
saying
is:
is
that
reading
this?
As
someone
who
doesn't
have
that
human
rights
background,
I
I
got
you
know,
I
can
guess
what's
being
meant,
but
I
didn't
know-
and
I
think
having
to
guess
what's
meant
is-
is
not
helpful.
C
A
Just
a
couple
reactions
from
a
broad
overview
of
the
group.
I
think,
on
the
one
hand,
in
figuring
out
how
to
sign
posts
to
different
drafts.
I
mean
guidelines,
definitely
should
point
back
to
80
280,
that's
where
it
goes
into
depth
and
guidelines
is
meant
to
be
sort
of
like
a
a
re.
A
It's
just
it's
actually
just
a
rev,
a
different
version
of
8280,
but
in
a
more
practical
way.
So
that's
one
that
we
need,
but
we
need
to
bring
out
the
salient
points
and
I
think
we've
actually
had
that
discussion,
I'm
happy
with
where
it's
at
on
that
level,
but
then
specifically
to
the
question
of
national
laws.
I
think
in
the
past
we've
because
this
came
up
actually
not
long
ago
sandra
raised
it.
There
was
quite
a
prolonged
discussion
on
the
list
and
we
did,
I
think,
determined
that
it
was
out
of
scope.
A
But
I
think
what
you're
saying
colin,
which
is,
I
think,
useful
feedback
is
that
for
someone
who's
reading
this
document
and
trying
to
glean
knowledge
from
it
to
do
better
in
making
these
trade-offs
around
decision-making.
It
might
actually
be
helpful
to
get
that
guidance,
not
in
the
specific.
I
don't
think
it
would
be
helpful,
actually
even
to
look
at
you
know
the
big
countries
with
the
big
laws.
I
think
we
shouldn't
do
that.
A
I
think
what
we
should
say
then
instead
is
here's
an
approach
you
can
take
to
just
make
sure
you
know
if
it's
and
it's
not
going
to
be
for
all
sections,
but
certainly
for
like
data
privacy
or
other
things,
there's
going
to
be
a
need
to
suggest
to
people
to
look
at
any
applicable
laws
and
since
it's
tends
to
be
glo
like
we're,
building
global
protocols,
protocols
that
are
meant
to
be
rolled
out,
not
in
any
particular
country.
A
It's
worth,
I
think
nodding
at
that
as
part
of
the
process,
because
also,
I
think
niels-
and
this
is
maybe
a
departure
from
the
discussion
we've
had
in
the
past-
is
that
there
is
a
path
to
achieving
compliance
with
human
rights
through
national
laws,
because
governments
are
accountable
and
responsible
for
doing
that.
They're,
you
know
signed
signatories
to
the
human
rights
declaration,
so
it's
not
out
of
the
realm
of
possibility
that
that
would
actually
be
a
useful
thing.
A
I
just
don't
think
we
need
to
elaborate
on
it
because
of
all
the
reasons
we
mentioned
right
because
it
you
know
it's
it's
slightly
out
of
scope
from
our
charter.
That's
not
the
reason
I'm
leaning
into
right
now,
it's
it's
just
that
there's!
Maybe
too
many
countries
to
consider
we're
rolling
out
global
protocols
and
also
they
will
change
over
time,
and
so
just
baking
it
into
the
process,
I
think,
is
the
suggested
change.
A
Maybe
that
would
be
an
opportunity
to
point
protocol
developers
in
the
right
direction
as
far
as
compliance
on
specifically
the
kinds
of
privacy
and
other
kinds
of
laws
that
would
actually
matter.
A
Yeah
and
so
for
rights
that
are
going
to
have
a
counterpart
in
national
law,
it
might
be
useful
to
say
that
it's
not
going
to
be
for
all
of
the
rights
great.
Thank
you
for
the
overview
of
your
feedback
colin
and
thanks
very
much
niels
for
engaging
on
that.
I
think
actually,
the
bulk
of
that
work
is
going
to
happen
on
the
list
right.
Niels
and
gershwat
are
going
to
digest
all
that
feedback
come
out
with
a
new
version.
A
A
Good
niels,
I
wonder
if
you
wanted
to
stay
up
here
with
me
in
gallery
view
for
a
second,
because
I
want
to
ask
you
about
what's
happening
with
draft
association
or
if
you
wanted
to
any
updates
or
thoughts
about.
What's
next.
C
Yeah,
so
I
think
draft
association
has
done
a
lot
of
the
things
that
the
research
group
has
asked
it
to
and
once
again
I
went
through
the
whole
list
and
couldn't
find
any
other
things
anymore.
So
I
think
it's
currently
in
the
waiting
line
for
a
document
shepard.
C
So
I
hope
that
once
it
gets
a
document
shepard,
it
will
maybe
receive
just
such
an
excellent
review,
as
draft
guidelines
has
gotten
and
then
we
can
also
move
that
document
forward
and
then
we,
hopefully,
we
kind
of
cleaned
up
some
space
for
some
fresh
new
documents.
C
So
yeah,
so
if
there
is
a
someone
who
has
followed
the
discussion
on
draft
association
and
wants
to
help
it
get
to
the
to
the
finish
line,
please
please
make
yourself
known
and
happy
to
work
with
you.
A
And
to
be
clear
about
why
we
need
a
document
shepherd
because
I'm
a
co-author
and
I'm
the
only
coat,
I'm
the
only
chair
at
the
moment,
so
we
just
need
somebody
else
to
come
in.
In
my
view,
both
as
chair
and
a
co-author,
it's
in
a
really
good
place.
We
had
now
it's
been
a
year
and
a
half.
A
I
think,
since
we've
completed
a
real
overhaul,
led
by
stefan
couture
through
sort
of
redoing,
the
literature
review
coming
up
with
sub
questions
coming
up
with
cases
that
address
the
sub
questions
so
and
it
hasn't,
it
hasn't,
become
controversial
on
the
list.
I
think
there's
actually
quite
a
lot
of
support
and
a
lot
of
past
discussion.
That
indicates
the
draft
is
in
a
really
solid
place,
so
it
would
be
actually
quite
straightforward
for
somebody
who
would
like
to
be
a
document
shepard,
even
if
you're
new,
to
doing
shepherding.
B
Yeah,
just
just
follow
up
on
that.
The
role
of
the
the
shepherd
in
in
the
irtf
process
is
is
just
is
primarily
to
document
the
consensus
of
the
draft
and
and
to
help
make
sure
it
gets
through
the
review
process.
B
So
so
the
the
primary
you
know,
the
primary
effect
here
is,
is
doing
a
a
review
of
the
draft
and
the
discussion
and
writing
up.
You
know
the
extent
to
which
there
has
been
consensus
and
agreement
and
disagreement
on
on
the
list
and
in
the
group
and
then
just
working
with
me
and
with
the
the
irst
to
just
make
sure
that
review
happens
and
chasing
people
up
to
follow
up
on
review
comments
and
things
like
that.
So
it's
it's
not
an
especially
onerous
role.
A
And
it's
a
it's
a
draft,
that's
very
explicitly
listed
in
our
charter
in
the
sense
that
we
are.
You
know,
we've
done
the
sort
of
broad
human
rights
work
with
8280
and
the
guidelines
draft,
but
the
human
rights
to
freedom
of
association
and
assembly
is
listed
specifically.
So
it's
a
really
important,
I
think
cornerstone
of
our
group
go
ahead
niels.
C
Lot
of
chasing
so
just
to
make
things
easier.
A
Okay,
excellent
all
right,
I
think
that
is,
that
is
all
for
our
updates.
I
did
exactly
what
I
thought
I
was
gonna.
Do
was
just
forget
to
beg
somebody
to
do
note
taking
on
this,
so
we'll
probably
just
have
to
watch
this
next
week
and
write
up
the
notes.
So
this
is
the
only
portion
of
the
meeting
I
think
where
we
need
to
have
notes,
except
for
maybe
after
I
present
on
draft
feminism
so
anyway
with
that,
I
think
we're
at
a
good
place
to
shift.
A
Let
me
put
the
agenda
back
up
again,
so
we've
we've
taken
care
of
one
and
five.
We
don't
have
any
in
any
other
business
and
sasha's
unable
to
present
so
it's
just
up
to
honor.
Yet
now
who
can
go
ahead?
Put
yourself
on
camera
if
you
can
ae
with
the
the
buttons
in
the
top
and
you
can
send
screen
in
just
a
second
and
yeah
thanks
so
much.
Let
me
give
you
permission.
D
D
One
I
cancer
sorry
about
this.
Let
me
do
that
again.
D
Great,
so
apologies
again
everyone,
but
I
won't
dwell
on
it
and
thanks
so
much
for
inviting
me.
I've
been
following
your
work
for
many
years
from
a
distance,
although
I've
attended
some
of
the
sessions
at
icann
meetings,
and
I'm
just
very
happy
to
be
here
so
I'm
andrew
esterhosen,
I'm
currently
the
chair
of
the
internet
governance
forum
multi-stakeholder
advisory
committee
until
the
end
of
this
year-
and
I
want
to
talk
to
you
about
the
igf,
so
I'll
go
a
little
bit
into
the
background
and
mallory.
Is
that
the
correct
slide
now?
D
It's
this
fairly
unique
kind
of
creature,
in
the
sense
that
it
is
an
outcome
of
a
formal,
united
nations
process,
the
world
summit
on
the
information
society
in
2005,
and
but
it's
not
part
of
a
un
process
in
a
very
rigid
or
strict
way.
So
it's
connected
to
the
u.n
it's
bound
by
some
of
the
u.n
bureaucracy
and
protocols,
but
it
also
has
a
life
of
its
own
because
it
has
evolved
into
initially
an
event,
but
now
more
of
a
process
that
is
organized
by
a
multi-stakeholder
advisory
group.
D
The
group
I
chair,
which
is
appointed
by
the
un
secretary
general,
and
there
is
a
secretariat
which
is
part
of
the
un.
They
they
sit
inside
the
uan
division
for
economic
and
social
affairs,
but
really
the
igf
is
shaped
by
the
community
by
the
people
that
run
sessions
that
participate
in
sessions
that
submit
input
on
what
should
be
the
agenda
of
the
igf.
D
So
the
bottom-up
approach
has
actually
been
very
firmly
established
in
the
igf,
and
sometimes
there
is
tension
between
this
bottom-up
approach
and
the
more
bureaucratic
un
system
approach,
but
somehow
it
kind
of
works
and
it
has
evolved
over
time.
This
is
the
15th
anniversary
of
the
igf,
2021
and
the
renewal
of
the
igf
mandate
by
member
states
will
be
reconsidered
in
2025.
D
and
that
in
itself
is
actually
quite
significant,
because
the
igf
does
not
actually
control
its
own
destiny
and
not
entirely
anyway.
D
It's
very
much
linked
to
this
definition
of
internet
governance,
which
I
know
avery,
is
in
the
room
with
us.
She
was
a
member
of
the
working
group
on
internet
governance,
the
wiki,
a
group
which,
between
2003
and
2005
investigated,
explored
internet
governance
and
how
it
should
be
approached,
and
they
came
up
with
this
definition,
which
I
find
very
interesting,
because
it
is
so
broad
and
it
was
in
in
a
sense,
a
counterpoint
to
what,
at
the
time
were
the
prevailing.
D
More
technical
definitions
of
internet
governance
focused
on
the
coordination
and
the
technical
management
of
the
internet,
and
this
definition
I'll
just
read.
The
last
phrase
looks
at
norm's
rules,
decision-making
procedures
and
programs
that
shape
the
evolution
and
use
of
the
internet.
So
it's
really
very
soundly
focusing
in
on
that
constantly
growing
space
of
people
and
and
the
internet
being
shaped
by
people
and
interacting
with
people
and
just
to
talk
about
human
rights.
D
It's
been
quite
a
long
and
elaborate
struggle
to
get
human
rights,
recognis
recognized
as
an
important
topic
at
the
igf.
Probably
it's
taken
about
10
years
at
least
it
was
covered
very
broadly
under
one
of
the
main
themes
of
the
idea
of
the
historical
main
themes,
openness,
but
it
has
been
difficult
to
get
more
in-depth
discussion
on
human
rights.
D
There
was
a
fear
from
some
of
the
igf
supporters
that
if
we
put
human
rights
on
the
igf's
agenda,
some
governments
would
lose
interest
or
they
would
they
would
withdraw
report,
or
even
that
the
private
sector
might
not
be
that
interested,
and
the
same
applies
to
gender
issues.
It's
taken
a
long
time
and
quite
a
lot
of
assertiveness
from
the
bottom
up
to
get
these
issues
recognized
as
legitimate
internet
governance
topics,
and
so
to
tell
you
a
bit
about
the
mag.
D
That's
the
multi-stakeholder
advisory
group
and
the
context
that
we've
worked
with
this
year
has
been
really.
The
pandemic
has
been
a
major
concern.
In
2020
we
had
a
fully
virtual
igf,
which
was
much
easier
to
organize
than
the
hybrid
igf
we're
doing
this
year,
but
it
has
also
heightened
awareness
of
the
internet
and
the
importance
of
internet
policy
frameworks
that
that
prioritize
access,
particularly
access
for
those
that
are
excluded
from
access
and
that
are
impacted
on
it
so
incredibly
profoundly
in
the
context
of
the
pandemic.
D
The
other
factor-
that's
been
a
big
issue
for
us
this
year
is
the
u.n
secretary
general's
roadmap
for
digital
cooperation
and
papers
and
proposals
from
various
governments
that
emerge
from
that.
The
pending
renewal
of
the
mandate
and
the
fact
that
internet
governance
in
itself
is
is
continuously
changing
and
growing.
It's
no
longer
a
set
of
processes
that
you
can.
D
You
know
define
as
sitting
inside
icann,
the
igf,
maybe
the
international
telecommunications
union
and
internet
governance
has
just
proliferated
and
there
are
spaces
at
national,
global
and
regional
level
that
deal
with
various
internet
related
policy
issues
and
and
we
need
to
somehow
still
find
a
way
for
the
igf
to
be
the
connector,
the
common
space
that
brings
all
the
all
those
different
forums
together.
D
D
There
are
more
than
200
sessions
of
different
nature,
different
kinds
of
sessions-
some
are
more
formal,
some
are
more
informal
and
but
what
I
think
is
really
interesting,
you
know
are
the
topics
that
will
be
discussed,
they're
only
two
main
issue
areas:
economic
and
social
inclusion
and
human
rights
and
universal
and
meaningful
access,
and
for
each
of
those
there
are
a
set
of
policy
questions
which
which
emerged
from
the
community
input
we
received,
and
the
workshops
and
other
sessions
at
the
igf
will
try
to
respond
to
some
of
these
challenges.
D
D
D
D
In
fact,
there's
a
call
for
nominations
that
went
out
yesterday
and
there's
the
mag
and
the
mag
has
working
groups,
and
while
the
mag
members
are
appointed
by
the
secretary
general,
the
working
groups
are
open
to
anyone,
who's
interested,
the
secretariat,
the
staff,
the
u.n
division
of
economic
and
social
affairs,
that's
the
most
affordable
component,
but
then
there's
the
igf
community
and-
and
it's
really
quite
vast-
you
know
we
had
in
2020,
we
had
nearly
7
000
participants
in
the
igf
process
and
that's
really
the
life
of
the
igf
just
quickly
to
mention
you
might
be
interested
they're,
two
best
practice
forums
this
year.
D
Okay,
I'm
kind
of
at
the
end,
just
the
internet
governance
is
the
internet.
Governance
forum
is
at
a
bit
of
a
critical
juncture,
in
the
sense
that
the
mandate
renewal
is
coming
up,
it's
being
challenged
by
the
un
secretary
general
to
be
more
output-oriented
and
there's
also
a
concern
that,
in
fact
maybe
the
igf
shouldn't
be
so
output-oriented
that
it
should
focus
on
deliberation
and
discourse
on
being
a
place
for
discussion,
not
a
place
for
negotiation.
D
There
are
also
exciting
opportunities,
in
particular,
there's
this
common
agenda
published
by
the
united
nations
secretary
general
in
september,
and
it
emphasizes
the
global
digital
comments,
and
this
could
be
an
opportunity,
in
fact,
for
for
looking
at
the
internet
as
such
a
digital
commons
and
putting
some
principles
on
the
table
along
the
lines
of
the
internet
being
governed
and
internet
governance
needing
to
be
underpinned
by
these
principles
of
the
internet
as
a
digital
commons,
and
but
that,
of
course,
will
take
a
lot
of
debate
and
there'll
be
a
lot
of
of
different
perspectives
on
that,
and
then
the
igf
as
a
process
and
institution
also
needs
to
to
strengthen
in
order
to
to
continue
to
evolve.
D
D
In
fact,
I
think
the
idea
of
impact
assessments
and
how
they
can
work
better,
how
they
work
well,
so
a
kind
of
lessons,
learning
or
best
practice,
good
practice
gathering
on
impact
assessments
could
be
very
useful
and
from
the
perspective
of
human
rights
impact
perspectives,
but
also
from
from
the
perspective
of
these
proposed
environmental
impact
assessments.
D
There's
also
a
discussion
about
the
human
rights
based
approach
to
internet
governance
and
so
they're
different
modalities.
We
could
form
a
dynamic
coalition.
We
could
just
have
a
bilateral,
but
I
I
do
hope
that
that
your
work
can
continue
to
be
and
become
more
visible
at
the
ig
event,
if
there
any
ways
in
which
you
think
the
igf
can
support
your
work,
let's
talk
about
it
back
to
you,
mallory.
A
Thanks
henriette,
really
it's
a
great
presentation
I
have.
I
can
talk
with
you
all
day
about
this.
I
wish
that
we
could
do
that,
but
I
want
other
people
from
the
participants
to
ask
if
there
are
questions,
if
folks
are
familiar
with
the
igf,
if
you've
been
what
your
assessment
is,
I
think
yeah
andrea
is
the
expert
in
the
room
right
now
on
this.
A
Stuff,
if
you'd
like
to,
I
don't
know
before
you
had
your
camera
going
unreal,
but
we
didn't
see
anything.
We
just
saw
black
swear.
If
that's
how
you
like
it,
that's
fine,
but
just
inviting
you
if
you
want
to
put
your
camera.
E
All
right,
thank
you
and
always
good
to
get
the
background
on
the
on
the
igf.
So
thanks
for
the
presentation
and
yet
just
turning
your
your
last
point
back
on
its
head,
I
think
it
will
be
fantastic
to
get
more
participants
from
the
igf
involved
in
the.
E
I'm
sure
not
everyone
in
the
itf
would
agree
with
me
on
that,
but
I
think
we'd
end
up
with
better
better
standards
if
we
understood
the
the
real
world
impact
of
some
of
the
choices
being
made,
but
other
than
that,
I'm
really
looking
forward
to
in-person
participation
in
poland
in
a
few
weeks
time,
which
will
be
fantastic.
D
Absolutely
andrew
there
is
actually
a
dynamic
coalition
on
standards,
that
is,
it
was
initiated
by
a
guy
called
de
natris.
I
don't
know
if
you
followed
that
work,
it
was
relatively
it.
It
operated
as
a
kind
of
standalone
project
at
some
point,
but
now
it's
a
self-organized
community
of
practice,
I'm
not
sure
if
any
of
the
of
the
itf
people
are
involved
in
that,
but
I
absolutely
agree
with
you
and
I
think
that
that
in
fact,
in
the
early
days
of
the
igf
there
was
more
conversation
and
I've
read.
D
I
wonder
if
you
even
remember
that
there
was
more
focus
on
standards
in
the
early
period
of
the
igf
and
than
there
is
now
and
so,
and
I
andrew
I
think
it's
very
important
to
have
that
kind
of
cross.
Virtualization
the
the
bigger
picture
perspective,
along
with
the
specificity,
the
the
specific
technical
detail
that
you
have
to
deal
with
in
the
standards
process,
so
yeah,
that's,
it
is
important.
I
agree.
A
But,
for
example,
we
have
you
know
human
rights
protocol
considerations
group
that
is
not
working
as
well.
You
can
hear
my
audio
right.
I
can
hear
you
good.
The
platform
is
lying
to
me
yeah,
I,
the
I
think,
the
other
one
you
mentioned
too
is
the
best
practice
forum
on
cyber
security,
and
I've
also
been
engaged
in
that
for
a
while
and
it.
I
think,
a
lot
of
folks
who
helped
me
with
my
research
projects
in
that
group
could
could
apply
those
here.
A
It's
just
they're,
not
it's
not
always
so
very
technical,
but,
for
example,
like
this
year
I've
had
a
team
researching
how
internet
security
events
could
have
maybe
been
mitigated
differently.
If
whether
or
not
international
norms
would
have
actually
made
a
difference
so
we'll
see,
but
it
could
be
similar
to,
I
think,
work
in
in
irtf
around
you
know.
A
Could
these
practices
have
been
different
looking
in
the
past
at
different
things,
so
simon
hicks
has
mentioned
in
the
chat
that
the
the
large
players
from
the
ietf
haven't
been
involved.
I
think
that's
not
always
true.
I
don't
know
about
this
year,
but
in
the
past
I
know
the
ietf
has
hosted
a
forum,
an
open
forum,
open
forum
is
a
a
workshop
style
or
a
session
style
where
a
body
this
goes
to
the
igf
as
being
a
sort
of
connector.
A
So
if
you
are
representing
you
know
another
sort
of
internet
governance
body,
you
can
hold
an
open
forum
in
which
people
participants
come
to
learn
about
your
body
and
then
you
can
have
questions
and
answers,
and
I
think
folks
from
the
iab
have
done
that
in
the
past.
But
I
don't
know
actually
it's
on
the
schedule
for
poland.
D
There
are
lots
of
open
forums.
I
think
there
are
about
40
different,
open
forums,
I'm
not
sure
who
is,
I
don't
think
the
itf
is
presenting
one,
but
but
that
is
a
modality
that
you
can
use
and-
and
in
fact
there's
there's
also.
What
we've
tried
to
do
is
make
the
igf
more
flexible
and
the
one
of
the
the
forms
of
organizing
a
session
during
the
igf
as
a
networking
session,
and
that
remains
open.
In
fact,
one
could
apply
now
for
a
networking
session
on
on
a
particular
topic.
D
You
could,
for
example,
during
the
igf,
organize
a
networking
session
on
standards,
and
you
know,
do
during
a
lunch
break
and
just
invite
everyone
who's
at
the
igf.
Who
cares
about
standards
to
come
together
and
and
share
their
reflections
on
whether
you
know
the
policy
people
understand
standards
or
not,
for
example,.
D
Yes
and
colin
is
saying
that
the
ice,
the
internet
society
is
internet.
Society
is
running
an
open
forum.
They
they're
talking
specifically
about
their
internet
way
of
net.
You
know
the
internet
way
of
networking
their
approach
at
the
moment
which
they've
been
working
with,
which
is
to
apply,
apply
the
interoperability
of
internet
protocols
and
how
the
internet
operates
as
an
interconnected
network
to
policy
making.
So
it's
interesting
they
had
sessions
on
this
last
year
as
well,
but
they
are
definitely
running
an
open
forum
on
that.
A
There's
not
one
for
the
iab
or
the
ietf.
I
also
heard
w3c
talking
about
doing
one,
but
I
don't
see
I.
D
Don't
think
wc3
applied
in
the
end,
but
there
is
a
yeah.
No,
I
don't
think
they
did.
They
are
participating
in
the
dynamic
coalition
on
accessibility
and
disability,
so
they
might
be
participating
in
that
session
with
the
standards
with
their
recently
released
standards
on
accessibility.
A
I
I'm
going
to
jump
into
my
question
since
there's
no
one
else
in
the
queue.
So
one
of
my
questions
I
have
two
actually.
The
first
is
about
the
leadership
panel
that
you
mentioned
has
just
been.
The
open
call
has
gone
around
as
of
yesterday
because
it
lists
various
criteria
for
who
how
there
will
be
stakeholder
participation,
so
they've
held
two
slots
for
the
technical
community
for
a
representative
or
senior
director
position
of
the
technical
community.
Do
you
know
how
that's
been
defined
and
how
they
plan
on?
A
D
I
think
I
know
what
you
know,
which
is
in
the
document
on
the
igf
website,
which
has
the
nomination
process
and
the
terms
of
reference.
D
But
yes,
I
think
they
are
looking
for
for
o
c
and
leadership,
two
people
from
each
stakeholder
groups
each
stakeholder
group,
and
then
they
have
these
two
at
large
positions
as
well.
So
you
know,
I
think
it
really
is
important,
that
one
makes
nominations
and
that
you
motivate.
You
know
that
you're
looking
at
people-
I
I
mean
personally,
I
think
it's
not
enough
just
to
be
a
ceo
of
an
international
technical
organization.
D
You
also
need
to
be
someone
that's
willing
to
put
in
the
time
and
and
engage
with
the
space,
because
what
would
be
the
role
of
technical
community
leadership
on
that
igf
leadership
panel?
The
role
would
be
to
bring
the
igf
community
closer
to
to
the
technical
community
and
vice
versa.
So
it
would
be
important.
You
know,
for
it
to
be
people
that
that
actually
have
the
interest
and
the
capacity
and
the
time
to
play
that
kind
of
role.
A
D
It's
a
very
true
order.
You
know,
I
I
think
it
is
there's
a
rotation.
The
terms
are
two
years.
I
think
I
wouldn't
even
go
as
far
as
calling
it
a
representation.
I
don't
think
you
can
represent
the
entire
technical
community
in
its
diversity
with
two
people.
I
think
that
applies
to
the
other
stakeholders
as
well.
You
know,
but
I
think
that
that
you
know
maybe
if
it's
the
iab,
you
know
it
and
if
it's,
if
it's,
if
it's,
if
it's
the
iatf,
maybe
that
will
bring
a
particular
perspective.
D
Maybe
two
years
later
it
can
be
isoc.
Maybe
it
can
be
someone
completely
different
somebody
who
is
outside
of
the
institutional
framework,
but
very
deeply
embedded
in
the
development
of
the
internet.
I
think
it
is
a
tour
order,
but
I
wouldn't
aim
for
perfect
representativity.
A
And
then
just
the
last
question,
maybe
this
will
spark
others
for
more
discussion,
but
I
noticed
the
tension
between
whether
or
not
the
igf
should
continue
to
be
a
place
for
discussion
and
deliberation
or
whether
it
should
have
more
outputs,
and
I
I
feel
like
output
driven,
can
be
a
lot.
It
can
be
very
meaningful,
like
it's
one
of
the
reasons
why
I've
engaged
more
in
intersessional
work.
A
Over
years,
I've
been
in
working
in
the
igf,
rather
than
just
focusing
on
the
annual
event,
but
I
think
even
output
is
very
different
from,
like
you
know,
consequence
or
binding
deliberations
it.
It's
a
very
different
kind
of
space
than
the
ietf,
for
example,
where
there's
clear
outputs,
but
also
not
just
that
it's
an
output,
it's
actually
it
it.
Then
they,
these
outputs,
go
out
in
the
world
and
they
do
something
very
specific.
I
mean
there's
we're
not
making
sure
people
are
implementing
the
standards,
but
they
will
be
implemented
and
that's
very
important.
A
I
wonder
you
know
if
there's
also
a
parallel
in
the
igf,
where
it
isn't
just
about
producing
outputs,
but
if
there
is
a
push
for
or
what's
the
discussion,
I
guess
around
making
the
igf
outcomes.
I
guess
of
consequence
to
the
internet.
D
I
think
that
that
I
think
what
the
the
strength
of
the
ijf
is
is
that
it
brings
very
diverse
perspectives
and
interests
together
and,
and
it's
in
a
sense,
a
safe
space
where,
where,
where
those
those
interests
can
play
themselves
out,
use
one
example:
the
topic
of
regulation,
for
example,
a
regulation
of
platforms.
Let's
take
that
as
an
example,
how
should
that
be
done?
Should
it
be
self-regulation?
D
Should
it
be
by
global
agreement,
as
in
further
development
around
the
international
system,
human
rights
standards,
for
example?
Should
it
be
done
by
national
legislatures?
D
Do
we
need
new
internet
legislation,
as
some
people
in
civil
society
want,
and
the
private
sector,
in
the
sense
at
the
moment,
is
kind
of
driving
the
process
by
by
putting
self-regulation
into
the
pla
into
place?
The
facebook
oversight
board,
for
example,
is
that
sufficient,
so
the
value
of
the
igf
is
that
allows
us
to
debate
the
pros
and
cons
and
of
those
different
approaches.
D
D
For
example,
there's
been
a
consensus
that
spectrum
should
be
regulated
dynamically
rather
than
as
a
scarce
resource,
and
the
igf
has
been
sending
that
message
to
the
itu
and
to
regulators
for
10
years
still
not
really
being
implemented,
and
but
sometimes
there
isn't
consensus
and
just
the
fact
that
there
isn't
consensus
in
itself
is
quite
important.
I
think
so.
D
I
think
mallory,
the
the
the
you
know,
the
other
value
of
the
igf
is
that
it
is
very
different
from
from
from
the
itf,
as
you've
said,
is
that
between
50
and
60
of
participants
in
the
annual
conference
every
year
are
first-time
participants,
and
I
think
that's
a
bit
of
a
challenge
for
the
igf.
It's
a
strength
because
it's
clear
it's
a
kind
of
a
clearinghouse,
it's
a
space
where
people
that
are
interested
can
come
and
network
refine
their
area
of
interest
work
out
where
they
should
be
more
involved.
D
But
that
also
means
it's
not
an
expert
space.
It's
not
a
space
like
the
ietf,
where
your
credentials-
and
you
know
it
will
shape
what
you
are
allowed
to
do,
and
it
makes
it
very
broad,
based
and
quite
rich,
but
maybe
not
the
ideal
space
to
negotiate.
You
know
concrete
policy
recommendations,
but
I
think
the
igf
can
more
effectively
channel
this
diverse
debate,
the
different
perspectives,
even
the
ones.
You
know
the
areas
where
there's
real
contestation
just
by
documenting
that
and
communicating
that
more
effectively
to
other
decision
making
forums.
A
B
Yeah
no
question,
but
just
just
to
echo
the
the
thanks.
I
I
think
it's
really
important
to
have
this
talk.
I
think
it's
all
important
to
for
the
the
itf,
the
irtf
and
the
igf,
to
understand
each
other,
perhaps
a
bit
more
and
to
to
try
and
increase
the
in
the
different
groups,
and
I
I'm
not
sure
how
we
do
that,
and
maybe
we
need
a
bit
more
of
an
education
in
both
directions.
B
D
Thanks,
colin
and
and
I
I
really
think
the
work
you
are
doing
with
the
protocol
and,
I
think
that's
valuable
work,
I
think
that's
a
methodology,
it's
a
methodology,
that's
being
tried
that
can
be
applied
in
other
spaces,
other
policy
making
spaces
other
implementing
spaces,
and,
as
I
said,
you
know,
I
really
like
the
people
that
are
working
on
environmental
impact
assessments
to
also
look
at
how
you
have
done
that
to
see.
D
If
there
might
be
lessons
to
be
learned
and
then
maybe
you
know
one
final,
you
know
value
that
the
igf
can
bring.
D
Is
I
mean,
I
think
you
don't
work
with
governments
you're
very
lucky,
probably
that
you
don't
have
to
work
with
governments
as
part
of
your
day-to-day
debate,
but
I
think
particularly
when
it
comes
to
something
such
as
consolidating
respect
for
for
for
human
rights
in
the
the
future
development
of
the
internet.
I
think
liaison
with
governments
can
actually
be
useful
and
I
think
that
can
be
something
else
the
igf
can
provide,
because
it
has
a
very
different
makeup.
D
It's
more
formally
constituted
as
government
civil
society,
business
technical
community,
and
there
is
actually
quite
quite
extensive
participation
from
governments
and
and
at
times
I
think,
particularly
with
human
rights.
You
do
want
to
engage
governments
because,
as
mallory
said
right,
you
know
as
before.
Before
I
even
spoke
there
is
this
existing
framework
of
accountability
with
governments
as
duty-bearers,
so
that
might
be
something
else.
I
think
that
that
could
be
of
value
to
you,
but
thanks
very
much
for
inviting
me-
and
I
hope
to
see
you
at
the
igf.
A
Thanks
very
much
henriette
yeah.
I
hope
we
hope
to
see
more
folks
from
the
ietf
there
or
the
folks
that
that
can
go
between
the
two
worlds.
More
links
are
needed
for
sure
all
right,
so
we
just
have
one
final
presentation
and
we'll
probably
be
ending
a
little
bit
early
depending
on
how
discussion
goes
so
thanks.
Everyone
who's
who's,
still
sticking
around
for
that.
A
I
can
just
very
quickly
put
up
the
agenda
again,
just
to
remind
us
all
where
we've,
where
we're
supposed
to
be
going
here,
so
yeah
we're
on
item
number
four.
This
is
an
update
on
a
draft
that
actually
juliana
and
I
are
both
co-authors
on
and
juliana-
is
here
so
juliana.
At
any
point,
if
you'd
like
to
go
off
mike,
interrupt
me
or
add
in
your
thoughts,
I
would
very
seriously
welcome
them.
I'm
just
going
to
switch
slides
now
slide
decks
rather
to
this.
A
So
so
this
will
look
familiar
to
some
of
you,
but
we
haven't
discussed
this
draft
for
a
while,
and
the
reason
why
I
wanted
to
discuss
it
again
is
because
yeah
there's,
actually
speaking
of
the
igf,
there's
an
opportunity
to
talk
about
this
work
at
the
internet
governance
forum
as
part
of
an
art
installation
actually
sort
of
an
archival
process
of
looking
at
different
ways
in
which
you
know
feminism,
and
this
draft
in
particular
has
carried
on
some
of
its
previous
work,
and
it
is
actually,
if
you've
not
engaged
with
this
draft
for
a
while.
A
It
is
actually
very
much
about
the
process
and
the
journey,
and
not
so
much
about
the
document
itself,
but
we're
hoping
to
change
that
by
sort
of
refreshing
efforts
on
it
the
abstract.
So
the
goal
of
this
document
is
really
to
just
try
to
describe
how
internet
standards
and
protocols,
of
course,
and
their
implementations
would
impact
diverse
groups
and
communities
from
an
intersectional
feminist
perspective.
So
feminism
is
one
school
of
thought.
Intersectional
feminism
is
a
slightly
different
one
which,
in
which
lots
of
different
issues
related
to
identity
and
oppression,
are
considered.
A
It
isn't
just
about
gender
or
sexuality,
or
things
like
that.
So
we
sort
of
took
the
idea
from
rfc
8280
that
if
you
took
the
universal
declaration
of
human
rights,
which
is
itself
sort
of
set
of
standards,
very
clearly
laid
out
and
then
started
applying
them
to
you
know,
standards
body
development.
A
A
So
we've
attempted
to
do
that
through
the
history
of
this.
So
one
of
the
first
steps
in
this
journey
for
this
working
group-
or
this
research
group
in
particular,
was
at
iitf
104.
We
had
asked
the
association
for
progressive
communications,
another
tie
to
today's
session.
This
is
where
andrea
and
I
used
to
work
and
also
on
avery.
A
The
feminist
principles
of
the
internet
seemed
like
a
very
good
place
to
start
the
discussion,
because,
like
the
declaration
of
human
rights,
it
was
very
clear
and
it
had
specific
principles
laid
out
and
that
itself
is
a
whole
journey
over
many
years
to
develop
those
principles
so
that
was
presented.
There
was
a
bit
of
discussion
and
then
juliana
and-
and
I
put
pen
to
paper
and
actually
came
up
with
a
with
a
version
so
yeah
the
presentation.
A
I
actually
ended
up
delivering
this
presentation
because
there
was
a
conflict
with
the
presenter
from
apc
at
the
time,
but
you
know
I
took
the
slide
deck
and-
and
I
I
did
my
best
having
at
some
point,
been
involved
in
the
work
but
yeah
the
feminist
principles,
the
internet,
if
you're
not
familiar,
you
could
go
to
feminist,
internet.net
or
org,
actually
both
work,
and
you
can
see
sort
of
how
you
know.
A
There's
they're,
grouped
in
terms
of
different
big
picture
ideas
like
access
to
the
internet,
there's
issue
of
access,
but
there's
also
that
issue
of
access
to
information,
reclaiming
technology
and
you'll
see
echoes
not
just
from
human
rights
such
as
you
know,
right
to
information.
A
But
you
also
see
holy
feminist
concepts
that
have
been
integrated
from
a
variety
of
different
perspectives
and
how
those
how
feminism
is
really
expressed
around
the
world
so
presented
that
then
the
the
sort
of
initial
version
kind
of
had
two.
It
was
trying
to
do
two
things
at
once.
Maybe
not
once
was
trying
to
do
two
things
in
the
same
draft.
A
The
first
was
how
to
identify,
maybe
at
the
user
level,
issues
that
might
come
up
with
respect
to
internet
protocols
and
how
they're
designed
and
then
the
second
thing
it
did.
Is
it
tried
to
look
inward
at
how
gender
is
a
function
of
the
internet
governance
and
the
protocol
development
that
happens
in
the
ietf,
and
so
you
can
see
that
reflected
here.
A
This
was
juliana's
presentation
from
the
ietf
105
meeting,
where
you
know
at
the
user
level
we're
trying
to
describe
some
of
these
internet
threats
and
how
it
might
actually,
you
know,
be
improved
by
changing
the
way
some
internet
protocols
work
and
then,
on
the
other
hand,
also
maybe
using
some
of
this
data
analysis
techniques
right
looking
at
actually
the
ietf
archive
to
analyze,
terminology
context,
discussion
and
how
gender
roles
played
into
the
ways
in
which
decision
making
was
done.
A
That
was
the
first
version,
and
then
you
know
we
also
then,
like
I
said
previously,
the
the
focus
has
been
then
on
how
we
actually
go
about
doing
this
so
again,
another
slide
from
julio's
presentation.
You
know
trying
to
follow
in
the
footsteps
of
the
8280
process.
You
know
going
point
by
point
through
each
of
these
principles.
I
think
there
were
13
or
17.
A
what
you
know.
What
could
you
say
about
each
one?
What
could
you
point
by
point
say
about
internet
protocols
in
each
of
those
principles
and
then
also
the
other
process
point
was
just
around:
how
do
we
actually
get
feedback
on
this?
So
we
didn't
feel
so.
A
The
big
focus,
then,
I
think,
on
the
on
the
following
version
was:
how
do
we
get
feedback
from
actual
feminist
communities
about
what
we're
writing
and
saying,
because
that's
actually,
the
I
think
an
important
element
to
consider
is,
and
maybe
we
can
over
considered
it.
We,
we
focused
a
lot
on
process
on.
You
know
sending
this
draft
to
mailing
lists
where
feminists
and
technology
are
combined.
A
We
did
a
few
workshops
actually
at
various
conferences,
julianna,
and
I
both
just
to
just
to
talk
about
it
so
that
feminists
out
there
scholars
out
there
knew
that
we
were
writing
it
and
we
wanted
their
feedback.
So
we've
actually
had
a
lot
of
opportunity
for
feedback
and
we
focused
a
lot
on
process,
but
but
then
I
think
that
the
text
isn't
finished
and
it's
not
quite
it's
not
full,
yet
there's
no
full
full
draft.
So
I
wanted
to
then
so.
This
is
the
history.
A
So
far
we
we
haven't
yet
got
an
o2
in
the
data
tracker,
yet
it's
sitting
in
github,
because
the
doc
freeze
we'll
get
one
up
soon.
We
branched
out
actually
the
github
and
issue
tracker
from
the
irtf
hrpc
group
and
it's
now
sort
of
on
its
own
for
a
little
while
we'll
maybe
merge
it
back
in
as
a
separate
or
give
control
to
the
to
the
repo
to
that
group,
depending
on
how
this
discussion
in
particular
goes.
A
But
we
wanted
to
update
you
on
some
of
the
just
small
bits
that
have
changed
since
so
we've
got
a
bit
of
a
reframe
in
the
introduction.
Thanks
to
juliana,
we've
had
another
contributor
sophia
selly
come
in
with
some
suggested
tweaks
and
then
the
suggested
changes
which
have
yet
to
be
done,
but
wanted
everyone's
feedback
on
it,
based
on
other
feedback
that
we've
gotten
is
actually
maybe
we
should
not
focus
so
much
on
the
feminist
principles
of
the
internet,
but
actually
do
a
broader
literature
review.
A
So
this
would
include
other
sort
of
derivative
works
of
the
fpis.
A
It
would
include
entirely
different
bodies
of
work
on
feminism
and
technology
that
are
completely
outside
the
fbi's
and
then
the
second
proposed
thing
would
be
then
to
maybe
shift
the
idea,
so
so
going
back
to
to
where
we're
talking
about
version
zero,
zero
right,
rather
than
do
both
things
at
the
same
time
in
fact
use
the
document
almost
like
draft
guidelines,
so
skipping
the
idea
of
doing
a
sort
of
8280,
similar
similar
format
and
actually
skipping
into
a
guidelines
like
format,
so
that
the
audience
is
the
ietf
sort
of
letting
go
of.
A
That
you
know
internal
conversation
as
much
as
possible
and
then
just
really
focusing
as
much
as
we
can
in
the
substance
of
the
draft
on
identifying
those
user
level
impacts.
I
don't
know
if
that
shift
made
sense.
It's
a
bit
subtle
and
we're
coming
towards
the
the
end
of
this
presentation,
so
I
hope
you're
still
following,
but
but
that's
I
think,
where
we
want
to
go
in
the
in
a
new
direction
with
this.
A
So
that
might
mean
that
we
actually
then
take
the
structure
down
currently
which
breaks
down
each
sort
of
feminist
principle,
one
by
one
actually
erase
that
sort
of
do
a
really
nice
sort
of
literature,
review
first
and
then
develop
from
there.
So
I'll
I'll
just
show
one
example
here
of
something
that
I
think
is
really
compelling,
maybe
for
the
for
the
future
of
the
work,
which
is
things
like
this
you
could
go
to.
A
This
is
repository
anarchyserver.org,
where
these
collections
have
really
tried
to
almost
be
an
archive
of
sort
of
the
history
of
feminism
and
technology,
and
that
is
typically
what
we
find
when
these
sorts
of
bodies
of
work
appear.
It
is
it's
very
rare.
You
know
we're
not
we're
not
looking
to
just
create
a
wall
of
text,
we're
actually
trying
to
contribute
to
sort
of
a
living,
breathing
movement
of
of
activists
around
the
world.
A
Trying
to
solve
these
problems,
and
this
process
in
the
irtf
in
hrpc
today
is
actually
part
of
that,
and
that
we
want
more
people
to
be
able
to
engage
with
these
ideas
so
yeah.
These
are
the
proposed
next
steps,
I
think,
for
the
research
and
juliana.
This
is
where
I
really
want
your
thoughts
and
we'll
definitely
create
some
time
after
this
meeting
to
to
talk
just
the
two
of
us
about
this.
But
I'm
thinking
that
you
know
we,
we
might
reformat
the
entire
draft
to
reflect
a
different.
A
Actually,
then,
just
do
a
literature
review
in
service
that
question,
so
we
can
really
focus
on
storytelling.
So
some
of
our
sources
are
not
going
to
be
texts,
but
they
might
be
media
interviews
collections
of
such
and
then
to
that
end,
we'll
maybe
need
to
create
somewhere
somehow
a
repository
of
those
things.
A
Given
that
they're
not
just
going
to
be
citable
texts,
they
might
be
a
little
bit
less
tangible
than
that,
and
then
I
think,
to
continue
in
that
vein,
we
might
actually
think
about
either
invited
talks
to
this
group
workshops
in
other
conference
settings.
A
We
could
even
do
an
interim
meeting
or
two
as
part
of
hrpc
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
and
then
actually
just
maybe
let
it
sit
for
a
while,
because
I
don't
know
actually
what
the
next
step
would
be
without,
I
think,
a
lot
more
convening
and
introspection
about
the
things
that
we
would
find
in
the
proposed
steps.
A
Two
or
three.
So
now
comes
the
time
where
I
get
to
ask
you:
you
know
what
you
think
of
this
proposal,
any
thoughts,
any
additions
you
have
about
what
I'm
proposing,
if
you
are
just
simply
interested
in
following
the
work
or
at
some
point
getting
involved.
A
Please
email,
us,
email,
the
juliana
and
I,
as
authors
or
anyone
else
who
joins
us
support
for
this
document
with
the
email
here
and
then
also
I'd
love
for
folks
to
either
put
in
the
chat
or
put
yourself
in
the
queue
as
to
whether
or
not
you
think
the
hrpc
should
adopt
this
draft
as
it
has.
I
think
right
now
not
a
whole
lot
of
work
items,
and
so
I'd
like
to
get
I'd
like
to
get
this
group
a
little
bit
more
focused
on
on
something
of
interest.
A
C
I
have
like
draft
politics
which
I
think
which
which
I
given
quite
a
lot
of
thought
and
there's
quite
some
work
there,
but
I'm
hesitant
to
restart
work
on
that
before
draft
guidelines
and
draft
association
go
out
of
the
door.
So
so
so
that
is
a
bit
my
thinking
so
first
get
that
those
ones
done
before
the
other
stuff
comes
through.
A
C
C
A
A
I
mean
that's
kind
of
what
I'm
proposing
with
draft
feminism
as
well,
so
I
don't
think
that
they
necessarily
have
to
be
exclusive
like
we
could
still,
you
know,
adopt
the
draft
feminism
work
with
the
aim
of
getting
also
draft
politics
back
on
the
docket.
It's.
C
A
A
You
know
with
a
lot
of
citations
and
and
deeper
thought
than
that,
but-
and
I
think
that
you
know
obviously
feminism
or
intersectional
feminism
is
an
expression
of
politics.
It's
a
very
specific
one,
and
so
I
think,
rather
than
making
a
general
statement,
it
actually
kind
of
accepts
the
premise
that
technology
is
not
neutral
and
it
is
political
and
quality
and
then
and
how
right
and
how
in
particular,
so
I
do
see
them
as
complimentary.
A
I
almost
see
them,
they
don't
necessarily
have
to
be
linear,
but
I
think
one
sort
of
assumes
the
premise
of
the
other
other
thoughts
on
just
whether
or
not
because
I
don't
think
it
makes
sense
to
adopt
the
draft.
If
there's
not
sort
of
interest
from
the
rest
of
the
group
about
that,
and
if
there
isn't
then
certainly
juliana-
and
I
can
think
about
how
we
can
change
or
or
or
how
we
can
make
progress
on
this
draft
between
now
and
113,
to
convince
you
otherwise.
B
Hi
mallory,
I'm
not
sure
that
adoption
is
necessarily
the
important
point
take
so
obviously
people.
You
know.
If
there's
interest
in
the
group,
then
people
interested
in
the
work,
then
then
people
can
work
on
on
a
document
whether
it's
been
adopted
by
by
the
group
or
not,
and
I
think
that
the
main
thing
I
would
I
would
encourage
you
and
the
rest
of
the
members
of
the
group
to
do
is
if
there
are
topics
which
are
interesting,
then
to
work
on
the
work
on
the
document.
B
Work,
work
on
getting
this
described
and
building
community,
and
we
we
can
figure
out
whether
the
right
thing
to
do
is
for
the
group
to
adopt
them
or
publish
them
in
some
other
way.
At
a
later
point,
so
doing
interesting.
Work
is
more
important
than
you
know.
The
precise
process
details
of
exactly
what's
adopted
when
web,
and
this.
A
My
main
goal
is
to
get
to
get
to
have
presented
this
today
to
in
the
hopes
of
of
getting
more
people,
to
write
to
us
or
contribute
to
the
github,
but
just
to
say
that
you
know
if
part
of
our
process-
and
let
me
go
back
a
slide
is
to
maybe
you
know,
focus
a
lot
more
on
the
storytelling
and
continue
to
to
think
about
process
with
respect
to
other
communities
that
are
actually
active
on
this
topic
and
connecting
it
to
them.
A
If
we
go
to
a
workshop,
for
example
like
it
could
just
be
juliana
juliana
and
I
or
or
some
combination
of
the
authors
or
folks
that
have
contributed
presenting
this
work,
but
I
think
it
can
also
be
more
meaningful
to
folks
to
locate
it
within
the
internet.
Research
task
force
specifically
hrpc,
not
as
necessarily
like
an
ownership
or
a
stamp
or
a
sort
of
I
don't
know
authority
signal,
but
I
think
it
then
helps
to
bring
people
back
into
hrpc
right
where
it's
like.
This
isn't
just
our
idea.
A
B
Yeah-
and
I
I
would
agree
with
that,
and
if
that's
a
useful
thing
to
do
then
by
all
means
you
know
to
bring
the
work
into
the
into
the
group
and
adopt
it.
It
seems
clearly
in
in
your
chatter
and-
and
it
looks
interesting
for
the
you
know,
sort
of
you
know
it
seems,
there's
people
interested
in
doing
the
work
so.
A
A
All
right,
it
doesn't
seem,
like
anyone
else,
has
anything
to
say
about
that.
So
I
think
we
have
gone
through
our
agenda
for
the
day
and
so
there's
not
much
there's
not
much
left
other
than
to.
Thank
you
all
for
coming
and
apologies
that
we
couldn't
have
sasha
speak
today.
We're
wishing
her
well
and
yeah
thanks
niels
thanks,
colin
thanks,
henriette
and
see
you
see
you
at
1,
13
online
or
wherever
it's
supposed
to
be
it's
true
yeah.
We
we
use
those
extra
15
minutes.
So
thanks
again
bye
everybody.