IGF 2010
VILNIUS, LITHUANIA
15 SEPTEMBER 10
SESSION DC7
1130
DYNAMIC COALITION ON OPEN STANDARDS
*****
Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during Fifth Meeting of the IGF, in Vilnius. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
****
>> PRANESH PRAKASH: Good morning, everyone. We will just I am guessing people are here for the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards meeting, right? We will wait for another five minutes to make sure that to give time for some other people who we are expecting to turn up and then we will start.
Good morning, again. I think we can start with a round of introductions so that we know who all are around the table. And then we will get down to setting out the agenda which will include firstly talking about what DCOS is and what all of you have been doing so far for the newcomers in the room and then we will have a little bit of discussion about the role that DCOS can play and lastly we will try to have we will try to have discussion on where we can move forward from here and what all we can do.
Okay. So let me just introduce myself. My name is Pranesh Prakash. I work for the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore.
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: Jeremy Malcolm.
>> DON KATZ: Don Katz, internal affairs director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
>> Hello, my name is Edmund.
>> JONATHAN ZUCK: Hello, my name is Jonathan Zuck and I am the President of the Association for Competitive Technology.
>> My name is Ron Shyol. I am from Ireland.
>> DANIEL DARDAILLER: My name is Daniel Dardailler. I am the director of international relations at W3C.
>> GARLAND McCOY: Garland McCoy with the Technology Institute in Washington.
>> MIKE SAX: Mike Sax, Symphony Software in the U.S.
>> I am Staffan, director of standards with qual.com.
>> JASON CHENG: I am Jason Cheng at EIU University, Korea.
>> DEIRDRE WILLIAMS: I am Deirdre Williams in the Caribbean and I am the room moderator.
>> I am Joanne from Washington D.C.
>> I am Carston from the Free Software Association in Europe. Is it me being a bit deaf or is other people having trouble hearing everything? Is there a way to turn up the volume? Oh.
(Laughter).
>> Carston: Does anyone feel competent to mess with the mixing board up there?
>> At the very least people should speak up us. So testing 1, 2, 3. Can you is this better? Hardly so. Maybe
>> Check your microphone.
>> Carston: Sorry. If I lean in to the microphone and then speak for a continued amount of time here we go. Thank you Pranesh.
>> PRANESH PRAKASH: I would first like to call upon Daniel to give a bit of an introduction to the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards about how it was formed and the purpose that it seeks to serve.
>> DANIEL DARDAILLER: Okay. I am not prepared. So I have to refresh my memory. It was one of the first Dynamic Coalitions created at the IGF probably in 2005, right after Tunis before Athens. I think the first meeting was in Athens. So like other coalitions it is a Forum for discussion. There is no deliverable in a sense, but every year we try to look at a topic in particular. So one year we looked at, you know, open standard and accessibility, open standard from the right point of view. Last year we talked about the idea of rights that were given by open standards, like right to choose your platform, et cetera. So you can join a Dynamic Coalition just by being on the mailing list. We have no face to face otherwise we have an IGF plenary. Sometimes when we have the IGF planning meeting in Geneva we have a quorum. There is no commitment of time. It is a thing that you participate at the level that you want which is something that, you know, I have a problem with from the point of view of actually doing something. So it is a voluntary Forum where people, you know, participate or not depending on their agenda. So it is difficult to actually prepare something seriously. But nevertheless we have published some documents that explain from our point of view what are the criteria for open standards. We didn't do a definition of open standard because it was a bit too conflictual I would say. It may happen later on but there are so many context in which open standards are used that it is still a matter to define it.
So there is also a role of coordination with regard to this definition of open standard because a lot of Forums are trying to make or use or, you know, do something with the definition of open standard and I think the DCOS is the most global Forum for all of them. It is not the most effective, but it is the one where everyone from different cultures, different communities can actually gather and give news about what's happening elsewhere. Later on I can give news about other open Forums I have been participating. And I welcome people to give news about that.
>> PRANESH PRAKASH: I will read out something we had written a bit earlier about the point of open standards itself and the Tunis Agenda and the different documents that you are working towards addressing, right? So open standards are critical to the initialization of Tunis Agenda. Especially Article 19J which specifically talks about open standards and many of the declarations of principles of 2003 itself including articles 4, 5, 24, and 44E. Talks about standardization as an essential building block of information society. Standards although they are not created in legislatures, courts, they go beyond international boundaries. In fact, numerous public policies issues and many stakeholders do not have an equal voice. Do not have an equal voice in their creation, management or adoption. The IGF affords these stakeholders a voice through bodies such as Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards and that the DCOS was formed and it benefitted greatly from this open Forumness and we have been able to generate valuable benefits. In 2006 we produced a set of principles around open standards which I will just reach which Daniel had referred to which I will read out a bit later. And in 2008 we managed to build an agreement around procurement guidelines.
In 2009, last year in Sharm El Sheikh we took the opportunity to highlight all the important rights for whose realisation open standards are essential. And thereby connecting with the work being done by many other Dynamic Coalitions including the Dynamic Coalition on accessibility and disabilities and as well as the Dynamic Coalition on Internet rights and principles.
There is yet quite a bit more to be done. In this regard I'd just like to highlight the UN Millennium Development Goal target 8F which reads "In cooperation with the private sector make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communication technologies." And this is a goal that's been set for realisation by 2015. And it is on this basis that the Tunis Agenda itself talks about open standards and it is on this basis that the declaration of principles talk about open standards. What we have to do is to see whether we have reached anywhere closer to the realisation of this since 2003, since 2005 to now.
And just to lay out what we as Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards have believed and the principles that we have set out for open standards this is from a document we produced in July 2007. "Open standards are equally available to all potential producers of technology based on the standards. Open standards ensure full competition and facilitate free trade among all potential producers of technology but no prior benefits to holders of IPR in the standards."
"Different definitions of open standards with different IPR and process requirements may apply to different technology markets as long as the above principles are maintained." And four, "Open standards provide the platform for innovation, both the standard while changes to the standard itself may be possible while retaining the features of openness described in the above principles." Given this and given the opening statements I'd ask people to participate now in a dialogue on a kind of stock taking. We have already done work on procurement guidelines. We already done work on trying to look at the rights that are affected by open standards and the rights for which open standards are necessary. Now what? Whom do we address? What is the goal of the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards in addressing these and what future work can we set for ourselves?
>> Well, so you mention a couple a document that we sort of worked together on but I am sure that most of the people in the room that have not worked on this document didn't know them, right? So that's our first problem is to make sure that whatever we do has an impact. Or we decide not I mean the IGF has decided somehow not to have an impact in terms of documents being approved by a community and then being promoted. So I think that we have to think about our work within the context of the IGF. What is the mandate of that. If the mandate of the IGF extends to one of its coalition, promoting a document to make it something more effective, then we have to watch out for the sort of the no decision is taken at the IGF problem, right? Because this is a decision to promote something. Whether or not it is a de jure document or a de facto makes no difference and then we can think of what kind of impact we want.
>> Yeah, I agree that the IGF's stance on not producing outputs in the form of recommendations can limit the impact; that anything that we would produce would otherwise make a lot more it would be a lot more effective if we could produce a document and put it to the plenary Forum and have some form of consensus building in a broader context around that document. I don't think that hope is entirely lost, because the scope for the IGF to extend, not to extend its mandate but to fulfill its mandate more to the extent of producing formal outputs, it is still under discussion. And there is a working group of the CSTD, the Commission on Science and Technology for Development which is going to be convened to look at possible improvements to the IGF and that's going take place this year. And I am going to be talking at the closing session at how the IGF could maybe without jeopardizing its inherent nonbinding character nevertheless produce outputs that could feed in to policy. I am quietly confident there may be more scope for Dynamic Coalitions to offer their recommendations to the IGF as a plenary body and to have them go further than they can at present. But we shall see.
>> I would add also I think the regional IGFs have a different character and because there is more commonality in law whether it is EURODIG or the African IGF or the South American IGF, even if they don't have binding declarations its influence on policy making may reach further and portions of the DCOS declaration, a few sentences from it made it in to a process I participated in in West Africa called the Sali Declaration. There was no particular reference to DCOS. Anyhow the ideas can spread and I am suggesting in addition to what Jeremy said that the regional iterations of IGF may have more influence, if not direct norm setting power.
>> I would have thought that IGF is the ideal Forum for open standards because it is all about openness and descriptiveness. So the IGF isn't there to prescribe. Open standards are not there to prescribe and to bind people in to something. Is there the ideal marriage here and I would have thought that a Forum like this is an ideal Forum to meet people who are interested in the topic and to exchange views and to find out what's going on to see people in person and not just read about them. So that for me would be the opportunity here. And the work really happens in between I guess and this is just a Forum to exchange what different people, what different characters are doing and which areas they are active in and where they apply those open standards. The W3C does that in a certain area, space. We are involved in other areas that maybe more apply to intraoperatibility of tools and technologies and production space. And I am sure that other people to do similar work and to find out what's going on and to find consensus in a nondescriptive way should be the mandate of the Dynamic Coalition I would have thought.
>> The Forum function is there. So what's not there is more the working group function. The idea that something delivers a product that is then moved up, you know, to the IGF plenary, let's say that is an example to be agreed at a different level or moved sideways to the regional IGF for a different kind of promotion. And that's not something that a Forum can decide. You have to have people working on that, you know, with an agenda and saying we are going to be present at this. So we don't have that kind of logistic for promotion of our work. So that's that's missing I think.
>> Yes, it was a deliberate decision in Athens that there shouldn't be working groups at the IGF because there was some stakeholders that were uncomfortable with that. So the Dynamic Coalition is sort of a bit in a limbo state. They are a great mechanism for grass roots development of policy. But there is a lack of institutionalization of any connection between them and the IGF as a whole. So there has been talk of creating either a sort of Dynamic Coalition's version 2 or a completely separate sort of themic working group that could take, could generate, could be given a mandate to generate a statement proposal, a recommendation or just a message and then take that through the IGF to policies, bodies elsewhere.
>> Yes, if I remember the history of the creation of the DCOS, there was no such thing as Dynamic Coalitions and it is to combine several of the statements made it was through initiative. We decided to do it and held a press conference. The particular issue was document format at the time. But following that a lot of, you know, maybe they were planning it from beforehand anyhow. But there were a lot of Dynamic Coalitions that came about and before the end of the first IGF I think they weren't sure what to do with these Dynamic Coalitions that had just been created and emergent from civil society. That's all to suggest that I think that the parameters of what the IGF can do in the context of Dynamic Coalitions can be asserted rather than followed.
>> I agree with that. I think we can change the system. So I mean the decision we have to take is to do it.
>> PRANESH PRAKASH: Do we have any thoughts on what specific recommendations we could possibly forward to the secretariat in this regard? Because every Dynamic Coalition at the end of the IGF sense generally has asked for a report back, right, and anything specific that we could possibly include in this report?
>> Well, we can talk about that, you know. The fact that we feel a need for a sort of an output process of the work we are doing and I mean we should talk about the content of our work. We talk about open standards and accessibility. So there are other topics we can talk about but at the process level I think there is a question of Dynamic Coalition system with no commitment for doing work and no clear ways of endorsing deliverable. So that's those are issues we need to bring up to the overall IGF.
>> Maybe you can enlighten me a little bit. I am rather new to the process. But I would have thought that if we sit here and we write a report, every Dynamic Coalition is required to have an annual report or some kind of report, we can decide whether we agree on something or not. And if we don't agree it is a collection of initiatives in that space. And if we decide that we agree on something, then we communicate that. Whether we are allowed to agree or recommend or not, nobody is really stopping us. What we need to do is, what the coordinator needs to do is put a process in place where that can happen. Where people can input in an activity report that you collate and if something comes out of the discussion here where it emerges on the consensus or some specific area of work that needs to be addressed, then why not do it.
>> GARLAND McCOY: This is Garland McCoy with the Technology Institute. It is probably a stupid question to some extent but I am just wondering is the overall goal here to impose open standards on the procurement regulations and policies of Governments as some form of civil rider under some umbrella of civil rights or human rights? What's the outcome that you are driving for in this Dynamic Coalition?
>> Well, yeah, I think it is a good question. We actually discussed that two or three years ago, whether or not we had an internal position on what is open standard and why it is good to push it. So we went through we sort of avoided the definition of open standards and we went down this criteria that define open standards indirectly and some point of discussion of whether people joining this coalition agree on this principle so we don't fight internally over what it means to be open standard. We should really discuss that sort of thing.
>> Is it push or require?
>> We have no requirement mandate. So the best we can do is to promote which what I mean by push, outreach about a concept of open standard and explain why it has worked for everyone and why it is good for everyone. But there is no mandate to enforce anything at the IGF in general and for us in particular. Even W3C has no mandate to enforce anything. We publish a specific indication for IGL and people that use it we are in it together. If you use the same specification, we can talk to each other. You are not forced to do anything. And the same thing should be applied for the open standard. There is an opinion for open standard and why it is good and why people should use them and how people should use them and enforcement is out of our scope. People with disabilities, there is some need for enforcement at some level. If I am a blind person and I get this is an obligation from a contractual point of view, but here when we are talking about guidelines I don't think there is an obligation. It is recommendation from a body that, you know, about what they think. So....
>> Well, I want to respond specific to the to your phrasing of impose. It was my understanding that part of the debate and discussion was to promote open standards in regards to its economic benefits and democratic benefits in a way that was avoiding technology mandates. Did not require such as some countries and Government offices have gone forward with a particular technology. But rather to clarify and promote as competitive and as democratic of opportunities for individuals to use technologies and products and for the procurement process to be as much a level playing field as it should and there aren't many places where I think the latter part, the democratic aspects of open standards are as much discussed as the economic ones.
>> PRANESH PRAKASH: I'd just like to step in here and I don't believe that the benefits of open standards are at all a debate here. We are a Dynamic Coalition on open standards because we believe that open standards can deliver something that proprietary standards can't, and I especially don't believe that there should be any debate about it because the different documents which have led us to setting up the Internet Governance Forum themselves promote open standards. So on that front there isn't much debate. What I would say the role of DCOS and what we are trying to do here is to find ways to best promote it. So one of the things that has come out here so far is to say how from discussion of a DCOS level and we are only following up on something that is laid out for us in the Tunis Agenda already, how do we best move this upwards to other platforms. How do we best move this to other policy making arenas. How do we ensure that and hold workshops discussing the nitty gritties of the difficulties that could possibly be faced and how we can overcome those. So contribute in all these different manners to the debate which is not about the value of open standards but rather about how do we without imposing open standards how do we move to a place where open standards are actually seen much more in all spheres of life and open standards and the promises that open standards has to deliver are actually achieved. So I think that's what we are really going after here. And not so much debate on the benefits and nonbenefits of open standards because those are things that each year we think about and try and discuss in the work in different workshops that we organise. Right? So....
Would anyone have any other comments on this issue?
>> If I may just to add a little context on perhaps a little bit where I am coming from, I have been involved in public policy think tank work in Washington for almost two decades now and one of the first big battles I was involved in as part of the emergence of connected computing and the whole digital evolution involved the anti trust suit against Microsoft. And I was a part of the only, the only policy think tank in Washington that thought and believed very strongly that the Government did indeed have a case against Microsoft. So all the other think tanks and policy groups either didn't believe in anti trust as a policy, regulatory tool anyway or they didn't think the Government had a case against Microsoft. The reason I put that in this particular discussion is that I come from the background of not wanting any I want competition. I don't want any monopoly. I don't want a monopoly based on open source any more than I want a monopoly based on a proprietary set of standards. I want the Governments and the states back in the United States or anybody out in the case of procurement, what's the best mix to move forward for my citizens, for my for the interaction. Because so often is the case even prior, and even today the Government in many instances particularly in developing countries does indeed by de facto set up the standard for that country. The government says I am going to go in this direction as a matter of course and then it becomes just by default it becomes a de facto monopoly for that country. That's the only there is no sense in that. So...
>> If I may just come in here, I think the benefit for open standards sorry, am I audible at all? I think that open standards really is that thank you that they do not allow for the formation of a monopoly or perhaps appreciate them in the way that proprietary standards and software do. Open standards even though we said we wouldn't discuss much in substance today, I believe that open standards are the platform to enable the competition that you are seeking.
>> Yeah, that's what I was trying to also articulate and to distinguish between as you said open source as a technology mandate and a set of criteria for the procurement that involve as much a level playing field for the for the venders, and also enable the democratic positive externalities that come about from open standards. There are plenty of standards and criteria in the procurement process of governments. They have there is a lot of criteria that companies have to follow. It isn't just a matter of, you know, willy nilly choice. And I think this group is has spent several of its years focusing on the benefit of open standards as part of that criteria. And I think, as I was trying to emphasize before I think that's a that's a correction on the possible overreach of the requirement from some perspectives of having one particular technology, whether it be proprietary or open source but to have, you know, procompetitive and prodemocratic criteria for procurement and in regarding software open standards accomplishes that.
>> So I think we shouldn't get in to the discuss of the goodness or the badness of standard per se. I mean there are organisations that are much bigger than we are that are doing that, promotion of standards. I think we should talk about the open part of the standard and in this area, the Internet and the Web it just happened that being open means that you can implement for free and you can also develop for free. That is if you want to develop the technology further you can just join ATF or join W3C as an individual and work with us. So there is this idea that the participation is open and the use is free, not in the freedom sense. You are not paying anything. Mostly because this is software. This is software that people take pleasure to write. That's the idea of the bottom line.
You have programmers that are writing for pleasure. And so they give away their technology and in the end you have Apache and you have Mozilla and it is in end it is something that you are sharing that you had pleasure to write. They want to write a technology that they want to share with people because they like the way it runs for them and they want other people to run the same code. Discussing where our standards come too early and they create a monopoly or not it is good as well. Our specificity is the open part which is open participation in terms of IPR, specific thing for the Web or Internet. Open source is very different. They are very related, intertwined, sort of like in a way that, you know, has been going on for 20 years. So it is even more. Before the Web open source was the norm for the Internet. I could get the source of Berkeley, TCP, everything was free. So the Internet just and the Web just continue this sort of philosophy of sharing with other computer programmers whatever you are doing so that people don't waste their time reprogramming the same thing you did. So...
>> But isn't the purpose of open standards to allow the different kinds of software whether it is open source or proprietary to interoperate?
>> Sure. That's what happened. I mean today you take one standard like html and it is implemented by everybody, commercial or not. So being open for a standard it means that it is open to open source and everybody else. Of course. I mean there is no open source is irrelevant here. It is just a business model. It is nothing technical. People developing code at Microsoft or at Apache are the same people, same programmer. In the end either the code is free or is not. So it is a different thing.
>> PRANESH PRAKASH: If I may read out part of the declaration from last year. Okay. Which makes it clear that there are certain rights that citizens have, okay, in different forms of interactions and open standards can be a way to achieve these rights and sometimes it is the only way to achieve these rights. And it starts off by saying "Citizens have the right to use free and open source software to interact with Government applications and services. Disabled, aged and illiterate, otherwise disadvantaged citizens have the right to interact with applications and services. Citizens have a right to see and use government data. Citizens have a right to access data information and knowledge should be protected by Government intervention in the form of competition law, compulsory licenses, pools and the promotion of open standards. Citizens have a right to security and accessibility. They shouldn't be forced to upgrade their application and open source especially are the best way and in some cases the only way to achieve these rights." So that's just the latter half of the declaration, but I hope that gives a bit of perspective and unless there are some more comments at this stage itself
>> Well, I just want to react on some I think it is a trend that I have seen for a couple of years which is to say that we cannot impose open source. It is like imposing open source is a closed sort of action, which has no sense to me, but I'd like to talk about that a bit. People some people are saying also that now you are imposing the Internet on everybody. There is no way to do without the Internet. Well, actually in theory it is even in practice the INR root zone is just a reference. Anybody in this room, anybody on the planet can decide to point their root zone to another server and share their own top level domain between themselves and score outer net roots. It is not the Internet. The criteria for the Internet is that everyone is on it basically. But the system is open. There is no enforcement to use the INR root zone for anyone. People have to keep that in mind. There is no enforcement on anything on the Internet.
>> PRANESH PRAKASH: Are there any further comments at this stage? Because if there aren't then I would like to move on to a couple of more concrete points of what do we do this year. In the past years we have released declarations and uploaded them to our Web site and in some cases we have gained a decent amount of publicity. This year do we want to do the same thing? And this doesn't have to be done by the end of the 17th. There is nothing that requires us to do so. The benefit of doing so however is that we get a good amount of press, publicity through the IGF mechanism. But otherwise we could carry on discussions on the mailing list as to what we can do right now. And secondly, I would like to see a bit of discussion on what we could do this coming year, okay, after this IGF. What targets do we set for ourselves. What kinds of concrete actions can we take and a little bit of discussion on that.
>> So I think one of the work items we can take up is to maybe revise and sort of update some of the publications we made three years ago to see if they are still accurate. And if not make some update on the list and then try to present them on our Web site in a way that, you know, is more useable for people with categories and things like that. In terms of the topic that we could talk about open standard and something. There are so many topics and we are not the only Forum. There are other Forums that actually are providing topics. So we could look at that. We talk standards. Recently talked about open standard and open source and they talk about open standard and protectionism in terms of economical, national protectionism and that's very important.
So because of the nonofficial nature of the Internet standard they are not coming from ISO or from ETSI, an official 3T organisation. Then several countries feel the right to just check. They have this right in effect. And in the end you have a problem because the industry cannot penetrate the market of this country because the technology is different. And all that because they had the right to change the standards. So this question of the right to change an open standard, all this question about forwarding derivative work is actual. The philosophy for the open source community is if I write code for you I can take it back. If you write specifications for us you cannot take it back. So there is this sort of idea because we feel very close to the open source community but the open standard is a different matter in terms of sort of the right to diverge. So I think that's another topic we could address. And there are several. We can try but it will be good to organise that on the Web site so that we can see our agenda. So there is some secretarial work I would say is important before we move to looking at this topic. We can do it in parallel as well.
>> PRANESH PRAKASH: I sent a sheet around asking for people's names and affiliations and e mail addresses. So I will write to everyone who has provided their e mail address here and give them the address of our mailing list, our Web site. And would anyone have any kind of chance to help us build a Web site if such help is required? Just an open invitation right here. Okay. Then I guess we will take it upon ourselves as speaking as the CIS to actually work a bit on the Web site.
>> Actually that's something where the IGF secretary and the UN could help. Maybe not provide an editor, Web site programmer or at least some template, some common framework. It would be good that every coalition is easily reachable on the Web site and share some kind of presentation.
>> PRANESH PRAKASH: Okay. So as things to do immediately the one item I have is updating the Web site and facilitating the starting of the process of revisiting the documents and judging their relevance on the DCOS mailing list. Are there any other suggestions for work items?
>> I think in terms of also not promotion but increase of the effect there is the idea for recruiting other participants which is sort of the responsibility of everyone. So if you know people in other communities that you are participating in they would be interested in coming and discussing with us, that's important as well. So again I mean this is a decision that can be helped by technology if we had sort of a a list of prospects for participants. I think that we don't contact the same people twice. Those kinds of things. So we need to share some data among these groups so that we can increase the size of the group somehow.
>> Then I also base some action lines that come out of the workshops on open standards such as the one tomorrow on open standards in the cloud. So even if we don't come up with as specific action for a new statement or declaration in this meeting maybe there will be something that comes out tomorrow.
>> I agree with Jeremy that we will probably see from the workshop tomorrow a number of issues that well, we will need to address in the future. On the other hand, the topic for open standards has been explored over the years and we have produced some documents. So revising those and repolishing those is a good idea. I suggest we pick it up from the workshops tomorrow.
>> PRANESH PRAKASH: So just as an FYI there are two workshops that DCOS is helping organise and both are tomorrow. The first one is workshop 154, in Room 6 between 1415 and 1615 on data in the cloud. Where do open standards fit in. And the second is in Room 5 from 1630 to 1830. This is workshop 139 on open standards: Ensuring Accessibility and Inclusiveness. So more information on these can be found from the IGF Web site.
So perhaps we could wrap up a bit early. And one other thing we should probably look at is the interactions and working with other Dynamic Coalitions. So last year we started talking about the Dynamic Coalition on accessibility and disabilities and that discussion has proven quite fruitful and because both of us have interest in each other's work and the Dynamic Coalition on Internet rights and principles was also to an extent interested in the work that we are doing in DCOS. So based on what Daniel and Jeremy were talking about earlier and the input that Jeremy was giving about the extension of Dynamic Coalitions and perhaps looking at upgrading them in a way and talking to these other Dynamic Coalitions and seeking to make that happen could be a way forward.
Okay. So I guess we will wrap up a bit ahead of time and it is already 37 minutes past 12 and so I will make sure to so I believe Carston has been taking notes as well as the live transcription. And I will send that along to everyone who has provided their e mail addresses and include links to the DCOS Web site, to the DCOS mailing list, et cetera, in that e mail and hopefully we can continue this discussion online. Thank you.
>> Thanks.
*****