Welcome everybody who joined us today, good morning, good afternoon, good evening wherever you are in the world, and welcome to this event that's hosted by the Stockholm Environment Institute on the launch of a new report on building climate diplomacy back better. My name is Clarey Farrand, I'm a senior reporter at the news website climate home news and I will be moderating today's discussion. The report looks at whether online technologies can help increase the effectiveness, inclusiveness and transparency of the event process and was commissioned by Sweden's Environment Ministry. Before we delve into this really fascinating topic, just a little bit of housekeeping. We have a fantastic lineup of speakers and I would like to welcome Sweden's State Secretary for Environment and Climate, Annika Jacobsen, as well as our panellists that will be introducing a little bit later. Annika will deliver some introductory remarks and then we will have a bit of a discussion about the report and finally some conclusions and closing remarks. We have only an hour and a lot of interesting speakers to hear from, so we won't have much time for questions, please write them in the chat. We will try and raise some of the issues being raised, otherwise we, SCI will try and address some of those questions following the event. The event is being recorded and you will receive a link to the recording via email once it is made available after the event. So with no further due, I'm delighted to welcome Sweden's State Secretary for Environment and Climate, Annika Jacobsen, Annika, the floor is yours. Thank you and I would like to start by thanking Stockholm Environment Institute for undertaking this project and for producing this thought-provoking and very timely report. Thank you and also I would like to extend my sincere appreciations to everyone who has taken part in this project by responding to surveys or taking part in interviews, advisory board or roundtables. Thank you very much for dedicating some of your time to this project. Science is clear and the reality is even clearer. The impact of climate change and the nature crisis is here and now and it's now affecting all regions and we need to reduce our emissions drastically and rapidly in order to keep the 1.5 degree goal alive. However, I think this stands in stark difference to the pace of the given climate negotiations and the ambition and vision level that we have seen in countries national determined contributions to the Paris Agreement. And this was the case before COVID-19 and even more so now when meetings have been postponed and decisions absent. And it was against this background that we last year asked Stockholm Environment Institute to explore the feasibility of conducting a new climate negotiations align to enable progress despite the challenges in person meetings posed by COVID-19. However, I very much appreciate that the project and the report has taken this one step further and instead asked the question how we can build back climate negotiations better. How could an online process help us create a process that is more fit for purpose and able to deliver results and ambition that we need to combat global warming? A crucial element highlighted in the report and clear to everyone who has attended a UN climate negotiation is that factors such as power dynamics and trust and differing approaches do not always contribute to progress in the basic negotiations. And I'm glad that the report concludes that there is a possibility to transform the UN climate process to become more effective, more inclusive, more transparent. And this will obviously also require strong leadership from the UN system, from countries, from observers. We have the Paris Agreement and after COP26 we hopefully will be have finalizing also the fixed rule book. And as we move from a negotiation phase to an implementation phase, we have an opportunity to rethink how we want the climate process to look like. And I appreciate that the report delivers concrete recommendations on steps that can be taken to explore this further. Within the negotiations we then access part of the EU and thus we will discuss how we can take these ideas forward with our EU colleagues. And I hope that all parties to the Paris Agreement will be the same. As highlighted in the report there is a window of opportunity right now and I think we should take that opportunity to make sure that the UN climate process is tailored to deliver the ambition and the action that we need to accelerate implementation of the Paris Agreement, to keep the 1.5 alive, to enhance climate adaptation and to scale up finance. So thank you. Thank you very much State Secretary for for those remarks and introduction to the report. I'd now like to pass it on to Richard Klein who is Senior Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute and the lead author of the report who is going to present the key findings. Richard over to you. Thanks very much Chloe and thanks very much Anika Jakobsson and Matias and Kaiser from the Ministry. It was a really exciting project so thanks for coming to us to ask us to undertake it. I'm going to present a few slides explaining first of all what we did but then focusing specifically on key messages and recommendations. And as the State Secretary said we started off looking at the question are online negotiations or an online UNFCC process is that even feasible in both technically and politically but we we we found out over time that that much more was already happening than we thought. So we we shifted that question to can the UNFCC process be moved online in ways that actually increase the effectiveness, inclusiveness and transparency. And of course the background here is that the UNFCC process, especially following the agreement in Paris has has progressed very slowly and there has been a lot of frustration about about that slow progress and much discussion already before the pandemic about it not being fit for purpose. So the the approach we took was very much stakeholder led. There was a very intensive stakeholder engagement earlier this year both through open surveys and interviews as well as several roundtables with experts in digital technology with media with civil society. We had lots of interviews also with people involved in the UNFCC process as negotiators. We also looked at what was said publicly in social media and in the press and and use that to develop an understanding of of the various issues that actually went beyond just a pandemic. So also supported by a literature review the analytical framework we developed that analyzed the various components of the process and also background report that was prepared by the International Institute for Sustainable Development looking at online experiences in 2020 in six multilateral processes. And there's a link there you can find the full report there as well as a background information and survey results. So as we were doing the project it became clear quite quickly that much more of the UNFCC process could actually be undertaken online than than was anticipated just 18 months ago at the start of the pandemic when the SB sessions were postponed when then COP26 was postponed and there were real questions about what was actually going to be possible. A lot of discussion about poor connectivity, about the changing dynamics but we saw in June at least that with the SB meetings that a lot can actually be done. And the results that I show here on this slide are actually from before the June meeting. So through the survey we asked if people could see parts of all of the UNFCC process go online before that actually happened in the SB and you could see already then that people felt quite confident that at least parts of the UNFCC process could be held online. It's a slight missing I'm afraid. Anyway, that's unfortunate. I think I have got the wrong presentation. This is really painful. Let me just double check if I can quickly get my other presentation on. I'm not quite sure how that happened. This is because of PowerPoint Live not doing what I think it should be doing. Apologies, this will take a few seconds. This is the one we should be using. I gave this presentation earlier to EU negotiators and that one focused later on much more on the EU recommendations. Can you see my slides now, Chloe? I'm afraid this is now not going live but not using the live PowerPoint. Is this visible for everyone? Yeah, OK, great. So apologies for that. In more detail we asked what types of activities could be held online in the future and you could see that split up the various activities. Certainly workshops, expert meetings, informal consultations, meetings of constituted bodies, activities under the American partnership for global action. All of that could be seen as taking place online but there were also activities like negotiations itself and decision making, the lobbying and advocating that groups were involved with that would be seen as much more difficult to take place online. So if we go quickly to the key messages, as the State Secretary already said there is a window of opportunity to transform the UNFCC process now. Why is that? It's not just because of the pandemic but it's also because, first of all, the frustration about slow progress after Paris is building up. There is pressure on the UNFCC process to reduce its carbon footprints and of course also internet technology is spreading throughout the world including in some of the least developed countries that were able to participate in the June sessions. So the window of opportunity to transform the UNFCC process goes beyond the digital transition to make it more effective, including and transparent. But at the same time we found there is no clear champion for that transition. There is nobody standing up and take the lead and say this is what we should be doing and how we should be doing it. At the same time the window is closing because some are arguing that we should all go back to in-person talks completely and forever. What we found and very much informed by the stakeholder engagement is that the greatest hurdle to overcome is a pervasive lack of trust among parties, some argue irrespective of the format online or in-person or hybrid. There is no chance that the UNFCC process could actually make progress unless that pervasive lack of trust is being addressed. And there are also concerns that structural inequities, the power dimension that the State Secretary mentioned could be reinforced by going online. So there is a need for this visionary leadership with the imagination to design a process that works. And this is clearly not a process that is or an issue that is limited to the UNFCCC itself. And that's also why we argue that UN-wide ordination and guidance and leadership from the Secretary General Katera's himself are crucial. And looking also at what lessons are learned in other processes. And that within the UNFCC, the special role for the presidency, bureau and secretariat to advance this agenda is also recognized. Then when it comes to actually designing and managing a process, it is very important not to be looking at replicating what is already out there. Because as many people told us, it would create the same kind of issues in terms of trust and power and not lead to much more progress. This is a picture of the loss and damage huddle in Warsaw. And it also shows the kind of way in which agreement was reached before Paris at least. The idea is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. So there is a lot of pressure on reaching agreement at the very last minute in the middle of the night, often way beyond the deadline. And we heard from several people that there is a need to rethink these kind of practices because they are unfair, they are opaque, they are male dominated and fundamentally unjust. This is an illustration of what we may not want to replicate online. There are trade-offs involved in going online, especially if we want that to be effective. An online meeting could be effective when there is a full agenda but with limited participation or with broader participation with a narrower agenda or it could have a full agenda and broad participation but not be very effective. There is also extra effort needed to make sure that transparency and accountability, especially through media and civil society, are ensured. We spoke to civil society, they felt that there is concern that online process could be exploited to restrict access and reduce transparency and limit the activities that they feel are essential for them in terms of being a watchdog to the process. And finally, some recommendations. We suggest that this is a time to propose a task force under the agenda item arrangements for intergovernmental meetings of the subsidiary body for implementation. Clearly, such a proposal will need to be made by one or more parties but it would be an opportunity to start a conversation about the desired format of future UNFCCC sessions online or otherwise. It is important to make an active effort to better understand the long-standing grievances and concerns that we've heard, particularly from developing countries, about trust and about power imbalances, including those that stem from non-delivery on past commitments. This is an important issue to restore the trust that we've heard about. It will be important to continue to conduct analysis about particularly those concerns about the inadequacy of the UNFCCC process that we are seeing now in advancing ambitious climate action. And it will be important to strengthen coordination and there are opportunities to do that, as Egypt has shown by hosting the African hub during the SB sessions in June this year. We suggest that there should be a UN-wide effort, as I mentioned, to modernize multilateral diplomacy, whether UNFCCC take the lead on that or whether that should be left to other agencies or programmes is something to be considered. But I think the UNFCC secretary could certainly play an important role and help explore the technical procedural and other means to ensure that sessions are fit for purpose and cost efficient. And then finally, in order to ensure meaningful participation and meaningful interactions, space needs to be created among not just the party delegates, but also observers and media representatives. Online infrastructure will need to be strengthened and capacity will need to be built. So I'll close with a quote of one of our stakeholders. I think it was one of the members of advisory group who said that if Steve Jobs had designed what people wanted, he would have designed something very different from the iPhone. And for the UNFCCC, we need to design what people did not know they wanted. Now, I think that will leave some space for conversation and discussions with the panel and thanks very much, Chloe, over to you. Thank you very much, Richard, for this summary of the findings of the report. We'll now move on to the discussion section of today's event. We have three brilliant panellists with us today and about 35 minutes for conversation. So hopefully we can get through as many topics as possible within that time. I'm delighted to welcome Mathias Frumari, who heads Sweden's climate delegation to the UNFCCC and is an instigator of the report that's just been presented. We also have June Budrum, who's a former secretary of the governing bodies of the UNFCCC. She currently is with Irina and is a co-chair of the advisory group that supported SCI's study. And finally, we have Tasneem Eesop, who's the executive director of the Climate Action Network and will be able to talk on behalf and about concerns of civil society to move the process online. So thank you all for joining us today and I'm looking forward to this discussion with you. I'm sure we've got a lot to talk about. So let's try and keep the answers fairly concise so we can go through as many questions as possible and maybe you could also respond to each other's comments. It'd be great to kind of drive a bit of a discussion here. I think first off, I'll turn to you, Mathias. As Richard mentioned, so the report does show there is some strong consensus for moving parts of the process online, particularly preparatory and technical work. However, there is also this 24% of respondents that agree the negotiations could be held online in the future. A majority of respondents didn't see a possibility for political negotiations to happen online. As we enter this era of implementation of the Paris Agreement, do you agree that some parts of the process could be held online? And referring back to that picture that Richard just showed, do we still need these late nights, mouth and talks and huddles to advance the Paris agenda as we enter this implementation era? I think you're on mute, Mathias. Great. Is that better? Yeah, we can hear you. Great, great to be with you. Greetings from Stockholm. On your question, do I agree? Yes, definitely. I do believe that some parts of the UNFCC process can be conducted online. Just sort of a couple of takeaways from my perspective on the report itself. I think what Richard mentioned, the original outlook which was made to other processes is sort of one, a good basis for taking this discussion forward, that looking not only to the UNFCC itself, the wide stakeholder consultation process which has been made, ensuring that we get a lot of voices into this process, which also builds the legitimacy for the kind of conclusions which have been put forward. And I think also what Richard said that much more of the discussion can be moved online. Now, obviously, if we take those steps, we will need to discuss amongst each other what parts of the process could be taken online. And I would think that some very sort of crucial negotiation items would need to be kept in person, whereas you would have other parts of the agenda being for both SBs and COPs which probably could be conducted online and maybe sort of also throughout the year, not only at the actual COPs and SBs. And I think a key word here in the report is what Richard mentioned on leadership. And I think that it's leadership from all of us, us here in this group, from individual countries, from stakeholders within the UNFCC process, from the UNFCC Secretary of the South, and from the wide UN, sort of to create that momentum and building these opportunities and making best use of these opportunities in the one of the first two to take these steps. Thanks. Great. Just one quick follow-up question on that.  What kind of negotiation are you thinking about when not thinking in the long term? So beyond, you know, the current finalizing of the Paris Agreement Rulebook but maybe thinking more about implementation, can you give us a few examples? Are you talking about finance? Are you talking about other reporting processes? What are the negotiations that would need to happen in person? Well, maybe not so much related to individual topics like transparency or finance within the negotiations but rather sort of specific moments within related to specific gender items. I mean, one item that springs to mind is the global stock take. At some point when we will come to an end of the global stock take, I would assume that parties would want to meet in person to sort of decide on how successful have we been and what are we going to do in the coming years. So, I mean, that would be, I would say, one item where it would be preferable to meet in person whereas probably parts of the process of the global stock take could be done virtually. So it wouldn't be specific items themselves but rather sort of what part of the process we would be in. Okay, interesting. Tasneem, I'll come to you. Civil society plays a critical role in accountability and as this role as Richard mentioned as a watchdog to the process. What do you make of the report? And maybe just responding to Matias' comments just now, do you agree that much of the process can be moved online? And what are your biggest concerns regarding trade-offs if that was to be the case? Thanks, Chloe, and thank you to the Swedish government and SEI for doing this research and coming out with this report. I think it's really a time-yous report and I'm hoping that it does in fact trigger the wider discussions around transformation of the global governance system to address the climate emergency, right? The point that was made by the State Secretary for Environment that we need something that is fit for purpose and we all obviously recognize that we're trying to address a climate emergency. And within that frame therefore, I would suggest that even considering the role of civil society or these major constituencies that we have as a recognized constituencies within this process should change. The idea that we only play a watchdog role, the idea that we use these opportunities to hold governments accountable, those are important parts of the role we play. But we also, these key constituencies, see ourselves as fundamentally important partners in addressing a climate emergency. So we also have solutions. We've presented many of these solutions over the years within the UNFCCC space. And so I'd like the frame of this conversation to understand that role that we play as observers. That's the first thing I would say. So I would, in Richard's recommendations, I see that civil society, we must create these spaces for civil, that's the business as usual approach. I would want to see an equal partnership as we do in dialogues on the just transition, for example, we are social partners. We should be equal partners at that table and because we're addressing implementation. Then of course, the issue of inclusivity, of transparency and accountability is important. One of the things that we have missing in the Paris Agreement is an enforcement mechanism. So the only enforcement mechanism really will have to come through the kind of moral pressure, if I can call it that, by through processes being inclusive, that means we are also at the table and transparent so that the wider public can also put pressure on those who are not implementing the Paris Agreement, for example, or fulfilling their commitments. And the final point that I want to make is, this presents, this window of opportunity presents a really exciting opportunity for us to reset global governance for a climate emergency, right? And so I wouldn't want to see this as purely the end result in the UNFCCC, but the entire, if I can call it that, value chain of the process. So what happens domestically, for example, how democratic are the processes at a domestic level in terms of NDCs and how they've drawn up, et cetera, the accountability at a domestic level and then how that then connects to the international UNFCCC process. If we have deep democratic processes across the value chain, I think that is going to go a long way to improve the effectiveness of the global governance system and go a long way in terms of this important reset that we need to do. And so I do think we need to look at this if we're designing this process that we want to transition, we have to look at what's possible in the short term, in the medium term and in the long term. Yeah, I think that's an important point. I mean, your point about being equal partners and changing the framework of engagement, that's a really interesting and important point you're making. I mean, can you give me, do you have examples or have you got ideas about how the digital transition could help observers going through observers to the process? Maybe there were fears that online, the online shift meant that observers became passive and lack to the meaningful engagement that maybe they could have in person. So if we, following your idea of completely transforming that framework, can you give me maybe a couple of examples of way in which organization, the organization of this new talks could take place?  Well, I think, you know, I'm hoping that we can get these recommendations through in time for the global stock take, for example. And Matthias has raised that. So in a global stock take, it would be really great if we had all the social, I'm calling them social partners, right? So you had all these constituency bodies, the parties, the technical experts, et cetera, around the table doing that work together, being able to look at what countries are doing in terms of their commitments, where the gaps are building an understanding maybe of the challenges and why countries have not been able to do X, Y, and Z in terms of their commitments, proposing solutions for that, or if they've just been belligerent and they're not fulfilling the commitments, hold their feet to the fire. But let us do this together. We cannot be reduced to a one-minute intervention in a preliminary session as observers. We, our rights-based organizations, we come with massive constituencies, most of whom are feeling the sharp edge of the impacts of climate change. And I think it's important for us to be recognized as that valuable partner and not just the little irritation that's invited to make a one-minute or shut out of negotiations. Well, I think that message has been made very strongly here. I'll move on to June and get your views on the report. What role, I mean, Richard was mentioning that there could be a role for UNFCCC to help make this digital transition happen, maybe to help reimagine the system. What role do you see UNFCCC could have in this process? And maybe your response to both Matthias and Tasnim as comments that the global stock take could be a critical moment for that digital transition to take place. Thank you, Chloe. And thank you to the organizers for having me. Let me also thank the members of our advisory group because I think our contribution to the report was quite timely because one of the things that I think we need to recollect here is the conditions in which this discourse started. Inclusiveness, transparency, these were always principles and tenets of not just the UNFCCC process but all intergovernmental processes. What happened though is that our climate process was calling for urgency of action and then everything came to a standstill. So for 18 months, the process wasn't moving. And so that was the conundrum and the backdrop by which this study was prepared. Now I would like to introduce a new word to our discussion and that is the need for agility because whatever kind of table negotiations take place in whether it's an in-person table or a virtual table, we have to take certain boxes. For example, several other international organizations had continued their work after four or five months of learning during the pandemic period where they introduced modified processes and procedures. Of course, these processes and procedures have to be agreed by the membership always but there was political will to make this adjustment. So first to move from an in-person to hybrid virtual there has to be the political will to move. And I agree that perhaps one shouldn't at this point be talking about which agenda item lends itself to that sort of movement but rather to leave the process to define this. Why I say that is because the climate process it is a complex process but at the same time it's one that delivers. For me, the magic of the moment when you start during a COP with diverse positions and then at the end of the COP whether the COP ends on Friday or a Saturday or a Sunday to get to one deliverable it requires that political will to do so. So I think that the secretariat because you did say what role can some players make I think that one of the things is to explore and Richard mentioned under an existing discussion theme called arrangements for intergovernmental meetings is to actually enumerate what opportunities exist based on the mandates that we have that the digital space could offer to enhance the consultative processes. And so I wouldn't want to venture which that could be but I think it requires the secretariat working with the bureau and the chairs of the bodies the various bodies to come up with that so that there's a complete understanding of what is the landscape we're talking about. The second point I'd like to that's agility. The second thing I think it's clarity and certainty the climate process wants clarity on how consensus building and decision-making procedures will function. Where are we starting on these processes and where we are going? What is our objective? What's our delivery and the modalities between the two? That requires a combination of things because the process as was mentioned there are political aspects, technical aspects organizational aspects, even organizational aspects sometimes become political operational aspects sometimes become political. Then you have issues of representation and now the issue of participation how many people are permitted in a particular environment as we have the pandemic. So these are just a few of the issues that need to be looked at as we modernize diplomacy. I think this term was also mentioned because part of that adjustment to the processes and procedures will include modernizing diplomacy whether it's through PR systems or coming up with a process where delegations can now be in hybrid form. You can expand the numbers of delegates. So these for me are some of the first thoughts I have with regard to making that shift to the virtual space work and modernizing the way the delegations work and making the process agile. And as was said by Tasmin under any circumstance whether we have a pandemic or another plan B. So this report I have to say for me is a very welcome thing because it makes a proposal on a business continuity model for the climate process, rethinking modalities and finding champions and leaders to make this happen and to socialize the process in that direction. I'll leave it there Chloe, thank you. Great, well thank you for those remarks June that's kind of an interesting starting point maybe for further questions to be asked down the line but I would like to come back to something that Matias has said that I think is an interesting debate and certainly among the climate journalist community has sparked some quite strong reactions is this idea that do we need the COP as a single moment in the year where there is global attention to climate policy? I think Matias you mentioned that maybe we could have a system whereby we have negotiations happening maybe online, maybe propostory work, technical work around the throughout the year. So what do you think about do we still need to have this big COP single moment where the world's media and headlines are focused on climate which allows maybe to explain a bit to the public as well what this process is about. What do you think about that? Was that back to me? Yeah, sorry it was back to you Matias, yes. Right, well obviously there is a balance of the structure because as you say just looking at the kind of headlines for getting our COP from the six it does generate momentum in itself and it does create sort of it focuses minds on what we need to achieve at COP from the six. So there is an element of value added to having sort of these kind of big events where political attention is focused to that particular point in time. On the other hand I think it's fair to say that there are elements in any climate any COP agenda and also for the SP's agenda where which could be sort of be part of a process which we sort of spread throughout the year. And I mean that's something which of course parties would have to agree on which parts could be taken throughout sort of a more annual process and which parts could be need to be part of that sort of the political moment as it were. But I'd also like to come back to one point which does need mentioned and that was the sort of the value chain approach. And I think that's fine. It's an appealing thought also in terms of work at the national level. And if you allow me just sort of to think outside my national box here and just sort of thinking out loud mean let's take the transparency framework. Imagine a situation where you would have all that data reported and being available and accessible online where then any part any actor parties, non-parties, civil society, business actors could go into that data and sort of look at so what does this come to report on? What are the challenges? What are the achievements? What can we learn from each other on the kind of data which has been reported and how do we support each other in sort of implementing, accelerating implementation based on the data which is available. Now that is something which I assume would be a process which could be open-ended throughout the year. And obviously you could sort of construct moments in time where you would maybe do deep dives in a specific region or specific topics. But it's not, I would imagine an issue which you would need to come to a particular COP meeting to discuss but rather have this as an open-ended source of sharing best practice and information and making that kind of data available. So I think that kind of working method could also be part of this whole debate on moving the UNESCO policy process online and not only looking solely at the negotiations themselves but also the kind of capacity of building and sharing on best practice which is normally part of COP as well. Tasneem, that's coming back to you on that. You might want to respond or add comments but also interested in that question about whether a single COP moment is important for you to galvanize attention on the climate issue and maybe whether this value chain approach could also help draw more attention to the national process of transmitting these global goals into domestic policies at a time when we are moving towards implementation. Yeah, no, look, I mean, as I said, we have to look at and I really support the idea that we have to be agile and part of the agility would be to look at what's possible now and just this report for France, the fact that in the now we have such unbelievable problems with trust, with power dynamics, with inequities. So moving to digital in the now is not going to be feasible. There might be elements like with the SB session but there were no outcomes in the out P sessions, right? It wasn't reflected as decision-making. So that again reflects the fact that parties are not comfortable that decisions can be made virtually at this point in time. So as you build up the system, I think we will be able to figure out what is possible online. If we do take a kind of holistic view of this and we see the Paris architecture build up the kind of national, the bottom up stuff, a lot of the attention will be at that level. Maybe over time, you might want to have a big moment of reconciliation and accountability every two years, not necessarily every year, but we do need these moments of galvanizing, of building momentum, of sharpening the focus. And so maybe over time, that can be less frequent than an annual COP, but we certainly will need to keep, as I say, the feet to the fire because we are dealing with an emergency. But I think that this whole opportunity to think far more creatively and out of the box is something that I'm getting excited about and I really sincerely hope that people are going to be willing to think out of existing frames for global governance, especially for climate. Yeah, thank you Tasneem. Coming back to June and maybe following up from some earlier comments, the agendas for the COPs right now are huge. I mean, there's so many issues, not only on the political level, but just in terms of the sheer amount of technical work of finalizing negotiations and so on. I mean, in this reformed format of climate discussions, do you think there could be a more streamlined approach to what the COPs or what those moments could look like? And is there a role for the UNFCCC to maybe think about what are the issues that really need to be in the agenda and maybe what are the issues that could be pushed back to some sort of year-round discussion, maybe things that there is no sort of immediacy in having to make a decision. What do you think about that? Should we be streamlining the agendas of these regular meetings in order for it to be really transformative going forward? Thank you, Claude. I think that the term streamlining the agendas is one that has pervaded the climate process since it started. It has always been in a process of trying to streamline agendas. And there are political aspects to streamlining, there are technical aspects, but the system, the process has evolved so that we now have an agreement that is a pledge and review system. So what needs to happen is already there in the Paris Agreement and in the other treaties. The how these things need to happen is what needs to be trashed out. And with regard to agenda streamlining, I think there are two aspects to this. How these connections on the issues, because on agenda at the end of the day are issues that need to be discussed. And there are opportunities for these issues that are linked to the science to be put together in their scientific context. Those that are methodological to be put there. And of course, there are political items which the process will have to decide how it would like to deal with it. But there is an opportunity to be able to cluster issues. At the same time, we shouldn't forget that the process has also come a long way. We now have the establishment of about 20 plus committees that deal with substantive issues. So the question is, do we want to keep issues on agendas that are discussed? Or do we want to delegate this? Delegate responsibilities and substantive issues of a technical nature to existing bodies that exist. That ultimately lies in the hands of the presidencies and the chairs and the bureau. And I would like to say the chairs of the negotiating groups. I see that they have a fundamental role to also play in this socialization process. So as Tasneem said, there has to be a fundamental shift in building up the system. And in building up the system, responsibilities must come and somebody mentioned accountability also. So that goes with streamlining the agendas, putting technical work where it needs to be. And the last point I'd like to make on streamlining is not just within the climate process. Going virtual opens up a huge new world for us to streamline the ecological landscape with the biodiversity discussions, with desertification, with other processes existing in the UN with the private sector, with various stakeholders. And that has to be given a lot of importance. So the streamlining, I think needs to be considered in the context of the work that the climate process does, but also that linkages to other processes because that's where the value added comes also. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not sure if you can still hear me. I think I have problems with my mic. Can you hear me? Okay, brilliant. Thank you very much for that, June. I'm just a little bit aware of time and we are sort of edging towards the end of our conversation. I mean, one short thing I would like to come back on, which is a bit more in the sort of nitty gritty of things, but there was one thing that really struck me in that report was the principle of maybe abandoning, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And this kind of, how do we make decisions in this process going forward? And I'd be very interested in your reflections, all of you. Maybe Matthias or Tassanin, maybe Matthias, do you want to start us off? What do you think about that? Should we abandon that principle? Do we need to redesign how we make decisions within UNFCCC? Thanks, well, I'm not sure that we can, if it's feasible to take a decision to abandon such a principle because that would take a negotiation in itself, I assume. So, but definitely what the report points to is I think this possibility of looking at various types of agenda items. And I think, as someone said, sort of grouping them maybe in relation to what kind of outcomes they have. I mean, some agenda items would be maybe more focused on sort of capacity building and sharing best practice. I mean, that's not maybe for a decision to be taking sort of at the last minute in the last hours of the COP, whereas some other decisions would need to be seen as part of the package. So I think we'd need to find those specific agenda items where you could be working on a more sort of regular, maybe annual basis and others which we would need to come together on. And maybe in that, for those agenda items, that elements of sort of seeing the package would still be needed. Tasneem, what do you think about this? Everything is agreed, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Should we keep it? Should we get rid of it? Yeah, look, I must agree with Mateus now just to be pragmatic. I mean, this is actually an agenda item on the agenda of most cops. The finalization of some rule, I think. And I think Mexico keeps on putting it on the agenda. Look, I think at this point in time, getting into a big negotiation or a fight around this issue might not be helpful. And I do think if we, you know, we have to look at the spirit of what we're all trying to do in this UNFCCC. And the spirit, well, not necessarily as a spirit, but all our minds need to be focused on addressing an emergency, a global emergency. And so in that spirit, and if we had the systems that ensure transparency, that is inclusive in a way that I'm trying to present that is not just a party-driven process, but you have all of us at the table, I think that that spirit will be built up, actually. You know, people will feel less bold to try and block certain things. I mean, I can recall the time when we were pushing for, well, many parties also were pushing for the special report on 1.5, and it was blocked by one or two parties. That kind of practice will be done away with if we had the full weight of an inclusive democratic participatory process, right? All eyes are watching you. It's not going to happen in a dark corner somewhere that, you know, some big players will try and block important things, et cetera. So I think we should work on the spirit more than the letter of the law at this point in time. Hopefully over time, maybe we won't even need to have a voting system at all because we are all dedicated to sorting out the crisis. Well, thank you very much. And June, you might have some sort of very final words on how important is this legal process around the decision making? And again, like, are there any actionable measures, recommendations that you could see taking forward, for example, on this issue of decision-making online, you know, as we move on to this implementation area? Thank you. Thanks, Claire. I think that there are three issues that I think are critical as we move into, you call it an implementation phase. I call it a socialization phase. The climate change process has a culture onto itself. And therefore I do agree that this concept of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed is part of a principle. And therefore we have to distinguish between what are the principles of this process as part of its existing culture and what are the modalities that we would like to introduce as low-hanging fruits to start that movement into finding a new way of working. And we've got to get that right. If we don't get that right, then the whole system trembles. We have to show that it works and then move to a second phase and a third phase. And all these phases have to take into account some of the issues that Richard raised in his presentation, which was that the dichotomy of connectivity that we have between some countries and others. What does virtuality mean for everyone? And how to fix that? So in terms of decision-making, in moving towards the virtual platforms or digitalization of parts of the process, and I'm very careful when I say parts of the process because I am aware that there are some parts. I agree with Tasmeer that people want the big moment during a cup is to have that conversation with technology. So, and it's a reversible process. It's a process where we are thinking today with the technologies that exist, but we also have to involve the technologists there who can create a future for us, just like the iPhone analogy that was made. How can we do things for the future? We're just running it a bit at the time. But that, I think, is quite a good note on which to end this discussion section that we need to think, maybe beyond the technologies that are being used now and maybe there are ways to develop better platforms that fit for this specific purpose. So thank you very much to the three of you for this conversation. I know there was a lot more to ask in a little time, but I'm sure there will be more of this conversation going forward. To close this session today, I'm going to hand over to Cecilia Kinutian-Junger, who's the director of the Intergovernmental Support and Collective Progress at the UNFCCC, who is going to give us some reflections and take away some today's discussion. Cecilia, over to you. Thank you very much, Clore, and really exciting to be part of this and to just listen into very interesting perspectives that have been shared here. First, I'd like to thank the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Swedish government for offering this opportunity for us to engage with what will be the transformation of the future. And I think we cannot avoid, even as we speak, about the procedures and processes that govern intergovernmental processes now without thinking about the importance and the necessity that we are faced with embracing a digital option. I will use the word digital option as because as we discussed with our UK hosts and we talked virtual, they prefer the use of the word digital option and I will elaborate a little bit on what that means within the perspective of the conversation we are having now. So what opportunities do we have to embrace a digital option? And I think I'd just like to reflect a little bit on some of the panelists' views. Taslima said, we have a global emergency, we have to keep 1.5 degree alive and that's really what we need to do. And just like also to look at what was said that this is really a continuum. It's a value chain, it's not a one-time event. Going to COP26 and offering a digital option for COP26 is not an end in itself but I think a continuous process of engaging and finding a solution technologically and digitally that allows us to continue the conversation and to continue building platforms as well as positions around different aspects and issues is what would be most critical. I saw a comment by UNUS there saying that they made June experience around where the UNFCCC was quite successful and what happened? Why have we not continued with the same momentum as we move towards COP26? And I think for me, it's the whole issue and what I'm experiencing in my last one and a half months at the UNFCCC on this position is the importance of agility. Agility in the entire process but also identifying those parts of the process and particularly the political process that requires some level of agility for us to move much more quickly and engage. And I think for me the whole area of stakeholder engagement and how we broaden the space through embracing technology becomes fundamental. So first it's within intergovernmental processes but also within the way we enhance stakeholder engagement in that entire process. Leadership becomes crucial and this leadership is not just leadership in terms of technological innovation but leadership in terms of opening up that political space for negotiation but also for action. We are moving into a phase of implementation. I just recently came from being part of an implementer working in South Africa to now being part of the political process. And I must say the reason disconnect when it comes to what happens in the negotiating corridors and now we calling them the virtual corridors of negotiation to what really happens on the ground and for us to accelerate action then that connectivity must be made more visible. Of course the infrastructure needs to be robust. Participating even in a country level I had a lot of times to make space in my own office at the UN for many people to participate both non-state actors including state actors because the infrastructure they have on the ground is not robust to allow them to effectively participate. The internet connectivity whether it's Wi-Fi they're using perhaps there is a minute of delay. What does that mean when you are discussing a very important issue? There is a tendency that one could get impatient. You are disconnected for five minutes, et cetera. So again, the robustness of the infrastructure is important but as well as the capacity. I mean, there are many times you've seen people participate online and I was just reading this morning that neuroscience is teaching us that the importance of building trust goes also to do with the body language. Are you making connection? Are you speaking to the camera? Or are you speaking looking down, et cetera? And these are things and elements that needs to be brought as part and parcel of the entire package for ensuring a robust process. Secondly, how can we leverage from digital option for decision-making? And I think this is where the crux of the matter is. And June was mentioning this. Yes, we do have the governing bodies. We do have the subsidiary body chairs. We have an agenda-setting process and I'm starting to understand it as an insider now. How does this happen? How are agendas negotiated? How are agendas retained or carried forward? And I think it's a process that leads a better understanding once we start engaging on our virtual process. So it's procedural. I agree, June, very much, but it's also political. And there are aspects of organizational. Now, when we come to making decisions, if we put this in the agenda, it will be a political issue. And parties will say it's not about the technology, the technology can be the best. But if politically, that's not the aspired one and it goes on to the power relations, it goes on to the trust-building elements.  And I know Tasneem is very interested in this topic. I'll tell you today, we have over 16,000 registered for COP26. We had over 500 applications for new observers coming to us. This is the second time that we are seeing a peak in the number of observers that would like to be part and parcel of this process. And of course, the big question is, how do you enhance a participation of 3,000 observers into this kind of a process? And therefore the importance of how we can leverage from a digital option becomes very crucial. Can we be able to offer a two-way communication channel in order to enhance participation and collaboration? And I think those are the issues we are grappling with. At the moment, it is very clear that the UK host governments for COP26 has indicated for negotiations, this will have to be in-person, and therefore no negotiations would be undertaken through a virtual platform. But for the non-state actors, when it comes to the global action program and when it comes to the other side events, a two-way communication system and option will be offered. But I think for me at the end of the day, and I'd like to end with this, process, procedures, rules are made by us. They're made by human beings, they're made by governments, they're made by parties. I think there is an opportunity for us to rethink, remodernize how we are making these rules of procedures in order to enhance the very principles we talk about. It's about transparency. It's about inclusion and inclusiveness. It's about equity. But it's also about the way we conduct our power relations and more importantly, within the words of the sustainable development rules, we need to leave no one behind and we need to leave no issue behind. And that's the only way that collaboratively we can be able to embrace a digital option and reach a desired outcome. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Cecilia, for the insightful closing comments. And thank you to all of you where we've gone five minutes over time. Apologies for my timekeeping, but there was so much to discuss and I'm sure there will be many more questions being raised on this issue. We haven't mentioned the carbon footprint radio view in the Czechoslovakia. We know there will be interesting conversations to be asked to freedom of the environment ministry. I'm sure that have the intent to take this report forward. So make sure you read it and please keep in the loop of this conversation. I'd like to thank you all of you for participating in this event. Many thanks to the State Secretary, all of our panelists and Cecilia for providing these closing remarks. Some just to remind you that this event was recorded. The recording will be made available as soon as possible and the link will be shared with all registered participants. You can follow SEI on social media at SDIclimate on Twitter and the website is SEI.org. As I say, it'll be interesting to see how this discussion is taken forward in the months and years ahead. And if you want to keep on top of all that's going on and I'm sure we'll be following this process closely, please do check out Climate Home News. We're at Climate Home News, we're Climate Home, sorry, on Twitter and climatehomenews.com online. My name is Chloe Farrand and it was a pleasure to have you today with us. Thank you so much for all of you for taking part.


Hello, let us have a look at how the loads acting on the aircraft are estimated or specified for various conditions. There are essentially four type of loads. One is the air loads which basically come because of the relative motion between the aircraft and the ambient air. There are inertia loads which come due to changes in the acceleration to which the aircraft is imposed. There are power plant loads which come due to the operation of the power plant and there are miscellaneous loads which are categorized under others. Under the air loads, we have maneuver loads, gust loads, buffet loads and the control deflection or the loads due to control deflection. Under the power plant load, we have the thrust, the torque, the gyroscopic moment, vibration because of the oscillations, the pressure on the ducts, hammer shock, scissor and propeller blade loss. Under inertia loads, we have loads because of acceleration, because of rotation, because of the dynamic motion, vibrations and flutter. Under others, we have the loads acting due to towing, due to jacking of the aircraft, because of the cabin pressurization, because of the bird strike, because of the control system actuation, loads acting during crashes and load because of the fuel pressure. So, the various components of the aircraft and the various systems of the aircraft, they have to be designed to keep in mind that all these kinds of loads, they are able to carry within the specified limits. Let us take for example, the loads acting during landing and takeoff. During takeoff, there could be three kinds of load. One is the load acting when you have a catapult takeoff. In a catapult takeoff, you provide energy to the aircraft, you literally throw it with some force and this force is provided by the catapult. Most of these cases are applicable for aircraft which are launched on the air carriers, on the naval air carriers. Catapults are generally steam powered or they could also be powered by other means. During aborted takeoff, when you have to stop the takeoff and abort it for a safety issue, there will be huge loads acting on the landing gear because of the braking and then there are loads acting during taxiing when you have a takeoff. Now, the taxi loads have to take care of loads acting when there are bumps as well as load acting when there are turnings. When you come into land, various types of loads have to be incorporated in the testing. The first is the vertical load factor which acts when you come into land because you are transforming the aircraft from a flying vehicle in the air to one that moves on the ground. So, during the transition from air to ground, there will be impact and that impact will lead to a vertical load factor. The normal value of this vertical load factor could be around 1.5 to 2 even higher. Then you have spin up and spring back loads when suddenly the aircraft during landing the aircraft, the landing gear is normally stored inside and when you bring it down at that time you can have spin up and spring back loads. The landing could happen with crabbed conditions. So, it is that leads to the loads, side loads. You may have landing on one wheel instead of multiple wheels. You may have an arrested landing in which the aircraft engages with a cable on the ship after coming into land and that cable actually absorbs all the energy and brings the aircraft to stop in a small distance and then there are loads acting because of the braking. So, we can see here the landing loads can be very high and they can also vary as a function of time. At this point, we need to understand the difference between two important terms, the limit load and the ultimate load. The limit load also called as the applied load is essentially the largest load that you expect the aircraft's component to sustain during its normal service life. The ultimate load or the design load basically is the largest load that it can take without braking. So, in between the two of them, we have the factor of safety. So, the ultimate load will be factor of safety times higher than the limit load. The typical value of factor of safety for aircraft is 1.5, but there are cases when you use load factors of as low as 1.1 and in some cases we also use slightly higher load factors. This value has come from the ratio of the ultimate tensile load and the yield load of standard aluminum alloy which was used in the aircraft. So, from there, we have this value of 1.5. Let us look at the limit loads which typical limit load that act on a fighter aircraft. So, starting from the yaw, so when the aircraft is in a vertical condition in a level flight and you have a very high speed let us say Mach number is 0.9 and at that condition you are now exposing the aircraft to yawing. At that time, there will be heavy load acting on the vertical tail. Inside the fuselage, you are going to have fuel pressure.  Now, the inboard wing wing is going to be exposed to a lot of compressive load during flight and that can cause buckling. Similarly, there can be a spring back because of landing. There could be loads on the inlet because of the sudden motion of air. The nose boom is going to get some load and that load you can notice there are different values specified for various conditions. So, if you look at the regulatory bodies, they specify the typical limit load factors. Now, here we are talking about the vertical load factor. Depending on the category of the aircraft, the different vertical load factors are specified. And notice that the load factors are specified for positive as well as negative conditions and generally the load factors on the negative side are typically half the value of the values of the maximum positive load factor. So, you can see a typical aircraft is subjected to various kinds of loads. There will be a distributed loads because of the lift on the wing. There will be concentrated loads because of external stores mounted on the aircraft. There also will be loads on the wheel on the sides because of turning. The distributed load will have a distribution along the span and also along the chord as shown here. When the aircraft is on the ground, you can have loads because of the towing and catapulting. You will have normal force acting on the landing gear when it comes in for at landing both main and the nose landing gear. There will be braking loads acting on the main landing gear when you are trying to reduce the landing distance. There will be rolling fiction acting on the wheels when you are taking off. There will be a load because of the arresting gear on the aircraft when you are using it on naval air carrier. There will be loads because of the thrust that the engine produces. There will be loads because of the control forces that you create. There will be a load because of the lift to overcome the weight. There will be a load because of drag acting on the aircraft and there will be an increase in the load because of the maneuver. And there is always a dynamic pressure acting on the aircraft as it flies. So, all these are going to be considered when we do the design of the aircraft. So, the loads could be either distributed or concentrated. The distributed loads generally are the ones which are spread over the aircraft surface. Normally, these are the aerodynamic loads which come because of the pressures and the shear stresses. They are generally non-uniform and unsteady. You also have concentrated or point loads which are applied at few discrete locations. The examples are catapult loading, the arresting of the aircraft or towing of the aircraft on the ground, the load acting because of external stores and the landing gear loads especially when you come in at land. So, for estimation of point loads, there are certain standard formulae which are specified. For example, the load that is expected to be carried by a system where you have towing on the ground is half the aircraft weight. Similarly, there are certain suggestions available for how to estimate the value of the loads. Now, please note that the aerodynamic loading can also lead to point load sometimes. For example, the control or lifting surface attachment point because of the lift distribution, it will actually lead to a concentrated load. Let us look at the landing load because the landing loads generally have the highest magnitude among all the point loads. For a ship based aircraft, the vertical load factor at landing is assumed to be 4 because the landing gear is going to operate in a scenario when the aircraft is coming down and the ship is also moving up. The landing gear is supposed to absorb the vertical kinetic energy that is acting on the aircraft. And the sink speed of the aircraft, the effective sink speed is a very big factor that affects the landing gear load or the vertical load. The sink speed is assumed to be 4 meter per second square for land based aircraft and 8 meter per second for the ship based aircraft. Also notice that when there is no load, the landing gear is extended and when there is load acting on it, the landing gear actually deflects. And under the maximum load condition, the landing gear should be able to withstand the loads. Power plant also leads to a large amount of loading on the aircraft. The engine mounts must withstand many loads. They should withstand the loads because of thrust during normal flight. Then when the propellers stop or are wind milling, there will be a drag. Then the engine also has a weight and when you go into maneuvers, there will be a maneuver load acting on this because of the load factor. There are lateral loads also which are nearly one third of the vertical loads. There are gyroscopic loads because the engine consists of rotating parts. For a propeller driven aircraft, we have to assume some factor of safety which will be the engine torque times the factor of safety which could be 2, 3, 4 depending on the number of cylinders. And for a jet engine aircraft, you will have loads acting on the intake because air will be literally brought to maybe brought to rest when it is coming inside the engine intake. The deflection of the control surfaces also creates loads because it changes the lift and the drag distribution. So, we have to be very careful that the control surfaces are deflected only below a speed at which it can take the load. There is a maximum speed at which the controls can be fully deflected. There is also a maximum speed for the flap deflection and these limit loads are mentioned in the control manual. We have to also keep in mind how much load can be expected to be given by the a typical pilot in a system where there is no assistance available from this flight control system. Then inertial loads are because of the resistance of the mass due to acceleration. Every component actually faces inertial load factor while flying and while maneuvering. The wing weight will produce torsional load on the wing and a special case of acceleration would be vibration and flutter. Also, keep in mind that there will be huge inertial loads also because of the rotation of the aircraft during maneuvers. For example, if you have tip tanks or missiles on an aircraft and this aircraft enters a large rolling rate, those will lead to huge inertial loads. We have seen already that the aerodynamic loads could be symmetrical or unsymmetrical. Symmetrical when you have no deflection of control surfaces, but when we have deflection of other ones for example, you can get an asymmetric load. Now, when you want to estimate the load distribution over a wing of a given platform, one easy approximation that we should use is called as a shrinks approximation, but this is applicable only for conventional unswept wings with aspect ratio between 5 and 12. What this approximation says is that the load distribution on an untwisted wing or a tail, it has a shape that is an average of 2. One is the average of the actual platform shape and the elliptical shape of the same span and area, but the requirement is that the total area under the lift load curve must be, must sum as the required lift. So, in other words, you can use this method for estimating the load which is acting on a particular wing of a given geometry. Gust loads are acting because of the atmospheric disturbances. The earth surface is heated unevenly and behind a large aircraft there is always the wake vortex which can also create two disturbed loads. The design condition for which we design the aircraft is a abrupt vertical gust also called as a sharp edge gust. So, essentially if the aircraft is flying level at a particular velocity v infinity and if there is a vertical gust vg acting that particular vertical gust it leads to an effective increase in the angle of attack by an amount delta alpha and hence it leads to additional lift. So, the small angle delta alpha is actually almost equal to the ratio of the vertical gust velocity and the forward velocity. So, the delta l created can be easily estimated and with that you can get the value of delta n. So, the delta n or the additional load factor because of the vertical gust, we can notice it is a function of the lift curve slope, gust velocity, aircraft velocity, density and the wing loading of the aircraft. So, aircraft which have got a very high wing loading for a given amount of vertical gust they will encounter lower delta nz. So, aircraft with large wing loading are less prone to vertical loads because of the gusts. So, the total load factor that is acting because of the gust will be the summation of the load factor in level flight which is 1 plus delta n and there is a factor called kg. This kg factor is basically meant to take care of the fact that the real life gusts are seldom sharp edged, they are normally not sharp edged, but they are having some kind of a variation. So, as I mentioned higher w by s gives better ride quality. So, if you have a low speed aircraft with a very high wing loading, the delta n experienced by it for a given gust velocity is going to be lower. Thank you for your attention.


Wrong screen. What's up, everyone? It's your girl, Kenzie here from Layton Sports Guards and I'm ripping 2022 Panini Mose football hobby three box break number 29. Pick your team got Adam R Jets, Bruce B with the Dolphins, Cardinals, Browns and Broncos, Bryce S Jags, Diego I Niners, Jackson T Rams, Joe M Patriots, Jonathan J Bears, Joseph C Steelers, Josh T Bucks, Kevin C Colts and Giants, Michael K Bills, Michael C Lyons, Misty J Chiefs, Nicholas H Vikings, Patrick I Bangles and Raiders, Sean H Texans and Seahawks, Steven H Eagles, Taylor W Chargers, Trey S Cowboys, Todd C with the Panthers in Washington, Tony P with the Packers and Saints and Titans and Victor F with the Ravens and William T with the Falcons. Alrighty, here we go. Last break of the day. Again, if you wanted some more group breaks, Sam will be live here in about an hour and a half for more breaks tonight. No hunting. No, not all night. That would be a long shift. Very long shift. There we go. Sam will be live at five. More more breaks tonight. Football, basketball, baseball, soft debut. Rock pretty on the mosaic. Nice one there Niners. Austin Eckler silver, James Cook blue chips and overdrive silver Clinton Portis. Got Kevon Thibodeau, Malik Willis. We've got red and Jeremy Ruckert rookie auto. For the Jets. Jets, Darnell Mooney mosaic, red, Tyler Lockett and men of mastery, Titans, Derek Henry, Drake London on the introductions. Desmond Ritter debut, Joe Montana, Skymore, Calvin Austin, Cortland Sutton mosaic, red Drake Jackson Niners, Williams and center stage Joe Montana. Walker, Kate York mosaic chase young silver Dak Prescott, Derek Carr, Silver Jonathan Taylor montage, Traylin Berks, Quay Walker, we've got mosaic Cooper Cup on the Super Bowl MVP, red Nick Chubb, Mike Jones, Micah Parsons, Duffy, David Bell, Nico Collins mosaic. We've got blue Russell Wilson. For the Broncos, that's 77 of 99. Josh Allen and silver in it to win it Aaron Donald. Breece Hall debut, Stingling, Max Crosby mosaic. We've got silver Patrick Mahomes, Malik Willis blue chips and Montage mosaic Dak Prescott. Drake London debut, Lynn Dawson, Ruckert Gordon, Cameron Jordan, Durwin James Jr. Silver, Street Fire Justin Herbert, Cameron Thomas, we've got mosaic of Trent Williams, red Tom Brady Super Bowl MVP Patriots on that one. Herbert and Pete Manning, Silver Stairmaster. Kenny Pickett debut, Evnera Bears, Dotson, we've got nice Drake London on the red auto. There you go, Falcons on the color match. Very nice. What's red to that? That's not number. Not number? No. Silver Rookie mosaic, James Cook for the Bills, Silver Rookie of Davis Price. It's all in first box there. Nice color. Concerts. Bellinger, Aiden Hutchinson Rookie mosaic, Drake London Falcons, Silver CMC blue ships London and Silver Stairmasters Tom Brady, Breece Hall debut, Laughness Rodriguez, Deshaun Watson mosaic, red Marvin Jones Jr. Travis Kelsey blue in it to win it Cooper cup for the Rams on the color match. That's 50 of 99. Tony Woods, Williams, we've got blue Eric Dickerson, Rams 12 out of 99, Silver Eli Mitchell in it to win it Silver Reggie Wayne, Willis debut, Traylin Burks, Corey Walker, Kyle Hamilton Rookie mosaic, Silver AJ Dillon, Brady and Mack Jones mosaic. Booth Jr. Alec Pierce, they've got mosaic Rookie, Nakobi Dean, red Aiden Hutchinson Rookie, Lyons, Reggie Wayne in it to win it mosaic. Desmond Ritter Rookie, Austin, they've got mosaic Rookie, Jerome Ford, Christian Watson debut red, Silver Montage, Trevor Lawrence, Chris Olave debut, Skymore, Calvin Austin. And we have a Traylin Burks on the mosaic Rookie Otto Titans, Traylin Burks mosaic. Trevor Lawrence on the second year, Brian Robinson Jr. Silver Commanders. King York spoiled that one. Amy and Harris who've got cold Jalen Ramsey. That looks sick with the colors. Sick color. That is really nice. Eight out of 10 for the Rams. Nice one there LA. You're not seeing him in the playoffs. Yeah. Silver Swagger, Kyler Murray. Hamilton. Wanda Robinson. Got mosaic Otto, David and Jabbo. Jabbo for the Ravens. AJ Brown mosaic, red TJ Watt. Last pack box two. Jabbo. Got mosaic Chris Jones, Silver Lawrence Taylor, Cooper Cup and overdrive of Eric Dickerson. All right. Huh? All right. Box three. Like Willis debut. Corral, Dak Crestcott mosaic, Silver Justin Fields. Mahomes and Swagger Silver Patrick Mahomes. James Cook, Bellinger, Aiden Hutchinson Rookie. We've got mosaic Otto of Kevin Harris for the Patriots. River Key Otto. Isaiah Spiller mosaic, Eric Dickerson red. That crowd blue chips. Eckler. That sauce right here. Gulich. Mosaic Evan Neil, Willis Jones Jr. on the red mosaic. Bayer. Mahomes Rod Smith mosaic and it's a win it. Chris Olave debut. Johnston, the second, Robert Quinn mosaic, Silver Ingram Rookie and Silver Men of Mastery Joe Montana. Tray McBride. Debo mosaic, red James Robinson for the Jacks. Calvin Cook and nice storm chasers. Aaron Rodgers. There you go Packers on the case hit. Green Bay is Tony P. There you go Tony. Tony's having a great day of some football. Congrats on that one. Wilson debut. Force Buckner mosaic. How about white mosaic Terry Bradshaw. Six out of 25 it looks cool too. Nice one there for the Steelers. John Elway and center stage Silver of Randall Cunningham. Kate Aughton mosaic. Hassan Haskins Titans. Silver rookie of Brian Cook for the Chiefs. Drake London mosaic introductions. Laughness Rodriguez. Got Mark Andrews mosaic. Fletcher Cox Silver. Debo swagger mosaic. Jay Jeff. John Dodson, Jelani Woods, Jameson Williams mosaic. Miles Sanders. Red Berry Sanders. Honeycomb rookie of Jerome Ford for the Browns. Wow two case hits in one box. There you go Browns on the Honeycomb. I haven't seen too many of those. And introduction Silver, Jameson Williams. Last pack. We've got nice for the Saints Chris Alave. Chris Alave rookie auto. There you go Saints. Silver Manning. I go from about a sleeping card to trying to double sleep. Just hit it that time. Don't sleep this. That's funny. All right, let's do a quick recap here. We had the Storm Chasers case hit of Aaron Rodgers for the Packers. Gold Jalen Ramsey for the Rams. We had David O'Jobbo rookie auto. Ravens. Traylin Burt's Titans. We had the Drake London Red for the Falcons. Rucker Jets. Kevin Harris. Patriots. Chris Alave for the Saints. And the Honeycomb of Jerome Ford for the Browns. All righty that will do it for Mosaic today. Thanks again everyone. More group breaks coming up later tonight.


Hi, everyone. My name is Olivia Nadebaum and it's lovely to be with you here today at Slush. I am the CRO of Notion and responsible for the go-to-market functions. Today I'm going to be talking about how you organize your company for scale around community. Not just how you engage your community externally, but also how you build your company from the inside out focused on community. For those of you unfamiliar with Notion, Notion's mission is to empower everyone to be a toolmaker, to make sure that anyone can create and manage projects, documents, tasks in the way that they want to do it. And this is very important to me as an individual, as someone who doesn't code themselves this spirit and mission of Notion, of truly empowering people to create the work flows that they need to do to get their work done is something that's truly inspirational. Notion's mission is also very international. So 80% of our users are outside of the United States. And here in Europe we see about 35% of our monthly active users here today. And we just opened our headquarters for Emia in Dublin, which is really exciting and I actually flew in from there yesterday visiting the team there. So let's dive in and talk about how you structure a company around community. Who here knows what this app is? Really? No one? TikTok, yes. Who here makes enterprise SaaS decisions based on this app? Yeah, right. So I'm going to try to weave this into the conversation today and talk to you about community. So growth is something I've thought a lot about. Actually, in 2014, I co-authored an article called Grow Fast or Die Slow. And there were four key insights at the time. Actually, now they seem rather obvious, but at the time we thought it was pretty revolutionary. The first was that growth begets great returns. So a company that's growing at over 60%, as they hit 100 million in ARR, are actually five times more likely to even make it to a billion dollars. And not only that, they're also valued at eight times companies who are growing at even a moderate pace of 20% to 60%. The other one that we saw is that growth is hard to maintain. So companies that were pacing over 60% growth were actually only able to make it through that gauntlet to a billion dollars at the same pace of growth about one fifth of the time. So a very small fraction of companies who are in hyperscale when they're young and small are actually able to maintain that growth. And then finally, what did we found? We found that one point of growth is worth two points of margin. So if you're making a trade-off between driving growth and earning margin, the takeaway is definitely drive growth, invest in growth. So that takes us still to, well, how do you drive growth? Four years later, there was a Silicon Valley episode titled Grow Fast or Die Slow, and here you see the founders realizing that they are about to have to run this growth gauntlet. And so let's look at some numbers. Right now, there are about 20,000 startups pre-IPO out there in the SaaS world. Only about 1,000 of those have made it to $150 million. Sorry that I'm using dollars and not Euro, but hopefully you get the gist. And then all the way through, you see there's 50 companies making it to a billion dollars in revenue. And if you look into the public markets, only nine companies have made it to $5 billion in revenue over the course of that period. So this really underscores the need to drive growth and continue to drive growth. I would posit there have been three waves of growth. First is top down. Second is bottom up, what's typically called product-led growth. And the third is community-led growth. And that's the one that I want to talk about today. All right, so top down, this is a classic sales model. Think of Salesforce, think of SAP.  This had its time, I would say now we're much more in a world of users having a voice in the tools that they use. In fact, now more so than ever, you see that users are coming into the enterprise and talking about the solution that they want to use and decision makers are listening. And they're actually basing their decisions off of what these users are telling them. But then there's the third wave. Does anyone know where this wave is? The biggest wave in the world, does anyone know? Off the coast of Nazaré in Portugal, the 100-foot wave. So I would posit that community-led growth is the most valuable wave of them all. So it's great that you can build a product, but more importantly, you need other people to be talking about how good it is to use your product. So community, how do you actually organize your company to leverage community and scale your product and your product reach around each stage of the funnel? I care deeply about the funnel. I'm responsible for go-to-market, so my life kind of goes in this order. So at the top, we have raising awareness. How do you use your ambassadors to actually extend your reach? Then we have, in the middle part of the funnel, actually making activation occur and conversion, so enabling your community to extend and educate and inspire. And then finally, driving expansion. So how do you actually have consultants out there in the world doing the implementation and doing the teaching about how to use your product in an effective way? So raising awareness, let's start at the top. Here, all of us are trying to write blogs, write posts, talk about how wonderful our product is. But we all know in our hearts that a raw Instagram video of someone talking about how amazing your product is is far more valuable than anything you'll write as a company. And if you think about that, that job of raising awareness, you're small, you don't have a ton of resources, you want to spend all your time writing articles so you'll get that SEO lift, or you want to spend money on SEM so you get that paid lift, or you're trying to tab events and get more and more people in the door. But actually, what you should be doing is building a community and scaling through a community. So let's talk about that. I'll give you a little bit of the history of Notion. So this was an early slack. Early on our head of community, Ben Lang, noticed that there were about 10 people who were passionate about Notion. And they were everywhere. One was in Paris, one was in Korea, all over the globe. And what he did was he reached out to them and he actually created an early ambassador community and created a scrappy slack channel and he started having them share with each other what they loved about the product, what were they doing, how were they driving people to engage with them. And what you see is here are some early pictures. This is a pop-up hangout of Notion lovers in Seoul, Korea. And then here's another one in Paris, France. And so what Notion did early on, and this was led by someone called Camille Ricketts, who's amazing, she's our current head of brand communications, and Ben Lang is on the community team and drives it with Francisco, is they leaned in and they found people who loved the product. Not only did they get to know these people, but they got to know what they cared about. What were they trying to do? What were their passions in life? And this became a full-time job. So it was a full-time job engaging people who were passionate about the Notion product. And what did it turn into? It turned into over 200 ambassadors, over 23 countries, who were out there telling the Notion story. And it was really rooted in two things. And it was all about getting to know the individual person. What were they trying to build? One of two things. They were either trying to build a platform so they wanted to have a voice in the world or they were trying to build a business and they were trying to monetize that. And that was equally exciting for us because for us that provided us an extension of our company and they were out there in the world driving Notion on our behalf. So here's another example of how not only is it the folks who are head of the community in your organization, but also the founders themselves. So Ivan and Simon are co-founders of Notion, two incredible people and just wonderful to work with. And they regularly tweeted when they were going somewhere to talk about who wants to engage with us, who wants to give us feedback on our products. This is an example of actually a tweet that our COO Akshay sent out saying, hey, we're gonna be in Singapore. And sure enough in the driving rain, 20 people gathered to give Ivan and Akshay feedback on how they could do better with the product. What were the things that excited them? What did it take? And this is back in 2019. And all of that was flowing into how we thought about product development, how we thought of engagement and how overall our users were coming through to us. Now, if you fast forward two years, our subreddit is about 162,000 people in our subreddit channel. And that's actually moderated not by people that we pay, but actually by ambassadors who have raised their hand and said, this is what I wanna do. And it's because we've been with them all those years and really leaned into them that's gotten them to support us in this way.  Here's our Facebook group in Korea. And this is actually an interesting story. We launched a localized app in Korea last year. We don't have anyone on the ground in Korea. And in fact, it was people in the community who were doing all the press interviews. So there were ambassadors in Korea answering questions for 8,000 people live during these press interviews just as an extension of the company that was Notion. And here's another example of our Facebook group in Vietnam numbering over 186,000 people. Okay, so I promised I would bring it back to TikTok. Can you hear this? No, okay. Well, I'll voice it over. This is, it was a very passionate student talking about how they use Notion to do everything they need to do. And the fun part about this is last night when I was checking into events, someone's like, oh, Olivia Notabomb, Notion, I love Notion. I use it to do absolutely everything. And that was someone I was like, oh, really? Where are you? They're like, wow, I'm a student, right? So that voice, that passion has just met the world to us and we're so grateful for people who are every day talking about Notion and making TikTok videos of Notion with over a million views, really incredible. Okay, so here's another example of someone who helps us on the top part of the funnel. So again, driving awareness. This is Marie Poulin. She has 25,000 followers on YouTube and she makes a living out of tutorials on Notion. We take no cut of that. We don't try to monetize that in any way. In fact, the opposite. We advocate for her. We extend her messaging. We make sure people know when she's putting on events and we really try to act as a force behind her because we know that she's gonna be the strongest voice for Notion on behalf of Notion rather than Notion trying to convince people ourselves. All right, so getting into the mid part of the funnel. So increasing conversion and activation. I think we all know that when someone lands on our website, the next thing we have to do is actually to show value, right? It's very easy for someone to land and then turn off and you'll probably never see them again. So how do you quickly show users value? For this, the example here is tutorials. I'm sure many of you have tutorials somewhere on your website, right? This is pretty standard. In fact, we're not the first people to think of this. Google used this very early days in the era of search, of cloud search and crowd-based answers, but this is taking it to a whole new level.  This is August Bradley. He has 44,000 YouTube followers and he actually sells workshops and makes hundreds of thousands of dollars teaching people how to use Notion. And what's great about that is you can search how I use Notion and up-pop these various people who are helping users day-to-day actually drive an understanding and value of our product. And then here's the next level, which is teachers teaching teachers. So here's an example of a tutorial on how you teach others how to use Notion. So it's really reached a whole new heights and we could not be more grateful for our community and what they're doing there. And you see it in various forms.  So this is our template gallery. We relaunched this last month and we've had over a million downloads of these templates. And the beautiful thing about this is, yes, we put in some templates ourselves, but actually it's creators and members of our community who are putting in these templates and monetizing them. So you can go buy a Notion template on Etsy. How cool is that, right? And we don't try to take a cut of it. We are excited and delighted when people are making money on the back of Notion because we know that they'll continue to do that. It's aligned with their interests and our interests and it really helps us drive the business and scale overall. And here's a final example of someone who's made tens of thousands of dollars just on a newsletter template and she's done a magnificent job and she continues to be able to monetize it. Okay, next part of the funnel. So driving upgrade and expansion. So this is all about how do you make sure that once folks are using your product, how do they continue to get value out of it? How do they do the right implementations? How do they vary the use cases? And how do you make sure that it can extend wall-to-wall in the places that you've land? For this, we actually use consultants. So not our own professional services team. We have no one in professional services at Notion. It's purely this global ecosystem of consultants. And if you go to our homepage, we provide their names. We provide their way to access them. And actually we are more than delighted to connect our customers to these folks. And I would say every week I meet another small boutique firm who's deciding that they're gonna build their business on the back of Notion, which is just wonderful to see. And we've been launching sales plays of certain things that we're trying to put into the market. And these boutiques are saying like, absolutely we'll work with you and we're feeding them customers, right? So it's a very symbiotic relationship. And then finally we have the global team champions. And that's a very important part of the puzzle for us in helping us scale. These are the people inside the companies where we've landed who are our advocates. Often they're the ones who have actually brought Notion into the company. And they're there to explain and assist all of the users of Notion at their company. Now they also have a day job, but we make it very, very easy for them to have access to new information, to have access to the things that they care about and the users that the company care about. So they feel like they can really always be the one that's in the know and taking that uses to the next level. Okay, so to recap, there are three steps that I'd love to make sure that you leave with today. The one is top of funnel. So how do you use a community and a set of people that are not actually within your own company to extend your story? First you have to identify those people and you have to make sure that you really leaned into them, that you understand what it is that they care about and you are engaging in the topics that they care about. And this really goes so far as to know their dog's name, whether they're married, where they live. Every time we add a new ambassador at Notion, they get introduced the entire company, of which we only have 200 people and there's a big celebration that these new folks are part of the extended family of Notion. So it's really something to be treasured and something we're deeply, deeply appreciative of. The second part is the mid funnel. This is where you extend your distribution in terms of teaching people use cases and making sure that people know how to use your product. For us it is template gallery and for other people it might be other things depending on where you are in your life cycle. But this has been a very important step for us overall. We only have less than 10 customer success people. We do not have an army of go-to-market people and yet we have 20 million users worldwide. So this community has really offered an amazing, amazing amplification of everything that you need to be thinking about in convincing people that your product is valuable and that you can drive valuable use cases through it. And then bottom of the funnel. So here giving your community the tools to make sure that they can really get the most out of your product and again in our case it took the form of consultants and ambassadors and champions but it might take the form of something different depending where you are in your life cycle. And more importantly it's really about choosing the community that's right for you. So Notion is a product that spans consumer all the way to teams, right? So you have individual use cases but you also have team use cases and so it's been really important that we identify folks who are using it across that spectrum. And in fact there's a simple paradigm that I like to think about when thinking about how you use community to scale your company. And not surprisingly I spent 13 years at McKinsey's so it's a quadrant with two axes and if you think about the B to C part of it, right? If you are early in your pre-product market fit and you're more of a B to C oriented company here you think about focus groups. So really getting out there and understanding what is it that users of your product would like to see more from your product. This was a very powerful tool in the early days of Notion. Every tweet that was sent to Notion was recorded and tagged and that still occurs today. So actually every time we go to do a feature launch we are sending out personalized notes to every single person who is asked for that feature. That's how deeply interested and curious we are in that feedback. And it's also the beauty of these uncurated forums, right? Because people know that we're listening to them and because they know that we're not forcing only a positive conversation, they actually really do voice the things that they'd like to see about the product and they give helpful suggestions. And we take that very seriously. So this element of using community as your extension we have no research team, this is our research team, this is how we scale. These focus groups are the ones telling us what we need to do in order for them to get value out of the product. Then next if your post product market fits so you're kind of on a roll and people seem to love the product and you're still more B2C oriented is this ambassadors point that I've spoken about but also creators, right? So enabling these creators to create these templates and then monetize is something that's really special. We have them as part of our ecosystem but really as part of our extended company and they are monetizing and making money and again, we take no cut of that. We're just enabling them. And then we are early in this, frankly as we go more into B2B and more into enterprise something like a customer advisory board is also an extension of your community. We're very early in that but classically you have a set of CIOs who are there who are willing to spend the time to talk about what they need to see out of that enterprise tool so it can fit in their enterprise environment. And this is something to wade into very importantly and we have now what we call a lighthouse account group and we have customers who have over a thousand users telling us, okay, what is it that they need as they use our product at scale? And then finally, if again, you've post product market and you're on the larger enterprise side leaning into those consultants and leaning into those champions because the champions are the one in those companies that are there to tell you what else you need to do in order to still drive value and consultants are truly an extension of your company because they're the ones actually helping with implementations, helping with imports from one tool to another and it's been a lovely way to actually leverage that broader community. Okay, finally, lessons from the road. The first is community drives the rapid adoption for you if you want your product led company to scale. So I think about you have to build a beautiful product but what does it actually take to win? What it takes to win is to have someone else talking about how great your product is because you need to drown out the noise of everything else that's going on in the market and what could be more compelling than a user out there telling the world what they love about your product. The second is to really align your interests with the interests of your community members, right? So what is it that they're trying to get done? Are they trying to build a platform? Are they trying to build a business? How do you actually help them? So an example of this is I showed the picture of someone in Korea, that group in Korea. Well, every time they wanted to host a pop-up we paid for the venue, we paid for the drinks or whatever it may be, right? This is not a huge expense but at the end of the day not something they could pay for themselves but as a result they continue to do that and they continue to host friends, they continue to host people they knew and they in fact were hosting events on our behalf and all we were doing were this like pretty minor investment in terms of funding it and making sure they had access to information. The third is building distribution networks for education and inspiration. So this education part is really important. We always make sure that our community has more information than the average user. So we give them early access to roadmaps. We have AMAs so ask me anything with Ivan and Simon who are the co-founders and Michael Manapat who's our excellent head of engineering. So we are providing them access and early access to everything that we're thinking about at Notion. And that is really important for them to be able to turn around and then educate the market. The fourth point is empowering your community members to actually serve your customers. So this is an example of our community members working directly with our customers and us not insisting on being the middleman. We are just trying to provide this beautiful tool that enables everyone and empowers everyone to be a tool maker. We don't need to be the middleman in making sure that the implementation that they want to do with a consultant goes perfectly well. We leave that up to the high quality consultants that have built their businesses around it. And then another point here is don't try to regulate your community. Don't try to censor it. So one of the things that I think is very true today more than ever is how valuable it is to be genuine. So the second users feel like they're being exposed to a channel or a narrative that's overly curated where no opposing voice is allowed, they drop out. They're no longer interested because then they feel what they're engaging is completely manufactured and fake. So it's really, really important to allow these forums to really have every voice that they want to have and be a listener into that forum and not try to control it. And finally, start and stay scrappy. So an example there was, okay, we found 10 people who love Notion. Ben Lang did this smart thing of putting them all in a Slack channel so that they could learn from each other so that they could exchange ideas, constantly be innovating and thinking about that. So someone thought of doing this template gallery. That's valuable too. And we link to creators who are then selling it on Etsy and in other places as well. So really trying new ideas and making sure that you're always bubbling them up to your community. And then finally, it's all about being grateful. We could not be more grateful for our community. It's truly as a result of our community that Notion has 20 million users today. It's something that's pretty awe-inspiring. And when you see what people do with your product, ways that you could have never possibly imagined yourself as you're sitting in a team room thinking about use cases, it's really allowing that to really bloom and flower and then being incredibly, incredibly appreciative of everything that your community has done. So with that, I wish you all the best. It's very hard being in startup land. It's not always easy to get it right, but I definitely recommend leaning into community. It's something that we hold very dear at Notion. Thank you.