G1:1 emerged naturally after a sequence of interactions and idea exchanges. There have been pieces of ideas around in the first WMTE and G4P, in email discussions and more ideas were collected during the visits of the delegation. Below are some of these ideas:

1. Dillenbourg and Hinrichs found that mobile and wireless technologies are interesting, important, and exciting because they can change the behavior of classroom teaching and learning. Roschelle in his talk at G4P made similar statement.
2. A number of 1:1 computing examples were reported at the first WMTE. The work at National Central University by Chan and his colleagues, say, is one of such examples. In that example, every student uses a web-pad (a subsequent version using a tablet PC) while the teacher uses an electronic whiteboard in some elementary classrooms in Taipei City. Students and teacher are highly interactively communicating with each other. Learning in such a classroom takes the form of a full class, small groups or individual interactions.
3. Hoppe, from the very beginning of his career in this field, has designed various devices and environments to support classroom activities, both in kindergarten and university levels. He is now interested to develop a set of powerful modeling tools used in different devices to support learning. Their university has a Notebook University Project, in which each student of a specified population of their university students acquired notebook. His group is also interested in exploring use of cellular phones in classrooms.
4. Roschelle proposed an idea of using Tablet PC for formal and informal learning in a university course.
5. Soloway proposed an idea of pilot classrooms focusing on one grade in which all subjects will use technology. Different continents may have similar pilot classrooms and collaborate together. These pilot classrooms project will put forward a set of challenges. There should be a set of strategies to meet the goal of this study. The project should be highly visible with an independent committee of reviewers. Soloway advocates use of Palm or Pocket PC.
6. Pea has conducted a project of learning mathematical functions.
7. Dillenbourg is interested in exploring mobility in CSCL research and how university students may use some very innovative cellular phone project being developed in his university.
8. Canny (Berkeley University) is interested to have every student use a Tablet PC in a lecture hall.
9. Kinshuk is interested in mobile technologies and intelligent agents. In Hong Kong, he pointed out that G1:1 is feasible and we do not have to wait for funding to start off the project. He thinks that the second G4P should proceed with the detail planning of that project. Also, he is interested to establish a Component Exchange Center at the Center of his university.
10. Ran-Fung Chiu of HP Lab advised National Central University to make all efforts to focus on a school with pilot classrooms.
11. Vaxjo University was the last stop of the delegation. Milrad is conducting a remote laboratory project. The Center in his university has a service unit for Web Services Exchange. Milrad put forward the concept of an inventory website. Those researchers who are willing to share out their prototypes, put there so that other researchers can immediately get, test, and further develop.
12. The idea of G1:1 was getting clear when Chan and Marcelo conversed in the breakfast just before the delegation left for home.
13. A month later, Chan and Marcelo met again at ICCE2003 in Hong Kong. Together with Kinshuk, they conclude that G1:1 should be planned in details at second G4P meeting and execute after the meeting.
14. Liu, at ICCE2003 in Hong Kong, challenge that some 'higher level' common goal is missing in G1:1.
15. Hwa-Wei Ko of National Central University suggested that 1:1 should imply that one times one equals to one, whereas the first one denotes the student and the second one denotes the computing device. It means that the educational computing device should be such an intimate tool as if it is an integral part of the student, extending student's thought and learning capability.

Given conspectus of above ideas, a few points should be made here:

• There seem to have a common consensus that the focus now should be in classroom. Soloway made that even more explicit. Chan and his colleagues now also pay more and more attention to Tablet PCs (mixed with pocket PCs in a later version) used in classroom. This is unlike last decade when many researchers are interested in virtual learning community on the Internet. Why we stress on pilot digital classrooms, it does not mean that we ignore outside classroom and informal settings or web-based learning community. But a pilot classroom is a base for integrating all kinds of learning activities outside classroom or in a virtual learning community sooner or later.
• In the email discussions, one difficulty mentioned by Rochelles is that which type of devices to be used. US and Europe is clearly different. Soloway and Dillenbourg will be very different. Instead of making effort to convince different schools of future predictions on devices, it is better to include all of them at this point. There will be a basic set of educational software tools underlies these different types of devices. It is also likely some year later students of a class may bring different types of devices into a classroom. That is why we try to set up pilot classrooms. Also, for target users, there is a verity of them. Different researchers may have different target users in mind. G1:1 intends to subsume verities of device types and target users.
• G1:1 seems to spell out a mission concrete enough that all these ideas can be carried out if we work together toward that direction.
• Hoppe and perhaps Dillenbourg had expressed that even mobile learning technology is important at the moment, when the implications of mobility to learning have been explored to some extent in a few years, that mobility feature may not be as salient as now. Also Chan thinks that mobile technology will take a role to integrate and give new lives to other technologies such as multimedia, artificial intelligence, cognitive tools, etc. Therefore, using 'digital classroom' is more general and neutral than 'mobile classroom'.
• However, financially and logistically, it is not easy for a research lab to afford a digital pilot classroom. In fact, many research works illustrated in the first and second WMTE assume every participant uses some handy computing device. In other words, they intend to be deployed in digital classroom. In general, research on 1:1 educational computing does not require a pilot digital classroom as its experimental site to test their work even it is better to have one around.