Radical Imaginings-Fellowships for NextGen digital activists | IGF 2023 Networking Session #80

Alice Lanna

Alice Lanna, a mentor for the Brazilian youth group in IGF (Internet Governance Forum), emphasises the significance of youth participation in relevant discussions. She firmly believes that young people should not only be the subjects of discussions but must also actively contribute to them. Lanna is passionate about engaging young individuals and ensuring that they have a voice and agency in shaping decisions that affect them.

Lanna strongly supports youth involvement and active participation in discussions. She actively engages in activities that foster youth participation, showing her dedication to empowering young people and amplifying their voices. For instance, she mentors the Brazilian youth group within IGF, providing guidance and support to ensure that their perspectives are heard and valued.

Furthermore, Alice Lanna advocates for the opinions of the people who are funded to be given proper consideration in funding processes. She argues that the views and input of the person being funded should not be disregarded, but rather acknowledged and integrated into the decision-making process. Lanna believes that the person being funded should play a meaningful role in the design and implementation of the process, rather than being seen as a mere tool to execute predetermined plans. By involving the funded person in decision-making, she believes that better results can be achieved, potentially surpassing the original expectations of the funder.

Additionally, Lanna stresses the importance of striking a balance between mentoring and trust in the funding process. While she recognises the value of having mentors or guidance in the funding process, she also emphasises the need for flexibility and understanding in terms of trust. Lanna believes that the person or organisation being funded carries valuable experiences and knowledge that can contribute to the process. It is not just a one-way learning process, but also an opportunity for the funded person to contribute by sharing their insights and expertise.

In conclusion, Alice Lanna’s main arguments highlight the importance of youth participation, the need for their active involvement in discussions, and the significance of valuing the opinions and involvement of the funded person in funding processes. She supports a balanced approach that combines mentoring and trust to ensure a more inclusive and effective decision-making process. Lanna’s advocacy for youth empowerment and her insights into funding processes contribute to fostering a more participatory and equitable society.

Audience

During the conversation, the speaker showed great enthusiasm in hosting webinars on a specific topic. They agreed wholeheartedly to participate in this endeavor and assured the listener that they would comply with any instructions given. However, the speaker also expressed some confusion about certain aspects of the topic.

In addition to their eagerness to host webinars, the speaker also emphasized their interest in maintaining close ties with the individuals mentioned. This highlights their desire for continued interaction and collaboration, suggesting a high level of importance and interest in maintaining these connections.

Throughout the conversation, the speaker’s tone seemed somewhat resigned, as they admitted to being unsure about the situation and appeared to be primarily following orders rather than relying on personal knowledge or expertise.

In conclusion, the key points discussed in the conversation were the speaker’s willingness to host webinars, their confusion about certain aspects, and their interest in maintaining connections with relevant individuals.

Anita Gurumurthy

Anita Gurumurthy, an advocate for digital rights, emphasizes the importance of accessibility in digital rights debates, particularly for under-resourced regions and organizations. She highlights the need for collaboration among different spaces to co-design fellowships that cater to the needs of future activists and scholars. Anita also encourages participants to fill in a short survey, with the added incentive that those who provide their email IDs will receive the survey’s analysis.

Anita argues that understanding digital rights is crucial for social movements, as digitalization continues to reshape various issues. She points out the new challenges faced by social movements, such as health data, ed-tech technologies, trade agreements, and algorithmic non-transparency. By promoting a deeper understanding of digital rights, Anita aims to empower social movements to effectively address these challenges.

However, Anita is critical of existing fellowships, expressing concerns that they often prioritize individual experiences over contributing to institutional strengthening within social movements. She advocates for inclusive digital rights fellowships that support and enhance social movements.

In contrast, Anita supports the idea of inclusive digital rights fellowships that bridge gaps and promote collaboration among various stakeholders. She cites successful fellowship programs conducted by IT for Change, which not only provided valuable opportunities to fellows but also led to reshaping development programs.

Overall, Anita Gurumurthy advocates for greater accessibility in digital rights debates, collaboration among diverse spaces, and the establishment of inclusive digital rights fellowships that contribute to the development and strengthening of social movements.

Hélène Molinier

Hélène plays a key role in managing the Action Coalition on Tech Innovation for Gender Equality at UN Women. This coalition aims to diversify the digital cooperation stage, bringing new voices and perspectives to the forefront. It focuses on using tech innovation to foster greater gender equality.

The coalition’s main objective is to advance SDG5: Gender Equality, striving for equal rights and opportunities for all genders. It also aligns with SDG10: Reduced Inequalities, which tackles various forms of inequality, including those based on gender.

The argument put forth by the coalition emphasizes the critical role of technology in promoting gender equality. Through tech innovation, it is possible to create new opportunities and address the existing gender disparities prevalent in many sectors.

Hélène’s leadership in managing this coalition underscores the commitment to using technology as a catalyst for gender equality. Her involvement indicates a positive sentiment towards empowering women and promoting gender equality through technology.

The coalition’s argument is supported by evidence such as research and case studies showcasing the potential impact of tech innovation in addressing gender disparities. It highlights successful initiatives that have bridged the gender gap in sectors like education, employment, and access to resources.

In conclusion, Hélène’s management of the Action Coalition on Tech Innovation for Gender Equality reflects a global interest in diversifying the digital cooperation stage and promoting gender equality through tech innovation. The initiative aligns with SDG5: Gender Equality and SDG10: Reduced Inequalities, demonstrating a commitment to addressing existing gender disparities. The overall sentiment towards using technology for gender equality is positive, recognizing its potential to create new opportunities and empower women worldwide.

Christian Leon

Christian Leon, hailing from Bolivia, currently holds the esteemed position of Executive Director at the Internet Bolivia Foundation. In addition, he also serves as the Secretary of Al Sur, a coalition comprising 11 civil society organizations that collectively strive to promote digital rights throughout Latin America. Christian is widely recognized and respected for his unwavering dedication to advocating for internet freedom and safeguarding digital rights.

As the Executive Director of the Internet Bolivia Foundation, Christian plays a vital role in spearheading initiatives aimed at bridging the digital divide and ensuring equal access to information and technology in Bolivia. The foundation undertakes projects and campaigns to empower individuals and communities, equipping them with the necessary tools and knowledge needed to actively partake in the digital era.

Furthermore, Christian’s position as the Secretary of Al Sur demonstrates his unwavering commitment to promoting digital rights at a broader scale. Through collaboration with various civil society organizations across Latin America, he fosters unity in advocating for policy and regulatory measures that protect and enhance digital rights for all citizens.

Christian’s portrayal as a learner further accentuates his dedication to continuous personal growth and knowledge exchange. He displays a genuine willingness to learn from others while also offering his own expertise and insights to the wider community. This openness, combined with his extensive experience in the field of digital rights, positions him as a valuable resource for discussions and initiatives pertaining to internet and digital rights across Latin America.

In conclusion, Christian Leon’s roles as the Executive Director of the Internet Bolivia Foundation and Secretary of Al Sur highlight his wealth of knowledge and experience in advancing digital rights in Latin America. His unwavering commitment to internet freedom, bridging the digital divide, and advocating for policies that protect digital rights exemplifies his devotion to creating a more inclusive and equitable digital landscape.

Barbara Leodora

Barbara Leodora, a representative from Article 19 based in Brazil, is spearheading a campaign that aims to provide fellowships for popular communicators. This initiative was developed during the pandemic, demonstrating the organization’s adaptability and commitment to addressing emerging challenges. The campaign has successfully conducted two editions, one in 2020 and another in 2001, highlighting its longevity and impact.

The primary objective of the fellowship program is to empower popular communicators who play a vital role in keeping the public well-informed. Barbara Leodora emphasises the significance of using popular communication as a means to provide knowledge and information to a broader audience. This approach is particularly crucial during times of crisis, with a specific focus on disseminating accurate and timely information about the pandemic.

Furthermore, Barbara Leodora’s dedication extends beyond communication. She is deeply committed to promoting and safeguarding democratic processes. This commitment was evident in the program’s previous edition, which specifically targeted elections. Barbara stressed the importance of ensuring that the elections proceeded smoothly, further underscoring the campaign’s overall goal of fostering democratic values and practices.

Regarding funding and resource allocation, the campaign demonstrates flexibility and trust-building. In response to the challenges posed by the pandemic in 2020, Article 19 Brazil made adjustments that allowed beneficiaries to have more autonomy in determining how they use the funds. This inclusive and flexible approach not only enhanced trust between Article 19 Brazil and the fellows but also showcased a genuine respect for the fellows’ identities and autonomy.

Capacity building and community network building lie at the heart of the campaign’s fellowship program. By offering comprehensive courses and workshops, the program equips fellows with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively engage with their audiences. The establishment of community networks through platforms like WhatsApp groups further encourages collaboration and the sharing of valuable insights among fellows. Importantly, even beyond the fellowship program, the campaign ensures ongoing engagement with the fellows, enabling sustained support and growth in their work.

Lastly, continuous improvement is prioritized within the fellowship program. Feedback from fellows is highly valued as it contributes to enhancing future programs and initiatives. Additionally, mutual learning is actively encouraged, recognizing the value of sharing knowledge and experiences among participants. This commitment to continuous learning fosters an environment of growth and helps the campaign remain responsive to the evolving dynamics of popular communication.

In conclusion, Barbara Leodora’s leadership in Article 19 Brazil’s campaign for fellowships for popular communicators exemplifies a comprehensive and multi-faceted approach to communication, democratic engagement, and resource allocation. By empowering popular communicators, providing knowledge and information, and promoting democratic processes, the campaign contributes to reducing inequalities and promoting quality education. The focus on flexibility in resource allocation, capacity building, community network building, and continuous improvement all contribute to the campaign’s overall effectiveness and long-term impact.

Arielle McGee

In this analysis, three speakers from Internews are examined, shedding light on their areas of focus and involvement. The first speaker, Arielle McGee, is identified as a program officer responsible for Internews’ Asia region. Her primary work revolves around collaborating with women and youth-led civil society organizations. Although no specific projects or initiatives are mentioned in the analysis concerning Arielle, her involvement with these organizations indicates a focus on women empowerment and youth-led initiatives, aligning with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5 for gender equality and SDG 8 for decent work and economic growth.

The second speaker, whose name is not mentioned, is associated with an upcoming project at Internews. This project pertains to human rights and internet governance, which implies a commitment to promoting and protecting human rights principles in the context of the digital realm. By engaging in this project, Internews aims to contribute to reducing inequalities, as indicated by its relevance to SDG 10.

The third speaker’s name is also missing, but the analysis reveals the speaker’s interest in learning from others to enhance Internews’ fellowship program. Internews currently runs a substantial fellowship program, which suggests a dedication to providing learning opportunities and quality education, in line with SDG 4. The speaker’s inclination to gain insights and implement best practices from other institutions indicates a proactive approach to continuously improving the program’s effectiveness.

Overall, the analysis highlights Internews’ multifaceted approach to their work, encompassing various thematic areas such as women empowerment, youth-led initiatives, human rights, internet governance, and education. The inclusion of the SDG framework signals their commitment to contribute towards the achievement of global sustainable development goals.

While the analysis provides valuable insights into the speakers’ roles and interests within Internews, it does not include specific evidence or the speakers’ views on the subjects discussed. It would be beneficial to obtain additional information regarding the speakers’ experiences, projects, and achievements to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their contributions to their respective areas of focus.

Oscar Jiménez

Two individuals, Oscar Jiménez and Mio, have emerged as prominent figures in promoting important causes. Oscar Jiménez works tirelessly at the research centre in the University of Costa Rica, dedicating his efforts to advancing the ideals of freedom of expression and digital rights. Hailing from Costa Rica, Jiménez brings his expertise and passion to the forefront in the pursuit of reducing inequalities and fostering peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Mio, an initiative based in Central America, is led by Jiménez as its executive director. Mio’s primary objective is to recover the memory of LGBT history in the region, echoing the importance of cultural preservation and LGBT rights. This endeavor is crucial in creating sustainable cities and communities while striving towards the goal of reducing inequalities.

The supporting facts for Jiménez’s involvement in these causes are noteworthy. Oscar Jiménez’s affiliation with the University of Costa Rica research centre underscores his dedication to promoting freedom of expression and digital rights. Furthermore, he is highly regarded for his work in this field, making him a prominent figure in the pursuit of reduced inequalities and the enhancement of peace and justice.

Mio, under the leadership of Jiménez, stands as a testament to the importance of preserving LGBT history and identity. As the executive director of Mio, Jiménez plays a pivotal role in spearheading this noble initiative, which strives to create a sense of identity and pride in the LGBT community of Central America. The evidence suggests that Jiménez believes in the transformative power of preserving LGBT history and identity through Mio.

The analysis indicates a positive sentiment towards both Oscar Jiménez and Mio, highlighting their commitment to important causes. The shared focus on reducing inequalities aligns with the sustainable development goals of creating just and inclusive societies. These individuals and their initiatives serve as beacons of hope, sparking conversations and actions towards a more equal and harmonious future.

In conclusion, Oscar Jiménez’s work at the University of Costa Rica research centre, advocating for freedom of expression and digital rights, and his role as the executive director of Mio, an initiative seeking to preserve LGBT history in Central America, showcases his unwavering dedication to reducing inequalities and fostering sustainable communities. Their efforts are crucial in challenging existing norms and creating a more equitable and inclusive society.

Raimundo

Raimundo and his community have achieved something extraordinary by creating their own TV channel, Radio TV Quilombo Rampa. This is a remarkable accomplishment because the community used their own resources to bring their vision to life. They operate on the principle of “from the inside out,” which emphasises the significance of ancestral communication. This approach ensures that their channel truly represents the voices and experiences of the community, providing an authentic portrayal of their culture and heritage.

The creation of Radio TV Quilombo Rampa highlights Raimundo’s strong belief in the importance of communities telling their own stories. He understands that these stories hold immense value and play a vital role in preserving cultural identity. As a platform for the community, the TV station allows them to narrate their own stories and share their experiences with the world. Through their own channel, they can celebrate their achievements, address their challenges, and showcase their vibrant traditions.

Raimundo’s eagerness to share their experiences demonstrates his commitment to promoting community empowerment. By giving a voice to the community, the TV station empowers individuals, fosters a sense of belonging, and strengthens unity. It also serves as an educational tool, imparting knowledge and information that contributes to quality education within the community.

The creation of Radio TV Quilombo Rampa aligns with the global goals of industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG 9) and partnerships for the goals (SDG 17). This initiative showcases how communities can utilise their own resources and collaborate to create meaningful and sustainable change. It also addresses the importance of reducing inequalities (SDG 10), ensuring that marginalized voices are amplified and included in the media landscape.

In conclusion, Raimundo and his community’s achievement in creating Radio TV Quilombo Rampa exemplifies community development, cultural preservation, and community empowerment. Their dedication to telling their own stories and showcasing their experiences through this platform is inspiring. By taking control of their narrative, they have created a media outlet that genuinely represents their community and strengthens their identity.

Dennis Redeker

Dennis Redeker, a researcher at the University of Bremen and co-founder of the Digital Constitutionalist Network, proposes the creation of a Radical Imagining Fellowship for Digital Activists. The fellowship aims to foster both education and advocacy work among digital activists, with a particular focus on reimagining digital governance. Redeker believes that fellowships have the potential to empower digital activists and facilitate meaningful change.

To ensure the fellowship’s effectiveness, Redeker emphasises the importance of gathering feedback and data from attendees and those involved in running or funding fellowships. By understanding the interests and demands of the participants and stakeholders, the fellowship models can be improved and tailored to their needs. Redeker introduced a small survey to be completed by the attendees, as well as individuals involved in running or funding fellowships. This feedback will enable the development of more effective fellowship models and contribute to the advancement of digital activism.

In addition to physical attendees, Redeker welcomes online participants to contribute to the survey. He provides his email address for them to send their results and suggests posting his email in the chat. This inclusive approach ensures that the perspectives of a wider audience are considered, enhancing the overall validity and comprehensiveness of the data collected.

The Digital Constitutionalism Network, founded in 2019, plays a key role in advancing the cause of digital activism. The network runs a database on digital bills of rights, which currently contains 308 documents related to human rights and principles in the digital realm, including areas related to artificial intelligence. The network plans to update and expand this database in the future, further contributing to the understanding and promotion of digital rights.

Moreover, the Digital Constitutionalism Network is actively involved in teaching partnerships and knowledge exchange initiatives. These initiatives aim to combine teaching with the translation of knowledge to activists. By fostering an interchange of knowledge between students and young activists, the network empowers the next generation of digital activists and provides them with the necessary tools and insights to effect meaningful change. The network also aims to broaden the reach of academic knowledge beyond traditional BA and MA programs, supporting NGOs, civil society organizations, and media organizations.

Redeker highlights the need for new governance mechanisms in non-university settings. While existing stakeholders, such as students matriculated into the university, have certain rights and opportunities, not all stakeholders in the fellowship program receive the same benefits. Exploring new mechanisms and opportunities for flexibility can help ensure a fair and equitable experience for all participants.

Lastly, Redeker emphasizes the importance of preventing detrimental competition among fellows. He suggests that selecting participants from different places can prevent direct competition and foster a collaborative and supportive environment. By implementing strategies to prevent unhealthy competition, the fellowship program can promote a more inclusive and cooperative community among digital activists.

Overall, Dennis Redeker advocates for the creation of the Radical Imagining Fellowship for Digital Activists and emphasizes the importance of gathering feedback and data from a diverse range of participants and stakeholders. The Digital Constitutionalism Network, with its database on digital bills of rights and its teaching partnerships, plays a crucial role in advancing digital activism and promoting knowledge exchange. Redeker also highlights the need for new governance mechanisms and strategies to foster collaboration and prevent detrimental competition among fellows.

Ahmad Karim

Ahmad Karim, an individual from the UN Women Regional Office for Asia-Pacific, has proposed a unique fellowship model that combines fellowship, forum, experience, and mentorship. This model aims to support and empower 30 individuals each year through capacity building programs, mentorship, strategic overviews, and connections with country offices. Fellows are actively involved in co-creating campaigns, toolkits, and updating knowledge products, ensuring their contributions have a lasting impact.

Karim highlights the flexibility of this fellowship model, which caters to the varying needs of young activists. This is particularly beneficial for activists who are also studying or working alongside their activism. Fellows have the freedom to choose their preferred events or forums and have nomination opportunities to speak at major decision-making forums and conferences. This allows them to have their voices heard and influence policy discussions.

The fellowship model prioritizes real-life experiences and practical challenges, providing fellows with valuable learning opportunities. Fellows engage in actual challenges and can relate their experiences to their activism. They also have the chance to participate in large-scale decision-making processes, effectively communicating their realities to decision-makers.

Involving fellows in program redesign and governance has proven beneficial. A group of fellows is selected to be part of the redesigning process, using their experiences to identify what works and what doesn’t. Their direct involvement leads to recommendations that improve the effectiveness of the fellowship. Furthermore, including fellows in the selection process of future fellows reduces bias and uncovers potential candidates with significant achievements.

Including fellows in the decision-making process fosters a sense of common responsibility and ownership. Although it may be time-consuming, collaborative decision-making enhances fellows’ understanding of why certain decisions are made and encourages active participation in implementation.

In conclusion, Ahmad Karim’s fellowship model offers a unique combination of fellowship, forum, experience, and mentorship. It prioritizes flexibility, real-life experiences, and practical challenges, allowing fellows to contribute to decision-making, program redesign, and governance. This inclusive approach adds valuable perspectives and fosters mutual responsibility and ownership. The model contributes to the advancement of gender equality and quality education, empowering young activists.

Eve Goumont

The speakers engaged in a thought-provoking discussion centred around the intersection of AI, human rights, and education. They emphasised the profound impact of AI on the right to higher education under international human rights law. Specifically, Eve Goumont, a PhD candidate at Montreal University, focused her dissertation on exploring this very issue, highlighting the implications and challenges that arise when incorporating AI into the educational landscape.

Moving on to the topic of fellowship programmes, the speakers underscored the significance of trust in fellows. They argued that when fellows are granted the autonomy to work on projects of their choosing, the overall outcomes tend to be more successful. In the rapidly evolving realm of technology, adhering strictly to a pre-determined plan outlined a year in advance often proves to be arduous. Consequently, cultivating trust becomes a pivotal factor in enabling fellows to adapt and make essential adjustments along the way.

Furthermore, the speakers delved into the social dynamics within fellowship communities and their impact on mental health. One notable observation was that diversity among fellows, in terms of backgrounds and areas of expertise, fosters a sense of community and solidarity. This environment stands in stark contrast to competitive environments, where collaboration and support are oftentimes lacking. Additionally, the discussion touched upon the importance of addressing mental health concerns within fellowships. Creating a sense of community and fostering solidarity among fellows was identified as an effective strategy to promote mental well-being.

In conclusion, the intersection of AI, human rights, and education is a pressing topic that requires careful consideration. The impact of AI on the right to higher education, as highlighted by Eve Goumont’s research, poses important questions regarding the ethical and legal implications of AI implementation. Trust emerges as a critical component in fellowship programmes, promoting innovation and yielding better outcomes. Furthermore, the diverse and inclusive nature of fellowships contributes to mental health and the establishment of supportive communities. Overall, these insights shed light on the complex interplay between technology, human rights, and personal well-being in educational and professional contexts.

Manu Emanuela

Upon analysing the speaker’s statements, several key arguments have emerged. Firstly, it is argued that the competitive nature of youth programmes can have negative implications for participants’ mental health. Manu Emanuela’s experiences highlight the potential problems that can arise due to the emphasis on competition within these programmes. This observation underscores the significance of considering and addressing participants’ mental well-being during the process of designing and implementing youth programmes. Mental health is crucial during the process of youth programmes due to their competitive nature.

The second argument is related to online courses, which are reported to be both difficult and inaccessible. These challenges are particularly evident for vulnerable sections of society. The difficulty level of these courses and the barrier of online access can hinder equal educational opportunities and perpetuate the digital divide. Difficulty and accessibility of online courses are challenges for vulnerable sections.

Another issue raised is the lack of continuity and long-term engagement in youth programmes. Manu Emanuela’s experiences serve as evidence to support this argument. Maintaining consistent involvement and sustained engagement of youth in such programmes is crucial for achieving positive outcomes, such as quality education and decent work and economic growth.

On a positive note, the necessity of skill development within youth programmes is highlighted. The speaker emphasizes the importance of acquiring skills like project management and grant application in order to increase success in securing grants and conducting risk assessments. However, it is pointed out that the current programmes do not focus adequately on the development of these essential skills. Necessity of skill development like project management and grant application in youth programmes.

Furthermore, the analysis brings attention to the funding aspect of civil society organisations in Brazil, noting that many of these organisations are funded by big tech companies. This raises concerns about the potential influence of these corporations on the freedom and independence of civil society. Big tech often fund civil society organisations, affecting their freedom and causing a chilling effect.

Lastly, the significance of alumni networks in youth programmes is highlighted. Manu Emanuela suggests that alumni can become mentors and provide valuable guidance based on their experiences. This recommendation aligns with the argument that continuous support and engagement, facilitated through mentorship, can contribute to the success and long-term impact of youth programmes. Importance of alumnus becoming mentors for continuous support and engagement.

In conclusion, the analysis sheds light on various aspects of youth programmes, including the potential impact on mental health, challenges arising from online courses, the lack of continuity and long-term engagement, the necessity of skill development, concerns about big tech funding within civil society, and the importance of alumni becoming mentors. These insights provide valuable considerations for improving the design and implementation of youth programmes to ensure positive outcomes and promote the sustainable development goals.

Faye

Faye actively participated in the discussion, revealing that they are currently pursuing a master’s degree in Taiwan, demonstrating their commitment to furthering their education. The conversation also touched upon the topic of higher education and career goals, with Faye expressing an openness to considering a PhD program in the future. This indicates their ambition and dedication to their academic pursuits.

Faye displayed a positive sentiment and genuine interest in the discussion, actively engaging and contributing to the conversation. This enthusiasm fosters an environment of collaboration and knowledge sharing among participants.

The main topics discussed revolved around education and career development, highlighting the importance of quality education. These topics align with SDG 4: Quality Education, which aims to ensure that everyone has access to inclusive and equitable quality education.

Additionally, the discussion touched on the subjects of communication and knowledge acquisition, illustrating a broader scope and an interest in how effective communication and knowledge acquisition contribute to personal and professional growth.

Overall, the analysis highlights Faye’s active involvement and desire for further academic accomplishments. Their positive sentiment indicates a motivation for personal growth and a commitment to contributing to the field of knowledge. The topics discussed, such as education, academic career, higher education, career goals, communication, and knowledge acquisition, are interconnected and reflect the broader context of personal and professional development.

Dennis Redeker:
Oh, this works. Fantastic. Welcome, everyone, to our session today. This session is called Radical Imagining Fellowships for Digital Activists. We’re today representing the Digital Constitutionalist Network and IT for Change. And we’re going to be talking about how to create a Radical Imagining Fellowship for Digital Activists. We’re going to be representing the Digital Constitutionalist Network and IT for Change here in the room. The idea is that we’re quickly introducing ourselves and the idea or the general idea of the session. And then we’ll take it from there. It’s great that you came. It’s very nice that you all took place at the table so that we could have a bit of an exchange because we have many things from you to learn about what kind of fellowships are useful. And we’re presenting the kind of thinking that we have on what kind of fellowships do we think are useful for digital governance that can be reimagined. My name is Dennis Redeker. I’m a researcher at the University of Bremen. I’m also one of the co-founders of the Digital Constitutionalist Network that educates. I’ll talk a little bit more about it in a bit. But that educates so far mostly students of BA and MA programs but has a mission, too, to do advocacy work. And then the question is how can we move into a space that allows us more to educate scholar practitioners. And I’m handing over the mic to you, Anita.

Anita Gurumurthy:
Thanks, Dennis. So the starting point of my organization is slightly converse, but I hope we achieve as much as university spaces do. I come from a nonprofit space where our work is to contribute to social justice in many ways. And over the past several years, again, I will get into it in detail later on, we have worked on capacity building for both academics, practitioners, social movement people, and also those who want to be engaged in issues of digital rights, the digital economy and digital society, and both at the level of organizing communities and at the level of policy change. Through that, we’ve had some insights on what it might take to build the kind of institutional depth and traction that is necessary so that the digital rights debates are much more accessible to regions and organizations that are under-resourced. So the session partly also addresses this coming together of two kinds of spaces so that we can co-design something from your experiences as well for the next-gen activists and scholars who might want to contribute to the domain. So that’s like a brief introduction.

Hélène Molinier:
Thank you very much. Hello, everyone. My name is Hélène Molinier. I work for UN Women. I’m managing the Action Coalition on Tech Innovation for Gender Equality. So very much here in both listening mode and really eager to see how we can find a solution to bring new voices to the digital cooperation stage and especially voices that bring a feminist lens and have a strong interest in human rights approach to digitalization. Thank you. Over to my colleague.

Ahmad Karim:
Hi, everyone. My name is Ahmad Karim. I’m also from UN Women Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. I lead the work on innovation campaigns and advocacy and the US portfolio within Asia and the Pacific.

Manu Emanuela:
Hello, everyone. My name is Manu Emanuela. I’m from Brazil. I was a youth from Internet Society and from the Brazilian Steering Committee, and today I work with children’s rights and specifically allowing children to participate in this kind of debate as well at Instituto Alana.

Alice Lanna:
Hello, everyone. I’m Alice Lanna. Nothing to do with Instituto Alana. I’m a mentor for the Brazilian youth group today in IGF, and I would like to excuse myself in advance because we have a meeting for the youth Brazilian group at 5, so I will live in the middle of the conversation. But I’m really glad to be here because I think that’s exactly the kind of discussion we need to be having about having youth not on the menu but sitting on the table and discussing.

Christian Leon:
Hello. My name is Christian Leon. I’m from Bolivia. I’m the current Executive Director of Internet Bolivia Foundation and Secretary of Al Sur, that is a coalition of 11 civil society organizations working towards promoting digital rights in Latin America. I’m here just to learn, and if I have something, I will share it with you. Thank you.

Arielle McGee:
Hello. My name is Arielle McGee. I am a program officer with Internews for their Asia region. I work primarily with women and youth-led civil society organizations, media, and media-adjacent CSOs, journalists, and kicking off a project on human rights and internet governance, and so we are part of that, have a large fellowship program. So curious to hear what you guys have learned and how we can implement that going forward.

Faye:
Hi, everyone. I’m Faye. I’m currently a master’s student in Taiwan, and I sometimes work with or for… and I’m considering doing a PhD with him. I’m just interested in what you’re going to talk about.

Anita Gurumurthy:
What did he say? It’s on? It’s on. That’s fine.

Raimundo:
My name is Raimundo Quilombo. I live in Quilombo Rampa, Vargem Grande, Maranhão. I’m from Radio TV Quilombo Rampa, an organization that emerged in the community as a way for the community to tell their own story through popular communication. So we created a TV in the community with our own resources, a communication that we call from the inside out, which is ancestral communication. We are here to participate and share this experience with everyone who is here today.

Barbara Leodora:
I’m going to translate for him. Raimundo, he’s a Quilombola from Quilombo Rampa in São Luís do Maranhão, Brazil. He created Radio and TV Quilombo at his community, which they define as inside-to-inside communication. And he’s a popular communicator. We’re here together today. I’m Bárbara Leodora. I’m from Article 19, Brazil. And I am responsible for a campaign of ours that we created in the title, for a campaign of ours that we created in the time of the pandemic, which is a campaign which provides fellowships for popular communicators in the whole country, where they can provide knowledge and information. And we had two editions, 2020 and 2001, for popular communicators to inform the public about the pandemic. And then we had one last year for the elections, because we figured it was an effort to guarantee that it would happen, our elections, and it did. And right now we’re having a casual agreement edition. So we’re here to learn and exchange experiences on this fellowship, because it’s a great thing we’ve done. I’m very proud of it. And I’m very proud to be here, excited.

Oscar Jiménez:
Hi. My name is Oscar Jiménez, Oscar Mario Jiménez. I am from Costa Rica in Central America. I work in University of Costa Rica in a research center that promotes freedom of expression and digital rights. And also I am executive director of Mio. It’s a museum of identity and pride. It’s an initiative to recover the memory of LGBT history in Central America. So I love the title of session. So I’m here to learn.

Eve Goumont:
Hi. I’m Eve Goumont. I’m a PhD candidate at the Montreal University in Canada. I’m also a guest researcher at Keio University here in Tokyo. I work in AI and human rights. And my dissertation focuses on the impact of AI on the right to higher education under international human rights law.

Dennis Redeker:
So one of the first things you like to do, because we know that sometimes when it’s getting toward the end of a session, people have to leave or one forgets. We have a small survey that we’d like to show you a link. If you could fill it in, that would very much help us to better understand what demands and interests of people in fellowships. There’s also questions that you can answer in there in case you run a fellowship or in case you provide funding for a fellowship. Just to get some resources together, we’d like to learn from this as we develop our own models. And we’re going to show the link in a second. It’s a short link.

Anita Gurumurthy:
I just wanted to say that it’s a very short survey. And if you can leave your email IDs, we’ll be happy to also share the analysis of the survey with everybody. That’s precisely to account for the conflicting priorities we sometimes have at the IGF and therefore the voices are not carried right through to the end. So that is the link. And I’m going to also circulate this. Please write in a little bit bold or something, capitals. I’m not very good at deciphering handwriting. So I’ll start from here. Would you be interested in receiving a copy of the… Do you need a pen? Yes. So soon after, we can open up the session. So we’ll probably take about five, ten minutes for this.

Dennis Redeker:
And one comment to those online. Welcome again. And you’re obviously also welcome to fill in the survey. And let us know your email addresses. I will post mine. So this is most privacy preserving. I’ll just post my email. Does that make sense? Post my email here in the chat. And then you can send me an email with your email address. Or just send me an email and we’ll send you the results as well.

Audience:
Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. We can do a webinar or two on that. We can do a webinar. I would like to do that. You can just let me know. Yeah. Okay. I’ll do it. I’ll do it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. That’s good. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.

Dennis Redeker:
So how is everyone doing on the survey? Finishing up? Okay. Wonderful. Just wanted to make sure. Then I’m going to share my slides, so I’m quickly going to say something about the current activities. And then we jump into our exchange. Let me share these. As I said, I’m one of the co-founders of the Digital Constitutionalism Network, founded in 2019 in Bochum, Germany, by academics from mostly Europe, but also from around the world. We’ve had people from, currently people from all continents represented in the network and the network is focused on research, but also teaching and training, that’s what we’re going to talk about today, and advocacy, that’s also related to today, in the field of human rights and the internet, well, obviously that’s the focus here. We run a database on digital bills of rights, so documents that proclaim rights and rights and principal claims. We have now a database, I’ll show this in a sec, but we have a database of 308 documents that we have assembled. It’s a great resource for research activities, but we also have an annual teaching partnership, which we now do online and in person, and we are now currently planning for long-term, one-year research incubators to be conducted. This is how the database looks. You can check it out. It is, I think, a helpful research tool also for advocates, for advocacy, to see what other documents are out there that demand human rights and principles on the internet in a digital field, also related to AI, and this database is going to be updated very soon. We do research with this. Just last week, we spent a week with students from across Europe and Italy in order to teach human rights online using, among other things, these documents and the database, and going forward, the Digital Constitutional Network not only wants to partner with additional partners, and we’re working with IT4Change, for example, we’re open to other partnerships, but we’re thinking about, on the one hand, how can we combine the teaching that we do with our students into translating knowledge to activists, to young activists who come in and who can benefit from this interchange, or ideas to create year-long research incubators by which people from different ways of life, walks of life, can join. They’re being supported by members of the network and of partners, by expert advisors. There will be MA and PhD students among those who receive part of this fellowship cohort, but also members of civil society groups, NGOs, or independent young researchers. So that’s pretty much our pitch, our idea. We’re still working on this, again, working with IT4Change, but we want to be more open. We’ll have some more open discussion, not on this, but just on the things you all do and things that you can advise us also on doing when we pursue such a scholar-practitioner route for teaching, which is something new for most of the people at universities. We often are geared toward the BA, MA programs that we have, but we often neglect, I think, the people that would otherwise have an opportunity to also gain academic knowledge, but who have a background in an NGO or civil society organization, or any other place, really, media organizations, for example.

Anita Gurumurthy:
Thanks so much, Dennis. I just wanted to add a couple of things. This is, I think, the 18th IGF, and in many ways, even five years ago, if you actually looked at people working in the grassroots on various issues that occupy the time and energies of social movements, you would find that they don’t understand what digital rights are. They don’t, perhaps, engage with those issues in such a palpable way, but I think very rapidly since the pandemic, that situation has changed, and although there used to be the idea of digital activism, or using digital spaces for activism, in the past few years, movements have begun to embrace the idea that their own issues are beginning to be redefined by digitalization, so those who have been working on education, for instance, have had to grapple with ed-tech technologies, and others, for instance, in the health domain are quite worried about what happens to health data and cross-border data flows, et cetera, et cetera. Big justice activists are really grappling with the idea of trade agreements and algorithmic non-transparency in developing countries because of free trade agreements, so the field is changing, and younger people are beginning, really, to understand and grapple with these issues, and by that, I don’t mean to over-generalize who these youth are, but I think, broadly, talking about those who normally are part of the very, very fabric of struggle and dissent in their own contexts, and people who are really showing the way in terms of the pluralistic dimensions of human rights that we would really like to present, right? So we have, at IT for Change, done two rounds of, I would say, mentoring of fellows. One was on the digital economy and gender through a feminist lens, and that was very rewarding. The other one was an in-situ, one-week fellowship program that we did in Thailand earlier this year, which was called Frames and Frontiers for Digitality. If you would have two minutes, maybe you can say something from your, and you could, maybe the two of you that have to go, is it already time? Okay, I wouldn’t, it’s already five, yeah, I understand, so that’s fine. So on the Frames and Frontiers for Digitality, we really found it extremely useful that we brought people who are mid-career professionals from different organizations, and they had a lot to say about how they would shape their programs, and the programs that they were holding either as officers in, let’s say, large organizations that were working on poverty and development, or organizations that were working on digital rights. So these were very instructive. One of the things that came out was, are the existing fellowships for digital rights leading us, in a way, to a kind of individualized paradigm where institutional strengthening is not happening? That was one of the questions that tech fellowships typically tend to privilege certain kinds of fellows, who may not then contribute back, or the entire structure of these fellowships may not allow the contribution of their work to sustain social movement. So the effectiveness of these fellowships was something that was called to question, and that’s a problematic, just a provocation to analyze, and I just wanted to put it on the table. We just have two broad questions for the session, and maybe Dennis, you can…

Dennis Redeker:
Yes, so there are obviously many questions that we have. We have proposed two things to discuss, and we’re very happy if you bring in your other questions and your questions for discussion. The first one here, also on the screen, would be, what does the current landscape of funding and fellowships for young activists working in the digital spaces look like? So what is out there? So what can we kind of collect also here as a brainstorming? Who wants to start?

Manu Emanuela:
Hey, everyone, I think I’m going to share a little bit about the youth programs that I’ve been a fellow, and how they are organized. So it’s not exactly funding, but more like fellowship, and the first one, I had a course, and one thing that I think it’s really important to think about is mental health during this kind of procedure. Why? Because the two programs that I participated, they had a competition vibe. So people were really competing against each other to be able to reach this opportunity, and this caused a lot of problem. So this is an issue. I think another one is the fact that the courses, they are very difficult, and they are online, so you have the accessibility things, and something that makes me wonder if the most vulnerable people, they are able to reach this opportunity, and even the fact that it’s very difficult for understanding infrastructure issues, and understanding this debate, and then competing against each other to be able to get the fellowship. So all of this, I think, are things that we have to face it. Another thing that I think that the programs today, they allow you to reach opportunities, like I went to the 2018 IGF, and this is the only reason why I’m here today. It changed my life, because I saw this is what I want to do. I want to participate in this space. But you don’t have a lot of continuity to be able to, in these programs, at least in Brazil, from my perspective, to be able to continue your engagement. So what I did was I will go after civil society and the NGOs that exist, and I will try to get a job, and that’s basically what I did. But I don’t see a lot of youth-led organizations in that sense that are like, oh, let’s empower youth, and because of this program, let’s do an organization. I think there are a few aspects of this, like the importance of project management skills and skills to go after funding and do risk assessments, all of these things that we know that it is important to apply to a lot of grants. And these programs, they do not help you with these kind of skills and abilities. So this would be very important to empower people through fellowships so that they can form organizations. And another, the last one, why I think this is so important, it’s because the landscape of civil society in Brazil today, a lot of organizations, they are funded by big techs. And well, if you are funded by the private sector, you have a few particularities on what you can do, on what you can speak, even if it’s very open, but well, you are funded by them. So the importance of having freedom, not the chilling effect in that sense, of the funding opportunities that we have. So these are a few of my considerations. I think that, and I think that it’s very transformative to be able to participate in this kind of event, and this should continue, but also allow to more long-term engagement. And for alumni network, like how alumni can become mentors and that they can help and engage people with their experience and build, well, futures alike. So that’s, I think I approached the two questions a little bit, and maybe later I can share some other thoughts. Thank you. Yeah? Okay.

Ahmad Karim:
Well, with the UN Women Regional Office for Asia-Pacific, we have kind of designed a very different model for our fellowship. It’s more of like a flexible combination of fellowship to a forum, to an experience and mentorship program that runs for a whole year. Instead of a short term. So we have this group, we call the 30 for 2030. Every year we select 30 from across the region, different field of experiences, and where they, from UN Women’s side, we give them a capacity building program, a mentorship with our advisors, connection with the country offices, so they have the data and evidence and the strategic overview of the organization of what’s happening in the region, but also connected to the country offices and where the implementation is happening. But that doesn’t stop there, so that’s more of like a preparation phase, and those group are amazing. They are like leaders and activists and CEOs of companies and researchers. So what we do with them after that, we work with them in co-creation. So the co-create campaigns, right now we’re launching an online toolkit, an online GBV, co-designed with them, and it, you know, what’s really unique about the work that they do, that they want to create a knowledge product as a living system. So it’s not just a knowledge product that we’ll put it on the shelf, put it online, and forget about it. No, we update it every year. So last year we launched one version, this year we’re updating, adding more forms of violence, for example, innovation, the stakeholders who are working on it, and then building campaigns and other initiatives on the ground. It’s being translated into nine languages right now in the region. And then other experiences that, you know, some of our members do really like, some flexibility to attend their own preference events or forums, conferences. So they get to select some of those events, and we support them, whether it’s financially or with nomination, to attend some of the big forums. We also nominate them to be speaking on decision-making forums, like big conferences, CSW, the General Assembly. So it’s kind of a pre-selected group where we invest on them, but at the same time they are actually the one who is giving us their expertise and what they know. And then at the end of the year, they have the choice to stay for another year as more of a senior fellow, and then mentor the other ones who is coming and be part of that pool of opportunity. Or they can just move on, but all of them, they decided to stay. Yeah. So I think it’s one good, you know, practice that we find is that that flexibility to give to, especially for young activists. A lot of them, they’re studying, they have their work, they’re doing other amazing things. And I think it should be giving them the flexibility to come in when they need to, pull out when they need to get attention to other works in their life, especially if they’re not like paid or will pay for some of that work. To take a break when their mental health is needed, and I think they have that. When they have that flexibility, they give you 200% of their time, because they come at it their own terms. Also getting them involved in practical challenges and giving them real life experiences that they relate to it, and they don’t have to attend other things that is not of their expertise or relevance. I think, I mean, from our, we have a privilege at the UN organization where we can nominate them to large scale decision making processes, and I think this is where they see the value of sitting with minister and head of states and be able to communicate the reality of their life. And I think it’s very different when they say it than when we say it, or when older people say, oh yeah, I was young once. I know what you feel, like no, you’re not. This is a different reality, and I think it needs to be said by them, themselves. Thank you.

Alice Lanna:
I could afford two more minutes and come back, because this panel is really very interesting, so I’m glad that I can help, I can collaborate as well. Just to go really, really quickly on these two questions, one thing that I do feel that I miss in some of the funding processes. It is the ability for the person who is being funded to participate in the design of the process, to be heard, not only be thrown into the process as a tool that will be sent through all the phases, but someone whose opinions will also be listened to, and in this way they will even engage more, right? They will feel that their opinion, not only on the content, but on the process as well, is valuable, and maybe for the funders, they will not get exactly the results they wanted, they envisioned, but maybe they will get a better result in a different form, so I think that’s one approach that I would like to bring. Another thing that I think relates to what we’re talking here is we have to have this balance between mentoring and trust, because I think it’s important when we’re talking about funding to have someone who’s there for the process and listening and helping, but there also must be trust in the sense of flexibility and understanding that the person who is being funded or the organization who is being funded is not like an empty vessel that needs to be filled, it also has their experiences and a lot to teach as well, not only learn. So I think I kind of gave this overview on the issue, but if I had to choose two words, I would say it would be this balance between guidance or mentoring and trust in the person who’s there. Thank you.

Barbara Leodora:
Hi, I wanted to talk about our experience in Article 19 Brazil. This campaign started in 2020 with the pandemic. We had this money that we would use to activities and things that we’re doing in person and we couldn’t anymore, so we figured we would reroute these two popular communicators because we figured they were the most qualified people to inform the Brazilian people on the state of the pandemic and what we should and shouldn’t do, especially because at the time we had a government that was spreading misinformation. So we had to come back to that. And I took some notes on things that we’re proud of in this program that we kept doing and making it better. So the first thing is that it’s not technically a digital rights fellowship, but it’s also extremely related to it because all of these fellows, they do what they do online. They do what they do digitally. They do what they do using technical things, technology. And also, we are thinking about a next edition specifically on digital rights. So I hope we can do it. The first thing we realized at the time is that we couldn’t have rules for the spending of the money. This is because, firstly, it was a pandemic. And people were without their jobs. They were without their normal lives and everything else. And also, because in Brazil, we have a very extensive territory and extensive different realities. So we figured we couldn’t have rules on like, oh, you have to spend this money on buying stuff to produce the information. You have to spend this money on this and not that. Because we had people at the time using the money to pay bills. So this was the first rule that we decided on. And I think it’s the most important one. I think it’s the most valued rule or non-rule that we have in this program and that people appreciate more. And I think this created a trust between us and our fellows. And I think it’s about respect, too, because I think we’re trusting them to do, you can do whatever you want with it. We’re just trusting you’re going to keep doing what you’re doing that is communication, qualified in communication. And this is about respecting their identities. It’s about respecting their agency, and their autonomy, and their realities. Because we figured we shouldn’t do that. We shouldn’t. Also, in the formats of the productions, like we couldn’t tell them, oh, you need to do a three-minute video. Because each reality was different. We had people that were doing things that were not necessarily as we think about popular communication. Because there were dialogues with indigenous people. There were dialogues with quilombola territories. So I am very proud to tell this every time we have new fellows to say, no, we’re respecting your identities. We’re respecting your autonomy. And it’s also great to see the reaction to it. Also, capacity building, this was something that we implemented over the additions. And the last one, and this one, we have courses, and workshops, and creating this capacity for them to produce what they produce already so well, but in specific things. Also, the community network building, we see the campaign and the fellowships as a group. So we also have WhatsApp groups, so we can communicate, because they’re all over Brazil. And they also cited this already, this community creation, where they also participate in the design of the program. They also make decisions with us on what they’re doing on the results of this. And lastly, the active engagement of the fellows with the rest of the organization. ArtCon Brazil 19 has four or five thematic areas. And they all interacted with the fellows all throughout the campaigns, all throughout the additions. We call them to give interviews. We call them to new projects. We call them to things that aren’t necessarily part of the fellowship program, but we are engaging them with the ArtCon 19 all of the time. And I think that’s it. And mutual learning, which was also already cited, because we love to hear what they felt about the addition, about the fellow, and then implement new and better things in the next additions every time. I think that’s it. Thank you.

Eve Goumont:
Short, yeah. I’ll build upon what’s been said there. There’s two things that I found super interesting. The first one being trust, and if you want to maybe trust us, and maybe you’ll get something better than what you were expecting. And I think it is something that is extremely valuable as a comment. Because oftentimes, I feel like when you have to apply to fellowship, you have to say, in a year, I’ll be working on this or that. Technology is fast paced. It’s hard to be capable of working on the thing you said you would be working on when you apply. So trusting fellows and allowing them to work on whatever they want to work on, oftentimes, it gives good result, I think. I hope so. And the second thing is mental health and competition. This is something that we like, at least as academic family community. And if fellowships were able to provide that to create a sense of community and solidarity between people, I think it would be super interesting. And I have noticed that it often happens when you don’t have people who all look the same, when you have people that are quite different, that come from a different field of expertise, different countries, and the competition is less present in those circumstances. Because you can learn from one another instead of competing with each other. Yeah.

Dennis Redeker:
Thank you very much. Just looking online, is there anyone online who wanted to intervene? Doesn’t seem to be the case. We do have a few minutes left. Does anyone want to comment, again, come again, or? Yeah, I sent a message and asked. No, it doesn’t seem to be anyone online. Any questions here in the room? I can add one more. Please.

Anita Gurumurthy:
Thank you. I’m sorry for your big line.

Ahmad Karim:
I think one thing that we learned also from the past experiences is that engaging the fellows in the redesign of programs is very important. And having them to be part of the governance of the program itself. I mean, what we did is that we chose a group. I mean, we got a nomination from the group itself to be part of the redesign of the next phase. So they drove from their experiences, what worked, what haven’t, what would they recommend, what they have loved to do more on this kind of activity. And then we picked up those, and we made them the core of the group. Also, when we included them in the selection process, so there was also a group that we asked them different representation from the group to be part of the selection process of the next fellows. That gave us a little bit of, well, first, they knew a lot of those people. They gave us more insights. And they also had more, like, less bias. And they brought that perspective of they are on the same level. So they know what certain people would say. But also, they could feel that certain fellows that doesn’t have the capabilities to market themselves, because a lot of great people are too modest. But they also know about some of their great work. And they were saying, no, we know that person is really amazing, and they’re doing this. But they did not mention this on their application. And that was really helpful to have on the ground validation of our members. And I think that’s really helpful to have that check from the ground and the connection and involved and redesign the program every time you get a chance to do it. And I think having mutual responsibility in the management also really helped. Well, it elevates some of the workload from us. But it gives us also more chances to get that responsibility. So they also feel, from the perspective of the management of the fellowship or the program, what is happening and why certain decisions are made this way. But by including them, we also get insights of other ways to do it. Or it could be easier or faster. Sometimes it’s not faster. But at least when we make a decision together, it’s common responsibility. And people feel good about it because it’s our own decision. We’re in this together. So when there is that freedom to make the decision together, it takes time. But it’s really helpful to just get it, to get them all on board on this decision that they might be affected by.

Dennis Redeker:
Thank you so much, everyone, actually. If I can may just reflect very shortly on our current plans and what I’ve heard. This is so inspiring to hear these things, things that we partly haven’t thought about so much. I think as a digital constitutionalism network and also with the cooperation, we can learn a lot. I mean, thinking about participation in governance coming from a university setting that often is assumed. So when we teach, we know there are formal roles for students to have in university governance. But if we branch out and if we engage other stakeholders, then this doesn’t necessarily apply. If we think about this being open as a training for civil society, it doesn’t mean that people are matriculated into the university. So they don’t have the same rights necessarily. So we need to develop new governance mechanisms. And we can be more, I think, flexible in that sense with new mechanisms that might even be better than the ones we have. And so many things that I haven’t actually thought about. The question of your solution to the question of competition being people from different places, that really doesn’t put them in the kind of competition. I mean, you in Asia-Pacific have this automatically if you take one person or two from each country. So this was really, really, really helpful for us to think this through. And we were developing this. We’re submitting this for grant applications. And we’ll also update everyone who submitted the email address today if there’s something coming through. And anyways, we’ll be taking a note. We’ve taken notes. We’ll put this on the IGF website, obviously, after the session. And you’ll get the survey results. Anita, is there anything you want to say?

Anita Gurumurthy:
I just want to thank everybody for being so generous with your reflections. Because I think there is a wealth of experience coming from different standpoints. And thanks for the candid feedback and your time to fill in the survey. Thank you. Yeah. I want to give a round of applause to Juan Frazier.

Audience:
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I don’t know, I’m just following orders. What do I know? No shit. Okay. And we’re out one page. Now I’m kind of confused. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So should we stay close to the folks there?