Advancing the GDC Principles and WSIS Action Lines

Panel Discussion Highlights IGF’s Key Role in Shaping Future Digital Governance

An insightful panel discussion was held to deliberate on the future of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) principles and the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) action lines, with a particular lens on the Internet Governance Forum’s (IGF) crucial role in shaping the digital governance agenda for the next decade. The panel included esteemed figures from the European Telecommunications Network Operators Association (ETNO), Orestia, the International Chamber of Commerce, and government officials from France and the UK.

Key themes emerged from the discussion:

1. The “Internet We Want” initiative was spotlighted as a significant undertaking by the IGF leadership panel. It aims to establish a framework reflecting the collective vision for the internet, based on two decades of IGF discussions. This initiative is seen as pivotal in aligning with the GDC and WSIS processes to foster an open, secure, and rights-respecting internet worldwide.

2. The UK’s steadfast support for the IGF was underscored, with emphasis on the forum’s unique ability to convene a wide array of stakeholders for open dialogue. The UK regards the IGF as an essential institution that has evolved and should continue to do so in response to societal and technological shifts.

3. France’s insights from hosting the IGF were shared, noting the event’s role in strengthening ties with civil society and trialling new ideas. The IGF was portrayed as a unique, dynamic community essential for driving discussions on digital issues, including the rise of AI and blockchain technologies.

4. The IGF’s evolution was acknowledged, with its scope now encompassing a broader range of topics such as artificial intelligence, digital inclusion, cybersecurity, and data governance. The panel concurred that the IGF’s bottom-up model and convening role are its distinguishing features, which should be harnessed in future digital policy processes, including the WSIS+20 and the GDC.

5. Looking ahead, the panel envisaged the IGF playing a role in the post-GDC process, potentially serving as a platform for monitoring and implementing GDC outcomes. The necessity for an extension of the IGF’s mandate and the stabilization of its resources was stressed to ensure it can continue its pivotal work effectively.

Audience questions brought to light concerns such as the adequacy of the GDC text in supporting the IGF, the IGF’s potential role in the post-GDC process, and the inclusion of Global South voices. Additional issues included the recognition of the IGF within the UN system at the national level and the engagement of youth and National and Regional Initiaries (NRIs) in the IGF and the summit of the future.

The Secretariat acknowledged the need for improvements, particularly regarding visa accessibility for Global South participants, and highlighted the NRIs as a pathway for individuals to impact GDC negotiations.

In conclusion, the session reinforced the IGF’s substantial role in global digital policy discourse and the necessity for its continued evolution and influence. The panelists and audience recognized the IGF’s value as a multi-stakeholder dialogue platform and its potential in shaping digital governance’s future. The commitment to evaluating and enhancing the IGF’s processes was affirmed, with an understanding that the forum must adapt to remain relevant amidst the rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Chengetai Masango:
This is the session on advancing the GDC principles and versus action lines, idea of policy work and mechanisms in support of the global digital corporation. Now, as you know that this year and next year, these two years are very critical years for the idea versus follow-up internet governance and even digital governance in general, where the agenda may or is likely to be set for the next decade. So with that in mind, we’ll just like to have a session to reflect on the current status and also the role of the internet governance forum in advancing the global digital compact and the principles of the versus action lines today and also for the future. I will not talk much because I think it’s more important to have the presentation than also the discussions, which is one of the ITF’s main thing is that discussion is most important so that we get a better understanding of each other’s views and also come to a common understanding amongst ourselves. So I will start off by introducing our panelists. So to my left here, we do have Ms. Leifer, who is the Director General of ETHNO, which is the European Telecommunications Network Operators Association. And then to my right, we have Ms. Maria Fernanda Gaza, who is the CEO of Orestia and Board Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce. And these two are also members of the ITF leadership panel and have been one of the most contributing members of the leadership panel, I must say. And they’re really represented. And I think that that is really great. And we do need a round of applause for that. And then we have Ambassador Henry Verlier, who is ambassador for digital affairs of France. And then at the end, somebody who needs no introduction whatsoever is Nigel Hickson is senior advisor on data protection on the Department for Digital Culture and Media and Sport. With that, I’ll just go straight into the questions given my opening remarks already. So, Lise, you have been a driver on the leadership panel of the framework for the Internet we want. Can you talk a little about that initiative and its synergies with the GDC and the WSIS process?

Lise Fuhr:
I think we only have one mic, right? And sorry, I have to leave in 15 minutes. So it’s not because this is a boring discussion just for you to know. And I want to highlight it’s not only me. Also, Maria Fernanda and Caroline Edstad are from the Austrian ministry. The minister has been very active in this work on the Internet we want, which is an initiative that the leadership panel as such also have worked hard to develop. And I’m very proud of the framework as such. From the beginning, we’ve seen the Internet we want as a way to create a basis for goals and objectives to support the development of an open, secure, and rights respecting internet across the globe. And I think it’s among one of the more important initiatives this year, and we have many platforms right now, but we need here to align a bit with or discuss also the GDC, the Pact for the Future and the WSIS. And I think it’s important to keep sight of how these different pieces fit together because it’s extremely important that we ensure that the different frameworks are beneficial for each other and that the initiatives are not seen as upholding or working against each other, but are strengthened the fundamental elements of internet governance. I think that’s in the best interest for all of us. The internet we want, there are a lot of synergies in this document with both the GDC and the WSIS. And I think the internet we want should be an important component of the Global Digital Compact because it can kind of tie the GDC into the IGF which is very well placed to monitor and implement the decisions made by the multi-stakeholder community for the future of the internet. And it’s important to remember that the internet we want is made in a bottom-up way. We have taken whatever came out of the different IGFs, the different international IGFs, tried to tie it into a framework. And then we have made a consultation that we will soon also discuss the results of with all of you. So with that.

Chengetai Masango:
Thank you very much, and it was quite succinct as well. Thank you. The next question goes to Nigel, and Nigel, we’ve just heard about how the ITF is looking toward a set of milestones for the future. But as we know, it has been a long history. It has had a long history, and the UK has been a consistent and ardent supporter of the ITF. Can you tell us why?

Nigel Hickson:
Thank you so much. Thank you for inviting me to this panel. It’s a great honour to speak. I shouldn’t really be here. Well, I sort of should be at the back really. Our minister was going to speak of course, and I deeply apologise that he’s unable to come. So for the UK, the ITF is becoming a sort of deep-rooted institution, if you like. It’s one of those things that passes on from minister to minister, from team to team. They say, well, it’s this ITF, why do you love it so much? Well, I think we love it, and we support it, and we endorse it, and we’re passionate about it, because it is the preeminent discussion forum where everyone can come together. Everyone can come together. It doesn’t matter whether they’re labelled civil society, or academia, or scientific, or technical community, or business. Everyone can come together and enter into a dialogue, enter into a conversation, and listen, and listen, and listen. And that is what we should be doing, and that’s what we do. The NRI network, this amazing network of over 150 national, regional, and youth initiatives. This is something that we’re truly passionate about. This is where the grassroots happen. This is where people take risks. This is where people innovate and work so hard to have these discussions in countries where perhaps, you know, this civil society in business, academia and government doesn’t often get together that much. So this is truly important that those sessions need to be reflected in the national idea. We need to hear people. And I’ll finish by just saying how grateful we are to everyone that works so hard for the UN IGF, to the leadership panel, which has emerged and has been such, in our view, a success. So inspiring. The people in it so give their time, give their commitment. And it is inspiring because it has this link to the UN, which is just so and really guides us as we go forward. We have some crucial times ahead, but by listening, by understanding, we’ll get there.

Chengetai Masango:
Thank you very much, Nigel. We had the pleasure of being hosted in Paris for the 2018 Annual IGF. Drawing in part on France’s experience as a host country, what has been the value of IGF engagement in your view? And how has it moved the needle on the ongoing critical issues highlighted by the GDC and WSIS?

Henri Verdier:
Thank you very much. First, personally, I became ambassador the day after the IGF session. So I was there with you as a member of CIT during the session. And it was a very great opportunity to meet everyone, especially the French. in the French chapter of the IGF, and to contribute to the various messages. So yes, briefly, I think that it was a great opportunity for France to build a stronger connection with all civil society, maybe to test some messages, because I don’t know if you remember, but President Macron was a recently elected president, and he tested some ideas with not such success in front of the community, but that was a way to learn and also to announce some things. But I don’t want to speak just about the French opportunity. As my friend and colleague, I think that the IGF is a unique venue in the field of internet and digital governance. We are a community, but an open community, constantly evolving community. We are an ecosystem with innovators, with agreements, disagreements. And if we don’t have a kind of open center for this open community, if we don’t have a main hub in a global network, we will have to face big divergences. And yes, this diversity of people, of organizations, putting important issues on the agenda. I remember, I think that we can say that the very concept of naturality was elaborated and refined within the conversation in the different meetings of the IGF. If we don’t have a place to raise awareness, to put some ideas, to test some ideas, then we would have to conceive another form of governance that won’t be the internet governance, because we want to be able to welcome newcomers to innovators, new ideas, to face new challenges. Maybe one last observation, because it’s morning. This morning I did come back to the Paris resurgence. So the draft, not conclusion, but summary of what was said in Paris. And that’s fascinating to see that it was probably the bottom, the turning point between a quite happy and Topian and confident digital revolution and the situation we have to face now, which is more, with more tension, more confrontation, a bit more politicized. And if you have the curiosity to come back to the Paris resurgence, you can see that the climate was much more consensual and confident. And you can measure what did change in the last six years. But you can also see the beginning of some real concerns regarding the need of, for example, there were a message saying we would need to be the real digital diplomacy. And this was just a wishful thinking at this time. And today we have a lot of digital diplomats in the world. We started to speak about the rise of AI in Paris and that everything will change and it will be a different battle, et cetera. We did speak about blockchain and how can we understand and can we apply the principles of internet to this kind of revolution. So that’s interesting also to measure what changed and I suggest to you to come back to the Geneva papers or the Paris papers or the Berlin messages because it’s worse to compare to the current situation. Thank you very much.

Chengetai Masango:
Thank you, Abed. Mario Fernando, as the internet and digital technologies have seen remarkable growth, so too has the IGF. The number of stakeholders involved and the variety of topics it covers. How do you see this evolution of the IGF and how can it expand? How can this expanded scope be mobilized for the GDC and the OSS plus community?

Maria Fernanda Garza:
Thank you, Shingetai. Since the inception of the Internet Governance Forum, the IGC has been a step-by-step order, participating actively from the inaugural IGF in advance. And for us, the IGF is invaluable in its ability to bring together all stakeholder communities to share their knowledge and expertise, which not only contributes to inform evidence-based policymaking, but also to ensure the interoperability of policy approaches that meet the diverse needs of everyone, everywhere. In the past 19 years, those needs have evolved, and the IGF as a nexus of all different communities of the Internet has naturally responded. We are currently looking at an expanded range of experts and agenda-addressing topics beyond traditional Internet governance issues, such as artificial intelligence, digital inclusion, cybersecurity, and data governance, and the growing network of national and regional IGFs. The intersessional work and dynamic coalitions demonstrate the expanding reach of the IGF and the trust put into it by the global multi-stakeholder community to discuss and advance policy deliberations both about the Internet, but also about the technologies that are enabled by it. While we recognize that there are other forums that address the same issues, there is a unique element that distinguishes the IGF, which is, to be precisely said, its bottom-up model and convening role. So it is crucial that this powerful attribute is recognized and harnessed in existing and future processes. that addresses the development of digital policy including the WSIS Plus 20 and the GDC. So as we look ahead to the WSIS Plus 20 review and the deliberations of the Global Digital Combat, we envision the unique convening power of the IGF to be leveraged alongside other existing mechanisms to contribute to the development of those processes and their outcomes and also remain engaged in their follow-up. For this to happen, IGF’s mandate must be extended and the IGF should be strengthened and its resources stabilized to be able to carry out its important work.

Chengetai Masango:
Thank you very much. And I would like to ask the same question, Judith, if you have anything to add.

Lise Fuhr:
Well, I agree with Maria Panada very surprisingly that we have seen a growth and that’s to me a sign of a success story. I also see that I participated in the NetMondial Plus 10. We had a strong support for IGF there. You saw the numbers in Kyoto where we had 9,000 people participating, 1,500 were from the governments. We have 170 different regional and national IGFs. To me, that’s strong numbers. That shows the eagerness to discuss issues related to the digital ecosystem. And to me, it’s important it’s not only the Internet, it’s a digital ecosystem. We’re discussing emerging technologies. We’re discussing a wider range of things. But I still also believe we should set the bar high. We should aim. look at how we can get a balanced stakeholder participation. We should aim for fully representation there, also based on geography. And if we look at it considering the GDC and its upcoming review process, I find it’s important that we ensure that IGF has a clearly established role. So we manifest it a bit like Nigel was saying, we should make it. It is an institution that can be and should be preserved. But of course, we also should build on the successes we have had of the existing structure as the right way forward. But it can also be beneficial to build on the synergies between the GDC and IGF. So it’s not to contradict each other, it’s to complement. And in the end, I also think that this success should, of course, continue to develop. IGF should continue to develop and remain future-proof.

Chengetai Masango:
Thank you very much, Lisanne. I know you have to go now. It’s all right. Thank you very much for making the time. Now, finally, to the rest of the panellists, I’d like to ask the question that is future-looking. How do you see the IGF evolving following the adoption of the GDC and the completion of the WSIS plus 20 review process? So we can start from the end and move on.

Henri Verdier:
Let’s start from the end, so you are the end. So, seriously, first, the GDC negotiations are still underway, so that’s a bit early to answer the question. And we are negotiating with the GDC. negotiations and for example as our European colleagues and I raise UK in Europe, we did try to avoid another forum to protect the current IGF etc and that’s important. Second observation, I think that we should first save and preserve the acquis and the acquis is as I said the most vibrant, diverse, open forum to exchange about every important aspect of the future of digital revolution. So we need to preserve this and to be sure that whatever we decide we still will have the biggest and more diverse forum to speak about everything and everything means a lot. I don’t know how you do feel with this but so I was young when it was the first internet revolution. Now I’m less young but with the AI revolution I feel young again because everything will change drastically in the direction that you cannot completely imagine and with new actors and new challenges and we need new concepts, new organizations so maybe this community has to prepare for this new challenge. And that’s my third view and maybe we could so if we manage to preserve the acquis, the big again and forever the biggest, the central forum and the most open and diverse forum and free because here there is free speech and we can come with ideas, we can say please I need a room to propose a new debate on something that’s important. If we manage to preserve this we can also consider to evolve a bit and I was thinking about two things. First, after the GDC there will be a need of implementation of the conclusion of the GDC so we should decide to propose and to organize to be able to to be there, to check the implementation, or to help the implementation, so we could consider this. My second point, because you mentioned I’m the French ambassador for digital affairs, so I deal with cyber security, with ethics of AI, with governments, with, you cannot imagine, economic development policies, digital public infrastructure, so I go to a lot of forums, and I think that we could try to find a way to feed a bit the other conversations, to be there, to say, we can imagine two directions, we had this conversation one hour ago, for example, I will contribute to the organization of the French AI summit next February, I will ask for some help from the IGF to feed a bit the French summit, so the other summits or fora could have the instinct, the reflex, to ask some help from the IGF, but on the other side, we could decide as a community to send representatives, to propose some papers, to not take the control, not to try to share the governance, but just to testify that we, as the biggest and main forum, we have some ideas, we have some convictions, or we did elaborate some topics, or we did agree on some mistakes we don’t want to make, and to send this to everywhere, to the OECD, to the UN, other UN organizations, to the French summit, the Benchley Park summit a few months ago, etc., so my idea is that without changing the spirit of freedom, free speech, and serendipity, we could try to, yes, to feed a bit the other conversations.

Nigel Hickson:
Yes, thank you very much, and really with the ambassador on this. and I’ll be brief because we want to hear everyone here. I said the IGF or the UK considers the IGF to be a venerable institution, but that of course does not mean it ought to evolve. We’re very good at this in the UK. We have a lot of institutions and we had men’s club and even some of the clubs that were men only are now women. That’s a stupid example, but you know, things, I often get in trouble for my stupid examples, but things evolve. You should not be afraid of change. We should not be afraid of things evolving and changing. And the IGF has evolved and changed already since 2006. It has evolved and changed. It has given platforms to so many people. It has changed the way it’s done. It’s improved its processes and procedures and it will do in the future, whatever comes out of the GDC, whatever comes out of the WSIS plus 20, I think it will be a positive endorsement or the UN IGF and all its work. And it will change. It will have to change as society, as technology, as processes change. Yes, it needs to do more on its messaging. It does so well in articulating these messages after every UN IGF. And here we should, I’m glad Liz, who has gone, but although I mentioned the brilliant IGF in Kyoto, having so many people in Kyoto, it was just so wonderful to see that level of participation. And we hope for the same in Saudi Arabia. It’s going to be brilliant there as well, I hope. And so the message is simple. I would like every UN agency. I would like every multi-stakeholder agency in their annual meetings to have a slot when they talk about digital processes, when they talk about the internet, what happened at the UN IGF, what were the messages for that, what were the messages relevant to the WTO, what are the messages relevant to UNESCO, what are the messages relevant to ITU. We should all be ensuring that the messages that come out are taken into consideration. And secondly, we should not be afraid of the UN IGF evolving and making recommendations. Not great treaties, not any fundamental agreements are going to change the way we act, but recommendations on topics that we’ve been discussing for years, like recommendations, could be something as we go forward. Thank you.

Maria Fernanda Garza:
Thank you. At this crucial moment of the IGF, and as we approach the review of its mandate at WSIS Plus 20, we come at a point of reflection of all the different processes informed based on input from the community and all the achievements reached. While we have come a long way since 2003, there are very important challenges that remain. Despite the progress made, 2.6 billion users still remain unconnected, and those who have the possibility to connect often do not for a variety of reasons, from affordability to lack of relevant services, lack of skills, or cultural or normative impediments. And once online, a whole host of other challenges arise. New challenges on the governance of the Internet are leading to fragmented policy response, also influenced by evolution of digital technologies based on or beyond the Internet. So while the multi-stakeholder model has gone a very long way, it is still not universally embraced and it is not leveraged properly in all levels of governance. WSIS made it clear that we have a shared responsibility in shaping the inclusive information society jointly, cooperating across all stakeholders groups to find meaningful solutions to common challenges. We should continue with these principles as our guiding post for the future of the IGF following the adoption of the GDC and the completion of the WSIS plus 20 review process. The IGF has been and should continue to be the enabler of this principle, as it has the potential and the unique community power tied to its bottom-up approach community. We have also seen strong references by both the GDC and the part of the future towards the multi-stakeholder approach and the need for the UN to provide meaningful opportunities for stakeholders to contribute to its processes. There are lessons from the IGF to be leveraged for that. ICC representing the global business community remains actively engaged in the discussions of the GDC and WSIS plus 20. And we will continue to work both the public and private sector to ensure strong and meaningful business contribution to these dialogues and promote open and inclusive dialogue cooperation. Thank you very much.

Chengetai Masango:
And now, since we’ve heard from our panellists, I’d like to hear from you, the audience. Yes, Cheryl, please. And then who else? Let me get three people. So, okay. So, one, two, three, four. Cheryl.

Audience:
Hi, thank you. Thank you so much and thank you to the panelists. For those in the room who may not know me, my name is Cheryl Miller and I’m Vice President for the U.S. Council of International Business. I actually used to be a MAG member, a member of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF and I was actually one of the first supporters for the Internet Governance Forum Support Association. So I certainly appreciate all of the incredible work done by Chang-Tai as well as the leadership panel and many other supporters that I see around the table in this room. I had a couple of quick questions and not to any panelists in particular, whoever might like to answer. First, with respect to the GEC, there’s the text and then there’s going to be the follow-up in the implementation, okay? So I look at it as these two buckets. And so first question, as I look at the text and I talk to the stakeholders, some feel the language is strong enough in support of the IGF. Others feel it could be stronger. I’d be curious to hear any thoughts from panelists on it, whether there are areas where it could be strengthened or whether there’s anything perhaps missing that really helps to support the vision that I heard all of you echo in terms of making sure the IGF is healthy, strong and is changing with respect to the very dynamic digital era that we’re in right now. And then the second question, I heard you all touch upon possibly the IGF being a place for some of the review processes of the GEC. What might that look like? And I don’t think, I actually disagree, I don’t think it’s too early to be thinking about that because I think sometimes sort of having options and having thoughts on that can guide inspiration in other areas. And so those are my two questions and thank you very much. Thank you to the panelists. This was a very engaging conversation. My name is Naya Latricle, I’m an advisory board member at the IGF. I’m here to talk to you about the IGF and how we can support the IGF and how we can support the IGF and how we can support the IGF and how we can support the IGF and how we can support the IGF and how we can support the IGF Digital Democracy Initiative. I did hear, she’s asked some of my questions, but I also know that, recognize that the IGF is a major convener when it comes to the digital ecosystem. And I did hear the conversation around balanced stakeholder participation and having a balanced stakeholder population. At the last IGF that happened in Tokyo, a lot of people from the global militarizing countries had issues with assessing the summit. And I was wondering, beyond all the conversations that we’re having, how are we working with government stakeholders to strengthen the inclusion of these voices as we progress towards implementation and supporting the GDC process? Thank you. Thank you so much. My name is Anand Gautam Pathrekar. I’m coordinator of the IGF NEPA, and I’m also a specific coordinator for youth coalition on internet governance. So, I’ll be mostly talking from the perspective of youth. And one thing is, we have been appreciated that we have more than 150 plus analysts. So, how does this analyst fit into the global summit, summit of the future? So, how do we fit into that ecosystem? They are mostly talking about multilateral governance of the ecosystem, and we are more into the side of multi-stakeholder governance. So, I think this is going to be multilateral versus multi-stakeholderism again, although their civil society has been recognized, but I don’t think it has been recognized on that degree. Another thing is, Some type of future also mentions about the inclusion of use as one of the major agenda but like I don’t see any implementation how young stakeholders like user analyzer, whatever it be, dynamic coalition or IGF itself, how they can be part of that. There’s no kind of like distinction. So they have focused the use portion but like if we talk about digital governance and use how do we become there. Another coherence is like we have many NRI working in the country level. It’s a big network but the ecosystem within UN doesn’t recognize it in the national level. Like say we work in Nepal. So not UNDP doesn’t know what IGF structure is, what is the multistakeholder governance. When we try to talk with them they are not very aware of this ecosystem. We are 20 years past the IGF ecosystem but like in this 20 years those even agencies doesn’t recognize this system. So is this something missing middle there or like how do we get recognized in the national level as well. We have been doing like these things but like if and what this has created is like digital duplication. Like UNDP is working on some kind of like digital inclusion program and like another UN agency will also be doing similar kind of program. So instead if there is a multistakeholder platform that could be coordinated and all the NRIs would also be part of it, it would have been more impacted. We are always looking for the resources and the resources within the UN systems are being distributed in different manners. So I think that’s a good question. Thank you. Hello, this is Xiao, Zhang Xiao. I’m from China. and with .cn and also a Mac member, I’m standing on myself. And I think I have two points. The first is, I really agree with the panelists that after 20 years of efforts, IGF has a very unique value and it is not just an ecosystem, it is a platform. I think the role should be strengthened no matter what the name or mandate will be revised. Because after GDC, we still need platform, especially for my stakeholders to discuss whatever it will be. So definitely, IGF should play a key role in the future. And the second point is, I think IGF is actually we are talking about integration of digital policies, the policy evolving. So the function actually as a revised version of the GDC is still linked to, related to internet related issue, but actually the function of IGF should not be limited to internet related. We’re talking about digital policies, including AI governance, because AI is not an independent area. It’s actually, it’s an integration of digital technology. So my, I think actually the function should not be limited. Also in future, I hope the partnership within our ecosystem should be strengthened. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango:
Thank you very much for those questions. Now I will ask for volunteers from the panel to answer some of the questions. Who would like to answer? Should I restate the questions? Or, okay. So the first one was that some feel that the language on the idea of the GDC, they’ve got mixed feelings about it. Some feel it’s very good. Some think, some feel that it’s a bit lacking. So the question is, what are your feelings on it? And then the second question was, is there a place for the IGF in the post-GDC process? And what is it? So does anybody want to?

Maria Fernanda Garza:
We have been discussing this a lot, and we make this very clear that the unique essence of the IGF is needed and it should continue. And the way we see it is that the IGF is a perfect place to do the follow up for the GDC. So I cannot give you more details right now because we’re still working on that, but that is the idea for us to the IGF, to be the reviewer or to make sure that things are happening, to establish, eventually, I’m not talking about right now, establish KPIs, objectives, you know, that kind of thing. And we believe that because of the nature of the IGF, it is the right place to have that.

Henri Verdier:
Yes, I told you in my short statement, I think that as a community, we should be more vocal and to take our responsibilities and to feed this process, especially why not the consequences of the GDC. The question of the boundaries is a very interesting question. Myself, even I did mention AI, the future of AI, because I think we have something to tell about this. But today I learned that just for the car industry, we have more than 70 treaties, 70 different treaties just for motors. Sometimes I’m a bit afraid when I hear about digital governance, because if you want to speak about the very technical… layers. If you want to regulate private companies, if you want to build analytics for AI, if you want to build a more inclusive world, if you want to help emerging economies to deploy on, I don’t know, digital public infrastructure, if we want to finance good research in a good direction, if we want to, we cannot rely on one body. But it would be a big mistake. So, I don’t know, frankly speaking, I don’t have a clear view about what should we dig within the IGF and what is for other fora, except if we consider ourselves, again, as the main crossroads, the main biggest hub, with the unique diversity of every stakeholders, and that we try to contribute to other conversations. It can be a strategy. But again, we are a community. If you allow me to consider myself as part of this community, but I’m coming for six years now, we can take our destiny with ourself and we can decide. Don’t wait for people asking to the IGF to go there or there. The density of knowledge of musicians here is unique. Collectively, we know something and we have to share this.

Maria Fernanda Garza:
Yeah. There was a comment online that mentioned that what the GDC talks about has been discussed in the last 30 years at the IGF. And precisely, this document that we prepared at the leadership panel that is called The Internet We Want, is precisely the recollection of all the discussions that took place during the 20 years of the IGF. And then we put it together in a vision of what we would want the internet to be. Obviously, this is not going to be a level playing field, I mean, we find that not all the regions, all the countries are in the same level. So that’s where the IGFs, the local IGFs, the regional IGFs come in, because then we – this vision of establishing objectives and establishing a roadmap on how to get there, and then we will feed it with all the best practices from all the regions. So we will know which are the steps that each one of the regions or the countries are missing to get to where we all want to be regarding danger.

Nigel Hickson:
Thank you very much. I’ll just be really quick, just because I think most of the questions have been answered. Is the GDC perfect? You know, you could write that on a piece of paper, but it’s never going to be perfect. But if you didn’t mention the IGF at all, then we wouldn’t have serious concern. In recognising the IGF, I think it’s useful. I mean, yes, it could be stronger language, and let’s push for that, as member states and stakeholders, as the job goes ahead. The summit of the future – a very good question about the summit of the future. One of the problems, of course, at the UN is that we get very excited at the beginning of a negotiation, like the first draft of the GDC, the zero draft. And then enthusiasm to an extent – I’m not talking about our diplomats in New York – tends to wane off when we see further drafts, because we’ve all got so many other things to do. But on this area of the summit of the future, I think it’s really important that we keep our eye on the ball, as all stakeholders in this, because the summit of the future is the chapeau that will cover the GDC and many other areas. agreements and we have to see how that pans out. China, yes, 20 years, you mentioned 20 years, and 20 years of discussion at the UNRGF has told us that many, many different issues come to the forefront depending on the time, depending on the atmosphere, depending on the issues of the day, and we should not be afraid to embrace digital issues. We shouldn’t be dominated by one particular digital issue at a time, but we shouldn’t be afraid to embrace them because that is the way that the IGF has been successful. Some of you might have read the study by the DNS RF, the DNS Research Federation that the UK supported, their research that looked at the IGF over the last 20 years, looked at its successes, looked at how it could influence national, regional, and global policies, and it’s because we weren’t afraid to discuss these new issues at the IGF that it’s had such an influence. Thanks.

Chengetai Masango:
Thank you very much. We are a little bit over time at the moment. There’s one question about the Global South and access to the summit, and I think you’re talking about, you know, getting visas, et cetera. Correct, yes. That’s a thing that we from the Secretariat have been working on and working with our host countries, and after every single cycle, we do examine what went well, what went wrong, what can be improved, and of course, depending on the region, there’s slightly different problems. But we know it’s nowhere near perfect at the moment, but we do try to improve it as we go along, especially with this early advance warning to to the missions or the consulates that give visas, they know about the idea, et cetera. So we are working on it and we will continue to work on it. And hopefully this year is gonna be better than last year and next year is gonna be better than this year and we get closer to it. Marie, as I did answer a little bit about the role of the NRIs to fit into the summit of the future, as for the youth, I will just answer it quickly. Yes, in the end, the GDC is negotiated by governments, but from your country, from your base, through the NRIs, you can still affect and make your opinions known through them and then that may actually percolate up to the GDC negotiations. With that, I’ll just ask the panelists if they have any last words or final words. Thank you for coming. Okay, well, thank you very much for coming and I’d like to thank the panelists as well, but also you as well to give you their hand. Thank you. And one last thing, we do have another session which will be this Thursday at 10 a.m. and room K1, yes, in Mont Brion, not in this room and it will be more focused on the idea of-