Day 0 Event #166 Review of IGF2023 Kyoto and road for WSIS+20

Summary

This discussion focused on the achievements, challenges, and future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and broader internet governance. Panelists highlighted the IGF’s success in fostering inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue on internet issues, creating global awareness of digital topics, and developing a network of national and regional IGFs. They emphasized the IGF’s role in promoting an open, global, interoperable, and secure internet.

Key challenges identified included bridging the digital divide, addressing the crisis of multilateralism, and securing stable funding and support for the IGF. Panelists stressed the importance of the multi-stakeholder approach in building trust and finding shared solutions to global internet issues. They also noted the growing involvement of youth in internet governance discussions.

Looking to the future, participants emphasized the need to secure the renewal of the IGF’s mandate in the upcoming WSIS+20 review. They called for strengthening the IGF’s role in implementing the Global Digital Compact and addressing emerging digital policy issues. The discussion highlighted the importance of continued multi-stakeholder engagement in shaping internet governance and the need for capacity building, especially for youth and developing countries.

Panelists agreed that the IGF remains crucial as a platform for inclusive dialogue on internet policy issues. They emphasized the need for continued support and improvement of the IGF to ensure its effectiveness in addressing future challenges in the rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The achievements and challenges of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to date

– The importance of the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance

– The need to secure renewal of the IGF’s mandate and strengthen its role

– The involvement of youth in internet governance processes

– Promoting an open, global, interoperable and secure internet

The overall purpose of the discussion was to reflect on the IGF’s accomplishments so far, discuss its current role in internet governance, and consider how to strengthen and sustain the IGF going forward, particularly in light of upcoming processes like the WSIS+20 review.

The tone of the discussion was generally positive and constructive. Speakers highlighted the IGF’s achievements and importance, while also acknowledging challenges and areas for improvement. There was a collaborative spirit, with participants building on each other’s points and expressing shared goals for the future of internet governance. The tone remained consistent throughout, with a focus on how to collectively strengthen multi-stakeholder internet governance processes.

Speakers

– Yoichi Iida: Session moderator, representing the Japanese government

– Gitanjali Sah: Strategy and Policy Coordinator from International Telecommunications Union

– Melanie Kaplan: From the Department of State of U.S. Government, active in Internet governance

– Timea Suto: From International Chamber of Commerce

– Yuliya Morenets: Founder of the Youth IGF Global

Additional speakers:

– Craig Stanley-Adamson: From UK Department of Science Innovation Technology

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Discussion: Achievements, Challenges, and Future Prospects

This comprehensive discussion, moderated by Yoichi Iida of the Japanese government, brought together key figures in internet governance to reflect on the IGF’s accomplishments, current role, and future direction. The panel, notably all-female, included representatives from international organisations, government bodies, and youth initiatives, providing a multi-faceted perspective on the IGF’s impact and potential.

Iida opened by highlighting the panel’s composition, noting its relevance to addressing the digital gender divide. He also emphasized the IGF’s role as a reference point for discussions on data flow and AI governance.

Achievements of the IGF

Panellists unanimously praised the IGF for its success in fostering inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue on internet issues. Melanie Kaplan from the U.S. Department of State emphasized that the multi-stakeholder approach has been key to the internet’s success as a global platform. Timea Suto from the International Chamber of Commerce highlighted the IGF’s role as a platform for inclusive dialogue, while Yuliya Morenets, founder of the Youth IGF Global, noted the recognition and inclusion of youth voices as a major accomplishment.

The discussion underscored the IGF’s success in creating global awareness of digital topics and developing a network of national and regional IGFs. Craig Stanley-Adamson from the UK Department of Science Innovation Technology pointed out the IGF’s importance in fostering developing country leadership in internet governance discussions.

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite these achievements, the panellists identified several challenges. Timea Suto highlighted the need to bridge the digital divide and address the crisis of multilateralism. Funding and institutional stability emerged as critical issues, with Kaplan and Suto emphasizing the need to address the IGF’s funding challenges and stabilize its secretariat.

Looking ahead, securing the renewal of the IGF’s mandate in the upcoming WSIS+20 review was stressed as a primary goal. Kaplan called for improvements in IGF inclusivity and participation, particularly from developing countries. The role of youth in shaping internet governance was a recurring theme, with Morenets advocating for integrating youth perspectives in policy development and outlining four priorities for youth engagement.

Stanley-Adamson highlighted the need for the IGF to continue producing tangible outputs and impacts, particularly in implementing WSIS+20 and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). He also mentioned a report from the DNS Research Federation demonstrating the IGF’s impact on Internet Exchange Point growth in developing regions.

Kaplan emphasized the relevance of the GDC to the IGF’s work, referencing paragraphs 26 and 27 which describe the internet and the multi-stakeholder model. She also mentioned the Declaration for the Future of the Internet as an important initiative.

Suto stressed the importance of cross-border data flows and warned against the negative impact of data localization measures. The discussion also touched on the upcoming IGF in Norway in June, as noted by Iida.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion concluded with a strong affirmation of the IGF’s crucial role in internet governance and a call for its continued support and improvement. Key takeaways included the need to secure the IGF’s mandate renewal, improve its inclusivity and participation, recognize its broader role beyond internet governance, and address funding and staffing challenges.

As Kaplan aptly summarized, “This is a pivotal time for the IGF”, with the recent adoption of the GDC and the upcoming WSIS+20 review. The discussion underscored the collective commitment to strengthening the IGF’s role in shaping a more inclusive, secure, and innovative digital future, with a particular emphasis on youth engagement and producing tangible outcomes.

Yoichi Iida: If you have questions from the floor, the speaker will come up to here. I will follow the order, but I will be watching the clock. Maybe I will invite you for the second question to talk about the future of digital. If you have questions from the floor, the speaker will come up to here. If you have questions from the floor, the speaker will come up to here. Maybe we should start very quickly. Okay, so I hope my microphone is on. So, good morning, everybody, and probably good morning, good day to online participants. Thank you very much for joining us in this session, which will talk about the Internet governance and also the future of IGF. So, I have a very wonderful line of speakers joining us. So, let me quickly introduce the speakers in person, and also we have one online participant here. So, from this side, Miss Gitanjali Sah, Strategy and Policy Coordinator from International Telecommunications Union. Thank you very much, Gitanjali, to join us. And second, Miss Temiya Suto from International Chamber of Commerce, who is always very active in IGF. So, thank you very much for joining us. And the third person is Miss Melanie Kaplan from the Department of State of U.S. Government. And Melanie is also very active in Internet governance. And I always call her Melanie, and I don’t know her official title, but okay, just forget it, yeah. We are always one of the stakeholders in this field. And last but not least, of course, we have Miss Yulia Morenet, if I pronounce correctly, founder of the Youth IGF Global. So, thank you very much, Yulia, for joining us online. We miss you, but we definitely expect a very active discussion today. So, just quickly to overview what was happening over the last few years. This year was actually a very busy year for us. As all of you are aware, United Nations discussed Global Digital Compact. And the outcome came out on the sideline of UN General Assembly in September. And we believe these outcomes are quite well organized and probably satisfied most of us. But the sentences look good, but the real value will be the follow-up. So, we have to discuss how we can follow up these outcomes and how we can bring these outcomes in the document into the reality in the next coming month. So, in next year, 2025, we will have the GDC follow-up, of course, but we will have WSIS Plus 20 review. And this will discuss how and what IGF will be continued as internet governance instrument under United Nations auspices. Next year, we will have next IGF in Norway in June, which is quite early compared to regular timing. And we need to be very much hurry up and busy after this IGF completed. But all of you must be very much aware that this IGF in Saudi looks very beautifully organized. And maybe I don’t want to keep you too long in this session, but I will give you more time to walk around and look around to see people here. But please be a little bit patient to see and what these wonderful speakers will talk about IGF in the future. So, the Japanese government has been also very active in this field. And we invited IGF last year to Kyoto, where more than 6,000 people gathered in person. And more than 10,000 people joined online, including in-person participants. So, in that sense, Kyoto IGF was very much successful. But of course, we have to think about the follow-up and the outcome and materialization of the outcomes from Kyoto interactions too. So, let me invite those speakers to my questions. So, first question. What are the major achievements of Internet Governance Forum up until now? And also the outstanding challenges in the Internet Governance for different stakeholders, including government, businesses, civil society, academia, international organizations? And when we think about the upcoming discussions and arguments. So, first, I will invite Melanie to share your views.

Melanie Kaplan: Well, thank you so much for having me, Yuichi. It’s a pleasure to see you and to be joined by such distinguished colleagues on the panel. Nice to see everyone here in the room and hello to stakeholders online. You know, I think I just start out by saying the United States strongly supports IGF as the preeminent global venue bringing together all stakeholders in a bottom-up process to discuss solutions on Internet public policy issues that are rights-respecting, innovative, and empowering. And sort of reflecting on past years in IGF, we’ve seen it as a great venue for discussions for the latest topics and very flexible to accommodate the evolution of key issues. We think that IGF continues to serve as a model for inclusivity and transparency in international engagements. And the sort of continued growth and breadth of conversations is a testament to the importance of the IGF. You know, one of the challenges that we see that many stakeholders face in Internet Governance is the ever-growing and expanding international landscape dealing with these issues. And IGF provides an excellent platform on an annual basis to sort of pull all these threads together. And as Yoichi was mentioning in his introduction, we do really see that this… This is a pivotal time for the IGF, with the GDC’s adoption that just happened at the Summit for the Future, and as we’re sort of in the outset of the WSIS Plus 20 overall review. And so as we sort of look forward and think about IGF of the future, you know, we very much support efforts to continue strengthening the IGF and increasing participation of stakeholders, particularly from developing countries. And we will, of course, in the WSIS Plus 20 review process, advocate very strongly for the continuation of the IGF’s mandate.

Yoichi Iida: Thank you very much, Melanie, for a very strong comment, probably from the government point of view. And so now let me ask, invite Tymia to share the same question from probably in particular business perspective.

Timea Suto: Thank you very much, Yoichi, and thank you for inviting me here. And it’s really great to see each other and start with a great session early on day zero. I hope we will be successful in sharing some light on the IGF and the path forward. Looking a little bit back, because we’re talking about the IGF achievements and what we’ve done thus far, as Melanie said, I think the main achievement of the IGF is being this instrument to foster inclusive multistakeholder dialogue on Internet governance and really bringing all of us together from business, government, civil society, academia, technical community. And it has established, IGF, it has established itself as the premier platform for this open and constructive discussion, not only on the Internet and its governance, but also on the array of technologies that enable the Internet or are enabled by the Internet. So it really points beyond now, 20 years in, from where we started on Internet governance. The other major contribution that I see from the IGF or what business sees from the IGF is creating this global awareness of digital issues, whether we’re talking about access to digital inclusion or to cybersecurity or emerging technologies, it’s really being here and having this conversation encourages having a shared understanding and collaboration between all the stakeholders. And to this, we can add the outcomes that come from the IGF intersessional work, such as the best practice forums, the dynamic coalitions, the policy networks, that have allowed stakeholders to collaborate across the year around specific issues that they are interested in and bring their contributions to this forum, but also elsewhere. While these outputs are not binding from the IGF, they do provide insights and practical guidance sometimes for both policy makers and businesses, very happy always to see these outcomes come to life. And then last but not least about the achievements of the IGF, we shouldn’t forget the national and regional network that the IGF managed to build over the past almost 20 years that really brings the global discussions back down into the local practice, but also makes sure that our conversations at a global level are informed by the local realities and the grassroots engagement that these communities can have to these networks. So I think the IGF, we all hear the critics sometimes saying that it’s only a talk shop, but looking beyond that veil, I think it has accomplished quite a bit in 20 years. And there is a good report that came out earlier this year, I think from the UK government, so maybe my colleagues can present it to you later on. All this doesn’t come on its own. We do have a lot of challenges that we need to address, both as an international community and then the IGF itself. In the context that we are in today, and Melanie also you alluded to that, it’s an ever-changing world. And right now in digital and other conversations, I think the fundamental challenge, one of it is bridging the digital divide. We have done a lot over the years, but there is, despite this global progress, the gaps in access, the gaps in connectivity that get deeper and deeper with the fast evolution of technology. So the gaps in connectivity, when you look at them as data gaps or as gaps in AI, it’s actually deepening and widening, and we have to really make sure that we address that. And we can only address that together, both in a multilateral and a multistakeholder setting. The other challenge that I see is what some have dubbed the crisis of multilateralism that we are living today. We’ve seen it with the GCC, we’ve seen it with other negotiations in the United Nations. We really are facing a moment where it’s very difficult to reach agreements, where it’s very difficult to have trust in global conversations. And I think that impacts a lot the conversations that we have about the IGF, the conversations we have about digital. So I think the multistakeholder approach can actually help us build back that trust, trust in the multilateral system, but also the trust between the various communities. And I think that is one element of the IGF that we need to bring forward as we look ahead on what we want to do about the GDC implementation, about the WSIS Plus 20. We need to tap into this multistakeholder energy of the IGF to try and bring back that trust in global cooperation and in the multilateral conversations. So perhaps that’s where we should start. And then we can go into a lot of the smaller challenges that the IGF itself has, which is small secretariats and unstable funding and a number of other operational issues that perhaps the WSIS can also help address if we’re going forward. So I’ll leave it at that. And Pascal.

Yoichi Iida: OK. Thank you very much. Very comprehensive comments, including the various points of achievements and also risks and challenges. You touched upon the risk of splitting out the world into bilateralism or others. From the international organization’s perspective, you may have also some views on the same question, but also if you could touch upon the Kyoto conference, because ITU, I believe, was playing a very active role in Kyoto IGF.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much, Yuichi-san, and thank you for inviting us and convening us for this important conversation. So the IGF remains crucial due to its multi-stakeholder and inclusive nature. The previous panelists have emphasized on this fact. It’s a dialogue on internet governance that brings together the government, civil society, private sector, technical community, all of us together to facilitate global collaboration and cooperation on important issues like data privacy, digital inclusion, cyber security. And I think one of the impressive aspects of IGF has been the involvement of the youth. I think my previous panelists have covered most of it, but I can emphasize on the fact that IGF has been recognizing the youth both as a future user and innovators of the internet. That’s a very important aspect. So, many related platforms have been created, the youth IGF, the youth tracks, to ensure that their voices are captured and included. Another innovation, of course, is the local chapters bringing in the regional and local perspectives into global discussions and dialogues, very important. IGF 2023, as you alluded, in Kyoto was a very key milestone to the WSIS plus 20 process. The discussions and deliberations feed into the joint preparatory process that we are currently working on with ITU, UNESCO, UNDESA, the CSTD Secretariat. We’ve been having weekly meetings to consolidate the outcomes since IGF 2023 on different perspectives of the WSIS plus 20 process. So like the IGF, the WSIS plus 20 forum high-level event in 2024 also highlighted the fact that there should be a WSIS plus. The Swiss chair’s summary also captured these aspects. And as the UN, we have also been contributing very, very frequently to the GDC process. As the UN, we’ve been emphasizing on the importance of WSIS, the continuation of WSIS, and that with platforms like WSIS Forum, IGF, remain important multi-stakeholder platforms to bring in perspectives on global digital cooperation. So we stand ready, we have the frameworks, very well-functioning frameworks to complement and implement the GDC. Again, I would also like to conclude saying that in Kyoto, we also had multi-stakeholder dialogues on digital cooperation, very important. Mr. Utsumi was also in our session. He is one of the founders of WSIS, you may say. So it was a… a very important milestone in driving digital transformation and addressing the digital divide. So thank you so much for organizing such a great event. And we look forward to the IGF here in Saudi, and we look forward to the outcomes. Thank you.

Yoichi Iida: Thank you very much, Gitanjali. And I recognize you have to leave in the middle of the session. But thank you very much for this very helpful comment. And in your comment, there was a stress emphasized on the role of youth community. So now we have a representative from Youth IGF online, Yulia. So I would like to invite her to make some response to my question. So Yulia, you are our hope. Yulia, you are our hope. Yulia, you are our hope. Yulia, you are our hope. All right, I see myself.

Yuliya Morenets: Good morning to all, to our colleagues. And thank you for inviting us to this very important panel, indeed, this morning. So Gitanjali, I’m very, very happy to see you on that panel as well. And thank you for, in some essence, introducing, actually, what I was about to say. Of course, I will be speaking right now today from the perspective of the youth communities, of the presence of the young people. So I think the major achievement of the IGF is actually the presence and the recognition itself of the community, of the young people, and of the future leaders. And actually, the existence of the youth track itself in the program of the IGF. Gitanjali, you just said that it’s very important to recognize this group. But I do remember how it all started, when back in 2011, we’re sitting at the internal MAG meeting, right, discussing, and when I proposed to have the, and to do something for the young people. So it all started, actually, in 2011, with the very first meeting of the young and teenagers, how we called that, and that stayed, actually, slowly. And suddenly, it moved to 2016, when we first organized the open forum together with the European Parliament delegation to the IGF, it was a full house. And somehow, from that time, it started to move. And I think because also the community, the mighty stakeholder community, started to be ready to recognize the voice of the young people. And of course, their presence. And from there, I would say that, you know, they started, let’s say, the creation and the reinforcement of the generation of the new leaders in IG. And of course, a number of young people found their role, found their passion, but also, professionally speaking, but also, of course, personally speaking, I think so. And so, if we speak about the future of the IGF, and I think it will be developed later in the discussion, of course, the future of the IGF and the whole process will go now together with the presence of the young people, of the young leaders, of the young communities, and actually, it’s one of the booming stakeholder groups. And I can imagine, we can’t imagine anymore the IGF and the future of the IGF without the presence of the young leaders. Yoishi-san, you have the mic.

Yoichi Iida: Okay, thank you very much, Ilya, for the comment, and thank you very much for your time to join us online. So, apparently, you know, the multi-stakeholder approach and its development or promotion is one of the major achievements from IGF at this point. So, let me ask probably the remaining three speakers, how are you engaged now in promoting multi-stakeholder approach? How are you engaging in promoting open, global, interoperable, but secure, safe, secure internet? And what are you doing? And probably, if I may, how you are envisioning the future of internet at this moment, if you look over the next coming month or one or two years? So, unfortunately, Gitanjali has to go to the next session, but now I would like to first invite Timya to respond to this question.

Timea Suto: Very much, I’ll try and address the two questions in one. Perhaps we can also save some time. So, what about, I’ll be shameless and plug in a little bit about the International Chamber of Commerce. If, for those of you who might not know us, ICC is a global business organization. We represent over 45 million businesses of all sectors and all kinds of sizes in more than over 170 countries in the world. What we do is we try to be a hub for input and gathering and understanding what businesses all around the world think about the most pressing issues, policy issues around the internet, try and gather them views, and then try and put those views back out into multilateral, multistakeholder, international discussions. We really believe firmly that, and we say it a lot, that open, global, interoperable, and resilient internet is essential for economic growth, innovation, and societal progress. So we try to do what we do in the spirit of advancing this credo. And we do believe that the internet must remain a platform for free communication, seamless global trade, and inclusive digital participation that enables businesses, small and big, and people in every region to benefit from the digital economy. So what we do to try and promote this, we work on issues like universal meaningful connectivity, trying to promote a holistic policy framework that looks at expanding connectivity at all its layers, starting from infrastructure, but including also the applications and services that are necessary for people to want to connect to the internet, as well as the skills that are needed there to interact with that content and shape it for themselves. We work a lot on strengthening cybersecurity and digital trust. So we advocate, of course, for a strong cybersecurity framework, looking at cybersecurity as a shared responsibility between governments and businesses. So, of course, we believe that there’s a lot that the private sector needs to do to enhance the resilience of the internet, but relying only on the defensive capabilities of the private sector is not enough. We need to work hand-in-hand with governments to actually try and deter malicious cyber activity that governments can do to protect their populations and businesses, which is creating enforcement frameworks that hold bad actors accountable, that enhance international cooperation, and invest in cyber resilience also at the national level. Then, of course, another very important thing, and we’ve collaborated with Japan on this quite a bit, is we prioritize promoting cross-border data flows with trust, which we believe are fundamental to the interconnected global operation of the internet and support the businesses operating on or using the internet. And we try and make sure that it is clearly understood that regulatory fragmentation, like data localization measures, undermine this open nature of the internet, undermine innovation, and raise barriers to business and to consumers to be able to access the services that they need and develop over the internet. So these are the issues that we would like solved for the future of the internet as well. So the internet that we want and that we’re looking forward to is one that is open, secure, inclusive, and resilient, one that fosters innovation, economic growth, and social development, one that is built on trust, transparency, and security, and that has inclusive, universal access to services, connectivity, infrastructure, and digital skills. And we believe firmly that as an enabler for all of this, we need the multi-stakeholder engagement in internet governance, that the future internet governance must continue to be shaped by the range of perspectives of all the stakeholders from governments to business to civil society and the tech community, because we need to ensure that policies reflect the realities from the ground, and they are diverse enough to accommodate local realities but also that fosters collaboration, mutual understanding, and with that capacity building to be able to find really this shared solutions to these global problems that cannot be localized to one level because that creates the problem of fragmenting both our policy frameworks, but also fragmenting the internet itself, which we would like to avoid for the future. So I think that’s our vision and what we do about it, and I’m glad to talk about all of this with you later.

Yoichi Iida: Okay, thank you very much for this, again, comprehensive comment on what you are doing now and what you are trying to do in the future. We have done. quite a lot, I believe, but we still have a lot to do. But what you mentioned in your comment, the interoperability of regulatory frameworks or government frameworks, not only in data, but also probably AI and other digital policy, I think it will be a very, very urgent issue, and we will probably dig in a little bit more in the afternoon session, moderated by yourself. So thank you very much for the comment, and now I would like to invite Melanie for the same question.

Melanie Kaplan: So looking at sort of what we’re doing now to promote an open, global, interoperable, and reliable internet, we really see the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance as indispensable for the internet’s success as a global platform for communications, commerce, and innovation. We engage in a variety of fora to support the multi-stakeholder system, and we want to encourage multi-stakeholder input into processes and discussions addressing internet public policy issues. I know the GDC has already come up a lot this morning, but I think if you look back in the GDC, that was one of the recent things I did to promote the internet, and so if you look at paragraph 26, the GDC describes the internet as open, global, interoperable, stable, and secure. And then I like paragraph 27 even better, which has really strong language on the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance. It uses the word multi-stakeholder. It lists out all the stakeholders. It talks about the technical community and recognizes them as a separate stakeholder group. So that’s something that I think is sort of a recent thing that many of us in this room have worked on together. And then I’d also just point back to another thing that the US government has been very involved in, which was the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, which has, I believe, more than 60 signatories and talks about the internet as an open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, and secure. So that’s sort of what we’ve done recently, but then sort of looking ahead to the future, we support a global multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance that’s building capacity, providing technical assistance, and support for implementation, inclusive, human-centric, sustainable internet. And we really see that the active and meaningful participation of all stakeholders is essential to inform our discussions on policymaking and to promote transparency, accountability, and to strengthen implementation. And so really, we see the multi-stakeholder model as the best way to ensure the internet continues to innovate and help all of us. And so we welcome, we know there’s a lot of active conversations with stakeholders about ways to continue to improve multi-stakeholder processes. I think NetMundial Plus 10 was one of those conversations, just one example of that continued dialogue. And as we’ve talked about already today, I think there’s going to be a lot more dialogue of this as homework, right? The GDC gave us homework, the WSIS review is going on. So all this to say, we think that these topics are going to keep coming up and we keep coming back to multi-stakeholderism as really the way forward.

Yoichi Iida: Okay, thank you very much. Your comment, paragraph 26, 27, reminded me of the very busy man to negotiate the sentences. We believe the outcome is okay, but I also am aware that some of the people probably on the floor today or others on the online might have been a little bit frustrated about the process and that would be one of the homeworks for us for the next year. So thank you very much. And now I would like to invite Yuliya again for the same question. Your vision on what we are doing and also what you would expect for the future of the internet. Yuliya, please go ahead.

Yuliya Morenets: Very quickly. I think the promotion of the internet governance and the young people are the greatest, one of the greatest groups in promoting. And the fact for the young people to be present, that’s already a great promotion itself. Because they are one of the strongest groups together with others. So now, of course, their voice needs to go from the voice itself, probably at this stage, to the pipeline solutions and also in starting having an impact in the policy development. But in order, of course, to fully give them the opportunity to promote the process of the digital cooperation and be strongly present at the internet governance area, we really need to all work together to reinforce their capacities. And capacities for the open, sustainable and reliable internet. So that’s why actually we have four priorities, that we have identified. And we work particularly on these four priorities, which is the online safety, face online, cyber security skills and digital cooperation. So I would say in order to have these, as I just said, voice being stronger and be present in a more stable way, we really need all together work in developing the reinforcement capacities of the young people in different regions all over the world. Yuichi-san.

Yoichi Iida: Thank you very much, Ria-san, for the comment. And it is always very important to have active young people engaged in internet governance and not only internet governance, but also all other digital policymaking. So we always welcome your contributions and we are always hoping to work closely together. So now I would like to invite maybe one or two questions from the floor or participants online to these wonderful speakers. One of the things you may have been aware is surprising us is we have very wonderful four women on the stage. Gitanjali has already left, but we have four girls. And we have been talking about the digital gender divide, but what is that? Maybe from next year we have to talk about the digital gender divide from the different perspective, maybe the other way around. So I would like to, I didn’t exclude boys or men from the speakers when I invited for this session, but all volunteers were women. So it’s surprising. I would like to now ask boys, hey, what are you doing? But anyway, so now the question is open to girls and boys, whoever. Yeah, please.

Craig Stanley-Adamson: Hi, can this work? Yeah, brilliant. Just like to introduce myself, Craig Stanley-Adamson. I work at the UK Department of Science Innovation Technology. First, I’d like to thank the panelists for all your views, as well as to Yuichi and the Japanese government for chairing and hosting this. I’d like to follow up on the points that Tamiya made earlier on about reports that came out of an independent organization called the DNS Research Federation based in Oxford. It’s basically a really, really good report that talks about the tangible impacts that the IGF has had. I’d just like to highlight two or three of them just now to, and then share some views and maybe talk about how the IGF can continue to have these tangible outputs and impacts, particularly as we go into WSIS plus 20 implementation, things like that. So one of the first one being that the IGF has been a venue for basically creating the next leadership of global self and developing country leadership. This platform, this forum didn’t really exist before then, and now these voices are able to contribute to the WSIS process, which therefore makes it a stronger process and a stronger set of outcomes. In addition as well, the IGF’s been really a driver of the growth of IXPs. I think one example in the report, I don’t remember the exact numbers, but there were maybe sort of a low number of some of the barely functioning IXPs across Africa. With the help of the IGF, this rose to almost 50, just in the space of 10 years or whatever, of fully functioning IXPs across a number of cities, which is a real, real tangible example we can use, all of which go towards the supporting of WSIS implementation. There’s one more as well, it’s also been a really good mediator of some big crucial issues, such as the transition of IANA functions, which was, the IGF played a crucial role there. So I guess the question I have to the panel is what more can we do, or what can we do to support the IGF in these big decisions that it can have a role in, particularly after WSIS Plus 20, in implementing that and the likes of the GDC as well. So yeah, that’s my question. Thank you.

Yoichi Iida: OK, thank you very much. So who would like to make a comment back? Maybe both. To start.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much, Craig. Great question. And again, kudos to the developers of that report. It was quite informative. Because we tend to lose sight of what happened five years, 10 years ago. But we should remember the digest role. To respond, what we should do about the IGF, well first of all, I think we need to secure renewal of its mandates. That’s the first step in the Business Plus 20 review. Secondly, I think we need to make sure that the IGF is recognized in these roles that it’s playing, not only for internet governance, but also for the various issues that you’ve mentioned, from connectivity to other substantive issues that it can contribute to. So it’s not anymore just a discussion on internet governance in its purest form. And also, as I mentioned earlier, I think we have a number of institutional challenges that the IGF is bearing through or is powering through with an understaffed and underfunded secretariat with uncertainty of its future. I think we could do a bit better in making sure that that is stabilized and that the support to actually fulfill all these functions and potentials is there on the operational level. So I think that could be something that the Business Plus 20 could perhaps discuss and see if we can bring the IGF into a more stable foundation within the UN system.

Melanie Kaplan: I totally agree with Tameya that, first and foremost, we all are going to work really hard to make sure that the IGF mandate is extended in the Business Plus 20 overall review process. And we have heard stakeholders talk a lot about, how do you continue to improve the IGF? I mean, I think we see the IGF as a really good thing, but we always are looking for ways to improve it and to make it more inclusive and more participatory. And I also know that there’s a lot of stakeholder discussions out there about the funding issues. So I think that that’s another sort of conversation that I’m sure we’ll hear more about in the future.

Yoichi Iida: OK, thank you very much. Yeah, actually, IGF has been running on the front line of this type of multi-stakeholder governance in digital policymaking field. And every time I discussed governance mechanism for data flow across borders or maybe AI governance global, every time the IGF was a kind of a reference point for us, a guiding example for me. So I think the success of this framework is very, very important for the future of the whole digital economy and whole digital global society, I think. So thank you very much for the very good question and very, very wonderful comment. So any other question or even the comment from the floor? Or any question online?

Yuliya Morenets: If I can add something, Yoshi-san?

Yoichi Iida: Oh, yeah, of course. I’m sorry. Please.

Yuliya Morenets: Thank you.

Yoichi Iida: I’m sorry.

Yuliya Morenets: It’s always challenging to be on-site online. So that’s Yulia from the global youth IGF movement. I just wanted to say a few things. I think you don’t see me, but that’s OK. You have the voice. I just wanted to… A lot has been said right now about the, you know, stabilizing and securing the mining stakeholder model and the IGF future. But also I would like as coming from the… I mean, now coming with the question of young people being present and as we all agree that they are now part of this model and represent a very important stakeholder group, of course, I would urge the governments and different stakeholders in public sectors, stakeholders to have a consistent and stable support and resources that they can bring to these youth communities that actually represent a great voice in promoting that they need the existence and the development, right, of the model itself. And maybe what we can also do all together is really to reinforce, because that’s needed for the youth communities, is to reinforce the capacities itself in the mining stakeholder model, right? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. See you guys. you you you you you you and as we all agree that they are now part of this model and represent a very important Stakeholder group, of course, I would urge the government

Gitanjali Saha: Dogs on digital cooperation very important Mr. Otsumi was also in our session. He is one of the founders of business you may say So it was a very important Milestone in driving digital transformation and addressing the digital divide So, thank you so much for organizing such a great event and we look forward to the idea of here in Saudi And we look forward to the outcomes.

Yoichi Iida: Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much Gitanjali and I Recognize you have to leave in the middle of the session, but thank you very much for this very helpful comment and Your comment there was a stress emphasize on the role of youth community, so now we have Representative from youth IGF Online Yulia, so I would like to invite Her to make Some response to my question. So Yulia you are our hope I

Yuliya Morenets: See myself good morning to Colleagues and thank you for inviting us to this very important Panel indeed this morning. So I think Anjali I’m very very happy to see you on panel on that panel as well. And thank you for In some essence introducing actually what I was about to say, of course, I will be speaking Right now today from the perspective of of the youth communities, right Of the presence of the young people so I think the major achievement of the idea is actually the presence and the recognition itself of the community of the of the young people and of the future leaders And actually the existence of the youth track itself in the program of the IGF And Anjali you just said that it’s very important to recognize this group, but I do remember how it all started when back in 2011 we’re sitting at the Internal MAG meeting right discussing and when I proposed to have the and to do something for the young people So it’s all started actually in 2011 with the very first meeting of the young and teenagers how we called that and and that stayed actually slowly and suddenly boomed in 2016 when we first organized the Open forum together with the European Parliament delegation to the IGF It was a full house and somehow from that time it started to boom and I think because also the community the mighty stakeholder community Started to be ready to recognize the voice of the young people and of course their presence and from there I would say that you know the Started let’s say the creation and the reinforcement of the generation of the new leaders in IG And of course a number of young people found their role, found their passion But also professionally speaking, but also of course Personally speaking I think so and so if we speak about the future of the IGF And I think it will be developed later in the discussion Of course the future of the IGF and the whole process will go now together with the presence of the young people of the young leaders of the young communities and And actually it’s one of the booming Stakeholder groups, and I can imagine we can’t imagine anymore The IGF and the future of the IGF without the presence of the young leaders Yoshi-san you have

Yoichi Iida: Okay, thank you very much For the comment and thank you very much for your time to join us online So Apparently you know the multi-stakeholder approach and its development or promotion It’s one of the major Achievements from IGF at this point, so let me ask probably the remaining three speakers How are you engaged now in promoting multi-stakeholder approach? How are you engaging in in promoting open global interoperable but secure safe secure internet, and what are you doing? And probably if I may how you are Envision the future of the internet at this moment if you look over the next coming month or one or two years, so unfortunately Gitanjali has to go to the next session, but now I would like to first invite Timia to to respond to this question

Timea Suto: Very much, I’ll try and address that the two questions in in one perhaps we can also save some time So what about? I’ll be shameless and plug in a little bit about the International Chamber of Commerce if For those of you who might not know us ICC is a global business organization We represent over 45 million businesses of all sectors and all kinds of sizes in more than over 170 countries in the world What we do is is we try to be a hub for input and gathering and understanding what what business is all around the world Think about the the most pressing issues Policy issues around the internet try and gather them views and then try and put those views back out into multilateral multi-stakeholder international discussions We really believe firmly That and we say a lot That open global interoperable and resilient internet is essential for economic growth innovation and societal progress So we try to do what we do in in in the spirit of advancing this this credo and we do believe that the internet must remain a platform for free communication or seamless global trade and inclusive digital participation that enables Businesses small and big and people in every region to benefit from the digital economy So what we do to try and promote this we work on issues like universal meaningful connectivity trying to promote a holistic policy framework that looks at expanding connectivity at all its layers starting from infrastructure, but including also the applications and Services that are necessary for people to want to connect to the internet as well as the skills that are needed There to to interact with that content and shape it for themselves We work a lot on strengthening cyber security and digital trust So, we advocate, of course, for a strong cyber security framework, looking at cyber security as a shared responsibility between governments and businesses. So, of course, we believe that there’s a lot that the private sector needs to do to enhance the resilience of the Internet, but relying only on the defensive capabilities of the private sector is not enough. We need to work hand in hand with governments to actually try and deter malicious cyber activity that governments can do to protect their populations and businesses, which including enforcement frameworks that hold bad actors accountable, that enhance international cooperation, and invest in cyber resilience also at the national level. Then, of course, another very important thing, and we’ve collaborated with Japan on this quite a bit, is we prioritize promoting cross-border data flows with trust, which we believe are fundamental to the interconnected global operation of the Internet and support the businesses operating on or using the Internet. And we try and make sure that it is clearly understood that regulatory fragmentation like data localization measures undermine this open nature of the Internet, undermine innovation, and raise barriers to business and to consumers to be able to access the services that they need and develop over the Internet. So these are the issues that we would like solved for the future of the Internet as well. So the Internet that we want, that we’re looking forward to, is one that is open, secure, inclusive, and resilient, one that fosters innovation, economic growth, and social development, one that is built on trust, transparency, and security, and that has inclusive universal access to services, connectivity, infrastructure, and digital skills. And we believe firmly that as an enabler for all of this, we need the multi-stakeholder engagement in Internet governance, that the future Internet governance must continue to be shaped by the range of perspectives of all the stakeholders from governments to business to civil society and the tech community, because we need to ensure that policies reflect the realities from the ground, and they are diverse enough to accommodate local realities, but also that fosters collaboration, mutual understanding, and with that capacity building to be able to find really these shared solutions to these global problems that cannot be localized to one level, because that creates the problem of fragmenting both our policy frameworks, but also fragmenting the Internet itself, which we would like to avoid for the future. So I think that’s our vision and what we do about it, and I’m glad to talk about all of this with you later.

Yoichi Iida: Okay, thank you very much for this, again, comprehensive comment on what you are doing now and what you are trying to do in the future. We have done quite a lot, I believe, but we still have a lot to do. But what you mentioned in your comment, the interoperability of regulatory frameworks or government frameworks, not only in data, but also probably AI and other digital policy, I think it will be a very, very urgent issue, and we will probably dig in a little bit more in the afternoon session, moderated by yourself. So thank you very much for the comment, and now I would like to invite Melanie for the same question.

Melanie Kaplan: So looking at sort of what we’re doing now to promote an open global interoperable and reliable Internet, we really see the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance as indispensable for the Internet’s success as a global platform for communications, commerce, and innovation. We engage in a variety of fora to support the multistakeholder system, and we want to encourage multistakeholder input into processes and discussions addressing Internet public policy issues. I know the GDC has already come up a lot this morning, but I think if you look back in the GDC, that was one of the recent things I did to promote the Internet, and so if you look at paragraph 26, the GDC describes the Internet as open, global, interoperable, stable, and secure, and then I like paragraph 27 even better, which has really strong language on the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. It uses the word multistakeholder. It lists out all the stakeholders. It talks about the technical community and recognizes them as a separate stakeholder group, so that’s something that I think is sort of a recent thing that many of us in this room have worked on together, and then I’d also just point back to another thing that the U.S. government has been very involved in, which was the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, which has, I believe, more than 60 signatories and talks about the Internet as an open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, and secure, so that’s sort of what we’ve done recently, but then sort of looking ahead to the future, you know, we support a global multistakeholder approach to Internet governance that’s building capacity, providing technical assistance, and support for implementation, inclusive, human-centric, sustainable Internet, and we really see that the active and meaningful participation of all stakeholders is essential to inform our discussions on policymaking and to promote transparency, accountability, and to strengthen implementation, and so really we see the multistakeholder model as the best way to ensure the Internet continues to innovate and help all of us, and so, you know, we welcome and we know there’s a lot of active conversations with stakeholders about ways to continue to improve multistakeholder processes. You know, I think NetMundial Plus 10 was one of those conversations, just one example of that continued dialogue, and, you know, as we’ve talked about already today, I think there’s going to be a lot more dialogue of this as homework, right, the GDC gave us homework, the WSIS review is going on, so all this to say we think that these topics are going to keep coming up, and we keep coming back to multistakeholderism as really the way forward.

Yoichi Iida: Okay, thank you very much, your comment, you know, paragraph 26, 27, you know, reminded me of the very busy man to negotiate the sentences. We believe, you know, the outcome is okay, but I also am aware that, you know, some of the people probably on the floor today or others on the online might have been a little bit frustrated about the process, and that would be one of the homeworks for us for the next year. So thank you very much, and now I would like to invite Yulia again for the same question, your vision on what we are doing and also what you would expect for the future of the internet.

Yuliya Morenets: Very quickly, I think the promotion of the internet governance, and the young people are the greatest, one of the greatest groups in promoting, and the fact for the young people to be present, that’s already, you know, a great promotion itself. Of course, because they are one of the strongest groups together with others. So now, of course, their voice needs to go from the voice itself, probably at this stage, to the pipeline solutions, and also in starting having an impact in the policy development. But in order, of course, to fully, you know, give them the opportunity to promote the process of the digital cooperation and be strongly present in the internet governance area, we really need all to work together to reinforce their capacities, and capacities for the open, sustainable, and reliable internet. So that’s why, actually, we have four priorities that we have identified, and we work particularly on these four priorities, which is the online safety, fakes online, cyber security skills, and digital cooperation. So I would say, in order to have this, as I just said, voice being stronger, and be present in a more stable way, we really need all together work in developing the reinforcement capacities of the young people in different regions all over the world. Yuichi-san.

Yoichi Iida: Thank you very much, Ria-san, for the comment, and, you know, it is always very important to have active young people engaged in internet governance, and not only internet governance, but also all other digital policymaking. So we always welcome your contributions, and we are always hoping to work closely together. So now I would like to invite maybe one or two questions from the floor, or participants online, to these wonderful speakers. One of the things you may have been aware is surprising us is, you know, we have very wonderful four women on the stage, you know. Anjali has already left, but we have four girls, and we have been talking about the digital gender divide, but what is that? Maybe from next year, we have to talk about the digital gender divide from the different perspective, maybe the other way around. So I would like to, I didn’t exclude boys, men, from the speakers when I invited them. For this session. But I, you know, all volunteers were women, so it’s surprising. I would like to now, you know, ask boys, hey, what are you doing? But anyway, now the question is open to girls and boys. Well, whoever. Yeah, please.

Craig Stanley-Adamson: Hi, can this work, this? Yeah, brilliant. Just like to introduce myself, Craig Stanley-Adamson, I work at the UK Department of Science Innovation Technology. First like to thank the panelists for all your views, as well as to Yuichi and the Japanese government for chairing and hosting this. I’d like to follow up on the points that Tamiya made earlier on about reports that came out of an independent organization called the DNS Research Federation, based in Oxford. It’s basically a really, really good report that talks about the tangible impact that the IGF has had. I’d just like to highlight two or three of them just now, to, and then share some views, and maybe talk about how the IGF can continue to have these tangible outputs and impacts, particularly as we go into WSIS plus 20 implementation, things like that. So one of the, the first one being that the IGF has been a venue for basically creating the next leadership of global self and developing country leadership. This platform, this forum didn’t really exist before then, and now these voices are able to contribute to the WSIS process, which therefore makes it a stronger process and a stronger set of outcomes. In addition as well, the IGF’s been really a driver of the growth of IXPs. I think one example in the report, I don’t remember the exact numbers, but there were maybe sort of a low number of some of the barely functioning IXPs across Africa. With the help of the IGF, this rose to almost 50, just a few in the space of 10 or years or whatever, of fully functioning IXPs across a number of cities, which is a real, real tangible example we can use, all of which go towards the supporting of WSIS implementation. There’s one more as well. It’s also been a really good mediator of some big crucial issues, such as the transition of IANA functions, which was, IGF played a crucial role there. So I guess the question I have to the panel is what more can we do or what can we do to support the IGF in these big decisions that it can have a role in, particularly after WSIS plus 20 and implementing that and the likes of the GDC as well. So yeah, that’s my question. Thank you.

Yoichi Iida: Okay, thank you very much. So who’d like to make a comment back? Maybe both.

Timea Suto: To start. Thank you so much, Craig. Great question. And again, kudos to the developers of that report. It was quite informative because we tend to lose sight of what happened five years, 10 years ago, but we should remember the IGF’s role. To respond, what we should do about the IGF, well, first of all, I think we need to secure renewal of its mandates. That’s the first step in the WSIS plus 20 review. Secondly, I think we need to make sure that the IGF is recognized in these roles that it’s playing, not only for internet governance, but also for the various issues that you’ve mentioned from connectivity to other substantive issues that it can contribute to. So it’s not anymore just a discussion on internet governance in its purest form. And also, as I mentioned earlier, I think we have a number of institutional challenges that the IGF is bearing through or is powering through with an understaffed and underfunded secretariat with uncertainty of its future. I think we could do a bit better in making sure that that is stabilized and that the support to actually fulfill all these functions and potentials is there on the operational level. So I think that could be something that the WSIS plus 20 could perhaps discuss and see if we can bring the IGF into a more stable foundation within the UN system.

Melanie Kaplan: I totally agree with Tameya that first and foremost, we all are gonna work really hard to make sure that the IGF mandate is extended in the WSIS plus 20 overall review process. And we have heard stakeholders talk a lot about how do you continue to improve the IGF? I mean, I think we see the IGF as a really good thing, but we always are looking for ways to improve it and to make it more inclusive and more participatory. And I also know that there’s a lot of stakeholder discussions out there about the funding issues. So I think that that’s another sort of conversation that I’m sure we’ll hear more about in the future.

Yoichi Iida: Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, actually IGF has been running on the frontline of this type of multi-stakeholder governance in digital policymaking field. And every time I discussed like governance mechanism for data flow across borders, or maybe AI governance global, every time the IGF was a kind of a reference point for us, like a guiding example for me. So I think the success of this framework is very, very important for the future of whole digital economy and whole digital global society, I think. So thank you very much for the very good question and very, very wonderful comment. So any other question or even the comment from the floor? Or any question online? If I can add something, Yoshi-san. Oh yeah, of course, I’m sorry. Please.

Yuliya Morenets: Thank you. I’m sorry. It’s always challenging to be on site online. So that’s Julia from the global youth IGF movement. I just wanted to say a few things. I think you don’t see me, but that’s okay. You have the voice. I just wanted to, a lot has been said right now about the stabilizing and securing the multi-stakeholder model and the IGF future. But also I would like as coming from the, I mean, now coming with the question of young people being present, and as we all agree that they are now part of this model and represent a very important stakeholder group. Of course, I would urge the governments and different stakeholders in public sectors, stakeholders to have a consistent and stable support and resources that they can bring to these youth communities that actually represented a great voice in promoting that they need the existence and the development, right, of the model itself. Maybe what we can also do all together is really to reinforce, because that’s needed for the youth communities, is to reinforce the capacities itself in the multi-stakeholder model, right? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Yoichi Iida: Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach in internet governance

Melanie Kaplan

Timea Suto

Multi-stakeholder approach as key achievement

IGF as platform for inclusive dialogue on internet governance

Both speakers emphasize the crucial role of the multi-stakeholder approach in internet governance, highlighting its importance for fostering inclusive dialogue and decision-making.

Need to secure IGF’s mandate and improve its functioning

Melanie Kaplan

Timea Suto

Improving IGF inclusivity and participation

Securing renewal of IGF mandate in WSIS+20 review

Stabilizing IGF’s institutional foundation

Both speakers stress the importance of renewing IGF’s mandate and improving its operational aspects, including inclusivity, participation, and institutional stability.

Recognition of youth involvement in internet governance

Yuliya Morenets

Timea Suto

Recognition and inclusion of youth voices

IGF as platform for inclusive dialogue on internet governance

Both speakers highlight the importance of youth involvement in internet governance discussions and the IGF’s role in facilitating this inclusion.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for an open, global, and interoperable internet, emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder input in shaping internet governance policies.

Melanie Kaplan

Timea Suto

Supporting multi-stakeholder input in policy discussions

Business advocacy for open and resilient internet

Both speakers emphasize the importance of capacity building and leadership development for underrepresented groups (youth and developing countries) in internet governance.

Yuliya Morenets

Craig Stanley-Adamson

Reinforcing youth capacities in internet governance

IGF as venue for developing country leadership

Unexpected Consensus

IGF’s role in tangible infrastructure development

Craig Stanley-Adamson

Timea Suto

IGF’s role in driving growth of Internet Exchange Points

IGF as platform for inclusive dialogue on internet governance

While the IGF is often seen primarily as a discussion forum, there’s an unexpected consensus on its role in driving tangible infrastructure development, particularly in developing regions.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of the multi-stakeholder approach, the need to secure and improve IGF’s mandate and functioning, the recognition of youth involvement, and the IGF’s role in fostering inclusive dialogue and tangible development outcomes.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the fundamental importance and achievements of the IGF, as well as the need for its continuation and improvement. This strong consensus implies broad support for the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance and suggests a united front in advocating for the IGF’s renewal and enhancement in upcoming international discussions.

Different Viewpoints

Focus of IGF improvements

Melanie Kaplan

Timea Suto

Improving IGF inclusivity and participation

Stabilizing IGF’s institutional foundation

While Kaplan emphasizes improving inclusivity and participation in the IGF, Suto focuses on addressing institutional challenges such as understaffing and underfunding.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific priorities for improving the IGF and the focus of multi-stakeholder involvement.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers share similar overarching goals for the IGF and internet governance, with differences primarily in emphasis and specific approaches. This low level of disagreement suggests a generally unified vision for the future of internet governance, which could facilitate more effective collaboration and progress in addressing challenges and implementing improvements.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of multi-stakeholder involvement in internet governance, but they emphasize different aspects: Kaplan focuses on general stakeholder input, Suto highlights the IGF’s role in facilitating dialogue, and Morenets specifically advocates for youth integration in policy development.

Melanie Kaplan

Timea Suto

Yuliya Morenets

Supporting multi-stakeholder input in policy discussions

IGF as platform for inclusive dialogue on internet governance

Integrating youth perspectives in policy development

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for an open, global, and interoperable internet, emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder input in shaping internet governance policies.

Melanie Kaplan

Timea Suto

Supporting multi-stakeholder input in policy discussions

Business advocacy for open and resilient internet

Both speakers emphasize the importance of capacity building and leadership development for underrepresented groups (youth and developing countries) in internet governance.

Yuliya Morenets

Craig Stanley-Adamson

Reinforcing youth capacities in internet governance

IGF as venue for developing country leadership

Key Takeaways

The IGF has been successful in promoting a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance

The IGF has served as an important platform for inclusive dialogue on internet issues

Youth participation and perspectives have become increasingly important in the IGF

The IGF has played a key role in developing leadership from developing countries

The future of the IGF is tied to the upcoming WSIS+20 review process

There is a need to strengthen and stabilize the IGF’s institutional foundation

Resolutions and Action Items

Work to secure renewal of the IGF mandate in the WSIS+20 review

Improve IGF inclusivity and participation, particularly from developing countries

Recognize the IGF’s role beyond just internet governance in the WSIS+20 process

Address funding and staffing challenges for the IGF Secretariat

Unresolved Issues

Specific mechanisms to improve IGF funding and staffing

How to concretely integrate IGF outcomes into policy processes

Balancing different stakeholder interests in internet governance

Addressing potential internet fragmentation while respecting national policies

Suggested Compromises

Recognizing both the IGF’s achievements and areas for improvement

Balancing the need for stable IGF funding with maintaining its independence

Integrating youth perspectives while ensuring experienced voices are also heard

IGF provides an excellent platform on an annual basis to sort of pull all these threads together. And as Yoichi was mentioning in his introduction, we do really see that this… This is a pivotal time for the IGF, with the GDC’s adoption that just happened at the Summit for the Future, and as we’re sort of in the outset of the WSIS Plus 20 overall review.

speaker

Melanie Kaplan

reason

This comment highlights the critical role of IGF in synthesizing various internet governance discussions and frames the current moment as pivotal for IGF’s future.

impact

It set the tone for discussing IGF’s importance and future challenges, leading to further exploration of IGF’s achievements and potential improvements.

We do have a lot of challenges that we need to address, both as an international community and then the IGF itself. In the context that we are in today, and Melanie also you alluded to that, it’s an ever-changing world. And right now in digital and other conversations, I think the fundamental challenge, one of it is bridging the digital divide.

speaker

Timea Suto

reason

This comment introduces the critical challenge of the digital divide and frames it within the context of a rapidly changing digital landscape.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards concrete challenges facing IGF and the broader internet governance community, prompting others to consider specific areas for improvement.

I think the major achievement of the IGF is actually the presence and the recognition itself of the community, of the young people, and of the future leaders. And actually, the existence of the youth track itself in the program of the IGF.

speaker

Yuliya Morenets

reason

This comment highlights the importance of youth involvement in internet governance, which had not been prominently discussed before.

impact

It introduced a new perspective on IGF’s achievements and prompted discussion about the role of youth in shaping the future of internet governance.

We really see the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance as indispensable for the internet’s success as a global platform for communications, commerce, and innovation.

speaker

Melanie Kaplan

reason

This comment emphasizes the crucial importance of the multi-stakeholder model, which is a fundamental principle of IGF.

impact

It reinforced the importance of maintaining and strengthening the multi-stakeholder approach in future internet governance discussions.

I think we need to secure renewal of its mandates. That’s the first step in the WSIS plus 20 review. Secondly, I think we need to make sure that the IGF is recognized in these roles that it’s playing, not only for internet governance, but also for the various issues that you’ve mentioned from connectivity to other substantive issues that it can contribute to.

speaker

Timea Suto

reason

This comment provides concrete suggestions for supporting IGF’s future role and expanding its mandate.

impact

It moved the discussion from general praise of IGF to specific actions that could be taken to strengthen its position, prompting others to consider practical steps forward.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting IGF’s critical role in internet governance, emphasizing the challenges it faces (particularly the digital divide), introducing the importance of youth involvement, reinforcing the value of the multi-stakeholder model, and proposing concrete steps to strengthen IGF’s future. The discussion evolved from general praise of IGF to a more nuanced exploration of its achievements, challenges, and potential future directions. This progression allowed for a comprehensive examination of IGF’s past, present, and future, while also considering the broader context of global digital cooperation and governance.

How can we secure renewal of the IGF’s mandate in the WSIS+20 review?

speaker

Timea Suto

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring the continuation of the IGF and its role in internet governance.

How can we improve the IGF to make it more inclusive and participatory?

speaker

Melanie Kaplan

explanation

Enhancing inclusivity and participation is key to strengthening the IGF’s effectiveness and relevance.

How can we address the funding issues of the IGF?

speaker

Melanie Kaplan

explanation

Stable funding is essential for the IGF’s operations and long-term sustainability.

How can we stabilize the IGF’s institutional structure, including its secretariat?

speaker

Timea Suto

explanation

A stable institutional structure is necessary for the IGF to fulfill its functions effectively.

How can we provide consistent and stable support and resources to youth communities involved in the IGF?

speaker

Yuliya Morenets

explanation

Supporting youth involvement is crucial for the future of internet governance and the IGF’s continued relevance.

How can we reinforce capacities in the multi-stakeholder model, particularly for youth communities?

speaker

Yuliya Morenets

explanation

Building capacity in the multi-stakeholder model is important for effective participation and representation.

How can the IGF continue to have tangible outputs and impacts, particularly in implementing WSIS+20 and the Global Digital Compact?

speaker

Craig Stanley-Adamson

explanation

Ensuring the IGF’s continued relevance and impact is important for its future role in internet governance.