WS #141 Regionalism and the IGF

Summary

This discussion focused on the role of regionalism in Internet governance, particularly within the context of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Participants explored how regional approaches contribute to global Internet governance and their evolving relevance. The panel highlighted that regional organizations are often better equipped to address local challenges due to shared cultural values, languages, and priorities. They noted that regional Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) serve as important platforms for capacity building, amplifying local voices, and bridging gaps between national and global levels.

The discussion emphasized the value of regional approaches in fostering multi-stakeholder engagement and developing context-specific policies. Panelists pointed out that regional organizations can better support member states in responding to global agendas like the Sustainable Development Goals. They also stressed the importance of regional cooperation in developing digital infrastructure.

Participants debated whether regionalism acts as a building block or stumbling block for global governance. While recognizing the need for global standards in technical areas, they acknowledged the benefits of regional diversity in addressing policy challenges. The discussion touched on the evolving nature of regionalism, noting that some coalitions form based on shared values rather than geographic proximity.

The panel also addressed youth engagement in regional IGFs, highlighting the importance of connecting young people to these platforms for capacity building and leadership development. Overall, the discussion underscored the continuing relevance of regional approaches in Internet governance, while recognizing the need to balance regional diversity with global coordination.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The relevance and importance of regional approaches to internet governance, including logistical benefits, capacity building, and strengthening voices in global discussions

– How regional internet governance initiatives (NRIs) contribute to and complement global internet governance processes

– The role of regional organizations in developing policies and strategies tailored to local contexts and needs

– The tension between global technical standards and regional policy approaches

– Youth engagement in regional internet governance processes

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine the concept of regionalism in internet governance, exploring its relevance, evolution, and potential future role in global internet governance processes like the IGF.

The tone of the discussion was largely collaborative and exploratory. Speakers shared insights from their diverse regional experiences while acknowledging common challenges and opportunities. The tone remained constructive throughout, with participants building on each other’s points to develop a nuanced understanding of regionalism in internet governance.

Speakers

– Chris Buckridge – Moderator

– Markus Kummer – former head of Working Group on Internet Governance

– Jenna Manhau Fung – Works for a top level domain registry in Asia-Pacific, coordinator of Asia-Pacific Youth Internet Governance Forum

– Nibal Idlebi – Acting Director of Statistics Information Society and Technology at UNESCO

– Carolina Aguerre – Scholar and university professor studying regional internet governance

Additional speakers:

– Ulka Atle – Works at RIPE NCC (Regional Internet Registry)

– Roman Danyliw – Representing the IETF

– Nadia Tjahja – Co-organizer of the workshop

– Jamal Shahin – Co-organizer of the workshop, researcher at United Nations University

Expanded Summary: The Role of Regionalism in Internet Governance (Workshop #141)

This discussion, moderated by Chris Buckridge, explored the evolving role of regionalism in Internet governance, with a particular focus on its relevance within the context of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The panel, comprising experts from various regions and backgrounds, examined how regional approaches contribute to global Internet governance and their changing significance in an increasingly interconnected digital landscape.

Importance and Relevance of Regional Approaches

There was broad consensus among the speakers on the continued importance of regional approaches to Internet governance. Chris Buckridge highlighted that regional approaches address crucial logistical issues such as time zones, languages, and cultural differences. This sentiment was echoed by other panelists, who emphasized additional benefits of regionalism.

Nibal Idlebi, Acting Director at UNESCO, stressed that regionalism allows for capacity building and brings people into a deeper understanding of Internet governance. She argued that regional organizations are often better equipped to propose policies suited to local governance processes, as they have a more nuanced understanding of the specific challenges and priorities within their regions. Idlebi also shared insights from the Arab IGF experience, highlighting how governance processes can differ significantly between regions.

Jenna Manhau Fung, coordinator of the Asia-Pacific Youth Internet Governance Forum, pointed out that regional forums provide a vital platform for amplifying voices, especially for youth and developing countries. She highlighted the diversity within the Asia-Pacific region, noting the multitude of languages and cultures that necessitate a regional approach distinct from other areas. Fung emphasized the importance of regional approaches for youth engagement and capacity building in Asia-Pacific, discussing how these platforms offer opportunities for young people to develop leadership and policy skills.

Carolina Aguerre, a scholar and university professor, emphasized that the regional approach enables thought processes and development of digital infrastructure tailored to local needs. She noted a renewed interest in regional forums in Latin America and the Caribbean, possibly driven by geopolitical shifts and emerging technologies like AI governance. Aguerre also highlighted the lack of political and economic integration in Latin America and the Caribbean, explaining how this affects regional approaches to internet governance in the area.

Relationship Between Regional and Global Internet Governance

The discussion explored the complex relationship between regional and global Internet governance processes. Markus Kummer, a veteran of Internet governance with extensive experience in WSIS and other processes, pointed out that regional Internet registries complement the global ICANN governance structure. He also noted that regional solutions, such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), can sometimes become global standards.

Chris Buckridge emphasized that regional forums help strengthen voices in global discussions, providing a stepping stone for local actors to engage in broader Internet governance debates. Nibal Idlebi added that regional organizations can support member states in responding to global agendas, such as the Sustainable Development Goals.

However, an audience member raised the important point of balancing regional perspectives with global protocols necessary for an interconnected Internet. This highlighted the ongoing tension between the need for global technical standards and the benefits of regional diversity in addressing policy challenges. Roman Danyliw from the IETF provided additional insights on the technical perspective of regionalism in internet governance.

Evolution of Regionalism in Internet Governance

The panel noted significant developments in the evolution of regionalism within Internet governance. Chris Buckridge pointed out that national and regional Internet governance initiatives (NRIs) are a significant outcome of the IGF process, demonstrating the growing importance of regional approaches.

Jenna Manhau Fung discussed how the regional approach is evolving to address new issues like AI governance, indicating that regionalism remains relevant in tackling emerging technological challenges. Speakers mentioned specific examples of regional AI governance initiatives, highlighting the diverse approaches taken in different parts of the world.

An interesting perspective was introduced by Jamal Shahin, who suggested the need to consider non-geographically contiguous actors and coalitions. Shahin also briefly mentioned a UNU research project on regionalism in internet governance. This idea was further explored through an audience question about the potential for “middle powers” like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to form their own “region” based on shared values rather than geography. This concept challenges traditional notions of regionalism and suggests a potential future where regions might be defined by shared economic frameworks or political policies rather than geographical proximity.

Youth Engagement in Regional Internet Governance

The discussion also touched upon the crucial topic of youth engagement in regional Internet governance processes. Nadia Tjahja, a co-organizer of the workshop, suggested specific ways for youth to get involved, including connecting with NRIs and regional representatives. She also mentioned regional events and summer schools as avenues for youth participation.

Unresolved Issues and Future Considerations

While the discussion highlighted many benefits of regional approaches to Internet governance, it also revealed several unresolved issues. These include:

1. How to effectively balance regional needs with global technical requirements of the Internet

2. The role of non-geographically contiguous actors and coalitions in regional approaches to Internet governance

3. Improving pathways from regional to global Internet governance processes

The panel suggested some potential compromises and action items to address these challenges. These included using regional forums to develop common positions that can then feed into global discussions, and adopting a multi-layered approach that includes regional, sub-regional, and like-minded country groupings in addition to traditional geographic regions.

In conclusion, the discussion underscored the continuing relevance and importance of regional approaches in Internet governance. While acknowledging the need for global coordination, particularly in technical areas, the panelists emphasized the value of regional diversity in addressing policy challenges and fostering multi-stakeholder engagement. As the Internet governance landscape continues to evolve, it is clear that regional approaches will play a crucial role in shaping policies, developing infrastructure, and ensuring that diverse voices are heard in global debates.

Chris Buckridge: Okay. I think we are ready to go here. So I would like to welcome everyone to probably the first or second of the sessions of the day for everyone. This is workshop number 141 and it’s on regionalism and the IGF. My name is Chris Buckridge. I’m here, I think with no hats on today, just as a general IGF gadfly, but to moderate the session, and I’m very happy to do so. We have a panel of four speakers, two of whom are here with me on site in Riyadh and two of whom are online here. And hopefully we’ll also have a very active discussion with both participants online and in the room here. As Marcus just noted, we have more people in the audience than on the stage, which is always a good sign for these workshops. So looking forward to that. The speakers that we have, and I’m going to let them maybe, as we go around with the questions, introduce themselves a little bit more in terms of their affiliations. I know certainly many of us here probably have multiple hats on and I’ll let people identify for themselves. We have Marcus Kummer to my right here, Nibal Idlebi on my left, and online we have Jenna Manhao-Fung and Carolina Aguera. Apologies to all for any mangling of pronunciations there. The topic of today’s session, and sorry, just looking around for anyone, we are on channel two in the room, we have the audio set up. The topic of today’s session, regionalism and the IGF. So, I mean, from very early in the internet’s development and technical governance processes, there has been a bit of a focus on regional. groupings, regional coordination, regional preparation. The regional internet registries are one example of that, which has really emphasized that approach. And it’s allowed that structure was very much reflecting a need for local communities based around whether language, time zone, cultures to develop policies that suited their specific needs and circumstances while maintaining and contributing to global coordination on essential elements of governance. Now, today we see with the Internet Governance Forum, there is a really vibrant network of national and regional internet governance initiatives and internet governance forums, which we usually call NRIs. So I’m sure that acronym will be used very often in this session. So we have NRIs representing all of the national, regional internet governance initiatives. There are currently more than 170 of those around the world. And that also includes youth IGFs. Majority of those are in the global south, though I think it’s probably very well represented across the world. And they’re defined, those NRIs, by their multi-stakeholder bottom-up approach. This is something that’s laid out and overseen in some ways by the global IGF. So the recent, okay. There was a recent paper called Net Effects, which was produced by the DNS Research Federation. And in full disclosure, I was one of the co-authors on that. But one of the findings that it had was that those NRIs, the National and Regional Internet Governance Forums, were actually one of the most significant outcomes and products of this IGF process, and are seen as a really vital. space to foster and develop new leaders and informed governance participants for global discussions. And in the GDC, we actually see the IGF referenced in part for the importance of its connection to national and regional groupings. So with all this focus on on regionalism, I think the purpose of today’s discussion is to dig into that idea a little bit is is regionalism, how does it contribute to the idea of global governance, is it still as relevant today as it ever has been. And and how can that develop over time. The first question I want to sort of put to the panelists that we have here is, well, speaking to that how relevant is the regional concept for understanding the IGF or the multi stakeholder world. And how is that regional approach regional idea evolving and developing. And so I first want to put it to Marcus and Marcus as I said, if you maybe take the opportunity on this first question just to introduce yourself and your affiliations, that would be great. Thank you.

Markus Kummer: Thank you, Chris. Well, I’m a veteran of this space I was involved in WSIS, WSIS-I, WSIS-II. And then I was the head of the Secretariat of the Working Group on Internet Governance which provided input into WSIS-II, which was by and large adopted by the summit. That is the definition of Internet Governance explaining what Internet Governance is. So I worked and I also worked for Internet Society and I was on the board of ICANN. Right now, I’m mainly retired, but I stay involved. One of the advantages of old age is that you have seen a lot and previous life I was dealing with trade with free trade agreements. I worked then for the European Free Trade Association, which is the tiny brother of the European Union. Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, and Iceland, but these are four highly developed and well-to-do countries and we had free trade agreements all over the world from Singapore to Canada to Chile and in free trade there was a saying of regional free trade agreements, a stumbling block or a building block for free trade globally. And I think we can ask the same question with regionalism in the internet space. Chris mentioned the RIRs that are more the regional side of internet governance, ICANN is the global side in trade that would be like the WTO in trade. So in the internet space, I think in the technical space, they are complementary. Now when it comes to internet governance, it’s not just about naming and addressing and the WSIS outcome clearly states that, it’s also about the use and abuse of the internet. There are issues like cyber security, like protecting children and, and, and, and you all know that these are all hotly debated issues. Now do we need to find global solutions or can we find regional solutions to tackle the problems we are facing? One of my favorite sayings, it was from your former boss, Chris from Axel Pavlik used to say good internet governance begins at home. There’s a lot to be said for that. A lot of internet governance is actually at the very national level. National governments have a lot to say, but obviously in the regional, there are usually countries that share a lot. lot of commonalities. They share the same, obviously are from the same region. So quite often they share the same language in Europe. That’s not the case, but, uh, they share the same legal background. Now, the European union is an excellent example of, uh, regional approaches. The European union has obviously the market power and it has the power also to impose their views. I mean, the GDPR was one of the examples where a regional solution by its sheer force became a global approach. Countries are more or less forced to adapt to the GDPR. If not, they will be forced to, they will be just left behind and their actors will face huge consequences if they don’t adapt to the GDPR. So this is obviously one example and the European union has others for digital market act, digital services act. So they are, uh, solutions that are regional, but they become kind of global standards. Now for other regions that don’t have the same market power, the same power to impose sanctions, they will not be able to do the same, but they can nevertheless, uh, share same experiences. And there, I think the possible way could be that they have a bottom up, uh, share the same, adopt the same practices in dealing with similar issues. Uh, so. In trade, there was never, um, a clear way of saying this is good or this is bad, the regional approach. And I think we are in the same way in the, uh, internet governance space. Uh, we cannot say it’s good. We cannot say it’s bad, but I think that is merit that obviously in discussing in sharing experiences and also in developing good practices in how to deal with some of the issues. And obviously it’s easier to get together on the regional basis where you share, have some commonalities, share cultural aspects and, uh, bring that into the global debate, but we are, as we all know, far away from having global solutions to some of the issues. We have one global solution to, uh, security, but that’s also highly controversial right now. And it shows it’s not easy to find global solutions with that. I think I hand it back to you, Chris. And I also apologize to the people in the room that I will nip out in between because I’m double booked for this session, but I will come back again. Thank you.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much, Marcus. But all right, we’ll, we’ll work around the, the very, um, uh, busy schedules that we all have. Um, for the next speaker and please, I w I want to go around the four. Um, panelists first, and then we’ll come to the room. I know there’s already, um, some questions or comments starting to bubble up. Um, but the next speaker I’d like to hand to is Jenna. So Jenna, please, the floor is yours. And with the same, um, sort of framing question there of, uh, how relevant is regional concept and how is that evolving?

Jenna Manhau Fung: Thanks, Chris, and thanks, Marcus. That makes so much sense because I was like, Marcus is the most experienced person I’ve ever met in the global IGF community, and I was like, it’s not a good sign to go after him because I was so stressed about what should I go next. But before I get started and answer the question, perhaps I can provide some background of myself before I started, especially given the topic, it’s about regionalism. I work for a top level domain registry in Asia-Pacific, mostly spending my time managing a program, a youth capacity building program on Internet governance for about six or seven years now. And I usually wear my hat as the Asia-Pacific Youth Internet Governance Forum coordinators when I get more involved in the IGF related initiative right here. So in the past year, I’ve been quite active in helping organizing the youth related activity and outreach within the IGF community. So speaking of this topic, I always get very interested. And I don’t want to repeat too many of Marcus’ points because I think he make it very clear and it also resonates with a lot of points I want to make. But I want to echo on some of the points and build upon on that. Earlier, Marcus mentioned how regionalism could help with creating some regional solution. But my personal experience and as a youth coordinator there for about six years, I think, especially for younger people in Asia-Pacific. Pacific region before you can even come up with anything that’s close to a regional solution. That regional approach is even more important as a platform for them to amplify their voices. As you might know, Asia Pacific is really huge. There are many languages and there are different cultures as well. Even there are times when we talk about the topics that we approach there would be very different from Europe, I would imagine. And now that I also reside in North America, I could really see that people usually have different focus. And there are times just like picking on my own experience organizing a youth IGF in the Asia Pacific region. I could see that Southeast Asian country will have a different interest on topics that might be different from East Asia, for example. And many of the students who are involved from some regions may care about more, for example, internet access, while the other maybe want to talk about more the issues related to AI or technologies, maybe not AI. Everyone wants to talk about AI because it’s really influencing our life right now. But what I wanted to say is there are times even with a region as vast as Asia Pacific, we already feel challenges making a conversation that’s constructive enough that leads us close to a solution, so to speak. And so that’s why I think a regional approach or even a sub-regional approach maybe even become more important, because if you couldn’t have a constructive conversation at home… then it will be very difficult for you to represent your voice at a global stage. Myself being very involved in the global internet governance forum for so long is that I do value and I do think that global solution or a platform for that kind of conversation is important. But as Chris kickstarted the sessions, time zone sometimes doesn’t work out and it just naturally eliminates some voices, right? And it’s, you know, there’s some level of practicality to like imagine an initiative having coordinator based in the region that has more resources that allow them to make this initiative or conversation happen. That’s, you know, just sometimes naturally make the conversation happen or flavoring people from certain regions. But for example, it’s like, of course, I know there’s like a mechanism, for example, rotating the schedule to kind of like accommodate, but, you know, it’s just different from how regional approach work. Well, I’m starting babbling right now because it’s right way past midnight here in Toronto, but I will stop here and pass it back to my fellow panelists and moderators so we could continue conversations as we move on.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much, Jenna. And thank you for the closing illustration there of the challenges of a global conversation and the importance of regionalism. I would like now to pass back to the room here in person. We have Nibal, please.

Nibal Idlebi: You hear me? Okay. Thank you very much, Chris, Marcus, and everyone on the panel here. I would, I’m Nibal Idilbi to introduce myself. I am currently the Acting Director of Statistics Information Society and Technology at the UNESCO. UNESCO stands for United Nations Economic Social Commission for Western Asia. I was involved and we are working mainly in the Arab region. We are focusing in the Arab region. However, we are of course linked to the UN Secretariat and we have a lot of collaboration with all UN agencies. Myself, I was also like Marcus, I was with WSIS since the starting point, since 2003 when the discussion started. I followed WSIS plus 20 and so on. We are now making the preparation for WSIS plus 20. We have Arab IGF which is one of the regional IGF. I am speaking about our experience in this regard. The Arab IGF was really established at the beginning since 2005, around 2005. We are continuing organizing the Arab IGF regularly. Sometimes each year, sometimes each two years. Based on our experience, I believe the regional dimension is very important. As Marcus was saying, we are sharing the same challenges in the region. We are aware of the dynamism of the countries in the region. We know very well the stakeholders. Based on our experience with the stakeholders, different stakeholders, especially that IGF is multi-stakeholder, we were able to engage them in a very dynamic way, I would say. We were able also during this experience to fill some stakeholders who were not very knowledgeable about the IGF and its importance and so on. We have made a lot of capacity building about what it is IGF and what it is even with us in some cases. It was very important for capacity building. I believe in the Arab region, we had a lot of things to say to engage people and to make them learn about the process. I believe also the challenges are very similar. As Marcus said, the culture, the language, it is the same language across the Arab region. I believe it was a very good experience for us also to bridge the gap between national and global. Because some countries at the beginning, they didn’t have this national IGF. Our role was also to encourage countries to establish the IGF at national level. We supported some of them. interacted with some of them, we feel till now some countries don’t have IGF, a national one. Then I believe the regional dimension filled the gap in a way between the national and the global. And also it was very important, I believe, for the common positioning, to have common position of the region vis-a-vis the global issues, I mean, that are discussed at a global level. And then it was an intermediary layer, I would say, and important block to fill the gaps and to give the voice of the region at a global level. This is from one side and also encouraging the stakeholder. I believe the dynamism in the Arab region was among the different stakeholder was completely not the same, I mean. For example, NGO, they needed really a lot of capacity building to have and so on. While public-private sector, they were more engaged and they were really very supportive and they wanted to be real, to play a role, very important role, especially that in many countries, it is more the government who is leading the scope of the regulation and everything in the country. Therefore, the private sector, they found it as a very important room and very important forum to discuss and to discuss sincerely with the government and to put their position and to put what they need, in fact, for enhancing the sector as a whole. This is what I think the most important issue that I would say. And I believe for the last 20 years now, I mean, I believe the discussion started smoothly, but now I believe we have a strong community for the IGF, very strong community for the IGF at regional level. And we can build on this what we have achieved so far. I believe it is more promising for the future. And although there is between Arab countries, there is is no binding rule as there is in the EU. You mentioned the EU and GDPR, which is a very important experience. However, in the Arab country, we don’t have this political power to impose anything at a regional level, unfortunately. What we do is more promoting, positioning, global positioning, and so on, and we try to make it as serious as possible, vis-a-vis the global community. I will stop here for the time.

Chris Buckridge: Okay. Thank you very much, Nibel. And turning now to the last of our panelists, or at least in this first round, and going back online, Carolina Aguerre, pass to you.

Carolina Aguerre: Thank you, Chris. Hi, everyone. Good morning. So, it’s also very late for me over here, so I empathize with Jena, and bear with me for my ranting a little bit. I’m a scholar, I’m a university professor, and I’ve been very much interested in how local and regional communities embrace internet governance. In my understanding, I mean, it’s conceptually very hard for people all over the world, global north, global south, or global majority, however you want to call that, to embrace something as powerful, but also as immaterial, and very material at the same time as the internet, without going down into the local layers, and how local actors organize themselves, how they imagine, how they build their networks, how they want their standards to operate upon. And this kind of struggles, and this kind of vision, is something that, in the case of the in Latin America and the Caribbean. It has been present, I would say, since the late 1980s. There was, and the struggle to sort of generate a regional internet registry portrays the relevance of thinking about this levels of subsidiarity where local policy or the policies of assigning IP addresses come closer to the communities that have to be served. And this applies to all our RIRs. And I think this is a very valuable lesson on how the internet evolved originally and how it still stands today, reflecting the needs and the identities of these regional and local communities. Lately, I would say that in my region, regionalism has tended to become more interesting for actors, and I’m not exactly sure why, but I think that this, a lot of the geopolitical turn concerning the governance of the internet, but also the governance of AI, really leaves much less space to think about the development of these infrastructures and the platforms that citizens want to engage with and the actual local power dimensions that need to be addressed. And I’ve seen that there is a renewed interest, not so much in national initiatives in Latin America and in the Caribbean, but more in the regional forum. This year’s regional IGF in Santiago de Chile, the 17th edition. it really sort of marked this kind of vibrancy that with the pandemic I think had lagged and now we’re seeing this spike coming up again. But just to end my first intervention, I also want to address something concerning Marcus’ original intervention, concerning this idea of, okay, so which is the platform, which is the kind of process that is guiding regionalism? And so he mentioned trade a lot, for example, right? And the EU, for example, it is an economic and a political bloc, but we don’t have that kind of regional integration in Latin America and the Caribbean. That’s much more loosely bound. Actually, there’s so many sub-regions and countries that actually operate with the North much more commercially-wise, much more than with the South. But still, this brings in another cleavage or another interesting dimension to address, okay, but there are regional forums, there are regional, and not just the IGF, there are regional processes addressing the impact of this general-purpose technologies. We are seeing this in AI as well, where identity and culture from this regional perspective does matter. So I think that the challenge in a region that is not politically or economically integrated, as is LAC, we have the challenge to think about what kind of institutions, other than the existing RIR processes or LAC-TLD for the top-level domain sector, I mean, which other institutions will be able to sort of harness this regionalism that we need to think about in terms of the digital and the internet? world. And this is so this is my closing comment for my first intervention. Thank you.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much, Carolina. Yeah, okay. rectify that going forward. So I think that’s been a really good discussions here. I do want to commence from the floor. I think from my very limited attempt to sort of summarise where what I’ve heard or what key points I’ve heard here. The sort of the relevance and the importance of a regional approach comes down to obviously, logistical issues, there are time zones, there are languages, there are cultural distinctiveness that can be addressed in terms of a read more regional processes. There is the sort of capacity building element where you can bring people into an understanding of the importance of internet governance and this this sort of space and the opportunities there are to engage. There’s strengthening that that glow that those voices in the global discussions and I think maybe some of the discussions around EU processes, GDPR, etc. And Carolina, your points, then maybe speak a little bit to that. And I think also about your point about sort of regional processes, allowing for more sensitive discussions with stakeholders was with a really interesting and important one. So I want to see if Yeah, we have one at the back of the room there and another year. So thank you.

Audience: Hello. My name is Tiago. I am a PhD scholar at VLB in Brussels but also a fellow at Unicris. So, very nice to be here in this panel that’s discussing the discussion on the regionalism in the IJF. And my question is, and this has been part of the discussion that we had in Brazil during NET Mundial Plus 10, how we make regionals, IJFs or national ones to be more connected and like what’s being shared there and best practice of these flows. And one specific example that I think that can be very interesting if we can have some platform, some way of like sharing better and building bridge of these initiatives is how different stakeholders in these regions connect with the topic. Because I can give an example, at least in Brazil, I’m from there of course, and in Brazil we see civil society has really an outstanding role there in the way that talking about digital rights organizations, they are very well structured in a coalition and they do a lot of like policy agenda as like there are different institutions that work together for some common goals. And I see that the role of the Brazilian IJF makes a big difference for making them to connect. And this, for example, is a kind of what I could say good practice and stakeholders that could be shared in other regions. And I heard Nibal saying that, for example, here the private actors in Arab region is quite active and I hear that in some other places it’s not. And people say, yeah, we should have more people from a business being engaged. Otherwise, how can we say that this is really mood stakeholder, right? I think there’s also an imbalance of how, depending on the region, some groups of stakeholders are more or less active, and maybe it’s something that the regionalists’ approach could, I don’t know, see how they share, and trying to understand why is this happening here and not there, and vice versa. So, just food for thought.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much. A really, I think, important point there, particularly in terms of regional diversity and distinctiveness versus sort of emerging common best practices. So, I’m sure the speakers will come back to that. I think, Dana?

Audience: Thank you to the panel overall. Dana Kramer here, for the record. I’m a PhD candidate, and I study a lot of these regional elements, so I’m quite interested by this panel overall, and I thought that these opening remarks were phenomenal. I come from Canada, and our region does not have a strong regional focus. We’re a bit left out in the regionalism conversation because North America has very large landmass countries in Canada and the United States, and we have that Mexico tends to get looped into the South American space because of similar language, but also, too, the Caribbean nations also have their own regional initiatives because telecommunications-wise, they’re either European or North American or South American. From a numbers perspective, they get split between Aran and Latinx, and then also, too, culturally, they have a very distinct identity that doesn’t fit. Like, we don’t have a homogenized view the way that Europe or other regions might to help with it. And so that kind of guides like a… bit of why I’m going to ask two questions are a bit more like slightly geopolitics focused, but within the lens of recognizing that not all regions really have the capacity to act as regions in that North American context, which is like with Canada as a middle power, for example, and ahead of WSIS plus 20. Is there a role for middle powers to start to become their own region, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand have been moving together enjoyed statements in the space of the GDC and WSIS plus 20. But do we need to start seeing like regions emerge across like similar economic frameworks, similar political policies that might not be geographically the same, but have different socioeconomic factors to make a region such as including, for example, like the Nordic countries within them. And my second question, I think maybe Carolina would be best for this rest within thinking about a new Bradford’s book on digital empires, which notes that the EU, the US and China as three global digital empires overall. And I’m wondering if you could speak to how maybe instead of thinking as certain countries, as superpowers in the digital space, if it’s because that they might have a large stakeholder groups that create that local level. And that’s how we can better understand regions, their capacity to have these complex networked actors that then create global superpowers in this space and how then different communities overall might be able to become new digital empires in and of themselves for forecasting how we might see internet governance evolve over the next 10 years. Thank you.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much, Dana. I’m going to throw to Marcus quickly, because I know he has to leave us shortly. And so Marcus, obviously, we’ve got some very interesting questions. important insights and questions from the floor. The other sort of next round of questions we have here is in terms of I think a little bit more looking to the future. Will regions continue to be building blocks or be building blocks for a new multilateralism or multi-stakeholderism? So in the time you have, can I ask you to answer that definitively?

Markus Kummer: Yes, thank you. That’s all good questions and thanks to my fellow panellists also for their intervention and I think in particular I will circle back to Carolina. She corrected me or made an addition obviously which I forgot to mention. It’s the question of regional integration and there the European Union of course is light years ahead of most of the regions in terms of integration. So they have the institutions that allow them to find binding solutions to tackle the issues and that makes what comes out of the European Union, what comes out of Brussels so important. And the other was a very interesting question of like-minded middle powers who are not geographically linked whether they should work together more and you mentioned a case which is already happening. So and I also remember that my days when I was dealing in multilateral affairs for the Swiss government we worked actually closely together also with Canada, Australia, New Zealand because they were like-minded but definitely not geographically linked and that is definitely I think a way to approach these. And the last question I would address was Tiago made also very excellent points and I think that is precisely what the IGF is all about that we come here to learn from each other, to share good practices and also then to go back home and make sure. that governments don’t take the wrong solutions, because governments have a tendency to shoot from the hip, so to speak. They want a solution, a quick fix, and they don’t think of unintended consequences. Governments in particular, whatever their leaning is, they like blocking the internet, for instance, which is a quick solution, something they don’t like, okay, let’s block it. I come from a country which has excellent democratic pedigrees, but they actually adopted that solution when it came to gambling. They thought, okay, let’s protect our own gambling industry and block foreign providers of the same services. I’m also part of the Internet Society Swiss chapter. We went on the barricades against it. We think this is a bad solution. It essentially breaks the internet, but the government didn’t listen. They listened to the lobby groups who wanted that solution. This is, I think, one of the strengths of the IGF, that we actually learn and can promote good policy and also go back and prevent governments from taking the wrong quick fixes without thinking of the unintended consequences. We may not always succeed, but at least we learn from each other. Let’s keep up the good fight. With that, I apologize. I have to run.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much, Marcus. Thank you for being here and sharing your insights. As an Australian, I’m a little triggered by the example you gave there, but we’ll move on from that. I’ll throw back now again to our online speakers. Jenna, again, please respond to any of the questions, but also that looking forward as to how regionalism might play into evolving multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism?

Jenna Manhau Fung: Certainly. I will try to combine some of my responses to both of the questions and echo a little bit on what Marcus just mentioned as well. Every time Marcus makes his remark, it sparks me with some sort of like new insights all the time. And now that make me realize how to say that. Unlike Europe, Asia Pacific, for instance, there’s no singular institution that could help create a binding solution that could influence globally to an extent of how the EU works. Many of the time, it will eventually fall into the hands of the big power of certain countries or certain corporations in the regions. You can see that for example, microchip, you could see that some certain corporations are bigger there. I try not to name them out specifically because given my background, I’m not very comfortable naming them out directly. But many of the time, I want to name the power dynamic there as well. Because in the regions like Asia Pacific, for example, there are certainly countries that is so big with a big market, big political power to also influence how smaller countries react to approach certain issues. And then there’s economical factors on top of political factors that will influence how things are like. And so that’s why I think beyond the actual organizations like RIR were literally to deal with the technical aspect of the internet. I personally do see that the regional NRIRs are the ones that are the ones that are the ones that are the ones that are eyes or local NRIs for some countries, if they do have a more democratic system, they’re helpful as a channel for them to advocate what they concern. Because I do believe there are times where individuals may have to leverage some sort of power, but different kind of power, from people or organization beyond their own physical boundaries. I don’t know if that makes sense, but that’s some of the cases. I think just echoing on the questions about whether I think that the multi-stakeholderism will be a beating block, like regionalism will be a beating block for this kind of new multi-lateralism or multi-stakeholderism. I do think that this approach could be a catalyst for that one. Just so how I mentioned earlier, I think how different countries share a geographical context and sometimes because of how they’re… It’s just a more practical way to do it regionally as you can’t really just start everything huge when a small country in one of the regions do not have such global impact where everyone will give them the attention, especially right now with us actually just living like living online, relying on whatever information we get through social media, for example, which is highly manipulative in my own opinion. I think that kind of platform is important, but at the same time, people who are in involved in IGF, regionally or globally, it’s still our own community or bubble sometimes. So I think Tiago mentioned and actually throw out questions about something related to that. Like in terms of collaboration, I think regionalism can favor collaboration beyond the actual physical IGF, whether it happen nationally or regionally. Because I mean, not speaking for businesses, I do believe that unless they are huge corporation which have a lot of resources to send people to a physical IGF to just like show up, to partake in conversation that we’re making, sometimes like smaller businesses, they’re trying to survive. And even if they care, they won’t be as active as those. And that’s why those people are usually missing in our conversation. And that’s why I think there are times some ongoing collaboration is important. But of course, there are many different kinds of businesses, but I won’t be speaking for them at this point. But I start to see that in some of the Southeast Asian countries, for example, especially around the AI area. Last year, I did a research, like a really casual research on how the developments in terms of their policy look like. And I could see that in some of the Southeast Asian country, they kind of like rely a little bit more on public-private collaboration into making things happen. Because I would assume not every country have such a system that allow them to develop something that’s like comprehensive right away, just to start with while they have to catch up everything that’s just like evolving so quickly, right? So I’ll stop here because I do believe. I echoed and respond to a few points that was asked and named earlier, and that’s my take on that. Thank you.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much, Jenna. I think some good points there, and I was wanting to push a little on the sort of AI aspect of this, not that this is the AI governance forum, but we have seen, I mean, groups like ASEAN, the African Union have all done regional AI strategies in the last 12 months, so we’re certainly seeing that engagement at a regional level, not necessarily in the specifically digital policy and internet governance related groups, but at the more geopolitical element of it as well. Nibal, I’ll pass to you.

Nibal Idlebi: I mean, okay, let me answer Teo, I believe, here some question about his question related to platform and exchanging experience. I believe, as Marco said, IGF, global IGF, is very good platform for sharing experiences. It is really, I believe, during the two previous days, I saw, I turned around, I saw many regional IGF, they were speaking, one of them, it was about the Arab IGF yesterday, there was a session about their experience, and it was really multi-stakeholder, I mean, the intervention and the people who participated in the session were from different background and from different groups, and then I believe such IGF, global IGF, is very good platform for sharing experience, but I will add to it that it could be even, that it could answer maybe this best practices exchange and also this building block that you have asked about. I believe, as, I mean, involved in the IGF and as involved in other platforms, I mean, related to WSIS or other development of policy in general in the IGF. for many, many countries. I believe having more reporting about the IGF, till now IGF they don’t have at the beginning there was any reporting about IGF process at regional or national or international. Then there was introduction at after 10 years of this of the IGFs, there was this introduction of chairperson messages or key messages that were shared by different IGF forum. I believe this is very important for sharing experience and capitalizing and exchanging the best practices and so on. I think reporting on what is taking place on IGF either nationally, regionally or globally, it is really very important for building on the things. It is like that, it will be more important, I would say important element to building the blocks. I mean for building blocks among the different regional IGF or even from national to regional, from regional to the global. This is maybe missing and this is where sometimes myself even when I want to look at the IGF, I don’t know in others area what was the result. It is really difficult to find the result. Then some reporting mechanism in the IGF, the introduction and I’m not here, I’m just giving this idea, it will really be very important for everyone. This is what I want to say and I want to mention that it is really, I mean the multi-stakeholderism that was introduced in the IGF, it was copied everywhere today. I mean in many platform and in many international forum, we find this, it is copied in a way. It is everywhere multi-stakeholderism. Even we are working as international intergovernmental organization. However, today, because we see the value of multi-stakeholderism, we duplicate this model everywhere. In all kind of activity that we are doing today for development, we are working more on development, socio-economic development, we are copying this model. Then multi-stakeholderism, even if there is no voting, I mean sometimes, but however, the process, the multi-stakeholderism that was introduced very much by IGF, it was copied everywhere nowadays in many forums. Then I believe this is really also a very good example to borrow from it and maybe to generalize it.

Chris Buckridge: Okay, thank you very much, Nibel. I think something that jumps out at me from that, and maybe others will want to comment on it. Taking up your final point there about there is this model that has been adopted and embraced by a lot of people, but also the point you made about the reporting back from the IGF to the regional areas. I think that relationship between the NRIs and the global IGF is something that is very important and is evolving. I mean, particularly that question of how do NRIs feed into the global IGF? Is that a sort of defined, distinct process? Or is that something that happens in a very organic way? Does that need to change as we go forward? I will throw to Carolina now, and I am sure we will have then more discussion after that. Carolina?

Carolina Aguerre: Yes, thank you, Chris. So, yes, I am taking your point and then we will address Tiago and Dana’s comments. So, concerning the function of regionalism in multistakeholder stakeholder governance or multilateral governance, I think that that avenue is very much alive. Again, I mean, for many of the national or local communities that are unable to speak or to have a voice or to a representation or even to sort of follow and understand global debates, the region is really there for them. It’s closer to them and there is this value from these different communities. And I’m not just talking about civil society, I’m definitely talking about governments, about SMEs, trade associations in smaller countries or in countries such as in Latin America and the Caribbean, which is, again, as was rightly pointed, I mean, there’s many sub-regions within such a vast cultural continent and with many subcultures and identities and languages as well. So going back to the question concerning the comment that Tiago raised about the role of the Brazilian IGF and CGI, that, again, raises the centrality of having mechanisms and institutions that can allow for this ongoing process, for this transparency and accountability about the discussions, about the outcomes and about how those processes feed into broader, more consistent national discussions, but also into the global IGFs or other relevant institutions. And you did mention, Chris, that you were interested about AI. And I have to say that in Latin America and the Caribbean, there has been a lot going in the. last two years concerning finding and building a regional institutional inter-ministerial platform to address what kind of AI governance the region is looking forward to and actually building on this regionalism is how they have addressed the Global Digital Compact’s search for comments in September. Finally, looking into Dana’s comment, thank you, I think that’s a super relevant question and also to think about is geography or regionalism the only way to address this issue of multi-stakeholderism and again let’s go back and be kindly critical towards the stakeholder discussion which sometimes it’s not just about being a different stakeholder but it’s sharing different points of views in the same space or venue, right? And what you were mentioning about like-minded countries in certain contexts or certain discussions, this brings in the idea that sometimes you may have countries that come from very different parts of the world, have different sizes and different capacities of stakeholder groups but they have a strong opinion about or a normative approach or consensus about how to move forward some of these debates and it is in this respect that this Brussels effect or this approach that the EU may have in some regions, it’s not because there is this, it’s because those values are in a way embraced by other jurisdictions as well so that’s a kind of like-mindedness I’m talking about but you can also find that for example in groups such as the D9, the advanced digital nations where governments from different parts of the world sort of embrace technologies to address government transformation for their citizens. And so this is again another way of reflecting how values, norms, ideas about certain issues make this kind of new networks or coalitions around certain topics.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much, Karolina. I want to again now maybe throw open to the floor. While you think about putting your hands up, which I encourage you to do both online and in the room here. I think one thing I’d be really interested in, I’m looking around the room here seeing some participants in technical processes and representatives of technical organizations. We started out this session, talking about how that regional approach was sort of embedded in the technical governance space. It would be really interesting to sort of hear in terms of those technical governance processes. Is that regionalism still central? Has that evolved? How has that developed over time? We have a speaker here in the middle of the room first. And then Anil, I see you as well.

Audience: Hello, sir. I’m Sardar Farmanullah from Pakistan. I’m a student of Defence and Strategic Studies at the University of Islamabad. Sir, what the youth can do in regional IGF? Some comments, sir? I’m sure I’ll throw it to our panelists, I’m sure, in terms of how youth can engage in regional groupings. I mean, I think coming back to the first one, there was that capacity building element is a really that educating and showing how they can have that voice is a really important aspect. Okay, Jamal. Thanks. Hi, good morning, everyone. My name is Ulka Atle. I work at the RIPE NCC, one of the five regional Internet registries, and a regional approach has been central to how the RIRs approach Internet governance right from the start. So at least from, I can tell you a little bit about how the RIPE NCC does things. For us, for the past few, for the past several years, we, while we have events that bring together the technical community and other stakeholders from across our region, which is very big, we also do smaller, more focused events. The Middle East Network Operators Group is reaching its 25th year next year. So that’s been a long running event that we have, which brings people together. But one of our more recent ones is the Central Asia Peering and Interconnection Forum, which is just in its third or fourth year. And this is particularly interesting because the Central Asian countries are landlocked. And you have to think about what makes a regional event happen, or success, and, you know, motive, means, and opportunity come to mind. Because when we carried out research on the Internet infrastructure in these countries, and we showed it to representatives there, they realized that cooperation and working together was the way forward for the digital economies that they hope to build. We heard from the minister, the deputy digital minister from Uzbekistan yesterday on the high level session, and he was talking about unlocking the potential of digital economies. But all of that is built on Internet infrastructure, which needs a lot more work. And this is really where we see the benefits of multi-stakeholderism. I also wanted to add that the RIPE NCC supports a lot of network operator groups. to be very technical and we also support a lot of Internet governance conversations, regional IGFs or like CDIG, EuroDIG, but we don’t always see these two groups coming together and that again is what makes the IGF so special. Thank you. Thanks very much, Ulka. Hi, Roman Danidio representing the the IETF here. I’m going to make a slightly different kind of statement, mostly as the IETF is the standards development organization for the Internet. Our approach on kind of regionalism is everyone comes to the IETF kind of as individual, we need everyone to come, come one, come all to provide that multi-stakeholder input, but the charm that makes the Internet work, the interconnectivity of thousands of networks around the Internet is that there is not a regional protocol. If we want an end-to-end Internet that interconnects everyone, it’s about a single collection of different kind of protocols agreed globally that makes the Internet actually kind of possible. So certainly kind of filtering up regional perspective is great, but ultimately that needs to come to one place if we’re going to have one Internet and the IETF develop such protocols, then we welcome everyone to come.

Chris Buckridge: Thanks, Roman. I think that captures, I was going to say, the tension between the global and the regional very nice. You’re not presenting as attention, which I think is important as well. I think it’s not necessarily attention, but it’s something to be balanced and understood as we go through. We had one more question in our planning with our speakers. Possibly we’ve answered it in many ways, but it’s, I think, a good opportunity for our speakers to go around again and maybe engage with some of the questions. It was, for which policy challenges are regional organizations better equipped to tackle than something at the global level like the UN or even the sort of global technical organizations? And we do have Marcus back. Thank you for coming back. we’ll put you on the spot again for that. I’m going to give you this. Oh, you have a microphone there. Thank you. Yes, seems to work. Yes. It is an excellent question. I mean, we refer to it,

Markus Kummer: I think, in our opening statement, each speaker in a different way. I think that is the commonality of the regions, same cultural values, and also different priorities. I think it was also mentioned by one speaker that different regions have different priorities. It became to me obvious when I first went to Africa, access was the number one priority. First, you want to have the internet, and then once you have the internet, there are different issues that come to the fore. If you come from a developing region where access is a major issue, then obviously, the focus will be on promoting access, sharing best practices on how to do that, and also sharing bad practices, what didn’t work. It was quite often that the incumbent telcos did not help with promoting access as they were defending their own priorities, what they owned, and their income. Just to get over that resistance by the incumbents, there was also the interconnection fees governments earned from the telcos. They were afraid of losing that. I do remember attending once a meeting in Africa where one minister said, no, they want to take that away from us. Overlooking the fact, yes, you may lose something, but you get benefits through the connection to the internet, which by far outweigh the interconnection fees. fees you had, but then quite often there were individuals who benefited from the interconnection fees. So that was built in resistance then to change. Yes, it’s nice if I have my car financed through that, why should I give that away? So there are many, many different ways. So just, I mentioned that as a negative example, but you have to overcome these obstacles in order to find good policy. And there, just one example, that was access. But so in different ways, I think regions can also learn. I mean, it’s one of the issues, I think everybody agrees that you have to take care of vulnerable children on the internet. Everybody who is a parent or a grandparent is aware of that, that there is content that is clearly not suitable for young people. Now, how to do that is a different issue. And there again, I mentioned in a previous intervention that governments like to shoot from the hip. So blocking is a quick reaction, a quick solution. And there we, I mean, I say we collectively now, we will go to the IGF and learn from each other. We know that blocking is not a good solution. So we have to talk and say, you know, what are the good solutions? And it’s, maybe it’s like parenting, you know, as a parent, you learn how to prepare your children for the bad world out there. You tell them not to take sweets from strangers and so on and so on. And the same is obviously questioned when you go to the internet. I mean, it’s parents, it’s their first and foremost responsibility to make sure that their children are in a safe space when they go online. Yes, it may be difficult. And not all parents are digital natives. The children are, they quite often, by far. smarter than the parents, they outwit their parents. But again, it’s a question of trust. Parents need to also have trust with their children. But simple word, it’s parenting. And governments cannot take over from the responsibility of parents. And, and, and, and. So they are, because of the cultural affinities, it is easier maybe to share good practices. In the Arabic region, so you are much better suited to find solutions within your own regions. And I’m not talking on hard law solutions, but on soft law solutions, on good practices, on what to do and what not to do. That’s my short comments on this issue.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much, Marcus. I know we’re having a little choppy sound online, but hopefully it’s going to come back and be better than ever. And I am also planning to throw it at Jenna, but Jenna, can you, are you hearing and you’re okay? Yes. No. And, and I mean, obviously I gave a very brief answer to the question of youth in these before, but you’re certainly much more expert in this. So yeah, very happy to hear your views. Yeah.

Jenna Manhau Fung: And it’s kind of weird to be called an expert in the youth thing, but thank you. The audio works fine now, but in, I realized maybe Marcus’ voice got cut out for like five seconds. I kind of missed it. But to approach and to respond to your last question about for which policy challenges regional organization better equipped to tackle them? I think since I also wanted to respond to that question related to how you’ve engaged, I would say that, like in my opinion, any kinds of policy challenge, especially for example, in Asia Pacific, I think it’s better to kind of approach it that way too, as usually young people, they are relatively having less experience as in how to practice into making policies and all that, comparing to people who might not be a digital natives, but having more experience in different institution into making policy changes. So that’s why in that context, I think for young people especially, trying to find a spot in the regional space to make a change is the first start, as many speakers already mentioned, how we get together to hear different people perspective. I think that’s important and it gives you inspirations on what kind of change you wanna bring, want to make and what kind of insights you wanna bring back to your own countries. Cause I mean, we can’t just like, we chat here, come up with some sort of ideal solution or best practice. And then the world doesn’t just work it that way because those solutions just do not naturally become law right away by the end of the discussion, right? You have to bring it back to your own country and to make the real change that will impact people back in your community who can’t afford to be in this room, talking about this issues. And those are the people who are also being impacted by all the things that we discuss all the time within our community. And so I think at least that’s the thing. I think I value so much. And perhaps some of the young people also share a similar sentiment, if not the same. So I think everyone will have a different path, but try to find your way on what kind of changes you want to make, whether you just want to mostly spending more time advocating, amplifying your voices of your respective community, whether geographically or value-based community. I think that’s very important. And so I think that’s a good starting point. And since I am mostly favoring this regional approach, and I think as different regions getting stronger in some sense, whether they’re being bond, bond, bond through certain topics, values, or purely geographically, I think that’s already making things slightly. I don’t know if that will be easier, but what I understand right now is that the issues we are facing, it’s getting more complex. And then perhaps sometimes this cross-regional approach could be one of the ways that could help us to start a conversation, especially on some sort of topics that may need to be discussed and approached at global level, as I think we mentioned about AI. But for example, their actual, like for example, climate change, it could be disastrous and it affect everyone. And then not directly related to what we’ve been discussing here, but there’s things that kind of menacing to people’s actual life these days where you need that kind of global conversation. But I think there are regional. platform where you can talk about the interests of those people more. And so, um, that’s why I think, I think any kinds of policy, uh, it’s better taking approach and started regionally and then as young people, for example, find their own path, whether you bring it globally or back to your own community. I think that’s like the important first step where we actually try to make change.

Chris Buckridge: Okay. Thank you very much, Jenna, um, Nibal, please. And then I’ll Carolina, and then we’ll have a closing comment.

Nibal Idlebi: Okay. To answer your question about what the regional organization are more suitable to do as, uh, as versus international, uh, for, um, let me say that because we are regional organization and we are working, we are related to the UN of course, but we are also working at regional level. I believe, uh, regional, uh, institute or regional organization are more suitable in general to make policy and to propose how to make policy and the strategy for specific area, like for example, uh, information society, knowledge society, research and development and so on. Um, um, but I mean, this is, I believe based on our experience. I want to tell you a story. I, when I started working with Esquire, I was, uh, dedicated as task to make a guidelines for information society for the Arab region, and I tried to copy what is the, uh, EU is doing in this regard. However, I was, it was useless for me, the experience of EU for one example, because the governance process in the Arab region, it is, I mean, I learned a lot from EU, uh, really, I mean, I learned a lot from the EU experience. However, because the governance process of the information society or the ICT sector in the Arab region is completely different, it is more oriented towards government who is. leading, not the private sector who is leading, then the scope was completely changed. I mean, then I was obliged to completely change the scope of the work because I mean, the governance process in the Arab region is completely different. It is guided by the government while it is guided by private sector in the area. And this make a change because the government in these cases in Europe, they are facilitator, they are enabler, they are not the one who do things. Then they are the facilitator, they make the regulation, enabling environment, whatever. However, in the Arab countries, it was everything controlled by the government. Then they have to do everything. Then the formulation of the strategy and the policy and the guidelines that we developed, it was completely different scope. However, we learned a lot from EU. We learned also a lot from the EU, for example, in rule and regulation. I believe and here the regional organization can do a lot also in regulation and legislation, legislative process. And because also the similarity in the governance process and in the administrative process at the regional level might be different from other region. And this is this administrative and how they deal with things and the cultural issue. Here it comes into the scope that the cultural issue also different at regional level. Then I believe the regional organization are more suitable to propose a regional dimension of legal and regulatory framework. I want to add one another, if you allow me. Yeah, rapidly. I believe the regional organization has a lot of role for answering to support state or member countries in the region to respond to the global agenda. For example, sustainable development goals, for example, a global digital compact nowadays. And you counted, there is a lot of global agenda and I believe the regional organization can support member state, their member state, whatever. it is much more than international one because of the similarity among countries. Thank you.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much, Nibal. Apologies for rushing you at the end. Carolina, please, some closing thoughts from you.

Carolina Aguerre: Yes, so just to complement what has already been mentioned by the other speakers, I mean, and the word services emerged a lot of times. I mean, if we make a word count of how many times the value of regional organizations that may contribute to this idea of service, I think this is crucial. So it’s service, it’s delivery, it’s being closer to the citizens which are being affected by these kind of policies. And so you really need to sort of be like the on the ground delivery of these global policies or general principles that then need to sort of get to the ground. And I also want to add another point, which is the essential for the information and digital society, which is that of infrastructure. And I do think that regional organizations are key institutions and processes that enable the thought process and the development of digital infrastructure. And this is something that we’ve seen already in the past with internet related technologies from ISPs, IXPs, undersea cables, that kind of connectivity, but it’s also the kind of discussions that we are beginning to see emerging more and more in Latin America and in the Caribbean concerning the infrastructure that is needed to develop AI capacity. Thank you.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much, Karolina. We’ve got just a little bit of time left, but I wanted to… And this workshop has been put together and driven by Nadia Chaha and Shahan Jamal Shaheen. And I want to give Nadia a chance and then Jamal to finish us off there. So Nadia, please.

Nadia Tjahja: Thank you very much. And thank you very much to the speakers and also the people in the room for your comments and your interventions. And I highly encourage you, if you haven’t seen, we’re taking notes online and you could still put in feedback and comments. We really want to start using this to build our conversation on. And what I would like to take a very brief moment on is to answer the question on how youth can participate in regional processes. And what I think is important is to take this opportunity while you’re here at the IGF to meet up with some of the NRIs. So there are NRI sessions where you can go to, where you can actually meet the people who are organizing events that are happening in your spaces. So for example, for Europe, there is the European Dialogue on Internet Governance or EURODIG. They have a stand. And also, if you go to these NRI sessions and you see these people on the stage, please don’t hesitate to actually walk up to them and say, hey, I live and work in your region. Can you please advise me? But if you are not able to find people on site, you can also find it on the IGF website for the NRIs. And also Jenna is one of the coordinators who facilitates youth participation in the NRI spaces. But if you don’t have a regional event or a regional space where you could go to, there is a dynamic coalition called the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance, and they have a regional representative space on the UN regions. So you are able to reach out to that representative and they can help you and support you with setting up your own events or connect you to other people in your region. your space who are working on particular youth issues or just wanting to connect to other young people. So it is not a space where you have to feel alone. And there are opportunities out there, especially for those. There are summer schools, winter schools and other youth events that are being organized. So the way to get involved is start joining the Youth Coalition Incident Governance mailing list, going to the NRI sessions, and also join the youth newsletter that is on the IGF. I hope that is very helpful. And I would then give the floor back to the moderator. Thank you, Chris.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you, Nadia. And Jamal, going to you for last word here.

Jamal Shahin: Yeah, thanks. Chris, thanks very much to our panelists as well. Everybody. It’s been a great discussion. And thanks to everybody here. I have a lot of things to say, but there’s a lady at the back who wants me to finish. So I will go through just a few points. A few points as a reflection on what we heard, and how this fits into an ongoing research program that we’re carrying out at the UNU in Bruges, the United University for Comparative Regional Integration Studies. So we’re looking at this idea of regionalism. This is the thing that’s causing the problem. Okay, there we go. So, okay, we’re looking into how regions can be useful. also in the IGF sphere. I think, Mark, no, it doesn’t help. In project, Nadia has been in, Nadia has been, it’s working. Okay. Nadia has been involved in a project that we’ve been doing, comparing trade to internet governance. Be really interesting. We found that there’s quite a lot of differences that make this very difficult to compare these two. So I’d love to go into more on that. I think also this idea of the global needs of the technical community of the internet, in fact, and the regional needs of the actors to actually build up a common position is actually quite challenging. We need to think more about how those pathways from the regional to the global actually play out in something like the IGF. I think also we need to think that regions are only one of the complex set of actors in the mosaic. We have non-geographically contiguous actors as well. I think, Carolina, you mentioned them as other geopolitical actors, like the G7, the OECD, and so on. I think, Dana, you also alluded to this in your question. I think those are very important relations to think about as well. How does the region fit into the non-regional responses here as well? I think these are questions that we’ll carry on talking about as we go into the implementation of the GDC, as we go on to thinking about how the IGF will work and what role different actors like regional actors will play in the IGF in the future. So it’s been a great way to actually have this discussion with people, open up this way of thinking on our part, and also get some insights into this. The document that we’re doing will hopefully turn into… something a bit much more. So we’re looking forward to that. Thanks very much, Chris.

Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much, Jamal. And thank you, Jamal and Nadia for organizing this session. Thank you to our speakers. We’ve got Marcus, Nibal, Carolina and Jenna. Thank you all for being here and for your active participation in the discussion. We’ll bring this to a close. Have a good day.

Agreement Points

Importance of regional approach in internet governance

Chris Buckridge

Markus Kummer

Jenna Manhau Fung

Nibal Idlebi

Carolina Aguerre

Regional approach addresses logistical issues like time zones, languages, and cultural differences

Regional forums provide platform for amplifying voices, especially for youth

Regionalism allows for capacity building and bringing people into understanding of internet governance

Regional approach enables thought process and development of digital infrastructure

All speakers agreed on the significance of regional approaches in addressing specific needs, facilitating participation, and developing infrastructure in internet governance.

Relationship between regional and global internet governance

Chris Buckridge

Markus Kummer

Nibal Idlebi

Regional forums help strengthen voices in global discussions

Regional internet registries complement global ICANN governance

Regional organizations can support member states in responding to global agendas

Speakers emphasized the complementary nature of regional and global internet governance, with regional initiatives strengthening local voices and supporting global agendas.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers noted an evolution in regional approaches to address emerging technological challenges and a renewed interest in regional forums.

Jenna Manhau Fung

Carolina Aguerre

Regional approach evolving to address new issues like AI governance

There is renewed interest in regional forums in Latin America and Caribbean

Both speakers highlighted the potential for regional solutions to influence broader policy-making, either by becoming global standards or by better addressing local needs.

Markus Kummer

Nibal Idlebi

Regional solutions like EU’s GDPR can become global standards

Regional organizations better equipped to propose policies suited to local governance processes

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of non-geographical regional groupings

Carolina Aguerre

Jamal Shahin

There is renewed interest in regional forums in Latin America and Caribbean

Need to consider non-geographically contiguous actors and coalitions

While most discussions focused on geographical regions, both Aguerre and Shahin pointed out the importance of considering non-geographical groupings in internet governance, which was an unexpected area of consensus.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of regional approaches in internet governance, the complementary relationship between regional and global governance, and the evolution of regional initiatives to address emerging challenges.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on the value and relevance of regionalism in internet governance. This strong agreement implies that regional approaches are likely to continue playing a crucial role in shaping internet governance policies and practices, potentially leading to more tailored solutions for specific regions while contributing to global governance frameworks.

Different Viewpoints

Role of regional organizations in policy-making

Markus Kummer

Nibal Idlebi

Regional solutions like EU’s GDPR can become global standards

Regional organizations better equipped to propose policies suited to local governance processes

While Kummer emphasizes the potential for regional solutions to become global standards, Idlebi focuses on the ability of regional organizations to tailor policies to local contexts.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were subtle and centered around the specific roles and capabilities of regional organizations in internet governance.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was relatively low. Most speakers generally agreed on the importance and relevance of regionalism in internet governance, with differences mainly in emphasis and specific applications. This low level of disagreement suggests a broad consensus on the value of regional approaches, which could facilitate more coordinated efforts in developing regional internet governance strategies.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of regional approaches in addressing emerging technological challenges, but they focus on different aspects: Fung emphasizes policy development for AI, while Aguerre highlights infrastructure development.

Jenna Manhau Fung

Carolina Aguerre

Regional approach evolving to address new issues like AI governance

Regional approach enables thought process and development of digital infrastructure

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers noted an evolution in regional approaches to address emerging technological challenges and a renewed interest in regional forums.

Jenna Manhau Fung

Carolina Aguerre

Regional approach evolving to address new issues like AI governance

There is renewed interest in regional forums in Latin America and Caribbean

Both speakers highlighted the potential for regional solutions to influence broader policy-making, either by becoming global standards or by better addressing local needs.

Markus Kummer

Nibal Idlebi

Regional solutions like EU’s GDPR can become global standards

Regional organizations better equipped to propose policies suited to local governance processes

Key Takeaways

Regional approaches are important for addressing logistical issues, cultural differences, and capacity building in internet governance

Regional forums provide platforms for amplifying voices, especially for youth and developing countries

Regional organizations are well-positioned to propose policies suited to local governance processes

There needs to be a balance between regional perspectives and global protocols for an interconnected internet

National and regional internet governance initiatives (NRIs) are a significant outcome of the IGF process

Regional approaches are evolving to address new issues like AI governance

Resolutions and Action Items

Encourage youth to connect with NRIs and regional representatives to get involved in internet governance

Consider how to improve reporting and information sharing between regional and global IGF processes

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance regional needs with global technical requirements of the internet

How non-geographically contiguous actors and coalitions fit into the regional approach to internet governance

How to improve pathways from regional to global internet governance processes

Suggested Compromises

Use regional forums to develop common positions that can then feed into global discussions

Adopt a multi-layered approach that includes regional, sub-regional and like-minded country groupings in addition to traditional geographic regions

We have one global solution to, uh, security, but that’s also highly controversial right now. And it shows it’s not easy to find global solutions with that.

speaker

Marcus Kummer

reason

This comment highlights the tension between global and regional approaches to internet governance, particularly around security issues. It introduces complexity by acknowledging that even when global solutions exist, they may be controversial.

impact

This set the stage for further discussion on the merits and challenges of regional versus global approaches throughout the conversation.

As you might know, Asia Pacific is really huge. There are many languages and there are different cultures as well. Even there are times when we talk about the topics that we approach there would be very different from Europe, I would imagine.

speaker

Jenna Manhau Fung

reason

This comment provides concrete examples of why regional approaches can be valuable, highlighting the diversity within regions that global approaches may not adequately address.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider more nuanced views of regionalism, acknowledging intra-regional diversity as well as inter-regional differences.

Based on our experience, I believe the regional dimension is very important. As Marcus was saying, we are sharing the same challenges in the region. We are aware of the dynamism of the countries in the region. We know very well the stakeholders.

speaker

Nibal Idlebi

reason

This comment reinforces the value of regional approaches by emphasizing shared challenges and stakeholder knowledge within regions.

impact

It deepened the discussion on the practical benefits of regionalism in internet governance.

Lately, I would say that in my region, regionalism has tended to become more interesting for actors, and I’m not exactly sure why, but I think that this, a lot of the geopolitical turn concerning the governance of the internet, but also the governance of AI, really leaves much less space to think about the development of these infrastructures and the platforms that citizens want to engage with and the actual local power dimensions that need to be addressed.

speaker

Carolina Aguerre

reason

This comment introduces a new perspective on why regionalism may be gaining importance, linking it to geopolitical shifts and emerging technologies like AI.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion to consider how global geopolitical trends are influencing regional internet governance approaches.

Is there a role for middle powers to start to become their own region, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand have been moving together joined statements in the space of the GDC and WSIS plus 20. But do we need to start seeing like regions emerge across like similar economic frameworks, similar political policies that might not be geographically the same, but have different socioeconomic factors to make a region such as including, for example, like the Nordic countries within them.

speaker

Dana Kramer (audience member)

reason

This question challenges traditional notions of regionalism based solely on geography, proposing a new conceptualization based on shared economic and political frameworks.

impact

It sparked discussion on evolving definitions of regionalism and how non-geographic factors might influence regional groupings in internet governance.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively expanding and nuancing the concept of regionalism in internet governance. The conversation moved from acknowledging basic regional differences to exploring intra-regional diversity, practical benefits of regional approaches, geopolitical influences, and even reconceptualizing what constitutes a ‘region’. This evolution allowed for a rich, multifaceted examination of regionalism’s role in internet governance, considering both its current state and potential future developments.

How can regional, national, and global IGFs better share experiences and best practices?

speaker

Tiago

explanation

This would help improve knowledge sharing and collaboration between different levels of IGFs

How can middle powers like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand form their own ‘region’ based on shared values rather than geography?

speaker

Dana Kramer

explanation

This explores alternative ways of conceptualizing regions beyond traditional geographic boundaries

How might different communities become new ‘digital empires’ in internet governance over the next 10 years?

speaker

Dana Kramer

explanation

This looks at potential future shifts in power dynamics in global internet governance

What role can youth play in regional IGFs?

speaker

Sardar Farmanullah

explanation

This explores how to better engage and empower youth in regional internet governance processes

How can the relationship and information flow between NRIs and the global IGF be improved?

speaker

Chris Buckridge

explanation

This examines how to strengthen connections between regional and global internet governance forums