WS #266 Empowering Civil Society: Bridging Gaps in Policy Influence

Summary

The discussion on empowering civil society organisations (CSOs) and enhancing their participation in digital governance processes highlighted several key challenges faced by CSOs, particularly those from the Global South, in engaging with internet governance forums like ICANN, IETF, and ITU. These challenges include financial constraints, language barriers, technical capacity gaps, and power imbalances favouring governments and large tech companies.

The participants emphasised the importance of CSOs as amplifiers of marginalised voices and champions of human rights in the digital space. They noted that CSOs often serve as keen observers and bridges between different stakeholders, offering valuable perspectives on policy development. However, the discussion also revealed that CSOs struggle with insufficient recognition and funding despite their impactful work.

Several strategies were proposed to enhance CSO participation, including strengthening regional collaborations, improving technical capacity, and advocating for unrestricted funding for research and upskilling. The speakers stressed the need for CSOs to proactively invite themselves to decision-making tables and leverage their multistakeholder DNA.

The discussion also touched on the evolving definition of civil society in digital governance spaces and the importance of adequately defining CSO constituencies within governance structures. Participants highlighted the potential of hybrid meeting formats and youth initiatives in increasing accessibility and engagement.

In conclusion, the speakers called for increased institutional support, capacity building, and funding for CSOs, particularly those with long-standing experience in internet governance. They emphasised the need to address power imbalances and invest in CSOs’ ability to respond to future challenges in the digital governance landscape.

Keypoints

Major discussion points

• Barriers to civil society participation in internet governance, including financial constraints, language barriers, and lack of technical capacity
• The need for more inclusive and representative involvement of the Global South in internet governance processes
• The importance of civil society organisations (CSOs) as conveners and bridges between stakeholders
• Challenges around funding and resources for CSOs to engage effectively
• The evolving role and definition of civil society in internet governance spaces

Overall purpose

This discussion aimed to examine challenges and opportunities for enhancing civil society participation in internet governance processes, particularly for organisations from underrepresented regions. The speakers shared insights from recent research and explored strategies to empower CSOs to have more influence in shaping digital policies.

Tone:

The tone was largely constructive and solution-oriented. Speakers acknowledged significant challenges but focused on identifying opportunities and successful strategies. There was a sense of urgency around the need to strengthen civil society’s role and optimism about the unique value CSOs can provide. The tone became more impassioned towards the end as speakers advocated for more significant support and recognition of CSOs’ contributions.

Speakers

• Kenneth Harry Msiska: Moderator, Forus International
• Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: Representative from KICTANet
• Stephanie Borg Psaila: Representative from DiploFoundation

Additional speakers:

• Nana Wachako  (audience participant)
• Paolo: Internet code expert from Malawi  (audience participant)
• Pratishtha: From India  (audience participant)
• Michael: HR officer at OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights)
• Imad: (Asked a question via text chat)

This discussion, moderated by Kenneth Harry Msiska, focused on the challenges and opportunities for enhancing civil society organisation (CSO) participation in internet governance processes. The panel featured representatives from KICTANet, DiploFoundation, and Sarvodaya Fusion, who explored strategies to empower CSOs, particularly those from the Global South, in shaping digital policies.

Key challenges for CSO participation

The speakers highlighted several significant barriers hindering CSO engagement in internet governance forums such as ICANN, the IETF, and ITU:

• Financial constraints: Limited funding severely restricts CSOs’ ability to participate in governance processes, especially for organisations from the Global South. This issue was emphasised by multiple speakers, including Stephanie Borg Psaila and Nana Wachako.

• Language barriers and technical jargon: Kenneth Harry Msiska noted that complex technical language often alienates CSOs, making it difficult for them to engage effectively in discussions.

• Lack of technical capacity: Wachako pointed out that many CSOs struggle to engage on certain topics due to insufficient technical expertise.

• Uneven playing field: Koech-Kimwatu highlighted the challenges faced by African participants, particularly regarding visa issues, which create an unbalanced representation in governance forums.

• Power imbalances: Borg Psaila provided data showing that within ICANN’s structure, at least half of the leadership roles are occupied by the private sector, creating a significant imbalance in representation.

• Structural silos: Borg Psaila noted that expert interviews revealed recurring problems with silos within the ICANN structure, limiting CSO influence.

The role and value of CSOs in internet governance

Despite these challenges, the speakers emphasised the crucial role that CSOs play in digital governance:

• Amplifying marginalised voices: Msiska stressed that CSOs are essential in promoting digital inclusion and bringing forward the perspectives of underrepresented groups.

• Balancing stakeholder Interests: Borg Psaila noted that CSOs counterbalance other stakeholders, holding them accountable and ensuring a more equitable governance process.

• Providing grassroots perspectives: Audience members highlighted the importance of CSOs in bringing local knowledge and community-based insights to global discussions.

• Acting as observers and innovators: Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu described CSOs as keen observers who can offer updated best practices in governance processes.

• Talent pipeline: Koech-Kimwatu also noted that CSOs often serve as a pipeline for tech policy talent, despite facing challenges in retaining expertise due to financial constraints.

Strategies to enhance CSO participation and influence

The speakers proposed several strategies to empower CSOs and increase their effectiveness in digital governance:

• Develop convening power: Koech-Kimwatu emphasised the importance of CSOs becoming trusted conveners, building ecosystems that facilitate information flow from grassroots to global levels.

• Conduct research: Multiple speakers, including Koech-Kimwatu and Wachako, stressed the need for CSOs to engage in research to become trusted sources for policymaking.

• Strengthen regional collaborations: Msiska suggested that CSOs should work together regionally to increase their voting power and capacity to influence international policy.

• Leverage digital tools: Msiska and others advocated for using digital technologies and hybrid meeting formats to increase accessibility and participation. Koech-Kimwatu noted the post-COVID shift to hybrid meetings has positively impacted CSO participation.

• Expand youth-focused initiatives: Koech-Kimwatu called for increased efforts to engage young people in governance processes, citing the success of youth representation at the East Africa IGF.

• Improve funding models: Wachako proposed that CSOs should unify in requesting unrestricted funding for research and upskilling to enhance their capacity and effectiveness.

Improving governance structures for CSO engagement

The discussion also touched on the need to reform governance structures to better accommodate CSO participation:

• Defining CSO constituencies: Paolo from Malawi highlighted the lack of a clear definition for CSOs within ICANN’s structure, calling for better recognition of civil society as a distinct constituency.

• Strengthening institutional support: Koech-Kimwatu emphasised the need for increased institutional backing for CSOs, including funding, capacity building, and support for travel or digital participation.

• Leveraging local knowledge: An audience member from the Turing Institute stressed the importance of incorporating local knowledge in building principles and policies for internet governance.

Ongoing research and initiatives

The discussion highlighted several ongoing efforts to better understand and support CSO participation:

• CADE project: Borg Psaila mentioned the CADE project, which includes a baseline study on CSO knowledge and attitudes towards engaging in internet governance processes.
• KICTANet case study: Koech-Kimwatu discussed KICTANet’s ongoing case study for Africa on CSO participation in internet governance processes, which aims to provide insights and recommendations for improvement.

Unresolved issues and future directions

While the discussion provided valuable insights and strategies, several issues remained unresolved:

• Addressing power imbalances between CSOs and other stakeholders like big tech and governments.

• Developing specific mechanisms to improve visa processes and travel support for Global South participants.

• Finding ways to retain talent within CSOs given limited financial resources.

• Harmonising diverse CSO interests and priorities in governance processes.

The speakers called for continued efforts to address these challenges, emphasising increased investment in building CSO capacity to respond to future digital governance challenges. They also stressed the importance of leveraging local knowledge in developing principles and policies and ensuring that governance structures evolve to better accommodate civil society perspectives.

In his final recap, Msiska emphasised the key points discussed, including the need for capacity building, funding, and structural changes to support CSO participation. He reiterated the crucial role of CSOs in bringing diverse perspectives to internet governance and the importance of continued efforts to empower their involvement.

In conclusion, the discussion highlighted the importance of building on the critical role of CSOs in internet governance while acknowledging the significant barriers they face. The speakers emphasised the need for structural changes, improved funding models, and capacity-building initiatives to empower CSOs, particularly those from the Global South, to make significant, concrete input to shaping the future of digital governance.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right, I welcome you all to this session, Session Number 266 on Empowering Civil Society, Bridging Gaps in Policy Influence, organized by the Civil Society Alliances for Digital Empowerment (CADE), which is an EU co-funded project with nine partners listed below there. We have DiploFoundation, which is the lead of the consortium. We have CIPESA, the European Center for Nonprofit Law, FORUS, Foundation Karisma, KICTANet, Sarvodaya Fusion, SMEX, and PICISOC. 

So, on behalf of the CADE consortium, once again let me welcome you to this session, which we hope to be a very interactive session. We conducted a similar session at the ICANN Annual General Meeting. The idea was to present key insights from our CADE mapping study. We are right now doing a baseline study where we’re trying to understand issues to do with knowledge and the attitudes of CSOs towards engaging in internet governance processes. So this afternoon, before we kick-start our discussions, I’ll present some of the key insights that we’re getting from that particular mapping study, and then I’ll request my two colleagues. Stephanie? Wow, okay, maybe it’s this. Can you hear me now? All right, my apologies. I’m supposed to hold these together. 

All right, so they’ll provide some reactions to a few questions that I’ll pose to them, but also to indicate that KICTANet is doing a case study for Africa on CSOs’ participation in internet governance processes. So they will share some insights as well from that particular case study. So in terms of how, as a CADE project, we understand the role of CSOs, we do believe that CSOs do amplify marginalized voices, and I think this is a role that we, as CSOs, are actually occupying at the moment. And through this, we’re able to bring to the fore the various perspectives and concerns of the people that we represent. CSOs also do promote digital inclusion. They champion human rights. They also drive innovation and creativity. They do foster transparency and accountability. This is an overview of the internet ecosystem. I may not need to go deeper into this. I think we probably are aware of the key bodies. So, I’ll quickly go into some of the key internet governance forums, starting with ICANN. So under ICANN, there are quite a number of mechanisms where CSOs can actually engage.

For example, the non-commercial stakeholder group, non-commercial users’ constituency, that large community, not-for-profit, operational concerns constituency. These are some of the avenues that CSOs can engage in ICANN. But again, we also have to learn about the processes, challenges, and other opportunities. The first one is an issue to do with insufficient inclusivity, where for example, CSOs do account for a meager 12% of the roles within ICANN’s leadership structure. ICANN processes do require continuous engagement. There is nothing like, you know, one-time engagement, and then you obtain some wins. You need to engage over time, and that requires a lot of resources to sustain. Influence disparity. We also see that within ICANN, the large tech corporations and government are dominant compared to CSOs. Opportunities. ICANN has a fellowship, which has enabled activists to understand the work of ICANN, and this is still ongoing. We see that as a good opportunity.

Then, the non-commercial constituency supports the participation of CSOs, especially from the global South, which is also an opportunity. With respect to IETF, I think you would agree with me, this particular body seems to be a little bit closed from the CSOs and the level of engagement among CSOs in this IETF has been on the lower side. And one, the use of technical jargon also alienates CSOs. Issues to do with financial constraints and this is linked, one, to the venues where these meetings are held and also, you know, for CSOs to continuously engage in these processes is quite prohibitive. And just to point out that, you know, in terms of inclusion, no IETF meeting has taken place in Africa, for example. There are also concerns about, you know, male-domination and then the issue of language barrier. English is the only language in the discussions. 

So, an opportunity: IETF is addressing some of the challenges highlighted. For example, there is onboarding support for newcomers, a similar process which is happening at ICANN. That’s a good opportunity. There is a dedicated mentoring program for newcomers, which we also see as an opportunity. With respect to ITU, in terms of entry points or mechanisms for CSOs to engage, there is a CSO conservative status, contributions, and interventions. There are ITU study groups, regional and national presence. These are some of the mechanisms for CSO engagement. 

But we also note that, you know, there is matriarchalism. So, therefore, CSOs’ participation has to be linked to national delegations. And where, for example, CSOs are not speaking the same language with their governments, it’s difficult for them to actually be part of the national delegations. 

So, because of those financial commitments or constraints linked to being part of delegations from the Global South, very few CSOs from the Global South make their way to these conferences compared to CSOs from the Global North. Prohibitive costs associated with participation, accreditation fees and venues for meetings. Usually the venue is Geneva, which is quite expensive. 

The Internet Governance Forum, I think so many positives in terms of Internet Governance Forum. CSOs see this as a very much stakeholder platform as compared to ITU, which is matriarchal. So, that’s a very big plus. One, open consultations and call for input. That’s an area where CSOs can also get involved. Workshops and panels. Network and collaborations. Initiatives. Then, in terms of opportunities, gaps and barriers. Resource constraints. This has to point there. 

So one, as I was saying, resource constraints still features under barriers to CSO participation. Lack of technical capacity to engage effectively on certain topics is also an issue. The English dominance is still palpable, and that has to be addressed. Non-binding nature of the discussion sometimes can put off CSOs because they feel like their discussions have gone in vain. Dominance of large tech companies. 

But in terms of opportunities, we continue to see that the IGF is setting aside funds to support the participation of activists through travel support, especially activists from the Global South, which is also a good thing. Support for remote hubs, especially for activists from the Global South, is also a good opportunity. 

So I wanted to highlight, but in terms of structuring the issues that we were talking about, one, I think, would look at financial issues to do with capacities, issues to do with shifting the power from the dominant players to civil society organizations. And then looking at now, what are the issues in terms of emerging issues, and how best CSOs can actually engage in those. So we’ll structure our discussion based on the issues that I’ve highlighted, but we’ll be looking at your personal experiences with these processes, and how best the CADE project can address some of the challenges that we’ll be talking about. 

So to kick-start the discussion, I’ll pose a few questions to Rosemary and Stephanie. I’ll start with Rosemary from KICTANet. So based on your regional study, the case study that we referred to earlier, what practical lessons can we learn about fostering meaningful collaboration among CSOs, government, and other stakeholders?

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: I thought I was loud enough, just my normal voice. But anyway, can you hear me? Great. I think the meaningful lesson is the maintenance of the multistakeholder approach. I think the key issue is to have real traction in these sessions. In order to have real policy interventions, in order to have real practical outcomes from the sessions, there’s a need to have all stakeholders within a room. And I think for me, that’s one of the key lessons. How then do you engage, if it’s subject matter experts, if it’s academia, if it’s government, how then do you become a convener? And it’s actually the key skill that becomes a convener that can be trusted, a convener that is able to go several miles ahead in order to build an ecosystem that then creates a flow of information that is useful, right from the grassroots level up to the global level. I think for me, the key thing is to relook at how do you do convening? And not just at, say, country level, then moving forward with the issues that you get at the country level, how then do you move them now to the regional level? 

And to have real policy traction that responds to the needs of various stakeholders. Because we all come to these meetings to find solutions. So it’s important that at any one step, to be very targeted. How then are you engaging in convenings that solve problems for the various stakeholders that are there? Thank you.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Thank you so much. Let me go to Stephanie. What key trends have emerged from the CADE mapping study? And based on your own experience regarding CSO engagement in multilateral digital governance processes, would you actually point out?

Stephanie Borg Psaila: Thank you, Ken. Hello, everyone. A pleasure to be here. And hello to the online participants. Ken, regarding the key trends, I’ll focus a little bit on some of the findings that you highlighted in the very beginning. Because the mapping study that is part of the project that we’re undertaking, it resulted in quite a few important findings, and I would say trends.

So with regards to the main findings, I think we can start off with, let’s say, basics, right? For instance, the reconfirmation from previous findings that CSOs are still the least influential stakeholder in multistakeholder internet governance, despite the equal billing in the WSIS definition. So the WSIS definition might place everyone around the table. But the reality is that there are power imbalances that sometimes still prevent civil society to get around that same table. So that emerged very, very clearly in the mapping that was undertaken as part of the project and in the baseline survey and interviews with experts. 

Obviously, there is a limited participation by CSOs, especially from the Global South. And as a result, the policies that are being shaped, they do not account, do not take into account the needs of the Global South in as much way as they should. Now, in our study, we focused mostly on standard-setting organizations, with a particular focus on, as Kenneth was saying, three standard-setting organizations. So when you look at the barriers for civil society engagement in these three standard-setting organizations, and here I’m referring to the IETF, ITU, and ICANN, the main trend is that there are few trends, actually, that come out of the modalities in which civil society engages in each of the forum. In fact, there is a mix of barriers that is inviting us to go beyond the generalization of barriers in issues that CSOs face. And I’ll zoom into the specific settings of each, and I’ll explain a little bit of, I’ll repeat some of the, emphasize some of the things that Kenneth said, just to bring out these specificities and the barriers that CSOs face in this forum.

So let me start off with ICANN, and I think it’s also alphabetical order, ICANN, IETF, and ITU. So no preferences there. So within the ICANN structure, if you look at the leadership, at least half of the leadership roles are taken up by the private sector, right? So this is a problem, obviously, but not only that, the baseline study that we carried out, the interviews with the experts, the respondents also felt that there are silos within the ICANN structure that is a recurring problem. And this is mainly due to the insufficient cross-community engagement. So this is quite specific to ICANN. 

As is typical with technical discussions, so here is where maybe not as specific to ICANN, but quite, let’s say, across the board between ICANN, IETF, is that it’s typical with technical discussions, they often neglect broader policy implications. And because the Global South perspectives are not heard as much as they should, the priorities and needs at the sub-regional level, so here we’re going beyond the region, not just to the regional level, but also to the regional level. 

So this is a problem, obviously. Talking in terms of the needs of Latin America or the needs of Africa, they are often not heard or not heard well, let’s say. So we can see here a mix of barriers, some relating to the substance of the discussions, and here when we’re talking about the substance, this is where some trends emerge between the in the barriers that CSOs face in the standard-setting organizations, and some relate to structural issues, and is the, I would say, the structural issues which are the most specific to these forum. At the IETF – we had to zoom into the IETF – one of the biggest barriers is language. Why? Because the discussions are held exclusively in English, right? And we’re not saying here, hey, let us not use English, far from it, but there are so many tools, so many, you know, interpretation, translation tools that can be added to the discussions, right? So today’s technology, it enables this in a very easy way. 

Another example is the fact that the meetings, the IETF meetings, the three main meetings every year, they take place in North America, Europe, Asia, right? It’s always the same regions. What about having meetings in Africa, in Latin America, right? We know for a fact that if we had to compare, for instance, meetings of the global IGF that took place in Africa, in Latin America, the number of CSOs from the region was much higher, right, than whenever events were in the Global North. So this is, it’s a, let’s say, a structural issue. I would say, particular to the IETF. In the IGF, the meetings take place all over, and ICANN as well. Again, not saying that the face-to-face meetings are, you know, the most important way of engaging. Far from it, because we know that a lot of work takes place in mailing lists, etc., in between meetings, and that work takes place online. 

In terms of trends, if we look at ITU, the problems are, again, of a different type, because it’s, we have to reflect on the way that governments and civil society work together at the local level, right? For civil society to be able to participate at ITU, they need to be part of a delegation. And here, unfortunately, we see that delegations from the Global South, fewer CSOs are actually part of the delegations than those in the Global North. 

Not generalizing, we know that, for instance, delegations from Brazil, Mexico, to take a couple of examples, they do welcome CSOs more broadly as part of the delegations. And then, when it comes to ITU, there’s the big question of accreditation, right? And that’s a very big barrier specific to ITU. There’s been a lot of discussions about this, and I think there are a few policies also, on the waiving of those fees, but why are we still talking about the waiver of fees? Should we start a discussion on not being, there not being any fees at all? So, in terms of trends, the conclusion is that we need to go granular, and not just at a general level.

So, I would say that the main takeaway of the mapping, the work that we want to do in the coming months and years, is specifically along these lines. Back to you, Kenneth. Thank you.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: I see that, Rosemary, you’re itching to add a few things, but before you attempt to add on what Stephanie said, you should also respond to this question. You talked about being able to convene, or being a convener. What successful strategies have been implemented, that you know, at regional level, to enhance the inclusion of CSOs, and also to ensure that, you know, they do play a meaningful role in making sure that they’re able to influence the digital policies. Over to you.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: Thank you very much for that question. I think the key successful thing has been being a participant that is able to share knowledge, and bridge the gap. For example, I keep giving this example. Africans, we find ourselves in a very unique place. We don’t manufacture technology too much. Again, we don’t manufacture a lot of legislation. If you look at it, America, China, a lot of manufacturing happens there. Europe manufactures a lot of legislation. Africans, we get the after-effects. Brussels effects, so on and so forth. So we get to become very keen observers of it all. 

And what happens is that, now through the CSOs, in the IGF process, and all the other processes, we then get a unique position of offering the next best practice. Because you’re keen observers, you then act as a partner, say for example, to legislators at the local level. You then become a source of honesty, and actually become the True North, in terms of what, then, is the next best policies for you from an African perspective. And we find ourselves in the middle, putting everyone to task, putting the private sector to task, putting government to task, and putting academia to task. Because we get to view it from an observer level. So what success comes out of that? 

How do you become successful? One, you engage in a lot of research. At KICTANet, for example, we have a whole page on publications that we do. Research that happens throughout the year on various topical issues. If today AI is hot, we will figure it out. If it’s elections and how the internet affects them, we’ll figure it out. If today it’s low earth orbiting technologies, vis-a-vis the old spectrum, in terms of telecommunications, we’ll sit down and figure it out. So you become a trusted partner for policymaking. And when that happens, then this all becomes meaningful. Because you then get to participate in making legislations. 

I’ll give an example. The Data Protection Act in Kenya, the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, any time there’s a legislation, there’s an element in our Constitution of public participation. KICTANet has been a key stakeholder. Today you find, and I was smiling, and through my answer I get to answer, to make a mention on something. In as much as you called it least influential, I think we’re just the most broke. Yeah. But the influence is there. 

We’re trusted by governments, we’re trusted by the private sector, and we get to be that middle ground that makes sure that there’s a True North in terms of what is the best experience that we’ll get as Africans on the ground. And that is done by the CSO entities. 

So, and a reflection for me when you were speaking, in terms of what you could do better, I think it’s a reflection of what have we done with the little that we have so far, what influence have we made, and then now what capacity is going to be added to these CSOs that have been doing this work for several years, that have been part of the whole track, the IGF, IETF, WSIS, over the years. They’ve built particular skills. So what then should happen to capacity build those entities in order to help them make greater influence moving forward? Because at the end of the day, the private sector has got what they want. Government has got its own interests. CSOs come to create a balance. And a lot of support is required at that level. Yeah. Because he who pays the piper calls the tune. So we need to make sure that we have to maintain that element of balance and to build the next best practice as Africans.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right. Thank you so much, Rosemary. Just to encourage our colleagues who are following us online, you can keep on sending your comments, questions via the chat. My apologies, you may not be able to speak during this session, but we will accommodate your comments and questions through the chat. Imad is asking, and I’ll pause this, you can reflect on this, I’ll come back to you later on. Imad is saying, besides costs and language barriers, isn’t there an additional barrier for cooperation which is the diversity of interests of CSOs? He thinks this is also a barrier in, for example, he’s saying priorities would be, for example, in other countries basic human rights or safety or corruption so these differences do also affect, you know, the participation. 

Now to the audience I have two questions that we should think about. How do you see the multilateral, multistakeholder processes evolving to better integrate civil society voices, particularly those from the under-represented regions or the Global South? And two, from a policy perspective, what concrete actions can stakeholders take to lower barriers and enhance civil society participation in digital governance processes? Those are my two questions. You are free to react to anything that has been discussed but just bear in mind I need answers to these two questions. So who wants to speak? Oh, Nana. 

Nana Wachako: Good morning or good afternoon everyone. My name is Nana Wachako. Regarding the lowering of barriers, one thing that has stood out consistently in all the conversations I’ve been in for the past couple of days has been about the technical capacity of civil society organizations to engage in very highly technical conversations around digital governance, internet governance. And I was wondering the primary source of financial sustenance for civil society organizations is funding from donors, right? And more often than not what is most common is that those funds are tied to particular projects, right? So we might have diversity of interest but donors have diversity of interest as well, right? 

And to be able to engage in research, for instance, you have to have money for research. To be able to engage in capacity building, you have to have money for that to happen. And I was wondering is there a space for civil society organizations to unify in requesting for unrestricted funding for the core issues, for research, for upskilling? 

There’s a lot of buzz currently around artificial intelligence and as usual like other emerging technologies, right, that come up. The conversation is focusing on one aspect. A lot of people focus on generative AI which is like a dot, a blob. And I have sensed from all of these conversations that focus often is driven rather by capacity to engage. Civil society is the least positioned to hire people who have high technical expertise. Look at the money that big tech is paying and compared to the money that civil society organizations would pay. 

I mean in my country, I’m Nigerian, there are people who offer, CSOs will offer you maybe a hundred dollars a month as salary. Not because they want to shortchange you but because that is the capacity, that’s the amount they can offer you. Now compare that to what other people in the same country in the private sector are paying. So is it possible that we start, when we say we want to fund civil society organizations, when we say we want to do projects, is it possible that there’s a space to engage with the donor to say look if you are really focused on this, there has to be money for research. We need to build in funding for research into projects, right. We’re building money for evaluation, we’re building money for baseline studies. 

But there are other forms of research that’s not just evaluating the project. That’s very critical. It’s understanding the key principles, it’s understanding the fundamental aspects that relate to what you want to work on. So that, in my opinion, is something that might be helpful to start moving the needle a little bit. Thank you.

Audience: Yeah, thank you for raising those points. Those are really valid points, I think, in context of not only African continent but also Global South that has been discussed. I want to reflect upon one point that, you know, that like generally on the call, like you know, on your discussion, that civil society organizations do the most impactful work but the recognition is very less to the fact that we are bringing out the voices from the grassroots. We are the ones who are bringing out what the big tech wants in terms of their products, in terms of their policies, the change that they want, the demand that they look forward to. 

But then again, when it comes to monetary gains or losses, we are the ones who are losing it, right. We are the ones who are being put into the corner that, okay, you have done this small job for us, okay, there is some pretty amount of money for you. Also another challenge when the grants are open for civil society organizations, the process that civil society organizations have to go through is enormous. The amount of documentation you have to give to prove that you are a civil society organization, the amount of documentation that you have to go give to prove the work that you have done is enormous, that it also takes another six months to get evaluated and then, oh sorry, you don’t get that grant. 

So the whole of those processes are so challenging, coming from a developing nation especially, that that needs to be recognized. Then again, I circle back on the point that recognition is missing, though the impactful work is being done by the major civil society organizations all across. I don’t want to understate civil societies in the US or the UK or Canada, but also again in Africa, in India, in Sri Lanka, in Bangladesh, in all the countries. They’re putting the heart and soul, they’re working 24-7 around the clock, they’re running helplines, they’re doing enormous work, but then what are we losing is that recognition. That’s it. Thank you.

Audience: I am Pratishtha from India. Thank you, that’s been a very interesting conversation. Just on the first one, which is the question I suppose, it’s more on, you know, I think this was touched upon earlier, but on regional collaborations and whether bringing together certain segments. Again, Africa is a very large continent, so bringing together more regional cooperation and collaboration, whether perhaps that might increase, say, voting power and capacity to influence policy on an international level. But coming to the policy and more practical considerations, one of the organizations that has worked with is the Digital Natives Academy, which is a Maori-run organization in Aotearoa, New Zealand. 

And what they did was really emphasize the importance of local knowledge in building principles and policy. So what we have, as mentioned earlier by Rose, was, you know, we have to just accept this Brussels effect and, you know, the GDPR, as the Europeans have formulated it. But what’s also important is, there are local knowledge and local community-based perspectives that can frame it as well. So in the Maori context, what they did was not only ask how data sovereignty is important, but how would the Maori do it? 

And they have less of an individualistic approach, which is what is enshrined in GDPR, and more of a community-based thing. So culture being a common good of the people of that culture. So how do we protect the data involved in the cultures of these different societies? So that’s one of the things that perhaps is worth noting. And I think to build all of this, you would need digital literacy and public trust. But those are just my thoughts, would be keen to hear as well. Thank you. 

Audience: I’m Paolo from Malawi. I think that looking at the global internet governance platform, and I can speak particularly about ICANN, which has already been mentioned. I’m not speaking in any capacity as of ICANN. I’m from Malawi. I run the country code for Malawi. So I have participated in ICANN activities and IGF activities at both the national and global levels. I think that one of the problems that I see with civil society participation at these levels is how civil society is defined. If you look at ICANN, there are the government constituencies. Everything is based around constituencies. There is the GAC, which is government constituency. There is the Telco constituency in which I participate, the country codes, the generic names organizations, the IP addresses, and so forth. But if you look at the definition of civil society at the ICANN level, it’s not there. You have organizations like At-Large, non-commercial, which are not properly defined as civil society. Academia is in there. And so the civil society constituency is not there. It’s not well defined. And at the ICANN level, if you are not well-defined as a constituency, then your level of participation or empowerment is very low. Basically, you can wander around the ICANN infrastructure or meetings, but your voice will not be heard because you don’t belong to a defined constituency. 

So I think that if one thing that needs to be taken care of for civil society empowerment and participation at ICANN or global levels, there needs to be a properly defined constituency for the participation of civil society where they can be heard. Right now, there isn’t.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Okay, I come back to our two speakers. There is an additional one online, from Michael from OHCHR. First of all, I think he’s congratulating the CADE Alliance for the studies and also the presentation, but he’s also looking ahead in terms of the Global Digital Compact and he’s saying, you know, this is the next thing that CSOs have to participate in as well as the WSIS plus 20 review. What lessons could be learned from the study to help civil society participate and follow these processes? What would be the minimum in terms of civil society participation in these processes? So you can give it the first shot and then I’ll also pass it around for others to help.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: As I said earlier, if civil society views itself the way traditionally it’s been positioned as a True North, then they need to take the lead in finding out what are the key initiatives, what are the key outcomes, and then being the ones who hold the creative tensions between all stakeholders and helping to manage that. I think it’s a very short answer, but that’s basically it. Civil society plays a role in these systems. The same way we have built, and I keep calling it, the multistakeholder DNA sits in CSOs to tap into that in the next problem and the next problem and the next problem. They’ve already built the muscles for this. They know how to convene. They know how to analyze issues. So whether today it’s global digital compact, next time it’ll be AI, something, something, something. These are the people with the skills. Let’s build their capacity because they’re the only teams that can give you a true feeling of what is it that happens on the ground and then reflect that into a truly global perspective. And that is my short response to that.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Stephanie?

Stephanie Borg Psaila: Thanks, Kenneth. I’ll reflect on a few comments that our colleagues have made, and I’ll start with Michael from OHCHR. Something basic, I think, that CSOs need to engage, is to understand what is really going on, especially with the parallel processes that we see in terms of the GDC, WSIS, and all the bodies that are being created, the new processes. So there’s a lot going on in 2025. 

So at the least, a basic understanding of what these processes are about. It’s a big thing to understand why, because there’s a lot of confusion. And not many people are able to really see what is, you know, what is happening and what the aim is, and whether things will run in parallel or will converge at some point. But at least, following and using tools out there to understand that is, I would say, a basic premise. I’m going in reverse order to the gentleman from Malawi. You made a good point regarding definitions of CSOs, and I would say the definition even of the technical community has changed, right? Because in the past, the so-called techies were, you know, the guys with the ponytails. 

Today, who is the technical community, right? Swallowed up by the private sector. At the same time, we see a lot of members from the technical communities that fall under the CSO heading. So there is a lot of change, there is a lot of movement. So this is the landscape where we’re operating. And probably, you know, so strict of a definition, it’s probably not the right way to look at it, right? We have to be a little bit more, not flexible, but seeing what the agendas are, right? And it’s basically what those agendas are that tell us, you know, which stakeholder you belong to. So I would invite to see it, I would invite to see things from this perspective. 

The lady also mentioned a good point regarding recognition. This is precisely the aim of the work that we are doing, right? At the end of the work here, and now this is in the context of the project, this is what I can talk about. What we want is for civil society to be recognized as the valuable player that it is, right? Especially from the Global South. 

And in terms of the funding, I can only talk insofar as the funding for this project. It’s co-funded by the European Union, and the reason why there was a mapping was precisely to understand the landscape. What was the definition of CSO? Do we need a definition there? What is the landscape, right? I can, you know, compliment the EU for the way that it has, let’s say, put the call for proposals together, because in reality they, with the help of the EU, we, the partners, are able to do more than just the mapping, right? So the mapping is just the starting point, and in the next two years we will be developing capacity-building programs, but targeting the issues that I mentioned, right? So we’re going granular, and this is, you know, the, let’s say, the key aspect of this project. This is what I think it will differentiate it from other projects, right? We don’t want to tackle issues at the general level. It’s not just about funding. It’s so much more nuanced than that, right? And what we are developing for this specific camp, let’s say, the standard setting space, will probably be the same for other areas. 

Just one final comment, Imad, last but not least, although you asked, you intervened the first. Are diverse issues a barrier? No, because the competition is not between CSOs as such, right? The competition, to be heard, because it’s, if we can frame it as a competition, it’s between private sector and the government, right? It’s as Rosemary said, balancing the two. It’s holding both accountable. The fact that there are various needs, that adds to the strength of civil society, because they can come together, understand that there are needs, but also understand what their bottom line is, right? So from that perspective, it is, I feel it is certainly not a barrier. And I’ll stop there. And I think you want, would like to intervene.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: Yes, especially the question on, is it a barrier? I think the CSOs, if they all came to us with the same issues, they’d not be doing their work. So let each CSO respond to the technical nuances, the local nuances of whatever they are, in order for them to give meaning feedback to the global and regional issues. So it would be, there’s no script in this. It’s all like a play. Everybody gives authenticity of what they feel on the ground. So it is not, it’s not a bad thing. I think they’re actually doing their jobs by covering for the issues. In one country, it could be internet shutdowns. In another country, it can be technology, emerging technology and the impacts. In another one, we all operate in different playing fields, but now the interplay comes now is sharing the next best practice amongst ourselves. 

For example, our democracy is a bit more advanced. This is how we dealt with internet shutdowns. Here’s a playbook. If technology, you’re caught in between tech, you’re caught in between regulatory issues. This is how we dealt with our legislators. For example, I’ll give an example of a current initiative. A very positive impact from regional CSO collaboration from the Kenya IGF to the East Africa IGF. We realized that in East Africa, we have got different data protection laws that you borrowed from Brussels, that’s a union, and the challenge has been, we’re having technical challenges in terms of cross-border data transfer, challenges on business, for example. The issue has been, how then do we convene legislators? 

We came together. We did a training. We trained our legislators on the need of harmonization of data protection laws, so that maybe you can have a unified law one day in East Africa. That’s a positive impact by CSOs. They probably weren’t paid for it, but they came with their passion, and they’re solving the problems. So that’s, I think, who talked about appreciation? That’s the kind of appreciation that needs to come up today. Yeah.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: What time do I make the presentation? The kick-start one?

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Oh. We only have five minutes. We only have five minutes, so I’ll give you two and a half.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: Do I get a screen?

Kenneth Harry Msiska: No. That had to be done in advance. 

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: So I’ll speak to it. Some has been mentioned. Okay. Some has been mentioned. A bit has not. What does the face of African participation look like? It looks like complexity. And that is very honest. You mentioned it. We mentioned it. But you realize that there’s a complex interplay of both opportunities, challenges, and outcomes. And the research that we did at CADE actually just showed a few things. 

First and foremost is that there’s an uneven playing field. For example, as an African, try apply for a visa if you’re going physically to go somewhere. Compared to somebody maybe in the states who wakes up and the next day they can book a flight. It’s not like that in my country. For example, if it’s in Spain, I need a few months to plan. So you can’t call me tomorrow and say there’s a meeting next week, come to Spain, unless I had a Schengen visa before. Those are some of the complexities that are there. So it’s actually an uneven playing field, both in terms of best practice forums, policy networks, dynamic coalitions. 

But we have shown significant engagement, especially in regional and national initiatives. We’ve had 36 national and 7 regional initiatives that exist across Africa. And I think kudos. But global participation remains uneven. And accessibility is a key issue. However, there’s some light at the end of the tunnel. I guess post-COVID, we learned to work with what we have, hybrid. Some of us are here, many of us are online. That has been a great win. Hi, guys. Yeah, we’re in the same meeting. So post-COVID, that has been good. We also learned lessons on youth initiatives. For example, we had youth representation from all over East Africa at the East Africa IGF, where we sponsored young people to come and we put them in buses. We couldn’t do flights, but we put them in buses and you accommodate one thing. And they’re so excited to participate. 

We engaged in sideline meetings, teaching them about the IGF process, what it means for them. And an amazing thing is that we’ve seen that the best tech policy talent comes from the CSOs, whether they work for GIZ, Access Kenya – and sometimes we almost feel like we’re a pipeline for talent. Our biggest issue is retention, because after two years, we can’t afford them. Speak to them, even in private sector. The heads of data protection in the largest corporation, where did they come from? The CSOs. 

We’re building a… My two minutes are done. Almost. Almost done. Yeah, 30 seconds. And, of course, post-COVID was hybrid. And then, of course, I’ve mentioned the barriers. And, of course, participation is necessary. So what are the recommendations? We need to strengthen institutional support, increase funding for them, capacity. If it’s travel, if it’s digital, whatever, which way it goes. Increase capacity building, expand youth-focused initiatives, promote inclusivity, and we leverage on digital tools. 

But importantly, I’ll challenge back: How much investment is happening to build the capacity of the CSOs to respond to the future. They came in in very low economies, and the power imbalances are increasing. As big tech grows stronger in those markets, as governments become more powerful, there’s a need to continue supporting those CSOs. There’s only so far passion can take you, and we need to build frameworks. And we can’t have a situation where we have new entities coming into the IGF space and receiving most of the funding, and you complain that these small CSOs are still who they are. They’ve done this for 20-plus years. They have the DNA. Let’s support them, and let’s grow them.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Thank you. All right. So just a quick recap. I’ve been shown the time. We have two minutes. So I think things that actually garner traction here, we need to use the convening power. There is need for research, and also for the funders to actually accommodate that, so that our advocacy is evidence-based. Then we also need to strengthen regional collaborations among CSOs, so that we’re able to move as a group. 

But there is also a need to define CSOs within these platforms that we engage with, especially at ICANN. Then I think there is also an agreement to say much stakeholderism DNA resides in the CSOs, and there is need to actually make sure that we maximize this. But we must also, as CSOs, we must also be proactive to invite ourselves to the table when we are not invited. I think these are some of the issues that I can quickly summarize. 

But in terms of continuing to hear from you, you can actually scan that QR code and give us feedback in terms of the mapping study or the discussions that we may not have covered today. Once again, I would like to thank you all for joining us, both online as well as in this room. Thank you to our speakers, Stephanie from Diplo and Rosemary from KICTANet. I was supported by Patricia from CIPESA, who is our rapporteur, and then Nipunika from Sarvodaya Fusion, who was our online moderator. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Financial constraints limit CSO participation

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Nana Wachako

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Financial constraints limit participation, especially from Global South

Lack of technical capacity to engage effectively on certain topics

Need to strengthen institutional support for CSOs

Multiple speakers highlighted that financial constraints significantly limit CSO participation, especially from the Global South, affecting their ability to engage effectively and maintain technical capacity.

Importance of research and capacity building

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Nana Wachako

Conduct research to become a trusted source for policymaking

Provide unrestricted funding for research and upskilling

Speakers emphasized the need for CSOs to conduct research and build capacity to effectively engage in policymaking and technical discussions.

Leveraging digital tools and hybrid formats

Kenneth Harry Msiska

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Leverage digital tools and hybrid formats for increased accessibility

CSOs act as observers and offer next best practices

Speakers agreed on the importance of using digital tools and hybrid meeting formats to increase accessibility and participation, especially for CSOs from the Global South.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the crucial role of CSOs in balancing interests and providing valuable perspectives in Internet governance processes.

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

CSOs hold other stakeholders accountable and balance interests

CSOs act as observers and offer next best practices

These speakers emphasized the importance of CSOs in bringing grassroots perspectives to global discussions and building partnerships among various stakeholders.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Audience

Develop convening power and build trusted partnerships

CSOs bring grassroots perspectives to global discussions

Unexpected Consensus

CSOs as a talent pipeline for tech policy

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Nana Wachako

CSOs are a pipeline for tech policy talent

Lack of technical capacity to engage effectively on certain topics

While discussing challenges faced by CSOs, there was an unexpected consensus on CSOs serving as a talent pipeline for tech policy, despite facing challenges in retaining technical expertise due to financial constraints.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around financial constraints limiting CSO participation, the importance of research and capacity building, and the need to leverage digital tools for increased accessibility. There was also consensus on the crucial role of CSOs in bringing grassroots perspectives and balancing interests in Internet governance processes.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the key challenges faced by CSOs and potential strategies to enhance their participation. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the issues at hand and potential pathways for improvement, which could lead to more coordinated efforts to address these challenges in Internet governance processes.

Different Viewpoints

Definition and role of CSOs in governance bodies

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Audience

CSOs hold other stakeholders accountable and balance interests

Need for better definition of CSO constituency in governance bodies

While Stephanie emphasizes the role of CSOs in balancing interests and holding stakeholders accountable, an audience member points out the lack of clear definition for CSOs in governance bodies, particularly ICANN, which limits their effectiveness.

Unexpected Differences

Diversity of CSO interests as a barrier or strength

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

CSOs hold other stakeholders accountable and balance interests

CSOs act as observers and offer next best practices

While Stephanie views the diversity of CSO interests as a strength for balancing stakeholder interests, Rosemary unexpectedly frames it as a unique position for offering ‘next best practices’, suggesting a slightly different perspective on how diversity of interests contributes to CSO effectiveness.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the definition and role of CSOs in governance bodies, approaches to research and capacity building, and the implications of diverse CSO interests.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is relatively low, with more emphasis on complementary perspectives rather than outright contradictions. This suggests a generally aligned view on the challenges and potential solutions for CSO participation in Internet governance, with nuanced differences in approach and emphasis.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of research for CSOs, but they differ on how to achieve it. Rosemary emphasizes conducting research to become a trusted source, while Nana focuses on the need for unrestricted funding to enable research and upskilling.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Nana Wachako

Conduct research to become a trusted source for policymaking

Provide unrestricted funding for research and upskilling

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the crucial role of CSOs in balancing interests and providing valuable perspectives in Internet governance processes.

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

CSOs hold other stakeholders accountable and balance interests

CSOs act as observers and offer next best practices

These speakers emphasized the importance of CSOs in bringing grassroots perspectives to global discussions and building partnerships among various stakeholders.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Audience

Develop convening power and build trusted partnerships

CSOs bring grassroots perspectives to global discussions

Key Takeaways

CSOs face significant barriers to participation in Internet governance, including lack of inclusivity, financial constraints, and technical capacity gaps.

Strategies to enhance CSO participation include developing convening power, conducting research, strengthening regional collaborations, and leveraging local knowledge.

CSOs play a crucial role in amplifying marginalized voices, promoting digital inclusion, and balancing interests of different stakeholders.

There is a need for better definition and recognition of CSOs within governance structures.

Funding models need to be improved to provide more unrestricted and capacity-building support for CSOs.

Resolutions and Action Items

CSOs should proactively invite themselves to governance discussions when not invited.

Funders should accommodate research funding in their support to CSOs to enable evidence-based advocacy.

Efforts should be made to strengthen regional collaborations among CSOs.

Governance bodies should work on better defining the CSO constituency within their structures.

Unresolved Issues

How to address the power imbalance between CSOs and other stakeholders like big tech and governments

Specific mechanisms for improving visa processes and travel support for Global South participants

How to retain talent within CSOs given limited financial resources

Ways to harmonize diverse CSO interests and priorities in governance processes

Suggested Compromises

Adopting hybrid meeting formats to increase accessibility for those facing travel barriers

Leveraging digital tools and technologies to enable broader CSO participation

Balancing support between established CSOs with experience and new entities entering the governance space

CSOs see this as a very much stakeholder platform as compared to ITU, which is matriarchal.

speaker

Kenneth Harry Msiska

reason

This comment highlights a key difference between governance bodies and their openness to civil society participation.

impact

It led to further discussion of the unique challenges and opportunities for CSO engagement in different forums.

How then do you engage, if it’s subject matter experts, if it’s academia, if it’s government, how then do you become a convener? And it’s actually the key skill that becomes a convener that can be trusted, a convener that is able to go several miles ahead in order to build an ecosystem that then creates a flow of information that is useful, right from the grassroots level up to the global level.

speaker

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

reason

This insight emphasizes the critical role of CSOs as conveners and bridge-builders between different stakeholders and levels of governance.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards practical strategies for CSOs to enhance their influence and effectiveness.

So within the ICANN structure, if you look at the leadership, there is at least half of the leadership roles are taken up by the private sector, right? So this is a problem, obviously, but not only that, the baseline study that we carried out, the interviews with the experts, the respondents also felt that there are silos within the ICANN structure that is a recurring problem.

speaker

Stephanie Borg Psaila

reason

This comment provides specific data on power imbalances within ICANN and highlights structural issues limiting CSO influence.

impact

It deepened the analysis of barriers to CSO participation and led to discussion of potential reforms.

Is there a space for civil society organizations to unify in requesting for unrestricted funding for the core issues, for research, for upskilling?

speaker

Nana Wachako

reason

This question raises an important point about funding constraints on CSOs and potential strategies to address them.

impact

It sparked discussion about funding models and capacity building needs for CSOs.

I think that one of the problems that I see with civil society participation at these levels is how civil society is defined. If you look at ICANN, there is the government constituencies. Everything is based around constituencies. There is the GAC, which is government constituency. There is the Tegelco constituency in which I participate, the country codes, the generic names organizations, the IP addresses, and so forth. But if you look at the definition of civil society at ICANN level, it’s not there.

speaker

Paolo from Malawi

reason

This comment highlights a fundamental issue with how CSOs are (or aren’t) formally recognized within governance structures.

impact

It led to discussion about the need to better define and formalize CSO roles in Internet governance bodies.

We need to strengthen institutional support, increase funding for them, capacity. If it’s travel, if it’s digital, whatever, which way it goes. Increase capacity building, expand youth-focused initiatives, promote inclusivity, and we leverage on digital tools. But importantly, I’ll challenge back how much investment is happening to build the capacity of the CSOs to respond to the future.

speaker

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

reason

This comment synthesizes key recommendations for enhancing CSO participation and influence.

impact

It provided a framework for concrete actions and next steps to address the challenges discussed.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively deepening the analysis of barriers to CSO participation in Internet governance, moving from broad structural issues to specific challenges within governance bodies, funding constraints, and definitional problems. The comments also shifted the conversation towards practical strategies and recommendations for enhancing CSO influence, emphasizing the unique role of CSOs as conveners and bridge-builders. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to proposing solutions, with a particular focus on capacity building, funding models, and formal recognition of CSOs within governance structures.

How can civil society organizations unify in requesting unrestricted funding for core issues, research, and upskilling?

speaker

Nana Wachako

explanation

This is important to address the financial constraints CSOs face in building technical capacity and engaging in research to participate effectively in digital governance processes.

How can the process for CSOs to apply for grants be simplified and made less burdensome?

speaker

Pratishtha

explanation

This is crucial to reduce barriers for CSOs, especially from developing nations, to access funding and support their work.

How can regional collaborations be strengthened to increase voting power and capacity to influence policy on an international level?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This could help amplify the voices of CSOs from underrepresented regions in global digital governance processes.

How can local knowledge and community-based perspectives be better incorporated into digital governance principles and policies?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This is important to ensure that policies reflect diverse cultural perspectives, not just Western approaches.

How can civil society be better defined and given a proper constituency within ICANN’s structure?

speaker

Paolo

explanation

This is crucial for improving civil society’s voice and influence within ICANN processes.

What lessons from the CARDI study can be applied to help civil society participate in the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 review processes?

speaker

Michael from OHCHR

explanation

This is important for ensuring effective civil society engagement in upcoming major global digital governance initiatives.

How can we build frameworks to continue supporting established CSOs in the face of increasing power imbalances with big tech and governments?

speaker

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

explanation

This is crucial for maintaining the role of experienced CSOs in balancing different stakeholder interests in digital governance.