WS #226 Strengthening Multistakeholder Participation

Summary

This workshop focused on strengthening multi-stakeholder participation in technical internet governance, with particular emphasis on multilingualism and digital inclusion. The discussion was moderated by Anne Rachel Inne from Niger’s National Agency for Information Society, featuring speakers from UNESCO, ICANN, and various regional organizations.

Guilherme Canela de Souza from UNESCO highlighted how multilingualism serves as a crucial example of multi-stakeholder engagement, noting that UNESCO’s Internet Universality concept includes multi-stakeholderism as one of its five core pillars. He emphasized that meaningful participation requires going beyond traditional stakeholders to include indigenous communities and underrepresented groups, though he acknowledged the practical challenges this presents, including procurement systems not adapted for indigenous communities.

Teresa Swinehart from ICANN discussed the organization’s partnership with UNESCO on Universal Acceptance, which ensures that all valid domain names and email addresses work across internet-enabled applications in different languages. She described successful initiatives like hackathons with university students that bridge technical cooperation with practical applications.

The panelists addressed significant barriers to inclusive participation, including the need for diverse skill sets beyond pure technical knowledge, the importance of translation between technical and policy communities, and the challenge of retaining participants from underrepresented regions once they’re initially engaged. Valts Ernstreits shared experiences from Latvia’s Livonian indigenous community, demonstrating how international engagement can drive domestic policy changes.

Practical solutions discussed included creating WhatsApp groups for youth engagement, developing fellowship programs, establishing networking platforms for niche communities, and ensuring that capacity-building efforts include mentorship and empowerment opportunities. The discussion concluded with calls for continued collaboration on UNESCO’s global roadmap for multilingualism in the digital era and the upcoming ICANN top-level domain program that will provide new opportunities for community representation online.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multilingualism and Universal Acceptance in Internet Governance**: The discussion emphasized the critical importance of ensuring all languages, including indigenous and underrepresented languages, can function properly in digital spaces. This includes making domain names, email addresses, and web applications work across different scripts and languages, with UNESCO and ICANN partnering on Universal Acceptance initiatives.

– **Multi-stakeholder Participation Challenges and Solutions**: Panelists addressed the need to move beyond “usual suspects” in internet governance discussions and actively include diverse voices – indigenous communities, youth, developing country representatives, and non-technical stakeholders. They acknowledged significant barriers including funding, procurement systems, and methodological challenges in meaningful inclusion.

– **Bridging Technical and Policy Communities**: The conversation highlighted the importance of translation between technical experts and policymakers, emphasizing that effective internet governance requires people who can communicate across these different domains and ensure policies are both technically feasible and socially beneficial.

– **Capacity Building and Retention Strategies**: Participants discussed practical approaches for engaging underrepresented groups, including fellowship programs, mentorship, hands-on training (like hackathons), and creating ongoing support networks through platforms like WhatsApp groups to maintain engagement beyond initial participation.

– **Practical Implementation and Future Actions**: The discussion concluded with concrete next steps, particularly around UNESCO’s Global Roadmap on Languages and Technologies, the International Decade of Indigenous Languages survey, and upcoming opportunities like ICANN’s next round of top-level domain applications with applicant support for underrepresented communities.

## Overall Purpose:

The workshop aimed to explore how to strengthen multi-stakeholder participation in technical internet governance, with a particular focus on ensuring meaningful inclusion of underrepresented groups, especially indigenous language communities and developing country stakeholders, in shaping the technical infrastructure and policies that govern the internet.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants openly acknowledging challenges while sharing practical solutions and experiences. The tone was professional yet accessible, with speakers drawing from personal experiences and concrete examples. There was a sense of urgency around inclusion issues, but also optimism about existing initiatives and partnerships that could drive progress. The conversation remained solution-oriented, ending with specific actionable commitments and next steps.

Speakers

– **Anne Rachel Inne** – Director General of the National Agency for Information Society in Niger, West Africa (Moderator)

– **Guilherme Canela De Souza** – Director of UNESCO’s Division for Digital Inclusion and Policies and Digital Transformation on UNESCO’s Memory of the World Register; Secretary of UNESCO’s Information for All program

– **Theresa Swinehart** – Senior Vice President, Global Domains and Strategy at ICANN

– **Valts Ernstreits** – Director and representative of Latvia and University of Latvia Livonian Institute; comes from Latvian indigenous people Livonian community; part of International Decade of Indigenous Languages global task force; co-chairing ad-hoc group on digital equalities and domains

– **Elizabeth Bacon** – Senior Director of Policy and Privacy at Public Internet Registry (PIR)

– **Amrita Choudhury** – Works for CCUI on tech policy; represents end-user communities, especially from developing countries; MAG member; from Asia-Pacific, India

– **Edmon Chung** – From DotAsia

– **Dominique Hazael Massieux** – Works for the World Wide Web Consortium; involved in Internationalization Program

**Additional speakers:**

– **Tawfiq Jalassi** – UNESCO’s Assistant Director General for Communication and Information (mentioned but could not attend)

– **Christy** – Managing online participants and questions (mentioned but did not speak extensively)

# Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Participation in Technical Internet Governance: Workshop Report

## Executive Summary

This workshop, moderated by An-Rochelle Iné, Director General of Niger’s National Agency for Information Society, brought together representatives from UNESCO, ICANN, the World Wide Web Consortium, and various regional organizations to discuss strengthening multi-stakeholder participation in technical internet governance. The discussion focused on multilingualism and digital inclusion as key examples of how diverse stakeholder engagement can improve internet governance structures.

Participants shared practical experiences and challenges in engaging underrepresented communities, particularly indigenous groups, in technical internet governance processes. The conversation highlighted both successful initiatives and significant barriers that prevent meaningful participation, while identifying concrete opportunities for improvement.

## Key Themes and Analysis

### Multilingualism as a Foundation for Inclusive Internet Governance

Guilherme Canela De Souza from UNESCO positioned multilingualism within UNESCO’s Internet Universality concept, explaining that it serves as one of five core pillars alongside multi-stakeholderism. He noted that UNESCO’s approach to multilingualism inherently requires multi-stakeholder engagement, involving technical communities, linguistic experts, policy makers, and affected communities working together. UNESCO has developed a World Atlas of Languages tool and is currently consulting on a global roadmap for multilingualism in the digital era.

Teresa Swinehart from ICANN discussed Universal Acceptance, a technical initiative ensuring that all valid domain names and email addresses function properly across internet-enabled applications regardless of language or script. She described successful collaborative efforts, including hackathons with university students that create websites capable of handling internationalized domain names and responding in multiple languages like English and Arabic. ICANN recently published a Universal Acceptance report and observes Universal Acceptance Day on March 28th.

Valts Ernstreits, representing the Livonian indigenous community and working with the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, shared how international engagement in technical governance can drive domestic policy changes. He described how participation in global forums led to increased recognition of Livonian language rights within Latvia’s national institutions, illustrating his metaphor that sometimes going “one floor up” is easier by going “all the way to the roof and then come back down again.”

An-Rochelle Iné, drawing on her background as a former interpreter and translator, reinforced the importance of multilingualism from an African perspective, noting that Universal Acceptance is gaining momentum in Africa, where most of the world’s languages exist and where rural populations often do not speak colonial languages.

### Current Limitations and Barriers to Participation

Workshop participants acknowledged significant shortcomings in existing multi-stakeholder models. Guilherme Canela De Souza noted that while the importance of including underrepresented groups is widely acknowledged, current systems are “far from guaranteeing it” due to practical, financial, and institutional barriers.

He provided a specific example of how administrative requirements can exclude communities: paying per diems to indigenous communities requires bank accounts, which many lack due to their different organizational structures. This seemingly neutral administrative requirement effectively excludes entire communities from participation.

Elizabeth Bacon from Public Internet Registry emphasized that technical internet governance requires diversity of views and skill sets beyond pure technical knowledge. She shared examples from her work with US government technical experts who would request implementations that would achieve “absolutely the opposite” of their intended policy goals because “that’s not how the internet works.” This highlighted the need for people who can translate between technical and policy communities.

Amrita Choudhury, representing end-user communities from developing countries, highlighted the retention challenge in multi-stakeholder participation. She noted that while bringing diverse participants through fellowship programs is important, the greater challenge lies in maintaining their engagement over time. Her observation that “you have to interact with young people in the way they want, not the way we want it” emphasized the need to adapt institutional practices to meet participants where they are.

### Technical Infrastructure Challenges and Solutions

Edmon Chung from DotAsia explained the complexity of developing Label Generation Rules (LGR) for different languages in domain name systems, which requires collaboration between local linguistic experts and technologists to create appropriate policies for each language’s unique characteristics.

Dominique Hazael Massieux from the World Wide Web Consortium highlighted ongoing challenges in accessing sufficient language expertise across the world’s diverse linguistic landscape. He noted that while the W3C’s Internationalization Program aims to make web pages work across as many languages and cultures as possible, they currently lack adequate contact with deep language experts for many languages.

Teresa Swinehart discussed upcoming opportunities through ICANN’s next round of top-level domain applications, beginning in early next year in April, which will include applicant support programs specifically designed to assist underrepresented communities in obtaining community-based domains.

### Innovative Engagement Approaches

Several speakers shared successful strategies for improving participation. Teresa Swinehart described ICANN’s use of hackathons and practical educational programs that engage youth through hands-on problem-solving rather than traditional academic approaches.

Valts Ernstreits shared insights from awareness-building work with indigenous language communities. He recounted how an expedition initially found institutions claiming to have no Livonian heritage materials, but after local media attention, the same institutions acknowledged having “plenty” of such resources, illustrating how visibility can transform institutional behavior.

Amrita Choudhury discussed practical retention strategies, including creating WhatsApp groups for ongoing engagement and establishing subcommittees that provide meaningful roles for diverse participants. Her approach emphasizes “hand-holding and empowerment” rather than one-off training sessions, recognizing that sustained engagement requires ongoing support.

### Bridging Technical and Policy Communities

A recurring theme was the critical importance of translation between different domains of expertise. Amrita Choudhury noted that domain name abuse, for instance, has technical, content-related, and social dimensions that require different types of stakeholder involvement. No single community has all the necessary expertise to address such multifaceted challenges effectively.

Elizabeth Bacon argued that existing newcomer programs need to be more robust and focused on bringing diverse perspectives rather than simply increasing participation numbers. She emphasized that the goal should be empowerment and meaningful contribution rather than tokenistic representation.

## Concrete Action Items and Future Directions

The workshop identified several specific opportunities for progress:

– Participants agreed to engage with UNESCO’s global roadmap on multilingualism in the digital era, currently open for public consultation

– Valts Ernstreits committed to following up on the International Decade of Indigenous Languages survey that was distributed in March, which serves both data collection and community awareness-building purposes

– ICANN’s applicant support program for underrepresented communities in the next top-level domain application round represents a concrete mechanism for enabling community representation in internet infrastructure

– Dominique Hazael Massieux expressed interest in establishing connections between the W3C and UNESCO’s language expert networks to improve internationalization support

## Conclusion

This workshop demonstrated both the complexity of achieving meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in technical internet governance and the potential for progress through coordinated efforts. The focus on multilingualism provided a valuable lens for examining broader inclusion challenges, showing how technical decisions have profound social and cultural implications.

Participants identified practical barriers ranging from administrative requirements to capacity-building challenges, while sharing successful approaches including innovative engagement methods and cross-community collaboration. The concrete action items and ongoing initiatives discussed provide multiple pathways for continued progress, while highlighting areas requiring sustained attention and innovation.

The discussion revealed that strengthening multi-stakeholder participation requires both addressing systemic barriers and developing innovative engagement strategies that meet diverse communities where they are, rather than expecting them to adapt to existing institutional structures.

Anne Rachel Inne: Good morning and welcome everybody. My name is An-Rochelle Iné, and I’m the Director General of the National Agency for Information Society in Niger, West Africa. Today’s workshop, first one here, is about strengthening multi-stakeholder participation in technical internet governance. So welcome, and thanks for being with us. We’re going to start with two speakers, Teresa Swinehart and Guilherme Canela de Sousa Godot, who is the Director of UNESCO’s Division for Digital Inclusion and Policies and Digital Transformation on UNESCO’s Memory of the World Register. Teresa is a Senior Vice President, Global Domains and Strategy at ICANN. And then we will have a panel where Valls and Streitz, who is the Director and a representative of Latvia and University of Latvia Livonian Institute, will be our first speaker. And then we will have Elizabeth Bacon, Senior Director of Policy and Privacy at Public Internet Registry. And then Amrita Choudhury, who is the Director of Credit Consultant Association of India. So thanks for being with us, and everybody who is online, also welcome. Christy, who is sitting on the side, will be looking at our online. participants and if you have questions we’ll be telling us what to do. So this is how the discussion is going to go but before we start as I said we’re going to have introductory remarks from Guilherme who is also representing today Mr. Tawfiq Jalassi, UNESCO’s Assistant Director General for Communication and Information who could not join us this morning. Guilherme, the floor is yours.

Guilherme Canela De Souza: Good morning everyone and especially thanks for all the early birds that are here with us. So you were supposed to have a cardinal, my boss Tawfiq and you got a priest but I will try to do the best job possible on this configuration. So of course the topic of the panel is very broad and very close to UNESCO’s heart. There would be many ways to approach the idea of the multistakeholderism in the technical discussions in the internet so I decided to focus on Zooming with a particular cross-cutting example of the multilingualism aspect but I could speak about others because this is in the DNA of UNESCO although we are an intergovernmental organization from the very outset of our existence 80 years ago UNESCO was one of these UN organizations that the member states always decided to send experts, civil society, librarians, activists for building the different documents resolutions etc that were approved throughout the UNESCO’s history and if you see this landmark idea that was approved by our general conference 10 years ago during the previous WSIS review process the concept of internet universality That concept is also associated with a set of indicators where UNESCO is recommending how the development of Internet should be assessed in a particular country. You remember that that set of indicators is established and organized around five pillars that’s called ROM-X, so Rights, Openness, Accessibility, and the M is Mode Stakeholderism and the X, the cross-cutting issues, gender, and so on. So it’s just to say that from the outset the message of UNESCO is if you want to assess the level of development of Internet in a particular country Mode Stakeholderism is one of the pillars of this assessment. So this is the overall umbrella. But then let me focus very briefly on the example of multilingualism. UNESCO is the UN organization, among other things, there in our very first paragraph to promote the free flow of ideas. As you can imagine, there is no serious free flow of ideas without multilingualism. If you only can express yourself in a majority language then the free flow of ideas is not being guaranteed. So that’s why this is the philosophical principle behind the UNESCO mandate to protect and promote multilingualism everywhere including, of course, in the digital spaces. So one of our intergovernmental programs, the Information for All program that I am the secretary, since 2001 has a specific group on information for all and multilingualism and although it’s an intergovernmental program, this specific group is conformed by a mode stakeholder configuration of experts, academics, civil society and so on and obviously governments. Then, even before the Geneva Agenda of the WSIS processes in 2003, the UNESCO General Conference approved a recommendation on multilingualism in the cyberspace. And again, although it’s an intergovernmental document, the monitoring we do every four years with member states, we do ask specific questions about the integration of the different stakeholders on that. And then to finalize with four other concrete things that express this importance of the multistakeholderism on that, when we did this process that many of you know, the guidelines for the governance of digital platforms was a massive multistakeholder endeavor. We received 10,000 comments. And one of the specific pillars of that document is also about multilingualism. Then we have a tool called the World Atlas of Languages, which we invite through an ad hoc committee the participation of the multistakeholder community. And finally, two quick things. We are the Secretariat of the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, that Vats here is one of the key experts. And the configuration of that, the decade, is again a multistakeholder configuration with a strong participation of the indigenous communities, which is paramount for this. Currently, we are consulting, and please participate, a global roadmap on languages and technologies, which include this conversation. And I’m sure Vats will also speak a bit for that. And finally, before I guess Teresa will also mention that, we are very proud to partner with ICANN on the idea of universal acceptance for UNESCO. And I’m sure for ICANN, one of the central aspects of this partnership is also try to be as inclusive as possible in a multistakeholder way, inviting those different actors to engage with the idea of universal acceptance and therefore implement what we are looking for on that. So I’ll stop here. As you saw, I could have chosen another example but I think the example of multilingualism is super interesting to also measure this idea of multistakeholderism in the technical space of the Internet. Thank you very much.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you, Guillaume. Theresa, you have the floor.

Theresa Swinehart: Thank you, Guillaume. And it’s really a pleasure to be here. First of all, thank you everybody for being here. I don’t know how many were at Music Night last night, but two things. A, thanks for being here, having gone. It was, I think, quite eventful and very exciting. But I was also struck there how people who play different instruments and are very versed in singing come together and create something and create an evening. A bit of an analogy to that, digital cooperation, multilingualism, the languages, bring people together. It allows each other to be heard, allows each other to engage and to cooperate. And to have that as part of a fundamental anchor in digital cooperation is essential if we want to have the Internet really reach everybody and enable them that opportunity to cooperate. communicate together. So it’s an important part of the multi-stakeholder aspect. People come from different sectors, stakeholder groups and speak different languages and it’s good to be heard and and to hear what people are saying and to be able to engage with that. So as had been mentioned we are very pleased we have a long-standing partnership with UNESCO and MOU with them also on some very specific project areas and with that the two organizations, while our mandates are quite different and our mission is quite different, share a common goal of including enhanced linguistic representation including in the domain name system to enable that full experience online as individuals in indigenous speaking populations have offline. So that’s quite important. This year we started an additional partnership with UNESCO and that is on the Universal Acceptance Day and this is an event that we have annually and this year we had a good event with UNESCO as well. It’s usually on or around the 28th of March and we’ve just two days ago published the report of all the events that were held on 28th of March or around that date to demonstrate the approach, the results of all those events that were held globally. So I would encourage everybody to take a look at that recent report. As I’ll talk about later in my other remarks, universal acceptance is the concept that all valid domain names and email addresses work in all internet-enabled applications, devices, and systems. Now this might sound quite straightforward but actually on a technical level it is feasible to do. We just have to make sure that the applications and the platforms and all that can actually deliver on those results. UA Day is a chance for us to work together and to create awareness around the fact that it is possible to have to the left or the right of the dot or in your email address the ability to resolve that in legible useful representation in different tools that we’re using in this digital environment. So I’ll touch on some of those later today but in this session but in the meantime thank you very much and we look forward to the conversation.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much Teresa and I know that one of the things that I have noticed for example lately is that in the African region particularly universal acceptance is really picking up so yeah being one of the places where we have the most languages I think it is very important and it’s even more important when you have 60 to 80 percent of our populations depending on the countries that are still in rural areas and that do not speak the French and the English that we’re speaking here so great to see that happening. So we’re going to now open the panel discussion and the first question is how does participation in technical internet governance contribute to more diverse and balanced stakeholder engagement in broader multi-stakeholder internet governance? And I’m going to give the floor to Václav first.

Valts Ernstreits: Thank you, thank you for giving the floor and a little bit expanding on my background I come from Latvian indigenous people Livonian community and I have been working let’s say 35 years hands on the ground and through that for past years I’ve been also part of International Decade of Indigenous Languages. on a global task force of it and currently co-chairing also ad-hoc group on digital equalities and domains and Working hands on the ground. So one thing that I have learned throughout this time is that Sometimes unlike in real world if you want to go one One floor up it’s easier actually and faster then you go all the way to the roof and then come back down down again Let me give you an example from from our own experience in Latvia For the Livonian language has indigenous status for 34 years already So it seems like it should like locally Be quite well developed. However It’s still a problem. For example to use Livonian in state-run data systems Which basically leads to the Fact that you cannot register NGO name or business name in in Livonian language And use it in official domains. So now having for these past years This international dialogue and bringing that back home. This has Kind of launched quite initiated quite a quite big changes. So come on Throughout a couple of past years that we have been working Internationally, we see that domestically so we now have our Parliament our state institutions Look through all the technicalities and all the legislation that block using using Livonian on an official unofficial data system so this is this is like one example how how you really true true involving and And participating in the kind of global issues actually change quite a lot domestically and languages and generally like good example For involving multi-stakeholderism as Guilherme said previously, so UNESCO currently is developing global roadmap on multilingualism in digital era and that is quite a task reaching actual multilingualism because getting all languages into digital domains it’s actually a complex task because language is not just like a translation languages are everywhere in every aspect of our lives so it’s language lives in fridge in a car and so there is a need for very very big stakeholder involvement and very diverse because it requires really the participation of all of government, academia, developers, general public and language community themselves but what these documents like these and these initiatives they help to build awareness and also a dialogue bringing all the stakeholders to the table and also helping to get the message out and explaining explanations out like why this is necessary and how we can actually tackle this so linguistic diversity is what is for example special if we start catering instead of 200 top languages that technology is actually working currently so that we need to cater those other 7,000 or more languages and what is special in those cases because those cases are extremely diverse or how GDPR and open science policies for example actually limit the use of the language and digital domains or how to reach representation of languages not just in the internet but on the cloud computing and cloud programs that are gaining more and more popularity so how to do it there. so and therefore also ensure this universal acceptance. So starting from the top is relevant and especially it is it is one option how to get wide wide number of stakeholders involved especially in the world that is extremely diverse like linguistic world for example.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much both absolutely we need everybody and we need the linguists. So Beth what do you have to say about how we come together to make this happen?

Elizabeth Bacon: Every time. Thank you both. Fultz promised that he was the most awake so he volunteered to go first and I appreciate him. I’m a little bit less there. So I think the the question is about how participation in the technical internet governance can contribute to balance stakeholder engagement and broader governance and certainly within the community of technical operators you hear a lot about how the multi-stakeholder model is effective because it most closely mirrors the distributed technical nature of the internet infrastructure and that makes it then the most effective way to ensure that stakeholders are represented and involved. However if that participation doesn’t also mirror the stakeholders that the internet that internet governance and policy impacts then we aren’t really using that model to its fullest extent and really the getting the most out of it that we can. So while I think there are a few layers to participation in technical governance that can really contribute to the to the success of the model and the success of representation. So as Fultz and Teresa noted you things like UA and diversity of language representation are vitally important but also key to that is including a diversity of views and a diversity of skill sets. So for me I focus on my participation in technical technical community not as a actual technical person. So that can mean to a means to increase participation and lead to more comprehensive policies that are implementable if you not only have the diversity of languages and participation in that way, but if you have both technical and policy and legal, all of the universe of things that internet governance and the use of the internet can impact. So for, in addition to that pure technical knowledge, I do believe that the diversity of views and skill sets is vital to making sure that as you engage in the in technical internet governance in that space, that you then have that a broadens the stakeholder engagement, but it also really leads to really rich comprehensive policy. I used to work quite a lot with with the US government. And we would have technical folks come in. And they said, we want this result. And I said, Well, this is going to do absolutely the opposite, because that’s not how the internet works. And if you don’t have people bridging that gap and doing that translation, because not everyone is good at everything, then you really end up with not a quality product. So I think the the value of getting folks into participating in that technical layer is really having the translation there. So I think if we can focus, you know, the foundation is the technology. And if intergovernments has that participation, be it region, background, business type, legal policy, all those things, I think it really, it really does just result in a more comprehensive quality product that that kind of stands the test

Anne Rachel Inne: of time. Thank you very much, Beth. And I definitely identify with the translation part, I my first job in life was as an interpreter translator. So sitting in between two people who are saying, you know, things to each other, and making sure that I don’t say it the wrong way. At the risk of provoking World War was one of my jobs. So I definitely, you know, understand that

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you. To answer this question, I will start with a few examples. And just to give you a background, I work for CCUI, which is not what was mentioned there. We work on tech policy. And my involvement in ICANN, per se, is to represent the end-user communities, especially from developing countries. And I come from Asia-Pacific, India. So if you’re talking about participation, and I’m talking about even non-technical people participating in the technical internet governance, I’ll cite a few examples. All the panelists had been speaking about multilingualism, universal acceptance as to how the domain names have to be compatible to regional languages. Now, how does it translate down when you go down to the grassroots? So there have been some initiatives where volunteers have not only been building capacity of the technical community, as in the language communities, as well as technologists who actually make products or services within the, you know, in various regions everywhere, Africa, Asia, et cetera, on why is the need of, what is the importance of universal acceptance? Why is it needed? Similarly, if you want the companies to listen to you, you have to skill people. So there were volunteers who went, worked with the technical community to develop programs, which could be undertaken in technical engineering colleges, et cetera, so that the skills can be built up. And the younger generation of engineers can actually, you know, imbibe those things. When they go back to the jobs, they are at least to a certain extent equipped or aware that these are certain things you have to take care of. So that’s how, and they can come back with feedback, there is a feedback loop and tell, you know, the technical community that look, this is working, this is not working So it develops an ecosystem and it cannot be just, you know, you say this is good, it has to percolate but there has to be a system and that’s where the different stakeholders come in Similarly, the other thing is, you know, the domain name abuse is something which is being spoken about in various ways Now it has various dimensions, there are certain things which the technical community can look after There are certain dimensions which is content related and there are some dimensions which is very social or which is, you know, normal day to day interpersonal How do you break the silos or the problem and try to address it at different levels So, you know, at ICANN there is, the ESSAC has been trying to come up with certain, you know, working on how to address the domain name issue thing At large we are trying to simplify it or, for example, develop a module and it’s a small module which we are developing on phishing which we want our community members to again educate their end user communities as to what they need to really take care of, how they need to, you know, the awareness part of it so that you can at least to certain extent reduce the harms You can’t completely, you know, remove them but at least at certain levels Similarly, the domain name security which is important The technical communities impart that training to the ISPs or the telcos, whoever do it because that’s important So, if you look at it, it’s not a very simple thing that, for example, ICANN or the community in ICANN is designing something but you also need the acceptance from the community that this is working or this is not working And for this, this kind of engagement is important And the other thing which is important for developing countries is it builds skills for young people who are looking for jobs There are new avenues which comes out for them which we miss at times and there are various, you know, for example, working on internationalized domain names. There may be a lot of other avenues of work coming up rather than the cliched work, because jobs are scarce today. AI is taking away jobs. So those are certain things I think we need to take care of and I hope I’ve been able to answer with these examples something of why this is important.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much, Amrita, and I’m absolutely in agreement with you. Excuse me. One of the things that we don’t realize, I think, in general is that, so you spoke about telcos and ISPs, for example, even inside the technical community, there’s a lot more people that we need to co-op that are not like the regulars of the internet per se world. So, and those are part of the stakeholders that we absolutely need to co-opt in this world. So thanks for that. We are going to now continue with the second question and how can digital cooperation be leveraged to build awareness and the capacity for underrepresented groups to engage in technical internet governance? Beth, may I start with you?

Elizabeth Bacon: I’m sorry. I’m happy to. So I think that one of, there’s, again, there’s maybe two prongs to this. One is the existing folks that are already participating in these models, in these groups, to be much more intentional about coordination between the groups. Certain, you know, the IGF is a non-decisional space. It’s discussion. You can have big thoughts and big ideas and you can really run with it and have the conversations and do a lot of learning, ask really hard questions in a kind of a safe space because you’re not necessarily coming out the, you don’t have to agree at the end. It’s what it’s for. And I think it’s a huge value, but then, you know, you go to a space like ICANN and it’s, you know, you’re making a policy. It’s a decisional space, but there’s, we often miss the leap from things that have been really matured and thought about really well by folks here. in an IGF type space with a really diversity of views. How do we intentionally push those things into other spaces when they’re ready? And when it’s appropriate to that other spaces scope. I’m just using ICANN because that’s an easy one. We all know that one. We also know IGF because we’re here. And then I think the other item for that, for underrepresented groups is utilizing capacity building and some of the programs that exist to bring in not only youth participants, which I think is really, really important. And I’ve been, I don’t think we have any young ones in the room, sorry. You’re all very youthful, I’m very sorry. Ajit raises his hand, he’s now, he reached out. So I think that we have, some of the youth participants have been wildly impressed. They make such great contributions. There’s a lot of programs like that across the communities and groups that we work in. So if we leverage those well, if we really dedicate our time to making that value as opposed to a box check, I think that could be very helpful. And then there’s other things, especially I’m gonna again, I live in a little bit of an ICANN space, ICANN land. Fellowships for when you’re not a youth, but you’re still, you’re trying to expand your views. There’s a fellowship program, there’s newcomer programs. There’s all of these things that they exist, but can we do a better job of really making them robust and bringing, again, the diversity of views, but then also really then reminding ourselves that it’s not just about the participation, it’s about of humans, but also taking those ideas and making sure that we’re cooperating and moving those into the right space.

Anne Rachel Inne: Wonderful, thank you very much, Beth. Guillermo, may I ask you to also give a insight into this question?

Guilherme Canela De Souza: Sure, sorry. I think that we need to acknowledge how… Important it is the inclusion of underrepresented groups in the conversation, but we also need to acknowledge that we are far from guaranteeing it. Because it’s difficult, because it costs money, because we are not fully prepared to do it. But we are having, for example, discussions about multilingualism and inclusion of indigenous languages with a very minor participation of indigenous communities, unfortunately. I’m very glad that VATS is here, but should be many more. And we need to, the first step for solving a problem is acknowledging we have a problem and not put it under the carpet. So the entire technical community, internet community needs to start recognizing that the idea of multistakeholderism also implies diversity within each stakeholder group. So when we look to civil society, it can’t be the usual suspects of the digital rights communities, nothing against them, always present and always at the table. We need to find the ways to get the others that are not always around these tables. And again, I’m saying it’s easy to say, but it’s not necessarily easy to do. Before, and I finish with that, before joining UNESCO, I worked with children’s rights. And with UNICEF and Save the Children and so on, we were always trying to see the best way of including children in the conversation. And it’s super necessary, but it’s not an easy thing, because you need other methodologies, you need other ways of, I mean, I can, and I finish with that, we just did in February a language conference in UNESCO and technology. And we tried to actually bring indigenous communities. Even our procurement systems are not adapted for that. because you need to have a bank account to pay the per diem and the indigenous groups will say, no, we don’t have that bank account in that particular indigenous community. So, if we are going to be serious about that, we need to take these very high-level titles and go into the specifics of how to actually guarantee this participation. Thank you.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much. And this is really, truly resonating just because I come from a place, yesterday we were talking about several things, like how to make, you know, artificial intelligence and the work that is being done globally around that more diverse and representative of underrepresented communities. And I come from a region that is very young. So, to be able to have very young people into this conversation is definitely a challenge, though they have to be there. It’s their present and their future. Teresa, do you want to say something about that?

Theresa Swinehart: Sure. Thank you. I think, in particular, the youth or the next generation is absolutely critical to have involved because they come from an era and an opportunity where it wasn’t about the dial-up and hoping to connect, but rather it’s the assumption that the app is going to work. But it actually takes something to make that work. And we had the opportunity recently in Bahrain, actually, to do a hackathon with university students around designing a website that could take internationalized domain names and universal acceptance. And we had 60 students and they were allowed to use artificial intelligence in order to help solve the problem. But they had to create a website that could respond to questions that were posed and it could respond to questions in English or Arabic. and it had to be able to process certain information in relation to that website. So that sounds like a very simple task. In principle, you design a website, right? But there’s actually quite a bit of work that goes around it. But it was amazing to watch these students. For two days, they were dedicated and spent time trying to solve this, and they were incredibly creative and ingenious in all of their attempts. But it’s a really good example of bridging this cooperation into some very practical tools. And these students are the future engineers in other companies. So they come in with awareness to your point, you know, solving the problems. So just an example of how we can bridge in the next generation around that. But more specifically, if I have just a few seconds, in relation to other opportunities moving forward. From our perspective, there’s also further awareness and capacity and opportunities for ensuring underrepresented communities, Indigenous languages, communities that may not be online necessarily at this point in time. And that also relates to the opportunity to have your presence online in what we refer to as the next round top-level domain program. That is the choice to have what one wants to the right or the left of the dot, depending upon if one is looking for something in Arabic script or in other scripts or in Roman character sets. So with that, internationalized domain names will clearly provide an opportunity for further opportunities for different language groups and for that bridging of digital cooperation from the technical side, but also then into the policy side and potentially even political opportunities for regions and communities to be represented fully in the way that they are and that they want to do. The opportunities there are multifold, so there’s also the opportunity for community-based type-level domains and that is quite common. We have seen that in the context of different communities coming together and we hope to see that opportunity really for communities that currently may want to have also their digital presence online. We’ve seen it in the context in the past also with regards to cities or communities, you know, .amsterdam or .veen or others, you know, who have their presence. So it’s not always about the revenue or the business model, but it’s oftentimes about having one’s digital presence online and bridging that cooperation from the technical into the community and into schools and education and healthcare and all of those. A part of our program also provides applicant support for communities that qualify. I’ll do a shout out to my colleague, Christy, over here. If you have any questions, she can provide you with anything that you may want to know. And that is very much open to non-profits, indigenous groups, small businesses and NGOs that might not have the resources to participate fully in the application process, but we want to make sure that there’s opportunities afforded there. So these are some examples of very practical things that we’re undertaking right now to bridge the digital cooperation into other areas, but create awareness for anybody who wishes to be participating in any of those endeavors. And that program will start early next year in April. Wonderful. We’ll look forward to it.

Anne Rachel Inne: Vals, you want to add anything around how to bring underrepresented communities here?

Valts Ernstreits: A little bit, because I have a couple of points, but they are somehow in concordance with what already sounded. Again, many of my examples, good or bad, come from my own experience. We had an expedition which went out to one area, and there were our colleagues going to different institutions asking the same question, so do you have any Livonian heritage here? And all these institutions answered no, no, no. And then a week later what happened, a local newspaper found out and they went through the same places, asking the same question, basically. And in that one week, all these institutions started to say, well, yes, we have plenty of it. And it took a week for the situation to completely change. This is something similar with this kind of digital cooperation we have at the International Decade of Indigenous Languages. There is a survey that went out in March, a survey of indigenous languages. The primal task was to collect data so that we could make informed decisions and we could better understand the actual position of indigenous languages. And there is a big part on digital domains and digital issues, including what kind of technologies you have, what kind of technical issues you have, or how do you see them. And on one hand, this is data collection, but on the other hand it is actually an opportunity for communities to look in a mirror and maybe for the first time to consider, well, there are those things out there. Should we have it? Can we build it? And this is something that initiates process. So the first way how to leverage is being or making underrepresented groups noticed and kind of giving them idea that we can do something or there is something that we could be involved. and this kind of launches the process. So the next level of leveraging is actually the consolidation and accumulation of knowledge. And one thing that we need, and especially now talking about multilingualism, we need designated networking platforms to connect the dots like repositories or forums like this. So this is also something that is planned in the roadmap, but in a more focused way, because if we think about underrepresented groups, those subjects, these are not mainstream subjects, these are not mainstream groups, this is not mainstream knowledge. But at the same time, we are entering a new era technology wise, so the era of tailored solutions. So we need those kind of niche platforms where we can talk cross-sectorally and with multi-stakeholders, where we can talk, where we can learn, and where we can actually innovate and bring new solutions. In this sense, I think that multilingualism is kind of our testing ground, so on the road towards the customization. Because if we can do it, then we can do everything. If we can’t, then it’s actually the question of what good are we with all that we know. Because at the end of the day, and this is my personal opinion, that this technology is moving in the direction where it should be capable to serve each individual. So getting voices heard and getting those platforms, how now those are not mainstream, but also underrepresented different groups. are being heard and being learned from is actually crucial.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much, Feltz. Amrita, you as a MAG member and as someone who has participated in national, you know, IGFs, regional IGFs, I want you to maybe bring out to the community here some of the ways that this digital cooperation actually works also on a regional and kind of local level. So all of this can maybe tie together, localize.

Amrita Choudhury: Right. Thank you. And I will mix a few things and speak now. And I’ll take an APAC example because that’s where I belong from. So if you look at it, there are fellowships, which, for example, ICANN gives NextGen, which is very young, young fellows. Internet society has certain fellowships. When we have the national, regional IGFs like the Asia-Pacific regional IGF, we have fellowship. Now, we have a lot of diverse people coming in from different countries who were, as in we try to get people from places, but it’s not possible to get everyone. For example, someone from Mongolia whom we got in or Bhutan, which are pretty unrepresented at this point of time. Now, the challenge is once you bring them, how do you retain them? So what we’ve been trying to do at the Asia-Pacific regional at large organization and at APR IGF is create WhatsApp groups and have them there because you have to interact with young people in the way they want, not the way we want it. And we found it very effective. They chat there. They work there. Now, in APRILO, what we do is we have small subcommittees formed on many things like we have the continuous improvement process, which is happening. We have a subcommittee, which are young people. We have someone who’s mentoring them, they make and they work, they feel empowered. If their names are there at the end, they feel empowered. We have the newsletter where we have people working together to form something. So if you get them into the system, empower them, keep on giving them information, this is the opportunity, this is what you can do, they also can think. So many of them come from diverse backgrounds. After that, if someone, after you give them the first step, if they want to explore something else, they can. Like if they’re interested in the technical part of it, they can go there. If they’re interested more in rights perspective, they can go. You should not limit them, that has been our learning. And we also encourage them to take it back to their communities, discuss, so that they can get more people. It’s not perfect, but those are the steps which have worked. Similarly, if you can encourage them, for example, there are many people, young people, who have been funded by the MAG or they’re coming from a particular region, and they’re pretty shy. And there are many newcomers in IGF. Trying to get them together, speaking to them, getting them introduced to people, or even taking a picture with them, helps them empowering them, so that they’re motivated, because you have to keep their motivation on. They have jobs to think of, they have their careers, but you have to excite them to be there in the space, because it’s not always exciting. Thank you.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much, Amrita. I actually use one word, which is hand-holding. It’s really accompanying people into seeing and believing in how is it that they can interact with other people, because they feel empowered, as you said. They have the arguments, they actually know how to talk. Beth was earlier talking about how do we get technical people to talk to regular people, like policymakers. So they understand, you know, why some GDPR decisions may break the machine or not. So, yeah, those are really some of the issues that we’re facing. And it’s all about making sure that we communicate in the right way. Let’s make sure that nothing is being lost in translation. So thank you all. And I think we’re now going to open the floor for audience participation. If you have questions out there or maybe online. Christy? No? Okay. All right. Yeah. You have mics on both sides. Thank you very much. Please introduce yourself and go ahead.

Dominique Hazael Massieux: Hi, I’m Dominique. I work for the World Wide Web Consortium. As you may know, we have a program, the Internationalization Program, which is about making web pages work across as many languages and cultures as possible, very similar to the ICANN program for domain names. And one of the structural issues we have in that program is getting enough contact and input from the right experts across so many languages that exist out there. And we already have some networks, but I wonder if there is something that, I mean, whether it’s the original IGF, whether it’s UNESCO, whether it’s some academia network that could help in providing a source of constant expertise in this field. Because we have the basic knowledge about what is needed, but until you get to the right expert that has the deep knowledge about how the language needs to work for locators to really make use of the web to its full potential, we can’t really do the full amount of work we want to. So I’m curious if the… Panelists have any suggestions about how we can structure better this source of expertise

Anne Rachel Inne: Well, you’re at the right door because I’m pretty sure Guillerme knows how to Respond to this because UNESCO is one of the places where we have a collective of linguists that can help

Guilherme Canela De Souza: Thank you very interesting question two quick things one, please do Everyone here include you do look into this road map on languages and technology that is currently open for consultations And make your contributions to that document because what you said could be if it’s not yet there I read but I can’t remember this kind of cooperation It’s important to make sure that it’s there But on your concrete question two quick things you can come to speak with me and Vats at the end of the of the session but Organizations like the World Wide Consortium and that we spoke yesterday with ICANN similarly You can’t write to us at the Secretariat of the Decade of Indigenous Languages and make this offer Saying we are ready to cooperate with these experts For for improving that and then we can connect you with these huge communities that are under the umbrella of the decade And similarly in the World Atlas of languages We can connect you with the national focal points that are from 130 plus countries Of course, it’s obvious. We do this in an anonymous way We we sent to them your offer is for them to decide if they want to contribute or not But please feel free to contact me and we can advance on that. Thank you

Anne Rachel Inne: Wonderful and before I give you the floor, but I’m Teresa. I wanted to add a little something

Theresa Swinehart: Yeah, and Edmund may touch on this as well Likewise happy to exchange contact information To complement also what UNESCO is doing in relation to some of the very specific technical areas We we also have the what’s referred to as the LGR the label generation rule set They’re working with very specific communities on The areas around the domain name system and the rules for that So that might complement access to yet another group that could be of help or at least know where to go So happy to exchange information on that

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much, Teresa. Edmund?

Edmon Chung: Edmund Chung here from DotAsia Actually, I came up to respond to the question very similar to what Teresa said Just I guess adding a little bit of context around it the what is called the label generation rules thing is actually looking at all the languages and scripts around the world and defining policies for Defining names that can can or should be used on the on the domain name system. And therefore It it well I can in the community actually spent over the last decade and more than 10 years Developing all the policies for the different languages to deal with abuse issues and and so on that group has basically gone through all the Scripts and languages that that are are live. I guess in in terms of actively being used so you can look at the what is called the It’s called the generation panel and that doesn’t mean anything, but they are local communities local experts of linguists and they include linguists as well as technologists and and so and Engineers to look at what the policies need to be so that that group might be you know, actually It’s readily available on the the ICANN website It’s readily available on the the ICANN website You can check it out and that should give you a good sense of all the people around. Thank you

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much Edmund Christy Do we have any questions online? Okay, all right Beth wanted to chime in

Elizabeth Bacon: Just a question that I think maybe we didn’t answer your question. I think LGRs are great and that’s important for the technical aspect but I think maybe you were asking more about actual translation and and content and I and I hate to to run right by it and I don’t necessarily have an answer but I think that’s something that I mean we have certainly run into at PIR at org we have also we have several IDNs and we have we’ve engaged you know globally on different languages and it is incredibly difficult to translate appropriately as Michelle well knows. So I think that just making sure that we’re answering your question you could tell me I’m very wrong but maybe that’s something we just take away and and try and brainstorm a little because I think that’s a it’s a very universal issue.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much Beth. You’re absolutely right on that point and so you wanted to add a little something?

Dominique Hazael Massieux: So just to clarify, my question was actually answered but the point on translation is also one of the issues. We’re also very happy to hear any ideas that may be in strengthening translation support for the technical community because again another way we can better involve as many communities as possible is by making our specifications available in the many languages of the world. So we have a program for that but again it’s a voluntary bottom-up and the more people we have that can contribute to that program would also be super helpful. So maybe there is something indeed that we could work as a group on together.

Anne Rachel Inne: Wonderful. Communication, communication, communication. Valts, you wanted to add something to this one too?

Valts Ernstreits: Just to add a little bit about contacting. I do really understand the problem of getting the right person especially when it comes to languages and in that diverse landscape of language situations that I was previously mentioning this survey of indigenous languages. So one part of the survey of one function of the survey is that we also ask for those people who are responding for the future involvement. And we are doing through this survey, we are looking precisely to that, to finding right persons who are proficient answering questions about this language and who can be a contact point directly for that particular language community. So, I would definitely encourage to follow up all the developments regarding the International Digit of Indigenous Languages and the roadmap. And, yeah, we’ll just contact later.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much, Valt. So, we have less than two minutes left and I know they’re going to stop the mics very soon. So, whoever wants to jump in to talk about the one action, maybe that we can take in the next six to twelve months, having talked about the decade of Indigenous Languages and really real participation, meaningful participation in technical discussions coming from everywhere. We can’t leave anybody behind in all this. So, who wants to add that one little bit that we need to do to make sure that we have a real participation and multi-stakeholder participation?

Valts Ernstreits: So, maybe I will jump on. In the next six to twelve months, I think that, and I know that I was talking maybe a lot about multilingualism, but there’s one thing that is very much defining our future. And the thing that will happen somewhere in this period is the finalization of that roadmap of the multilingualism digital era. But following that, there will also be development of the action plan about concrete actions and practicalities on how to bring it to life. So I would call everyone to participate in that as well together with us.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much. So eight seconds, so I guess I’m just going to say thank you very much for coming here this morning. Thank you for brave in the morning and being here with us and thanks to all my panelists and have a great day.

Agreement points

Multilingualism is fundamental to meaningful internet participation and requires multistakeholder approaches

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza
– Theresa Swinehart
– Valts Ernstreits
– Anne Rachel Inne

Arguments

UNESCO promotes multilingualism as fundamental to free flow of ideas and has multistakeholder programs addressing this need

Universal acceptance ensures all valid domain names and email addresses work across internet applications, requiring technical implementation and awareness building

International participation in technical governance can drive domestic policy changes, as seen with Livonian language recognition in Latvia

Universal acceptance is gaining momentum in Africa where most languages exist and rural populations don’t speak colonial languages

Summary

All speakers agree that multilingualism is essential for inclusive internet governance and that achieving it requires coordinated multistakeholder efforts combining technical implementation, policy development, and community engagement

Topics

Sociocultural | Infrastructure

Current multistakeholder participation lacks sufficient diversity and meaningful inclusion of underrepresented groups

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza
– Elizabeth Bacon
– Amrita Choudhury
– Anne Rachel Inne

Arguments

Current multistakeholder models often lack true diversity within stakeholder groups, particularly missing indigenous communities from multilingualism discussions

Technical internet governance needs diversity of views and skill sets, not just technical knowledge, to create comprehensive implementable policies

Hand-holding and empowerment approaches, including WhatsApp groups and subcommittees, help retain underrepresented participants

Technical community needs to include broader stakeholders beyond regular internet governance participants, including telcos and ISPs

Summary

Speakers unanimously acknowledge that existing multistakeholder models fall short of meaningful inclusion, with participation dominated by usual suspects while underrepresented communities remain marginalized

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Capacity building and awareness creation are essential for meaningful participation of underrepresented groups

Speakers

– Theresa Swinehart
– Valts Ernstreits
– Elizabeth Bacon
– Amrita Choudhury
– Anne Rachel Inne

Arguments

Youth engagement through practical applications like hackathons helps bridge technical cooperation with real-world problem solving

Creating awareness among underrepresented groups about available opportunities initiates their participation process

Existing fellowship and newcomer programs need to be more robust and focused on bringing diverse perspectives rather than being checkbox exercises

Volunteers build capacity in technical communities and language communities to implement universal acceptance at grassroots level

Hand-holding and accompaniment are essential for empowering underrepresented groups to participate meaningfully

Summary

All speakers agree that systematic capacity building, awareness creation, and supportive accompaniment are crucial for enabling meaningful participation of underrepresented groups in technical internet governance

Topics

Development

Technical solutions require cross-stakeholder collaboration and translation between different domains of expertise

Speakers

– Elizabeth Bacon
– Amrita Choudhury
– Theresa Swinehart
– Anne Rachel Inne

Arguments

Translation between technical and policy communities is essential to prevent misaligned outcomes

Domain name abuse requires addressing technical, content-related, and social dimensions through different stakeholder involvement

Universal acceptance ensures all valid domain names and email addresses work across internet applications, requiring technical implementation and awareness building

Translation and interpretation skills are crucial for bridging communication gaps in technical discussions

Summary

Speakers agree that effective technical internet governance requires bridging different domains of expertise and ensuring proper communication between technical, policy, and community stakeholders

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical underrepresentation of indigenous communities in internet governance discussions that directly affect them, and advocate for systematic approaches to include these communities meaningfully

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza
– Valts Ernstreits

Arguments

Current multistakeholder models often lack true diversity within stakeholder groups, particularly missing indigenous communities from multilingualism discussions

Survey of indigenous languages serves dual purpose of data collection and community awareness building about digital opportunities

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Both speakers advocate for moving beyond superficial inclusion efforts to create meaningful, sustained engagement programs that empower participants and provide ongoing support

Speakers

– Elizabeth Bacon
– Amrita Choudhury

Arguments

Existing fellowship and newcomer programs need to be more robust and focused on bringing diverse perspectives rather than being checkbox exercises

Hand-holding and empowerment approaches, including WhatsApp groups and subcommittees, help retain underrepresented participants

Topics

Development

Both speakers focus on the technical infrastructure requirements for supporting linguistic diversity in domain name systems, emphasizing the need for both technical implementation and expert linguistic input

Speakers

– Theresa Swinehart
– Edmon Chung

Arguments

Universal acceptance ensures all valid domain names and email addresses work across internet applications, requiring technical implementation and awareness building

Label generation rule sets involve local linguistic experts and technologists to develop policies for different languages in domain name systems

Topics

Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Institutional barriers prevent meaningful inclusion even when organizations have good intentions

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza
– Valts Ernstreits

Arguments

Institutional barriers exist, such as procurement systems not adapted for indigenous communities without traditional banking structures

International participation in technical governance can drive domestic policy changes, as seen with Livonian language recognition in Latvia

Explanation

Unexpectedly, speakers from both UNESCO and indigenous community perspectives agreed that well-intentioned organizations face concrete institutional barriers that prevent inclusion, such as financial systems incompatible with indigenous community structures. This consensus highlights that inclusion challenges go beyond awareness to systemic institutional design

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Technical expertise alone is insufficient for effective internet governance

Speakers

– Elizabeth Bacon
– Amrita Choudhury
– Anne Rachel Inne

Arguments

Technical internet governance needs diversity of views and skill sets, not just technical knowledge, to create comprehensive implementable policies

Domain name abuse requires addressing technical, content-related, and social dimensions through different stakeholder involvement

Technical community needs to include broader stakeholders beyond regular internet governance participants, including telcos and ISPs

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus among speakers from different backgrounds that technical expertise alone is inadequate for internet governance, requiring integration of policy, legal, social, and community perspectives. This challenges the traditional view that technical issues can be solved purely through technical means

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around four main areas: the fundamental importance of multilingualism for inclusive internet governance, the inadequacy of current multistakeholder participation models, the critical need for systematic capacity building and awareness creation, and the requirement for cross-domain collaboration in technical solutions

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for internet governance reform. The agreement suggests a shared understanding that current approaches are insufficient and that fundamental changes are needed in how multistakeholder participation is conceptualized and implemented. The consensus points toward a need for more systematic, inclusive, and institutionally adapted approaches to internet governance that go beyond technical solutions to address social, cultural, and structural barriers to participation.

Different viewpoints

Approach to addressing institutional barriers for indigenous participation

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza
– Elizabeth Bacon

Arguments

Institutional barriers exist, such as procurement systems not adapted for indigenous communities without traditional banking structures

Existing fellowship and newcomer programs need to be more robust and focused on bringing diverse perspectives rather than being checkbox exercises

Summary

Guilherme focuses on fundamental institutional reform needed to accommodate different organizational structures, while Elizabeth emphasizes improving existing programs rather than systemic change

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Scope of technical versus policy integration

Speakers

– Elizabeth Bacon
– Amrita Choudhury

Arguments

Technical internet governance needs diversity of views and skill sets, not just technical knowledge, to create comprehensive implementable policies

Domain name abuse requires addressing technical, content-related, and social dimensions through different stakeholder involvement

Explanation

While both advocate for multidisciplinary approaches, Elizabeth emphasizes the need for policy and legal expertise in technical spaces, whereas Amrita focuses on breaking down silos between different types of technical problems. This represents different philosophies about integration versus specialization

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on goals (multilingualism, inclusion, universal acceptance) but revealed methodological differences in implementation approaches, institutional reform strategies, and capacity building techniques

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high strategic alignment. Disagreements were primarily methodological rather than fundamental, suggesting strong potential for collaborative implementation despite different preferred approaches. The main tension was between institutional reform versus program improvement approaches to inclusion

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical underrepresentation of indigenous communities in internet governance discussions that directly affect them, and advocate for systematic approaches to include these communities meaningfully

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza
– Valts Ernstreits

Arguments

Current multistakeholder models often lack true diversity within stakeholder groups, particularly missing indigenous communities from multilingualism discussions

Survey of indigenous languages serves dual purpose of data collection and community awareness building about digital opportunities

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Both speakers advocate for moving beyond superficial inclusion efforts to create meaningful, sustained engagement programs that empower participants and provide ongoing support

Speakers

– Elizabeth Bacon
– Amrita Choudhury

Arguments

Existing fellowship and newcomer programs need to be more robust and focused on bringing diverse perspectives rather than being checkbox exercises

Hand-holding and empowerment approaches, including WhatsApp groups and subcommittees, help retain underrepresented participants

Topics

Development

Both speakers focus on the technical infrastructure requirements for supporting linguistic diversity in domain name systems, emphasizing the need for both technical implementation and expert linguistic input

Speakers

– Theresa Swinehart
– Edmon Chung

Arguments

Universal acceptance ensures all valid domain names and email addresses work across internet applications, requiring technical implementation and awareness building

Label generation rule sets involve local linguistic experts and technologists to develop policies for different languages in domain name systems

Topics

Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Multilingualism is fundamental to meaningful multistakeholder participation in technical internet governance, as it enables true free flow of ideas beyond majority languages

Current multistakeholder models often lack genuine diversity within stakeholder groups, particularly missing indigenous communities and underrepresented voices

Technical internet governance requires both technical expertise and diverse skill sets including policy, legal, and community perspectives to create comprehensive implementable solutions

Capacity building through fellowships, mentorship, and practical engagement (like hackathons) is essential but must focus on retention and empowerment rather than tokenism

Universal acceptance of internationalized domain names requires coordinated effort across technical communities, language experts, and grassroots implementation

Digital cooperation can drive domestic policy changes when international participation creates feedback loops to local governance structures

Youth engagement and next-generation participation is critical as they represent the future of internet governance and bring fresh perspectives to technical challenges

Resolutions and action items

Participate in UNESCO’s global roadmap on multilingualism in digital era consultation currently open for public input

Follow up on the International Decade of Indigenous Languages survey and action plan development over the next 6-12 months

Establish connections between World Wide Web Consortium and UNESCO’s language expert networks for better internationalization support

Leverage existing fellowship programs more effectively by making them robust rather than checkbox exercises

Utilize ICANN’s applicant support program for underrepresented communities in the upcoming top-level domain application round starting April next year

Create specialized networking platforms and repositories for niche knowledge sharing among underrepresented groups

Develop concrete action plans following the finalization of the multilingualism digital era roadmap

Unresolved issues

How to systematically overcome institutional barriers like procurement systems that don’t accommodate indigenous communities without traditional banking structures

Effective strategies for retaining diverse participants beyond initial fellowship or capacity building programs

Scaling translation and localization support for technical specifications across the many languages of the world

Bridging the gap between non-decisional spaces like IGF and decisional spaces like ICANN policy development

Addressing the full spectrum of domain name abuse issues that span technical, content-related, and social dimensions

Finding sustainable funding and resource models for meaningful inclusion of underrepresented communities in ongoing technical governance processes

Suggested compromises

Use voluntary, bottom-up approaches for translation programs while seeking broader community support networks

Combine top-down international initiatives with grassroots local implementation to maximize impact and sustainability

Leverage existing technical infrastructure (like label generation rule sets) while building new inclusive participation mechanisms

Balance technical expertise requirements with the need for diverse perspectives by creating translation and bridge-building roles

Utilize multiple communication channels (including informal platforms like WhatsApp) to meet participants where they are rather than forcing participation through traditional formal channels

Sometimes unlike in real world if you want to go one floor up it’s easier actually and faster then you go all the way to the roof and then come back down down again… Throughout a couple of past years that we have been working Internationally, we see that domestically so we now have our Parliament our state institutions Look through all the technicalities and all the legislation that block using using Livonian on an official unofficial data system

Speaker

Valts Ernstreits

Reason

This metaphor brilliantly captures a counterintuitive but practical approach to advocacy – that sometimes engaging at the global/international level can be more effective for creating local change than working directly at the local level. It challenges conventional wisdom about grassroots organizing.

Impact

This comment reframed the entire discussion about multi-stakeholder participation by showing how international technical governance can be a strategic tool for domestic policy change. It shifted the conversation from theoretical benefits to concrete tactical advantages of global participation.

We need to acknowledge how… Important it is the inclusion of underrepresented groups in the conversation, but we also need to acknowledge that we are far from guaranteeing it. Because it’s difficult, because it costs money, because we are not fully prepared to do it… Even our procurement systems are not adapted for that. because you need to have a bank account to pay the per diem and the indigenous groups will say, no, we don’t have that bank account in that particular indigenous community.

Speaker

Guilherme Canela De Souza

Reason

This comment cuts through the typical rhetoric about inclusion to expose the mundane but critical systemic barriers that prevent meaningful participation. The bank account example is particularly powerful because it illustrates how seemingly neutral administrative processes can exclude entire communities.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from aspirational goals to practical implementation challenges. It forced other participants to move beyond surface-level solutions and consider the deep structural changes needed for true inclusion. The honesty about current failures elevated the conversation’s authenticity.

The value of getting folks into participating in that technical layer is really having the translation there… I used to work quite a lot with with the US government. And we would have technical folks come in. And they said, we want this result. And I said, Well, this is going to do absolutely the opposite, because that’s not how the internet works.

Speaker

Elizabeth Bacon

Reason

This comment identifies a critical but often overlooked function of diverse participation – not just representation for its own sake, but the practical necessity of having translators between technical and policy domains. The concrete example demonstrates real consequences of this gap.

Impact

This reframed multi-stakeholder participation from a democratic ideal to a functional necessity for effective governance. It influenced subsequent speakers to focus more on practical skills and knowledge gaps rather than just demographic representation.

We had an expedition which went out to one area… asking the same question, so do you have any Livonian heritage here? And all these institutions answered no, no, no. And then a week later what happened, a local newspaper found out and they went through the same places, asking the same question, basically. And in that one week, all these institutions started to say, well, yes, we have plenty of it.

Speaker

Valts Ernstreits

Reason

This anecdote reveals how visibility and attention can instantly transform institutional behavior and resource availability. It suggests that the problem isn’t always lack of resources but lack of recognition or incentive to acknowledge them.

Impact

This story provided a powerful illustration of how awareness-raising and visibility can be transformative tools. It influenced the later discussion about surveys and data collection as consciousness-raising exercises, not just information gathering.

The challenge is once you bring them, how do you retain them? So what we’ve been trying to do at the Asia-Pacific regional at large organization and at APR IGF is create WhatsApp groups and have them there because you have to interact with young people in the way they want, not the way we want it.

Speaker

Amrita Choudhury

Reason

This comment addresses a critical gap in inclusion efforts – the difference between one-time participation and sustained engagement. The WhatsApp example shows practical adaptation to participants’ preferred communication methods rather than forcing them into existing structures.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from recruitment to retention strategies and highlighted the importance of meeting participants where they are rather than expecting them to adapt to existing systems. It influenced the discussion toward more practical, user-centered approaches to engagement.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally elevated the discussion from theoretical ideals about multi-stakeholder participation to practical realities and strategic insights. Valts Ernstreits’ contributions were particularly transformative, introducing both the ‘going to the roof’ metaphor that reframed international engagement as a domestic strategy, and the heritage survey story that illustrated the power of visibility. Guilherme’s honest assessment of systemic barriers forced the conversation to confront uncomfortable truths about current failures, while Elizabeth Bacon’s ‘translation’ concept reframed diversity as functionally necessary rather than just morally desirable. Amrita’s retention-focused approach shifted attention from recruitment to sustainability. Together, these comments moved the discussion from aspirational rhetoric to actionable insights, creating a more nuanced understanding of both the challenges and opportunities in technical internet governance participation.

How can we structure better sources of expertise for internationalization across many languages, particularly for getting contact and input from the right experts across the diverse languages that exist?

Speaker

Dominique Hazael Massieux

Explanation

This is crucial for the World Wide Web Consortium’s Internationalization Program to make web pages work across as many languages and cultures as possible, but they currently lack sufficient contact with deep language experts

How can we strengthen translation support for the technical community to make specifications available in many languages of the world?

Speaker

Dominique Hazael Massieux

Explanation

This would enable better involvement of as many communities as possible by making technical specifications accessible in their native languages, though current programs are voluntary and bottom-up

How can we develop better methodologies and systems to actually guarantee participation of underrepresented groups, including addressing practical barriers like procurement systems not being adapted for indigenous communities?

Speaker

Guilherme Canela De Souza

Explanation

While the importance of inclusion is acknowledged, practical implementation faces significant challenges including financial systems that don’t accommodate indigenous community structures

How can we better coordinate and intentionally push mature ideas from non-decisional spaces like IGF into decisional spaces like ICANN when they’re ready and appropriate?

Speaker

Elizabeth Bacon

Explanation

There’s often a missed opportunity to transfer well-developed concepts from discussion forums to policy-making bodies where they can be implemented

How can we develop designated networking platforms and repositories specifically for underrepresented groups and niche knowledge areas in multilingualism and technical governance?

Speaker

Valts Ernstreits

Explanation

Underrepresented groups need specialized platforms for cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder dialogue, learning, and innovation, especially as technology moves toward tailored solutions

How can we better retain and continuously engage young people and underrepresented participants after initial fellowship or capacity building programs?

Speaker

Amrita Choudhury

Explanation

While bringing diverse participants through fellowships is important, the challenge lies in maintaining their engagement and building sustainable participation in technical governance

What concrete actions and practicalities should be included in the action plan following the finalization of the roadmap on multilingualism in the digital era?

Speaker

Valts Ernstreits

Explanation

The roadmap development will be followed by an action plan that needs specific, implementable steps to bring multilingualism goals to life in technical governance