WS #259 Multistakeholder Cooperation Ineraof Increased Protectionism

Summary

This discussion focused on multi-stakeholder cooperation in digital governance during an era of increased protectionism, examining challenges to the current Internet governance model and opportunities presented by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. The panel, moderated by Cheryl Miller from the U.S. Council for International Business, included representatives from ICANN, government agencies, Internet Society, Global Network Initiative, and Meta Platforms.

Participants identified several key trends undermining multi-stakeholder digital governance, including rising geopolitical tensions, erosion of trust between nations, and regulatory approaches that prioritize national sovereignty over global Internet interoperability. Anne-Marie Ingtof-Milgar from Denmark highlighted the fundamental uncertainty created by shifting geopolitical orders, while Tatjana Trupina from Internet Society emphasized the tension between sovereign borders and the globally connected Internet. The panelists noted that well-intentioned regulations addressing legitimate concerns about online harms often create unintended consequences for Internet fragmentation when implemented without proper technical consultation.

The discussion revealed significant concerns about the WSIS Plus 20 review process, particularly regarding an elements paper that appeared to retreat from previously agreed-upon language supporting multi-stakeholder governance. Veni Markovski from ICANN warned that the current draft lacks support for the technical community and multi-stakeholder model that has guided Internet governance for two decades. Several speakers advocated for making the Internet Governance Forum permanent rather than continuing to renew its mandate every few years, citing its proven success and growing participation from diverse countries.

The panel emphasized the importance of leveraging existing frameworks rather than creating duplicative processes, suggesting that the Global Digital Compact’s implementation should be integrated into the WSIS framework. They called for transparent, inclusive negotiations and meaningful stakeholder participation in upcoming discussions, stressing that multi-stakeholder cooperation remains essential for maintaining an open, interoperable Internet while addressing legitimate security and sovereignty concerns.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Regulatory and Political Trends Undermining Multi-stakeholder Governance**: Panelists discussed how increasing protectionism, geopolitical tensions, data localization requirements, and fragmented national regulations are threatening the global, interoperable internet and undermining collaborative digital governance approaches.

– **WSIS Plus 20 Review and Global Digital Compact Integration**: Extensive discussion on how to leverage the World Summit on the Information Society’s 20-year review process and the Global Digital Compact to reinforce multi-stakeholder principles, avoid duplication of processes, and ensure meaningful stakeholder participation in UN negotiations.

– **Making the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Permanent**: Strong advocacy from multiple panelists for transitioning the IGF from its current renewable mandate structure to permanent status, given its 20-year track record of success and growing participation from diverse countries including China and Russia.

– **Balancing Digital Sovereignty with Global Connectivity**: Discussion of the tension between legitimate national concerns (security, citizen protection, autonomy) and maintaining an open, globally connected internet, emphasizing the need for proportionate regulatory responses that don’t fragment the internet.

– **Power Asymmetries and Market Concentration**: An audience member raised concerns about inequality in the digital ecosystem, including the concentration of power among major tech companies and the weaponization of digital infrastructure, prompting discussion about antitrust, platform accountability, and supporting innovation diversity.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine multi-stakeholder cooperation in digital governance during an era of increased protectionism, develop strategies for advancing the multi-stakeholder model through upcoming WSIS Plus 20 negotiations, and strengthen collaboration between different stakeholder groups (academia, governments, industry, civil society, and technical community).

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative tone throughout, with participants demonstrating deep expertise and genuine concern for preserving multi-stakeholder governance principles. While acknowledging significant challenges from geopolitical tensions and regulatory fragmentation, the tone remained cautiously optimistic about finding solutions through inclusive processes. The panelists showed mutual respect and built upon each other’s points constructively, even when discussing complex political realities that threaten their shared vision of open internet governance.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Cheryl Miller** – Vice President for Digital Policy at the U.S. Council for International Business (USCIB); Session moderator; Member of the multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG)

– **Veni Markovski** – Vice President for Government and Intergovernmental Organization Engagement at ICANN and interim head of that department; Based in New York, covers UN agencies, UN, ITU and others

– **Jorge Cancio** – Swiss government representative; Member of the multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG)

– **Tatjana Trupina** – Senior Advisor on Institutional Relations at Internet Society

– **Jason Pielemeier** – Leader of the Global Network Initiative, a multi-stakeholder organization working on free expression and privacy in the tech sector

– **Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar** – Danish Tech Ambassador

– **Flavia Alves** – Director of International Organizations for Meta Platforms

– **Milton Mueller** – Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech

– **Audience** – Juan Ortiz, PhD candidate at USC

**Additional speakers:**

– **Juan Ortiz** – PhD candidate at USC (identified as separate from generic “Audience” category)

# Multi-stakeholder Cooperation in Digital Governance: Navigating Protectionism and Geopolitical Uncertainty

## Executive Summary

This interactive discussion examined the challenges facing multi-stakeholder digital governance amid increasing protectionism and geopolitical tensions. Moderated by Cheryl Miller from the U.S. Council for International Business, the panel brought together representatives from ICANN, government agencies, Internet Society, Global Network Initiative, and Meta Platforms to address how collaborative governance models can adapt to current pressures.

The conversation revealed fundamental tensions between the borderless nature of the Internet and territorial sovereignty of nation-states. Participants identified trends undermining traditional multi-stakeholder approaches, including regulatory fragmentation and data localisation requirements, while highlighting opportunities through the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process to reinforce collaborative governance principles and make the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) permanent.

## Current Challenges to Multi-stakeholder Digital Governance

### Geopolitical Shifts and Erosion of Trust

Anne-Marie Ingtof-Milgar, Denmark’s Tech Ambassador, provided a sobering assessment: “the fact that we’re trying to think about multi-stakeholder cooperation in a time that is a shifting geopolitical order, the last three decades of an international rule-based order are right now at a conjunction where I’m not sure what the answer is going to be a few years down the line.” This uncertainty stems from intensified strategic and economic competition globally.

The erosion of trust between nations has made cooperation increasingly difficult, with governments becoming more protective of their digital sovereignty while recognising their dependence on global connectivity.

### Regulatory Fragmentation and Technical Consultation Gaps

Veni Markovski from ICANN highlighted that governments sometimes regulate without consulting technical experts, leading to potential Internet fragmentation. He shared a specific example: “In Bulgaria in 1999, they wanted to license ISPs, and it took a Supreme Court case to resolve this issue.”

Tatjana Trupina from Internet Society articulated the core challenge: “There is a tension, especially in the current geopolitical climate, between sovereign states and their borders, and them trying to navigate this climate. And tension between states and sovereign borders and the open, interoperable, and globally connected Internet.”

Jason Pielemeier from the Global Network Initiative noted that while some regulatory efforts show promise, imprecise regulatory responses to Internet harms often create cross-border impacts that fragment the global Internet ecosystem.

### Data Localisation and Digital Protectionism

Flavia Alves from Meta Platforms identified data localisation and digital protectionism as significant drivers of censorship and Internet fragmentation. She mentioned specific infrastructure challenges, noting Meta’s investment in projects like “Project W submarine cable” to improve connectivity.

Milton Mueller from Georgia Tech’s Internet Governance Project reframed these issues, pointing out that “the protectionism and fundamentally the fragmentation and the sovereignty concerns you’re talking about are fundamentally about digital free trade.” This highlighted that many digital governance challenges are actually trade disputes requiring engagement beyond traditional Internet governance forums.

## The WSIS Plus 20 Opportunity

### Current State and Integration Challenges

The WSIS Plus 20 review process emerged as a central focus. Veni Markovski warned that current drafts lack adequate support for the technical community and multi-stakeholder model. However, speakers saw opportunities to incorporate positive language from the Global Digital Compact (GDC).

Jorge Cancio, representing Switzerland and serving on the multi-stakeholder advisory group, called for “a joint implementation roadmap integrating GDC into WSIS framework” to avoid duplications. He mentioned that Switzerland has circulated a non-paper on this topic and invited participants to approach them for discussions.

Jason Pielemeier emphasised that the GDC was “facilitated and negotiated really in New York” and stressed that WSIS should incorporate GDC objectives while maintaining its multi-stakeholder foundation.

### Ensuring Meaningful Participation

Tatjana Trupina stressed that “multi-stakeholder approach must be at the core with transparency and inclusion, not just lip service,” emphasising that “it is important for stakeholders to see how their input is actually taken into account.”

Jorge Cancio raised questions about the structure of participation, particularly regarding the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board, asking whether it would “act as a spokesperson of the global community or just be an elite group.”

## Making the Internet Governance Forum Permanent

### Strong Consensus for Permanence

There was remarkable agreement on making the IGF permanent after twenty years of temporary mandates. Anne-Marie Ingtof-Milgar argued that “IGF should be institutionalised as what works, rather than creating more global conversation processes.”

Flavia Alves noted that “IGF should be made permanent given its 20-year success and growing participation from previously sceptical countries,” specifically mentioning that China and Russia now host IGF events, demonstrating growing acceptance of the forum.

When Cheryl Miller asked “Does that mean that it’s permanent already? Do we just make that push for it?” the consensus was clear that formal permanence still requires action.

Jorge Cancio supported permanence with practical considerations, advocating for stable mixed funding and using the IGF as a vehicle for WSIS and GDC implementation.

## Addressing Digital Inequality and Market Concentration

### Challenging Questions from the Audience

Juan Ortiz, a PhD candidate at USC, raised critical questions about power distribution, noting “massive inequality exists in Internet value distribution, with few companies dominating traffic and wealth creation.” He provided specific examples, mentioning how “Google, YouTube traffic” dominates and how “ICC emails being cut by Microsoft” demonstrates platform power.

Ortiz challenged the panel: “how are we going to remain together if being together implies weaponisation, implies inequality, implies lack of distribution of value?”

### Varied Responses to Structural Challenges

Anne-Marie Ingtof-Milgar pointed to European legislation and platform accountability measures as necessary tools. Jorge Cancio referenced multi-stakeholder guidelines as potential solutions, while acknowledging that “power asymmetries must be addressed through evolved multi-stakeholder approaches.”

Flavia Alves acknowledged industry responsibility through connectivity investments and supporting small businesses on platforms, but the responses highlighted ongoing tensions between different approaches to addressing inequality.

## Connectivity and the Digital Divide

### Persistent Challenges

Despite twenty years since original WSIS commitments, Tatjana Trupina highlighted that “original WSIS connectivity goals remain unmet with one-third of the world still unconnected, requiring strengthened implementation.”

Anne-Marie Ingtof-Milgar, noting she had recently returned from maternity leave, emphasised the need to “focus on delivering actual outcomes rather than just negotiating text, especially for countries still joining the digital revolution.”

Flavia Alves suggested that connectivity and bridging the digital divide could be areas where stakeholders find common ground for cooperation.

## Trade Dimensions and Institutional Gaps

Milton Mueller’s intervention fundamentally reframed the discussion by identifying digital governance challenges as trade-related. He questioned whether multi-stakeholder models could be applied to World Trade Organisation negotiations, highlighting a significant gap in current approaches.

This observation revealed that while multi-stakeholder models have succeeded in technical coordination and policy dialogue, they haven’t been applied to trade negotiations where many digital governance decisions are ultimately made.

## Key Areas of Agreement and Next Steps

### Procedural Consensus

The discussion revealed strong consensus on several procedural issues:

– Making the IGF permanent with stable funding

– Ensuring transparent, inclusive, and meaningful multi-stakeholder participation

– Integrating WSIS Plus 20 and GDC implementation without duplication

– Consulting technical experts in regulatory processes to avoid Internet fragmentation

### Implementation Focus

Speakers agreed on prioritising implementation over endless negotiation. As Anne-Marie noted, there’s a need to focus on “what works” rather than creating new conversation processes.

The panel emphasised leveraging existing frameworks like the IGF and national/regional Internet governance initiatives rather than building parallel structures.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated both the continued relevance and evolving challenges of multi-stakeholder digital governance. While geopolitical tensions and economic pressures create new obstacles, there remains strong support for collaborative approaches among diverse stakeholders.

The WSIS Plus 20 process represents a critical opportunity to reinforce multi-stakeholder principles while adapting to new realities. The strong consensus on making the IGF permanent provides a concrete, achievable objective that could demonstrate the continued value of collaborative governance.

However, deeper challenges around digital inequality, market concentration, and the tension between sovereignty and global connectivity require ongoing attention. As the interactive nature of this session demonstrated, meaningful multi-stakeholder cooperation depends on genuine dialogue that addresses difficult questions rather than avoiding them.

The path forward requires both defending existing achievements in Internet governance and innovating new approaches that can address legitimate concerns while maintaining the open, interoperable Internet that has driven global connectivity and economic development.

Cheryl Miller: Hi everyone. Hi everyone. Okay, sorry. This is my first time wearing earphones with a microphone, so apologies. I want to thank you all for coming here today. This session is multi-stakeholder cooperation in an era of increased protectionism. We have a panel full of experts and I’m really excited to dive right in and hear from them. I really would like this to be an interactive session and I really want to encourage you all to get up to the microphone and ask questions so there won’t be any long speeches or anything like that here. What we’re hoping to achieve in this session is a shared understanding in advancing the multi-stakeholder model to Internet governance and more broadly digital governance. Also hopefully discussions around a tentative roadmap for community engagement for the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations and strengthen collaboration between academia, governments, industry, civil society and the technical community. My name is Cheryl Miller and I’m the Vice President for Digital Policy at the U.S. Council for International Business, USCIB. For those of you who are not familiar with USCIB, we are a business association that promotes the voice of business in the multilateral process. We have special standing with ECOSOC and we engage across many different international organizations whether it is the Internet Governance Forum, APEC, the IGF, WSIS Plus 20, et cetera. What I’d like to do now is I’d like to allow the panelists to each introduce themselves and then we’ll dive into some questions to get the conversation started. Thank you so much. And if we start with you, Veni, that would be great.

Veni Markovski: My name is Veni Markovski. I’m Vice President for Government and Intergovernmental Organization Engagement at ICANN and interim head of that department. Based in New York, I cover a lot of the UN agencies, UN, ITU and others.

Jorge Cancio: Hello. Hello, everyone. I’m Jorge Cancio, Swiss government.

Tatjana Trupina: Hello everybody. My name is Tatjana Trupina and I’m a Senior Advisor on Institutional Relations at Internet Society.

Jason Pielemeier: Hi. I’m Jason Pilemar. I lead something called the Global Network Initiative, which is a multi-stakeholder organization working on free expression and privacy in the tech sector.

Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Anne-Marie Ingtof-Milgar and I’m the Danish Tech Ambassador.

Flavia Alves: Hi everyone. My name is Claudia Alves, Director of International Organizations for Meta Platforms.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. So I think for the benefit of some of the newcomers in the room, I’ll just say a couple of words just with respect to the history of WSIS and IGF. So the World Summit on the Information Society is coming up for its 20-year review. And through this process, you know, it really laid out and established the multi-stakeholder model that we have today and it helped to create the Internet Governance Forum. It helped to create the Committee on Science and Technology for Development, CSTD. For those of you who are new, you may be hearing all these acronyms and I know it can be overwhelming. So we’re going to do our best to spell out those acronyms as we go along. But the first question that I’d like to ask our panel, what regulatory or political trends are undermining multi-stakeholder digital governance today and how are they affecting global cooperation? Who would like to jump in first? Veni?

Veni Markovski: I mean, thanks for volunteering me. I wasn’t going to. It’s like law school, Socratic method. Yeah, I was hiding here but you saw me nevertheless. I don’t know that we can talk about the regular. I mean, ICANN has a legislative regulatory tracking which we do at every ICANN meeting and for those of you who are not familiar, ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Signed Names and Numbers. We coordinate the domain name system, the IP addresses, protocol parameters on the Internet. And we have three times a year we have public meetings and they’re all accessible. You know, there is a recording from every session and you guys can go and take a look at it including on our leg tracking. I would say that sometimes governments take decisions to regulate or to govern one or another aspect of the Internet without thinking of the consequences that this might lead to. And sometimes this might lead to fragmentation at the technical level. So earlier today, Mona Gaballa, our president and CEO, spoke at the opening of the IGF and he mentioned that we’re talking about coordination, not centralization of the functions that we do and the way it makes the Internet work. So I think it’s important to actually understand that it’s better to talk to the technical experts before drafting or passing any legislation because once it’s passed, it usually takes a lot of time to fix it. I can give examples from my own Bulgaria where in 1999 the government introduced licensing for the Internet service providers and it took a whole case at the Supreme Court to get rid of it. So again, the urge here is to make sure that they use a multi-stakeholder model of somehow or consultations when they’re discussing issues. And again, ICANN is limited to talk about the technical aspects of the functioning of the Internet. So we’re looking always at is the DNS working around the globe, are the IP addresses working as the protocol parameters, and as long as they’re working, you know, whatever else is being governed and is being regulated on top of that, that’s up to every country to decide because they have legal jurisdiction in their borders. Thank you.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. Did I see someone else? Come on in.

Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar: The question on what are the political trends affecting global cooperation, I find myself every morning waking up and feel, you know, a sense of uncertainty, insecurity, discombobulated. We got to be very honest that the fact that we’re trying to think about multi-stakeholder cooperation in a time that is a shifting geopolitical order, the last three decades of an international rule-based order are right now at a conjunction where I’m not sure what the answer is going to be a few years down the line. There’s an uncertainty. There’s an intensified strategic and economic competition globally, and we do not know the outcome of that. And it is impacting the multi-stakeholder and the multilateral processes as we speak. There’s an increase in conflicts around us, unfortunately, and we see that on the rise. All of this leads to an erosion of trust. The definition of trusted partners, I think, and I can speak for my own country on this, is changing. And so the combined sort of uncertainty, competition, uncomfortable truth that we do not know the future we’re going into is making cooperation incredibly hard. And what I hope for me, IGF, this year will be a sense of what can we meaningfully do to continue and drive some of this forward? What does meaningful, inclusive, effective multi-stakeholder governance look like in a world that is so fundamentally different than it was last year when we met at IGF?

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. And I would agree with that. I sit on the multi-stakeholder advisory group, which is the MAG, and so we’ve been having a lot of conversations around this as well, and conversations around the value of the IGF and how we can support it and support the multi-stakeholder model throughout. Tatiana, did you want to add?

Tatjana Trupina: Yes, thank you. And maybe I will go back a bit from the geopolitical tensions to what Venya was talking about, and start from this perspective. There is a tension, especially in the current geopolitical climate, between sovereign states and their borders, and them trying to navigate this climate. And tension between states and sovereign borders and the open, interoperable, and globally connected Internet. And when Venya was talking about regulation, especially regulation on the top of this network, we can recognize the states do have very valid concerns, for example, about security, safety of their citizens, online harms, crime, as well about their autonomy. Their ability to represent their citizens, their ability to protect their citizens. But again, as Venya said, the way states address these concerns, or maybe regional organizations are trying to address these concerns collectively, could harm the global interoperability and connectivity, perhaps sometimes even inadvertently, as unintended consequence. And in this way, what I see is a trend that is hampering the market. Interoperability and connectivity is the focus on national and regional sovereign policies, regulations, and it’s not only about affecting the Internet, it also affects the global cooperation because when you are focusing on your territory, you’re losing this global picture. This tension cannot be resolved just by saying, okay, let’s ditch the multi-stakeholder process, let’s go to more national, intergovernmental, multilateral regulatory processes. So, we must work together in this multi-stakeholder fashion to address these threats and to address the trends globally. And while we are addressing those concerns globally, the valid concerns, the legitimate concerns, we have to preserve the global connectivity and interoperability. So, we can have safety, we can save security, and at the same time, we can have open and globally connected Internet. Thank you.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. And Jason, I know GNI has been doing a lot of work around this. What are your thoughts?

Jason Pielemeier: Yeah, thanks. So, really building on what everyone else has said already, and just maybe to pull out a few regulatory trends. I think the concerns, the legitimate concerns, as Tatiana was articulating, for addressing harms on the Internet, I think are well understood. And there’s a recognition that sovereign states will, in certain circumstances, need to take steps to address those harms. A challenge is that where states try to address those harms in imprecise or disproportionate ways, they end up not only creating impacts within their own jurisdiction for their own citizens, but they create impacts across the Internet because of its interoperable, interconnected nature. So, you know, examples like network blocking or even network shutdowns, you know, attempts to take censorship deeper and deeper into the technology stack are sort of examples of that trend. On the other hand, there are more appropriate, more proportionate efforts that have been, that are being developed. The Digital Services Act in the EU, the Online Safety Act in the UK. These are not perfect, but they do at least attempt to address the content layer of the Internet in a way that recognizes that not every platform has the same business model, not every platform has the same risk profile, the same user base. And so they center on risk management frameworks that allow for a degree of flexibility. And those approaches, I think, have more promise and do less damage to sort of the fundamental layers of the Internet architecture. But they too are now being politicized, right? And we’re seeing an attempt to brand, you know, common sense, good faith efforts to regulate as censorship themselves. And it’s not to say that there aren’t concerns about how these laws could be misused. And unfortunately, we have seen high level political figures in Europe, you know, articulate a desire to use regulation in ways that we would consider inconsistent with the regulatory frameworks themselves. But by and large, these are good faith efforts to try and address legitimate concerns. And the fact that they’re becoming politicized and getting caught up in these broader geopolitical headwinds is of real concern. Because if these efforts can’t succeed, then I’m afraid we will see the more far-reaching, the more disproportionate efforts prevail. And that will do more damage to the interoperable global Internet.

Cheryl Miller: And this makes the business environment particularly very, very difficult. Flavia, from Meta’s perspective, how is this having an impact?

Flavia Alves: Yes, I think some of my colleagues made this comment here. And I think the most impact for us is the impact of calls for data localization, digital protectionism in general that can result in censorship. But having to reform or reduce or just respond to requests for reduction and removal of content on our platform in a speed process that can actually result in censorship, that is something that is actually impacting the global network in a way that isn’t resulted in Internet fragmentation, obviously. And so getting back to the point, I think every other colleague here made a comment on how it is important to take into account these digital sovereignty asks and see how it impacts on Internet fragmentation. But how can we go back to the WSIS principles and bring back the importance of mood stakeholder participation in these conversations? The WSIS had provided us a platform to discuss these issues, and I think we should take the opportunity that we have now to readdress how to connect on these matters with the stakeholders on the ground. Technical community has an important factor in expertise to talk on those issues, just like business that can say what is commercial or what is actually doable for us to respond and how should we be protecting an open, interoperable and free Internet.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. And Jorge, did you have thoughts?

Jorge Cancio: Yeah. Maybe too many to put them in 90 seconds or in two minutes. I think we are living in a time of contradictions, which is paradoxical in many ways. So we had some years ago this report from the high-level panel on digital cooperation, which was called Cooperation in an Age of Digital Interdependence. And at the same time, we have the mounting geopolitical tensions, the different interests, and of course, much more political attention to what formally 20 years ago was a much more technical subject. And you see that at all levels and it doesn’t make our life easier. But I wouldn’t see linear evolution or just a linear path of development. There are many contradictions. It depends on the level where you are talking about. It depends on the subject you are talking about. It depends on what the national stakeholders or the national government is doing about it. So just to mention some examples, of course, we have, for instance, the more technical management of the internet. And here we talk about ICANN, for instance, and I have here VENI to my right. And what we see is much more attention from governments to things like DNS abuse, to the malicious use of some of the elements of the DNS where ICANN has a role. And at the same time, we see the ICANN model that takes some time to get people together and to agree. And maybe not all incentives are always set right to deliver because political attention means that also the political people who are responsible are accountable, are really made responsible if there are no results. So that’s also something the community, the technical community or the people, the community that is participating in ICANN has to take into account as a legitimate concern. So it’s not just a top-down decision of government officials who have no clue about the issue. It’s really about things that affect the people. And I think I’m optimistic on the possibility of these multi-stakeholder organizations and communities to deliver. Then you have other, for instance, AI, which is the topic of attention in many places during this forum. And you could say, okay, has there been a move for top-down regulation of AI? Now there are many contradictions. There are different positions all across the globe at the national level. But for instance, the first international, let’s say, binding legal document on AI, which was developed by the Council of Europe, was very much based on a multi-stakeholder process. So we see how there are contradictions where in some places you can push the multi-stakeholder approach. In other places, you have a pushback. So it depends very much. It depends also on us. And I think that brings us also to the next. We have seen what happens when you have a weak process, when you have a process where multistakeholder is just a lip service, is something that is not really felt and we have an opportunity to learn from that and to improve things based on that learning and to make the multistakeholder approach in the WSIS Plus 20 review much more powerful.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. I want to pause there. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to ask something or add something? Come on up to the microphone. Please tell us your name and where you work and all that good stuff.

Milton Mueller: Is this the mic? It’s very tall. Can you hear me? Yes. All right. My name is Milton Mueller. I’m at the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech. There’s kind of like a missing link or an elephant in the room that you’re not talking about. I think Mia raised it sort of by implication and I think Flavia raised it and it’s the issue of trade. So the protectionism and fundamentally the fragmentation and the sovereignty concerns you’re talking about are fundamentally about digital free trade. Like can you move data around borders? Can you offer services in different parts of the world or do you have to conform to completely different regulatory patterns? And you’re so focused on multistakeholder cooperation but the fact of the matter is that trade issues are negotiated by the WTO, which is a multilateral organization. Do you think it’s possible for the multistakeholder model, which is not really a model as we know, but do we think that civil society and others could participate in WTO negotiations? Could we infuse that process with multistakeholder participation the way we have, let’s say, in ICANN and the IGF? That’s my question.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. That’s a great question, Milton. And thank you for helping to flesh out the conversation. Would anyone like to take a stab at an answer?

Veni Markovski: If nobody is willing, I can take it.

Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar: Go ahead. Mia, you go first. My name is Anne-Marie. Sorry. But I think it says Mia up there. Mia is my incredibly wonderful colleague. Okay. That’s what was confusing me. I actually had to turn around at one point because I was like I thought it was Anne-Marie. Mia is sitting right down here right now. She’s not, but she did before. You’re welcome to change your name at any point. Questions I do not answer, go to Mia afterwards. She’s the brain behind all of this. I just get to sit here. So on this question, I think technically yes. I think there’s a bigger question on sort of the geopolitical, how effective is the World Trade Organization tackling what we are seeing now as a huge transformation of global trade. I come from a small, open economy. We are very much free marketeers, but we’re also not naive in understanding where the world is headed. And I think in that sense, it is critical to not think of the IGF, multi-stakeholder Internet governance going on over here where we’re all about free, open Internet, which let’s be honest, that is not entirely how the world already looks today, right? That is a vision, and I think it’s a vision that we firmly stand by, and with the EU presidency that we’re going to be assuming in five days from now, 1st of July, that will be the same vision that we will be pursuing through visas and all of the other multilateral bodies. But we have to be very realistic that the world is heading in a different place, one of more protectionism, one where trade is no longer sort of a Kumbaya place for us, but one of a lot of tension, and how to maintain a free, open Internet, because that is a prerequisite for the resilience and the securities of our communities. We had a discussion about this earlier today. How do we take that into the domain of national common interest? By the way, this is Mia entering over there. Any questions? She can’t hear. Which is even better, right? So just to say… She can’t hear what we are talking about. I know, which makes it better. This is really a question of how do we maintain and preserve the model as much as we can in a radically different world, at least for the next couple of years. I don’t have the answer. I have a promise from the Danish government that we will try to do as much as we can on infusing the multi-stakeholder model that we think worked well, not only for Internet governance, but across the board. But it’s not an easy play.

Cheryl Miller: Vanny, I think you wanted…

Veni Markovski: I think this is way better than… Flavia? Very quickly, Vanny.

Flavia Alves: I think when it comes to the discussion around data-free flows of trust and data governance and the conversations we are in internationally now, I think definitely there are conversations on the bilateral level, there are conversations of the EU-US level, there are conversations at the WTO, there are conversations actually in other international multi-stakeholder forums, such as the OECD. And data flows is also not only an economic issue, but it’s also a privacy and security issue, that we need to be careful and balance how we do the safeguards on privacy at the same time on law enforcement and others. So I think there is an excellent work that has been done by the OECD called the Trusted Government Access to Data Flows, Trusted Government Access. And there was an input from not only private privacy agencies, but also law enforcement agencies. And the OECD got input from civil society as well as industry, and there was an agreement on how to approach data flows, to secure data flows, at least among those countries that are from OECD. This work continues at the OECD. But above all, what I believe, there is also a discussion at this, at the UN level in the WSOS process, which you believe should really be taken by other bodies. There are more experts on this, such as the OECD. At the WTO, I understand the conversation is very member state driven. Not even us as private sector, we participate there. So I think in my expertise in this field, I would encourage us to go back to the OECD Trusted Government Access, but then move away from only government’s discussion on this.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. Are there any questions online? No? Okay. Any other questions in the room before we move forward? Okay. And picking up on that point on Trusted Government Access, we have the WSIS Plus 20 Review. We have the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, which came together last year, right? How can we leverage the WSIS Plus 20 Review and the GDC to reinforce trust? Is that possible? Can it reinforce inclusion? And can it reinforce global cooperation and digital governance?

Veni Markovski: I want to start first because, unfortunately, I have to leave for a bilateral, which starts in 10 minutes. But I think it’s very important to take the good things from the GDC, which is, in our case, from ICANN’s point of view, this is the text about internet governance, and use it in the WSIS Plus 20 Review. Because we’ve seen already with the elements paper that was published last Friday that that language is gone completely. Actually, the language that is there about internet governance goes back to, like, 2002, maybe, 2003. And then the other thing which we have to have as a lesson, and we already see that, actually, in the WSIS Plus 20 organization, the Secretariat is way better in managing the WSIS Plus 20. They have multi-stakeholder consultations. They’re taking notes. They’re webcasting some of the stuff, you know. So we are hopeful that the co-facilitators have taken notes and are going to use the WSIS Plus 20 to show how a multi-stakeholder process could be implemented to the limits, of course, of the UN General Assembly Rules of Procedure. Because we know from the WSIS Plus 10, 10 years ago, that there are certain requirements that the governments will never change for that particular process because they cannot be changed just for this process. They have to be changed for every other process. And so we are hoping that this is with regards to the processes and the way they work. Now, also, it’s important to see how the relations between the WSIS and the GDC will be formed, because even though, for example, there was an agreed language in the GDC about the importance of the IGF, later last year in the ICT resolution discussions on the General Assembly, this language was taken back to before it. So for those of you who are listening and who are in the room, please understand that the UN processes are very complex and sometimes very complicated. And even though we have the good desire to provide our factual information, how the Internet works, and what is good in the processes so far, it’s not necessarily that the governments will take this and will not decide to change it. So it’s a very complex process. The ICANN community… The broader internet community had a wake-up call with the Elements paper because they were expecting maybe some support of the multi-stakeholder model, some support for the technical community and that is not in the text. So there is a lot of areas that we would be able to contribute to try to persuade the governments to take the good language from the

Cheryl Miller: GDC. Thank you. Thank you. And Tatiana? Yes, thank you. Just zooming out a bit

Tatjana Trupina: and building upon what Veni said, rather than looking at the text and words and shaping, I would say that how the question is posed, right? Reinforcing trust, reinforcing cooperation. We cannot reinforce trust, we cannot reinforce cooperation if we don’t put multi-stakeholder approach in the core of these processes. Transparency and inclusion at the core. And Jorge, you said, you used the words lip service, right? So this inclusion should not be just talking for participation. I think it is important for stakeholders to see how their input is actually taken into account, for example, in the WSIS review process. And transparency is very much at the core of this as well. And here we can, for example, leverage the NetMundial plus 10 guidelines, which is a very good reference. And secondly, and I think that everybody is talking about this, right? Let’s not duplicate the processes. But I would add something to this. Not only not duplicate the process, let’s not create alternative vehicles or alternative process to what we already have. This would also allow us to avoid duplication as much as possible. Because very few stakeholders, if any, have resources to follow all these multiple complex processes. Venya was talking about complexity of the UN process. And not only to follow, but also resources to contribute to these multiple duplicative trucks. So in this regard, and I think I’ve heard some discussions already happening here, how the IGF and national and regional initiatives can be leveraged as a good vehicle for continuing the WSIS, for strengthening the WSIS implementation and the promise of the WSIS. But also being used as a vehicle for the GDC implementation within the WSIS process. Again, they’re very well positioned to address any issues within the GDC. And there are already existing channels. And any alternative process will significantly undermine this multi-stakeholder collaboration and participation. Also, with regard to IGF being such a vehicle, it should not become an avenue to sideline non-governmental stakeholders. When governments are discussing the GDC implementation or WSIS somewhere else, and other stakeholders are coming and discussing the IGF, no. They should be brought together. And in this regard, the IGF as an avenue should be strengthened as open, inclusive platform. At the same time, the WSIS and the GDC implementation should become more transparent, more open, and more inclusive. So this is a mutual process.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. Thank you. And Jason, I know that the Global Network Initiative has been quite involved in the WSIS plus 20 discussions and the Global Digital Compact. What do you think?

Jason Pielemeier: Yeah, just to kind of synthesize a little bit maybe what Veni and Tatiana was just saying, I think there is good text in the GDC that it would be helpful to see reiterated and underscored in the WSIS. However, the WSIS process has been around for 20 years. It sets out a very broad and I think fairly politically sophisticated approach to global cooperation around the internet and internet governance. The GDC is very new. It’s a process driven by a relatively new office in New York and that was facilitated and negotiated really in New York, which within the UN system is a very different operating environment than Geneva and some of the other centers of conversation multilaterally. So there’s a real concern if the WSIS process essentially becomes transformed into GDC implementation rather than the WSIS being seen as a way to incorporate the objectives of the GDC into an existing process that is built with multi-stakeholder purchase and participation. So I hope that we can see those sort of textual references echoed into the WSIS but without fundamentally changing kind of the locus or the process that WSIS has embodied and hopefully will continue to carry forward.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. Flavia, I know that Meta and many other businesses have been really involved in the WSIS since its inception as well as the Global Digital Compact. What do you think? Do you agree?

Flavia Alves: There are points obviously that I agree with Vinny and Jason. I think if I can step a bit with regard to the WSIS in general, I think it’s important for us to look at the process and the WSIS review right now. And so first we need to see and make sure this process is predictable, is transparent and is inclusive. So to the extent that there are consultations, that there are papers that we need to have enough time to be able to reiterate and connect between civil society and industry and others to submit comments and those comments should actually be taken into account. And I think that’s the process that we think should be established. We see a lot of good intention and it sounds that co-facilitators are trying as much and so we should continue to reinforce that. But then it comes with regard to the WSIS plus 20 resolution per se and I think there is a critical opportunity for us to again reinforce the stakeholder governance framework that we have seen for internet governance in general and we should take advantage of that again and do so. For instance, the definition of internet governance for some might be not an issue right now. We’ve just heard something about like maybe the G7 and G7 are not necessarily concerned with internet governance. They are more concerned with AI access and etc. But I really think that we do not need to lose this opportunity to again reinforce internet governance, to again reinforce the principle of a mood stakeholder approach to internet governance that we should be seeing on the definition that is right now in the elements paper. It’s not. When it comes then to internet governance too, obviously it’s very important to renew the IGF mandate and now I wonder is it important to renew or to make it permanent? Should we look into partnering with others and making it permanent? Are we, I mean as Cyril said, I was there at the WSIS resolutions discussions 10 years ago and we were discussing exactly the same. Obviously I’m getting old but it went too fast. 10 years is too much, too fast and we are here again. Should we make it permanent? It has been successful. We are having more and more participation from delegations such as China and Russia and others that before were not necessarily supposed or not approved or approval of the IGF process but now not only that but they also are hosting. I mean we all have an agreement here with countries that IGF it’s important. So I think we should take this opportunity to make it permanent and then obviously on the WSIS and the negotiation process, given the geopolitical process where we are, the UN negotiations now, issues such as human rights, AI, content information integrity, internet liability, copyrights and etc. are going to be taken, are going to be brought up and I think we should go back to what the resolution has been adopted before and go into those principles but also take into account what has been discussed at GDC and that’s how I go to Vinny’s point. I don’t think we should open again the discussion around AI. I don’t think we should open again the discussion of human rights. Human rights text at the GDC is actually, I mean Jason is much more of an expert but it’s actually something that we worked in and we support and so we want to see action on that. Does that make sense to open again with the same stakeholders the discussion about human rights and internet? So us adopting that text, it’s going to be interesting and then finally I think there are things that are good that everyone is working towards and we should continue but not forget it’s too very important connectivity. There was a huge focus on connectivity, spectrum access, you’re there as well, connectivity access and etc. It’s too important that we try to bridge the digital divide. It’s too important that we try to assure that connect communities have access to the latest technology and emerging technologies so that I must say for instance on artificial intelligence, open source artificial intelligence has been shown as a way of actually getting much more people using the tool than any other. So we would be supportive of something around that. I think the negotiation should start in topics that we actually agree on. So connectivity, access, education, research. Are we talking research? And of course, topics that we have issues that are hard to agree on, let’s leverage the GDC that has already been adopted. I know, long short, just to make sure that I do think both the WISAs and the GDC can actually be put together somehow as we lead to the December negotiations.

Cheryl Miller: Great points, thank you. And connectivity is so important, so thank you for raising that. With respect to making the IGF permanent, that is a topic that we’ve heard in a number of different meetings. It’s been here for 20 years and it has had some great results and some great success. Does that mean that it’s permanent already? Do we just make that push for it? It was one of the conversations that Flavia and I were just in recently. From a government perspective, Anne-Marie, what do you think?

Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar: I think many things. One is on this discussion between WISAs and GDC alignment and negotiating text and sort of the outcomes. I think we advocate for transparent, inclusive negotiations of the WISAs. We very much support permanently institutionalizing the IGF because more global conversations about process, I don’t think it’s going to lead to better outcomes. It’s also about institutionalizing what works. That goes to my second point on all of this. As we are negotiating and spending years, it feels like for years, since the first panel was set up in Geneva that led to the GDC, that led to the Office of the Tech Envoy. Now with WISAs, with NetMundial, going back to my initial conversations, that the geopolitical backdrop is completely changing. Erosion of trust, an altered global environment as we know it. If individual people, citizens are to trust these UN processes actually delivering open, free, secure, stable Internet and access for everyone to participate in the technological revolution, we need to focus on how to deliver that actually and not just negotiate text. This is not to diminish the incredible work that many of us spend so much of our time on, which is negotiating commas and sentences and words. But ultimately, if we do not want to lose so many countries who still have yet to fully participate in the digital revolution and harvest that for prosperity, for human rights, for security, for dignity, for opportunity for all, we need to be thinking a lot more about what can we do on actually implementing this. I was just on maternity leave, so I’ve been away for some months, and I come back and curious. Congratulations. Thank you so much. What have we done? And the thing is that this takes a long time. But if you look at the commitments in the GDC on delivering on the SDGs and leveraging digital, we have so much work ahead of us. And I say that as a government. We say this in a time when we know that civil society is losing funding. We know this is a time where a lot of funding also going to digital connectivity is gone, where platforms are stepping back a little bit on platform accountability. So I think that this IGF should be not just about the negotiated text and how we do processes in New York and Geneva, but much more on how do we deliver for those who are on the fence of whether to be with us or be against us on these negotiations so that they trust us and that they see that the multistakeholder model is delivering on the promises that we made.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. And on your point on the dots and the commas and the hard work, Jorge, I know that you have been hard at work. You’re also on the multistakeholder advisory group with me, and you’ve put so much into the IGF and other things. What are your thoughts?

Jorge Cancio: Yeah. Thank you. So it’s difficult to sum up. Maybe some of you know that there’s been a non-paper being circulated by the Swiss, so by my government. And if you are interested and you don’t know it, please approach us because we are happy to share. And we’ve been building that over many conversations, not only in New York, in the Western countries or in the Global North, but with many partners from the Global South to really see how we can build a UN system on digital governance that delivers for all. And that means to really look into the what and the how and how we get there. And on the what, I agree very much that it will be very difficult to go beyond what we agreed last year in the Global Digital Compact. There’s a lot of substance there. Maybe if the process of WSIS plus 20 is stronger, more inclusive, maybe we can move the needle in one or two issues, but it will be a hard thing. But more important that what is on paper is how we put it to work. And there, especially thinking about this UN80, which is a budget cut process within the UN system, we cannot afford any baroque duplications and having parallel processes and some of them established ex-novo. We have to update and use the WSIS framework. And the WSIS framework is really the UN agencies putting the WSIS vision and the WSIS action lines into work together with stakeholders all over the world. And that’s what we have to update, putting the new agreements of the GDC into that work. That’s why we are advocating for a joint implementation roadmap of the GDC integrated into WSIS. And we are advocating also to update the existing WSIS architecture, which is different UN bodies and UN structures, to instill them with a multi-stakeholder approach to include stakeholder participation in the different steps of the work of the United Nations in this field. And of course, of improving and strengthening the IGF, making it permanent with a stable funding, a mixed funding, voluntary contributions, but also UN contributions. And that will be a hard fight, but we are not talking about tens of millions. We are talking about a couple of millions, so it’s doable. And we are also talking about other specific measures that we explain in our non-paper. So I think that, of course, the elements paper is lacking in many things. And as we have discussed here, it is also due to the fact that the co-facilitators decided to exclude everything that was minimally controversial. So it’s very important for all stakeholders, for all of you, for all of us to really participate in this consultation until the 15th of July. Put forward specific proposals, wording proposals, if possible, on how to improve things. We will, of course, do on the basis of our non-paper. And let’s use all channels of participation to the furthest extent possible. The co-facilitators are showing some willingness to go along the lines of the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines. For instance, they have decided to establish this informal multi-stakeholder sounding board to help them in the negotiation process. And it’s important that this is not just an elite group formed by a couple of members of the IGF leadership panel and the IGF MAC. It’s important that those members are really connected to the rest of the global community and act as a spokesperson group of the multi-stakeholder community in order to be in the negotiation process. And of course, we as governments, we have different possibilities to include stakeholders like embedding them in our delegations. And we for sure are going to try to do that again as we’ve done in the past.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you so much. And we’re moving toward the end, but I want to check with our online participants. Is there anyone that wants to ask a question or make a comment? No? Anyone in the room that would like to comment on anything that’s been said? Come on up to the mic. If you can just let us know your name and who you’re with, that would be great. Thank you very much.

Audience: Juan Ortiz, PhD candidate at USC. I feel another elephant in the room is perhaps the inequality within the network currently that, you know, we have massive companies. If you put Google and YouTube together, they have the same amount of clicks as the next one. We have a massive inequality in the distribution of value of being together. The 10 richest people, I think 8 of them have made money off the internet, so we’re talking about connectivity, we want to connect everyone, but what are we connecting them to? We have very little technical distribution, the main companies keep their headquarters in the US, they don’t create jobs elsewhere, and we have the weaponization of these infrastructures so the ICC emails got cut by Microsoft, so how are we going to remain together if being together implies weaponization, implies inequality, implies lack of distribution of value, so I think one of the elephants in the room is what’s happening with antitrust, what’s happening with taxes, what’s happening with disarmament.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you for your comment, collaboration comes to mind when you mention that. Does anyone on the panel want to respond or make a comment?

Jorge Cancio: I wished I had the response to that, but I think it’s important if we are talking about multi-stakeholder approach and you look into the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines which were adopted last year, the first guideline addresses that point, the point of asymmetries of power, asymmetries of influence, so it’s really a very tough question, but I think we can evolve also the multi-stakeholder approach to at least try to address some of those issues.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you, Annemarie?

Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar: It’s absolutely an elephant in the room. I think there are three main things that we’re doing from my own perspective. One is the DMA, so the European legislation on actually trying to make better market access for more players. Two, how do we support innovation, because right now I think the power grab and rightly so much of internet traffic is really within very, very few platforms, so how do we support an innovation for European companies, companies from all over the world that can deliver internet platforms to compete and allow for diversity, because with that also comes the diversity of what are we discussing online, how are we discussing online, how are we engaging online, what are we using and spending our time on digitally, and then I do think the third one, and that goes back to how we’re thinking about the multi-stakeholder cooperation, which is really also around platform accountability, because it’s going to be some time before that we’re going to see a fundamentally different picture of how it looks today, but I do think just as a hopeful comment, this is not the end of the digital revolution. Just because this is how it evolved for the past 10, 15 years, you have very few companies who have been incredibly successful to the point that we have very few others competing with them, why can’t we change that? I mean, the evolution, and I think especially the incredible innovators out there, the open source community, who I think sort of ebbs and flows over the past 30 years, but have gained an incredible traction again, the use of AI, not only from the existing live platforms, but very much in the hands of people around the world. Maria Ressa is here with Rappler, there’s so many new platforms that are starting to see the day of light, we have discussions on how are we meaningfully engaging online, and that also means diversifying the services that we’re using, so I do find there should be this, this is not the sort of the height of it, and from here on it’s just downwards, we’re really at an opportunity and an inflection point, I think, for a rethinking the internet we want, and how does it live up to the hopeful expectations back in 1992 of actually providing this wide array of opportunities, and emancipation for individuals and citizens in all sorts of acceptance form rather than where we are today.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you so much, and as we close out, maybe we can close out this way, I’d like to give everyone just really, really quickly, we’ll go down, what specific actions, we’ve had a lot of discussion about what we need to do, but what specific actions could we prioritize if we are to ensure meaningful, inclusive, and effective multi-stakeholder cooperation? Tatyana?

Tatjana Trupina: Yes, I can start, just to sum up basically what we discussed here, first of all we should continue demanding that the WSIS plus 20 review and GDC implementation process is transparent and inclusive, that stakeholders input is taken into account, and we should participate as Jorge said, and in terms of priorities, I have three, protect the global interoperability and connectivity, ensure that this is put at the core, secondly, strengthen the multi-stakeholder cooperation by reaffirming commitment to the multi-stakeholder model in the WSIS plus 20 and also by evolving the IGF and renewing its mandate, also making it permanent, and thirdly, and this goes to what was said about connectivity, the original WSIS goal was connectivity, we still have one third of the world not connected, the WSIS has to deliver, we have to strengthen its implementation to address the current and emerging digital divides.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you, and we’re running short on time, so I’m going to give Flavia the last word.

Flavia Alves: Sure, so I think one thing very quickly and following the question from the audience as well, it is important that on the multi-stakeholder to make sure it works, that every single stakeholder play their role, and so for instance when we say about making sure the internet is accessible, free and open for everyone, how do we do that as us, I speak for industry now, we invest in connectivity, we have just announced a super, a submarine cable that is one of the biggest that is called Project W, it’s going to go around to have users, to give users access to the latest technologies we have, but our users are also not necessarily receiving information, they are actually small business, selling, trading and creating in our platform, so that responds to the economic question, we are also helping increasing economic value in this country, but then when it comes to the use of platforms, it’s important for us to also invest on education and awareness, 10 years ago we were discussing the importance of helping education, including accessibility, awareness programs, to make sure folks are using the internet as they should, there are people that have access but may not know necessarily how to use the internet, but then when it comes to the WSIS, I have said my points before, making sure the process is right, making sure internet governance is included and multistakeholder process is defined there too.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you so much, and I want to say thank you so much to our audience, thank you for the questions, for our online audience as well, thank you so much for joining us, and for anyone who, raise your hand if you are an IGF newcomer, if this is your first IGF, that’s awesome, so I hope that we keep continuing to see you guys in these meetings, I hope that you get involved, and I hope to be sitting there and listening to you guys up here at one of your next panels, maybe at the next IGF, so thank you so much, and let’s give it up for our panel.

Agreement points

Need for transparent, inclusive, and meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in WSIS Plus 20 and digital governance processes

Speakers

– Veni Markovski
– Tatjana Trupina
– Jason Pielemeier
– Flavia Alves
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

Good language from the GDC about Internet governance should be incorporated into WSIS Plus 20, as current elements paper lacks multi-stakeholder support

Multi-stakeholder approach must be at the core with transparency and inclusion, not just lip service

WSIS should incorporate GDC objectives without being transformed into GDC implementation, maintaining its 20-year multi-stakeholder foundation

The process must be predictable, transparent, and inclusive, with opportunity to reinforce Internet governance principles and make IGF permanent

A joint implementation roadmap integrating GDC into WSIS framework is needed, avoiding baroque duplications

Summary

All speakers agree that the WSIS Plus 20 review process must be genuinely transparent and inclusive, with meaningful stakeholder participation rather than token consultation. They emphasize the need to preserve and strengthen multi-stakeholder principles while integrating lessons from the Global Digital Compact.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

IGF should be made permanent given its 20-year track record of success

Speakers

– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar
– Tatjana Trupina
– Flavia Alves
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

IGF should be institutionalized as what works, rather than creating more global conversation processes

IGF and national/regional initiatives should be leveraged for continuing WSIS implementation without sidelining non-governmental stakeholders

The process must be predictable, transparent, and inclusive, with opportunity to reinforce Internet governance principles and make IGF permanent

IGF should be made permanent with stable mixed funding and serve as a vehicle for WSIS and GDC implementation

Summary

Multiple speakers strongly support making the IGF permanent, recognizing its proven effectiveness over 20 years and its potential role as a vehicle for implementing both WSIS and GDC objectives. They see permanence as institutionalizing what works rather than continuing endless process discussions.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Regulatory approaches must consider technical implications and avoid Internet fragmentation

Speakers

– Veni Markovski
– Tatjana Trupina
– Jason Pielemeier
– Flavia Alves

Arguments

Governments sometimes regulate without consulting technical experts, leading to potential Internet fragmentation

Tension exists between sovereign state borders and the open, interoperable Internet, with focus on national policies potentially harming global connectivity

Imprecise regulatory responses to Internet harms create cross-border impacts, though some efforts like the Digital Services Act show more promise

Data localization and digital protectionism calls result in censorship and Internet fragmentation

Summary

Speakers agree that while governments have legitimate concerns about security and safety, regulatory approaches must consider technical implications and avoid fragmenting the global, interoperable Internet. They advocate for consulting technical experts and using more precise, proportionate regulatory frameworks.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Connectivity and bridging the digital divide remain critical priorities

Speakers

– Tatjana Trupina
– Flavia Alves
– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar

Arguments

Original WSIS connectivity goals remain unmet with one-third of the world still unconnected, requiring strengthened implementation

Connectivity and bridging the digital divide should be prioritized topics where stakeholders can find agreement

Focus should be on delivering actual outcomes rather than just negotiating text, especially for countries still joining the digital revolution

Summary

Speakers emphasize that the original WSIS goal of universal connectivity remains unfulfilled, with one-third of the world still unconnected. They agree this should be a priority area where stakeholders can find common ground and focus on actual implementation rather than just policy discussions.

Topics

Development | Digital access

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers, representing technical community perspectives, emphasize the need to salvage good language from the Global Digital Compact and integrate it into WSIS Plus 20, while avoiding duplication of processes. They share concern about the regression in the current elements paper.

Speakers

– Veni Markovski
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

Good language from the GDC about Internet governance should be incorporated into WSIS Plus 20, as current elements paper lacks multi-stakeholder support

A joint implementation roadmap integrating GDC into WSIS framework is needed, avoiding baroque duplications

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers acknowledge the fundamental tension between national sovereignty concerns and maintaining global Internet connectivity, recognizing that current geopolitical shifts are making international cooperation more challenging.

Speakers

– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar
– Tatjana Trupina

Arguments

Shifting geopolitical order and erosion of trust are making cooperation increasingly difficult

Tension exists between sovereign state borders and the open, interoperable Internet, with focus on national policies potentially harming global connectivity

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers, representing civil society and industry perspectives, share concerns about how regulatory responses to legitimate harms can create unintended consequences for Internet freedom and global connectivity, while acknowledging some regulatory efforts are more appropriate than others.

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Flavia Alves

Arguments

Imprecise regulatory responses to Internet harms create cross-border impacts, though some efforts like the Digital Services Act show more promise

Data localization and digital protectionism calls result in censorship and Internet fragmentation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Making IGF permanent after 20 years of temporary mandates

Speakers

– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar
– Tatjana Trupina
– Flavia Alves
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

IGF should be institutionalized as what works, rather than creating more global conversation processes

IGF and national/regional initiatives should be leveraged for continuing WSIS implementation without sidelining non-governmental stakeholders

The process must be predictable, transparent, and inclusive, with opportunity to reinforce Internet governance principles and make IGF permanent

IGF should be made permanent with stable mixed funding and serve as a vehicle for WSIS and GDC implementation

Explanation

The strong consensus across government, civil society, industry, and international organization representatives for making the IGF permanent is somewhat unexpected given the traditional reluctance of UN processes to create permanent institutions. The fact that even a government representative strongly advocates for this shows significant shift in thinking.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Acknowledgment of digital inequality and market concentration as legitimate concerns requiring attention

Speakers

– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar
– Jorge Cancio
– Flavia Alves

Arguments

European legislation like DMA, innovation support, and platform accountability are needed to address market concentration

Power asymmetries must be addressed through evolved multi-stakeholder approaches as outlined in São Paulo guidelines

Industry plays a role through connectivity investments, supporting small businesses on platforms, and education programs

Explanation

The consensus among government, civil society, and industry representatives that digital inequality and market concentration are real problems requiring attention is unexpected, as these stakeholders often have different perspectives on market regulation. Even the industry representative acknowledges the need for addressing these issues.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on procedural issues around multi-stakeholder governance, IGF permanence, the need for transparent and inclusive processes, and the importance of avoiding Internet fragmentation. They also agree on the continued importance of connectivity and bridging the digital divide.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on governance processes and institutional arrangements, with broad agreement on the need to preserve Internet openness while addressing legitimate regulatory concerns. This suggests potential for meaningful progress in WSIS Plus 20 negotiations if procedural agreements can be maintained and translated into substantive outcomes.

Different viewpoints

Approach to addressing digital inequality and market concentration

Speakers

– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar
– Audience (Juan Ortiz)

Arguments

European legislation like DMA, innovation support, and platform accountability are needed to address market concentration

Massive inequality exists in Internet value distribution, with few companies dominating traffic and wealth creation

Summary

While both acknowledge the problem of digital inequality, Ingtof Milgar presents an optimistic view focusing on regulatory solutions like the DMA and supporting innovation, expressing hope that the digital revolution can be redirected. The audience member presents a more critical perspective, emphasizing the severity of current inequality and questioning whether connectivity efforts are meaningful given the concentration of power and weaponization of infrastructure.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Optimism vs. pessimism about the future of digital governance

Speakers

– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar
– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar

Arguments

Shifting geopolitical order and erosion of trust are making cooperation increasingly difficult

European legislation like DMA, innovation support, and platform accountability are needed to address market concentration

Explanation

Unexpectedly, the same speaker (Ingtof Milgar) presents seemingly contradictory viewpoints – expressing deep concern about geopolitical uncertainty and erosion of trust making cooperation ‘incredibly hard,’ while simultaneously expressing optimism about the potential for change and innovation in the digital landscape. This internal contradiction reflects the complex and uncertain nature of current digital governance challenges.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed remarkably high consensus among speakers on fundamental principles and goals, with disagreements primarily focused on implementation approaches rather than core objectives. The main areas of disagreement centered on the extent of GDC-WSIS integration and approaches to addressing digital inequality.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers shared common ground on supporting multi-stakeholder governance, making IGF permanent, ensuring transparency and inclusion, and addressing connectivity gaps. The disagreements were primarily tactical rather than strategic, focusing on ‘how’ rather than ‘what’ or ‘why.’ This suggests a mature policy community with shared values but different perspectives on implementation pathways. The implications are generally positive for advancing multi-stakeholder digital governance, as the consensus on principles provides a strong foundation for negotiating implementation details.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers, representing technical community perspectives, emphasize the need to salvage good language from the Global Digital Compact and integrate it into WSIS Plus 20, while avoiding duplication of processes. They share concern about the regression in the current elements paper.

Speakers

– Veni Markovski
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

Good language from the GDC about Internet governance should be incorporated into WSIS Plus 20, as current elements paper lacks multi-stakeholder support

A joint implementation roadmap integrating GDC into WSIS framework is needed, avoiding baroque duplications

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers acknowledge the fundamental tension between national sovereignty concerns and maintaining global Internet connectivity, recognizing that current geopolitical shifts are making international cooperation more challenging.

Speakers

– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar
– Tatjana Trupina

Arguments

Shifting geopolitical order and erosion of trust are making cooperation increasingly difficult

Tension exists between sovereign state borders and the open, interoperable Internet, with focus on national policies potentially harming global connectivity

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers, representing civil society and industry perspectives, share concerns about how regulatory responses to legitimate harms can create unintended consequences for Internet freedom and global connectivity, while acknowledging some regulatory efforts are more appropriate than others.

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Flavia Alves

Arguments

Imprecise regulatory responses to Internet harms create cross-border impacts, though some efforts like the Digital Services Act show more promise

Data localization and digital protectionism calls result in censorship and Internet fragmentation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder digital governance faces significant challenges from shifting geopolitical tensions, erosion of trust, and increasing protectionism that are making global cooperation more difficult

There is fundamental tension between sovereign state borders and the open, interoperable Internet, with national regulatory approaches potentially causing unintended fragmentation

The WSIS Plus 20 review process offers an opportunity to reinforce multi-stakeholder principles and Internet governance frameworks, but current elements paper lacks adequate multi-stakeholder language

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) contains good language on Internet governance that should be incorporated into WSIS Plus 20 without transforming WSIS into mere GDC implementation

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should be made permanent given its 20-year track record and growing participation, including from previously skeptical countries

Digital inequality and market concentration represent significant challenges, with few companies dominating Internet traffic and value creation

One-third of the world remains unconnected, indicating that original WSIS connectivity goals still require urgent attention and strengthened implementation

Meaningful multi-stakeholder cooperation requires transparency, inclusion, and stakeholder input being genuinely taken into account, not just lip service

Resolutions and action items

Participate in WSIS Plus 20 consultation process until July 15th deadline with specific wording proposals to improve the elements paper

Advocate for incorporating good Internet governance language from the GDC into the WSIS Plus 20 review

Push for making the IGF permanent with stable mixed funding (voluntary contributions plus UN contributions)

Establish a joint implementation roadmap integrating GDC into WSIS framework to avoid duplication

Ensure the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board acts as genuine spokesperson for the global community rather than just an elite group

Governments should embed stakeholders in their delegations during negotiations

Leverage IGF and national/regional initiatives as vehicles for WSIS and GDC implementation

Focus on delivering actual outcomes rather than just negotiating text, especially for countries still joining the digital revolution

Unresolved issues

How to effectively address power asymmetries and digital inequality within the multi-stakeholder model

Whether and how to incorporate multi-stakeholder participation into World Trade Organization negotiations on digital trade issues

How to balance legitimate government concerns about security and citizen protection with maintaining global Internet interoperability

The relationship and coordination between WSIS Plus 20 and GDC implementation processes remains unclear

How to ensure adequate funding for IGF if made permanent, particularly securing UN budget contributions

How to address market concentration and the dominance of few major Internet platforms

How to meaningfully connect one-third of the world that remains unconnected to the Internet

How to maintain multi-stakeholder cooperation effectiveness in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical environment

Suggested compromises

Use existing WSIS framework and update it rather than creating new parallel processes to avoid duplication and resource strain

Focus negotiations on topics where stakeholders can find agreement (connectivity, access, education, research) while leveraging already-agreed GDC text for contentious issues

Adopt risk management frameworks that allow flexibility for different platforms rather than one-size-fits-all regulation

Establish mixed funding model for IGF combining voluntary contributions with UN budget allocations

Create joint implementation roadmap that integrates GDC objectives into existing WSIS architecture rather than separate processes

Use São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines as reference for addressing power asymmetries while maintaining inclusive participation

Embed stakeholders in government delegations and use informal multi-stakeholder sounding boards to bridge governmental and non-governmental participation

We got to be very honest that the fact that we’re trying to think about multi-stakeholder cooperation in a time that is a shifting geopolitical order, the last three decades of an international rule-based order are right now at a conjunction where I’m not sure what the answer is going to be a few years down the line. There’s an uncertainty. There’s an intensified strategic and economic competition globally, and we do not know the outcome of that.

Speaker

Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it directly addressed the fundamental tension underlying the entire discussion – how to maintain cooperative frameworks when the geopolitical foundations that enabled them are shifting. It moved beyond technical discussions to acknowledge the existential uncertainty facing multilateral cooperation.

Impact

This comment set a more realistic and sobering tone for the discussion, moving it away from purely technical solutions toward acknowledging the broader political constraints. It influenced subsequent speakers to address the tension between sovereignty and global cooperation more directly.

There’s kind of like a missing link or an elephant in the room that you’re not talking about… the protectionism and fundamentally the fragmentation and the sovereignty concerns you’re talking about are fundamentally about digital free trade… Do you think it’s possible for the multistakeholder model… could we infuse that process with multistakeholder participation the way we have, let’s say, in ICANN and the IGF?

Speaker

Milton Mueller

Reason

This intervention was thought-provoking because it identified a critical gap in the discussion – the panel was discussing governance fragmentation without addressing its root cause in trade disputes. Mueller reframed the entire conversation by pointing out that digital governance issues are fundamentally trade issues, requiring engagement with different institutional frameworks like the WTO.

Impact

This comment forced the panel to confront the limitations of their multi-stakeholder approach when applied to trade negotiations, leading to more nuanced discussions about where multi-stakeholder models can and cannot be effectively applied. It broadened the scope of the conversation beyond traditional internet governance forums.

There is a tension, especially in the current geopolitical climate, between sovereign states and their borders, and them trying to navigate this climate. And tension between states and sovereign borders and the open, interoperable, and globally connected Internet… This tension cannot be resolved just by saying, okay, let’s ditch the multi-stakeholder process, let’s go to more national, intergovernmental, multilateral regulatory processes.

Speaker

Tatjana Trupina

Reason

This comment was insightful because it articulated the core structural tension that underlies all digital governance challenges – the fundamental mismatch between territorial sovereignty and borderless digital networks. It also provided a clear argument for why multi-stakeholder approaches remain necessary despite these tensions.

Impact

This framing helped other panelists structure their responses around this central tension, leading to more focused discussions about how to balance legitimate state concerns with global connectivity. It provided a conceptual framework that other speakers built upon throughout the discussion.

I feel another elephant in the room is perhaps the inequality within the network currently… we have massive inequality in the distribution of value… how are we going to remain together if being together implies weaponization, implies inequality, implies lack of distribution of value?

Speaker

Juan Ortiz

Reason

This comment was particularly thought-provoking because it challenged the fundamental assumption that connectivity and cooperation are inherently good. By highlighting power asymmetries and the weaponization of digital infrastructure, it forced the panel to confront whether the current internet model is worth preserving or needs fundamental restructuring.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion from procedural questions about governance mechanisms to substantive questions about power distribution and economic justice. It forced panelists to acknowledge that technical solutions cannot address underlying structural inequalities, leading to more honest discussions about the limitations of current approaches.

We cannot reinforce trust, we cannot reinforce cooperation if we don’t put multi-stakeholder approach in the core of these processes. Transparency and inclusion at the core… this inclusion should not be just talking for participation… it is important for stakeholders to see how their input is actually taken into account.

Speaker

Tatjana Trupina

Reason

This comment was insightful because it moved beyond advocating for multi-stakeholder participation to identifying why such participation often fails – the gap between consultation and actual influence. It highlighted that procedural inclusion without substantive impact undermines trust rather than building it.

Impact

This observation led other panelists to discuss specific mechanisms for ensuring meaningful participation, such as Jorge’s mention of embedding stakeholders in government delegations and the need for transparent feedback on how input is used. It elevated the discussion from advocacy to implementation details.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by forcing participants to move beyond technical solutions and procedural fixes to confront the deeper structural and political challenges facing multi-stakeholder digital governance. Anne Marie’s opening acknowledgment of geopolitical uncertainty set a realistic tone that prevented the discussion from becoming overly optimistic about technical solutions. Milton Mueller’s intervention about trade forced recognition that digital governance issues cannot be solved within traditional internet governance forums alone. The comments about power asymmetries and meaningful participation pushed the conversation toward more honest assessments of current limitations. Together, these interventions created a more sophisticated and nuanced discussion that acknowledged both the value of multi-stakeholder approaches and their significant constraints in the current global environment. The result was a conversation that balanced advocacy for existing institutions with realistic assessment of the challenges they face.

Can the multistakeholder model be infused into WTO negotiations to address digital trade and data flow issues?

Speaker

Milton Mueller

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental tension between digital sovereignty and free trade, questioning whether civil society and other stakeholders could participate in WTO processes similar to their participation in ICANN and IGF

Should the IGF mandate be made permanent rather than renewed every few years?

Speaker

Flavia Alves

Explanation

Given the IGF’s 20-year track record and increasing participation from countries like China and Russia, this questions whether the current renewal process is still necessary or if permanent status would provide more stability

How can we ensure meaningful implementation of digital governance frameworks rather than just negotiating text?

Speaker

Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar

Explanation

This highlights the need to focus on actual delivery of outcomes for citizens and countries rather than spending years on textual negotiations, especially given the changing geopolitical backdrop

How can power asymmetries and inequality within the internet ecosystem be addressed through multistakeholder governance?

Speaker

Juan Ortiz

Explanation

This addresses the concentration of power among major tech companies, lack of value distribution, and weaponization of internet infrastructure, questioning what people are being connected to when we talk about connectivity

How can the relationship between WSIS and GDC implementation be structured to avoid duplication while leveraging existing frameworks?

Speaker

Multiple speakers (Veni Markovski, Jason Pielemeier, Jorge Cancio)

Explanation

This explores how to integrate GDC objectives into the established WSIS process without creating parallel or competing frameworks, ensuring efficient use of resources and maintaining multistakeholder participation

How can multistakeholder processes be strengthened to ensure input is actually taken into account rather than being lip service?

Speaker

Tatjana Trupina and Jorge Cancio

Explanation

This addresses the need for transparency and meaningful inclusion in governance processes, ensuring stakeholder contributions have real impact on outcomes

What mechanisms can ensure the informal multistakeholder sounding board for WSIS+20 represents the broader community rather than just an elite group?

Speaker

Jorge Cancio

Explanation

This concerns the structure and representativeness of stakeholder participation in the WSIS+20 negotiation process to ensure genuine community input