Day 0 Event #16 IGF Lac Space

Summary

This discussion focused on the evolution and future of Internet governance in Latin America and the Caribbean, marking the 20th anniversary of the Global Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session was structured in two rounds, with the first examining the historical development of multi-stakeholder governance in the region and the second exploring future challenges and opportunities.

Participants highlighted significant regional achievements over the past two decades, including the establishment of LACNIC, the Latin American and Caribbean IGF, and the Caribbean IGF among the world’s first regional forums. Speakers emphasized that the region has demonstrated strong capacity for multi-stakeholder dialogue and collaboration, with successful examples like Brazil’s Internet Management Committee serving as models for inclusive governance. However, panelists acknowledged persistent challenges, noting that current multi-stakeholder processes often lack broad participation from all sectors and sometimes fail to reach meaningful conclusions.

The discussion revealed concerns about the fragility of democratic dialogue in an increasingly polarized world, with speakers calling for more efficient mechanisms that move beyond mere discussion to concrete cooperation and action. Participants stressed the importance of addressing regional inequalities, digital gaps, and human rights protection in digital environments. The role of civil society was highlighted as crucial, though speakers noted growing pressures on these organizations through funding constraints and political challenges.

Looking toward the future, panelists emphasized the need to strengthen regional coordination, develop shared digital infrastructure, and ensure meaningful participation in global governance processes like the WSIS+20 review. The session concluded with calls for continued capacity building, better integration of diverse stakeholders, and protection of the multi-stakeholder model against emerging threats to democratic participation in Internet governance.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **20-Year Evolution of Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance in Latin America and Caribbean**: Speakers reflected on the region’s pioneering role in multi-stakeholder governance, including early adoption of IGF models, creation of LACNIC, and successful regional collaboration, while acknowledging that dialogue processes sometimes fail to reach concrete conclusions.

– **Current Challenges to the Multi-stakeholder Model**: Participants identified significant threats including rising authoritarianism, democratic setbacks, monopolization by large tech companies, fragmentation of governance spaces, and difficulties for civil society organizations to participate meaningfully in increasingly complex and numerous governance processes.

– **Need for Enhanced Regional Cooperation and Concrete Action**: Speakers emphasized moving beyond dialogue to collaborative projects, developing regional digital infrastructure, coordinating responses to AI and cybersecurity challenges, and creating mechanisms that address the specific needs and inequalities of Latin American and Caribbean communities.

– **WSIS+20 Review Process and Future Governance**: Discussion focused on the importance of the World Summit on Information Society review process, integration of the Global Digital Compact, and ensuring that established multi-stakeholder principles from NetMundial and São Paulo guidelines are maintained and strengthened rather than diluted.

– **Urgent Issues Requiring Regional Attention**: Participants highlighted immediate concerns including internet shutdowns during protests (specifically in Panama), funding crises for civil society organizations, the need for differentiated approaches to global challenges, and the importance of training new generations of governance participants.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to commemorate 20 years of the Internet Governance Forum while critically assessing the current state and future of multi-stakeholder internet governance in Latin America and the Caribbean. The session sought to identify regional achievements, persistent challenges, and strategies for strengthening collaborative governance models in an increasingly complex digital landscape.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive yet sobering tone throughout. It began with celebratory recognition of regional achievements and pioneering efforts in multi-stakeholder governance, but gradually shifted to express serious concerns about current threats to the model. The tone became more urgent when addressing immediate challenges like civil society funding crises and internet shutdowns, while maintaining an underlying commitment to collaborative solutions and regional solidarity. Despite acknowledging significant obstacles, participants remained cautiously optimistic about the region’s capacity for continued cooperation and innovation in internet governance.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Moderator** – Session moderator for the first round of discussions

– **Raul Echeverría** – Executive Director of ALAI (Latin American Internet Association)

– **Ernesto Majo** – Executive Director of LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry)

– **Veronica Ferrari** – Coordinator of Policies and Global Incidence at APC (Association for Progressive Communications)

– **Nigel Cassimire** – Telecommunications Specialist at Caribbean Telecommunications Union

– **Rocío de la Fuente** – Session moderator for the second round of discussions

– **Carolina Aguerre** – Doctor and expert in global governance and internet policies, Associate Professor at Universidad Católica del Uruguay

– **Renata Mielli** – Coordinator of the Internet Management Committee in Brazil (CGIBR), Special Advisor to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in Brazil

– **Paloma Lara Castro** – Director of Public Policies at Digital Rights

– **Olga Cavalli** – Dean of the Faculty of Defense (Ministry of Defense of Argentina)

– **Erick Iriarte** – Tribunal of Ethics of the Peruvian Press Council in Peru

– **Participants** – Multiple unidentified participants who made various interventions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Iria Puyolza** – From the Atlantic Council Democracy and Tech Initiative

– **Lilian Chamorro** – Secretary of the AQGF (Latin American and Caribbean IGF)

– **Cristian Robles** – From IPANDETEC, organization working for digital rights in Central America and the Caribbean

– **Gabriel Adonailo** – From LaQX (Association of Internet Exchange Points of Latin America and the Caribbean)

# Report: 20 Years of Internet Governance in Latin America and the Caribbean – Evolution, Challenges, and Future Directions

## Executive Summary

This discussion examined the evolution of Internet governance in Latin America and the Caribbean, marking the 20th anniversary of the Global Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session brought together regional experts, policymakers, and civil society representatives to assess two decades of multi-stakeholder governance achievements while addressing current challenges facing collaborative governance models.

The discussion was structured in two 30-minute segments: the first examining historical development and successes of multi-stakeholder governance in the region, and the second exploring contemporary challenges and future opportunities. Participants celebrated the region’s pioneering role in multi-stakeholder governance while acknowledging concerns about current limitations and emerging threats to democratic participation in Internet governance processes.

## Historical Achievements and Regional Leadership

### Pioneering Multi-stakeholder Models

**Raul Echeverría**, Executive Director of ALAI, emphasized the region’s early success in multi-stakeholder work, highlighting the collaborative creation of LACNIC as an example of community-driven governance. He noted that LACNIC is celebrating its 30th anniversary, demonstrating the longevity of successful regional initiatives.

**Ernesto Majo**, Executive Director of LACNIC, detailed how LACNIC emerged organically from community processes and has maintained its collaborative approach. He emphasized that this success stemmed from genuine community engagement rather than imposed structures.

**Nigel Cassimire**, Telecommunications Specialist at the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, noted that the Caribbean IGF began in 2005, predating the global IGF by one year. This early adoption created policy frameworks that subsequently spawned national IGFs throughout the Caribbean. He mentioned the Caribbean Internet Governance Policy Framework document, now in its fourth edition, and announced the upcoming 21st Caribbean IGF in Varadero, Cuba, from August 20-22.

### Institutional Successes and Capacity Building

**Olga Cavalli**, Dean of the Faculty of Defence at Argentina’s Ministry of Defence, highlighted successful training programs, including the 17th edition of the School of Southern Internet Governance in Mexico with 400 students. She also mentioned the creation of new careers in cyber defense at Argentina’s Faculty of Defense, demonstrating institutional commitment to developing governance expertise.

**Renata Mielli**, Coordinator of CGIBR and Special Advisor to Brazil’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, highlighted Brazil’s Internet Management Committee (CGIBR) as a model for inclusive governance that has successfully integrated multiple stakeholders while maintaining effectiveness in policy development.

## Contemporary Challenges

### Declining Effectiveness and Participation

**Raul Echeverría** provided a critical assessment of current conditions, noting that “we live in a world where peace is a little undervalued, and international cooperation does not go through its best moment.” He criticized what he termed “a misuse of energy, or a waste of energy, that is too big and gigantic” in political discussions that fail to reach meaningful conclusions.

**Erick Iriarte** from Peru’s Press Council Tribunal of Ethics argued that the Internet governance community has become somewhat insular, stating: “We have evangelised ourselves so well that we have believed the story of what we did.” He noted that other actors with more resources are now successfully lobbying for different approaches while traditional Internet governance advocates are losing influence.

### Threats to Civil Society Participation

**Iria Puyolza** from the Atlantic Council Democracy and Tech Initiative raised concerns about threats to civil society organisations, which she identified as “an indispensable engine” for the multi-stakeholder model. She highlighted that these organisations face financing challenges for sustainability and significant pressure towards state-centric governance models.

**Paloma Lara Castro**, Director of Public Policies at Digital Rights, reinforced these concerns by highlighting the rise of authoritarianism and democratic setbacks that threaten civil society participation. She emphasized that civil society participation is essential as a fundamental human right necessary for addressing real situations affecting communities.

### Structural Challenges

**Renata Mielli** identified the proliferation of governance forums and processes as creating participation challenges. She noted the difficulty of ensuring effective participation of Global South countries and civil society in multiplying governance processes across different agencies and topics.

**Veronica Ferrari**, Coordinator of Policies and Global Incidence at APC, emphasized that regional discussions must address historical inequalities and digital gaps through human rights-focused approaches. She mentioned specific work on cybersecurity and cybercrime legislation analysis, and referenced the 2014 hearing on human rights on the Internet at the Inter-American Commission.

## Future Directions and Adaptations

### Moving Beyond Traditional Approaches

**Carolina Aguerre**, Associate Professor at Universidad Católica del Uruguay, participated remotely and expressed regret about not being present in person. She argued for the need to move beyond dialogue-focused approaches to concrete cooperation projects, including regional infrastructure development. She emphasized that “we cannot continue walking or tracing the same lines of action and the same discourses when this world has changed, when the Internet has changed.”

### Expanding Governance Scope

**Renata Mielli** advocated for broadening the focus from traditional Internet governance to comprehensive digital governance and policies, encompassing emerging challenges such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, data protection, and broader digital rights issues.

### Regional Cooperation

**Gabriel Adonailo** from LaQX highlighted successful regional connectivity improvements through collaborative agreements between organisations, demonstrating the potential for concrete cooperative projects. The discussion included consideration of regional infrastructure development, including supercomputer capacities for artificial intelligence applications.

## Global Governance Processes

### WSIS+20 Review and Global Digital Compact

Multiple speakers addressed the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) +20 review process and the Global Digital Compact as critical opportunities to strengthen multi-stakeholder principles.

**Veronica Ferrari** emphasized that NetMundial principles should guide governance processes toward more inclusive and transparent approaches. She referenced the NetMundial+10 event and São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines as important reference points.

**Renata Mielli** focused on the importance of integrating the Global Digital Compact within the WSIS framework to avoid duplication and ensure meaningful participation.

**Paloma Lara Castro** warned against the risk of lowering standards in global commitments while real problems require stronger responses.

## Urgent Issues

### Internet Shutdowns and Human Rights

**Cristian Robles** from IPANDETEC, working on digital rights in Central America and the Caribbean, highlighted the urgent situation in Panama, where the government had implemented Internet shutdowns in Bocas del Toro province during protests. He called for community support to oppose these actions.

### Institutional Sustainability

**Lilian Chamorro**, Secretary of the LACIGF, highlighted the mandate in new statutes to strengthen intersessional work groups and year-round coordination beyond annual forums, requesting community contributions on implementation.

## Key Areas of Agreement

Participants generally agreed on several fundamental points:

– The region’s historical leadership in multi-stakeholder governance development

– The importance of capacity building and training programs for developing governance expertise

– Current governance processes face significant challenges in ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholders

– The need for sustainable financing and support for civil society organizations

– The importance of addressing regional inequalities and digital gaps

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed a regional community capable of honest self-assessment while maintaining commitment to multi-stakeholder principles. Participants celebrated significant historical achievements in developing collaborative governance models while acknowledging serious current challenges including declining participation, threats to civil society, and the need for adaptation to changing global circumstances.

The path forward requires balancing continuity of successful principles with adaptation to new challenges, strengthening regional cooperation while maintaining global engagement, and protecting democratic space for civil society participation while addressing resource and political constraints. The region’s demonstrated capacity for innovation and collaboration in Internet governance provides a foundation for meeting these challenges, though success will require sustained commitment and strategic adaptation to evolving contexts.

Moderator: Thank you, Rocio. Thank you all. We are going to start the ICF Lab Space session. of our region, we meet in the framework of the Global IGF to share initiatives and reflections around Internet Governance. This year, in particular, the session will have an hour long, as Rocío explained, with two rounds of 30 minutes, where they will participate in each of the organizations that represent all sectors and that will address the evolution and the future of Internet Governance with a view of Latin America and the Caribbean. In addition, we will have a space for comments and interventions in which the other participants will be able to make their comments. Regarding the dynamics, each organization will have four minutes to make their intervention and, well, I will be moderating this first round and then Rocío will follow up. At the 20th anniversary of the Global IGF, where both the Internet Governance Forum and the consolidation of the multi-stakeholder model originated, we have a key opportunity to reflect on the achievements, on the persistent challenges and, mainly, on the importance of continuing to strengthen an inclusive, open and collaborative approach in Internet Governance. In this sense, then, this first round will address the history and the evolution of Internet Governance and I will start by giving the floor to Raúl Echeverría, Executive Director of ALAI. Welcome, Raúl.

Raul Echeverría: It is different in each room. Okay, well, then it is in Spanish. Thank you. Well, in four minutes, how can we make some interesting comments. I think our region has a good record in multistakeholder work and successful experiences. The very creation of LACNIC, of which I was part, was an experience of a work of the community in an integrated way, the work of the Internet Management Committee of Brazil. We have in the region the LAC IGF and the IGF of the Caribbean, which are among the oldest in the world. We were among the first to adopt this mode of work. This speaks well of our capacities and the opportunity for dialogue that we have. Today we are celebrating the 20th edition of this event, of the IGF, and I think it is a good opportunity to see where we are and how we project ourselves into the future. We are clearly living in a tumultuous world. When one speaks of dialogue, multistakeholder dialogue, generally dialogue is associated with situations of peace, of concord, of understanding. We live in a world where peace is a little undervalued, and international cooperation does not go through its best moment. So, although it is a very big challenge for our region, which is a region that is mostly peaceful and democratic, it is a great opportunity to show how we can continue working in this way. But it does not mean that it is all pink, because in fact in Latin America we need to work much better. Some of the processes, such as the IGF, are processes that do not have the strong participation of all the actors. It is necessary to bring more people to these dialogues, but also in the development of more daily policies. It is important to generate the participation of all the actors from the very beginning of the dialogues. It is becoming more and more important. It was never so clear that wisdom and experience are so highly distributed. And if we do not involve all the actors from the beginning in the political discussions, we become very inefficient. And this is what is happening in Latin America, where we have a misuse of energy, or a waste of energy, that is too big and gigantic, I would say, in political discussions that do not even reach a conclusion. We cannot even say that we agree or disagree. Generally, they do not reach anything. So, well, it is a good time to value what we have, to value our capacities, the favorable environment that the region gives us, for our culture, the democratic culture, a majority pacific society, and to base ourselves on that, to look for more efficient ways of dialogue that allow us to go through these moments of change in the world in a successful way. Thank you.

Moderator: Perfect, Raúl. You were excellent in the four minutes that were left. Thank you for the intervention. Can we continue talking? Yes. We will give you back the minute later. Well, let’s continue then. I give the floor to Ernesto Majó, Executive Director of LACNIC.

Ernesto Majo: Hello, good afternoon. Well, taking a little bit of the challenge that they pose to us, to tell a little bit of the story, and reflect on it from that story. I’m going to get this out of me, listening to myself, it’s scary. For us, well, now it’s my turn to represent LACNIC. The truth is that it’s an honor, and in that sense, LACNIC, when it emerged, the World Cup of Social Information, it was a young organization, it was barely a few years old. So it was very natural for us to get involved in those processes and to get involved in that process. in the process of discussion of Internet governance. I say natural, I don’t say easy. Indeed, in those times there were very strong, very extreme discussions where it was difficult to bring the parties together and in that sense ACNIC, as an actor, had a very important role, in this case personalized by Raúl, who was leading those issues at that time. As an example of an organization that, in short, lives and communicates with the construction of agreements, with the collaboration, ACNIC is an entity that arises from a community process, where the community of operators and different entities from different countries with different characteristics promote the construction of an organization to provide services for their region. And in this way we have also continued collaborating and articulating with various actors, trying to build mechanisms of collaboration, articulation and discussion on issues that are relevant to the region in what has to do with Internet governance. Raúl already mentioned it, it is an example of that, it is an example, again, it does not mean that it is a good example, it is an example of a tool that we build, that we defend and work for a long time, but that also has its challenges and needs to be updated. The times we live are very different from those we lived 20 years ago, the themes and priorities are also different and I think that is precisely what has to make us think and help us to see in what way this instrument, so favorable or so fabulous that we have, the multiparty dialogue, the construction of dialogues and consensus on the issues of Internet governance, are still valid and are still alive. How do we, in these new times, with the challenges we live as societies, as a society as a whole, building the dialogue and developing points of agreement to support the development of the Internet for the benefit of humanity. So, from that point of view, I think that the work has to be in that, in identifying those things that we have to improve, how we make the dialogues more balanced, that the actors are present because they understand that they contribute and that they enrich themselves in that process, and not that eventually they become a process of deaf dialogue where some say something and others make us listen. So, I think that’s the challenge. The challenge is, I wouldn’t say re-founding, but at least re-defining and re-working and re-enhancing the multiparty dialogue mechanism and the search for consensus.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Ernesto. We will now give the floor to Veronica Ferrari, Coordinator of Policies and Global Incidence at APC.

Veronica Ferrari: Hello, can you hear me well? Well, I’m going to imitate my colleague in the panel, and I’m not going to listen to myself. Well, thank you very much for the invitation. My name is Veronica Ferrari, I work at APC for those people who don’t know much about APC. We are an organization of civil society, and we are also a network of organizations and activists working on issues of human rights, environmental justice, social justice, gender and technology. APC works very actively in governance processes, both globally and in the different regions, in close collaboration with our members, which are organizations mainly in the global south. In relation to the question of the panel, as a first point, to take into account the discussions of governance in Latin America, they are marked by certain peculiarities of the region, such as, for example, historical inequalities in social, cultural, economic matters, and linked to that, with digital gaps that exist between the countries, within the countries, between urban areas, between rural areas, there are gender gaps, there are gaps in terms of skills, and another characteristic that I wanted to mention, and on which I am going to articulate the points that I wanted to bring, are, in many cases, legal frameworks and public policies that do not take into account issues linked to human rights. For example, we, in fact, work with Paloma and with Digital Rights in an analysis of legislation linked to cyber security and cyber crime, which in many cases, having broad and vague provisions, end up affecting human rights. So, around that, I thought of some milestones in the region, in terms of public policies, of governance, of human rights, as was the concern of the panel. As a first milestone, let’s say, we thought of the 2014 edition of NETMundial as a key event in the context of Snowden’s revelations, an event that gave the possibility to governments, for example, of the region, to participate in international discussions, bringing other types of issues to the agenda. NETMundial was, as you all know, organized by the Brazilian government. It gave rise to certain principles of NETMundial, of how governance processes have to be done. Those principles indicate that it has to be multisectoral, open, participatory, and based on consensus, as Ernesto said, transparent, and that it allows significant participation, with access and low entry barriers, which, in many cases, at this moment, it is difficult for civil society to participate in the governance processes of technology issues. There is a movement towards more and more discussions in multilateral spaces, and with many difficulties, especially for civil society, to participate in a significant way. Ten years later, in 2024, there is an update of these principles with the São Paulo Multisite Holder Guidelines, with NETMundial plus 10. There, too, in those principles, the idea that multisectoral processes must take into account the asymmetries of power between the different actors that participate. Governance, we know that it is not necessarily a panacea and that there are inequalities in terms of incidence and the weight that each of these actors has in these discussions, that the governance processes have to be guided by respects of international principles of human rights, including social and cultural political rights. And these principles are key for a lot of the incidence work that PC and other organizations are doing in other global governance spaces. They are key for what has to do with the review of WISIs, that is, civil society is taking a lot of those principles for its own incidence. Other things I wanted to bring up have to do with the role of the CDH and a general framework of human rights protection in the region. Internet governance also has to do with concrete effects on different rights. So, as a milestone I wanted to bring up in 2014, it was the first hearing on issues of human rights on the Internet. In the CDH, organizations like APC, like Digital Rights, like Carisma, the CELE coordinated that work at the time, ADC brought freedom of expression issues for the first time to the Inter-American Commission. In other words, in the words of the former editor, Edison Lanza, that was a milestone in the region. And also linked to the CDH is all the work that the Freedom of Expression Report has done within the Commission, bringing issues of freedom of expression in digital environments. And especially the report published some standards for an open and inclusive Internet that highlights the role of the multisectoral model. So, well, given the time limit, I’m going to stop here, but I just wanted to highlight those links, the link to Internet governance, with issues of human rights, and then I have a couple more points that we can talk about later. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Thank you, Verónica. Well, to finish this round, I’m going to give the floor to Nigel Cassimire Telecommunications Specialist in Caribbean Telecommunications Union. Welcome, Nigel.

Nigel Cassimire: Thank you very much, Nigel Cassimire of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, giving you a little background about our historical growth as regards internet governance in the Caribbean. We convened our first Caribbean Internet Governance Forum in September 2005 in an attempt to galvanize Caribbean positions going to the final session of WSIS in Tunis which was November 2005 and we’ve met annually ever since and in fact the UN started its own Internet Governance Forum in 2006 and we’ve kept in step with that since then. Our intention at the outset was and still is to harmonize Caribbean views and policies with respect to internet governance and each time our forum has met we’ve sought to record the agreements that might have been forged at our meetings and we’ve recorded them in a document we call the Caribbean Internet Governance Policy Framework and this particular document has in fact gone through four different editions since 2005. Actually I think the first edition was like 2009, I think 2013, 2016 and 2024 and as we meet we would update the policies associated with it. Back in the original days our focus tended to be more on internet infrastructure and the more technical issues because there was a lot of infrastructure development that still needed to take place. We were talking in some cases of electricity supply in various of our countries. Nowadays, the infrastructure is still spoken about, but it’s a lot less, it has a lot less focus on the agenda now and the focus is now on things like AI and rights and all that good stuff. So this year, we propose to have our 21st Caribbean Internet Governance Forum and it would be in Cuba this year, in Varadero, Cuba, from August 20th to the 22nd. And the agenda for it is still under development. In fact, just last Friday, we closed the call for topics essentially, which would help us to finalize the contents of the agenda. So within the next, I would say probably couple weeks time, we would be putting out our agenda for the 21st Internet Governance Forum. The policy framework that I talked about has been used as a guide for policy development in the Caribbean territories. It has been used as a guide for the CTU’s own work in supporting our member states to develop national policies. And one of the things we’re very concerned about is getting appropriate impact from our forum. And we realized that notwithstanding, we had a regional forum, there needed to be impact at the national level. So we sought to create or encourage the development of national Internet Governance Forum in each of our member countries. To date, we have about four of them that are operating or have operated. And we continue to move the Caribbean Internet Governance around to the various member states so that each one we land in. we could try to make an impact on that local community to develop its own multi-stakeholder group and its own national IGF. When we get, we’ve succeeded in increasing the number of Caribbean persons involved in fora like this. And with the national IGFs that we’ve helped to spawn, we also strengthening the implementation of appropriate internet governance policies throughout the Caribbean. I probably could stop there. There’s a lot more I could say. We’ve had quite a fair amount of success in the work that we’ve done. We’ve helped to spawn internet exchange points and so on. But I can stop at this point. Thanks.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Nigel. Well, thank you very much to the speakers of this first block for their interventions. Without a doubt, there have been successive achievements over the past 20 years that have strengthened the multi-stakeholder model in our region. And they have allowed us to emphasize dialogue, right? And constructive dialogue. However, the challenges persist. As you can see, our panelists have highlighted them. And that’s why we’re going to reflect on the future in this second block, on the visions in this regard. And well, I give the floor to my colleague Rocío to continue moderating the second block.

Rocío de la Fuente: Thank you. Well, thank you very much to the panelists of the first block who gave us a first context to frame the discussion and contributions of the panelists of this second section. And for this second panel, our striking questions focused on how they imagine the future of internet governance in the region. ¿Cuáles son los principales desafíos y las necesidades inmediatas que debemos atender desde todos los sectores para que el modelo multi-stakeholder siga estando vivo y funcional para nuestros intereses y nuestros objetivos? ¿Y por qué creen que la revisión o el proceso de revisión de WSIS++20 es relevante para nuestra comunidad regional? Así que en primer lugar le voy a dar la palabra a Carolina Aguerre. Ella es doctora y experta en gobernanza global y políticas de internet y actualmente es profesora asociada de la Universidad Católica del Uruguay. Así que Carolina, bienvenida, muchas gracias y te damos la palabra.

Carolina Aguerre: Buenas tardes, muchísimas gracias. Una gran pena no poder estar con ustedes esta semana, pero estoy atenta. Bueno, en primer lugar, ya fue dicho en la primera ronda de intervenciones, o sea, hemos aprendido mucho de estos 20 años de procesos de trabajo en gobernanza de múltiples partes interesadas. Ahora bien, seguir apostando, digamos, a un modelo de gobernanza que tenga como horizonte el proyecto de la gobernanza de múltiples partes interesadas, creo que es un poco en este momento, digamos, hay que hacer una revisión, hay que hacer una revisión en la cual pongamos de manifiesto para qué es importante tener esta gobernanza de múltiples partes interesadas, pero otros mecanismos que tienen que estar fuertemente asociados a una gobernanza de una internet que fomente un desarrollo sostenible, inclusivo, centrado en las personas. Esto es un poco como parte del acuerdo de WSIS más 20 y de la revisión, porque lo que hemos visto, digamos, es que este proceso de estos 20 años ha tenido múltiples consecuencias, impactos positivos, pero que tenemos que seguir profundizando en esos impactos positivos, y esos impactos a nivel de gobernanza hoy están bastante frágiles, como ya fue dicho en la primera ronda de intervenciones, necesitamos… in a world where the project of a globalized, unified world of 25-30 years ago with the expansion of the Internet is a world that today is not failing in this way. So, how do we generate better capacities in terms of collaboration, specifically collaboration between different actors? But for this, I would like to strengthen a message that we in the region have resilience and experience. Nigel just talked about the first IGF in the Caribbean, which was an IGF that took place before the first IGFs in the world, where we have experience of work in multiple parts interested in regional format. We have a platform, and this is a concept, let’s say, let’s not think of a platform only as the platforms of digital companies and big tech, as the ILAC can be, platforms already understood as collaboration spaces in which we can deepen, let’s say, in specific cooperation. And when I mean cooperation, it is not only dialogue about cooperation, as the IGF can be, which seems fundamental to me, but it seems very important to me that we start working in cooperation on projects with the participation of multiple actors, where we can develop regional infrastructures that are in the context of artificial intelligence, mounted on the fundamental Internet, have our spaces in the region more consolidated in terms of infrastructure, supercomputer capacities. It seems very important to me, let’s say, what has already been raised, let’s say, in the review consultation in Santiago in December, let’s say, the development of capacities, not only of technological skills and literacy, but also in continuing to foster capacities in terms of regional, national and international governance, in a context that, as has already been said, and I reiterate, let’s say, we cannot continue walking or tracing the same lines of action and the same discourses when this world has changed, when the Internet has changed, even though we continue to advocate for an open, interoperable Internet that promotes inclusion. Those are my first words. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Carolina. Now, I’m going to give the floor to Renata Mieli. She is the coordinator of the Internet Management Committee in Brazil, CGIBR, and special advisor to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in Brazil. Thank you very much, Renata. You have the floor.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Rocio. Thank you for the invitation to be in this important session for our region. I’m going to share some points about the challenges that I consider are important for Internet governance in our region. The first point that I would like to highlight is that the changes promoted by the Internet have allowed the emergence of new technologies with diverse impacts in our societies. For a long time now, governance spaces have stopped dealing exclusively with the Internet itself and have started to encompass everything that it entails. So, I think it is necessary, as we talked about on NetMundial10 in São Paulo, that we need to broaden our view and focus on governance spaces to address not only the Internet governance processes, but also the processes and digital policies in our region. The second point is the urgency, as Carolina said, to strengthen the coordination between actors and regional organizations around common goals. We could highlight, for example, the challenges related to the promotion of policies to guarantee significant connectivity in our countries, the impacts of artificial intelligence, human rights protection, the reduction of regional asymmetries, the development of public digital infrastructures, as well as the need for coordinated responses in the face of the integrity agenda of information, among many other key issues of the digital ecosystem. This is very important and we have to create the… spaces, not only of articulation, of discussion, but also of cooperation between our governments about these issues. Also to expand this articulation to reinforce, as I said, the regional cooperation, in line with the principles and guidelines of the world network Más 10, Verónica brought here some of the principles that we discussed in the guidelines of the world network Más 10. We must also have these principles as a reference for other processes, such as the processes of the WISES and the Global Digital Pact. It is also essential to reinforce the defense of a governance with active participation of multiple interested parties, create coordinated spaces and avoid duplication of efforts. As new processes and discussion forums emerge in different agencies, or the agenda is multiplied about artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, data protection, NINES and many other issues, it becomes more difficult to guarantee the effective participation of the countries of the global south, of small countries, of civil society and even of the private sector, which are not so economically powerful. It is very difficult to guarantee participation in so many processes. That is why the concentration, the unification of the spaces is very important. I would also like to reinforce in this sense that we consider it strategic to integrate the follow-up of the Global Digital Pact within the structure of the WISES framework of action now in the review, to contemplate shared responsibilities with various organizations. Also reinforce the participation of non-state actors in government processes. including the development of intergovernmental processes, so that they can evolve into decision-making processes with multiple interested parties. This was one of the topics that we also raised in a very important way in the discussions of the World Network Plus 10. Finally, to stay within the four minutes, I would like to highlight that the multistakeholder guidelines agreed in São Paulo should serve as a key reference to advance towards a digital governance, not only a governance of the Internet, but of the Internet and digital processes in a more inclusive, legitimate and effective way. Without a doubt, we have a lot to contribute in terms of how to ensure that there is more participation and more relevance in spaces like the IJF. We all participate in other processes and ensure a more strengthened multistakeholder governance in our region. Thank you.

Rocío de la Fuente: Thank you very much, Renata. And to close this second panel, I am going to give the floor to Paloma Lara. She is Director of Public Policies in Digital Rights. Thank you very much, Paloma, and we give you the floor.

Paloma Lara Castro: Thank you very much. I am representing Digital Rights. We are a Latin American organization with 20 years of experience in the work at the intersection of technology and human rights, participating very actively in global, regional and local discussions. In this sense, one of the issues that we highlight the most as part of our central incidence is the need to consider the differentiated impacts that global issues have, to which we are referring both in substantial discussions in these processes and in this same panel. In that sense, it is important to take into account that although there are shared challenges at a global level, obviously we are in a serious situation, going through a million situations that not only deepen structural inequalities, but also create new forms of exclusion. But at the same time, we have to understand that the impacts are not the same in all regions and in all countries. So in that sense, the knowledge that comes from the communities that are in a vulnerable situation and are in greater proportion affected by certain policies, or lack of some digital policies that are located, it often happens that many global commitments are generated, which although they must be shared, they are often not translated in a way that responds to the needs of the communities. So in that sense, spaces like the KGF are key, not only to provide, as has been said several times in this panel, a space for multisectoral dialogue where various interested parties participate, but also as a key element to understand local needs and therefore generate strategies that address different perspectives, adapted to needs and adapted to local urgencies. In that sense, for example, we can see that although the world is going through a number of asymmetries, when we talk, for example, about digital gaps, we have to take into account that within the digital gaps, there are a lot of gaps that make up the same digital gap. And in that sense, it is also different in terms of how we see at the local and regional level. In that sense, supporting this type of space is key, supporting the participation of civil society in these spaces is key, especially considering the rise of authoritarianism at a global but also regional level, marked democratic setbacks, monopoly of large companies, which in turn have extractivist logics, which end up affecting especially countries in the global south. Setbacks in terms of gender, setbacks in terms of legislation, as Verónica also explained in her intervention. In that sense, to enable or guarantee the participation of civil society is not only a key element for governance, but an urgent demand to ensure that we do not continue to advance towards the deepening of new gaps, the generation of new gaps, but we continue to advance towards a situation that not only recognizes structural gaps, but also aims to address them. In that sense, the review of WSIS is now a crucial moment at a global and regional level. What we are seeing in this sense is that if you have read the Elements Paper, which is what will be debated in the next consultations, it is important to take into account that there are several commitments that are not repeated in this document, but have already been accepted and agreed upon or consensuated in previous moments of governance. That is, we are also working on a bar that has been going down more and more, and at the same time that it goes down, it generates more insufficiency to deal with current real problems. So, I know I don’t have much time, but just to close on very important points, civil society is key in the participation in terms of the visibilization of real situations, but also as a human right to participation, as a human right to significant participation that addresses concrete and situated realities. On the other hand, we have to take into account in WSIS and the countries committed to the multisectoral model, to advance to the protection of the teachings that have been shared during the panel, to the commitments that we have advanced, to ensure those commitments, but not to stay with that. WSIS is not only about updating an agenda, but it is also about recognizing not only the structural problems, but the new gaps that are being generated as a result of new global problems and challenges that have in their hands a lot of the advancement of technology, but not only the advancement itself of technology, but in the lack of accompaniment of safeguards of human rights and public policies at the same time. So, these are situations that we find ourselves in a complicated moment, but this is precisely the crucial moment for both the state and civil society to safeguard what has been advanced, but also to look ahead and understand that if we do not address the situation in a differential way, we lose the focus on what can be affected in our communities, in our countries, in our realities. Thank you very much.

Renata Mielli: Thank you very much, Paloma, and to all the panelists of these first two panels. We went a little fast with the time assigned to each one because we were interested in having these remaining 20 minutes to invite other representatives of the regional community to also make their comments, share their reflections. We see many representatives of civil society organizations, technical community, who are also present here. So, we want to invite you to also participate in the debate, to react to the ideas that were shared, and also the panelists who have already spoken can return to participate in this discussion. I have Olga’s hand first in the zoom and then Eric. Olga, go ahead.

Olga Cavalli: Ah, I did it, it’s red. Good, thank you. Thank you very much for the session. Very interesting. I know there is little time, so I want to comment on two issues. One, in my role of work in the State. As you know, I am a dean of the Faculty of Defense, which depends on the Ministry of Defense of Argentina. And at the specific request of the Minister, we have created new careers, one specifically the first in Latin America, in Spanish, virtual, free, a degree in cyber defense, which has had a … We have 600 students, we started in April, plus other more virtual courses, so we are very happy with this, which is added to the offer of the Faculty of National Defense of Argentina. We can tell you that the 17th edition of the School of Southern Internet Governance was organized in Mexico with the collaboration of the Technological University of Monterrey. Very successful, we had 400 students, 200 in the room, 200 virtual, and we address topics precisely about what we have been talking about, all the previous panelists, public policies related to artificial intelligence, cyber defense, cyber security, how to think about the future in relation to all the changes that technology has brought us. So I thank you for the space and I congratulate you for having organized this session.

Moderator: Thank you very much Olga. Erick, I give you the floor, if you can introduce yourself and use three minutes.

Erick Iriarte: Perfect, Erick Iriarte, Tribunal of Ethics of the Peruvian Press Council in Peru and other titles. I’m going to try to make a reflection that forces us to think. We have evangelized ourselves so well that we have believed the story of what we did, and we have believed it so well that we have been able to maintain it for a long time. But when, for example, we talk about a topic as practical as urban mobility taxis, while we are defending the position from the technology industry or from the principles of technology, the other industry, those that were before, also began to do their own cabaldeo in the public spaces of political decision-making and legislation generation. When we began to talk about freedoms or the use of platforms for, for example, the fight against violence against women, the forms of regulation that communities that work with these rights had before we reached the world of technology were different, and they began to make different legislations than we had proposed to them. Until just before the pandemic, we could reach out to legislators and directly stop legislation or improve legislation that could be done or propose them. Now it is almost impossible, even if we have a strong voice or a recognized voice. And it is that we are only one more actor within the equation where all society is digital. And it is no longer just the digital issue of our digital issue. So how do we manage to convince others? How are we going to evangelize others so that they join our line of thought? So that when we discuss cybersecurity issues, they are not thinking about the cybersecurity industry, which is not interested in the technology industry or technological platforms or the principles of the OASIS. What interests them is doing business. Or how are we going to talk to those who are working on other issues of domotics or robotics, which are not interested in the principles we are talking about. They do not come to these forums and they will not come to these forums. I think the reflection goes inward. We have all been involved in this issue for many years. We have managed to convince, we have managed to convince, to attract some actors. But the actors who are doing the lobby to make different policies, different regulations, going back in regulations, as was mentioned a moment ago. But they go back in regulations that we would have raised, but that are useful to these private actors of civil society and academia. It is not that we do not act only against the private sector or against some sector of civil society. It is the rest that do not necessarily understand the principles that we are defending. So when you talk about multilateralism, we understand it, but not necessarily in those spaces where they end up making totally disparate regulations. And this is also being seen in ILAC, it is also being seen in other spaces, because other actors are arriving who were not the common actors that we were used to. It is a big alert call. Because what comes next is more regulation along the same path that we cannot stop. It’s happening in various countries. We can’t stop it, even if we go to talk to the actors we used to talk to. There are simply other actors with more money, there are other actors with more involvement in the social economy, with more relationships they can have, and that’s what we’ve lost, not bringing these forums to the people who are making the political decisions in our respective countries. Thank you very much, Eric, for your comments. We see two participants in the line of the microphone. We are going to give them the floor, we ask them to introduce themselves, and we give them two minutes each. Thank you.

Paricipants: Thank you. I’m Iria Puyolza, from the Atlantic Council Democracy and Tech Initiative. There was a topic I haven’t heard in the conversations during the day, and it has surprised me a lot. I want to bring it to the conversation. For the permanence, the continuity of the multiparty model of Internet governance, an indispensable engine is civil society, civil society organizations. And in the last year, these organizations have suffered a critical situation regarding their stability, both in terms of financing for the sustainability of these organizations, but also a lot of pressure towards other models of governance more focused on the states. I think it would be interesting for this discussion to take place more in this space. It is a discussion that has been taking place in other spaces, with organizations not only from Latin America, but also from Africa and Asia. And it has caught my attention that in this conversation, in this round today, there has not been a discussion about what the community can do, particularly the civil society organizations of Latin America, to try to protect the ecosystem in this moment of crisis and threats, both economic and political. Thank you.

Rocío de la Fuente: Thank you very much. I think Lilian is next. If you can introduce yourself and we’ll give you two minutes as well. Lilian, I don’t know if you can hear me. Sorry, I couldn’t hear you. We can hear you well. Go ahead. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, perfect.

Carolina Aguerre: Thank you. Well, thank you very much to everyone in the panel. It’s very interesting to listen to you. I’m Lilian Chamorro, secretary of the AQGF. This was one of the most important sessions for us because it’s about listening to the community and having more clarity about what is required of this space, which is a space for everyone. As a secretary, I would like to reinforce that our action is basically to facilitate the process, but the space is yours. It’s not a space that belongs to us. It’s a space that many of you are part of through the different committees, the workshop selection committee, the program committee. And as those who have been involved in this space during the last few years know, it’s a challenge. This morning they said it at the inaugural ceremony and I thought it was very successful because the multistakeholder process is of the highest importance, but it’s also a challenge to carry out. It’s something that needs to be done. that we take for granted, let’s say, but it requires a work of all of us. So, just to reiterate the invitation so that all of us can build this space, we see that we have some key challenges, for example, to make the process visible, to make the results visible, and to make visible all the work that is done in other spaces, both in these international spaces, but also at a local level, at a national level, and in spaces such as the Global Digital Compact, the WSIS, so that it is recognized that there is already a territory won. We say, there are 18, 17, the editions that have been of the AQGF, where it has been growing, it has been learning, and there is a territory won in that there is a number of people involved that can continue to contribute to the discussions. And we know that it is not enough, right? They also mentioned it here, more participation of civil society is needed, more participation of governments is needed, more participation of the technical community is needed, and many times this participation is not given because the knowledge is limited, right? There we also appreciate the work that people like Olga do, like ISOC Foundation, well, and so many training initiatives, because they are the ones that allow many new people to reach the space, and I think that these spaces must be strengthened as well, but we also have to look for other communication mechanisms to reach other actors, and that what we are doing in these discussions is understood, and that is what we want to achieve. And another of the great challenges we have is the strengthening of the intersessional processes. One of the mandates for the AQGF in the new statutes is the creation of the intersessional work groups,

Paricipants: and it is something we are working on, but we also receive their contributions, we receive their ideas, to see how we can concretize these spaces that have been discussed here, these spaces where not only can we talk, but also some agreements can be reached, some definitions, some recommendations that can go beyond and that arise from a coordinated space where multiple actors are connected during a longer period and not only during the annual forum. Eso era todo. Gracias.

Renata Mielli: Muchísimas gracias, Lilian. Vamos a darle la palabra al caballero. Le voy a pedir que se presente. Y después tenemos también a Raúl, a Gabriel, y tal vez tengamos espacio para una persona más. Les pedimos que se ajusten al límite de los dos minutos. Ah, y Ernesto también. Ok. Por favor, un minuto, cuarenta segundos cada uno. Adelante.

Paricipants: Buenas tardes a todos. Soy Cristian Robles, de IPANDETEC, una organización que trabaja por los derechos digitales en Centroamérica y el Caribe. Bien, en las últimas semanas, en Panamá, se han visto envueltos en protestas y manifestaciones sociales en contra de reformas al Seguro Social, jubilaciones, pensiones. Específicamente en la provincia de Bocas del Toro, que se han cambiado los escenarios. En las últimas semanas se han visto saqueos, vandalismos y demás. Lo que ha llevado al gobierno a declarar un estado de urgencia que eliminan algunos derechos constitucionales en esta zona. El gobierno de Panamá, a través de la Autoridad de los Servicios Públicos, ha tomado la decisión de suspender los servicios de telefonía móvil e internet durante varios días en medio de estas manifestaciones sociales. Desde IPANDETEC, nosotros rechazamos esta medida desproporcionada que no solo representa una grave violación a la libertad de expresión y derecho a la información, sino que también vulnera derechos fundamentales. Cortar este acceso al internet en contextos de protesta limita la posibilidad de documentar abusos, de comunicarse con los familiares, de recibir información confiable, e incluso de acceder a servicios de emergencia hasta la educación. Así que queremos hacer un llamado a otras organizaciones, sobre todo de nuestra región, ayudarnos a visibilizar esta acción desproporcionada de parte del gobierno de Panamá y que se levante esta medida que ofrece acceso de internet a la provincia de Bocas del Toro. en Panamá. Así que vamos a estar circulando a través de Ipandetec entre hoy y mañana un statement y esperamos contar con el apoyo de todos.

Rocío de la Fuente: Muchísimas gracias. Le doy la palabra ahora a Gabriel Adonailo de LaQX. Y por favor, un minuto y medio.

Paricipants: Sí, ahí se oye, sí. Bueno, gracias. Simplemente, bueno, LaQX es la Asociación de Puntos de Intercambio de Tráfico de América Latina y Caribe. Nombre largo y extraño, pero los puntos de intercambio de tráfico básicamente lo que hacen es mejorar la calidad de servicio de internet a todos los usuarios e intentar mantener o minimizar el costo de acceso a internet. Quería reforzar, Caro Aguerre mencionaba acerca de la colaboración entre las organizaciones. A nosotros nos parece muy importante eso. En 2018 firmamos un acuerdo de colaboración con LACNIC y con Internet Society y luego más adelante con con LACTLD y como decía Carolina, no quedarse en el diálogo sino llevar a la acción y realmente avanzamos sobre implementaciones concretas que mejoran el uso de internet en general. Otra cosa quería mencionar, he participado, creo que es mi quinto IGF, el primero ha sido el primero en Atenas, valga la redundancia, fui invitado por Raúl aquí presente a participar de una sesión plenaria en la cual el problema en ese momento tenía que ver con los costos de conectividad de nuestra región de América Latina y cómo se conectaba al mundo. Eso hoy en día ya no es un problema, tenemos fibra conectando con todas las regiones porque ahora se ha anunciado recientemente una fibra submarina nueva que unirá a Chile con el continente de Oceanía. Eso nos permite mejorar la conectividad y nuevamente… It is not a problem of costs, it is not a problem of infrastructure, but there are still some initiatives in terms of regulation that can affect the connectivity of the infrastructures and how the Internet traffic is run and, therefore, there may come back a discussion again about the Internet costs and the quality of the Internet that we have created. I don’t know if this is the right forum, in Athens it has been, but it is simply for us to be aware that there are discussions in the sphere of regulation or regulators and lobby of some companies that can have an impact on these issues.

Rocío de la Fuente: First Raúl, and then Ernesto, and I ask you, if it is possible, one minute and a half each, because we have to finish on time. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Raúl.

Raul Echeverría: Thank you. First, my solidarity with the people of Panama, with the colleagues and with the citizens of Panama who are living this horrible situation and, the truth, very bad the idea of the government’s decision. I wanted to recognize here the presence of many young people in the room, many of whom were at the time participants of training programs and training, and today they occupy leadership positions in different organizations. This also speaks well of us as a community. It gives me great joy and congratulations to all those who work in many programs. Here there are many people, Olga already spoke, but there are many people who participate in this type of program, leading for many years. We talked about everything we have achieved. I mentioned the Internet Management Committee of Brazil as an example of the success of the Multistakeholder model. I forgot to mention that they are turning 30 years old, so my congratulations to Renata and all the colleagues of the Management Committee and the NIC, who do a great job. We have spoken here, there is nothing that is guaranteed. In Brazil, although we are all proud of what the Management Committee has done as a region, well, in Brazil there are people who have bad ideas and who have proposed some policies that would set up setbacks and would take away the fundamental characteristics of success that the Management Committee has. We have expressed our support for the current model, which of course can always be improved, but never go back, so I invite you all to support the Management Committee at this stage. And finally, I wanted to say that in recent years the participation of Latin America in international discussions has decreased and we have lost capacity to influence. When we think about it and compare it with the time of the Internet Governance Working Group or the first IGF in Guizis, I think we have lost, and we have lost in all the groups of interest. There are very few governments that participate in a significant way, of course there are exceptions, like the Ambassador Eugenio García de Itamaraty, who participates in everything that can participate and gives him time, but not all governments have the same level of participation. I think we have to make a call and also press many times, in recent years many groups have been formed in the United Nations that I think could have a better representation of the region than they have had, so we have to work in that direction. Just a call for us all to join efforts in that.

Rocío de la Fuente: Thank you, Raúl. And 40 seconds for Ernesto.

Ernesto Majo: 12? I’m going to take the time I need. No, I just wanted to highlight two things. First of all, well, to reinforce the message regarding the role of the Management Committee, that surely we have all benefited from the work they have developed during these 30 years, beyond the direct link we have with Acnic as a founding member of Acnic, but also in the daily work, since 30 years ago, or in our case 22 years ago, it has been very relevant and, well, it is really worrying that these initiatives are being promoted that we understand do not have any kind of support from the point of view of how the Management Committee works and the VR link, so, well, we are very concerned about that. And regarding the aspect related to how to continue, it seems to me that one aspect, Raúl also referred to the same thing, that is, the incorporation, the recruitment of actors and the training and the training and the preparation of the generations that are coming or that are going to come, that are going to take on responsibilities in the future, is extremely important. Some of them have already been mentioned, we also have some programs in Acnic, such as the online course or other activities for the development of leaders, in short. It seems to me that this is an area in which we have to work to improve the knowledge, the information and the understanding of these processes, not only for the actors that today, as I say, the future actors who are going to participate, but for the current ones, so that they understand how to generate and manage the dialogues, to find the consensus that is needed for the future of the Internet and the world. In short, simply to reinforce the message of the need to continue working on training, on the development of skills for constructive dialogue.

Rocío de la Fuente: Muchísimas gracias. Con esto cerramos la sesión y nos alegró mucho tener tanta diversidad de voces. Así que gracias a todos y los esperamos en la próxima edición. Subtítulos realizados por la comunidad de Amara.org

Agreement points

Regional success and early adoption of multistakeholder governance models

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Ernesto Majo
– Nigel Cassimire

Arguments

Regional success in multistakeholder work with early adoption of collaborative models like LACNIC creation

LACNIC emerged naturally from community processes and has maintained collaborative approach for over 20 years

Caribbean IGF started in 2005 before global IGF, creating policy frameworks and spawning national IGFs

Summary

All three speakers emphasize that Latin America and the Caribbean were pioneers in adopting multistakeholder governance models, with successful community-driven initiatives like LACNIC, Brazil’s Internet Management Committee, and the Caribbean IGF predating even global initiatives.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Need for capacity building and training programs to develop future leaders

Speakers

– Ernesto Majo
– Olga Cavalli
– Paricipants

Arguments

Critical importance of continuing education and skill development for constructive dialogue

Success in developing new generations of leaders through various training programs

Need for better communication mechanisms to reach new actors and explain governance work

Summary

Multiple speakers agree on the fundamental importance of education and training programs to develop both current and future generations of internet governance leaders, with concrete examples of successful initiatives.

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Challenges in ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholders

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Renata Mielli
– Paloma Lara Castro
– Paricipants

Arguments

Need for more inclusive participation from all actors in policy discussions to avoid inefficient dialogues

Difficulty ensuring effective participation of Global South countries and civil society in multiplying governance processes

Civil society participation essential for addressing real situations and as fundamental human right

Civil society organizations facing critical financing and political pressure threatening ecosystem stability

Summary

There is strong consensus that current governance processes face significant challenges in ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholders, particularly civil society and Global South actors, due to resource constraints and political pressures.

Topics

Development | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Importance of moving beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation and action

Speakers

– Carolina Aguerre
– Paricipants

Arguments

Need to move beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation projects including regional infrastructure development

Success in regional connectivity improvements through collaborative agreements between organizations

Summary

Speakers agree that while dialogue is important, there is a critical need to translate discussions into concrete collaborative projects and infrastructure improvements that deliver tangible benefits.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that internet governance in Latin America must address the region’s specific context of historical inequalities and structural gaps, requiring differentiated approaches that consider local needs rather than one-size-fits-all global solutions.

Speakers

– Veronica Ferrari
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Regional discussions marked by historical inequalities and digital gaps requiring human rights-focused approaches

Requirement for differentiated approaches addressing local needs and structural inequalities

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers advocate for expanding the scope of internet governance to encompass broader digital governance issues while maintaining multistakeholder principles established in processes like NetMundial.

Speakers

– Renata Mielli
– Veronica Ferrari

Arguments

Importance of broadening focus from internet governance to comprehensive digital governance and policies

NetMundial principles should guide governance processes toward more inclusive and transparent approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers, representing regional technical organizations, emphasize the importance of preserving successful regional governance models while investing in capacity building for future sustainability.

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Ernesto Majo

Arguments

Importance of maintaining Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee model against proposed setbacks

Critical importance of continuing education and skill development for constructive dialogue

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Urgent need to address government overreach in internet shutdowns

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Paricipants

Arguments

Regional success in multistakeholder work with early adoption of collaborative models like LACNIC creation

Urgent need to address disproportionate government actions like internet shutdowns during protests

Explanation

While not directly related to their main arguments, there was immediate solidarity and consensus across speakers when the Panama internet shutdown issue was raised, showing unexpected unity on human rights violations even among speakers focused on technical and infrastructure issues.

Topics

Human rights | Freedom of expression

Recognition of declining regional influence in global governance processes

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Erick Iriarte

Arguments

Need for more inclusive participation from all actors in policy discussions to avoid inefficient dialogues

Other industries and actors now lobbying effectively while traditional internet governance community loses influence

Explanation

Both speakers, despite coming from different perspectives (regional technical leadership vs. legal/policy analysis), unexpectedly agreed that the region’s influence in global internet governance has declined, with other actors becoming more effective at lobbying and policy influence.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on several key areas: the region’s historical success in pioneering multistakeholder governance models, the critical importance of capacity building and training programs, the challenges in ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholders (particularly civil society and Global South actors), and the need to move beyond dialogue to concrete cooperative action. There was also agreement on addressing regional inequalities through differentiated approaches and maintaining successful governance models while adapting to new challenges.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive alignment on fundamental principles and challenges. The speakers demonstrated remarkable agreement on both celebrating regional achievements and acknowledging current limitations. This consensus suggests a mature regional community that can honestly assess its strengths and weaknesses while maintaining commitment to multistakeholder principles. The implications are positive for regional coordination, as the shared understanding of challenges and solutions provides a solid foundation for collaborative action in addressing WSIS+20 review processes and future internet governance evolution.

Different viewpoints

Approach to strengthening multistakeholder governance – dialogue vs. concrete action

Speakers

– Carolina Aguerre
– Ernesto Majo
– Renata Mielli

Arguments

Need to move beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation projects including regional infrastructure development

LACNIC emerged naturally from community processes and has maintained collaborative approach for over 20 years

Importance of broadening focus from internet governance to comprehensive digital governance and policies

Summary

Carolina emphasizes moving beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation projects and infrastructure development, while Ernesto focuses on maintaining collaborative dialogue approaches that have worked for LACNIC, and Renata advocates for broadening the scope to comprehensive digital governance rather than focusing on specific projects

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Primary focus for addressing participation challenges

Speakers

– Erick Iriarte
– Veronica Ferrari
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Other industries and actors now lobbying effectively while traditional internet governance community loses influence

Regional discussions marked by historical inequalities and digital gaps requiring human rights-focused approaches

Rise of authoritarianism and democratic setbacks threatening civil society participation

Summary

Erick focuses on the competitive lobbying landscape and loss of influence to other industries, Veronica emphasizes structural inequalities and human rights frameworks, while Paloma highlights authoritarianism and democratic threats as the primary challenges to participation

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of current multistakeholder model

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Nigel Cassimire

Arguments

Need for more inclusive participation from all actors in policy discussions to avoid inefficient dialogues

Caribbean IGF started in 2005 before global IGF, creating policy frameworks and spawning national IGFs

Explanation

Unexpectedly, while both speakers represent successful regional initiatives, Raul is critical of current dialogue effectiveness calling them inefficient and wasteful, while Nigel presents the Caribbean experience as largely successful with concrete policy outcomes and sustained impact

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Urgency of addressing current challenges

Speakers

– Carolina Aguerre
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Need to move beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation projects including regional infrastructure development

Civil society participation essential for addressing real situations and as fundamental human right

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both speakers advocate for moving beyond current approaches but with different urgency levels – Carolina focuses on infrastructure and cooperation projects as evolutionary steps, while Paloma frames civil society participation as an urgent human rights demand requiring immediate action

Topics

Human rights | Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on: 1) Whether to focus on dialogue improvement vs. concrete action projects, 2) How to address participation challenges (competitive lobbying vs. structural inequalities vs. authoritarianism), 3) Methods for capacity building (inclusive processes vs. skills development vs. formal education), and 4) Approaches to global governance processes (integration vs. standard maintenance vs. principle application)

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with significant implications – while speakers share common goals of strengthening multistakeholder governance, their different approaches could lead to fragmented regional efforts. The disagreements suggest a need for more coordinated strategy development that incorporates multiple approaches rather than pursuing separate paths. The unexpected disagreements particularly highlight tensions between evolutionary vs. urgent reform approaches that could impact the effectiveness of regional coordination in global governance processes.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that internet governance in Latin America must address the region’s specific context of historical inequalities and structural gaps, requiring differentiated approaches that consider local needs rather than one-size-fits-all global solutions.

Speakers

– Veronica Ferrari
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Regional discussions marked by historical inequalities and digital gaps requiring human rights-focused approaches

Requirement for differentiated approaches addressing local needs and structural inequalities

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers advocate for expanding the scope of internet governance to encompass broader digital governance issues while maintaining multistakeholder principles established in processes like NetMundial.

Speakers

– Renata Mielli
– Veronica Ferrari

Arguments

Importance of broadening focus from internet governance to comprehensive digital governance and policies

NetMundial principles should guide governance processes toward more inclusive and transparent approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers, representing regional technical organizations, emphasize the importance of preserving successful regional governance models while investing in capacity building for future sustainability.

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Ernesto Majo

Arguments

Importance of maintaining Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee model against proposed setbacks

Critical importance of continuing education and skill development for constructive dialogue

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Latin America and Caribbean region has strong historical foundation in multistakeholder internet governance, with early adoption of collaborative models like LACNIC and Caribbean IGF starting before global IGF

The multistakeholder model faces significant challenges including reduced regional influence in international discussions, difficulty ensuring participation from Global South countries and civil society in multiplying governance processes

Civil society organizations are experiencing critical threats to sustainability through financing pressures and political attacks, which undermines the multistakeholder ecosystem

There is urgent need to evolve from dialogue-focused approaches to concrete cooperation projects, including regional infrastructure development and coordinated policy responses

Internet governance must expand beyond technical issues to comprehensive digital governance addressing AI, cybersecurity, data protection, and human rights impacts

Training and capacity building programs have successfully developed new generations of leaders, but continued investment in education and skill development is essential

Regional coordination and cooperation between actors and organizations around common goals is critical for addressing shared challenges like connectivity, AI impacts, and information integrity

The WSIS+20 review and Global Digital Compact processes present opportunities to strengthen multistakeholder principles and avoid duplication of governance efforts

Resolutions and action items

LACIGF to strengthen intersessional work groups and year-round coordination beyond annual forums as mandated in new statutes

Community called to support Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee model against proposed setbacks that would undermine its multistakeholder characteristics

IPANDETEC to circulate statement calling for support to oppose Panama government’s internet shutdown in Bocas del Toro province during protests

Need to integrate Global Digital Compact follow-up within WSIS framework structure to avoid process duplication

Strengthen training and capacity building programs to recruit new actors and prepare future leaders for governance roles

Develop better communication mechanisms to reach new actors and explain governance work to broader audiences

Unresolved issues

How to effectively counter the influence of other industries and actors who are successfully lobbying against internet governance community positions

How to ensure sustainable financing for civil society organizations facing economic and political pressures

How to guarantee meaningful participation of Global South countries and smaller organizations in multiplying global governance processes

How to address the lowering of standards in global commitments while real problems require stronger responses

How to translate global commitments into policies that respond to local community needs and structural inequalities

How to maintain regional influence in international discussions where Latin American participation has decreased

How to balance state security concerns with human rights protections in digital governance policies

Suggested compromises

Broaden focus from internet governance to comprehensive digital governance while maintaining core multistakeholder principles

Use NetMundial+10 principles as reference for other processes like WSIS and Global Digital Compact to ensure consistency

Create coordinated spaces that avoid duplication while allowing for differentiated regional approaches to global challenges

Develop governance processes that recognize power asymmetries between different stakeholders while maintaining inclusive participation

Integrate technical infrastructure cooperation with policy dialogue to move beyond discussion toward concrete implementation

We live in a world where peace is a little undervalued, and international cooperation does not go through its best moment… we have a misuse of energy, or a waste of energy, that is too big and gigantic, I would say, in political discussions that do not even reach a conclusion.

Speaker

Raúl Echeverría

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it reframed the entire discussion by acknowledging the broader geopolitical context affecting internet governance. Rather than focusing solely on technical or procedural aspects, Echeverría highlighted how global political fragmentation directly impacts the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder dialogue.

Impact

This observation set a sobering tone for the entire session and influenced subsequent speakers to address the fragility of current governance models. It shifted the conversation from celebrating past achievements to critically examining current challenges and the need for more efficient dialogue mechanisms.

We must also have these principles as a reference for other processes, such as the processes of the WISES and the Global Digital Pact. It is also essential to reinforce the defense of a governance with active participation of multiple interested parties, create coordinated spaces and avoid duplication of efforts.

Speaker

Renata Mielli

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it identified a critical structural problem: the proliferation of governance forums is actually weakening participation rather than strengthening it. She pointed out that multiple parallel processes make it difficult for smaller countries and civil society to participate meaningfully.

Impact

This insight redirected the discussion toward practical solutions for consolidating governance efforts. It influenced other speakers to consider how fragmentation of governance spaces undermines the very inclusivity they aim to promote, leading to calls for more strategic coordination.

We have evangelized ourselves so well that we have believed the story of what we did, and we have believed it so well that we have been able to maintain it for a long time… Now it is almost impossible, even if we have a strong voice or a recognized voice… There are simply other actors with more money, there are other actors with more involvement in the social economy.

Speaker

Erick Iriarte

Reason

This was perhaps the most provocative comment of the session, challenging the community’s self-perception and effectiveness. Iriarte argued that the internet governance community has become insular and lost influence to other actors who don’t share their principles but have more resources and political connections.

Impact

This comment created a significant shift in the discussion’s tone, forcing participants to confront uncomfortable truths about their diminishing influence. It challenged the assumption that their model was still relevant and effective, leading to more critical self-reflection about outreach and engagement strategies.

For the permanence, the continuity of the multiparty model of Internet governance, an indispensable engine is civil society, civil society organizations. And in the last year, these organizations have suffered a critical situation regarding their stability, both in terms of financing for the sustainability of these organizations, but also a lot of pressure towards other models of governance more focused on the states.

Speaker

Iria Puyolza

Reason

This comment was insightful because it identified a fundamental threat to the multi-stakeholder model that hadn’t been explicitly discussed: the systematic weakening of civil society organizations through financial pressure and political attacks. It connected global democratic backsliding to internet governance challenges.

Impact

This observation added urgency to the discussion and highlighted a critical vulnerability in the governance ecosystem. It shifted focus from theoretical discussions about participation to concrete threats facing the organizations that enable meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement.

We cannot continue walking or tracing the same lines of action and the same discourses when this world has changed, when the Internet has changed, even though we continue to advocate for an open, interoperable Internet that promotes inclusion.

Speaker

Carolina Aguerre

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it challenged the community to move beyond familiar rhetoric and adapt to new realities. Aguerre argued for maintaining core principles while fundamentally changing approaches, calling for concrete cooperation projects rather than just dialogue.

Impact

This comment influenced the discussion by pushing participants to think beyond traditional forum-based approaches toward more action-oriented collaboration. It helped bridge the gap between idealistic principles and practical implementation needs in a changed global context.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging participants to move beyond comfortable assumptions about their success and relevance. The conversation evolved from initial celebrations of past achievements to increasingly critical self-examination. Echeverría’s opening remarks about global political fragmentation set a realistic tone that influenced all subsequent contributions. Iriarte’s provocative challenge about the community’s insularity created a turning point that forced more honest assessment of current limitations. The comments about civil society under threat and the need for new approaches rather than familiar rhetoric pushed the discussion toward more urgent, practical considerations. Together, these interventions transformed what could have been a self-congratulatory session into a more substantive examination of existential challenges facing internet governance in Latin America and the Caribbean. The discussion ultimately became more actionable and realistic, with participants acknowledging both their achievements and the serious threats to their continued relevance.

How can we bring more people to multistakeholder dialogues and ensure participation of all actors from the beginning of policy discussions?

Speaker

Raúl Echeverría

Explanation

He noted that IGF processes don’t have strong participation from all actors and emphasized the need to involve everyone from the start to avoid inefficient political discussions that reach no conclusions

How do we make dialogues more balanced so that actors participate because they understand they contribute and are enriched, rather than becoming deaf dialogue processes?

Speaker

Ernesto Majó

Explanation

He identified the challenge of ensuring meaningful participation where all parties genuinely engage rather than just going through the motions

How can we develop regional infrastructures and supercomputer capacities in the context of artificial intelligence?

Speaker

Carolina Aguerre

Explanation

She emphasized the need for regional cooperation on concrete projects including infrastructure development to strengthen the region’s technological capabilities

How can we guarantee effective participation of Global South countries, small countries, civil society, and less economically powerful private sector actors in multiple governance processes?

Speaker

Renata Mielli

Explanation

She highlighted the difficulty of ensuring meaningful participation as discussion forums multiply across different agencies and topics

How can global commitments be translated in ways that respond to local community needs and address differentiated impacts?

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Explanation

She emphasized that while challenges are shared globally, impacts differ by region and country, requiring locally adapted strategies

How can we evangelize and convince other actors outside the traditional internet governance community to adopt multistakeholder principles?

Speaker

Erick Iriarte

Explanation

He noted that other industries and actors are successfully lobbying for different approaches while traditional internet governance advocates are losing influence

What can the community do to protect civil society organizations facing economic and political threats to their sustainability?

Speaker

Iria Puyolza

Explanation

She highlighted the critical situation of civil society organizations suffering from financing instability and political pressure, which threatens the multistakeholder model

How can intersessional work groups be strengthened to create spaces for ongoing collaboration beyond annual forums?

Speaker

Lilian Chamorro

Explanation

She mentioned this as a mandate in new statutes and requested community contributions on how to implement these continuous working spaces

How can Latin America increase its participation and influence in international discussions?

Speaker

Raúl Echeverría

Explanation

He observed that regional participation in international discussions has decreased compared to earlier periods, with fewer governments participating significantly