Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Anriette Esterhuysen
The analysis emphasises the significance of multi-stakeholder engagement in policy processes, specifically in the context of internet governance and UN processes. It argues that involving multiple stakeholders in policy development promotes compliance, understanding, and commitment to the outcome. When stakeholders are included and have a clear understanding of the policy process, they are more likely to adhere to it. Additionally, engaging multiple stakeholders creates a demand-side angle, further promoting and advocating for the policy’s outcomes.
However, there are concerns raised regarding the loose use of the term “multi-stakeholder engagement.” It is suggested that bad policy processes are being labelled as multi-stakeholder, which undermines the credibility and effectiveness of such processes. This raises questions about the transparency and appropriateness of applying the multi-stakeholder approach in policy development.
The analysis also highlights the shrinking opportunities for participation in UN processes related to internet governance, as discussions become increasingly centralised in New York. This centralisation leads to less diversity in representation and cross-pollination of ideas. Furthermore, certain stakeholder groups are being overlooked, such as the technical community, which is not seen as a legitimate stakeholder group in discussions on the Global Digital Compact. This limited representation in UN processes restricts the perspectives and expertise that could contribute to better internet governance.
Although the principle of multi-stakeholder engagement has been widely adopted in the UN and other institutions, there is a lack of effective implementation. While there may be some use of the principle in these institutions, the application falls short. The analysis suggests that the implementation of the multi-stakeholder principle needs improvement to ensure its effectiveness in policy processes.
It is argued that a meaningful application of the multi-stakeholder process requires a granular understanding of stakeholder groups. To ensure an inclusive and diverse representation of interests, stakeholders from various backgrounds and areas of expertise should be involved. For instance, discussions on AI policy should involve not only technologists but also educators and sociologists. This highlights the importance of considering a wider range of perspectives in developing policies to address complex issues effectively.
Another noteworthy point is the unique characteristic of the WSIS process when it was based in Europe. During this time, the process involved different institutions such as UNESCO, WIPO, ITU, and human rights institutions, ensuring a comprehensive approach to internet governance. This observation highlights the need for collaboration among various organizations and institutions in policy development.
The analysis also highlights the role of power dynamics in multi-stakeholder processes. It points out that power imbalances between different countries and within gender and racial dynamics affect the outcomes of these processes. Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge and counter the impact of power dynamics in the design of multi-stakeholder processes. Transparency about power dynamics is also emphasized as an essential aspect of fostering trust and inclusiveness.
Lastly, the analysis underscores the significance of clarity of purpose and flexibility in multi-stakeholder processes. Not every multi-stakeholder process is the same, and it is essential to assess the objectives and desired outcomes of the process. Furthermore, the design of these processes should allow for relationship building and a deeper understanding of differences among stakeholders.
In conclusion, the analysis highlights the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in policy processes, with specific reference to internet governance and UN processes. It stresses the need for a more thoughtful and nuanced application of the multi-stakeholder approach, ensuring diverse representation, addressing power dynamics, and promoting clarity of purpose and flexibility. By addressing these factors, the multi-stakeholder process can become a more effective and credible means of policy development, avoiding its misuse as a mere shortcut or superficial tactic.
Panelist
The discussion revolved around the different aspects of internet governance and its effects on economic growth, inclusion, and stakeholder engagement. Several key points were raised during the discussion.
One of the main topics of the conversation was the positive impact of WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) activities on economic growth. The participants pointed out that global GDP has more than doubled since 2003, with examples such as Nigeria’s GDP increasing from $100 billion to about $500 billion. The argument put forward was that the activities of WSIS have contributed to this growth.
Another important aspect that was discussed was the need for inclusive participation and representation in internet governance. The participants noted that having focal people to represent different regions can encourage multi-stakeholder participation. This approach enables representatives from different areas to participate on behalf of others, promoting inclusivity.
The conversation also highlighted concerns about the lack of diverse and engaged participants in internet governance meetings. The sentiment expressed was negative, with participants raising the issue that the same individuals have been attending these meetings for years and that new participants often do not stick around. This lack of new and engaged participants was deemed problematic for effective discussions and decision-making.
A significant point that emerged from the discussion was the importance of active outreach and the use of alternative communication channels in countries where the internet is not a priority. The participants emphasised that in many countries, the internet is still considered a luxury, and people face more pressing issues like water scarcity or environmental challenges. Therefore, the UN and other organisations were advised to adopt different means of communication, such as radio, television, or traditional letter-writing, to engage with uninvolved individuals.
Additionally, the panelists highlighted concerns about the societal and economic impact of trade agreements, including those related to digital trade provisions. They pointed out that while some panelists expressed concern about these provisions, experts with backgrounds in trade policy observed and analysed all trade-related concerns from the internet community.
The importance of interdisciplinary communication and collaboration was stressed throughout the discussion. The panelists emphasised the need for professionals from various fields, such as engineers, trade lawyers, and economists, to work together in an interdisciplinary approach to address internet governance issues effectively.
Furthermore, the conversation shed light on the importance of knowledge for effective engagement and representation. The panelists believed that adequate knowledge, especially in technical areas related to the internet, is necessary for someone’s voice to be heard.
The lack of global representation and contribution from local organisations in internet governance was also discussed. It was pointed out that the majority of participants are from Western countries, with little involvement from local organisations in countries like Japan. This apparent inequality in representation was considered a negative aspect of internet governance.
The participants also highlighted the lack of knowledge and awareness about internet-related issues among organisations such as the Japan Consumer Organisation. This observation raised concerns about the need for education and awareness programmes to bridge the knowledge gap.
Barriers to inclusive participation in global internet governance meetings were also mentioned, such as the high costs associated with attending these events and the burdensome administrative processes, including visa applications. These barriers were seen as hindrances to inclusivity in the internet governance process.
The discussion concluded with the consensus that there is a need for stakeholder inclusion and consultation through channels beyond physical and virtual meetings. This approach would enable a more diverse range of individuals and organisations to provide input and be involved in internet governance discussions and decisions.
Finally, the importance of genuine and credible multi-stakeholderism in internet governance was stressed. It was emphasised that multi-stakeholderism should not be mere window dressing, but a genuine and credible approach that includes bringing people along, listening to different perspectives, and enacting positive change.
Overall, the discussion highlighted the complexities and challenges of internet governance, emphasising the need for inclusive participation, knowledge dissemination, and interdisciplinary collaboration. It underscored the significance of actively reaching out to uninvolved individuals and organisations and the importance of genuine multi-stakeholderism in achieving effective and inclusive internet governance.
Keywords: WSIS, economic growth, multi-stakeholder participation, inclusion, diverse participants, active outreach, alternative communication channels, societal and economic impact, trade agreements, interdisciplinary collaboration, knowledge gap, global representation, barriers to access, stakeholder inclusion, consultation channels, capacity building, genuine multi-stakeholderism.
Timea Suto
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is represented by Timea Suto, who serves as the global digital policy leader. The ICC is a powerful organisation that represents over 45 million companies across more than 170 countries. It has been the primary business focal point in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process for two decades.
In discussions on effective decision-making and progress, there is a consensus that an essential aspect of a successful multi-stakeholder process is ensuring the inclusion and active participation of all stakeholders. Various speakers stress the significance of hearing every stakeholder’s voice and point out that stakeholder mapping plays a crucial role in identifying those who agree or disagree on certain matters. They also highlight the need for capacity building at all levels to enable stakeholders to effectively engage and contribute.
Furthermore, there is a strong desire to expand the multi-stakeholder model to make it more inclusive. The involvement of new voices in decision-making processes is seen as essential for promoting diversity and reducing inequalities. Mentorship is viewed as a valuable tool for learning from experienced stakeholders, while sponsorship is seen as crucial for representing and promoting innovative approaches in processes where they are not yet present.
The United Nations (UN) has made progress in recognising the importance of a multi-stakeholder process. The UN acknowledges the concept of a multi-stakeholder process and describes how governments, businesses, civil society, and the technical community can come together to achieve common goals. However, there is a call for UN multi-stakeholder modalities to save time and resources. Discussions at the beginning of each process on whether to allow stakeholders in should be avoided by establishing UN modalities for multi-stakeholder engagement.
In conclusion, the ICC, with its global digital policy leader Timea Suto, plays a crucial role in representing millions of companies worldwide. The discussions highlight the significance of hearing every stakeholder’s voice, stakeholder mapping to identify diverse perspectives, capacity building at all levels, and the expansion of the multi-stakeholder model to make it more inclusive. Additionally, there is a recognition of the progress made by the UN in acknowledging the importance of a multi-stakeholder process, along with a call for UN multi-stakeholder modalities to streamline engagement and maximise efficiency.
Alan Ramirez Garcia
The analysis explores the multi-stakeholder model in Internet governance and its efficiency in addressing this process. Various speakers argue that this model, which involves researchers, businesses, government, and users, is the most effective way to govern the internet. They emphasize the importance of continuous engagement and allocation of resources to ensure the model’s success.
Furthermore, the involvement of United Nations leaders and governments is seen as crucial in supporting and advancing the multi-stakeholder model. Alan Ramirez Garcia stresses the need for their increased participation in the process. This is considered essential for creating a more connected world and maximizing opportunities in the digital governance sphere.
The speakers also emphasize that the multi-stakeholder model should yield benefits for public problems and allow for the exercise of human rights. Alan Ramirez Garcia urges the need for solid evidence on how the model can address public issues and safeguard human rights.
In addition to these points, there are suggestions for a prospective approach in facing future challenges. Alan Ramirez Garcia highlights the importance of applying a forward-looking method to identify and address emerging risks. It is also advocated to evaluate these risks and their potential impact.
To mitigate the risks that are identified, speakers recommend the immediate implementation of appropriate strategies. Alan Ramirez Garcia specifically supports the prompt execution of mitigation strategies for the risks identified. This aligns with the goal of taking action on pressing issues, as demonstrated by his endorsement of mitigation strategies for climate-related risks.
Overall, the analysis concludes that the multi-stakeholder model is effective in addressing Internet governance. However, it highlights the need for continuous engagement, the involvement of United Nations leaders and governments, and the consideration of public problems and human rights. The analysis also emphasizes the importance of applying a prospective approach to identify and evaluate emerging risks, and the immediate implementation of mitigation strategies to address those risks.
Rosalind KennyBirch
The UK is actively preparing for the WSIS plus 20 review process and has strived to ensure that the process is fully inclusive to the multistakeholder community. The goal is to create a collaborative discussion platform that allows for direct input from a wide range of stakeholders. While the main focus of the session is on WSIS plus 20, discussions may also cover inclusion in other UN processes related to internet governance.
The session, designed as a panel discussion, aims to encourage active participation and foster collaborative discussions among the multistakeholder community. This format recognizes the importance of diverse stakeholders’ direct input in achieving an inclusive WSIS plus 20 review process. The evidence suggests that this approach has garnered positive sentiment and support.
Additionally, the inclusive approach to the WSIS plus 20 review process aligns with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). By promoting inclusivity, these goals can be better addressed, leading to a more equitable and just society.
Overall, the UK’s proactive efforts to ensure an inclusive WSIS plus 20 review process through collaborative discussions with the multistakeholder community are commendable. The session’s format and goal of increasing direct input reflect a commitment to creating a participatory and inclusive process. This approach not only supports the achievement of SDGs but also demonstrates the significance of engaging diverse stakeholders in shaping internet governance policies.
Mary Uduma
The emergence of the Internet has necessitated a multi-stakeholder approach due to its boundary-less nature, requiring involvement from various stakeholders in decision-making processes. This approach was discussed in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), highlighting its importance in achieving inclusive Internet governance.
Regulators now recognise the value of collaboration and consultation in policy-making, opting for a more inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach. They take into account the opinions and feedback of stakeholders before implementing policies, leading to positive reception.
UN agencies have also expanded their processes and involved more actors, embracing the outcomes of the WSIS. Agencies such as UNESCO, ITU, and UNTAD have opened their doors to promote inclusivity. The Secretary General is exploring the creation of a global digital compact, indicating the expansion of UN processes.
However, concerns exist regarding the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The participation of certain stakeholders, such as ICANN, has diminished over time. Additionally, government representation in the IGF is insufficient. Language barriers also pose obstacles, though the UK government’s sponsorship of translations in UN languages has been appreciated.
To address challenges effectively, consultations, collaborations, and grassroots involvement are crucial. Government departments and various actors are encouraged to prepare collectively and engage in discussions for the next level of WSIS Plus 20.
In addition to inclusive global processes, proactive national-level preparation is vital. Preparatory meetings for the WSIS in 2003 have demonstrated the benefits of such an approach. Understanding the global landscape and proactively engaging contribute to more effective decision-making and governance.
In summary, the impact of the Internet highlights the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach. Regulators, UN agencies, and stakeholders recognise the significance of inclusivity in decision-making processes. Efforts are being made to overcome challenges, such as diminishing participation and language barriers. Consultations, collaborations, and grassroots involvement are seen as key, along with proactive national-level preparation.
Session transcript
Rosalind KennyBirch:
Okay, I think we can go ahead and start. Okay, thanks very much everyone for joining the session today. I hope you’re all settled comfortably. Just to start off and say I think we should all give a round of applause, a big congratulations to ourselves for making it through four days of the IGF. And especially to you all who have made it to a 6 p.m. session on day, or technically day three I suppose of the IGF, but really four. Fantastic, so essentially for this session just a little bit of housekeeping and structure to begin with. We’ll be starting off with a sort of mini panel discussion just to sort of warm up the room, get some thoughts going around, but really we would encourage you and we want to leave a lot of time for you to participate in the discussion and share your ideas on our topic today which is on inclusion in the WSIS plus 20 review process. So we really want it to be a collaborative discussion today. So essentially just for some context, first of all, the UK is preparing for the WSIS plus 20 review process, and one of our key goals is to ensure the process is fully inclusive to the multistakeholder community. However, while that is our objective, we don’t want to just guess at what can make the process most inclusive. We want to hear directly from you, the wider multistakeholder community, and therefore that’s why we’ve chosen to take this more interactive approach to our open forum. Now while the focus of this session is on WSIS plus 20, the discussion could of course relate to inclusion in other UN processes that include internet governance, for example the GDC. So while we’ll be focused on WSIS plus 20 today, there may be some ideas you might want to take back that are applicable in other spaces as well. Now without further ado, I’d like to have my fellow panelists introduce themselves. So I’m going to pass the microphone across, and we’ll start with Mary. Oh, and you’ve got one there. Perfect.
Mary Uduma:
Okay. It’s morning in my continent. Good morning, Africa. Good afternoon, wherever you are, and good evening. I’m glad to be here. My name is Mary Uduma. I coordinate the West African Internet Governance Forum. I am part of the African Internet Governance Forum, and had been a member of the MAG at the UN Internet Governance. I also am the first convener of Niger Internet Governance Forum. So internet governance, internet governance, internet governance.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
Thank you so much, Mary. And over to Alan next.
Alan Ramirez Garcia:
Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Alan Ramirez. I’m currently a MAG member at IGF. I’m a policymaker in Peru and a university lecturer in Lima, and I’m pleased to participate here at my personal capacity in such a vital discussion. Thank you.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
Thank you. Just because I’m going to pass it one more, just to make sure that we’re not going to disturb the stand.
Timea Suto:
Hi, everyone. I’m Tima Ashute. I’m the global digital policy leader at the International Chamber of Commerce. For those of you who don’t know, ICC is a global business organization representing over 45 million companies in more than 170 countries. So companies of all different sizes and all different sectors. And why we are here, it’s because we were the business focal point to the WSIS process almost 20, well, 20 years ago now, if you count 2003. And we have been following up on every WSIS outcome process on behalf of global business ever since. Thanks.
Anriette Esterhuysen:
Annette Esrehausen, Senior Advisor, Internet Governance with Association for Progressive Communications, and OLD, which means I was there 20 years ago when we were negotiating those outcomes from WSIS.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
Fantastic. Thanks so much. And my name’s Roz Kenny-Birch. I’m an international policy advisor focused on internet governance within the UK Government Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology. And so I’d just like to kick off with sort of a warm-up question. We’ve been hearing throughout the week, and it will come as no surprise to anyone that this has been said, but the multi-stakeholder model is crucial all week. So just to sort of set the scene in context before we delve into more specific questions, why exactly is multi-stakeholder engagement so essential to the internet governance space? How can we articulate that? And perhaps, Henriette, I can start with yourself.
Anriette Esterhuysen:
I’m nodding because I think people say it without necessarily saying why. You know, it’s like, why is ice cream bad for you? Well, Tamea says it’s not. It’s bad for me. And I think that we’ve lost, actually, the substance of why. It’s become like a brand. I mean, the GDC says they’re following a multi-stakeholder process. The Secretary General is talking about making the UN more multi-stakeholder. And I think we’ve started using it as a kind of a label, you know, like it’s been approved. It’s like it’s kosher, it’s halal, it’s multi-stakeholder. And bad policy processes are getting the multi-stakeholder stamp. That doesn’t make them good policy processes, even if they are multi-stakeholder. It also doesn’t necessarily make them fully multi-stakeholder. So why? I think, well, I’m going to speak from a national level or a telecoms level. You know, I’ve done a lot of work with regulators. If you work with the people that have to comply with a policy process, they’re more likely to comply with it. You might have to compromise. You know, business might not like what the public sector or civil society want it to do in terms of regulatory intervention. And civil society might not, you know, want to concede. But in the end, if you come up with something that actually is known and understood by the different stakeholders that matches their capacity and willingness. Pushing boundaries, you have to push boundaries a little bit, but then you’re more likely to have compliance. And I think the one thing we don’t need in our environment are lots of policies and guidelines and principles and regulations that no one complies with. Because then you have an unpredictable, unstable environment. And as far as human rights, you know, is concerned, you don’t, you also want understanding. And so that’s the second thing. Compliance and then knowledge, understanding. It must make sense to people. And then they’re more likely to work with it, to believe in it, and commit to implementing it. And then, you know, I think the third thing is it’s almost like if you participate in a process, you, and I mean, I think maybe ICANN is a good example of that. If you’re part of a process, you invest in it. And you actually invest in promoting it. And getting other people to be part of the outcome of that process. So it’s kind of, it builds in a demand side angle to your policy and regulatory environment, which top-down processes simply don’t have.
Timea Suto:
Going back. Perfect. Thanks, Russ. Well, it’s no surprise that I’m going to agree with Andrea. We tend to agree on a lot of things. And she said a lot of what I wanted to actually say. So I’m just going to bring it back to a business decision-making theory, let’s say. That is one of the values of a company I’m not going to name. But there’s this principle of disagree and commit, right? If you want to make a decision in any type of setting, if you’re a team in an organization and you’re trying to move forward on what you’re going to do, you need to hear the voices and really hear the voices of everybody in your team on how to make forward. Now, it’s not going to mean that you will be able to take a decision. There are people that are still going to disagree with a decision or they’re going to have a different opinion. But then somebody will take the decision and the decision will have consequences. But for the team to get behind that decision, as Andrea said, to have that buy-in, people need to be heard. People need to feel not just that they can talk or share, but they need to be heard. And a multi-stakeholder process that is effective is a process that hears every stakeholder, that creates meaningful opportunities for those voices to be said, but also to be heard. And once that’s done, yes, there will be a decision. Yes, we will have to make compromises. But we will be able to get behind a decision a little bit more effectively, if I can say so. That is my hope. It works on a small scale. The more voices you have, the more difficult it gets. But I think it’s worth the investment. And the example of that is the internet itself. The internet itself is a multi-stakeholder creation. It had the origin of an idea that came from, you can discuss, but it was a government idea or a researcher’s idea. It became a business product. It is something that all of us are benefiting from and shaping every day. It works. And in order for us to be able to make the governance of it and on it, for those of you who were on the panel before, work, we need to embody the same principles. And I think that’s why we need the multi-stakeholder model. We need to be able to buy into it, keep it ours, feel that it’s all of us have our voices shared and heard. And I think that moves us forward. Thank you.
Alan Ramirez Garcia:
Before all, I want to take a few seconds to thank you, Ross Kenybridge, and the UK government for this invitation and overall for the permanent commitment to supporting and empowering the multi-stakeholder model. And let me say that it is a great honor for me to share the panel with Mary, Timera, and Henriette. I’m sure we all agree on why the multi-stakeholder model is not only essential, but the most efficient way to address the Internet governance process. Having said that, it is a model that permanently needs to be fed with commitment from different stakeholders that could be potentially jeopardized if proper engagement is not applied. So what we need for the Internet we want is to empower the model to get more resources, to get more engagement, to be more strategic on how to avoid risks which can lead to losing engagement by parties involved. Thank you so much all.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
And now over to Mary to cap off that question. Okay. Okay. I think I have.
Mary Uduma:
Hello? Yes. Thank you very much. And the previous speakers, they’ve all said it well. And what I want to say is that I met the International Forum when it was ITU. And ITU have to be a member to be allowed to attend their meetings. And it’s a close meeting. And government to government negotiation between government to government, they make treaty. And all of a sudden, this big elephant in the house called the Internet showed up by research and those that developed it. And it became a sort of concern to the governments that do go into the room and make negotiations and agree on what to do and how to manage their spectrum, their numbers. And they have their boundaries. And here comes the monster that does not have a boundary. And how do you get everybody to agree on how to participate in this new world called the Internet? So it needed for us to think out of the box and look at other things because I started hearing this multi-stakeholder approach from WSIS. WSIS, the second WSIS when we were trying to come up with the IGF. So the buy-in, the understanding, I don’t know whether the government, they’ve really understood it, especially from my own environment, whether they’ve really gotten what the multi-stakeholder process is. But the truth is that we needed everybody’s voice to be heard and everybody to participate in the process of making sure that we benefit from the new process called the Internet. And just like Tamir said, Internet is an elephant. If you touch the head, you think that is all about the elephant. And you touch the leg, you think that is all about the elephant. And so many actors, so many people, participants. So it’s open. I don’t know whether it’s television, computer, or a radio, or a telephone. So if I hold this, this is everything. I can do my television, I can do my telephone, I can do even my camera. So for this, the process of getting everybody understand, everybody participate, all the actors participate, give room to this multi-stakeholder process. And the good thing is it is bottom-up, it’s not top-bottom. Because even at the national level, now our legislators and our government, our regulators. When I was a regulator, well, we do consultation not as much as, okay, tell us what you want, we do what we want to do. But these days, the regulator, you know, goes, ah, let’s have multi-stakeholder process in coming up with regulation. So those are the things we have gained from this process. So that’s what I can say for now. Thank you.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
Thank you so much. And I think that elephant sort of metaphor is really, really valuable in that regard as well. So now moving on, and now that we’ve sort of set the scene. We’ll start to dig into a little bit more of the meat on the bones, so to speak. So now, looking at the current landscape, in your opinion, are opportunities to participate in UN processes surrounding internet governance expanding or shrinking, and how have you seen these processes evolve, and what direction are they evolving in since that initial summit, those initial summits back in 2003, 2005? And perhaps we can go down, just given the microphone situation, in the same order again for this one.
Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, Ros. So I think I tried to say earlier it’s about better policy outcomes. It’s not always harmonious, but stakeholder groups are not fixed. That’s the one thing I didn’t say. I think if we really apply the multi-stakeholder process in a way that’s going to be meaningful, so that the discussion and the process is rich enough and diverse enough, you need to analyze the issue that’s being discussed, and then make sure that the stakeholders are ready. And I think it’s in that context that it is concerning that with the Global Digital Compact, there’s the idea that the technical community is not a stakeholder group, you know, in their own right. Because I think that would be an example of, in fact, if I was the UN and I was looking at AI policy, I would bring educators in as a particular group. You know, I would bring people that are sociologists as a particular group. So I think what we’ve seen within the UN system is WSIS started and evolved quite a fixed understanding of what the different stakeholder groups are, civil society, technical academic, it was fluid in how it classified that group, and business and governments. And we worked with that. And I think where we worked with it well, we made it more granular. We brought in women, women’s rights groups, human rights groups, small businesses, you know, big businesses, and so on. And where we did not work with it well, I think we started treating those stakeholder groups as check boxes. If you had a business person, a government person, a civil society person, and a technical person, then you were multi-stakeholder. And I think the UN has, what the positive thing is that they have adopted the principle much more, I think much more widely, even in the ITU, you see much more sort of wide use of the principle of multi-stakeholder. But is it being applied well in a meaningful way? I think not really. And then I think secondly, where we have less, where opportunities are shrinking, I think also has to do with more of these discussions of moving to New York. I think there was kind of a unique, as far as the UN is concerned, characteristic of the WSIS process, that much of it was based in Europe, which meant you had UNESCO, which dealt with culture, education, human rights, and media. Media, a very important aspect of this. And then you had the Geneva institutions. You had WIPO, dealing with intellectual property, which has a huge overlap of what we do here at the ITU, dealing with infrastructural and access issues. And then you have the Commission of Science and Technology in UNCTAD dealing with the follow-up. And the human rights instruments in Geneva. So I think, so, but with more of these decisions, moving to New York, you’re going to have less of that. And also you have the women’s, you know, some of the women’s organizations in Geneva as well. I think you just have less participation. It’s much, and it’s also from a government perspective. You’re dealing mostly in New York with UN missions, which means that your process is being really run by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs. But when it’s in Geneva, you have a slightly more diverse mix of people. And for developing countries, you often have the same person in the mission in all of those agencies. So there’s just more cross-virtualization. Thanks.
Timea Suto:
Thanks, Rosanne. Thanks, Henrietta. Again, I will have to agree with a lot of the, I think we’re getting into a good dynamic. Henrietta’s throwing up the balls, and all I can do is just catch them and maybe add a couple of things to it. In terms of where have we evolved, if you were in the session just now and the future of the digital governance or internet governance, I’ve read out how the paragraph in our common agenda that actually came up with the idea of having a GDC, a Global Digital Compact, sets out a multi-stakeholder process. It doesn’t say multilateral and multi-stakeholder. It doesn’t say governments with consultation of all relevant stakeholders that we’ve seen other resolutions and documents with the UN before. It says governments, business, civil society, technical community coming together to forge a Global Digital Compact. I think that’s progress that Henrietta was saying. That’s the progress that we have come in the past 20 years. Again, caveat here that every single UN process still needs to negotiate its modalities, and it needs to negotiate in what form, if at all, it will allow multi-stakeholder input. And there’s a huge array of differences in that. I mean, in a dream world, the UN would come up with a multi-stakeholder modalities, and then we would all just save ourselves two or three meetings at the start of every process discussing whether or not we want to let stakeholders in. That’s one. Two, who are the stakeholders? I think Henrietta hit the nail on the head with that. Yes, there are the main groups of stakeholders, but none of those stakeholders are homogenous. Government is not homogenous. There’s various different government agencies, government branches, then you have parts of the government or parts of the administration, let’s say, that need to also be consulted there. In businesses, no two business is the same. No two business model is the same. There’s different industries. We’ve been hearing again, we are here mostly with telecommunications or digital companies. Business is a lot larger than that, and now every business is becoming digital. It’s not homogenous. Society is not homogenous. So if you want a meaningful multi-stakeholder process, I think that needs to start with the stakeholder mapping of who are the people that are likely to agree with you, who are the people that are not likely to agree with you, who are the people that should be at the table but don’t even know about these things. So I think there’s another element there that we need to discuss of, again, what does multi-stakeholder mean in a true effectively applied meaningful way. I think those are the two things that, Henriette, you’ve raised and I really, really agree with. A third thing that I think I want to add to this is the layers of decision-making, the layers of governance. We talk a lot about the international level because we are in an international setting. Has the multi-stakeholder model trickled down to regional, national, sub-national levels of decision-making of discussions on this? Have we matched it with adequate levels of capacity building of all the stakeholders that need to take part of it, including governments but also the businesses, the society, others that might not even know how to be part of a multi-stakeholder conversation or that they can be part of this multi-stakeholder conversation?
Alan Ramirez Garcia:
I fully agree with Henriette and Temea. Of course, we live in a more connected world, also in the digital governance sphere. So today, I find plenty of opportunities for participation in the UN process from different stakeholders. Maybe from the government perspective, I think what United Nations leaders and governments need to get more involved with the process with solid evidence of how the model benefits public problems, addressing public problems and allows the exercise of human rights and so on. That’s it.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
Thanks. And I think just some initial reflections there as well. I’m definitely hearing sort of the different perhaps cultural differences between Geneva and New York in the UN sense there. And also, how important it is to be proactively engaging different groups, including not just looking maybe at these groups in specific boxes but understanding those nuances as well. So I’ll hand over to Mary. After Mary goes, we’re going to do a quick rapid fire last question. So just to get your wheels turning now, we will be asking for a bit more participation from the audience quite quickly. So start thinking about what points you may want to make and include, but Mary to finish us off on this question and we’ll do one last rapid fire question.
Mary Uduma:
Okay. Thank you very much. With the UN processes is shrinking or expanding? I will say that the UN agencies have been running with the WSIS outcomes and they have their own community and they’ve been trying to bring in so many of their actors within their own confines. Let’s look at the UNESCO and let’s look at the ITU or the UNTAD, the trade. So they are opening their doors now. They’ve been opening their doors and I will say that it’s not shrinking. If anything, they are co-opting more people, more actors into their own individual processes that feed into the global. And that’s, I think that’s what informed the Secretary General to look at, look, can we look at the global digital compact? So everybody, all the actors will come in and, but on the other hand, when we look at the processes, for instance, the ITU, there are some actors that we have not seen, some of the stakeholders, as Tamir said, who are the stakeholders that are not as prominent. When we started, we had a lot of ICANN people all over the places, the business, you know, who were looking for, you know, their bottom line, you know, so that they could get it. But I don’t know whether they are still as large as that when it comes to ITU, I mean, IGF processes. We don’t see most of them. And we also find out that the government as well, some governments are not appearing here in IGF, maybe language issues, though we have been trying to move forward from there, thanks to the UK government that sponsored the translation in the UN languages. So there are still people that, there are still the communities and stakeholders that are not here that we need to bring into the process. Thank you.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
Absolutely. Thank you, Mary, for those insights. So last quick rapid-fire question from the panel before we open it up more broadly is just simply, we’ve pointed out some challenges or opportunities here. What can we do about those? How can we act on those observations that we’ve made? Are we equipped to address the challenges that have been raised? So I’ll start it going this way with Mary first this time and we’ll come down that way.
Mary Uduma:
Yeah. Consultations, collaborations, those are things, those are two words I think we should look at. And also the grassroots. At the national level, are we having a preparation, which is preparation at the national level? And at national level, you can see there are so many other actors within the government, the department, foreign affairs, telecommunication, education, all of that. I think preparation from that level will help to send the conversation. The conversation will get to do the actors that will be participants at the next level of WSIS Plus 20, right? So that preparation is very, very key. When we were to do the WSIS in 2003, there were preparatory meetings. I could remember we went to Ghana. And I don’t know whether the government and countries are still doing that or blocs like the African bloc, the West African bloc, even the commonwealth. I think we’re doing some preparation. I don’t know whether that is still going on. I think we have to do, have the conversation and discussion, debate at that level and know what we are going with to the global level.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
Thank you, Mary. Alan, over to you next.
Alan Ramirez Garcia:
Thank you. Well, I want to propose applying a prospective method to address the challenges that will be raised in the future, maybe now. First, we need to identify what the emerging risks are that can re-emphasize the multistakeholder model as we know it. And the second is to evaluate how probably the risk is to happen and how impactful it could be. With that identification, which is objective, the strategies for mitigation need to be applied now for all stakeholders interested and involved in that. Thanks.
Timea Suto:
Thanks, Alan. Just another analogy, if you allow me another one. When you’re trying to bring in new voices to a decision-making process or even raise up new talent in an organization, people say you need mentorship and you need sponsorship, right? You need mentors that tell you how they have done it, what they have learned, how can you apply that. I think there’s a lot of that going on around this room, taking stock of what were the good lessons learned. We’re seeing how some processes have done it and what we can learn from that and what we can apply. Then you need the sponsors. The sponsors, and I don’t mean that in a financial way. The sponsors that speak up for this when we’re not in the room, where we are in those processes where we are not being let into. There are some of us that are there that know different ways of doing things. We need to count on them to carry the flag. Since we’re in a UK Open Forum, the UK does that and thank you for that. I think we need more of that. I think in order to expand the multi-stakeholder model and to get that down to the layers that I was talking about earlier, we need that sponsorship. Otherwise, we were going to talk to each other in this multi-stakeholder eco-chamber and we will be sitting here 20 years from now still thinking what we need to do.
Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, Tabea, thanks, Ross, and thanks for doing this when we all are so tired. It’s very brave of you. I think don’t use multi-stakeholder process as a shortcut. Don’t use it as window dressing. It will just discredit what is, in fact, a very powerful way of making policy. And I see everyone doing that, actually. Be serious about it. Otherwise, just don’t do it. I mean, there are other ways of making policy. It’s not the only way. So if you want to do it, do it well. We talked about, Tamea mentioned stakeholder mapping. I think the one thing that none of us have maybe explicitly said is to look at power. And don’t assume that power doesn’t play in multi-stakeholder process. It does. Global north, global south power, rich country, poor country, big company, small company, local civil society organization, big global advocacy civil society organization, all of those dynamics, gender dynamics, race dynamics, they all play out in these processes. And if you’re really serious about your multi-stakeholder processes, acknowledge that. Don’t abuse it. Actually design in order to counter the impact of that, or at least be very explicit about it. I think transparency about that is also important. I think clarity of purpose is important. Not every multi-stakeholder process is the same. And design according to that. And also assess what you want out of it. Design it in such a way that even if you don’t achieve consensus, you achieve relationship building. You deepen understanding of why there are differences. And then, sorry, and then be flexible and adapt accordingly.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
Brilliant. Well, thank you so much to the panelists. Now I’d like to move us into discussion and challenge us all to start thinking about potential answers to these questions. So I’d like to challenge you to turn to your neighbors around you. Hopefully someone new you might not have met before. And start the conversation. How can the WSIS plus 20 review process be shaped to encourage more inclusive participation from the multi-stakeholder community? So I’m actually hoping that lots of you may not know the people around you. But turn to your neighbor. Perhaps we can take five minutes or so. Those online, I think there’s about five of you. Perhaps you can discuss in your own breakout group as well. And let’s get the wheels turning. Great. Great. How can the WSIS plus 20 review process be encouraged, be shaped to encourage further inclusion from the multi-stakeholder community? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No. Yeah. No. That’s great. OK. Yeah. There’s no way I can make it. What the? He gave me a hug. But did you see that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Bye, guys. Bye. OK, bye. No. Bye. Oh, sorry. Oh, one more. I think order it up. All right. Yeah. Yeah. You still got a few minutes. Don’t worry. Yeah. All right, everyone. One more minute, so we can wrap up your conversations. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, everyone. Let’s come back in. If you’ve moved seats around, I know a few of you have, feel free to come back. Fantastic. All right. Well, now’s an opportunity to sort of reconvene after those discussions. Hopefully, we’ve got some good ideas going. I certainly saw lots of interactive conversations. But does anyone want to be brave enough to go first? I may call names. Otherwise, Jimson, yeah, please. Thanks for being brave. Oh, yeah, apologies. Pass the microphone, whatever you’re comfortable with. Thank you very much.
Panelist:
Well, very excellent interaction. Thank you very much for bringing this up. Well, first to say that what matters to everybody is their economic standard, their well-being. When WSIS started in 2003, the global GDP was just $50 trillion. But today, it has more than doubled. And ICT, WSIS has helped a lot. In fact, in Nigeria, it used to be $100 billion GDP. That was in 2003. But now, it has increased fivefold to about $500 billion. So at the same thing, it is the WSIS activities, because government change direction and involve everybody. So how can we increase that, which is the crux of the matter? First and foremost, we need this to continue. From the private sector, I’m speaking from private sector perspective, private sector and the public sector, they have a common purpose to boost the welfare of the people. We know how to create jobs. As Tamir mentioned, we can create opportunities. So when we work together, we create more opportunities. So to get more people to come in, because it’s expensive for private sector to self-fund to come in here. So what we try to do in Africa, for example, is to bring in all stakeholders together in Africa so that we could have some focal people to speak for us for Africa. Just as Tamir is here, he’s representing us. At times, we don’t go to New York, but she goes for us. So that kind of mechanism we have in place. Then also, we can encourage, as we discussed, that organization like maybe ISOC, they can create more awareness within their system, engage, they are technical, mostly. They can engage other stakeholder group, maybe more government, engage other civil society in the area of influence. And then create budget line. We need to have special budget line for inclusivity. We are doing that. We see how the UK government is supporting this event as well. So we need more of that. So that’s the budget line. Because if there’s no budget line, then you can’t really do much. So this is where I will stop for now. Thank you.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
Thank you so much. And really good point, I think, too, about people reaching out and going to places. Not putting the onus on people to all go to necessarily travel to New York for discussions. Things like that, but that proactive outreach. Really interesting. Sorry, there’s a point I need to make.
Panelist:
You know, there are a lot of hopes that this idea of encouraging. Like in Nigeria now, there’s a hope following many proceedings. So we can encourage more hopes. Yeah. The more people can participate.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
Thank you, James. Tracy, I see your hand up.
Panelist:
Hello. Yeah, so I was thinking, I’ve been thinking a lot about this for the last few years. When we come to these meetings, we see, who do we see here? Same people. Getting grayer. Getting older. Every now and then, we have a new batch of people coming in through ISOC and others. If they stick around, we’re happy. If they’re not, they disappear. So how do we keep folks engaged? And the reasons why I think that we don’t do well in this is because, you know, we’re talking to ourselves a lot, right, so we are the IGF, we are WSIS. Come to us. Come and talk about the internet. But we don’t go out. We don’t go out to them. Because in many of the countries, the internet is not a priority. First, we have the unconnected, so we have that group. Then in many countries, the internet is still a luxury. We have issues, we have road issues, we have, in my group, we have climate change problems. And the people, when they’re trying to gravitate to issues to participate in, they’re gravitating to issues that affect them, right? So if your island is sinking, then the internet is not the issue that you’re dealing with today. And if you have no water, it’s not the internet. So how do we reach out to people who can be engaged? I think there needs to be a really concerted effort from the UN and others to reach out, with outreach, right, that’s the word we’re talking about, to get to those people who are not involved. Get them involved. So you don’t have to come to these meetings, and nobody’s saying, come to Kyoto. But get them involved in some way, and if they’re not connected, use other means. Use radio, television, write a letter. This is what, what does the internet mean for you? How do you engage people that way? I think we’re not doing well in that at all. So we’ll still have 8,000 people coming to the IGF, and of that, a few of us, well, a few of the same people coming every year, and then next year, it’s a recycle. Another, you know, go to Riyadh, and then there’ll be another, you know, from maybe local people coming in, et cetera. So how do we reach out to those people? I think we are not doing well in that way, and if you’re doing bottom-up engaging and getting into the topic, you know, how do you engage in a bottom-up? I already think there needs to be a better job at this because it affects everybody. It will affect everybody. And if we look at the other areas, like the climate change, you know, issues, I think they do a much better job at engaging their stakeholders because it means something to them. So we probably haven’t really done a good job at saying that internet governance means something to you, you know, because if you haven’t explained the topic very well. So it’s, what is it exactly? What is internet governance? What does it mean to you? My colleague next to me asked him, how did he get here? So he’s new, relatively new. Someone told him, right? But if you just don’t told him, he would just be, I guess I said, riding a bike or whatever they’re doing, whatever you’re doing home. And what’s he doing now? There’s something going on here. So I don’t know about that. So how do we get that resolved? Yeah, thanks.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
Thank you, Tracy. And I think, you know, you make the point generally, but it’s especially true, isn’t it? Sometimes of UN processes. If you’re going about your day, you may not even be aware of what’s going on. And so I think a really pertinent point for that specifically as well. Did I see hands over here? Go to you next and then yourself. Great.
Panelist:
Thank you. I’m Minako Morita Yaga. I’m from the University of Sussex. I’m academic. And then also my field is complete, not really completely, but I’m trade policy expert, internist trade and trade economist and lawyer. So, but the reason I come here first time, IGF, it’s because of trade, all these trade agreement. is including all the digital trade provision. That’s, I’m really have worried about this, in the societal and economic impact on it. And then, I have been learning a lot, you know, coming here and then looking at things from the different side, but this is internet community. The thing I would like to make is, even a stakeholder means, even an academic, academia, you know, I’m in a different field. So this is really interesting to see the engineering, also trade lawyer to trade economist, what are these that we try to work together, interdisciplinary approach. So this sort of the different field, the communication from the different field is really important. This is one thing we are talking about, and so my colleagues are also the first time here, and we talk about, you know, we learn a lot, you know, this is really excellent approach. But on the other hand, when you talk about the plus 20 something, I never heard of it. What is this panel about? So I don’t know this UN, you know, the approach. And then the other thing is, I completely agree with him, that’s how to, the voice, this is my, from here is we did not talk anything about it, but my personal view is that voice should be, voice to be heard, but that voice, we required knowledge, especially internet, really technical, and then also the sponsorship, as somebody said that, money, just to get that knowledge, and then also institution. And here, when I look at all these participants, mostly Western, you know, countries oriented, and then more still, and even the local, that Japan is now the sponsor in it, but I could see very little contribution from the Japanese, you know, organization, civil society organization, whatever, and then I was wondering, why is that? And then the shocking thing, for example, one thing is consumer organization, Japan consumer organization, they don’t, there’s no people who have knowledge with internet and consumers and things, so who, who, who can represent for this, you know? There’s no knowledge about this, so this is really critical thing, you know? Come and then talk to us, but they don’t have anything to talk about, and then just, I want to learn, I want to learn, you know? Then there also, there’s no awareness in general, the very limited awareness in public, so this is a point, sorry.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
No problem, I think this is a really engaging discussion, it’s hard to have a time limit, but I might just go ahead. Before I come to yourself, and I’m very sorry, I do want to acknowledge our online participants as well. Would anyone from the breakout group online like to make some points from their discussion, or perhaps my colleague, Marek, who’s online moderating could as well summarize for the group, whatever’s most comfortable.
Panelist:
Yeah, I’m happy to summarize quickly. Yeah, so we had an interesting discussion that brought up some points around the barriers to access, both in terms of kind of costs to participate in some of these kind of global internet governance meetings and the kind of related costs and barriers to physical attendance in a meeting like the IGF, as well as the kind of administrative burdens, whether that’s restrictions on travel or kind of processes like visa applications. And so I think that we kind of talked about some of those challenges to having more inclusive processes, and kind of highlighted the need to think about different channels for consultation and inclusion of stakeholders beyond solely kind of physical meetings, as well as kind of virtual meetings and other types of coordination mechanisms. So yeah, thank you.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
Thank you so much, Marek. And thank you to our online participants for participating in the breakout group as well. And finally, over to yourself. And then we’ll conclude with some closing remarks, but over to you first. There we go.
Panelist:
Thank you. My name’s Greg Shatton. Tracy, I’m one of these newcomers that you’ve been hearing about coming to IGF for my first time, but I… I didn’t know you had a plus sign. But on the other hand, I’ve been involved with ICANN since 2007. I’ve been to 30 ICANN meetings. I’ve been on a dozen working groups. But as I’ve kind of changed my focus there, that’s why I’m here. I started out in the private sector. I still spend my daytime in the private sector. But having been the president of the Intellectual Property Constituency for three years, I left that side of the world. Sorry, Jimson. And now in At Large, where I’m the chair of the North American regional At Large organization, and also the president of ISOC New York. So I have absolutely no excuse not to be more involved than I already have been with the GDC and with the UN in New York. And I, you know, Jimson and I were talking about the barriers of access to information, capacity, development, and the like for civil society and for individual end users. And so I’m gonna make somewhat of an offer, which is if there’s anything that ISOC New York can do, and while ISOC Global is a technical-oriented organization, some of our U.S. chapters, especially New York and D.C., as you might imagine, are very policy-oriented. So if there’s anything that we can do to help to write a project, a home, online, we have the indefatigable Jolie McPhee, who can put anybody online at any time, and he’s been a part of our ISOC New York cabal. You know, we can do something to help to provide a hub, a project, a space, virtual, or even physical. I have my day job, I have a law firm, which has some conference rooms, and whatever we need to do, and we’re on 42nd and Lexington in the Chrysler Building, five blocks from the U.N. So if there’s anything I can do to help to provide some form of a node, a nexus for any of this stuff through the capacities that I have, you know, I’m more than happy to do that because I like the idea that something’s finally happening in New York instead of Geneva because, you know, I was born on the island, that’s my island. So I think, you know, I want to make it work and not make it feel like all of a sudden we’ve lost the Geneva kind of environment and that the New York environment is kind of cold and unfriendly because New Yorkers are only cold and unfriendly until you ask them to help you, and then they’re as warm and engaged as can be. So I’m asking to help you. Thank you.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
Thank you so much. And I think we can all really help each other, I think, to point out, I would encourage those, even if you’re new to this space, tell us what we can do to be more inclusive. The onus is on us to come to you, but don’t be afraid to reach out equally, I think. We have to work together in this process. And with that, I’d just like to pass over for some closing remarks before I’ll formally conclude the session. To the Deputy Director for Internet Governance at the UK Government Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to just make some closing comments. So thank you.
Panelist:
No, and thank you, Roz. And I think it’s a real achievement that here we are at sort of between six and seven on day four of the IGF, and actually a really good turnout and a really animated discussion as well. So I want to thank you, Roz. And I also want to thank your fellow panelists, Mary, Alan, Tamer, and Henrietta for sharing your time. So the UK government, we’ve organized this session really committed to multi-stakeholderism. And that’s gonna be so important as we’ve got the WSIS plus 20 process. And before then, we’ve got the Global Digital Compact. And the Internet Governance Forum is a really important vehicle for that. And my sort of one reflection, and I think Henrietta, you sort of spoke about window dressing. And I think it’s really important that we don’t, we use the M word of multi-stakeholderism a lot, but I think it’s really important that we mean it. First of all, just to make sure that it remains credible. But also, if you want to enact change, you need to bring people with you. And it’s through listening, not just hearing, and making a reality of multi-stakeholderism that you can make change happen and make change stick. So it’s a false economy, just to sort of pretend or doing a new window dressing where you’re probably just better off not doing it at all. So if you’re gonna do it, do it properly. And certainly that’s a commitment to the UK government. But I’ll stop there.
Rosalind KennyBirch:
It’s late, but Roz, back to you. And thank you very much again. Thank you so much, Paul. And I think, I mean, just to say what engagement, 7 p.m. at night. If this community is anything, it is engaged. So thank you for your time today. Thank you for your excellent commentary, engagement. I think lots for us to take away. And I mean, certainly we will be doing, as Paul says, all that we can to ensure that this WSIS Plus 20 review process is fully inclusive to the multi-stakeholder community. And with that, I’ll leave it. And I think it might be reception time, if I heard correctly. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So we’ll start with all people’s t-shirts. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speakers
Alan Ramirez Garcia
Speech speed
160 words per minute
Speech length
418 words
Speech time
156 secs
Anriette Esterhuysen
Speech speed
172 words per minute
Speech length
1466 words
Speech time
512 secs
Mary Uduma
Speech speed
132 words per minute
Speech length
1140 words
Speech time
520 secs
Panelist
Speech speed
185 words per minute
Speech length
2645 words
Speech time
860 secs
Rosalind KennyBirch
Speech speed
157 words per minute
Speech length
2016 words
Speech time
771 secs
Timea Suto
Speech speed
182 words per minute
Speech length
1516 words
Speech time
501 secs