BREAK OUT ROOM 3: The Declaration for the Future of the Internet: Principles to Action

Moderator

The conversation centred primarily on the Declaration for the Future of the Internet (DFI), examining it specifically through the perspective of the private sector. Key goals were to comprehend how the private sector’s experiences with the DFI and its principles, to evaluate success in implementing these principles, and to stimulate dialogue, advancing cooperation between the private sector, governmental bodies and the larger multi-stakeholder community.

Participants acknowledged the imperative role of the private sector in putting the DFI principles into practice, along with the need for multi-stakeholder involvement. They proposed methods of understanding how the private sector could aid in implementing these principles, whilst discussing potential hurdles and channels for their execution.

Increased government activity in internet regulation was noted. Verisign observed the growing governmental regulations of the internet in recent times, emphasising the necessity for the private sector to interact more actively with other sections of the multi-stakeholder community. It was suggested that the private sector, technical community, and civil society need to present a united front to the government, promoting the multi-stakeholder model.

A considerable focus was placed on the importance of inclusivity, connectivity and affordable access to the internet. It was urged that universal connectivity should be placed at the paramount of importance, with added protection of online privacy, user trust, and intellectual property rights.

It was stressed that a holistic approach was needed for policy-related decisions, with considerations of implications at every end of the spectrum. The private sector was motivated to actively participate in the multi-stakeholder cooperation process. Not only does the private sector need to utilise its capacity, it should also assist other sectors and users.

Within the field of internet governance, the necessity for advancing online skills, affordability and inclusivity of internet connectivity, along with user safety policies were raised. These points elevated the need for capacity building and more efficient governmental policies necessitating cooperation of all stakeholders and underlining the critical role of public-private partnerships.

The DFI initiative was perceived as an effective platform for the private sector to have a positive impact. The implementation of DFI principles by subscribed countries was urged over mere commitment. An approach revolving around dialogue and learning from failures, rather than blaming or shaming, was promoted.

Overall, the conversation stressed the importance of the multi-stakeholder model, highlighting the role of the private sector in the implementation of DFI principles and the continuous evolution of internet governance. It concluded with a unanimous endorsement for sharing of best practices and lessons learned among different stakeholders. The private sector is seen as instrumental in implementing these principles and playing an active role in these crucial discussions.

Audience

The dialogue highlighted the critical role of the private sector in driving forward various aspects of collaborative internet governance, with an emphasis on the necessity for proactive outreach and engagement with the larger multi-stakeholder community. The discussion underscored the significant shift in the role of governments in recent years from being passive observers to becoming active participants in internet regulation at both national and regional levels. This conversation elevated the urgency for the private sector not only to engage more robustly with civil society and governments but also to adopt a united front to ensure fair representation and counterbalance the increasing prevalence of government regulations surrounding internet usage.

The significance of stakeholder collaboration was widely recognised, emphasising the need to work not just individually with governments, but also among various sectors to ensure an informed and equitable approach to governance. Awareness was raised regarding the importance of trust and privacy, advocating that the processes developed must strike a balance between protecting privacy and ensuring the capability to address and rectify issues such as breaches in intellectual property rights.

The necessity for stronger action across individual sectors, such as the private sector, in enhancing Declaration for the Future of the Internet (DFI) initiatives was also emphasised. However, concerns were raised about potential risks that might arise from opting to mirror policies without comprehensively considering the practical impacts and the individual needs and characteristics of stakeholders.

Capacity building within both the private sector and governmental bodies was highlighted as a key component, with advocates suggesting that more detailed understanding and involvement in policymaking could result in more impactful implementation by governments. Private sector representatives were urged to take up a role in influencing underrepresented or less active governments in digital financial inclusion, thus spotlighting the pivotal role that the private sector could play in fostering productive dialogue and progress.

Regarding the issue of internet affordability and inclusivity, evidence from Sri Lanka was cited to underscore how strategic implementation of DFI principles could result in greater internet accessibility. In this context, regulator-driven competition was presented as a potential approach to promote affordability.

Closing the discussion was a call to action for a more deliberate approach towards capacity building and training. This was viewed as crucial for delivering appropriate messaging and educating regarding the risks and benefits of internet usage to the global community. Another key point proposed was the essential need for stronger media engagement as a tool for capacity building, as well as for effectively communicating key issues such as those related to the Global Digital Compact.

Overall, the analysis underscored the crucial role of the private sector in actively engaging with stakeholders to address thematic issues around internet governance, affordability, and inclusivity. It demonstrated the critical need for the establishment of robust governance policies to ensure digital rights and the more strategic application of internet policy for future development.

Moderator:
room for the session on the Declaration for the Future of the Internet for the private sector. So if you a couple of questions, we’re going to be talking about in the next hour or so, really trying to get together and see the private sector’s opinions, ideas about the Declaration of the Future of the Internet. So please take your seat. How we’re going to do this, there is a microphone in the middle of the room. I don’t think we are able to do rowing mics in the room. So if you have something to say, I will ask you to please come up to the microphone and share what you’d like to say so everybody can hear you. That’s one thing. And second thing, thank you very much for fulfilling a dream of mine. I’ve always dreamed of being a tour guide. So now I’ve done that. So thank you for that. What we’re going to do today is really just try and go through what has happened in the past year or so around the Declaration for the Future of the Internet and understand how the private sector feels about not just what’s in the principles that were presented to you earlier in the main conversation, but also we were reminded that if principles are just there on a shelf, they really don’t serve to that much. So what we’re trying to see is how can we move to their implementation? And a lot of the speakers today have already said that implementation really requires a multi-stakeholder involvement. There is not much that can be done by any one stakeholder on their own. So what we’re trying to suss out today based on your experience and your expertise is how can the private sector help in implementation? Implementing some of these principles. What are some of the obstacles that? around These principles and their implementation and and what are some of the channels that you see that can be used to take this to good version So we’re going to start with a couple of questions in three parts First of all talk about the priorities of the of the DFI What are the? In your opinion, what are the print the principles that are of top priority for the private sector and what are the ones that? Can be acted on as priority or should be acted on as priority doesn’t those are not the same questions What are what is that’s more ripe for action? And then of course, what is it that we should be working on for other reasons? The second team of our conversation will be how to can we cooperate can we find modalities for cooperation? Between the private sector and governments, of course, but also with the broader multi-stakeholder community How can we facilitate dialogue? And can the discussions around our personalization of the principles and What is it that? We can bring in as a multi-stakeholder community what is it that we can leverage as private sector and then the last bits that we will try and get to is Success. What is what is success look like in this? And how are we defining it? But also, how are we measuring it? So it’s we have the principles We’ll talk about how to implement them, but also how we measure if we’ve done our work correctly so that is just a quick setup from my end and To make sense of this all I want to introduce you to my colleague Natalie Natalie here is going to be our reporter. So she’ll try and capture all of your well taught out comments and and advice for us so with that Let’s just jump right in, I suggest, and talk about our first question of our first team. We’re going to allocate about 20 minutes for that conversation on the priorities. So what do you think, from the principles, the DFI principles, what is the top priority for the private sector? And what are the elements there that are low-hanging fruit, perhaps, that we can start actioning on as a multi-stakeholder community? And this is a breakout room, it’s not a panel, so I won’t be speaking. I will do count on you all to really have a debate. So who would like to go first in sharing what you think the top priority principles could be?

Audience:
Hello, is this on? Yes. So thank you very much, Tamea. My name is Keith Drezik, I work for VeriSign. VeriSign has been and is a long-standing supporter of the multi-stakeholder model. We’ve been active at IGF, in the ICANN community, obviously, as it relates to our role as a registry operator for .com and .net, among others. And VeriSign is a strong supporter of the principles in the Declaration for the Future of the Internet. I think this is a very, very important document. It’s a very important approach and an opportunity for expanded engagement. And I think from an operational or tactical level, what more can the private sector do and what should our principles and our priorities be? I think the number one answer is to be more actively engaged in outreach and active engagement with other parts of the multi-stakeholder community. I think historically, we’ve seen in the IGF context that the private sector has been involved, but perhaps not as actively involved in some of the communications and the development of workshops and proposals for IGF meetings. I think that there is value to be had in the private sector identifying more specific and concrete opportunities for engagement with civil society, with the technical community, perhaps to a lesser degree, I think perhaps civil society, sorry, private sector. sector and technical community are perhaps already more engaged. But I think really important for the private sector to engage more actively and proactively with civil society so that we can work together and present multi-stakeholder outputs to governments. I think what we’ve seen over the last 10 years, and I’m just pulling that number from the ether, but over the last 10 years, we’ve seen governments become much more active in internet regulation, either at a national level or a regional level. And I think that if we hope to support the multi-stakeholder model moving forward in the face of increased and increasing government regulation of the internet, then we have to work better together as private sector, technical community, and civil society to present a united front that really supports not just the multi-stakeholder model itself, but outputs and outcomes that help to promote trust. And the principles that are highlighted in the DFI principles and priorities is that we have to do more and more proactively together. So that’s a bit of a high-level statement. I have some more specific and concrete thoughts about how we might do that in specific areas. But I’m going to stop there and see if anybody else would like to get in the queue at this point. So thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Okay, putting this aside, all right, so thanks so much Keith. Apparently you’ve stopped the system with those comments. Thank you so much for that, and we are looking forward to some of your more specific points when we move into cooperation modalities and operationalization of the principles, so I’m looking forward to that. So what we’ve heard… It’s number three, yeah, okay, perfect, thank you. So what we’ve heard from Keith is the importance of not just working together individually with governments, but also for us in the multistakeholder community working more with each other in spreading the news and the information about the principles and actually showcasing outputs as a common multistakeholder community. And what I liked what you said, Keith, there is that this actually builds the trust that we need to be able to move forward with some of these principles. So how do we move into that and into making sure that these are instruments for us to use and not just some principles that we keep and we subscribe to but don’t really implement in our day-to-day. Would anybody like to react to that vision? So Barbara, please, and then I don’t know your name, the gentleman with the glasses, but I will turn to you after.

Audience:
Hello? Hello? Okay. No, I thought Keith’s comments were spot on, the importance of collaborating together among the stakeholder community so we’re not seeming to work at cross purposes. I think, you know, if the stakeholders can come together, then we present a unified point of view, particularly in a U.N. body that has a broad cross-section of governments and countries participating. But I wanted to speak, you know, to build upon Keith’s point and speak to one of the priorities and I think we cannot emphasize enough the importance of inclusivity and connectivity, affordable connectivity and access to the Internet because if you don’t have connectivity, then you basically don’t have anything, you don’t have the Internet. So I would suggest that we prioritize that as an element of these principles to focus our unified engagement with other stakeholder groups. Thank you. Okay. I’m very scared to turn the microphone on, but it’s working, thank you. So yeah, noted that. Turn to the basics and make sure that we have universal meaningful connectivity for all. That’s where we should start. Thank you, Barbara. The gentleman, please come to the microphone and then please introduce yourself so that I don’t keep calling you gentleman. Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. I’m Charles Shaban. I represent the International Trademark Association, INTA. I think some of you already know my colleague, Laurie Schulman. She’s not here this time. But many of your firms, I’m sure, members with us, I know. So building again on what Keith mentioned, which is very important and to dig directly to some private issues, maybe one of the principles is trust and privacy, which is very important, of course. In the terms of data privacy, as an example, I think we should prioritize a process, in addition to protecting the privacy, to be sure that there is mechanisms in case someone interfered on intellectual property rights. So how, for example, if someone is trying to do something which is against your rights, which is trademarks, patents, et cetera. But mainly, this is important to find a way in the processes with the multi-stakeholder to talk about it and to give it to be. Sorry, sometimes I confuse myself. Anyway, mainly, I’m trying to say we have to find a way to have a process always clear, in addition to protecting the privacy, to be sure how to be able to reach, for example, an infringer. I know this is not an important, usually, point sometimes in the internet governance in general. But I think for the private sector, this is something important. And at the same time, even for the civil society, because this even protects the consumer rights at the end. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. So making sure that when we look deep into a priority, we’re looking into protecting one’s special rights or want to take policies and measure them in one side of the topics. We don’t lose sight of its implications. on other conversations, right? So, we’re taking that holistic approach, I think is something that we should know. Thank you for sharing that, Charles. Anybody else would like to take the floor on the principles? The gentleman here, and I know, Mark, you’re already standing. So, please go ahead, Mark, and then you.

Audience:
Yes, thanks, Tim Eyre, and good morning, everybody. Mark Harvell, I’m an Internet Governance Consultant. I used to work for the UK government. I’m now involved in the private sector, so that’s why I’ve moved in this direction. And I just wanted to pick up really on, actually, I think it was a point that Keith made about governments increasingly getting into regulating in this sphere, and how should the private sector respond to that? And I think if we look at the roster of priorities in the declaration, you’ve got a lot there on trust, and specifically on combating the harms online. That first bullet, work together to combat cybercrime, cyber-enabled crime, deter malicious cyber activity. And then further down, consumer protection. I think the message from governments really is, when I was with the UK government, there was a kind of sea change of policy. Governments, I was advising, were saying, we’ve got to end the Wild West of the Internet. It’s no longer the policy of the UK to be totally hands-off, which I was pushing ministers to sustain within a multi-stakeholder governance context. So governments are seeing it’s important now to get a much better grip on tackling the harms and risks and the growth of all the negative stuff that’s online. And I think the DFI is a valuable opportunity, a platform for collaboration, involving the private sector, much more assertively by the private sector, to work with governments on those particular priorities. That’s where I would suggest some specific focus be applied when we come to implementing these principles. And that intersects valuably, I think, with the whole global digital compact agenda and ultimately the WSIS plus 20. And demonstrating through the DFI initiative how multi-stakeholder engagement involving, as Keith was saying, much more active commitment by the private sector to sort of defeat this assumption that the private sector is only in it for the money and not for social and welfare of citizens and also the welfare of businesses. Businesses are vulnerable to all these harms. So I hope those comments are helpful. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Mark. is addressing this possibly false dichotomy around private sector interest versus everybody else’s interest, our own interest in moving this forward as a multi-stakeholder community. Thanks. We are noting that. You wanted to share something.

Audience:
Good morning, everyone. Good morning, everyone. My name is Sameerab from Dialog Asia, the telecom company there in Sri Lanka. Maybe I have a very limited exposure on DFIs, but when I went to go through the principles, maybe what I wanted to highlight in terms of the priority is now, let’s say, the whole world went through a COVID situation. So what happened is, compared to the Europe or maybe American region, maybe especially in the Asian region, I can represent. So we saw a lot of unconnected connecting, because they didn’t have means of doing their businesses or educations or health care or whatever. Otherwise, getting connected. So we connected net new, additions of millions of people getting connected to something which was not very familiar with, because they didn’t have any other options rather than getting connected. So we need to take care of these new millions who got connected, and especially areas like privacy, cybersecurity. So that aspect, we need to be very careful and just prioritize on those aspects. In Sri Lanka, actually, we are working on the online safety bill. So it will be passed very soon in the parliament, because those who are newly connected to the internet, so we need to ensure that they are safe and they can continue. On the other hand, them to be connected, the third point, rather inclusive and affordable. So maybe the private sector and even the government and all those other stakeholders can play a major role. So who got connected, who got benefited, if we are to sustain that, we need to ensure that it’s affordable and inclusive. So those two, I think, maybe probably this might be valid for the African region. and as well those new internet users. So those two priorities, I think, we need to focus more.

Moderator:
Thank you. We’re moving along nicely in a pace of connecting everyone. And then once you’re connected, what’s necessary for you once you’re online, and what you can do, and what others can do for you to make sure that we are all in this together. And I do have a point there that I want to ask the room as well. Of course, there’s a lot of responsibility. Mark said governments want to protect their citizens. Companies want to protect their users once online. From the user perspective, I know we are here to discuss the private sector, but what can the private sector also do? Maybe build capacity to help these other different sectors work together. So what is it that it’s the private sector responsibility, but then what is our responsibility to work with others in this aspect and work with the users that are coming online? And what can the private sector do to help, not just from thinking of what we can do, but what we can do to help others once online? So it’s just a question to all of you to think about. And Suki, you wanted to share something.

Audience:
Thank you, Tibia. Suki Dufer from GIZ, German implementing agency, private company owned by the German government. So I’m also somewhere in between. And I would recommend actually to work and cooperate much more closer with institutions such as Smart Africa in Africa that is responsible for building and developing the connectivity in Africa. And I think that it would also help to identify some public-private partnerships and identify some success factors and to see to create a win-win. win situation for everyone, because I think the private sector is not so much interested in just discussing things, but seeing some benefits out of the cooperation. And I think that’s why I think it’s very, very important to come up with more public-private partnerships.

Moderator:
Thank you, noting that. And that’s a clear answer to how we operationalize also some of this conversation, which we are slowly going to move into. So I’m going to give everyone a last chance to talk about the priorities, if there’s any more priorities that you think we should be looking at. If not, then we’re going to move into the direction that we are organically moving to anyway, because I see you are all thinking about operationalization and how we actually move into some of those priorities that you’ve noted. So we’ve heard me to connect the unconnected. We need to ensure that there is trust online once people are connected, and that elements of that trust include security, privacy, protection of consumer, but also intellectual property rights in a more holistic fashion. So how do we move to actually make this happen? What are the elements that we need to operationalize these principles that you’ve noted as priorities? What can we do as private sector to make that happen? What are we expecting from governments to do to make that happen? What are we expecting from other parts of the multi-stakeholder world? And how do we work together? So I’m simplifying three big questions that we have here on the screen, but really the gist of it is how do we really move to action? So what is it that we can do, and what are we expecting others to do? Keith, you said you have some points on that, so I’m going to call on you. you first, but others, please prepare your comments.

Audience:
OK. Thank you very much, Tamea. So again, Keith Drasic with Beresign. I’m going to provide maybe a case study or an example, I think, that might help frame the way I see an opportunity for the private sector, the technical community, where there is some overlap, obviously, especially when you talk about internet technical operators. Can be both private sector and technical. And the importance of engaging with civil society and governments in this particular example. So as we’ve noted over the last several years, there have been references to trusted flaggers, or trusted notifiers, particularly coming out of some legislation and regulation in the European Union. And I think that is an example of an area where there is a need for a multi-stakeholder informed discussion about what it means to be a trusted flagger. And what the implications of trusted flaggers are generally when it comes to freedoms online, privacy, due process, recourse, proportionality of action. And I’m tying this, in a way, back to Mark’s comments about online harms and the mitigation of online harms. I think at a very basic level, it’s really important for the multi-stakeholder community, including governments, including those that are regulating, to understand the roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of the various actors in the internet ecosystem, the service providers. It’s really important for regulators to truly understand what a registry does, what a hosting provider does, what an ISP does, what a registrar does, the range of actors in the internet ecosystem, in the stack, if you will. It really matters who you’re targeting with regulation, because the roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of the various actors are distinct and different. And so I think when you take that and then add on a question of a trusted flagger and how a trusted flagger would interact with any one or more of those operators in the stack, it becomes very convoluted and very complicated. And we have heard already from civil society their concerns about trusted flaggers being so-called shadow regulation, or instances where there would be lack of due process outside of a traditional court system. So for example, and this is the example, if there is harmful content being hosted by a hosting company that is using a domain name, and there is a trusted flagger who has identified this harm and is interested in being the most effective and efficient in removing that harmful content or mitigating that online harm, it’s really important for that trusted flagger to know who to go to and who to expect to take the most appropriate proportionate action in terms of that mitigation strategy. But it’s also really important for the trusted flagger to be held to account in that what they are reporting or flagging to the technical operator is supported by evidence, and that there is recourse for the impacted party, that the action being requested is proportionate or proportional, that you’re not having excess negative blowback because of an action taken at the request of a trusted flagger. So I think this is an example where governments in regulating. and suggesting or encouraging trusted flaggers, civil society who have legitimate concerns about negative impact on end users or those that, you know, host a website. And making sure that the operators are receiving well evidenced and actionable reports that are routed to the appropriate party. And I think that that is an example where there is a need for a multi-stakeholder dialogue. And it’s probably just starts as a dialogue. But it could evolve into something a little bit, you know, more structured or more, you know, comprehensive in terms of a, you know, an operational approach. So just an example. I don’t know if that’s helpful. Happy to hear anybody else’s thoughts on this one. Thanks. Thanks, Adge. I would add one question to that. Do you see that model happening at a national, international, subnational level? Or where do we start? Yeah, no, it’s a great question. And I think the, that dialogue as, you know, by way of example, needs to begin in a bit of a sort of an organic bottom-up way where you have industry coming together and making sure that the operators are talking together to make sure that there’s better communication and collaboration among the technical service operators, the internet service providers, if you will, ISPs, hosting companies, registries, registrars, resellers. But I think it’s really important to augment that very quickly with, you know, the inputs from civil society and the inputs from regulators and government, and the technical community to a certain extent. And so I think that that needs to start at a national level, regional level, and then evolve into something. Because clearly we’ve seen that there are extraterritorial or trans, you know, transborder issues when it comes to some of these issues. So I think it is a bigger issue that needs to be tackled. But I think it needs to probably start at a regional level, you know, just for logistics, right? I think just for, to be able to, you know, achieve. So I would look at, and I know we’re talking here about the DFI and the principles and the priorities, but I think I see IGF, national and regional IGFs as an excellent opportunity for this conversation to begin and to continue. And I’m sure there are other examples that can be identified of this type of multi-stakeholder engagement and dialogue, but I think this is one where when we talk about the mitigation of online harms, the roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of the actors, and how they are informed of the harms, and how they handle the harms to make sure that end users are not disproportionately negatively impacted by those decisions, I think is a critical component. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thank you. So if I would. Draw a flowchart in my mind on how this were to go. We have the principles that were defined by governments Internationally, it should look back into the grassroots Where multi stakeholders can come together? Go back up to the national level and back to the national level to international policy common conversations so we do this and cycles and then we go back and Take this cyclically in a way that that we can move Organically between the bottom up and then the international cooperation levels Thanks, just trying to make sense of how you see this happening. I’m out. Oh you wanted to share something

Audience:
Hi everybody, my name is Amado Espinosa from Latin America. I am a A little bit concerned to me about the F of this meeting Because I’m not sure Certainly the points already raised are very key I mean from the technical standpoint and also how The government’s can react but the parliamentary level or at the executive level in whatsoever but Big industry, I think they are after shot GPT. I think they are now Taking the lead in terms of the F of this meeting then My Recommendation team is I don’t know if the ICC will be the proper channel for a call for proposals. For example in terms of how can I Can talk on behalf of the Latin America Industry IT industry, how can we get together and try to make this kind of definitions of these principles in terms of the impact into our societies? How are we going to solve all those technical issues? They are very, very, very key. But the main concern right now is how are we going to deal with the arrival of this huge AI wave that we are experiencing right now? And if we really want to see more private companies investing in AI with a certain kind of code of ethics, trying to figure out this future of internet, and we are going to collaborate all together in order to solve these technical issues as well as the infrastructure problems that we have in our region at least, then how can we get really the big industry here at these discussions and share with us the way they used to do at the very, very, very, very high level meetings they take part of, in which direction the technology is going? Then maybe one proposal would be right now for cooperation to see how can we get all together the different sectors from the industry, because we are at the different layers of the internet, and how can we have a common ground point to bring to the table to discuss with the governments and also to offer something reasonable for the society and also having the academy supporting our initiatives. Thank you very much.

Moderator:
Thank you, Amado. That’s a good point, and not treating industry as a monolith. Governments are all not the same. Industries are all not the same. Civil society is all. not the same. So indeed, we have different sectors. We have different sizes, different capabilities in the private sector. So how do we make sure that all of those perspectives are taken into account when we look towards operationalizing the principles and really looking towards our shared future? And I think that’s a good point in figuring out where are some of those spaces that various types of industry can connect and work together to share perspectives so that that can then be taken into other communities. That’s a good point, and we’re taking that. Yes, please. Hi, there. I’m Louisa Tomar from the Center for International Private Enterprise.

Audience:
Thanks, Tamia, for hosting this. So I just wanted to make the comment that I think with the principles, they’re somewhat from the perspective of democratic governments and opportunities for private sector to improve how they build and deploy technology. And I think with my organization, we work globally in all kinds of complex environments with local business communities, and the reality is that oftentimes their governments are the bad actors that they’re sort of engaging with, and that often can trickle up and down. So I think when it comes to the multistakeholder process, there can be sort of government and civil society can sometimes forget what private sector may be up against in some of the places where they’re deploying technology, often for the purpose of accessibility and bringing new people online. And so I think there needs to be more thought about how the multistakeholder process can support private sector in those areas. situations and sort of not treat private sector and one as monolith to as you know the technology providers are sort of the the bad guys in the in the room verse you know oftentimes they’re dealing with they want to uphold these principles and yet the government that they’re actually dealing with is is not and so I just think there needs to be a broader consideration of where the multi-stakeholder process can come in and which elements of the stakeholders experience what and where support from other governments or supports from civil society come into play and I just think that piece can really be missing and in terms of this declaration I do think it what it doesn’t feel written from from that perspective necessarily so I just wanted to add that thank you I have a follow-up question if you don’t mind I was just wondering do you see potential for multi-stakeholder collaboration industry collaboration in country to move the needle and in some of these instances to get more governmental support towards the DFI yes I mean I think that it’s essential for global business and technology companies to be engaging with the local business community in country and supporting their advocacy efforts around this I do think that’s already taking place I think some of the gaps can be that other governments or other engagement government to government is not necessarily considering where the private sector is already sort of pushing one element or another and then there can be a gap between like government to government engagement where the dialogue is sort of happening separately and not necessarily more cohesively but I also think it has to be at like a multi-stakeholder level as well, sort of an appreciation of what it can actually look like on the ground as an operator, other provider, versus simply like these companies sort of have free reign in every market that they may be present.

Moderator:
Thank you so much. That is really helpful. It’s really moving us into the direction of the conversation that we were instructed to go to, to really think a little bit about also how we can make sure that those countries that have signed on to the DFI are effectively implementing it. But also think about, and this is the next question I would like to move into if there’s no more input on the previous one, what can we do to move further support towards these principles? And I realize that I’m assuming that we think that we should build more support. But if anybody wants to talk about something else, or do you think that this is enough, the support that we have for DFI, feel free to voice that as well. But I’m starting from the premise that we would like to see more support for the DFI. If so, what do you think the private sector can do, what a multi-stakeholder community can do to expand that support into other regions? Please.

Audience:
Hi, everyone. I’m Samantha. I’m an attorney at law from Sri Lanka. I think it’s very important that the regulatory and the law enforcement aspect of the future of the internet is looked into. If I’m not mistaken, I think the UAI Act is just about wrapping up, and there’s a US AI Act. So we’re looking at AI being very, very prominent in the future. And in Sri Lanka, we just passed the Data Protection Act. And we really need the law enforcement community, starting from the courts to the regulatory authorities, taking a lead role in this. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Thank you for that, Samantha. So what I take away from your comment is, if we look at it issue by issue, if we see common topical issues arising across the globe, such as AI, for example, can that be a driver for us to think about broader principles on the internet that can connect us and move, perhaps, a bit more interoperable action on some of these processes so we don’t think about them in silos? So principles can move action on topical issues, but also concerns around topical issues can have us think about the principles more broadly and move towards more acceptance and implementation. Thank you for sharing that. Any other thoughts on either how to operationalize the principles in the countries that support them or move to new supporters? I see a couple of people who haven’t spoken. I’m not going to call you out, but just know that you are very welcome to share any thoughts that you might have. We still have about half an hour in our conversation. Please, John.

Audience:
Thanks, Tamia. One of the real strengths, I think, of the Declaration for the Future of the Internet is the coalition of countries pulled together, which I think has countries from across the development spectrum and who have just very different stages of regulatory infrastructure in place that relates to technology and the internet itself. Oh, I should say, I’m John from Microsoft. I think that’s a strength probably to be leveraged as it relates to just the modalities and processes that are in place for creating regulations to begin with, and that countries, especially the ones who are more advanced. in developing regulatory approaches should consider how those approaches are going to be modeled elsewhere and serve as sort of the, you know, first attempt at pursuing this legislation and how that might sort of percolate throughout the rest of the DFI ecosystem. That could be a real strength whereby the DFI community is able to sort of evangelize what they found to be good regulatory approaches across different spaces, what they believe to be good multi-stakeholder consultation processes across that DFI space. There’s also a lot of risk, though, that can kind of create races to the bottom or outcomes where if countries not being as mindful about that multi-stakeholder inclusion or what the practical impact of certain policies are gonna be in one space, that they may well then be mirrored or attempted elsewhere in ways that are less successful. The one policy that jumps to mind right now is the European Union’s CRA and particularly its provisions around the mandate and the reporting of known exploitative vulnerabilities, something which I have not met a security professional or anyone in industry who thinks that’s gonna do anything but make the security system worse. But even if, you know, you think that your government could pursue that policy responsibly, it would be hard to justify, hey, everybody should have a similar vulnerability reporting requirement for known exploitative vulnerabilities for which there’s not yet a patch. And so thinking about how we’re including multi-stakeholder voices in developing those policies to begin with as a model throughout the DFI ecosystem and then thinking about how the resulting policies that we come up with are then going to be replicated throughout the DFI ecosystem, I think is important as well.

Moderator:
Thank you, John. That is really a good point. So how can this coalition act as a multiplier for best practices as a safe space for discussing challenges that we all face? And perhaps if we can share those outputs, that can also drive more supporters, signatories who come to this coalition as a space for. for helpful resources, so we’re noting that. Thank you, thank you so much. Okay, there, please, Mark.

Audience:
Yes, thank you, Mark Arvell, independent consultant. Just on operationalizing the principles, for the partner governments, it’s about 67, 70, something like that, the number. I think it would be a good message for the private sector to say to those partner governments, let’s develop some effective mechanisms for engagement on how to develop policies that will implement these principles, be it online harms, protecting intellectual property rights, serving the interests of data privacy in the health sector, whatever. And, I mean, in the UK, we’ve had quite a good track record of establishing advisory groups. I participated from the government side in an advisory group with private sector and civil society and the technical community around the table, and we would talk about what’s happening globally, but also what’s happening nationally on some of these key issues, data privacy or whatever. And so, for the private sector to think about models of mechanisms for that kind of discourse, that’s gonna be meaningful and influential, and that is also taking into account the diversity of the private sector, the point that was raised earlier, which is very challenging. I mean, when I was in government, who do we talk to if it’s on the education side or agriculture in terms of data privacy? digital policy, it was not easy to identify and get them all in the same room. And the problem for the private sector, we understood, was that it’s time-consuming for them, it’s a cost, but the private sector should see it as an investment of time to ensure that the right kind of policies are developed that are going to foster innovation and help the private sector, the commercial interests. But at the same time, serve the interests of citizens and address the sort of political concerns and law enforcement, a point made about law enforcement agencies. They need to be involved in this discourse too. So developing a model of a mechanism like that, drawing on examples in the UK and other countries have already tried to establish, and we have a regulator now taking up the whole issue in the UK on online safety. The legislation is now passed, it’s now over to the regulator, Ofcom in the UK’s case. So the regulator needs to have the opportunity to engage effectively with the private sector too. And then on this point about engaging those administrations that are not participating in the DFI initiative, I think the private sector, especially the bigger corporate entities, could have a role there to engage administrations that are not signed up to this. And there are lots, you know, where is Mexico, Egypt, South Africa, Morocco, a lot of these countries, you know, Indonesia, they’re not engaged. But the private sector, through their corporate networks, can usefully message about this in support of those efforts by the lead governments and the European Commission and so on to advocate much more signing up by many, many more governments. Because it needs beefing up in terms of numbers of partners, certainly. Okay, thanks, I’ll stop there.

Moderator:
Thank you, Mark. Thank you. are some really practical comments, which we’re used to from your side already. So just to make sure that we note everything that you’ve said, we will have noted here that we need to share information from the private sector of what is it that, how do we see the process of our own involvement into some of these processes at the various levels of national policymaking regulating cycles. So from this moment that we discuss it, the moment we pass legislation on it, we think about policy frameworks, we pass regulations. So we need to have that cycle, first of all, understood by the private sector. Then the private sector needs to figure out where they can come in on that. And then the private sector needs to be vocal about how they would like to be part of that. And that also includes capacity building within the private sector to be willing to do that, and capacity building in the government side to be willing to do that. And then to your point about making sure that the private sector engages its own corporate networks to influence others, I would like reactions on that, I think, from the room. This is a very interesting point. Where that information from the private sector towards the government should come from? Is it from large companies, small companies, domestic companies, foreign companies, different sectors of industry? I think that that’s a lot to unpack on that particular point. But you wanted to share some.

Audience:
Yeah, thanks. Building on that, I’m David Sullivan, lead of the Digital Trust and Safety Partnership, which is a partnership of providers of digital services working together to articulate best practices for trust and safety online. And so I would just, I think, Mark’s made some tremendous comments, but I don’t know that the metric of success for the DFI is the number of governments that commit to it. I think it is successful, meaningful implementation of it within the governments that have committed to it that share the values of the document working together with the multistakeholder community. And there, I think that the risks that I see for the private sector in this is, one, that practices or regulations not developed with input from the practitioners are imposed on the private sector in a way that is not necessarily proportionate to the role of particular players in the stack and or the in particular jurisdictions which are challenging, which may fall outside of the partnerships, of the signatories of the DFI. And so there, I really think there is a incredible, like there is already a tremendous amount of work that’s being done by the private sector relevant to the principles in the DFI across many different coalitions and partnerships at the international level, at the national level. And I think being able to articulate those in a coordinated way and help make sure that those inform the implementation is really the key here. So that’s just my quick point. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. And that consultation and working together on some of these frameworks and policies means buy-in when it comes to implementation. So that’s, yeah, that was a really important point to raise. So we’re noting that. You already started talking about measures of success for the DFI, and that is going to be the last part of our conversation. So I want to stop here and ask anybody feels that have anything to share on operationalizing the principles moving towards implementation, I want to make sure that you’ve all felt heard and had the moment to share your thoughts on this so we can always circle back. But if not, then I suggest we start moving towards the last part of the conversation, which is what does success look like? what does success look like for the DFI in general, for the individual principles, and what does success look like from the point of view of the private sector. And then as you think about that, if you can add to that, how do we measure progress and how do we measure our steps towards that vision of success? And this is the moment to be idealistic and share all the great ideas that you want the DFI to accomplish.

Audience:
I wasn’t planning to talk, but I think Mark mentioned the remark that can answer your question. In my previous work, more than 10 years ago, I was part of ICC basis, by the way. So one of the issues that happened with me because I live in Jordan, and although I was representing a private firm, the Jordanian minister back then of telecommunication asked me to represent even Jordan because she noticed they weren’t active. So when Mark mentioned that Egypt and other countries in the world who are not represented, maybe not participating in IGF, doesn’t know what’s going on. So maybe we can use the private sector people to make sure one of the maybe success stories to try to move it to the governments of the countries who are not able to attend sometimes or not able to participate. So just thinking loudly with you. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. So making sure that those actors involved in the process act as multipliers and create that ripple effect with their own communities, that is one success. Thank you for that. Anybody else?

Audience:
Amado, please. And you know, I think the, well, also an answer for Mark’s question is, I’m coming from Mexico. And I will say probably the government, the officials, the official agencies responsible to be here at this meeting are not here because they are not filling the requirement from the private sector, from the civil society, and so on. But this is also a very good point. Maybe they have not really the means of the people who can attend. And yes, that could be another possibility. That’s why I think if there is an organization who can make this invitation, this open invitation to the different stockholders to discuss, it could be, at least in Mexico, a very good way to start. Maybe it is IGF through another organization. ISOC is supposed to support IGF, but I don’t know. Probably the pathway is still the same. And the measure of success will be how can we really be able to work all together and have this kind of commitment if the government cannot attend this meeting. But maybe the private sector can also represent their interest. Thank you.

Moderator:
So we’re percolating around this idea of defining success not in a number of signatories, but in a number of partnerships and successful implementation projects that are happening in a multistakeholder fashion. So I’m hearing a lot of support for that. Barbara, you wanted to share something.

Audience:
Thanks very much. And I realized that I didn’t identify myself earlier. I’m Barbara Wanner with the US Council for International Business. Sort of building on all. comments that people have made and this goes to the role of private sector. You know I would just and I just you know when I’m speaking to other policy professionals and I and they say well what what does this you know digital economy issues what are you talking about and I say well you know one of the buckets would be we would consider would be internet governance in the eyes glaze. You know I would just love it if maybe this is more of a public outreach role. I would love it so that you know the average person could pick up the newspaper and read an article that just explains what the business community is doing and how you know how why internet governance is important to the individual. That’s a that’s a fantasy it’s a very high aspiration but so that because you know this is the future of the economy this is the future of of innovation and societal welfare and you know people that aren’t at the IGF aren’t in this space oftentimes just don’t even understand the concept so you know very high aspirational that we’d have maybe private sector could undertake a really fundamental public education effort which would in turn have ripple effects in turn you know to our government representatives and so forth. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thank you Barbara. A question back to you but to the room in general as well. Why do we have this challenge and I see that as well in myself mostly when I start writing talking points to people who don’t necessarily talk about this every day they tell me this is not the language that every people speak. You need to go and think about this in a way that I can read this paper and talk as if I’m talking about it and we find ourselves a lot in this space talk about these policies we’re so invested in them It’s like we’re talking a foreign language. Why is that, and what can we do to make this relevant to the average person in the here and now, but to the average person that, as Amadou said, is concerned about their future of the Internet? So what is it that the DFI can do, and what is it the private sector can do to build that bridge between policy ivory tower and the here and now in our everyday lives? And if somebody has that answer, we’ll give you a prize.

Audience:
Thank you, Tamia. It’s Keith again. I apologize for taking the microphone so much. I may not have an answer directly to your question, but I think it’s really important when we talk about success criteria to note number five under the principles, which is listed as protecting and strengthening the multistakeholder approach to governance that keeps the Internet running for the benefit of all. And so I think there is benefit and success. There is a success threshold in having a multistakeholder, a healthy, vibrant multistakeholder community and dialogue and interaction. But I think it’s really important in order to achieve that is to identify key areas of concern that a multistakeholder dialogue can deliver upon, right, and especially as we anticipate government regulation, because, look, governments are going to legislate and governments are going to regulate. That’s what they do, right? They, and I’m, you know, preaching to the choir, but that’s their role is to protect the interests of their citizens, respectively, and, you know, from their perspectives. And I think that point from their perspectives is critically important. And we as the private sector working with civil society and the technical community need to ensure that governments as they legislate and as they regulate do so in an informed way. And that, you know, I think as I said at the outset, we’ve seen over the last 20, 10, 15, 10 years now, even more recently. Governments are getting much more active in regulating the internet in all of its, you know components and forms It’s even more important today that we make sure that as they become more active in regulating the internet broadly That they do so with information they do so in an educated way And I think we as the private sector have a role in that as has been mentioned here But I think we need to do so in collaboration with the civil society actors in the technical community to really present a unified Multi-stakeholder front when it comes to government so governments look to this community of multi-stakeholder actors You know as a as an informed resource as a resource not as competition. So, thanks

Moderator:
Thank You thank you Keith, that’s that’s a that’s a really good point and in making sure that Yeah that the uniform unified voice from the multi-stakeholder community it’s it’s not something that we just Talk to the government’s about but we talk to each other about and and and I mean try and find some of those commonalities And in what we want to say, but also how we work with one another Helen you wanted to share something

Audience:
Hi Helen from Amazon, um, I think that one of the points that I think we can do better Collectively in order to sort of like get the get the messaging across in addition to having a unified voice as Keith Mentioned I think is also Be more deliberate about capacity building and and training and I think that applies Not only to skills training but also what are the risks that we observe as Consumers and as users of the Internet and I think that by communicating that to the global community. We can also achieve the goal of making the making the DFI have more more meaning to those who don’t live and breathe IGF. Thank you.

Moderator:
That’s great, thank you, thank you so much. Indeed, we are here and we talk about these things as well, but most of the sessions we always go at, we need to talk more. What we need to be more strategic about is who are we talking to? What are the topics that we’re talking about in a fashion that really mobilizes action? And making sure that all of this talk that actually goes into an output that is impactful for the moment when we actually need to move into the action and inform that action as best as we can based on our own individual experiences from the perspectives that we each have as stakeholders. And that requires a lot of conversation, but a conversation with a purpose that actually builds understanding, capacity, awareness, et cetera. Suki, you wanted to share something?

Audience:
I found your question very interesting because coming from the EU, we have a very strong, I don’t know, regulation in general, data protection for instance. And my nephew recently said to me, oh, data protection, that’s so 80s, so old-fashioned. And I was really scared. I was like, oh my God, okay. But the thing is that I also Googled once Global Digital Compact, and there was no single article in the German press on this theme. And it’s also the same, I just Googled the declaration, right? And there was also no single article in the German press on that. And I think maybe we should also start communicating with the media to do some capacity building, not only. amongst us in the multi-stakeholder group here. And I mean, we are all aware of everything, right? Because we are now talking about this, we are spending time here in Kyoto, but actually the German press, for instance, and Germany is actually quite good in capturing a lot of topics, but for them it’s just, it does not exist. So maybe we should also start working much more with media in general. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you, Suki. Making some of the boring issues newsworthy, right? If I can go there as a moderator. Sometimes when you go into this churning machine of policy, it does seem removed from what we feel it’s impactful or it’s removed from what we feel is newsworthy, especially when there’s so much happening around us. So we need to find a way of connecting the dots because we were talking about the same things, but perhaps in a different language or in different silos. So connecting the dots and making conversations that are trying to move some of those newsworthy items forward, be part of that discussion. So that’s a good point. And we do need alliances with opinion formers and the news organizations and other media to talk about this. It’s a really good point. John, you wanted to share something more.

Audience:
Hey, John Herring from Microsoft again. When it comes to like, what does it mean to actually be implementing these and upholding these? I think it comes down to accountability for the countries. And this is a fundamentally agreement between governments. And that we are all here because we identify with and want to support as values and principles that should underscore the internet. But I think as a baseline, this should look like identifying what are the low-hanging fruit policies and practices that are kind of non-negotiable that governments who are subscribing to these commitments really should be abiding by. And there’s, I mean, I come from a cybersecurity background here, but I’m sure there’s like lots of these across different spaces that are related to this. But yeah, it’s hard to me to, if you’re purchasing the services of private sector offensive actors. or cyber mercenaries, right? If you’re using the Pegasus software, it’s hard to see how you could be a good actor as it relates to protecting human rights and the fundamental freedoms of all people or protecting privacy. If you don’t have a vulnerability equities process in place so that people can understand how you will triage the discovery of a known vulnerability, whether you’re going to disclose that to a vendor or retain it to be weaponized, hard to see how you can be living up to that commitment to promote trust in the global digital ecosystem. There’s a lot of just sort of basic policy like that that a lot of governments have adopted, certainly not enough and certainly not the entirety of the DFI community. So there’s a real opportunity here, I think, for that community of governments together with multi-stakeholder partners, including the private sector to identify what are those kind of low-hanging fruit baseline commitments that kind of should be non-negotiables and then where can that be tracked in a way to say, hey, this community is trying to live up to these commitments, at least from a policy perspective, whether or not that drives the requisite output is something to be evaluated later. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thank you. I’m sure if you ask the signatories, they say it’s all non-negotiable, but we definitely, we need to figure out the ones that are ready for action across the board and make sure we share, as you said earlier in your comments, share what has worked in implementing that and then the multi-stakeholder community does have, I think, a unique way of holding people accountable to that. So it’s not just coming up with the principle, sharing our good practices, but also vet that good practice through the multi-stakeholder lens and say, you think you’ve done right. Have you done right enough? Is there anything more that you can do? Is there anything else that we know that you should try and implement or build on on what you’re already doing? And this is not, a lot of the times when you talk about implementation of principles and reporting on that. it comes out as, I don’t want to report on that because I’m afraid to share my failures, or that I don’t want to share that I haven’t done enough. So we also need to be careful about not making this a shaming and naming list, but rather incentivize input. So there’s a fine balance there, so we need to make sure that, I guess. Sorry to preach from the diocese, it’s the role of the moderator sometimes, but I think it’s important that we create safe spaces for dialogue, is what I’m trying to say. Okay, we have about 10 minutes to be back in the room, and then at 11.30, we will have a 15 minute break, between 11.15 and 11.30. So we have about 10 more minutes for discussion. So, Mark, you want to share something in the measures of success, but I’m going to ask for last comments from the room.

Audience:
Yes, thank you Tamer, I’m Mark Howell, Internet Governance Consultant. I think there is an opportunity here for the private sector through the DFI, because as I understand it, this is a turning point for the initiative to move it into a more multi-stakeholder platform. And if there is the ambition, I think it’s stated in the declaration, to engage with existing processes, including a lot of processes that are fundamentally intergovernmental. The UN, ultimately the WSIS plus 20 review, for example, the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 agenda, and external to the UN, the G7 and the G20. And so, and the OECD has the opportunity for the private sector through advisory committees to engage and promote the DFI principles. So if the private sector partnerships with the DFI initiative. really take off, that provides a channel for the private sector into a lot of these strategic high-level intergovernmental processes that are going to determine the way forward for AI. They’re going to determine the future of the IGF and multi-stakeholder process in general. So I think a message from the private sector here should be, yes, we want to engage and strengthen the DFI through our effective partnering with the governments that launched it and with the civil society communities and the technical communities as well. Because it might be a missed opportunity, and I really think this is an important opportunity in the timeline, especially the UN timeline, that looms large over everything here. And intersecting – I missed out the GDC, the Global Digital Compact – for the DFI and the private partners in the DFI to engage effectively in the next stages of the GDC negotiations in New York, where it’s really still unclear where there is going to be any meaningful stakeholder engagement to continue after the initial consultations by the tech employer and the deep dives by the co-facilitators. So DFI, I think, provides a vehicle for the private sector. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you, Mark. That’s helpful in terms of DFI being – so not just using the GDC and the private sector. and whistles in thinking about how we can further the substantive points of the DFI into some of these conversations, but also thinking how we can share the spirit of DFI as a multi-stakeholder initiative that it’s turning into to bring that into these processes and in itself create opportunities for multi-stakeholder input. So it’s a two-way street, and I think that’s a very astute comment on that. Anybody else want to share anything on the opportunities and success visions? If not on that, then I’m going to ask if there’s any last comments, anything that we haven’t asked, but you feel that we should have asked you. Okay, and then I’m going to ask one last question. Any projects, opportunities, work that you have done in your own organization that was meant to further some of the priorities, principles in the DFI, have you done it with that in mind, or have you realized now that you have done things that are actually aligned with what’s in there? Anything that you might want to share from your own companies, your own life? Please.

Audience:
Yeah, I’m Samira here again. That is exactly what happened just when I’m going through the principles, relating that to what we have done. So one thing maybe if any one of you take your phone and just search cheapest internet in the world, very sure you’ll get Sri Lanka at the top. So that is the kind of maybe not knowingly, aligning with this. principles and like we There in the country, you know, we have made it make it affordable more inclusive To get majority of the people as many as possible, you know come on board and you know benefit out of the Internet Which is the theme of this forum as well And some observation maybe how that has been driven They are I think I can talk about Sri Lanka as well as even in India How the competition how the regulator has used the competition? To you know, make it more affordable. It’s in a more sustainable manner in India It is competition has driven the probably the cheapest Internet they are in Sri Lanka it went to the extent of you know A regulator has to come into the picture and you know regulating they are nicely doing it Actually, they are regulating the minimum price the normally you regulate the ceiling price, but they are in Sri Lanka Regulate regulate the flow price. Okay, so that why they regulate the flow price that is to you know, sustain that Business is nicely Ensure that it win-win. Maybe the end user get the best price. So it’s more affordable while doing that, you know, you ensure the The businesses these are businesses are in a sustainable so you can continue to do so so that has been something Probably, you know like other countries can adapt as well. Just want to share

Moderator:
Thank you, thank you for that and I had my suspicions that sometimes we talked about in the beginning of the session the private sector does What they do with a purpose and that purpose is not necessarily only economic but it’s to Have more broader societal implications and then you look into the principles and then you realize My own ethos and my own company that why we are doing certain things actually aligns with these principles So we need to highlight those areas And I mean to highlight those areas also externally not just in our own companies to say hey, this is what we’re doing. It actually aligns with a broader strategy, a broader purpose, and we have, here’s this coalition that can further that. And through that, we can probably operationalize not just our own collaboration better with our own governments, but also try and move that cooperation of governments with each other and with other stakeholders in the stack, as we’ve called it earlier. I’m going to end on that note, because we are out of time, but I want to thank you all for the very engaged conversation. I’ve learned a lot. I’m going to try in the next five, 10 minutes to put all that together, so we can report back in the plenary. But I’m going to put a challenge in front of you to correct me if I don’t report correctly in the room, be vocal over there as well. If there’s anything that I omit to say, please do engage and share that with the rest of the room. And challenge number two is now you have to find your own way back. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you.