IGF to GDC- An Equitable Framework for Developing Countries | IGF 2023 Open Forum #46

12 Oct 2023 00:45h - 02:15h UTC

Event report

Speakers

Olga Cavalli, National Director of Cybersecurity, Chief of Cabinet of the President of Argentina
Otis Osbourne, Actg. HOD, Deptartment of Information Technology, University of the Commonwealth Caribbean
Quintin Chou-Lambert, Office of the UN Tech Envoy, New York
Rodney Taylor, Caribbean Telecommunications Union
Shernon Osepa, Director, Caribbean Affairs and Development of the Internet Society (ISOC)
Sorina Teleanu, Director of Knowledge, DiploFoundation
Tracy Hackshaw, Director, Trinidad and Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group

Moderators

Michelle Marius, ICT Pulse, Caribbean Region

Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Speakers

Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the IGF session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed. The official record of the session can be found on the IGF's official website.

Knowledge Graph of Debate

Session report

Rodney Taylor, Caribbean Telecommunications Union

One of the main concerns raised was the limited resources, both financial and human, that hinder the active participation of SIDS in these processes. This constraint prevents SIDS from fully engaging in discussions and decision-making. Additionally, barriers to entry still exist despite the multi-stakeholder nature of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which theoretically allows participation from all stakeholders. These barriers may include technical expertise or access to necessary resources.

Another topic of discussion was the value proposition of the investment in the IGF. Some participants questioned whether the IGF, being a place for discussion and networking, actually leads to actionable outcomes. It was argued that although the IGF provides a platform for dialogue, it does not necessarily result in concrete actions or solutions. This raised concerns about the effectiveness of the IGF and its ability to address pressing global challenges.

A key distinction was highlighted between the United Nations (UN) and multistakeholder forums. It was noted that countries have more influence in the UN, where the priority is given to member states' interventions. On the other hand, in multistakeholder forums like the IGF, all attendees are considered equal, providing an opportunity for greater inclusivity and diverse perspectives. This observation emphasized the different dynamics and power structures between the two approaches.

Despite the challenges and questions raised, there was a general sense of positivity towards the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC). Participants expressed hopes that the GDC would lead to positive outcomes and address the complex issues discussed in the IGF process. However, skepticism was also voiced regarding the GDC's ability to effectively tackle these complex issues, especially within the context of global collaboration on internet-related matters.

It was acknowledged that the GDC could provide a platform for small states, such as SIDS, to have a stronger voice in global digital cooperation. However, participants recognized that attaining positive outcomes in these forums would be challenging due to various factors, such as the limited capacity of small states to actively participate and support the GDC.

The potential of the GDC to address digital inequality, especially in SIDS, was highlighted. It was noted that approximately 2 billion people, mostly in developing and small island developing countries, are still not connected to the internet. The GDC was seen as an opportunity to focus on these issues and improve connectivity and digital infrastructure in these regions.

The focus and scope of the GDC were discussed, particularly in relation to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. The GDC was expected to play a role in addressing these global key issues and potentially leading to an expansion of the IGF's role or the creation of a new process to tackle these specific challenges.

There were concerns raised about the duplication of processes and internet governance fragmentation. Some participants argued that there may not be a need to create a new process focused solely on digital issues, as this could lead to further fragmentation in internet governance. It was suggested that efforts should be made to avoid duplication and instead strengthen existing processes.

The implementation of global cybersecurity norms was highlighted as the responsibility of national parliaments and local authorities. It was emphasized that discussed global agreements should be actioned at the local level to implement mutually agreed norms for routing cybersecurity. This observation emphasized the need for concrete action and implementation at the national and local levels, rather than relying solely on global conversations and agreements.

In conclusion, the discussion covered various important aspects of the GDC, internet governance, and the challenges faced by SIDS in actively participating in ongoing processes. While there were concerns raised and questions about the efficacy of some processes, there was also a sense of optimism for the GDC's potential to address global issues and promote digital cooperation. The need for inclusivity, concrete actions, and the implementation of agreed norms were recurring themes throughout the discussion.

Sorina Teleanu, Director of Knowledge, DiploFoundation

The discussion revolves around the challenges faced by countries in keeping up with the complexities and rapid evolution of digital diplomacy and Internet policies. It is overwhelming for both small and large countries to contribute meaningfully and keep pace with these intricate issues. The lack of capacity to become experts in all aspects of Internet governance is a major hurdle for countries.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has played a partial role in mitigating these challenges. It serves as a platform where people collectively learn from each other, but there is room for improvement. However, the IGF and the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) serve different functions. Therefore, direct comparison between the two is not appropriate. The GDC, on the other hand, holds promise and potential to address the challenges faced in the realm of digital diplomacy and Internet policies.

One of the significant challenges highlighted in the discussion is the limited participation of governments in the IGF. This poses a hurdle to the effective implementation of Internet policies. The GDC aims to address this challenge and provide a platform for discussing digital governance and reducing inequality.

The discussion also stresses the importance of considering past events, such as resolutions and outcomes from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), which can be built upon. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) rely, in part, on technology for development. The GDC should take into account these previous events and avoid reinventing the wheel.

A forward-looking GDC is seen as a potential solution to address digital inequalities. It is viewed as a mechanism that can work in harmony with the IGF to strengthen global digital governance. Many people have endorsed the concept of 'IGF Plus', which suggests that the GDC could serve as a follow-up mechanism for the IGF.

In terms of resource availability, stakeholders must consider the multiple processes and issues involved in Internet governance. Collaboration rather than competition for resources is considered essential for effective implementation.

In conclusion, the discussion unveils the challenges faced by countries in keeping up with digital diplomacy and Internet policies. The IGF has made some progress in mitigating these challenges, but the GDC shows potential to address them. The GDC and the IGF serve different purposes and should not be directly compared. The GDC should build on and strengthen the IGF to foster global digital cooperation. Stakeholders must consider resource availability and find ways to collaborate effectively.

Otis Osbourne, Deptartment of Information Technology, University of the Commonwealth Caribbean

The analysis reveals several insightful points discussed by the speakers. One key issue raised is the economic barriers faced by small island developing states in their digital transformation and access efforts. These states are hindered by a lack of trust in digital transactions, which is a major concern for small to medium-sized business service providers and consumers. This lack of trust could potentially limit the growth and adoption of digital technologies in these states.

Another important point highlighted is the need for national Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) to guide initiatives on the ground. It is noted that some countries, such as Jamaica, do not have national IGFs. The absence of these forums could impede the progress of internet governance and hinder the development of policies that promote an inclusive and accessible digital environment.

The analysis also acknowledges that small island developing states are progressing at a slow pace in transitioning to the new digital global economy. This transition is crucial for these states to effectively participate in the interconnected world and leverage the benefits of the digital economy. The need for adequate support and resources to propel this transition is highlighted as an important concern.

Furthermore, the speakers emphasize the recognition of universal access to free internet as a human right, particularly for facilitating e-governance and reducing social exclusion. They argue that without data access on their phones, individuals are unable to access e-governance services. Thus, governments are urged to acknowledge free internet as a fundamental right to ensure equal access opportunities and promote inclusive digital societies.

The importance of online security, privacy, and safety is also emphasized, and it is noted that these aspects must be prioritized alongside the recognition of free internet as a human right. However, the analysis does not provide specific evidence or examples to support this point.

Regarding the implementation of best practices in securing the internet, it is highlighted that despite discussions in IGFs, most Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and network operators have not adopted the necessary actions to secure data being routed through the internet. Additionally, many organizations, including NDAs, Ministries, Departments, Agencies, SMEs, financial, and educational institutions, have not implemented cost-free DNSSEC and IPv6 standards. This lack of tangible implementation raises concerns about the effectiveness of IGF discussions in shaping concrete and practical outcomes.

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) is seen as a potential solution that could address the shortcomings of the IGF. While no specific details or evidence are provided to support this viewpoint, the speakers express optimism about the GDC's ability to enforce successful internet practices.

It is also noted that UN directives hold power and influence, and governments are expected to eventually follow through, particularly in the domain of the digital economy for realizing the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This indicates the significance of international cooperation and collaboration in driving digital transformation and achieving the SDGs.

Further observations highlight the exclusive nature of discussions at the UN level, suggesting that they may be out of touch with grassroots realities. This excludes start-up entrepreneurs and university students from directly accessing or relating to the discussions. It is argued that more efforts should be made to make UN discussions more accessible and relatable to these groups.

Despite the potential overlap with the GDC, the speakers reaffirm the continued relevance of the IGF due to its unique reach from grassroots to corporations. The IGF's focus on Internet Governance is seen as a clear indication of its purpose and provides a platform for individuals and small to medium-sized businesses to actively participate and gain a better understanding of internet governance issues.

In conclusion, the analysis explores various aspects of digital transformation, internet governance, and the challenges faced by small island developing states. It highlights the economic barriers, the need for national IGFs, the slow pace of transitioning to the digital global economy, the recognition of free internet as a human right, the importance of online security, and the potential of the Global Digital Compact. The analysis also discusses the power of UN directives, the exclusivity of UN discussions, and reaffirms the relevance of the IGF.

Tracy Hackshaw, Director, Trinidad and Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group

The Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) initiative has the potential to positively impact digital governance and address global inequalities faced by Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The GDC aims to establish a global framework for digital cooperation and promote a more inclusive and equitable digital world, especially for SIDS. SIDS encounter challenges in prioritising internet governance due to limited resources and attention as they grapple with significant issues such as climate change and economic challenges.

One of the key arguments in support of the GDC is that it can provide a platform for SIDS to have their voices heard. Existing forums like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and regional spaces like LAC, AP, and Africa do not adequately emphasise the representation and voice of SIDS. This results in SIDS feeling marginalised, and their concerns not receiving the attention they deserve within the digital governance discourse. The GDC process could provide a more equitable platform for SIDS to contribute their perspectives and address their specific issues.

Moreover, SIDS face challenges in resource allocation and attention towards internet governance. These challenges arise because SIDS have competing priorities that include climate change adaptation, infrastructural issues, and economic development. As a result, internet policy issues and digital issues do not receive much priority. The GDC could play a crucial role in mitigating these challenges by collaborating with governments and prioritising capacity development, knowledge transfer, and addressing the digital divide. This includes actively engaging with SIDS governments and communities to understand their needs and working towards real skills and knowledge transfer.

Another important point worth noting is the emphasis on the digital divide. While digital technologies have the potential to bridge gaps and create opportunities, it is essential to recognise that not everyone is connected. The digital divide persists, and assumptions cannot be made that connectivity is universal. The GDC process must take this into account and work towards addressing the digital divide by ensuring accessibility and connectivity for all.

In conclusion, there is optimism and support for the GDC and its potential positive impact on SIDS. The GDC's aim to establish a global framework for digital cooperation and promote an inclusive and equitable digital world resonates with the challenges faced by SIDS in prioritising internet governance and addressing global inequalities. By providing a platform for SIDS to have their voices heard, collaborating with governments, and focusing on capacity development and knowledge transfer, the GDC process can contribute significantly to addressing these issues. It is crucial to recognise the unique needs and perspectives of SIDS and actively work towards creating an inclusive digital world for all.

Quintin Chou-Lambert, Office of the UN Tech Envoy, New York

The analysis explores different perspectives on Internet governance and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). One argument raised is that the approach taken by the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) can overwhelm participants with an excessive number of meetings. Delegations in New York are already burdened with various other issues, and the urgency of Internet governance matters can be pushed down as a result. On the other hand, it is argued that the IGF holds significant value in facilitating networking and information exchange. By bringing people together, the IGF helps them better understand Internet governance issues. Networking and exchange are becoming increasingly important, especially considering the challenging political conditions.

Furthermore, the analysis suggests that developing countries, landlocked countries, and least developed countries may need to unite and express their concerns collectively in the global process. Internet governance challenges and the way the IGF addresses them are common in these countries. This unity can enable them to have a stronger voice in shaping global policies.

The GDC is highlighted as an opportunity for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and other nations to address their specific concerns regarding the use of digital technologies and data. The GDC will assemble leaders to make decisions on global digital issues, providing a platform for SIDS to voice their concerns and benefit from digital advancements.

The rise of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and data, has raised concerns about safety, monetisation, and inclusivity. The GDC offers a platform to address these issues at a high level. It becomes crucial to ensure safety while harnessing the benefits of these technologies on a global scale.

It is argued that the GDC should reconcile the goal of globally spreading the benefits of new technologies, while ensuring safety and inclusivity. The GDC will bring leaders together to make these important decisions and presents an opportunity to update the focus and ambition in utilising these technologies.

Challenges within the IGF include the absence of decision-making and a vast capacity gap, making it difficult to keep track of everything happening in the digital technology landscape. There are also questions about whether the GDC can effectively address these challenges.

The GDC is seen as an opportunity for the digital economy to grow and evolve. The Secretary-General emphasises the importance of a unified and ambitious GDC. It also allows for debates on how countries can adapt their digital architectures in the future.

The analysis highlights the critical need for countries to consider the significance of the digital transition and its potential for growth. Many delegations are observed to be overstretched in their capacity, making it essential for countries to look beyond immediate crises and envision a digital future.

Reviewing and following up on GDC commitments is deemed important, but questions remain about the extent to which governments can participate in these follow-ups.

To address gaps in existing digital governance, the creation of a Digital Cooperation Forum is proposed by the Secretary-General. This digital governance platform would pool emerging internet governance issues, ultimately saving resources and efforts. Implementing a central place for countries to discuss digital governance issues would allow them to focus holistically on digital governance and defragment governance efforts.

It is emphasised that while bringing politicised discussions to digital governance platforms can change their nature and spirit, it is vital to safeguard the unique character and spirit of various digital governance platforms. This can enable free and creative discussions.

Lastly, raising the voices of different groupings in the GDC process is seen as crucial. Voicing the interests of various groups can lead to better reflecting their interests in the outcome document.

In summary, the analysis presents diverse opinions on Internet governance and the GDC. It highlights the challenges and benefits of the IGF and emphasises the need for unity among developing countries. The GDC offers an opportunity for SIDS and other nations to address their digital concerns. The analysis also explores the concerns surrounding new technologies and the importance of safety and inclusivity. Challenges within the IGF are discussed, as well as the GDC's potential to foster the growth of the digital economy. The significance of considering the digital transition and reviewing GDC commitments is stressed. The proposal for a Digital Cooperation Forum to address gaps in digital governance is mentioned, along with the importance of preserving the unique character of various digital governance platforms. Finally, the importance of raising the voices of different groups in the GDC process is highlighted.

Audience

The annual meetings featured a range of speakers who shared their perspectives on various topics. Carol, the new MAG chair from the Bahamas, emphasised the significance of taking strong actions to achieve desired outcomes. It was highlighted that robust actions are necessary to accomplish the goals effectively. This emphasised the importance of prioritising action-oriented approaches in order to make progress.

One of the main concerns discussed was the need for capacity building among parliamentarians and missions. It was noted that there is often a lack of understanding due to limited technical and domain knowledge. To address this issue, there was an emphasis on the importance of providing funding and support for capacity building initiatives, particularly through the IGF.

Carol also encouraged active involvement and feedback from the audience. She urged participants to provide their thoughts and feedback in a written format for higher authorities to consider. This inclusive participation was seen as crucial for creating a more transparent and participatory decision-making process.

In terms of policy-making, Carol expressed the belief that relevant departments should be empowered and involved in decision-making processes. She criticised the practice of relevant departments receiving meeting notes only when it is time for the government to make decisions. This approach was considered unfair, as it prevents these departments from having a comprehensive understanding of the issues.

The discussions on digital transformation revealed gaps and challenges in implementation. Sri Lanka, for example, has implemented digital strategies for the past two decades, but many gaps remain. There is a lack of clarification and guidance on who should be responsible for driving digital transformation initiatives. Therefore, it was argued that there is a need for developing frameworks or best practice guidelines to provide direction and ensure efficient implementation.

The importance of citizen satisfaction and establishing citizen-centric governments was also stressed. It was highlighted that digital transformation initiatives should prioritise the needs and satisfaction of citizens. This approach is key to fostering trust and improving the overall effectiveness of digital transformation processes.

The role of the IGF in facilitating outreach and regional initiatives was positively acknowledged. The IGF was recognised as instrumental in the development of regional initiatives, which promote collaboration and partnership in achieving the goals of industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

There was also an important discussion on the coordination of global, national, and regional issues. The speaker emphasised the need for a coordination mechanism that takes into account national and regional differences. This approach ensures that similar initiatives can be encouraged and implemented effectively.

It was observed that the problems and solutions in small island regions, such as the Caribbean and the Pacific, have distinct local aspects. This highlights the importance of considering and addressing these unique aspects when developing strategies and solutions for these regions.

The increasing importance of data flow and digital connectivity was brought to attention, including the prediction that data flow will grow significantly by 2026. However, it was noted that developing countries are at risk of becoming mere data providers in the global market due to a data divide and digital inequality. This issue raises concerns about the potential disadvantage and limited benefits that these countries may face in the digital era.

Overall, the discussions at the annual meetings shed light on the importance of taking strong actions, building capacity, promoting inclusive participation, empowering relevant departments, developing frameworks for digital transformation, prioritising citizen satisfaction, and addressing global and regional challenges. These insights and perspectives provide valuable considerations for policymakers and stakeholders as they work towards achieving the sustainable development goals.

Olga Cavalli, National Director of Cybersecurity, Chief of Cabinet of the President of Argentina

Olga Cavalli, an active participant and supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), expresses her belief that the IGF serves as a fantastic space for defining and creating numerous Internet-related changes. She has been involved with the IGF since its creation in 2005 and highlights its role in bringing about significant developments in the global coordination of the Internet, such as changes in ICANN and the IANA transition. Moreover, she emphasises that the IGF has also been instrumental in giving rise to national and regional IGFs, as well as schools of Internet governance.

Cavalli appreciates the chaotic nature of the IGF and considers it an essential part of its beauty. She argues that the creative chaos of the forum allows for free discussions and an organic exchange of ideas. Cavalli personally experienced the chaotic atmosphere during the forum, recounting a moment when she had difficulty finding the correct panel room. However, she believes that this sense of being lost adds to the overall experience of the IGF.

In terms of the Internet's global impact, Cavalli emphasises the need to make it a global public good. She supports initiatives like the Global Digital Compact (GDC) that aim to mitigate digital issues. Cavalli led a consultation process with fellows from the School of Internet Governance to contribute to the GDC. Their contribution, focused on seven digital issues, includes connecting everyone to the internet, data protection, and regulating artificial intelligence, and has been published on the GDC's website.

Cavalli highlights her preference for more open, bottom-up, and multistakeholder processes in digital governance, as opposed to closed multilateral processes. She finds value in the inclusive nature of multistakeholder discussions and believes they offer a path forward in addressing the challenges of the digital economy. However, she notes a trend towards establishing more closed multilateral processes, which she criticises. Cavalli stresses that the way forward should be through multistakeholder engagement, as it allows for a more diverse range of perspectives.

While Cavalli recognises the challenges faced by delegates from developing countries, particularly in handling the overwhelming number of digital governance processes, she sees value in coordinating and concentrating these processes. She believes that a certain level of coordination or concentration is necessary to ensure effective digital governance and prevent fragmentation.

Overall, Cavalli greatly values the unique, free-spirited nature of the IGF. She cherishes the open and inclusive atmosphere that allows for free discussions and networking. Cavalli argues for the preservation of the IGF's special character, as she believes it is an essential forum for shaping the Internet and addressing global digital challenges. With her extensive experience and involvement in the IGF, Cavalli's perspectives and support carry significant weight in the ongoing dialogue on Internet governance.

Shernon Osepa, Director, Caribbean Affairs and Development of the Internet Society (ISOC)

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a platform established for open discussions to identify solutions rather than making decisions. It was created to address the challenges faced in various jurisdictions through meaningful discussions. The IGF allows stakeholders to engage in free and open conversations, enabling them to explore potential solutions.

One of the key purposes of the IGF is to provide an opportunity for small island developing states to voice their ideas and suggestions through the global digital compact process. This process allows these states to take an active role in drafting proposals and receiving feedback from others. It is seen as a way to empower these states and reverse traditional power dynamics.

The original intention of the IGF was to serve as a place for discussions, not decision-making. It aimed to facilitate dialogue and exchange of ideas to understand different perspectives. However, there is a growing need for action-oriented outcomes in countries. Merely discussing issues without taking concrete steps towards solving them may not be sufficient.

Collaboration and partnership are emphasized as important factors in the IGF process. This requires stakeholders to work together, leveraging each other's expertise and resources to develop effective solutions. The call for collaboration is in line with the focus on SDG 17, which emphasizes the importance of partnerships in achieving sustainable development goals.

Consideration of climate change and natural disasters is highlighted as critical when building infrastructure. These factors can have a significant impact on the effectiveness and longevity of infrastructure projects. It is essential to incorporate climate resilience measures and robust disaster management strategies to ensure the sustainability of infrastructure investments.

Overall, speakers at the IGF urge problem-solving specific to the needs of different regions. By identifying and addressing the unique challenges faced by each jurisdiction, more effective and tailored solutions can be developed. This regional focus allows for the formulation of strategies that are relevant and impactful in driving positive change.

In conclusion, the IGF serves as a platform for open discussions and solution-oriented dialogue. It provides small island developing states with the opportunity to voice their ideas, emphasizes the importance of action-oriented outcomes, collaboration, and partnership, and underscores the consideration of climate change in infrastructure development. The push for region-specific problem-solving highlights the need for tailored approaches to address the diverse challenges faced in different jurisdictions.

Moderator

The discussions centred around the challenges faced by small island developing states (SIDS) when actively participating in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). SIDS have been part of the IGF process since 2005, but resource constraints, both financial and human, limit their active participation. The cost of attending IGF meetings and the need to get up to speed with the issues were identified as barriers to entry. Despite being a multi-stakeholder process that allows anyone to participate, it was argued that the IGF primarily serves as a platform for networking and discussion, with little focus on generating actionable outcomes. The need for a clear value proposition for the time and effort invested in the IGF was emphasized.

Tracy Hackshaw was highlighted as an example of an active participant who serves on multiple boards, including the IGF, ICANN, and ARIN. It was suggested that his active participation benefits the region. The importance of capacity building and building institutional capacities across governments and stakeholders was emphasized. It was acknowledged that no individual can be an expert in all topics, hence the need for capacity building.

The discussions also explored the connection between internet governance issues and critical issues faced by SIDS, such as climate change, economic issues, and cybersecurity. It was argued that linking digital and internet governance issues with these critical challenges could help prioritize them. Cybersecurity and emerging digital threats to the economy were mentioned as notable areas to focus on.

The IGF was acknowledged as a successful platform for bringing people together to learn from each other. However, it was also noted that the overwhelming nature of the IGF approach, with its federated network of networks and numerous meetings, poses challenges. The low governmental participation in the IGF was highlighted as an issue that could potentially be addressed by the Government Digital Service (GDS).

The discussions highlighted the potential of the IGF to provide a space for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to have their voices heard. The Caribbean IGF, Pacific IGF, and Indian Ocean IGF were mentioned as great platforms for SIDS to voice their issues at national, regional, and global levels. The Trinidad and Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group was cited as an example of such an initiative.

The challenges faced by SIDS, such as resource constraints and the prioritization of critical issues, were emphasized. It was suggested that digital and internet governance issues need to be linked with these critical issues to garner more attention and resources. The importance of understanding the notion of internet governance, including the confusion that arose in the 2000s, was highlighted.

The discussions also touched on the need for stakeholder engagement and the opportunities provided by the IGF to interact with various stakeholders. It was noted that all stakeholders are not always present locally, and the IGF offers a unique opportunity to connect with a diverse range of stakeholders. The importance of translating IGF discussions into local solutions was emphasized.

The potential barriers to digital transformation in small island developing states, such as economic barriers and the lack of trust in digital transactions, were discussed. The absence of national IGFs to guide initiatives on the ground and the need for recommendations and guidelines from the IGF to reach policymakers and decision-makers were highlighted as challenges.

The impact of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) on the digital governance landscape and addressing global inequalities was considered. Contributions towards the GDC from various countries were mentioned, and it was seen as a potential tool to address inequality. The importance of engagement with the School of Internet Governance in contributing to the GDC was noted.

The overwhelming amount of information and processes within digital governance was acknowledged, and it was suggested to focus only on what is relevant to one's work and interests. The potential of the GDC to have a positive impact on digital governance and global inequalities facing SIDS was emphasized. The need for active participants and meaningful suggestions from small island developing states was highlighted.

The discussions also raised questions about the impact of the GDC on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process and potential improvements that the GDC could bring. The need for a clearer focus on implementation and the 'who' and 'how' aspect of digital transformation were emphasized. The importance of preserving the uniqueness of the IGF was also noted.

Overall, the discussions underscored the challenges and opportunities in internet governance, particularly for small island developing states. The need for capacity building, stakeholder engagement, and the linkage between internet governance and critical issues were emphasized. The potential of the Global Digital Compact and the importance of active participation and representation were highlighted. The discussions also highlighted the need for clearer guidance, resource coordination, and an inclusive and collaborative approach to address global digital challenges.

Speakers

Sorina Teleanu

Speech speed

193 words per minute

Speech length

1234 words

Speech time

384 secs

Click for more

Arguments

Keeping up and contributing meaningfully with all digital diplomacy and Internet policies is overwhelming for both small and large countries due to their complexity and pace

Supporting facts:

Serina works with missions of different countries in Geneva, the hub of digital diplomacy and Internet policy making organizations like ITU

Topics: Digital Diplomacy, Internet Governance, Internet Policies

There is a lack of capacity to be an expert in all topics related to Internet governance and Policies.

Topics: Internet Governance, Expertise, Capacity Building

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) hold promise and potential to address digital inequality

Supporting facts:

The GDC is a platform for discussing digital governance
It is yet unclear if the GDC's goal is to change the digital governance landscape

Topics: GDC, Digital Governance, Inequality

Global Digital Compact should take into account past events and not reinvent the wheel

Supporting facts:

There have been resolutions and outcomes from WSIS and UNGA that could be built upon
We shouldn’t just reiterate the same things
The SDGs rely, in part, on technology for development

Topics: GDC, Digital Governance, WSIS outcomes, UNGA resolution, ICT for development, SDGs

The GDC and the IGF should not be compared directly since they serve different functions.

Supporting facts:

The IGF is a process, while the GDC is supposed to be a document by the end of 2024.

Topics: GDC, IGF

The IGF has shown willingness to change and adapt over the past 18 years.

Supporting facts:

The amount of sessions and interstitial activities in the IGF has increased.
The IGF has introduced the parliamentary track.

Topics: IGF, Technological landscape

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) should not be seen as a duplication but as a compact with clear commitments, actions and follow-up process.

Supporting facts:

Sorina used the Migration Compact as an example for GDC, signaling its clear commitments and follow-up process.

Topics: GDC, Digital Compact, Migration Compact, Commitments

It is important to consider the resources available to multiple stakeholders for following multiple processes looking into similar or complementary issues.

Topics: Resources, Stakeholders, Processes

Report

The lack of capacity to become experts in all aspects of Internet governance is a major hurdle for countries. The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has played a partial role in mitigating these challenges. It serves as a platform where people collectively learn from each other, but there is room for improvement.

However, the IGF and the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) serve different functions. Therefore, direct comparison between the two is not appropriate. The GDC, on the other hand, holds promise and potential to address the challenges faced in the realm of digital diplomacy and Internet policies.

The GDC should take into account these previous events and avoid reinventing the wheel. A forward-looking GDC is seen as a potential solution to address digital inequalities. It is viewed as a mechanism that can work in harmony with the IGF to strengthen global digital governance.

Many people have endorsed the concept of 'IGF Plus', which suggests that the GDC could serve as a follow-up mechanism for the IGF. In terms of resource availability, stakeholders must consider the multiple processes and issues involved in Internet governance.

Collaboration rather than competition for resources is considered essential for effective implementation. In conclusion, the discussion unveils the challenges faced by countries in keeping up with digital diplomacy and Internet policies. The IGF has made some progress in mitigating these challenges, but the GDC shows potential to address them.

The GDC and the IGF serve different purposes and should not be directly compared. The GDC should build on and strengthen the IGF to foster global digital cooperation. Stakeholders must consider resource availability and find ways to collaborate effectively.

Audience

Speech speed

159 words per minute

Speech length

1336 words

Speech time

504 secs

Click for more

Arguments

Carols emphasised on the importance of action. Strong actions are necessary to accomplish the desired outcomes.

Supporting facts:

Carol is the new MAG chair from the Bahamas
She is open to presenting audience-written letters to the high level panel.

Topics: Action, Goals

There is a strong need for capacity building amongst parliamentarians and missions to assure right decision making.

Supporting facts:

Parliamentarians and missions sometimes lack understanding due to lack of technical and domain knowledge.
The need for funding and IGF’s push towards capacity building was emphasized.

Topics: Capacity building, Policy-making

There is a lack of clarification and guidance on who should drive digital transformation initiatives

Supporting facts:

Sri Lanka has implemented digital strategies for the past two decades with many gaps left.

Topics: Digital Transformation, Technological Evolution, Public Sector Development

Advocacy for the development of frameworks or best practices guidelines for digital transformation

Supporting facts:

There are many digital strategies being implemented, but with many gaps still present.
Many international platforms are setting standards but do not provide specifics on who should carry out these standards and how.

Topics: Digital Transformation, Policy Making, Regulatory Guidelines

Benefits of IGF: outreach and developing network of regional initiatives.

Supporting facts:

The IGF has been instrumental in development of regional initiatives

Topics: IGF, Outreach, Regional Initiatives

The Caribbean and the Pacific, being small islands, have distinct local aspects to their problems and solutions.

Supporting facts:

In terms of telecommunication infrastructure, a business case in the Caribbean might be easier than in the Pacific due to distances and population dispersity.

Topics: Caribbean, Pacific, Local Problems, Local Solutions

Data flow is predicted to grow 400% by 2026

Supporting facts:

Mentioned in the digital compact policy brief

Topics: Data flow, Digital compact policy, Telecommunications

Developing countries risk becoming mere providers in the data market due to data divide

Supporting facts:

Seen from the perspective of a major telecoms company

Topics: Developing countries, Data divide, Digital inequality

Experts are asked for potential interventions to handle this data divide

Topics: Data divide, Digital compact policy, Telecommunications

Report

This emphasised the importance of prioritising action-oriented approaches in order to make progress. One of the main concerns discussed was the need for capacity building among parliamentarians and missions. It was noted that there is often a lack of understanding due to limited technical and domain knowledge.

To address this issue, there was an emphasis on the importance of providing funding and support for capacity building initiatives, particularly through the IGF. Carol also encouraged active involvement and feedback from the audience. She urged participants to provide their thoughts and feedback in a written format for higher authorities to consider.

This inclusive participation was seen as crucial for creating a more transparent and participatory decision-making process. In terms of policy-making, Carol expressed the belief that relevant departments should be empowered and involved in decision-making processes. She criticised the practice of relevant departments receiving meeting notes only when it is time for the government to make decisions.

This approach was considered unfair, as it prevents these departments from having a comprehensive understanding of the issues. The discussions on digital transformation revealed gaps and challenges in implementation. Sri Lanka, for example, has implemented digital strategies for the past two decades, but many gaps remain.

There is a lack of clarification and guidance on who should be responsible for driving digital transformation initiatives. Therefore, it was argued that there is a need for developing frameworks or best practice guidelines to provide direction and ensure efficient implementation.

This issue raises concerns about the potential disadvantage and limited benefits that these countries may face in the digital era. Overall, the discussions at the annual meetings shed light on the importance of taking strong actions, building capacity, promoting inclusive participation, empowering relevant departments, developing frameworks for digital transformation, prioritising citizen satisfaction, and addressing global and regional challenges.

These insights and perspectives provide valuable considerations for policymakers and stakeholders as they work towards achieving the sustainable development goals.

Moderator

Speech speed

181 words per minute

Speech length

1525 words

Speech time

504 secs

Click for more

Arguments

Challenges of SIDS actively participating in IGF

Supporting facts:

SIDS has been part of this process since 2005
Resource constraints in terms of financial and human resource limit active participation
Cost of attending IGF meets like in Kyoto, getting up to speed with issues are barriers to entry
IGF is a multi-stakeholder process allowing anyone to participate

Topics: SIDS, IGF, Participation

IGF as a discussion platform with no actionable outcomes

Supporting facts:

IGF serves as a place for networking, discussion but doesn't yield actionable results
Time and effort invested must have a clear value proposition

Topics: IGF, Participation, Actionable outcomes

There are challenges relating to keeping an eye on every internet related topic and policy taking place globally and contributing to them

Supporting facts:

Missions of small and large countries are expressing the impossibility of keeping up with all activities related to internet issues

Topics: Digital Diplomacy, Internet Governance, Internet Policy, Capacity Building

There is a need to build institutional capacities across governments and stakeholders

Supporting facts:

A person cannot be an expert in all topics, hence the need for capacity building

Topics: Capacity Building, Internet Governance, Digital Diplomacy

The IGF has been somewhat successful in efforts to mitigate these challenges

Supporting facts:

The IGF was created with the idea of bringing people together to learn from each other

Topics: Internet Governance Forum (IGF), Internet Policy

The IGF's challenge of low governmental participation could potentially be addressed by the GDC.

Topics: Internet Governance Forum (IGF), Government Digital Service (GDS)

IGF can provide a space for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to have their voices heard

Supporting facts:

The Caribbean IGF, Pacific IGF and Indian Ocean IGF are great platforms for islands to voice their issues at a national, regional and global level.
The Trans-Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group is an example of such initiative.

Topics: Internet Governance Forum, National and regional IGFs, Digital policy, Multistakeholder Advisory Group

Fundamental challenges in SIDS like resources and whether digital issues are given priority

Supporting facts:

SIDS face significant other challenges like climate change, infrastructural and economic issues.
Linking digital and internet governance issues with critical issues can help overcome these challenges.
Emerging digital threats to the economy should be taken into consideration.

Topics: Internet governance, Economic issues, Climate Change, Infrastructure issues, Resource issues, Cybersecurity

Benefits of IGF is also causing issues due to the overwhelming nature of its approach and the numerous meetings

Supporting facts:

Federated network of networks approach of IGF allows regional and local consultations.
Delegations in New York are overwhelmed with many other issues, leading to urgency of Internet governance issues being pushed down.

Topics: IGF, Internet governance issues

IGF brings people together for networking and exchanging ideas, which is valuable in current political conditions

Supporting facts:

Quintin Chou-Lambert expressed great value in sharing of information and exchanging ideas at IGF.

Topics: IGF, Networking, Political conditions

The importance of understanding the notion of internet governance

Supporting facts:

Confusion regarding the internet in the 2000s led to discussions around Internet Governance
The IGF provides a platform where stakeholders can discuss, not to take decisions

Topics: Internet Governance, Internet Development

IGF offers opportunities to interact with various stakeholders not available locally

Supporting facts:

All stakeholders that normally attend IGFs are not always present locally

Topics: Internet Governance Forum, Stakeholder Engagement

Necessity to translate IGF discussions into local solutions

Supporting facts:

After IGF discussions, stakeholder should return to their jurisdictions and address local challenges

Topics: Local Solutions, Internet Governance

Small island developing states face economic barriers to digital transformation

Supporting facts:

Not only governments but also businesses and citizens face these barriers
Lack of trust in digital transactions acts as a roadblock for medium to small, small to medium business service providers and consumers

Topics: Digital Transformation, Economic Development

Recommendations and guidelines from IGF are not reaching Jamaica's policy and decision makers

Supporting facts:

Absence of national IGFs to guide initiatives on the ground contributes to this issue

Topics: Internet Governance, Policy Making

Engagement with the School of Internet Governance has led to productive contributions towards the Global Digital Compact

Supporting facts:

Contributions were received from 65 fellows from 22 countries of the five continents.
The document produced focused on the seven digital issues the Common Agenda suggested.
These included connecting everyone to the Internet, avoiding Internet fragmentation, data protection, applying human rights online, accountability for discrimination and misleading content, regulation of artificial intelligence, and digital commons as a global public good.
This was the first such activity, resulting in a document that was translated into three languages and submitted to the Global Digital Compact.

Topics: Internet Governance, Global Digital Compact

Advice for navigating the overwhelming amount of information and processes within digital governance is to focus on what is relevant to your work and interests.

Supporting facts:

Olga Cavalli's advice to her students is to focus on what is relevant to their work and interests within the digital governance landscape rather than try to become an expert in everything.

Topics: Digital Governance, Internet Governance, Information Overload

The GDC has the potential to have a significant positive impact on digital governance and global inequalities facing SIDS

Supporting facts:

The GDC could provide SIDS with greater access to digital technologies and resources
GDC could aid in developing their own digital economies
GDC is speculated to strengthen digital capacity and improve digital governance

Topics: Digital governance, Global inequalities, SIDS

Potential of global digital compact to address inequality

Supporting facts:

Promise and expectation in the global digital compact.
Use of technology for development.

Topics: Global Digital Compact, Inequality

Building on past work and outcomes for an effective Global Digital Compact

Supporting facts:

Building on WSIS outcomes and the annual UNGA resolution on ICT for development
Use of technology for development
Creating a roadmap for GDC that incorporates previous efforts

Topics: Global Digital Compact, WSIS outcomes, Annual UNGA resolution on ICT for development, SDGs

The UN prioritizes member states in decision-making processes

Supporting facts:

In the GDC deep dives and thematic areas, precedence was given to interventions by member states

Topics: United Nations, Member States, Decision Making

Multilateralism and multistakeholderism differ fundamentally

Supporting facts:

In the UN, individual country representatives have influence, whereas in a multistakeholder process all parties are considered equal

Topics: Multilateralism, Multistakeholderism

Small states can have powerful voices in multilateral processes

Supporting facts:

Within the ITU process, countries like Barbados have an equal voice as larger countries like the United States and Canada

Topics: Small States, Influence, Multilateralism

In multistakeholder processes, those with the resources have the potential to have a stronger influence

Supporting facts:

The multistakeholder process operates on equal footing but not all participants have equal resources and consequently equal influence

Topics: Multistakeholderism, Influence, Resources

Small island developing states are lagging in the transition to a digital global economy

Supporting facts:

The digital transformation is progressing at a very slow pace in small island developing states

Topics: Digital Economy, Developing States, Internet Access

Universal access to free internet should be a human right

Supporting facts:

Without data on phones, people can't access e-governance services

Topics: Internet Access, Human Rights

Online security, privacy, and safety must be included with free internet

Topics: Online Security, Privacy, Safety

The global digital compact process presents an opportunity for small island development states to present meaningful suggestions

Supporting facts:

Small island development states often feel like victims in global processes, but with this process they have the opportunity to present their own ideas
Having something on paper allows the views of such states to be better represented

Topics: Global Digital Compact Process, Small Island Development States

The IGF process' original intention was not to take definitive decisions but to foster discussions.

Supporting facts:

IGF was meant to be a platform for discussing ideas

Topics: IGF process, Decision-making

The IGF objectives were met in one way or the other.

Topics: IGF objectives, Achievements

Action needs to follow discussions on challenges and opportunities.

Topics: Action, Challenges, Opportunities

The GDC has the potential to address the shortcomings of IGF

Supporting facts:

Most ISPs and network operators have not adopted the MANRS actions
Most of NDAs, Ministries, Departments, Agencies, SMEs and others have not implemented DNSSEC and IPv6 standards.
The cybersecurity incident response team have not implemented DNSSEC
The GDC, being a UN directive or policy per se, can eliminate the shortcomings of IGF

Topics: GDC, IGF, Shortcomings

The United Nations Global Digital Compact (GDC) faces significant challenges in getting world operators to implement proposed measures

Supporting facts:

The GDC has no means of enforcing measures
Other UN measures struggle to find implementation, such as climate change initiatives

Topics: GDC, United Nations, world governance, internet

The Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should not be compared since one is a process and other a document.

Supporting facts:

The GDC is supposed to be a document by end of 2024
The IGF is a process

Topics: Global Digital Cooperation, Internet Governance Forum

The IGF has shown willingness to adapt and change according to the technological landscape.

Supporting facts:

Over the 18 years, the IGF has improved
The IGF has expanded its program with more sessions, interstitial activities, best practice forums, policy networks, and other methods
The IGF also consists of a parliamentary track

Topics: Internet Governance Forum, technological adaptation

The GDC could be utilized to help strengthen the IGF.

Supporting facts:

There have been discussions about IGF plus and the endorsement of the concept

Topics: Global Digital Cooperation, Internet Governance Forum

Digital Coalition should reach into communities and work with governments to improve circumstances

Supporting facts:

The speaker has called for the greater involvement of the UN system with small and developing states
The GDC can help small and developing states tell their needs

Topics: Digital Coalition, capacity development, reach

Opportunities for skills and knowledge transfer and capacity development in the territories are essential

Supporting facts:

The speaker suggests GDC to work with governments to increase the priority of these issues
Possibility of real capacity development in these territories

Topics: capacity development, knowledge transfer

Issues like cybersecurity and resilience should be prioritized

Supporting facts:

The speaker believes Otis's concerns on cybersecurity to be broader issues that need higher attention on the agenda

Topics: cybersecurity, resilience

Comparison between IGF and GDC

Supporting facts:

The IGF's beauty is its chaos and equal footing, where one can find colleagues from other countries or take pictures with renowned professionals like Vint Cerf.
The GDC is a bottom-up process, different from more closed multilateral processes.

Topics: IGF, GDC

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) should not be viewed as a duplication, but instead as an entity attempting to establish a compact similar to the compact for migration

Supporting facts:

The compact for migration has clear commitments, clear actions to implement those commitments and then a follow-up process

Topics: GDC, Compact for Migration

Consideration needed for resources available for multiple processes handling similar or complementary issues

Supporting facts:

Concerned about whether there are resources to fund more than one process looking into these issues and what would happen with the outcomes of all these processes

Topics: Resource allocation, Digital Cooperation

The Ideal scenario would be to find ways for processes to work together rather than compete for resources

Supporting facts:

The Global Digital Compact discussion ideally should find ways for processes to work together

Topics: Resource competition, Digital Cooperation

The voices of SIDS (Small Island Developing States) are not loud enough in IGF (Internet Governance Forum) discussions and the representation is low

Supporting facts:

Larger countries dominate the discussions consistently
In the Latin American Caribbean space, Caribbean is silent. Pacific is silent in the AP space, and Indian Oceans are silent in the African space.

Topics: SIDS, IGF, Representation

The Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) process may provide better opportunities for small islands to voice their concerns

Supporting facts:

GDC advocates for a more equitable 'one country, one vote' process

Topics: GDC, SIDS, Representation

A change is needed in IGF to stop large groups from dominating smaller voices

Supporting facts:

The same large countries and groups dominate the discussion every year within the IGF

Topics: IGF, Representation

Encourage action and active participation from the public.

Supporting facts:

She stressed to take action and to put pen to paper. Encouraged audience to write a letter stating their reasons for taking part in these meetings every year and their desires for improvements.

Topics: public engagement, active participation

Capacity building is important

Supporting facts:

She uses an example to demonstrate that in order for parliamentarians or missions to negotiate effectively, they need to understand what they are negotiating, implying the importance of education and a proper understanding of the subjects at hand.
She talks about the unfairness of the current situation in which notes from meetings might mean nothing to those who are tasked with making decisions.
She suggests that it's necessary to prepare parliamentarians and missions for their role, particularly through capacity building.

Topics: capacity building, negotiations, knowledge sharing

Music is a powerful tool to bridge any gap

Supporting facts:

Olga Cavalli mentioned that music can bridge gaps between different processes

Topics: Culture, Music, International Relations

Developing countries face challenges in having adequate resources to follow various processes

Supporting facts:

Olga Cavalli discussed the difficulty for developing countries to keep up with different processes due to limited human resources

Topics: Developing Countries, International Relations

Working at the regional level and with associations can be beneficial

Supporting facts:

Olga Cavalli mentioned successful coordination in countries of Mercosur and with various associations

Topics: Regional Cooperation, Associations, Internet, Telecommunications

There is a future expectation of concentration or coordination of processes

Supporting facts:

Olga Cavalli indicated a hopeful future of some coordination or concentration of processes

Topics: International Relations, Cooperation

No one can dispute the power and influence of UN directives and it's a powerful means for realizing the 2030 SDGs

Supporting facts:

UN directives are influential and governments eventually follow through
Digital economy has been touted as a way of realizing the 2030 SDGs

Topics: UN directives, 2030 SDGs, Digital Economy

The discussions at the UN level are exclusive and out of touch for startup entrepreneurs or university students

Supporting facts:

UN discussions occur at a very high level and are not relatable to entrepreneurs or students unless for academic purposes

Topics: UN discussions, Startup entrepreneurs, University students

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is in a unique position to reach everyone from grassroots to corporations

Supporting facts:

IGF is relatable as internet governance forms part of its name
IGF can reach a wide spectrum of the society from grassroots people and businesses to corporations

Topics: Internet Governance Forum (IGF), Grassroots, Corporations

The importance of internet governance can become real for students, civil society, and businesses

Supporting facts:

At the University of the Commonwealth Caribbean, students conduct research on internet governance topics
Civil society and small and medium-sized businesses can join a national IGF chapter and be part of the process

Topics: Internet governance, Education, Businesses

Sri Lanka has been implementing digital strategies for the last two decades but there are still many things yet to be achieved.

Supporting facts:

Sri Lanka has been working on its digital strategies for the past two decades.

Topics: Digital Transformation, Digital Strategies, Sri Lanka

International platforms are setting standards for digital transformation but there is an absence of guidance on who is to implement these and how it's to be done.

Supporting facts:

IGF, CD, Global Digital Compact and WSIS are some platforms setting such standards.

Topics: Digital Transformation, Standardization, Implementation

To make such initiatives sustainable and citizen-centric, local parliaments could be involved in monitoring and evaluation of measures.

Topics: Citizen-Centric Governance, Local Parliaments, Monitoring and Evaluation

The IGF has been beneficial in its outreach and development of a network of national and regional initiatives

Supporting facts:

Many issues are regional or national.
Outreach is a key benefit out of the IGF.

Topics: International Governance Initiatives, Regional Development

There is a need for GDCA to establish some sort of a coordination mechanism

Supporting facts:

Quinton talked about the GDCA establishing some sort of a coordination mechanism.

Topics: Coordination Mechanism, Global Development

Encouragement of national and regional initiatives could promote shared principles and unique solutions

Topics: National Initiatives, Regional Initiatives, Shared Principles

Business feasibility varies across different regions leading to different problems and solutions

Supporting facts:

The scale and distances in the Caribbean and the Pacific are not comparable.
It's easier to make a business case in the Caribbean for submarine cable than in the Pacific.

Topics: Business Feasibility, Regional Differences

Report

The cost of attending IGF meetings and the need to get up to speed with the issues were identified as barriers to entry. Despite being a multi-stakeholder process that allows anyone to participate, it was argued that the IGF primarily serves as a platform for networking and discussion, with little focus on generating actionable outcomes.

The need for a clear value proposition for the time and effort invested in the IGF was emphasized. Tracy Hackshaw was highlighted as an example of an active participant who serves on multiple boards, including the IGF, ICANN, and ARIN.

It was suggested that his active participation benefits the region. The importance of capacity building and building institutional capacities across governments and stakeholders was emphasized. It was acknowledged that no individual can be an expert in all topics, hence the need for capacity building.

Cybersecurity and emerging digital threats to the economy were mentioned as notable areas to focus on. The IGF was acknowledged as a successful platform for bringing people together to learn from each other. However, it was also noted that the overwhelming nature of the IGF approach, with its federated network of networks and numerous meetings, poses challenges.

The low governmental participation in the IGF was highlighted as an issue that could potentially be addressed by the Government Digital Service (GDS). The discussions highlighted the potential of the IGF to provide a space for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to have their voices heard.

The Caribbean IGF, Pacific IGF, and Indian Ocean IGF were mentioned as great platforms for SIDS to voice their issues at national, regional, and global levels. The Trinidad and Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group was cited as an example of such an initiative.

The importance of understanding the notion of internet governance, including the confusion that arose in the 2000s, was highlighted. The discussions also touched on the need for stakeholder engagement and the opportunities provided by the IGF to interact with various stakeholders.

It was noted that all stakeholders are not always present locally, and the IGF offers a unique opportunity to connect with a diverse range of stakeholders. The importance of translating IGF discussions into local solutions was emphasized. The potential barriers to digital transformation in small island developing states, such as economic barriers and the lack of trust in digital transactions, were discussed.

The absence of national IGFs to guide initiatives on the ground and the need for recommendations and guidelines from the IGF to reach policymakers and decision-makers were highlighted as challenges. The impact of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) on the digital governance landscape and addressing global inequalities was considered.

Contributions towards the GDC from various countries were mentioned, and it was seen as a potential tool to address inequality. The importance of engagement with the School of Internet Governance in contributing to the GDC was noted. The overwhelming amount of information and processes within digital governance was acknowledged, and it was suggested to focus only on what is relevant to one's work and interests.

The potential of the GDC to have a positive impact on digital governance and global inequalities facing SIDS was emphasized. The need for active participants and meaningful suggestions from small island developing states was highlighted. The discussions also raised questions about the impact of the GDC on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process and potential improvements that the GDC could bring.

The need for a clearer focus on implementation and the 'who' and 'how' aspect of digital transformation were emphasized. The importance of preserving the uniqueness of the IGF was also noted. Overall, the discussions underscored the challenges and opportunities in internet governance, particularly for small island developing states.

The need for capacity building, stakeholder engagement, and the linkage between internet governance and critical issues were emphasized. The potential of the Global Digital Compact and the importance of active participation and representation were highlighted. The discussions also highlighted the need for clearer guidance, resource coordination, and an inclusive and collaborative approach to address global digital challenges.

Olga Cavalli

Speech speed

158 words per minute

Speech length

1405 words

Speech time

533 secs

Click for more

Arguments

IGF is a fantastic space for defining and creating many Internet-related changes

Supporting facts:

She has attended 18 IGF events and was present when it was created in 2005 in Tunis.
Many changes in global coordination of the Internet, like changes in ICANN, the IANA transition, were born in IGF.
National and regional IGFs were spontaneously born from discussions in IGF.
Schools of Internet governance were born as a spinoff from the IGF.

Topics: IGF, Internet Governance, ICANN, IANA transition

Olga Cavalli emphasizes the need to make internet a global public good.

Supporting facts:

The contribution from the fellows of the School of Internet Governance was received from 65 fellows from 22 different countries.
The suggested seven digital issues include connecting everyone including all schools to the internet, avoiding Internet fragmentation, data protection, application of human rights online, introduction of accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content, promoting the regulation of Artificial Intelligence, and considering Digital Commons a global public good.

Topics: Internet Access, Digital Inclusion, Artificial Intelligence, Data Protection, Human Rights Online, Digital Commons

Olga Cavalli emphasizes the importance of focusing on areas of personal or professional interest.

Topics: Internet Governance, Digital Economy

Olga Cavalli finds it unfair to compare the IGF with the GDC.

Supporting facts:

She mentions the equal footing at the IGF and the opportunity to network.
She appreciates GDC's bottom-up process.

Topics: IGF, GDC

She appreciates beauty in both IGF and GDC.

Supporting facts:

At the IGF, one could meet anyone, making it a perfect place to network.
GDC's bottom-up process offers engagement to community which she finds appealing.

Topics: IGF, GDC

She sees value in multi-stakeholder processes in addressing problems of digital economy.

Supporting facts:

She doesn't prefer closed multilateral processes.
Multistakeholder processes provide an inclusive path forward.

Topics: Digital Economy, Multi-stakeholder processes

The process is towards some coordination or concentration of all digital governance processes

Supporting facts:

These processes are multiplying and can overwhelm delegates from countries with smaller delegations
Worked at an Argentina level to arrange meetings for delegates to participate

Topics: Digital Governance, IGF, Developing countries

Report

Moreover, she emphasises that the IGF has also been instrumental in giving rise to national and regional IGFs, as well as schools of Internet governance. Cavalli appreciates the chaotic nature of the IGF and considers it an essential part of its beauty.

She argues that the creative chaos of the forum allows for free discussions and an organic exchange of ideas. Cavalli personally experienced the chaotic atmosphere during the forum, recounting a moment when she had difficulty finding the correct panel room.

However, she believes that this sense of being lost adds to the overall experience of the IGF. In terms of the Internet's global impact, Cavalli emphasises the need to make it a global public good. She supports initiatives like the Global Digital Compact (GDC) that aim to mitigate digital issues.

Cavalli led a consultation process with fellows from the School of Internet Governance to contribute to the GDC. Their contribution, focused on seven digital issues, includes connecting everyone to the internet, data protection, and regulating artificial intelligence, and has been published on the GDC's website.

However, she notes a trend towards establishing more closed multilateral processes, which she criticises. Cavalli stresses that the way forward should be through multistakeholder engagement, as it allows for a more diverse range of perspectives. While Cavalli recognises the challenges faced by delegates from developing countries, particularly in handling the overwhelming number of digital governance processes, she sees value in coordinating and concentrating these processes.

She believes that a certain level of coordination or concentration is necessary to ensure effective digital governance and prevent fragmentation. Overall, Cavalli greatly values the unique, free-spirited nature of the IGF. She cherishes the open and inclusive atmosphere that allows for free discussions and networking.

Cavalli argues for the preservation of the IGF's special character, as she believes it is an essential forum for shaping the Internet and addressing global digital challenges. With her extensive experience and involvement in the IGF, Cavalli's perspectives and support carry significant weight in the ongoing dialogue on Internet governance.

Otis Osbourne

Speech speed

103 words per minute

Speech length

833 words

Speech time

487 secs

Click for more

Arguments

small island developing states face economic barriers to digital transformation and access

Supporting facts:

lack of trust in digital transactions by small to medium business service providers and consumers

Topics: digital transformation, economic barriers, small island developing states

The world is transitioning into a new digital global economy

Supporting facts:

Small island developing states are progressing at a slow pace in this transition

Topics: Digital economy, Transition, Global economy

IGF discussions on best practices in securing the Internet haven't led to tangible implementations

Supporting facts:

Most ISPs and network operators have not adopted the MANRS actions to secure data being routed through the Internet
Most NDAs, Ministries, Departments, and Agencies, and SMEs as well as financial and educational institutions have not implemented cost-free DNSSEC and IPv6 standards

Topics: Internet security, IGF, Best practices

The GDC could address the shortcomings of the IGF

Topics: GDC, IGF

UN directives have power and influence, and governments will follow through eventually, particularly in the domain of digital economy for realizing the 2030 SDGs

Topics: UN directives, digital economy, 2030 SDGs

Discussions at the UN level are exclusive and out of touch with grassroots realities, hence, not directly accessible/relatable to start-up entrepreneurs or university students

Topics: UN discussions, inclusivity, accessibility

The importance of internet governance becomes real for individuals and small and medium-sized businesses through active participation in IGF chapters, as opposed to being mere mentions in GDC's policy paper

Topics: IGF, Internet Governance, small and medium-sized businesses

Report

This lack of trust could potentially limit the growth and adoption of digital technologies in these states. Another important point highlighted is the need for national Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) to guide initiatives on the ground. It is noted that some countries, such as Jamaica, do not have national IGFs.

The absence of these forums could impede the progress of internet governance and hinder the development of policies that promote an inclusive and accessible digital environment. The analysis also acknowledges that small island developing states are progressing at a slow pace in transitioning to the new digital global economy.

This transition is crucial for these states to effectively participate in the interconnected world and leverage the benefits of the digital economy. The need for adequate support and resources to propel this transition is highlighted as an important concern. Furthermore, the speakers emphasize the recognition of universal access to free internet as a human right, particularly for facilitating e-governance and reducing social exclusion.

They argue that without data access on their phones, individuals are unable to access e-governance services. Thus, governments are urged to acknowledge free internet as a fundamental right to ensure equal access opportunities and promote inclusive digital societies. The importance of online security, privacy, and safety is also emphasized, and it is noted that these aspects must be prioritized alongside the recognition of free internet as a human right.

However, the analysis does not provide specific evidence or examples to support this point. Regarding the implementation of best practices in securing the internet, it is highlighted that despite discussions in IGFs, most Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and network operators have not adopted the necessary actions to secure data being routed through the internet.

Additionally, many organizations, including NDAs, Ministries, Departments, Agencies, SMEs, financial, and educational institutions, have not implemented cost-free DNSSEC and IPv6 standards. This lack of tangible implementation raises concerns about the effectiveness of IGF discussions in shaping concrete and practical outcomes.

The analysis also discusses the power of UN directives, the exclusivity of UN discussions, and reaffirms the relevance of the IGF.

Quintin Chou-Lambert

Speech speed

162 words per minute

Speech length

2289 words

Speech time

849 secs

Click for more

Arguments

The IGF's approach allows local consultations but can overwhelm participants with the number of meetings

Supporting facts:

Delegations in New York are overwhelmed with many other issues
The urgency of Internet governance issues can be pushed down

Topics: IGF, Internet governance

Developing, landlocked, and least developed countries may need to unite to express their concerns in the global process

Supporting facts:

Internet governance challenges and how the IGF deals with them are common in these countries

Topics: Developing countries, LLDCs, LDCs, Global process

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) offers an opportunity for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and other nations to update and renew their digital concerns and benefits

Supporting facts:

The GDC will bring together leaders in September to make decisions on global digital issues
This provides a chance for SIDS to address their specific concerns regarding the use of digital technologies and data

Topics: Global Digital Compact, Digital ecosystem

There is a need to ensure safety while harnessing the benefits of new technologies such as AI and data on a global scale

Supporting facts:

The rise of data and AI since the 2000s has created new concerns about safety, monetisation and inclusivity
The GDC offers a platform to address these issues at a high level

Topics: New technologies, Artificial Intelligence, Data

Multi-stakeholder networked approach proposed by the tech envoy

Supporting facts:

High level advisory body on artificial intelligence to be formed.
Open recruitment process with more than 1,800 nominations.
Members of the body are planned to go into different networks to understand the needs and concerns and bring them into political process.

Topics: Artificial Intelligence, Technology, Consultation Approach

Opportunity for Digital Economy to grow and evolve.

Supporting facts:

Secretary-General would like a unified, ambitious GDC.
Opportunity to voice concerns on a unified platform.
Debate on how countries could adapt digital architectures in the future.

Topics: Digital Economy, Digital Architecture

Importance in the review and follow-up of GDC commitments.

Supporting facts:

Questions pertaining to the extent to which governments can participate in follow-ups.

Topics: GDC follow-ups, Government Participation

Need for a space for review and follow up in digital governance

Supporting facts:

The Secretary General proposed creating a Digital Cooperation Forum
Such space would pool emerging internet governance issues
It would address the issue of gaps in the existing digital governance

Topics: GDC, Digital Cooperation Forum, IGF, Digital Governance

A single platform for digital governance would defragment governance.

Supporting facts:

Implementing a central place for countries to discuss digital governance issues would ultimately save resources and efforts
It allows countries to focus in a holistic way on digital governance

Topics: Digital Governance, GDC, IGF

Need to safeguard the unique character and spirit of various digital governance platforms

Supporting facts:

Bringing politicized discussions to platforms can change their nature and spirit
Preserving the individual characters of forums is important for free and creative discussions

Topics: GDC, IGF, Digital Governance

Report

On the other hand, it is argued that the IGF holds significant value in facilitating networking and information exchange. By bringing people together, the IGF helps them better understand Internet governance issues. Networking and exchange are becoming increasingly important, especially considering the challenging political conditions.

This unity can enable them to have a stronger voice in shaping global policies. The GDC is highlighted as an opportunity for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and other nations to address their specific concerns regarding the use of digital technologies and data.

The GDC will assemble leaders to make decisions on global digital issues, providing a platform for SIDS to voice their concerns and benefit from digital advancements. The rise of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and data, has raised concerns about safety, monetisation, and inclusivity.

The GDC offers a platform to address these issues at a high level. It becomes crucial to ensure safety while harnessing the benefits of these technologies on a global scale. It is argued that the GDC should reconcile the goal of globally spreading the benefits of new technologies, while ensuring safety and inclusivity.

The GDC will bring leaders together to make these important decisions and presents an opportunity to update the focus and ambition in utilising these technologies. Challenges within the IGF include the absence of decision-making and a vast capacity gap, making it difficult to keep track of everything happening in the digital technology landscape.

There are also questions about whether the GDC can effectively address these challenges. The GDC is seen as an opportunity for the digital economy to grow and evolve. The Secretary-General emphasises the importance of a unified and ambitious GDC. It also allows for debates on how countries can adapt their digital architectures in the future.

Reviewing and following up on GDC commitments is deemed important, but questions remain about the extent to which governments can participate in these follow-ups. To address gaps in existing digital governance, the creation of a Digital Cooperation Forum is proposed by the Secretary-General.

This digital governance platform would pool emerging internet governance issues, ultimately saving resources and efforts. Implementing a central place for countries to discuss digital governance issues would allow them to focus holistically on digital governance and defragment governance efforts. It is emphasised that while bringing politicised discussions to digital governance platforms can change their nature and spirit, it is vital to safeguard the unique character and spirit of various digital governance platforms.

This can enable free and creative discussions. Lastly, raising the voices of different groupings in the GDC process is seen as crucial. Voicing the interests of various groups can lead to better reflecting their interests in the outcome document. In summary, the analysis presents diverse opinions on Internet governance and the GDC.

It highlights the challenges and benefits of the IGF and emphasises the need for unity among developing countries. The GDC offers an opportunity for SIDS and other nations to address their digital concerns. The analysis also explores the concerns surrounding new technologies and the importance of safety and inclusivity.

Challenges within the IGF are discussed, as well as the GDC's potential to foster the growth of the digital economy. The significance of considering the digital transition and reviewing GDC commitments is stressed. The proposal for a Digital Cooperation Forum to address gaps in digital governance is mentioned, along with the importance of preserving the unique character of various digital governance platforms.

Finally, the importance of raising the voices of different groups in the GDC process is highlighted.

Rodney Taylor

Speech speed

180 words per minute

Speech length

1714 words

Speech time

572 secs

Click for more

Arguments

SIDS face challenges in actively participating in ongoing processes

Supporting facts:

Resource constraints, both financial and human, prevent active participation.
Barriers to entry still exist even though the IGF is a multi-stakeholder process and theoretically open to all.

Topics: Internet governance, Global digital compact, SIDS

Difference between UN and multistakeholder forums

Supporting facts:

In the UN, countries have more influence while in multistakeholder forums, all attendees are considered equal.
In the UN, priority is given to the interventions by member states.
Small states can influence in the UN process as every country has an equal vote.

Topics: Multilateralism, Multistakeholderism

The GDC has high expectations but Rodney is skeptical about its ability to address the complex issues of the IGF process.

Supporting facts:

Rodney describes the global issues such as climate change and human trafficking highlighted by the UN, where despite evidence, the world struggles to respond.
He points out the internet as another complex issue for global collaboration.

Topics: GDC, IGF process, Global digital cooperation

Rodney views GDC as another mechanism for global collaboration on internet issues, but doesn't see it causing significant changes.

Supporting facts:

Despite acknowledging the potential of GDC to strengthen the IGF process, Rodney is doubtful given the complicated nature of the issues at hand.

Topics: GDC, Internet governance, Global collaboration

The GDC could help address global inequality in the digital space, especially in small island developing countries

Supporting facts:

Around 2 billion people are not connected, most likely in developing countries or small island developing countries.
GDC can focus on these issues and help improve connectivity and infrastructure.
SIDS play stronger within multilateral processes and within spaces like the UN.

Topics: GDC, Digital Inequality, Small Island Developing Countries

The GDC is not a duplication of any current process but it's meant to be a compact or a global handshake

Supporting facts:

The GDC focuses on global key issues like cybersecurity, artificial intelligence.
The GDC might lead to a process, which might be an expansion of IGF role or a new process altogether.

Topics: GDC, IGF, Processes

Implementation of global cybersecurity norms is the responsibility of national parliaments and local authorities.

Supporting facts:

discussed global agreements must be actioned by national parliaments to implement the mutually agreed norms for routing cybersecurity at city operator and internet service provider levels.

Topics: global cooperation, cybersecurity, GDC provisions, norms for routing cybersecurity

Report

During the discussion, several important topics were addressed, including the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC), internet governance, and the challenges faced by Small Island Developing Countries (SIDS) in actively participating in ongoing processes. One of the main concerns raised was the limited resources, both financial and human, that hinder the active participation of SIDS in these processes.

This constraint prevents SIDS from fully engaging in discussions and decision-making. Additionally, barriers to entry still exist despite the multi-stakeholder nature of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which theoretically allows participation from all stakeholders. These barriers may include technical expertise or access to necessary resources.

This raised concerns about the effectiveness of the IGF and its ability to address pressing global challenges. A key distinction was highlighted between the United Nations (UN) and multistakeholder forums. It was noted that countries have more influence in the UN, where the priority is given to member states' interventions.

On the other hand, in multistakeholder forums like the IGF, all attendees are considered equal, providing an opportunity for greater inclusivity and diverse perspectives. This observation emphasized the different dynamics and power structures between the two approaches. Despite the challenges and questions raised, there was a general sense of positivity towards the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC).

Participants expressed hopes that the GDC would lead to positive outcomes and address the complex issues discussed in the IGF process. However, skepticism was also voiced regarding the GDC's ability to effectively tackle these complex issues, especially within the context of global collaboration on internet-related matters.

It was suggested that efforts should be made to avoid duplication and instead strengthen existing processes. The implementation of global cybersecurity norms was highlighted as the responsibility of national parliaments and local authorities. It was emphasized that discussed global agreements should be actioned at the local level to implement mutually agreed norms for routing cybersecurity.

This observation emphasized the need for concrete action and implementation at the national and local levels, rather than relying solely on global conversations and agreements. In conclusion, the discussion covered various important aspects of the GDC, internet governance, and the challenges faced by SIDS in actively participating in ongoing processes.

While there were concerns raised and questions about the efficacy of some processes, there was also a sense of optimism for the GDC's potential to address global issues and promote digital cooperation. The need for inclusivity, concrete actions, and the implementation of agreed norms were recurring themes throughout the discussion.

Shernon Osepa

Speech speed

148 words per minute

Speech length

1359 words

Speech time

550 secs

Click for more

Arguments

Internet Governance came because of a global confusion about the internet.

Supporting facts:

Discussions regarding internet governance began around year 2000.
Governments didn't know what this thing called the internet was.

Topics: Internet, Technology

Post discussion at the IGF, the findings should be returned home for meaningful local discussions.

Supporting facts:

Once the issues, challenges and opportunities have been discussed at the IGF, they should be returned home for localized discussion.
These local discussions help in solving challenges faced in the local jurisdiction.

Topics: Internet Governance, Local Development

The beauty of the global digital compact process is the opportunity it offers to small island developing states

Supporting facts:

The global digital compact process is a platform for small island development states to voice their ideas and suggestions
This process is an opportunity to reverse traditional roles, allowing small states to draft ideas and others to give comments

Topics: Global digital compact process, Small island developing states

IGF was originally intended to be a place for discussion not decision-making

Supporting facts:

The IGF was more like a talking place where people can discuss ideas
If you look at the original objectives, they were met in one way or the other

Topics: IGF Process, IGF Launch

Need action-oriented outcomes in countries instead of closed room discussions

Supporting facts:

At the end of the day, we would like to see actions being taken place in our countries
Discussions in a closed room that cannot help us with anything

Topics: IGF Process, Action in countries

The process which is focused on must make life better for people, specifically SIDS

Supporting facts:

Discussion about direction of development and its impact on small island development states
Suggestion for the focus to be on economic development
Reference to GDC's focus on SDGs 8, 9, and 10

Topics: GDC, IGF, SIDS, Development

Focus must be on economic development through jobs, growth, and infrastructure

Supporting facts:

Specific mention of focus on jobs, economic growth, and infrastructure
Discussion of development needs in their jurisdictions

Topics: GDC, Economic Development, Infrastructure

Consideration of climate change and natural disasters is critical while building infrastructure

Supporting facts:

Discussion of the impact of climate change on infrastructure development
Points out the danger of climate change destroying infrastructure

Topics: Climate Change, Natural Disasters, Infrastructure

Collaboration and partnership is important and should also be a focus

Supporting facts:

Mention of SDG 17
Call for solutions to be developed in collaboration with others

Topics: Partnership, Collaboration

Report

It is seen as a way to empower these states and reverse traditional power dynamics. The original intention of the IGF was to serve as a place for discussions, not decision-making. It aimed to facilitate dialogue and exchange of ideas to understand different perspectives.

However, there is a growing need for action-oriented outcomes in countries. Merely discussing issues without taking concrete steps towards solving them may not be sufficient. Collaboration and partnership are emphasized as important factors in the IGF process. This requires stakeholders to work together, leveraging each other's expertise and resources to develop effective solutions.

The call for collaboration is in line with the focus on SDG 17, which emphasizes the importance of partnerships in achieving sustainable development goals. Consideration of climate change and natural disasters is highlighted as critical when building infrastructure. These factors can have a significant impact on the effectiveness and longevity of infrastructure projects.

It is essential to incorporate climate resilience measures and robust disaster management strategies to ensure the sustainability of infrastructure investments. Overall, speakers at the IGF urge problem-solving specific to the needs of different regions. By identifying and addressing the unique challenges faced by each jurisdiction, more effective and tailored solutions can be developed.

This regional focus allows for the formulation of strategies that are relevant and impactful in driving positive change. In conclusion, the IGF serves as a platform for open discussions and solution-oriented dialogue. It provides small island developing states with the opportunity to voice their ideas, emphasizes the importance of action-oriented outcomes, collaboration, and partnership, and underscores the consideration of climate change in infrastructure development.

The push for region-specific problem-solving highlights the need for tailored approaches to address the diverse challenges faced in different jurisdictions.

Tracy Hackshaw

Speech speed

174 words per minute

Speech length

2005 words

Speech time

692 secs

Click for more

Arguments

The IGF can provide a space for SIDS to have their voices heard

Supporting facts:

The Caribbean IGF, Pacific IGF and the Indian Ocean IGF provide platforms for these nations
Various islands have their own IGFs that can feed into the national, regional, and global IGF

Topics: IGF, SIDS, internet governance

Resources and attention are challenges for internet governance in SIDS

Supporting facts:

Internet policy issues and digital issues are not given much priority in SIDS due to other challenges
SIDS face significant other challenges like climate change, infrastructural issues, economic issues

Topics: SIDS, internet governance, Resources

Need to link digital and internet governance with the critical issues of the country

Supporting facts:

This link is particularly relevant in the context of emerging threats to the economy that the digital realm can bring
Cybersecurity is an example of this link

Topics: Digitalization, Internet Governance, Economic Challenges

The GDC is expected to promote a more inclusive and equitable digital world, especially for SIDS

Supporting facts:

This could help address global inequalities by providing SIDS with greater access to digital technologies and resources and by helping them to develop their own digital economies.

Topics: GDC, SIDS, Inclusive digital world

Emphasized the need for member states to implement the goals of the GDC

Supporting facts:

This is not a treaty, it's not any kind of mandatory thing to happen, but at the very least, member states will agree to something and you have your health account. Governments can program these activities into their various budgets, and allow the communities in their own countries and the stakeholders in their countries to deliver upon what the Digital Compact promises.

Topics: GDC, SIDS, Member states, implementation

The GDC should raise the profile and outreach to communities, particularly to small and developing states (SIDS) to understand their needs.

Supporting facts:

The UN system should reach into and reach out to small and developing states
The term compact, implies a promise to deliver, work together.

Topics: Outreach, GDC, SIDS

SIDS representation and voice is not given enough volume in IGF and LAC, AP and African space

Supporting facts:

Larger countries dominate and that's the way it works
Even when there are attempts to request representation, it seems to be that we(SIDS) get lost in the crowd

Topics: IGF, SIDS, LAC, AP, Africa

Report

SIDS encounter challenges in prioritising internet governance due to limited resources and attention as they grapple with significant issues such as climate change and economic challenges. One of the key arguments in support of the GDC is that it can provide a platform for SIDS to have their voices heard.

Existing forums like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and regional spaces like LAC, AP, and Africa do not adequately emphasise the representation and voice of SIDS. This results in SIDS feeling marginalised, and their concerns not receiving the attention they deserve within the digital governance discourse.

The GDC process could provide a more equitable platform for SIDS to contribute their perspectives and address their specific issues. Moreover, SIDS face challenges in resource allocation and attention towards internet governance. These challenges arise because SIDS have competing priorities that include climate change adaptation, infrastructural issues, and economic development.

As a result, internet policy issues and digital issues do not receive much priority. The GDC could play a crucial role in mitigating these challenges by collaborating with governments and prioritising capacity development, knowledge transfer, and addressing the digital divide.

This includes actively engaging with SIDS governments and communities to understand their needs and working towards real skills and knowledge transfer. Another important point worth noting is the emphasis on the digital divide. While digital technologies have the potential to bridge gaps and create opportunities, it is essential to recognise that not everyone is connected.

The digital divide persists, and assumptions cannot be made that connectivity is universal. The GDC process must take this into account and work towards addressing the digital divide by ensuring accessibility and connectivity for all. In conclusion, there is optimism and support for the GDC and its potential positive impact on SIDS.

The GDC's aim to establish a global framework for digital cooperation and promote an inclusive and equitable digital world resonates with the challenges faced by SIDS in prioritising internet governance and addressing global inequalities. By providing a platform for SIDS to have their voices heard, collaborating with governments, and focusing on capacity development and knowledge transfer, the GDC process can contribute significantly to addressing these issues.

It is crucial to recognise the unique needs and perspectives of SIDS and actively work towards creating an inclusive digital world for all.

IGF to GDC- An Equitable Framework for Developing Countries | IGF 2023 Open Forum #46

Event report

Speakers

Moderators

Table of contents

Knowledge Graph of Debate

Session report

Speakers

Sorina Teleanu

Arguments

Keeping up and contributing meaningfully with all digital diplomacy and Internet policies is overwhelming for both small and large countries due to their complexity and pace

There is a lack of capacity to be an expert in all topics related to Internet governance and Policies.

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) hold promise and potential to address digital inequality

Global Digital Compact should take into account past events and not reinvent the wheel

The GDC and the IGF should not be compared directly since they serve different functions.

The IGF has shown willingness to change and adapt over the past 18 years.

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) should not be seen as a duplication but as a compact with clear commitments, actions and follow-up process.

It is important to consider the resources available to multiple stakeholders for following multiple processes looking into similar or complementary issues.

Report

Audience

Arguments

Carols emphasised on the importance of action. Strong actions are necessary to accomplish the desired outcomes.

There is a strong need for capacity building amongst parliamentarians and missions to assure right decision making.

There is a lack of clarification and guidance on who should drive digital transformation initiatives

Advocacy for the development of frameworks or best practices guidelines for digital transformation

Benefits of IGF: outreach and developing network of regional initiatives.

The Caribbean and the Pacific, being small islands, have distinct local aspects to their problems and solutions.

Data flow is predicted to grow 400% by 2026

Developing countries risk becoming mere providers in the data market due to data divide

Experts are asked for potential interventions to handle this data divide

Report

Moderator

Arguments

Challenges of SIDS actively participating in IGF

IGF as a discussion platform with no actionable outcomes

There are challenges relating to keeping an eye on every internet related topic and policy taking place globally and contributing to them

There is a need to build institutional capacities across governments and stakeholders

The IGF has been somewhat successful in efforts to mitigate these challenges

The IGF's challenge of low governmental participation could potentially be addressed by the GDC.

IGF can provide a space for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to have their voices heard

Fundamental challenges in SIDS like resources and whether digital issues are given priority

Benefits of IGF is also causing issues due to the overwhelming nature of its approach and the numerous meetings

IGF brings people together for networking and exchanging ideas, which is valuable in current political conditions

The importance of understanding the notion of internet governance

IGF offers opportunities to interact with various stakeholders not available locally

Necessity to translate IGF discussions into local solutions

Small island developing states face economic barriers to digital transformation

Recommendations and guidelines from IGF are not reaching Jamaica's policy and decision makers

Engagement with the School of Internet Governance has led to productive contributions towards the Global Digital Compact

Advice for navigating the overwhelming amount of information and processes within digital governance is to focus on what is relevant to your work and interests.

The GDC has the potential to have a significant positive impact on digital governance and global inequalities facing SIDS

Potential of global digital compact to address inequality

Building on past work and outcomes for an effective Global Digital Compact

The UN prioritizes member states in decision-making processes

Multilateralism and multistakeholderism differ fundamentally

Small states can have powerful voices in multilateral processes

In multistakeholder processes, those with the resources have the potential to have a stronger influence

Small island developing states are lagging in the transition to a digital global economy

Universal access to free internet should be a human right

Online security, privacy, and safety must be included with free internet

The global digital compact process presents an opportunity for small island development states to present meaningful suggestions

The IGF process' original intention was not to take definitive decisions but to foster discussions.

The IGF objectives were met in one way or the other.

Action needs to follow discussions on challenges and opportunities.

The GDC has the potential to address the shortcomings of IGF

The United Nations Global Digital Compact (GDC) faces significant challenges in getting world operators to implement proposed measures

The Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should not be compared since one is a process and other a document.

The IGF has shown willingness to adapt and change according to the technological landscape.

The GDC could be utilized to help strengthen the IGF.

Digital Coalition should reach into communities and work with governments to improve circumstances

Opportunities for skills and knowledge transfer and capacity development in the territories are essential

Issues like cybersecurity and resilience should be prioritized

Comparison between IGF and GDC

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) should not be viewed as a duplication, but instead as an entity attempting to establish a compact similar to the compact for migration

Consideration needed for resources available for multiple processes handling similar or complementary issues

The Ideal scenario would be to find ways for processes to work together rather than compete for resources

The voices of SIDS (Small Island Developing States) are not loud enough in IGF (Internet Governance Forum) discussions and the representation is low

The Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) process may provide better opportunities for small islands to voice their concerns

A change is needed in IGF to stop large groups from dominating smaller voices

Encourage action and active participation from the public.