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

Rodney Taylor

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Hatcher 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 Trans-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.

Moderator:
based intergovernmental international organization dedicated to promoting and supporting the development of the Caribbean Information and Communications Technologies, ICT, and that sector for the socioeconomic development of the region. This open forum is to share specific experiences and advance discussions on issues of global inequality in the new digital global economy within the context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals eight, nine, and 10, and to help developing countries formulate specific proposals and recommendations for the global digital compact as they prepare for the future of the world summit. We must ensure that the GDC takes into account the shortcomings of the UN IGF process, specifically as it relates to DCs and SIDS and identifies opportunities and mechanisms to address those shortcomings. All of these issues are addressed in this open forum, are issues that the Caribbean is currently grappling with and which present major social and economic development challenges for the region. Interaction between onsite and online speakers and attendees will be facilitated via an online moderator and that person will flag questions, comments, and other actions of online participants to the onsite moderator. So let’s get started. Our guests this morning are, let me start with myself. My name is Jo Ford. I am the onsite moderator and Misha Marius is the online moderator. Our guests this morning are, next to me, Mr. Rodney Taylor, Secretary General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. Sylvia Cadena, sorry, Sylvia’s not with us. Olga Cavalli, co-founder of the director of the South School on Internet Governance. Mr. Quinton Shu-Lambert, Office of the Secretary General’s Envoy on Technology. And Tracy Hackshaw, who is the president of the Trinidad and Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group. Online, we have Mr. Serena? And Ms. Serena Telano, Director of Knowledge, the Diplo Foundation. Online, we’ve got Mr. Otis Osborne. He’s the acting head HOD of Department of Information Technology at the University of the Commonwealth Caribbean and Mr. Shernan Oseipa, Internet Governance and Cybersecurity Policy Advisor. So once again, good morning everyone. We want this to be a robust discussion and interactive, so please feel free to join in. But I’m gonna start with the opening remarks. What are the main internet governance challenges you believe have been facing SIDS and how has the IGF served as a platform to mitigate those challenges? And I’m going to start with you, Mr. Taylor.

Rodney Taylor:
Thank you. Good morning, and thanks for joining us for this discussion this morning. With respect to the challenges facing SIDS, I think the part of the challenge, I would say, is the ability to actively participate in the processes that have been ongoing now since 2005. The fact is that we’re a small island developing state, so there are resource constraints or financial resources, human resources, and therefore, even though the IGF is a multi-stakeholder process, which means that anyone can participate, I mean, as long as you’re online, as a matter of fact, even if you’re not online, you can participate, you can come and make your voice heard. But there’s still barriers to entry, as it were. There’s a cost to coming here to Kyoto. Even if you access remotely, you need to still be brought up to speed with the issues. And you’ll see many of the panelists here are actively involved. I mean, I use Tracy Hatcher, who’s on the panel here, as a poster child for IGF participation because he’s been active for a long time, I mean, really active, sitting on boards, not just within IGF, but in other processes like ICANN and so on, and ARIN. So if we can get 10 more, like Mr. Hatcher, I think the region would be well-represented. But reality is that most people, including Tracy and myself, have a day job. So while we’re happy to come here and talk and discuss, reality is that we do have other duties and responsibilities. The IGF is well-recognized as a place where people come and talk and discuss and we network and so on. And there’s value in that, but it doesn’t necessarily translate into an actionable outcome. And therefore, you have to start asking the value proposition of the investment that is being made to participate. So I’ll stop there for now, but those are some of the challenges. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. And I’ll move over to Serena Talalou. Serena?

Sorina Teleanu:
Thank you. Just building on what Rodney was saying, what we’re seeing in Geneva, and yeah, maybe I should start with the context. I work in Geneva a lot with missions of countries there. And you know, Geneva is one of the hub of digital diplomacy, internet governance, internet policy. A lot is happening there with ITU and a bunch of other organizations discussing internet and related issues. And what we’re hearing a lot from missions of small developing countries, and paradoxically also from larger countries, is that there’s a lot going on, and it’s impossible to follow everything. So there is this big challenge of keeping an eye on everything happening, and then meaningfully contributing, as you were saying. And another challenge they’re facing is the lack of capacity. There is so much going on, on so many topics, one person cannot be an expert into everything. So the question is, how do you build institutional capacities, in this case across governments, but also across other stakeholder groups? To what extent the IGF has managed to mitigate some of these challenges? I think there have been efforts, and even the whole idea of having an IGF where people get together to try to learn a bit more from each other is a good thing. But then again, there’s so much going on, and you have to make a choice. And again, speaking about governments, I think we’re seeing this is a challenge for the IGF. Not many governments actually show up. Let’s see if the GDC can help address some of these challenges. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Serena. Tracy, action.

Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you very much. So in this session, I’m representing the Trans-Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group, which puts on the Trans-Tobago IGF. But I also wear the hat as co-coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on Small and Developing States. of my co-coordinator sitting in the room where I’m watching her directly in front of me, Maureen Hilliard from the Cook Islands. So from a positive standpoint, I do think that the IGF can provide a space for SIDS to have their voices heard, especially in terms of the national and regional IGFs. The Caribbean IGF is one great example of that. Pacific IGF, I believe there’s gonna be the Indian Ocean IGF soon, and then at the national level in terms of the various islands who have their own IGFs that can feed into the national, regional, and global IGF. But of course, there are challenges. So even though we do have the dynamic coalition, we do have these IGFs, resources, as was said before, is a challenge. And the other thing that I think we need to worry about is whether or not the priorities that we place on internet issues, internet policy, even digital issues, in the SIDS are given sufficient priority. As we all know, in SIDS, there are significant other challenges that we face, climate change being one of them, obviously infrastructural issues generally, economic issues, and so on. Of course, other countries face that. So where we talk about something as ideas, did I say esoteric as internet governance, when you approach the leadership in the countries, that is somewhat shifted down the priority level. So we need to find a way to link digital and internet governance issues with the critical issues that face our country. And to a large extent, that links to things like cyber security, emerging threats to the economy that digital brings. And if we find a way to link those two, I think we can maybe. overcome the challenges using something along those lines. But we’ll leave that discussion for later on. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Tracy. I will now ask Mr. Quinton Shue-Lambert to give his opening remarks.

Quintin Chou-Lambert:
Thank you very much. Yeah, it seems that some of the benefits of the IGF are also, you know, the cause of some of the issues as well. There seems to be a tradeoff between this kind of federated network of networks approach which allows the regional and local kind of consultations with the kind of overwhelm of how many different meetings people have to go to to keep up to speed. And in a case where the – we also hear in New York that the delegations, even in New York, are overwhelmed with many other issues, including climate, the debt issues. And so often the urgency of these Internet governance issues can be kind of pushed down. So I do think one of the benefits of the IGF is to just bring people together and, I mean, this being my first IGF, I feel very humbled having shared the room with people who have been here from the start, since 2003 and almost since the birth of IGF and the WSIS Action Line process. And coming in and listening to all the sessions and exchanging has allowed, you know, me to understand more some of the issues that – and some of the perspectives. And that’s – there’s a lot of value in that sharing of information. And so in a world where some kind of political conditions are becoming more challenging, this kind of networking and exchange will become increasingly valuable and something that we’ll come back to when we come to the question around the future of the IGF. But these comments are a little bit generic. But some of the Internet governance challenges and how the IGF deals with that are common with many other countries. other parts of the world, parts of the developing world, LLDCs, LDCs, and one of the questions is how this group will come together, if it comes together, to give voice to some of its concerns in a global process.

Moderator:
And I’m going to ask Ms. Olga Cavalli to also give her remarks. Olga.

Olga Cavalli:
Thank you. Thank you so much, and thank you for inviting me to this very interesting panel. This is my 18th IGF. I was there on, yes, I’ve been young for so many years. I was there when the IGF was created in Tunis in 2005, and when it was decided it was going to be in Athens, in Greece. I think that IGF has been a fantastic space for defining and creating many of the things that are in place now. Many of the changes that have been happening in the global coordination of the Internet were born in discussions here, where there is no one specific outcome. I think that all the changes that were done in the ICANN organization, the IANA transition, the affirmation of commitments, many, many changes that are really binding were born in spaces of dialogue like the IGF. All the national and regional IGFs were born spontaneous from discussions in this space. The schools of Internet governance were born as a spinoff from the IGF. Now we started, first it was the European, the second was ours in Latin America for 15 years, and now there are more than 20 all over the world. Those fantastic activities and dialogue spaces, perhaps more focused in regions, sub-regions, cities or specific issues, were born in the IGF. I think the IGF is a fantastic space. It is, sometimes people get lost. I was lost in trying to find this room. This is why I just came at the hour. But that’s part of the beauty, this creative chaos that the IGF bring to all of us. So I’m always positive. I think it’s a great meeting. I only attended twice virtually because I couldn’t travel and then the pandemic, but now I’m happy to be here again. So these are my comments for the moment.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. We now go to our online moderator, Ms. Michelle Marius. Michelle, you’re going to introduce our two online participants. Okay, hi, good evening, everyone. It is nighttime in Jamaica where I am. Is it possible, Shonan, for us to hear from you, Shonan Osepa, and then we will have Otis Osborne.

Shernon Osepa:
Yes, it is possible. Good morning, good evening to all. It’s a pleasure and honor to be here and to give a contribution to the development of the internet. I think when we talk about internet governance, it’s important for us to understand why we came up with all these discussions regarding internet governance. So back then, like around year 2000, there was a lot of confusion going on around the globe, especially governments, they didn’t know what this thing called the internet was. So we have seen all the discussions coming up with the WSIS that finally did lead to the IJF that we have in nowadays. And I think when we talk about internet governance, we can always use the, I like to use the baskets that Diplo Foundation has been focusing on, looking at, for example, the infrastructure, security, legal, economic, sociocultural development. and human rights issues. And I think especially since small island development states, we can use these baskets as a kind of a checklist to see where we are with developments in our own different, let’s say, jurisdictions. We should also recognize that it was never the intention of the IGF to come with to take decisions. So it’s not a decision making body. But it’s more like a place where people can talk freely and discuss in order to see how they can come up with solutions. But I think the very important thing is that once we have discussed issues, challenges, and opportunities at the IGF, we should return home and then have some meaningful discussions with, let’s say, all stakeholders that normally do attend IGFs. Because sometimes locally in our own jurisdictions, you would not find those persons. But at the IGF, you will find all these stakeholders. So I think, and once we return home, looking at the different countries, islands, whatever, we should say, okay, these are the challenges that we are facing in this particular jurisdiction. How can we solve these challenges that we are facing? And I think if we can focus on that, then it will add value. So although the IGF doesn’t focus on, let’s say, for us to take key decisions, but once we return home, we should be able to discuss with all the stakeholders in order for us to address local challenges that we are facing.

Moderator:
Thank you. Mr. Osborne, please. Hello, Mr. Osborne.

Otis Osbourne:
Sorry, I was so muted. Okay. Well, for me, I think that for small island developing states, there’s an economic barrier to digital transformation and access, especially, well, for everyone, the government, businesses, and citizens alike. Not to mention the pervasive lack of trust in digital transactions by majority of the medium to small, small to medium business service providers and consumers of these services. The IGF of course, plays a vital role in making recommendations and guiding discussions on internet governance. However, these discussions may have missed Jamaica’s policy and decision makers, due especially to the non-existence of national IGFs to guide initiatives on the ground. Thank you.

Moderator:
Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Osborne. We come back to our on-site panelists. And the first question is, how do you see the acceptance of the global digital compact, the GDC, changing the digital governance landscape and addressing global inequalities facing SIDS in the new digital global economy? I’m going to start at the other end of the table with you, Olga.

Olga Cavalli:
Thank you very much. We think this is a very interesting process. We thought that it was a good opportunity for engaging the fellows of the School of Internet Governance in making a contribution. So we started an online process of consulting with them. So we received contributions from 65 fellows from 22 countries of the five continents. I will share in the chat the document that we produced and we contribute, focused on the seven digital issues that the Common Agenda suggested. There were comments made about, one, connect everyone to the Internet including all schools, avoid Internet fragmentation, protect data, which is number three. Number four, apply human rights online. Five, introduce accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content, promote the regulation of artificial intelligence and digital commons as a global public good. So this wasn’t a first experiment. We didn’t do such an activity before and the comments and outcomes finalized a very, very interesting document. We translated it into three languages, Spanish, English and Portuguese and we sent it to the Global Digital Compact. It’s published now in their website and for the fellows this was really a very remarkable activity. I will share with you the link to the document where you have their names, the countries of origin and the outcome document. Sometimes, as we were saying a moment before, it’s overwhelming how to follow all the processes. Many of my students at the university also ask me that and what I tell them is that, okay, try to focus on things that are important for your work and for your personal interest. We cannot be experts in everything but we cannot be interested in some of the things and follow them. So we are following all the activities of the Global Digital Compact and the Summit of the Future. Now, with the fellows of this year, We are preparing a similar document to what we did for the Global Digital Compact for contributing to the Summit of the Future and WSIS Plus 20. Now we have the experience from the first document, so we want to build upon from there. I will stop here. I will share the document in the chat.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Olga. I am going to go next to you, Quinten.

Quintin Chou-Lambert:
Thank you. So, the Global Digital Compact is quite a nice complement to the IGF. And we have heard already that the IGF is maybe decision-shaping, but it is not decision-making. The GDC is a decision opportunity at the leader’s level. So, heads of government will come together next September and make a decision around how the Global Digital Compact should be, what should be inside of it. The opportunity here for SIDS is to really, and for everyone, but especially countries who have not necessarily harvested as many of the benefits of the global digital ecosystem over the last 20 years, to maybe have an updated set of concerns incorporated. So, you know, when the WSIS action lines were first written, they were updated in 2015 for the SDGs, but there was not such a big concern around data and the value of data and how data was being monetized back in 2000s. Now data is, some people, you know, talk about it as a very valuable resource. And how is that monetized? How is those revenues taken into local jurisdictions? And, of course, artificial intelligence is a new technology. Well, not that new, but its technical breakthroughs have happened recently, which were not available before. So, it’s a chance to up… date the focus, and it’s also a chance to upgrade the ambition around trying to spread the benefits of these technologies globally in a way that’s safe, but also in a way that benefits all countries and all humans, let’s say. So one way of thinking about it is when the sustainable development goals were put on the table, they were a chance to reconcile the two competing goals of development, economic growth, and sustainability, because we have a finite planet. In a similar way, the Global Digital Compact could be a way of trying to harness these technologies and spread the benefits around the world, but to do it in a way that is safe and also benefits everyone, inclusive. So we’ll see what happens with the GDC. It will be in the hands of the member states, not the U.N., so everything I say is from a perspective or kind of speculative, if you like. But it is a leader-level decision, and it’s a rare opportunity to take some of the questions and issues that have been surfaced during the IGF discussions, some of those questions which cannot just be handled purely by the technical community that require high-level political decision-making, and inject them into this policy window.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Tracy. Same question to you.

Tracy Hackshaw:
All right. So I think it’s a very interesting question. The GDC does not exist yet, so it’s a question that we, you know, I don’t know. So what I decided to do is I went into my chat GPT and bot. The answer is shorter, so I’ll give what bot told me. So bot told me that one of the key goals of the GDC is to promote a more inclusive and equitable digital world. This is particularly important for SIDS. because it 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. Sounds good. Then there are some specific ways, increased access to digital technologies and resources, support for development of digital economies, strengthen digital capacity, improve digital governance and explains what those mean. And then it says, overall, the GDC has the potential to have a significant positive impact on digital governance and global inequalities facing SIDS by providing a global framework of digital cooperation. GDDC could help to create a more inclusive and equitable digital world for all. So that sounds like a lot of words that were just put nicely together because it’s a large language model, right? So it just puts all the words together. Sounds really good. What does it mean, though, in reality? What does it mean for the SIDS populations? So I think there is, I agree with what has been said, there is an opportunity. As I said, it does not exist yet, and I’m glad you said it’s up to member states to actually implement it. And again, coming back to the priorities issue, what it can do, I do think it can lift the priority of digital issues higher up on the agenda because it’s something a little more formal, a little more tangible than what the IGF has been set up as sort of a discussion space. So this is, I’m not saying it’s 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. So if it is that that is what it’s going to be, then I would imagine, like with other types of UN processes, the SDGs, the discrimination against women and so on, we can find, perhaps, the way to report on this, to hold member states to account, especially in SIDS, and to use it to get governments to actually program these activities, or what can improve the SIDS economy’s 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. Because it’s a promise. It’s, as you said, speculative. But once I think it’s a promise, it’s a promise to keep. So I do hope, and I’m being very optimistic here, that once that is happening, we can start to see a priority lift. And I also would like to say that maybe the fact that it’s being 2024, someone to the future, there’s a brand, there’s some push towards it. As we talked about in our DC SIDS session, it’s sort of an event we can mobilize around. There could be some signal activities around this that will raise the profile of these issues and make it along the same lines as our challenges that we face in terms of infrastructure and so on.

Moderator:
Thanks. Thanks very much, Tracy. And Serena?

Sorina Teleanu:
Thank you. Yeah, building on what Tracy and Bard were saying. Mostly Bard, all right. Indeed, there is a lot of promise and expectation in the global digital compact. Looking at the question, I’m not completely sure there is indeed a goal to actually have a GDC change the digital governance landscape. So I would skip that part of the question. Whether it will address inequality, I think that’s part of the promise and the potential. What I personally would like to see going towards this GDC is building a roadmap but taking into account everything that has happened so far. So trying a bit not to reinvent the wheel and re-say all those things that Bard was saying. But yet, rather try to take things forward. We have WSIS outcomes. We have the annual UNGA resolution on ICT for development. We have the SDGs, which to some extent should be relying on using technology for development. If we can in some way build on all this and have a global digital compact. that is a bit forward-looking, I think that would indeed help address some of these inequalities. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. Serena, Rodney?

Rodney Taylor:
Sure, I’ll be very quick. I think this question also goes to the heart of. You’re not hearing me? Okay, hi, good. This question goes to the heart of multilateralism versus multistakeholderism. So in the UN, and I saw this when we actually crafted some statements for our permanent representatives in New York who, from the Caribbean, some of them were able to make interventions during the GDC deep dives and various thematic areas. And it’s clear that the UN gives priority to its member states. I mean, so when I speak on the floor of the UN, I speak on behalf of my country. I have influence. Within this process here, you’re an attendee, like everybody else, and you’re free to make your contributions. Yes, there may be some influence if you’re a diplomat, but really, the forum is meant to be multistakeholder in that everybody has an equal voice. The UN is quite a different animal. So even though that process was, well, and it’s not a criticism of the process, but even though it was sought to be multistakeholder, it was clear that priority would be given or was given in terms of UN accepting interventions by the member states. So now that’s not necessarily a bad thing for small states because for small states, and if you look at the ITU process, for example, Barbados has the same voice, the same vote as the United States, as Canada, and so on. So we can influence, right? There’s a lot of lobbying within those processes for that very reason, all right? Whereas in the multistakeholder process, it’s all equal footing, but it’s not all equal resources and participation. as I mentioned before, so the voices that show up, the voices that have the resources to show up are the ones that have the potential to have a stronger influence. So there’s those dynamics, but I feel positive overall about the GDC and hopefully it leads to some positive outcomes for us. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Rodney. And Michelle, I’m gonna hand over to you for your online panelists. Yes, thank you. Otis, can you go first and then Shannon, please?

Otis Osbourne:
Okay, so I agree with my fellow panelists and I like to add without regurgitating what was said before, is that there’s no doubt that the world is transitioning into a new digital global economy. Well, however, for small island developing states, especially, this transition is progressing at a very slow pace. And unless governments, and I’m talking Caribbean governments, recognize the universal access or universal access to free internet, and I emphasize free internet as a human rights, because they are digitizing for e-governance. However, if you do not have data on your phones, then you’re not able to access that service. Also, this free internet as a human right must be paired with online security, privacy, and safety. If that is not done, the new digital global economy will continue. perpetuate the old-age manifestation of widespread social exclusion. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Shernan, please.

Shernon Osepa:
Yes, to me, basically the beauty of the global digital compact process is the opportunity that especially small island development states will get through with this process. And whenever something doesn’t exist, you have the opportunity to create it. So I think that should be the point of departure that we are going to use right now. A lot of times, especially since we are looking, you know, we think that we are victims, but now we have the opportunity to come at the table and to come with meaningful suggestions. And as Mr. Taylor did mention, of course, you may have to do maybe some lobbying with others, but at least if you have something on paper, then people can discuss about it. So I think this is the opportunity for us to put something on paper and let others give comments regarding what we have been drafting. Most of the times, they draft things, and we just give comments. So I think we should reverse this right now. We should draft in which direction we think we should go, this whole global digital compact process, and let others give comments on what we think the direction that we should go. So I think if we do that, at least we may have a big chance that at least our voices are being heard and that we can make meaningful impacts and changes in our nations.

Moderator:
Is the GDC positioned to address the shortcomings of the IGF process? And if so, what are the opportunities and mechanisms to address these shortcomings? I’m gonna start back with you, Michelle, online. Let our online panelists get in the first word in this one. Okay, great. So I’m gonna start with you, Michelle. So what are the shortcomings of the IGF process? And if so, let our online panelists get in the first word in this one. Okay, great. Shannon, would you go first, please, and then Otis.

Shernon Osepa:
Yes, okay. I think when we talk about shortcomings of the IGF process, again, it’s very important for us to identify what happened back then with the IGF. How we have been approaching or looking at the IGF nowadays, it was, that was not the original intention of the IGF. The IGF was more like a talking place where people can discuss ideas with not, let’s say, to take significant decisions right in those rooms, but to have the discussions ongoing. So I’m not sure if we should say, if we look at that, if we can say that there were some shortcomings, because it was not meant to be like that, you know? So, I mean, if you look at the original objectives, they were met in one way or the other. But I believe, as I did mention before, it’s nice to have discussions regarding opportunities and challenges that we’re facing. But at the end of the day, we would like to see actions being taken place in our countries. And that’s basically what we can see with, let’s see, with this next approach. And I think, as I did mention before, that would be a big, a great opportunity for us to come with meaningful suggestions in order for us to achieve things and not only to keep discussions in a closed room that cannot help us with anything. So that would be the way how I would like to look at it.

Moderator:
Thank you. Thanks, Shannon. Otis, please.

Otis Osbourne:
Yes. Yes, it is my view that the potential of the GDC, followed with ways out of the IGF, due to the GDC being a UN directive or policy per se. No, I agree with Shannon that because when I look, when I think about it, for example, the idea of discussions on best practices in securing the Internet seem to have been, for the most part, just discussions. Right? As the best practices are seriously being implemented. Most ISPs and network operators have not adopted, for example, the MANRS actions to secure data being routed through the Internet. We have two ISPs, Digicel and Flow. And when I check if they are members of MANRS, Digicel was the only one. And they have not adopted all the actions. Right? So there are still some gaps. When I look at, again, NDAs, Ministries, Departments, and Agencies, and SMEs. and financial and educational institutions. Most of them have not implemented cost-free DNSSEC and IPv6 standards to secure digital transactions and other internet-based activities. I use internet.nl to check if our cybersecurity incident response team, if their URL is secure, and they have not implemented DNSSEC. And they are the implementing agency and advisory for the government and other institutions and organizations within Jamaica, right? So I think that in conclusion, the GDC could eliminate the shortcomings. And I’m talking about the lack of action of the IGFs by maybe elevating or expanding the IGF to an implementation monitoring and maybe even an enforcement coalition of country-based IGFs. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Otis. Yeah, some, I guess, very powerful thoughts about the situation in Jamaica. Thank you very much, Misha. I’m going to come now to my on-site panel and I’m going to start with you, Rodney. Your thoughts on, is the GDC positioned to address the shortcomings of the IGF process? And if so, what are the opportunities and mechanisms to address those shortcomings?

Rodney Taylor:
Thank you very much, Jewel. Well, if we were to believe Otis, It is going to be an amazing opportunity to fix all the problems we have. Sorry, Otis, sorry to take that job at you. But those are really high expectations. And I don’t see the GDC addressing those things because they’re not easy things to address to start with. There’s no UN compact that will force those operators to implement these measures. We can encourage, we provide, like you said, best practice. But at the level of the United Nations, we don’t see that happening. I mean, there are so many other things if you look at it globally, if you look at the geopolitics globally, even in things of climate change where there’s clear evidence that action needs to be taken. And still, the UN struggles to get the world to respond. Things like human trafficking and so on. So the internet is just another one of those very complicated things that the world is just trying to make sure that there’s a mechanism for collaborating. And that’s what the GDC is, in my view, another mechanism. There are advantages, like I said, for addressing the shortcomings, as in, well, it has the potential to give small states a stronger voice. I think it’s going to be very difficult. I wish the tech envoy success. He’s been tasked with that responsibility, and we’ve been actively participating and supporting. But it’s no means easy. I mean, as Tracy pointed out, it is not yet. And let’s hope that there are some positive outcomes. But we welcome it, and we think there is an opportunity to strengthen the IGF process, to work along with, and achieve better outcomes for the world, generally. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Serena.

Sorina Teleanu:
Thank you. I think I’ll take a step back a bit and try to, I don’t know, I think we sometimes need a bit more clarity in discussions. For instance, in this specific case, I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to put the GDC and the IGF, you know, in a comparison situation. Because the IGF is a process, and the GDC is supposed to be, at the end of 2024, a document, right? So if we were to be a little more fair, it would be comparing the GDC, which as Tracy was saying, we don’t really have, with the Tunis agenda, which was the starting point for the IGF. So leaving that aside, yes, we do need a bit more clarity into that. Shortcomings of the IGF, sure, no process is perfect, and definitely IGF has not been a perfect process. But we have seen over the 18 years that it has improved, and it has shown willingness to change, to adapt. to the changing technological landscape and to respond to some of these challenges. We had a few sessions back then, now we have, look at so many happening right now in parallel. We have all the interstitial activities, best practice forum, policy networks and a lot around that, the parliamentary track and all these attempts to try to do something. Again, it’s not a perfect process, there can be improvements. As Rodney was saying, ideally the GDC would build a bit on that and see how to strengthen the IGF. We have also had all these discussions in the past about IGF plus and there was a lot of endorsement of that whole concept. We haven’t seen much follow-up on that. Let’s see if the GDC could build on it. And I think all of us have heard throughout this week at the IGF how many have said, well, let’s see how the IGF itself can serve as some sort of a follow-up mechanism for the GDC itself. I won’t go into the third question because I was close to that, but yes, let’s look a bit at things this way, how we can bring things together instead of, yeah, just trying to see how new things might be solving problems of things that have existed. Thank you, Sabine.

Moderator:
Tracy?

Tracy Hackshaw:
All right. This is me, not bot, I hope. So just building on what I said before, I do think the opportunity is there to raise the profile and something I had spoken about in a session yesterday about outreach. So we expect, we’re sitting in Kyoto or wherever we are, and we expect things to just happen. People to come, somehow the U.N. system, things just come to us, come to us and talk. But maybe it should be the other way around so maybe the GDC can go the other direction and allow it to reach into the communities, getting back to the SIDS-specific issues, reach into SIDS and say, look, this is something. we are bringing to the table to help improve your existence and your circumstances and tell us what you need. And perhaps there’s an opportunity there for better dialogue. If it’s a compact, the word compact means something in the English language. It’s some sort of promise to deliver, promise to work together. It’s also a handshake almost. So if that’s what it is, and we don’t know what it is yet, if that’s what it is, then I think there’s a real opportunity there to have the UN system reach into and reach out to small and developing states, into the stakeholders, and make things happen. We don’t see a lot of that, I think, with other digital activities. So that’s good that it could happen that way. So besides funding interventions and so on, there may be opportunities for real skills and knowledge transfer, real capacity development in those territories, and also to work with governments to ensure that, as I said, the priorities of these issues are brought higher up on the agenda. So Otis’s concerns about cybersecurity, which I think are the broader issues in terms of resilience, can be brought further up on the agenda because we can’t just sit here and talk about it’s not happening and not make it happen, right? So it’s not happening, right? But what do we do just to make it happen? So maybe this is an opportunity to have that happen. So I see a lot of promise in that regard, and I hope that Tech Convoy is here, that he’s listening and hearing what we’re saying because I think that’s what we’re trying to say. Don’t sit in the New York and Geneva or wherever, Riyadh, Kyoto, wherever we are, and talk about it. Let’s go there. Let’s make it happen. Rub the sleeves. Get it done. And just remember, I always like to tell people, yes, it’s the internet. Yes, we are connected, but not everyone is connected. So don’t assume that we can just do a Zoom call and make it happen either. We may have to get there and do it. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Tracy. As we say in our region, enough of the long talk. Quentin?

Quintin Chou-Lambert:
Thank you. Yeah, I love that, Tracy. And in fact, with certain topics, that is exactly the approach that the tech envoy is proposing, which we’re calling a multi-stakeholder networked approach. So for example, with the high level advisory body on artificial intelligence, which will be formed in the next couple of weeks, the recruitment process was extremely open. And we received more than 1,800 nominations. It was an open call, public call on the website. And in fact, some of the nominations from SIDS countries were self-nominations. And the multi-stakeholder networked approach to consultations, what we’re planning to do is have those members of the body go out into different networks that they already are members of and try and reach in, like you say, and try and understand the needs, understand the concerns, understand the expertise, and bring them back into the political process. Because that’s the thing that can be done kind of, let’s say, outside of New York, outside of the intergovernmental chambers, but get that information expertise in there and shape the decision. Maybe coming to the main question around the shortcomings of the IGF, I mean, what I’ve heard in this panel and generally is there seem to be two huge challenges. One is around the absence of decision making, and the other is around the overwhelm and the vast capacity gap in keeping track of everything going on. And whether a GDC can address these two issues really depends. So, obviously, you know, from the Secretary-General’s perspective, he would like to have a very ambitious GDC, one that unifies the UN system in providing support and gets, you know, the UN agencies, which are all around the world, working on some of the country-level issues, and also one which builds bridges between countries on issues like cross-border commerce, you know, the moratorium on tariffs on e-commerce, the trade revenue and taxation that may not be happening and which, if it were happening, would help build public sector capacity more endogenously. These are not specific proposals of the Secretary-General, but these are concerns which need to be voiced by those countries who have them, concerns around, you know, social, economic and cultural rights, for example, authorship and intellectual property over media content that may have been produced and exported and now that can be done using AI. These kinds of concerns need to be lifted up and presented in a unified voice. And when I say it depends, you know, the ambition level to get to those beyond just principles in the GDC and beyond just objectives to actions and commitments where there is some kind of promise to actually deliver something, there needs to be a unified voice and among, you know, the countries in whose interests it is. And so one of the things we’ve been observing is that because delegations are so overstretched in New York, they are… and because they’re so overwhelmed with… or let’s say their inboxes are overflowing with more urgent issues around debt relief, around some of the basic economic issues, the SDGs, you know, not on track yet with the SDGs, sometimes they’re overlooking the significant… of digital. And because digital is one of the growing sectors in the digital economy. I mean, the digital economy is one of the growing sectors and will continue to be. This is a real opportunity for the future. So the challenge is how can countries kind of look up from the immediate crisis they’re in and think about how the digital architecture is going to look a few years down the line and how their role is going to be within that. So I’ll come back to the issue of stretch capacity maybe in the final question. But one of the questions around review and follow-up on any commitments that are reached in the GDC is to what extent governments and others can participate in that. So I’ll come back to that point.

Moderator:
Thank you very much for that, Quentin. And now you, Olga.

Olga Cavalli:
Thank you very much. Most of my thoughts are already addressed by my colleagues in the table. But I would like to build upon what Serena said that I don’t find it totally fair to compare the IGF with the GDC. I find some commonalities in between the two processes. I think one of the beauties of the IGF is the equal footing. That it may be this chaos that you can find, Vint Cerf walking in a corridor and take a picture with him, or you can find colleagues from other countries that you didn’t have the opportunity to meet before. So that beauty, I think, it’s remarkable from IGF. Other meetings are more structured, which is true. And perhaps this variety of activities, and we run from one meeting to the other one, trying to find a room, makes us find what we didn’t think we were going to find. So that is something which I find interesting. What I like from GDC is that it seems to be a bottom-up process. What I have seen lately is kind of a tendency of establishing more closed multilateral processes, and I think that the way forward is multi-stakeholder. It’s the only way to solve all the problems related with digital economy, the impact of digitalization in developing countries or in the whole countries or cross-data flow and all the problems or things that we have to think about is in a multi-stakeholder way. So all the processes that are multi-stakeholder, I think they are the way and not multilateral. Whether the delegations could be prepared for that, I’ve been advisor to the minister for the first 20 years, so I know how the dynamics in the different delegations work. And sometimes there is a gap in between what happens in the ground of the country and what goes to United Nations in, for example, a multilateral meeting. So also, the fact that we can contribute in a bottom-up process as the GDC is the opportunity that it brings is to reflect on things and think about in deep in all the seven different issues that it establishes. So I think there is value there. No problem will be solved, but we will think about how to solve them.

Moderator:
Thank you very much for that contribution. Specifically from a SIDS perspective, what are the real benefits these vulnerable countries can derive from the GDC and is the GDC a duplication of current processes and should the IGF process and GDP, GDC be kept separate or should they be an evaluation, an evolution of one to the other? I know that’s a lot, but I’m going to start with you, Rodney.

Rodney Taylor:
Thanks. Right, so we’ve heard that it’s not fair to compare the two. But okay, so let me try to dissect. So the benefits. The reality is that there’s still a lot of global inequality in the digital space. We talk about this, not sure what the latest figure is, but 2 point something billion people not connected. I’m sure the majority of those are in developing countries. Some certainly are in small island developing countries. So there is an opportunity to focus on this issue a bit more in global digital compact and help in the connectivity and infrastructural issues and sits by drawing greater attention to this issue globally and giving it priority within a body such as the United Nations. And that’s good for us, like I said, because we tend to play stronger. That is my assessment within the multilateral processes and within spaces like the UN and so on as sovereign states. The GDC though, it’s not a duplication of the process because it is meant to be a compact, like Tracy said, a global handshake. This is how we’re going to move together globally on some of these key issues like cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and so on. Now, it might lead to a process and I think there’s been some discussion about the digital global form or something of this sort. So sort of an expansion of the role of IGF or maybe even a parallel process altogether if you can imagine showing up for another one of these, perhaps the following week in Australia or someplace, it’d be very difficult for us to follow. So let’s hope that it doesn’t evolve that way and that there is, and clearly there’s synergies. Even though we talk about internet governance, clearly the issues go beyond the internet itself. There are issues that are being discussed of human rights and artificial intelligence. So there’s not just the internet that we’re talking about. And therefore we don’t need to create a whole new process for people to follow and more meetings just to add the word digital to a process, frankly. speaking. So it is not quite a process yet. It is leading towards the summit of the future. We are actively participating, and we think there is an opportunity for us to lend our voices to ensure that there isn’t – we talk about Internet fragmentation, but Internet governance fragmentation, so that, again, we go off on two separate tracks to deal with this. Thank you.

Moderator:
Too many mics around. Sorry for that.

Sorina Teleanu:
No, I agree with Rodney. We shouldn’t probably look at the GDC as a duplication because, well, the goal is to come up with a compact. I was reading the other day the compact for migration. That could be an interesting example for the GDC to look at. You know, it has clear commitments, clear actions to implement those commitments and then a follow-up process. So no duplication there. There are models to follow. The discussion, as Rodney was also saying, I think we’ve been seeing again over the past few days at the IGF about whether we can use the IGF as some sort of follow-up mechanism for the GDC itself. And this whole idea of new forum, I think it was in the UN Secretary General Policy Brief, the digital cooperation forum. It has been discussed quite a lot over the past few days, so I won’t go into that. As Quentin was saying earlier, whatever decision is made, I think a few things should be kept in mind. Are people, countries, governments, other stakeholders having the resources available to follow multiple processes that more or less would be tackling similar or complementary issues? Are there resources to fund more than one process looking into these issues? And then at the end of the day, what would happen with the outcomes of all these processes? Do we bring them together at some point somewhere? Just a few things to consider as a discussion on the Global Digital Compact Advance. So ideally, we do find ways for things to work together rather than create competition for resources. Thank you.

Moderator:
Tracy?

Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you. So I did ask bot and Chattopadhyay this one because I don’t know as well. And they agreed. They agreed. They said that the way they used it was complementary. So that’s interesting that they’ve agreed on that together. So that it seems as if the AI models seem to agree that this is going to work well. So that’s useful. In my own opinion, though, again, I’m trying to, there’s something in the Caribbean called plain talk, bad manners. So at the IGF, in unfair comparison, the voice of SIDS is not very loud and the volume is also not very loud. So in terms of numbers and in terms of representation, even when there are attempts to actually, you know, to request representation, it seems to be that we get lost in the crowd. So to a large extent in the Latin American Caribbean space, Caribbean is silent in the LAC space. Pacific is silent in the AP space, Asia-Pacific space. And Indian Oceans are silent in the African space. Not for lack of trying. Larger countries dominate and that’s the way it works. So in the IGF space where that seems to be happening, in the SIDS discussion, I think the GDC might actually improve that. This kind of getting back to Rodney’s idea of the one country, one vote process. So again, being very, very plain talk, bad manners here, I do think that there’s an opportunity in the GDC process to get SIDS points across more specifically because we have a more equitable voice there. I can’t seem to fix it in the IGF. I’ve been trying for years. Can’t seem to fix it. So let’s fix it with the GDC. Simple as that. I think that’s something. I will want to see happen. And if the IGF process sees that happening, maybe they may also wish to bring the SIDS along in their process and not have the same voices, the same countries, and the large groups of people dominating the smaller voices every year. So I think that’s something I want to say. I’m saying it here. It’s good for them to say it in. And I hope that we’ll fix that with the GDG process. Clean talk, bad manners. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thanks a lot, Tracy. I’m going to ask the panel for their indulgence. Ms. Carol Roach from the Bahamas, she is with us in the room. And she has to leave. So I want to give her an opportunity to say a few words before she has to go. Carol?

Audience:
Good morning, everybody. And I suppose early, early afternoon or late afternoon in different countries. Thank you for indulging me. Carol Roach from the Bahamas, new MAG chair. Keywords that I heard here is the word action. Action, action, action. So we need to put pen to paper, as one of the speakers said, and say what we want. Write a letter. If you want me to present it to the high level panel, I will do so. They are actually looking for input, especially on why you come here every year, even though it seems like SIDS not being heard, but you come every year. Why is it that you come every year? What you would like to be, what you wanted to be seen more, what you want improvements on, what’s your take on the GDC. And they want this in writing so that they could forward it to the co-facilitators. So I encourage you to do so. The second thing is capacity building. If we’re going to have our parliamentarians or whoever, our missions, go forward to make a vote or to negotiate, they need to know what they’re negotiating. I gave an example. Let me not use my country, because next thing I might not get back in. But I think that a lot of times, persons in missions, they go to meetings, they take notes. technology person or a human rights person or so on, sometimes those notes mean nothing to people. You would find that those notes come to the relevant department when it’s time for your government to make a decision and to give their input and to sign. It’s not fair. We have to start now in preparing our parliamentarians, our missions. So somehow we need to get funding, we need to push the IGF to get some capacity building at that level. So those are just the two things that I have to say and I am definitely here for you. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you so much for that, Carol. I’m not sure if you’re going off to another meeting. Yes, I know how it goes. Okay, thank you very much. Still continuing with question three, I come to you now, Quinton.

Quintin Chou-Lambert:
Yeah, so what can be the real benefits of a GDC? And maybe I can pick up this question around review and follow-up. So obviously, again, it’s speculative, but if there is an ambitious GDC with commitments and actions, then how is it reviewed and followed up? And maybe I can just take a moment to explain the proposal by the Secretary General for creating a space for that to happen, because that then speaks to how the IGF might relate to that space, how other forum might relate to that space. And it was named Digital Cooperation Forum. The name doesn’t matter that much, but the concept is that it’s a space for review and follow-up, and this could address three different issues. The first is the issue of gaps in the existing digital governance landscape for considering issues like… AI governance, human rights, things like mis and disinformation. And what this central place could be is a place for pooling all of those issues. So internet governance issues that emerged through the IGF could then be injected in there. In fact, the Secretary General created this IGF leadership panel to serve as a bridge or a channel from the IGF into the UN processes. And then other initiatives like the HR Human Rights Advisory Mechanism or the AI advisory body can also feed into this kind of space for review and follow-up. So it addresses some of the gaps. The second thing this would address is this issue of capacity and fragmented governance. And actually having one place where countries can come together to look at issues defragments the governance. By bringing all the strands into one place, it allows countries to focus in a holistic way on digital governance issues instead of running around the world from meeting to meeting, chasing off all these different discussions, some of which may or may not lead to decisions. And then the third thing it does is I would say it kind of preserves and protects the special characters of these different areas. I was, I did not come, but Chengatai showed me the video of the music night here on, I think it was day one or day two. And it seems to me, I’ve heard the word creative chaos associated with IGF. It does seem as the first time at IGF, there is a special spirit to IGF where there is this feeling where there’s an organic feeling to it, where free discussions can be had on being impolite, but saying what we feel. And those are very important, especially when it comes to technical discussions of the technical community where it really needs to solve problems quickly. And one risk and concern of bringing these politicized discussions around hate speech, misinformation, human rights, AI. governance into places like the IGF, you know, data protection and exploitation, is that it can suddenly change the feeling of the discussion and, you know, change the spirit of IGF. And so for these three reasons, you know, this new proposal to have a space to review and follow up GDC actions and commitments, addressing the gaps that the existing fora do not meet because of technological developments, defragmenting the governance so that countries who have limited resources can concentrate them on the central place where they can see everything and participate with a strong voice in everything and preserving the unique character and the spirit of IGF. This is possible, but it’s only possible if there is ambition and unity among the member states, those countries who have an interest. Perhaps SIDS sees itself as one of those kind of groupings. And if so, it would be very good to see those voices being, you know, raised loud in the GDC process so that those interests can be reflected in the outcome document. Thank you.

Olga Cavalli:
Okay, very interesting what you said. So you missed the music. You didn’t see me singing. You didn’t see me singing. That’s remarkable. It’s a joke, I’m joking. I did sing, but okay. I think it’s very, I love music and I think the music is really a way to bridge any gap. And it’s interesting what you mentioned that bringing gaps, bridging gaps in between the different process is very challenging for, especially for developing countries, having human resources to follow all these processes. What we have done at the Argentina level in my times of working for the government and as an academic is trying to arrange meetings where we all gather together with the delegates that then will participate. But at the same time, these processes are multiplicating and sometimes the delegations are overwhelmed, especially countries that don’t have bigger delegations. So that is challenging. What we have also found as useful is working at the regional level, for example, in between countries of Mercosur, which is Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Brazil, working with associations, internet association, or different associations for telecommunications or technical bodies. It is challenging, but as far as I understand, the process is towards some coordination or concentration of all these processes. So that would be beneficial, even though I think the beauty of the IGF should be preserved.

Moderator:
Thank you for those comments and that contribution, Olga. I now go over to Michelle and our online panelists. Yes, thank you. Otis, can we hear from you first on the same question, and then Shernan, please?

Otis Osbourne:
OK, thank you, Michelle. Orange, I’m going to begin by cautiously saying that no one can dispute the power and influence of UN directives, and that since governments will follow through eventually, especially since the digital economy has been touted as a means of realizing the 2030 SDGs. However, discussions at the UN level are exclusive, a level so high and out of touch that a startup entrepreneur or a university student, unless, of course, it’s a research paper, an assignment, would not say to themselves, let’s see what’s being discussed and proposed. at the UN today. The objectives of the IGF are still relevant, though duplicated by the GDC. The IGF is in a unique position to reach everyone from grassroots people and businesses to corporations. IGF is more relatable as internet governance forms part of its name. In fact, at the University of the Commonwealth Caribbean, first-year students conduct research and write their reports on internet governance topics as their first assignment in their Introduction to Computer Essentials course. And one of those topics include generative AI, such as ChatGPT. The importance of internet governance can become real for these students because they, in addition to civil society and businesses, and I’m talking about small, medium-sized businesses, can join a national IGF chapter and become part of the process, rather than become mere mentions in a mass of texts in the GDC policy paper. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thanks. Shannon, please.

Shernon Osepa:
Yes, I think by now we have been discussing IGF. We know, more or less, what is the IGF after, let’s say, 18 years. The GDC is still something that needs to be developed, so we’re not sure, we’re not certain what it is as yet. But I think it’s very important for us to, whatever process we would like to focus on, the people must become better of what we’re trying to do. And with the people in this particular case, we are focusing on the SIDS. So SIDS must become better. So whatever direction we are heading, our people in the region, small island development states, they must become better of the process that we are going to focus on. And I think at the end of the day, if we can focus on, let’s say, economic, especially economic development, that is very important. We know that, for example, the GDC will be focusing on the SDGs 8, 9, and 10, focusing on jobs, economic growth, and infrastructure. So these are the areas that we should be focusing on, because these are the needs that we are having in our jurisdictions. And not to forget, let’s say, the big challenge that we’re seeing nowadays with respect to climate change, natural disasters, hurricanes, and so on, because it doesn’t make sense if we continue to build all these infrastructures and we don’t, I mean, we cannot fight against nature to a certain extent. But while we are trying to build infrastructure, and then climate change can just destroy everything in just a few seconds. So we need to find the right balance, how we can, while we are still trying to focus on the SDGs. SDGs 8, 9, and 10, to focus a bit on climate change as well, and not to forget, let’s say, collaboration, partnership, which is the SDG 17 that I haven’t heard being mentioned today, but I think it’s also very important for us to focus on. And in addition to that, what I already did mention, we know more or less what our problems are. Let’s start focusing, identify them, and to see how we can bring solutions in collaboration to others for our very specific problems that we are facing. So that’s basically what I wanted to share. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Back to you, Joel. Thank you very much, Michelle. We’re now going to open the floor for questions and comments from those in the audience and those online as well. For those on site, please go to the microphone, state your name and the organization you represent, and make your contributions.

Audience:
Good morning. My name is Mahesh Perra from Sri Lanka, a small island in the South Asia region. Actually, we have been doing our digital – I mean, this forum is all about equitable framework for developing countries on digital transformation. So, I mean, now when it comes to Sri Lanka, now we have been doing many digital strategies over the last 20 years, two decades, but the country is yet to achieve many things. But now we see IGF, CD, the digital – what you call global digital compact, and WSIS. Even – I mean, many other international platforms are trying to set standards, you know, what to achieve to make citizen satisfied, I mean, in terms of citizen-centric – to build citizen-centric governments, citizen-centric nations, to leapfrog from where we are to the next level. Now, when you see these standards, they talk about on what aspect, but hardly they talk about – to who and how aspect. So when it comes to my suggestion and the request from the esteemed panel, is there any way that we could talk more on who aspect as well as how aspect? Who is supposed to do these things? Because the government, if you take my government, the government is busy with fighting the status quo, I mean, the operational activities. I mean, who should drive these initiatives? Because now when it comes to Sri Lanka, we already have a new digital strategy, digital transformation strategy. But now over the last two decades, we implemented, but there are many gaps. Now who should drive these initiatives? Is it one government organization or multiple organizations who should drive? Can’t we have sort of frameworks or best practices into these guidelines? And then when it comes to the how aspect, how we should do it, whether we should do it with the local parliaments, whether local parliaments should get involved in monitoring and evaluation on these measures, or how we should establish. Now when it comes to SDGs, now how we are going to make these initiatives sustainable over the long run and to bring the citizen in the forefront and keep citizens satisfied, fulfilled in all these initiatives. So my concern is who and how aspect. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. Nigel?

Audience:
Thank you, Jewel. I’m Nigel Kasimir, Deputy Secretary General for the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. I rushed to follow the gentleman from Sri Lanka because the comment I wanted to make, I think, would fall straight into the issues that he’s raising. I heard comments about identifying shortcomings of the IGF and so on. But there’s also some good from the IGF. think is good from the IGF was the outreach and the development of this network of national and regional initiatives. Because maybe some issues might be global, but many issues are regional or national, as the case might be. So in terms of the what and the who and the how, it’s not a one size fits all answer. So I would suggest as well, Quinton talked about the GDCA establishing some sort of a coordination mechanism. I’m going to suggest that there should be some outreach in that as well, and maybe some encouragement of national and regional type of initiatives in the same vein, so that these groups can share with one another, and maybe find some common principles, and maybe find some special principles that might not apply globally. But I think that particular aspect of the outreach is a key point, a key benefit out of the IGF, and we should keep that in mind in any of the implementations coming out of the GDC. One last thing I’ll say, since we’re focusing on SIDS, is that one might say SIDS is an interest group, and it is, because there are these special things. But even within SIDS, it’s not all one size fits all. Because one thing is about the Caribbean, the Caribbean, small islands, and so on. One thing is about the Pacific, small islands spread out. But the scale is not comparable. Whereas we might have populations that might be comparable, the distances we’re talking about are not. It’s a lot easier to make a business case in the Caribbean for something like submarine cable than in the Pacific. So the local aspects of the problems and solutions need to be taken into account and we need to structurally build that into whatever we’re doing. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much for that, Nigel. Yes, please, and please keep it short. We’ve got like five minutes left and I still want to get some takeaways from the panel.

Audience:
Very quickly, I’m Samir from Sri Lanka, working for the largest telecom company, so we see what’s going on on the data side. So I was going through the digital compact policy brief, I caught my attention, something caught my attention, very interesting. It’s data divide. It says data flow will grow by 400% by 2026. The negative side of it is developing countries risk becoming mere providers. Maybe seen as a telco, you know, telecom company sitting in the data, we see to some extent as well. My question to the panelists is the experts views on the GDC, what are the kind of interventions you see to handle this data divide, what’s mentioned in the policy brief?

Moderator:
Rodney, I’m gonna let you take it and I’m just getting my wrap up. We’ve got three minutes.

Rodney Taylor:
Okay, I think there may be more verses specifically on the provisions of the GDC with respect to the last question. So I would like to say in relation to the previous question that I think he’s saying is you think global and not local. So, I mean, at the end of the day, we talk about global cooperation, but it is really for national parliaments to go back and where necessary and trying these things into law. Or just mentioned, for example, the mutually agreed norms for routing cybersecurity. This has to be implemented, not even just locally, but at the level of city operators and the internet service providers. So I think the point is that while we talk, we discuss, we agree on global agreements and so on, it is really for us to go back and do what we need to do to implement. So, I don’t know if you want to ask.

Otis Osbourne:
Yeah, exactly.

Moderator:
I don’t think we have enough time because I just got a three minute wrap up. So I really want to thank everyone for coming. A special thanks to our panelists, Mr. Rodney Taylor, the Secretary General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, Ms. Olga Cavalli, Co-founder and Director of South School on Internet Governance, Mr. Quentin Shulambert, Office of the Secretary General’s Envoy on Technology, Tracy Hackshaw, President Trinidad and Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group, Serena Teran, Director of Knowledge at the Diplo Foundation, to our online panelists, Mr. Otis Osborne, Department of Information Technology at the University of the Commonwealth Caribbean, and Mr. Shernan Osepa, Internet Governance and Cybersecurity Policy Advisor, and also our online moderator, Michelle Marius. Thank you so much. The things with conversations like this is they always leave you wanting so much more. And we’re all here for today’s the last. So please make sure you exchange numbers and contacts so that we can keep these conversations going. I’m Jo Ford, your moderator. Thank you to everyone. Thank you.

Audience:
Thank you.