Main Session on Future of Digital Governance | IGF 2023

Audience

During a panel discussion on internet governance, several speakers presented their arguments and stances. Carlos Vera emphasised the importance of a human-centred discussion and maintaining a multi-stakeholder model in order to promote inclusive decision-making. The panel also highlighted the need for representation and gender equality in internet governance. It was noted that there were six women and only one man in the panel, prompting a call for more diverse representation. Transparent and inclusive processes within the Global Digital Compact were advocated for, with a focus on gender inclusivity. The panel also discussed the challenges of government misuse and shutdown of internet services, and the lack of international internet governance. The need for a United Nations Internet Governance Law was highlighted, along with the importance of education on cyber security. The panelists called for a re-evaluation and change of the existing internet system to ensure fairness for all nations. The involvement of the technical community in internet governance was deemed crucial, and the promotion of digital fluency was seen as an important aspect of internet governance. The concept of the Peace Boat was suggested as a model for the digital age, and the panelists emphasized the importance of celebrating the achievements of the Internet Governance Forum. Gender equality in internet and digital governance was also discussed, with a focus on incorporating gender considerations in decision-making processes. The panelists highlighted the relevance and need for review of the Geneva Principles, which were developed 20 years ago, and the importance of grounding the legal basis of internet governance in widely debated foundational principles like Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Finally, it was noted that Winston Roberts, a former representative of New Zealand at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva, currently works for the NGO IFLA. The panelists provided valuable insights on these topics, offering recommendations and highlighting areas for improvement in internet governance.

Bertrand de Chapelle

The analysis explores the topic of internet governance and highlights various aspects related to it. One important point is that internet governance encompasses both the governance of and governance on the internet. It is described as a complex ecosystem consisting of organizations that have played a crucial role in keeping us connected during the pandemic. However, it notes that internet governance is currently scattered and works in silos, primarily comprising intergovernmental or individual initiatives. This indicates the need for a more comprehensive and cohesive approach to governance in the digital realm.

Another significant aspect discussed is the limited resources allocated to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The analysis suggests that contributions to the IGF are insufficient, barely supporting a staff that is half the size of another organization. This raises concerns about hypocrisy, with governments and individuals complaining about the lack of productivity from the IGF while failing to provide adequate support. This competition for resources within the IGF poses a challenge for effective governance in the digital age.

The analysis also recognizes the IGF as just one building block in the broader framework of internet governance. It emphasizes the necessity of innovation in designing governance systems for the internet. A quote by Kofi Annan is highlighted, stating the importance of being as innovative as the individuals who created the internet itself. This underscores the need to adapt governance structures to keep pace with the ever-evolving digital landscape.

Additionally, the analysis addresses the fundamental question of what the desired digital society should look like. It argues that this question is crucial and requires careful consideration. It asserts that throughout history, there has been a continuous effort to organize in larger and more interconnected communities, and a digital society represents the next stage of this evolution. This observation highlights the transformative nature of communication in the digital age.

In conclusion, the analysis provides a comprehensive overview of internet governance, discussing both the challenges and opportunities in this domain. It emphasizes the need for a more integrated and collaborative approach to governance, the allocation of sufficient resources to support the IGF, and the importance of innovation in designing effective governance systems for the internet. Lastly, it underscores the significance of envisioning and constructing a digital society that aligns with our collective aspirations and values.

Anita Gurumurthy

The analysis provides a comprehensive examination of the crisis in digital governance. One of the main issues highlighted is the geopolitical tensions that arise due to the stranglehold over the digital economy by a small number of large transnational corporations. This dominance leads to concerns about fairness and competition in the global digital landscape.

Moreover, it is argued that public policy in digital governance should be grounded in the principles of public interest and democratic deliberation. The analysis emphasises that effective governance cannot solely rely on dialogue but must also consider the broader public interest. This approach recognises the importance of inclusive decision-making processes and democratic accountability.

The Digital Cooperation Forum, which has a tripartite dialogic mode, is mentioned in the analysis. While the forum aims to improve digital cooperation, caution should be exercised to avoid repeating the flaws of its predecessor, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The analysis suggests that the IGF had issues with confirmation bias and potentially excluded diverse voices and views. Hence, it is important for the Digital Cooperation Forum to address these concerns and promote inclusivity.

In the realm of data governance, the need to humanize this technical concept is emphasised. The analysis calls for the recognition of new rights, such as the right to be forgotten and the right to be represented or not in digital systems. These rights would help protect individuals’ interests and ensure a more balanced and equitable digital ecosystem.

The analysis also stresses the necessity of restraining the power of digital transnational corporations for effective global digital governance. Without mandatory obligations for these corporations, global governance cannot foster innovation, economic pluralism, or environmental sustainability. However, it is pointed out that powerful countries from the global north may resist new arrangements, making it challenging to address this issue.

A system-wide reboot is advocated for global digital governance. This includes reforms in international financial institutions and the international tax regime. Additionally, the conversation needs to shift towards nurturing public digital innovation ecosystems at a global level, which would encourage collaboration and inclusive development.

The analysis laments the current state of digital governance, stating that it falls short of upholding justice, peace, and fundamental human values. The Geneva Declaration is referred to as an articulation of the need to foster justice, dignity, and peace – values that are still out of reach in the digital realm.

The internet is described as a common heritage of humankind, supported by public law. This perspective highlights the importance of collective responsibility and public regulation to ensure that the internet serves the interests of all.

Equitable distribution of benefits from digital resources and data is deemed essential. The analysis raises concerns about situations where countries contribute valuable data, such as pathogen data, but do not benefit from resulting research. It emphasises the need to address this imbalance and ensure fairness in the distribution of benefits.

Lastly, the analysis highlights the necessity of recognising the hybrid nature of existence and reality in the digital society. This observation implies that the digital world is deeply entwined with the physical world and should be approached holistically to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive understanding.

Overall, the analysis provides a thorough exploration of the crisis in digital governance, examining various aspects such as geopolitical tensions, public interest, data governance, power dynamics, international cooperation, and the need for a more just and inclusive digital society. It calls for reform and recognition of the complexities of the digital landscape to address the challenges at hand.

Jordan Carter

In this analysis, the speakers delved into the intricacies of internet governance and digital policy. They expressed the paramount importance of internet governance, noting that virtually all digital technology relies on communication through the internet. It was emphasised that the internet occupies a central position in our lives and, therefore, requires robust governance mechanisms.

One key aspect that emerged from the analysis was the need for multi-stakeholder internet governance. The speakers argued that effective governance should involve the participation and representation of diverse stakeholder groups. They highlighted the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as an essential platform that ensures different stakeholders have a seat at the table and space in the room. By including various voices, multi-stakeholder internet governance can foster better decision-making and address the interests of different stakeholders.

However, the current internet governance system was acknowledged as imperfect. The analysis revealed the existence of gaps in ambition, coordination, and resources. It was noted that these gaps limit the efficacy of internet governance efforts. To overcome these challenges, the speakers called for strengthening the IGF and addressing the identified gaps, such as inadequate resourcing and insufficient coordination.

Interestingly, there was opposition to the movement of digital issues to an intergovernmental forum. It was argued that such a shift could potentially worsen the situation by leading to stakeholder domination and limiting diverse participation. The analysis highlighted the importance of maintaining a multi-stakeholder approach in digital governance.

The issue of resources and funding in internet governance was also raised. It was pointed out that proper resourcing is crucial to ensure the effectiveness of governance mechanisms. The discrepancy between the resource allocation for internet governance and other policy areas was highlighted, with one speaker noting that their own policy team is equivalent in size to the IGF secretariat. This observation indicated the need for adequate resources and investment to adequately address internet governance issues.

The role of governments in digital governance was another important point discussed. The analysis underscored the necessity for governments to reconsider their approach to digital governance. As technology continues to evolve, governments must adapt to effectively address the challenges and opportunities brought about by the digital era.

Furthermore, it was noted that internet governance discussions often receive insufficient attention. The allure of “sexy” issues such as artificial intelligence tends to overshadow important internet governance debates. The analysis posited the need to give due emphasis to internet governance and not let it be overshadowed by other emerging topics.

Lastly, the importance of building upon existing principles in policy-making and creating new solutions was highlighted. The analysis emphasised the importance of incorporating established principles rather than continuously revisiting and inventing new ones. By doing so, policymakers can ensure consistency and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts.

In conclusion, the analysis underscored the critical role of internet governance and digital policy in our digitally interconnected world. It called for multi-stakeholder participation, addressing gaps in the current governance system, proper resourcing, government reconsideration, and increased attention to internet governance. By addressing these issues, stakeholders can work towards strengthening and improving the governance mechanisms that underpin our digital landscape.

Lise Fuhr

Cross-sector participation in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is not only important but also critically needed. The IGF brings together a wide range of sectors, including banking, public administration, manufacturing, transportation, and healthcare, all of which are using and creating digital solutions. However, there is a need for more diverse participation from legal professionals in the IGF, especially due to concerns such as data security, workers’ rights, and access to education. This highlights the importance of broader representation and diverse perspectives in the forum.

Efforts should be made to showcase the IGF as a platform for shaping the future of the internet. By emphasizing its role in discussing challenges and opportunities related to digital technology, the IGF can attract more participants. The IGF should be promoted as a forum where stakeholders can come together to engage in meaningful discussions and collaborate on finding innovative solutions. Creating a clear value proposition for participation in the IGF can serve as a strong incentive for individuals and organizations to actively engage and contribute to the forum.

The IGF has proven to be a well-established and well-respected mechanism for monitoring and implementing decisions. It can play a crucial role in setting the framework for the internet we want. Anchoring the Global Digital Compact in the IGF can further strengthen its position and ensure that decisions and actions taken are aligned with the global digital agenda.

Although advancements have been made in terms of internet access, there is still a significant gap. Approximately 2.6 billion people worldwide remain offline, preventing them from fully benefitting from the advantages of the digital era. Closing this internet access gap is crucial in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and harnessing the potential of digital technology for social and economic development.

Transparency, openness, and inclusivity are key principles that should be prioritised in internet governance. Emphasising the inclusion of all genders and the involvement of individuals from all nationalities is essential for creating a more democratic and representative decision-making process. By promoting transparency and inclusivity, the IGF can effectively address the diverse needs and concerns of various stakeholders.

To support its expanding tasks, the IGF Secretariat requires stronger funding. As the role of the Secretariat has grown in complexity and importance, adequate financial resources are necessary to ensure its effective functioning. Adequate funding will enable the Secretariat to fulfil its responsibilities and facilitate the smooth operation of the IGF.

Ambition is vital for the ongoing development and evolution of the IGF. By setting ambitious goals, the IGF can continue to adapt to the fast-paced changes in the digital landscape and effectively address emerging challenges. Maintaining a human-centric approach and upholding the multi-stakeholder model are crucial in ensuring that internet governance prioritises the needs and interests of all stakeholders.

Raising the profile of the IGF and setting the agenda for new participation is an essential step in strengthening its impact and relevance. By increasing awareness of the forum and actively inviting new participants, the IGF can create a more inclusive and representative platform. Setting the agenda allows the IGF to focus on key issues, foster meaningful discussions, and contribute to shaping the future of the internet.

In conclusion, cross-sector participation, diverse representation, and a clear value proposition are crucial in the Internet Governance Forum. The IGF plays a vital role in setting the framework for the internet we want, closing the internet access gap, emphasising transparency and inclusivity, securing adequate funding, fostering ambition, and maintaining a human-centric approach. By raising its profile and setting the agenda, the IGF can continue to be an influential platform for shaping the future of the internet.

Avri Doria

Avri Doria, an influential member of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) since its inception, is discussing the future of digital governance and specifically the future of the IGF. Doria emphasises the need to improve and refine the existing IGF, rather than creating a new platform.

Doria believes that the IGF has the potential to continue evolving and effectively address the emerging challenges of digital governance. Creating a new forum, Doria argues, would incur significant costs in terms of finances, time, and effort. Doria highlights the 18-year history of the IGF, showcasing the expertise and experience gained over its lifetime.

By iterating and improving upon the current framework, Doria suggests that the IGF can adapt to the rapidly changing landscape of digital governance. This approach would not only prevent redundancies but also save valuable resources that would otherwise be needed to establish a new forum from scratch.

Examining the supporting evidence, it is clear that Doria’s argument is based on practical considerations. The 18-year existence of the IGF provides a strong foundation for building upon existing structures and processes. Additionally, creating a new platform would require a significant financial investment, consume valuable time, and demand considerable effort to ensure successful operation.

In conclusion, Avri Doria advocates for the ongoing development and improvement of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a means to tackle the future challenges of digital governance. Doria’s argument is grounded in the extensive experience and expertise of the IGF accumulated over its 18-year history. By avoiding the costly and labor-intensive aspect of creating a new platform, Doria suggests that the IGF has the potential to adapt and evolve effectively, benefiting the global digital community.

Timea Suto

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a crucial platform for convening various stakeholders to discuss public policy issues related to internet governance. It was born after the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) envisioned a people-centred information society. The IGF involves stakeholders such as telecommunications and tech companies, governments, and development banks, and has led to the global implementation of projects originating from its discussions.

While the IGF has made significant progress, there are areas that require attention. One such area is the lack of awareness about the achievements of the IGF, leading to the belief that new initiatives should be created. Effective marketing and sharing of the IGF’s outputs and success stories are needed, as well as expanding the IGF community to include non-participants.

Multistakeholderism, a crucial concept derived from WSIS, is an integral part of global digital discussions. However, it is not perfect and has room for improvement. The United Nations Secretary General has called for collaboration among multiple stakeholders to prepare for the future summit.

Crucially, the IGF does not set technical standards, cybersecurity norms, or policies for responsible and trustworthy AI. Its main role is to convene all relevant stakeholders to ensure proper implementation and accountability. The IGF aims to evaluate the progress made in achieving the vision set 20 years ago, identify areas requiring further action, and ensure inclusivity.

The persistently unchanging gender divide in internet usage is a pressing issue that needs to be integrated into all IGF discussions to promote gender equality. Additionally, the IGF has evolved to include discussions on digital governance, expanding beyond the scope of internet governance.

Overall, the IGF provides a vital platform for stakeholders to discuss public policy issues related to internet governance. While acknowledging its achievements, it is essential to address the gaps and challenges, including raising awareness, improving multistakeholderism, addressing the gender divide, and publicizing its outputs. By addressing these issues, the IGF can continue to play a significant role in shaping the future of internet governance.

Renata Mielli

The Internet has experienced significant global growth over the past 20 years, becoming more resilient and faster than ever before. It has played a crucial role in economic, social, and cultural development, becoming essential for various aspects of life. Alongside this growth, multistakeholder participation in Internet governance has also expanded, giving more voices and perspectives a seat at the table.

The Internet governance community has shown remarkable growth and diversity, both nationally and regionally. This diversity has led to a wide range of ideas and approaches being brought to the table, enhancing the decision-making process. Hosting the first Elusófono Internet Governance Forum in Brazil is an example of this diversity being celebrated and nurtured.

However, despite its growth and positive impacts, the Internet also faces a range of challenges. These include economic concentration, where a few dominant players have significant control over the online landscape. Misinformation and cyber-attacks on democracy pose risks to the integrity of information and democratic processes. Hate speech is also a concern, as it can worsen social divisions and breed intolerance. Additionally, the environmental impacts of the Internet and the risks associated with artificial intelligence need to be addressed.

The multistakeholder model, while valuable, presents its own challenges due to its diversity. It can be complicated to navigate and reach consensus among the participants with different backgrounds, perspectives, and interests. There are concerns about potential fragmentation in the Internet governance debate, with the creation of competing governance spaces, which could hinder effective decision-making and coordination.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is seen as the definitive platform for discussions and decision-making related to Internet governance. Through this forum, insights from various global stakeholders can be generated, leading to more informed and inclusive policy-making processes. The IGF’s role in generating these insights is widely supported, emphasizing its importance in the governance of the Internet.

Addressing the challenges faced by the Internet requires deeper discussions and the development of effective solutions. The Cybersecurity and Internet Governance Initiative (CGI) has taken steps to advance dialogues and consultations with stakeholders throughout the ecosystem, promoting collaboration and collective problem-solving.

Furthermore, there is a strong call for increased diversity in decision-making spaces. It is not enough to have diverse participation; decision-making bodies should also reflect this diversity. The appointment of Renata Mielli as the first female coordinator of the Internet Theory Committee in Brazil since its creation in 1995 showcases the importance of representation and inclusion in leadership positions.

It is necessary to consider the future and the type of world we want to build. This involves pondering the implications of Internet governance, its role in shaping society, and the impacts it will have on the lives of future generations.

In conclusion, the Internet’s growth and expansion over the past two decades have had a significant impact on economic, social, and cultural development. While the Internet governance community has become more diverse and inclusive, challenges remain, such as economic concentration, misinformation, and cyber threats. The multistakeholder model presents challenges due to its diversity, raising concerns about potential fragmentation in the governance debate. The Internet Governance Forum is seen as the key platform for discussions and decision-making, generating insights from global stakeholders. To address the challenges, deeper discussions and solutions are needed while ensuring that decision-making spaces are diverse and inclusive. Considering the future and fostering collaboration are crucial for building a better world. An event proposed in Brazil in 2024 aims to foster multistakeholder consensus on these important themes.

Ana Neves

The analysis highlights several important points raised by the speakers. Firstly, it emphasises the concern that the rapid evolution of technology can widen digital gaps. This refers to the disparities in access to and adoption of technology, which can hinder development and prevent regions from participating in digital internet governance processes. The need for ubiquitous connectivity, faster speeds, low latency, and high-quality connectivity are identified as factors that contribute to these digital gaps. This sentiment is negative, as it highlights the potential negative consequences of technological advancements.

The next point discussed is the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This global event brought together heads of state in 2003 and ministers responsible for the Information Society in 2005. The goal of WSIS is to achieve an inclusive and people-centric information society. This initiative is seen as neutral, as it does not have a sentiment attached to it but instead presents a vision and goals for the future of the information society.

The analysis also emphasises the importance of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in identifying gaps. The IGF plays a key role in global digital governance, but current global movements on digital topics may confuse participants. Therefore, the recommended action is for the IGF to identify these gaps to remain relevant and effective. This observation is presented as a neutral viewpoint.

Furthermore, the analysis includes insights from a speaker who highlights the idea that the internet should be used for beneficial purposes for humanity. It asserts that the aim is to make the internet a force for peace and improve the well-being of humankind. This positive sentiment emphasises the positive potential that the internet holds for the betterment of society.

In conclusion, the analysis provides an overview of key points expressed by the speakers. It recognises the potential negative impacts of technological advancements in widening digital gaps and highlights initiatives such as WSIS and the IGF, which aim to address these issues. Additionally, it underscores the positive idea of using the internet as a force for peace and for the betterment of humanity. These insights shed light on the importance of bridging digital divides, promoting inclusive digital governance, and harnessing the internet’s potential for positive impact.

Avri Doria:
was a very quick break. I know it was very quick for people to leave and come back. We apologize. We’re here, we’re now, we’re starting. So this session is the future of digital governance. One of the wonderful things about the future is we really don’t know what it’s going to be like, so it’s a good place to start. So we’ve seen this week, we’ve seen in write-ups, we’ve seen all kinds of suggestions and ideas for new mechanisms, GDCs, new kinds of digital fora, new kinds of mechanisms, and such. And it prompted some of us to sort of start asking the question, well what’s wrong with the IGF? And part of that question came out, well there are lots of gaps, and in fact if you read each one of these testaments that people are putting out about the best idea for the future, there’s a gap. And there’s a saying that, well this gap needs to be filled, it’s important, there are other importance, the IGF, you’ve been around for 18 years and you’ve got these gaps. So one of the things that we started looking at, one of the things I started looking at was, well we’ve been around for 18 years, we’re about to go into that renewal season, and when you go into the renewal season you look at, well what do you need to do for the future? The future that we’re here to talk about, about digital governance, or internet governance, or whatever we call a future governance. And we started to look at, well if something that was started a while back, that was started with great intentions, with great promise, has done good things, is well-formed, took a lot of work, took a lot of money, took a lot of time, and when we talk about starting a new forum, believe me there’s a lot of work to do. I’ve been watching the IGF since it was first first conceived of in the Working Group on Internet Governance and nursed through the original, had the honour of being on the Secretariat, had the honour of being on the MAG, had the honour of being a voice in the wilderness. I’ve done all of those roles quite happily. So one of the questions that we started to look at was, what are the gaps? What are really the gaps? And how is it that the IGF could conceivably fulfil them? Could conceivably fulfil them without having to incur all the expense and bandwidth and pain and suffering of trying to start something new? So we’ve got a certain number of pre-existing questions, but we also yesterday, while talking to the panellists, sort of said, thinking about TUNIS agenda, thinking about what remains to be done, thinking about the gaps, how could we solve those gaps? Could we? And if somebody wants to say the IGF couldn’t possibly fill that gap, why not? So basically that’s sort of the shape of what we’re having a conversation here, both amongst ourselves and hopefully with you all, to sort of try and explore that gap space and see what it would really take to solve the problems of that gap. So with that, I pass it on to my co-moderator, Ana Neves, and please take it away.

Ana Neves:
Thank you very much, Avri. Hello, speakers. Hello to all. Avri, don’t you think that everyone must, maybe they are a bit confused about all these movements that we have nowadays at global level on digital? A little confused? A little confused, and I think that after this… It’s the fourth day of the IGF, including the zero day, of course. And I think that with the people that I’ve been talking to, it was interesting to see that people are becoming some more confused, some more thinking in different things that they were thinking before they came here. But the thing is that topics related to digital are nowadays front and center on the international agenda. And nowadays, we are talking a lot about artificial intelligence. So during this IGF, there was a lot of sessions about artificial intelligence. But my point here is that the fast evolution of technology, new approaches, and the developments, such as the metaverse, and all that include emerging technologies, as well as the web 3.0, decentralization, need for ubiquitous connectivity, higher speeds, low latency, and high quality connectivity requirements, may contribute to widening the digital gaps among regions, countries, and on a local level. So this will cause a major difference in the evolution and development in economy, social, political, and educational areas, as well as reduce the possibility for certain regions of the world to effectively participate in digital internet governance processes. I just would like to remember, and then I will give the floor, of course, to our speakers. But well, I and Ari, we are here trying to make the context and to give you the context. And I just would like to remember that the goal of WSIS, the World Summit on Information Society, that gathered heads of state in 2003. And then in 2005, the ministers responsible for the Information Society. So the goal of WSIS is to achieve a common vision, desire, and commitment to build a people-centric, inclusive, and development-oriented information society, where everyone can create, access, utilize, and share information. The Geneva Action Plan agreed at the first WSIS summit in 2003, identified 18 areas of activity in which government, civil society, businesses, and international organizations So, I will start with the first question. The Tunisian government and the international community should work together and are working together to achieve the potential of ICTs for development. The Tunis agenda for the information society was a consensus statement of Tunis adopted on the 18th of November 2005 in Tunis. It called for the creation of the digital compact, which includes the digital sector, the public and private sectors, the technical and academic communities, and civil society. And nowadays, we have all these processes, including the WSIS plus 20, which includes the summit of the future that will include the digital, through the digital compact, and we have other processes at worldwide level. So, I would like to ask you, as a member of the panel, what do you think about what the IGF is saying, and why IGF is not good enough, or is it good enough, or which are the gaps, as Avery very well said. So, let’s go to hear our speakers, and I will give the floor, first place, to Sloheimer and also Douglas for Q & A and Joel from World quiet.

Jordan Carter:
AU domain administration Australia. John. thank you and good afternoon, everyone . Great to be on this panel, today, joining an interesting group of speakers. I’m just making some personal remarks here, having thought about this stuff for a long time, and I’m going to try and share a few of the things that we’ve been doing in the past couple of years. We’ve been using the internet to our day-to-day lives. If anyone thought that wasn’t the case until 2020, they got a brutal reminder of that in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. And whether it’s the internet itself or the services and applications that we rely on that run on top of it, this digital realm, this internet realm, is central to our lives, which is why we’ve been doing this for a long time, and I’m is why it is so important, so important that the Secretary General identified it as one of the two major challenges facing the planet along with the climate crisis. So I want to make three main points to you today, because if we get this right, we can support the human flourishing that we should have as our vision for this planet. We can have just, peaceful and prosperous societies, sustainable economies all around the world. So there’s a lot to play for here. And my first point is a simple one that relates to the slightly provocative title of this panel. We cannot separate internet governance and digital governance. They’re intertwined, and they’re intertwined because almost all digital technology relies on communication, and the communication network that we all rely on is the internet. It is true that where digital policy issues stray too far away from an internet aspect, they may need their own institutions and discussions, and me being me, I would say that if they are having their own spaces, they should definitely apply the multi-stakeholder approach to having those conversations. But most of the time, the digital and internet realms are intertwined, and they should stay that way. Because otherwise, we will see a bifurcation of these policy dialogues, increasing complexity, and more and more resources being spent in forums that are very close to duplicating each other. My second point is to say that effective internet governance needs to be multi-stakeholder internet governance. I’ve already talked about the centrality of the internet to our lives, to the information societies that we are building. And that is why the IGF is such an important forum. Its structure and its scope forces the collision of the broad concerns and interests and perspectives from around the world and around the different stakeholder communities. And it does that by making sure there’s a seat at the table and space in the room for all the stakeholder groups, for civil society, for the technical community, academia, businesses in the private sector, and of course for governments. Without this blend, We could end up just having an interesting technology discussion or an interesting policy discussion, but that is not what we need. What we need is internet governance, and nothing could be worse than building a duplicate structure for digital governance issues alongside it. We have the forum already. We’re all right here in it today. But actually something could be worse than that. It would be moving it into a single stakeholder-dominated forum. Around which there are some proposals floating around. A government-preferenced forum. That would be worse than duplication, and it’s something I urge us all to oppose. My third point is to talk a bit about the gaps that the moderators mentioned before, because I don’t want to pretend that the internet governance system we have today is perfect. Put your hands up if you think it is perfect. Yeah, there are no hands up in the room, and I’m not going to ask about the Zoom room. The world has changed a lot since the settlement of the early 2000s, and it’s sad to say that it is not always for the better the ways that it has changed. And so we need to strengthen the IGF and address some gaps, and I just want to propose three for your consideration. Hopefully they’re a little bit provocative and help you start thinking about these and getting ready to engage with the panel from the floor. I think there’s an ambition gap, a coordination gap, and a resource gap. And just to speak briefly, on the ambition side, I don’t have the future vision that the internet needs. But I know that if we want to get the internet that we want, we need to take the daring step of describing it and describing the goals that will get us there. What is our ambition for the Information Society? How will we measure our progress? How will we support the sustainable development goals, support human flourishing? What is the internet we want, and how do we build it? So to close that gap, let’s develop and agree goals to do that. That could focus the work of our Internet governance system, and it could be a way to develop or create a need to develop new working methods here in the IGF to be able to discuss and agree such things. Not to replace the SDGs, not to create a rod for our back, but to focus our efforts. The second is the coordination gap. We have a distributed model of Internet governance with different institutions and different communities all doing part of the job. For that to work, it needs incredibly strong coordination. And the IGF can be the forum to do that coordination, but once again, there are some working methods to do it. In our own technical community, we’ve been articulating a need for stronger coordination. I think it applies more broadly as well. And briefly, the third gap is the resources gap. If you think about the incredible work our IGF Secretariat does with five people, five people, and then you think about the scale of the overall governance systems in individual countries, let alone the global level, you can see that none of us together as stakeholders are putting enough resources into this forum. And we’re also not resourcing well enough the diverse participation that we need, both to make the outcomes of the IGF more useful and to make its legitimacy stronger. So the resources gap is one that needs to be closed. So to recap, in closing, we should not separate digital governance and Internet governance. We must maintain a multistakeholder approach and model in doing it. All key stakeholder groups are required, and nothing could be worse than removing digital issues to an intergovernmental forum. And we must close gaps to strengthen the IGF and deliver the Internet we want. The ambition gap, the coordination gap, and the resources gap. Thank you very much.

Avri Doria:
Thank you very much, Jordan. Thank you for your initial remarks, and then I will the floor to Renata Miele, coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, for her first comments and remarks, please.

Renata Mielli:
Thanks, Ana. Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to greet my fellow participants, my fellow session participants, and thank the IGF for inviting me to be part of this panel, which encourages us to come together in a main session to address the various concerns and discussions we have followed throughout this event about our future as a governance community. I will bring to this discussion some reflections that stem from the experience of the Internet Steering Committee in Brazil, a multi-stakeholder governance group that has been built with dedication over its 28 years. The first point of this reflection is to look at the journey we have taken up to this point. Today’s Internet is very different from what it was 20 years ago, when the first round of WSIS took place. It has expanded globally, irreversibly, penetrating people’s lives. It has grown technically stronger, becoming more resilient and faster than we ever imagined. It has become a critical infrastructure for economic, social, and cultural development. The layer of applications and content which gives the Internet concrete meaning in people’s lives has also developed. With this expansion, our governance community has also grown. National and regional initiatives now form a global network across different countries, regions, youth, and dams. As an example, I may show the recent hosting of the first Elusófono Internet Governance Forum in Brazil less than a month ago. These spaces have become more diverse and inclusive. The diversity of sectors and actors at this IGF of the Internet and its applications has also brought emerging challenges to be addressed. Increased economic concentration in the ecosystem, an infodemic of misinformation, the use of the Internet to attack democracy processes, an increase in violence and hate speech, the environmental impacts of our infrastructure, and the use of the Internet to increase the vulnerability of the Internet and the possibilities and risks that arise with the evolution of artificial intelligence, another topic that has catalyzed the discussions on this edition. Therefore, to discuss our future, we cannot ignore this trajectory and the current challenges, especially in light of the dilemma that the Internet governance community faces. We have been discussing and participating in various different arenas, and the complexity shows no signs of decreasing. The WSIS Plus 20 and the Global Digital Compact are only two among all the processes being undertaken within the ecosystem, with much of them potentially overlapping in several streams. Concerns about the future have been growing and demand more transparency, support, and meaningful participations in discussions and decisions. In this context, multiple stakeholders are calling for avoiding the fragmentation of Internet governance arenas, splitting discussions about the Internet from those covering digital issues. Those topics are inseparable pairs, like two sides of the same coin. The challenges are intertwined, as Jordan said. Decisions about one impact the other. We all need to revisit the Tunis agenda, which remains extremely relevant in their essence and already addresses these integrated issues. Many of the goals established there are yet to be achieved, and the guiding principles are still fully valid. Our role as members of the Internet governance community community is to review our own mechanisms and institutions based on the principles promoted by the Tunis Agenda. Our current concern can be summarized in two major points. Avoid the fragmentation of the debate and the creation of competing governance spaces that could weaken multistakeholder participation, as we have unfortunately seen in the GDC construction process, which has resulted in uncertainty about its outcome. How to improve the IGF’s model of debate and participation so that it can address the challenges at hand, generate discussions that contribute to promoting insights for decision-making by various global stakeholders. To achieve this, we must fully embrace diversity to improve effective multistakeholder participation, which is essential for the future of the Internet. Cultural, linguistic, gender diversity, and as many other forms of diversity, are critical to driving our governance community. This is the path we have been pursuing in Brazil. The multistakeholder model is challenging because it brings together this diversity, gathering different perspectives, and we don’t always agree. But when we bring our differences to the table, rather than ignoring them, we all grow. Let’s take this opportunity to reflect on the achievements that the Internet governance community has already made, and how we can contribute to charging the paths to address the inequalities that feel exclusion. If achieving multistakeholder participation is crucial for any proposed solution to our Internet-related issues, include the so-called digital ones. And in our perspective, the IGF was, is, and must be the definitive place for these discussions to take place, in order to provide inputs that enable effective outcomes in other forums around the world. Thank you for the opportunity, and we continue.

Ana Neves:
Muito obrigada, Renata. Thank you very much, Renata. And now I will give the floor to Liz Fug, member of the IGF Leadership Panel. Liz, please.

Lise Fuhr:
Thank you, Ana, and good afternoon. First of all, thank you for the invitation to speak on this panel. We speak about many, many topics here at the IGF. We speak about security, innovation, skills, connectivity, sustainability. But exactly this topic that we’re discussing here comes first at a very important time, and it asks a very important question, because it’s the overall question of what is the future of Internet Governance Forum, and Internet Governance as such. But why is this timing important? Well, we’ve heard it both from our moderators and also the two panelists. We have the WSIS plus 20 coming up. But we also have a number of other policy initiatives underway in the UN, such as the Global Digital Compact, which will be a part of a wide-ranging summit for the future, driven by Secretary General Guterres. And we also see that there is now a tech envoy in the UN following developments in technology, but also governance. He’s also an ex officio member of the leadership panel. And here today, I speak as a member of the leadership panel. In my daily life, I am Director General of ETNO, which is a telecom trade association in Brussels. But be mindful, I speak as a leadership panel now. So if we look at IGF itself, we see there have been some innovations in the past year or two. So the UN Secretary General established and gave a mandate to the leadership panel. And you’ve heard from us last year and throughout this week. And as a leadership panel, we will also be serving until the next IGF. This is a panel of experts chaired by Vint Cerf. And we bring together the technical community, academia, civil society, private sector, and governments. And we have been working in our respective constituencies to raise the awareness of IGF and also amplify the messages of IGF. And one of the most important aspects of the leadership panel lately, but it will develop in the coming years, has been to set a framework of the internet we want. And we see this as forming a basis for a series of goals or objectives to support the development of an open, secure, right-respecting internet across the globe. We have set a framework, and that’s not meant that we will have a top-down process on this. We are now hoping that these principles will be unfold by and supported and the goals will be set by the global community. So we will consult broadly, not only as we used to call the internet, the international internet community. To me, we need to consult with the global community, because everyone uses the internet these days. We, as a leadership panel, we have also contributed to the work on the global digital compact by sharing with the co-facilitators the messages that we have seen and agreed with all of you. And it’s vitally important internet governance community. So you gave us input both in Addis Ababa, but also in 2021 in Katowice. So we, as a leadership panel, didn’t take our own position on this, but we tried to condense the input from the last two IGFs and conveyed it to the global digital compact consultation. So if we look at the gaps, we have talked about the gaps, and we see there is a lot of activity on many fronts. But I want to look at what aspects of internet governance need to be. we strengthen, because we as a leadership panel see it as we need to strengthen the IGF, because we see IGF as a part of Internet governance future. So for us, key is the representation and participation. We have seen a huge number of participants as this very IGF in Japan, more than 8,000. I heard numbers of 9,000 across the globe have signed up and followed both online and in person. But the UN reminds us that 2.6 billion people are still offline, and we are actually far from reaching the STGs and from harnessing the benefits of digital, which should get us there, and we think this is a virtual circle. At the same time, we also have to acknowledge that digital and Internet governance is no longer the sole remit of a small part of society and businesses. The uptake and impact of the Internet is now a whole of society matter. To me, the biggest gap is, and this is what should drive our work as a community, is we need a greater and more diverse participation at IGF. We should not be an echo chamber talking to each other of like-minded communities. What does that mean? That means greater industry participation, and not just tech and telecom companies. We need other sectors like banking, public administration, manufacturing, transportation, healthcare. All of them are using the Internet and connectivity in new ways. And I don’t mean only using, but these actors are actually employing high-skilled developers to create tailor-made digital solutions. So we need to see these people at IGF. And it means also more participation from legal professions. The Internet is now fundamental to our lives and economies. And with new challenges from security, to data protection, to workers’ rights, implication of new technologies, inequality, safety in the workplace, access in education, taking out a bank loan, signing up for an insurance, the applications are endless. And with that comes a need for highly qualified legal professionals, from solicitors, to barristers, to judges, and magistrates, to bring their expertise here, but also to learn from us, who are sitting here right now. So we all need to interact and we need to see these people here at the IGF. And it means consistently and constantly increasing participation from the global south. This is the group which needs access to high quality connectivity, devices, and skills. And they’re absolutely, they must be here to shape the internet we want. And again, we need to see these people here at IGF. So how do we get there? This is my last part. Speaking as a member of the leadership panel, I now, I know we have a role at this and an immense challenge. But we need to make a clear value proposition to these groups that I talked about. And this means strong and impactful outreach and showcasing IGF as a place where you can be a part of the process of how we want the internet to be tomorrow. We need to share with the peers and other sectors on the challenges and the opportunities of the internet and digital technology. And reinforcing the multi-stakeholder model. So a final word on the future of the internet governance. The internet we want can and should be an important component. of the global digital compact, and I believe that the GDC should be anchored in the IGF, and the IGF is a well-established, well-respected mechanism to monitor and implement the decisions taken by the multi-stakeholder community for the future of the Internet. Thank you.

Ana Neves:
Thank you very much, Liz, and thank you very much for putting in context all this Internet governance and the digital technologies and importance to reach all these different stakeholders from the healthcare, insurance companies, banking, et cetera, extremely important. So now I’m going to give the floor to our last speaker. No, sorry, not the last. Before the last one, Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director, IT4Change India. Please, Anita.

Anita Gurumurthy:
Thank you so much. I think that some of the points I will make may perhaps take a note or two that are slightly different from my predecessors. We in our networks and in our organization believe that the crisis of digitality is entirely a crisis of its governance. So how do we reframe global digital governance, and how do we ensure that the future of global digital governance takes into account a world besieged by extreme inequality? The GDC process initiated by the Secretary-General precedes the 20th year review, as has already been mentioned, of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2025. The arrangements forged through the GDC must correspond to the momentous changes providing the normative directions and… key themes to inform the WSIS Plus 20 review process. But where do we begin, and what must we acknowledge? A productive and fruitful engagement with the GDC process requires recognition of a historical fault line, a democratic deficit that continues to mark the technical governance of the internet. Today’s geopolitical tensions are also rooted in the stranglehold over the digital economy of a few large transnational corporations from mainly two countries, the distressing degeneration of the public sphere, and the imponderables around the future of AI governance. With data and AI technologies decisively shaping value chains and market power in a pandemic-stricken world, public policy discussions on digital issues are also now part of the entire multilateral system, from digital trade to biodiversity, health, food, and oceans. So this is a story of contestation, complexity, and uncertainty. Where do we go from here? First, we do not want to be running in the same place as we invent the new institutions of tomorrow. The Secretary General’s July 2023 policy brief conceptualizes two main institutional arrangements, a tripartite digital policy space, which is termed the Digital Cooperation Forum for the short term, and a global commission on just and sustainable digitalization for the long term. The Digital Cooperation Forum and its tripartite dialogic mode seems to bring back echoes of the IGF. Caution is needed so that it does not simply reproduce all the flaws of the IGF with due respect to the strengths of the IGF. We know that dialogue is important, but public policy is more than dialogue. It is based on tenets of public interest and democratic deliberation. It cannot be held hostage to tokenistic representation and diversity optics. The Global Commission for a Reinvented Multilateralism is a worthwhile idea, but both these bodies must derive their mandate from the business plus 20 process built consultatively and democratically with engagement from civil society. Sadly, the most powerful countries from the global north do not want new arrangements. Please read their submissions online to the GDC consultation process. Second, we need to move from a technical idea of data governance to humanize it, to evolve rights adequate to the epoch of homo technicus. That data must flow freely, albeit with trust, is a refrain that strips the real politic of data governance, reducing any contention with the. We need a cross-border flow of data to the singular issue of data privacy guarantees. What we need is a new articulation of rights that accounts for people’s development sovereignty in the digital paradigm. A new narrative of data flows with rights, including the right to connectivity and data public goods, the right to be forgotten, the right to be represented or not in digital systems, data rights for algorithmic work environments, and so on. We need a people’s data and AI constitutionalism at the international level that is an instrument that also legitimizes people’s collective right to A, determine how aggregate data resources are utilized, and B, enjoy their rightful claims in the benefits of data-enabled intelligence. Without a bedrock of principles, the mechanisms to achieve coherence across the multilateral system cannot evolve. Third, without reining in the power of digital TNCs through mandatory obligations in all jurisdictions of their operation, global digital governance cannot encourage innovation, economic pluralism, or environmental sustainability. It cannot respect people’s rights. We are at an inflection point. The planet is not synthetic. We need ambition. Fourth, global digital governance calls for system wide rebooting. We need a reform of international financial institutions and the international tax regime for public finance of digital infrastructure development. The conversation must shift to public digital innovation ecosystems that are nurtured globally so that private enterprise can thrive everywhere and people can be connected on their terms. To conclude, the present of digital governance is not in a good place. This assessment is based on a simple counterfactual. Had we evolved governance institutions and mechanisms that were adequate to our digital coexistence, the information society would have been more like the aspirational values of the Geneva Declaration. It would have, and I quote, fostered justice and the dignity. and worth of the human person, it would have respected peace and upheld the fundamental values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, shared responsibility and respect for nature. All of this articulated in 2003. We are nowhere close. The test of successful digital cooperation would be in one core idea, the right to flourishing of people and the planet. This would mean public agora built on pluralism and inclusion, economies that thrive on peering and reciprocity, and societies of unlimited creativity and self-actualization. Thank you.

Ana Neves:
Thank you, Anita. Thank you very much. And now I’ll give the floor to our last speaker at this round, Timia Souto. She is Global Digital Policy Lead at the ICC.

Timea Suto:
Thank you, Ana, and thank you, panelists, and thanks for the audience for waiting until the last speaker. I promise we’ll turn it over soon. My name is Timia Souto. I’m Global Digital Policy Lead at the International Chamber of Commerce. For those of you who don’t know us, ICC is a global business organization encompassing members of over 45 million companies of all sectors and sizes all over the world. We are present in over 170 countries. And also, for those of you who don’t know us, ICC was the business focal point back at WSIS time almost 20 years ago. I haven’t myself been there 20 years ago, but I was at WSIS Plus 10, and I can’t believe it’s already been 10 years from then. So I can understand some of you who have been there, as I’ve raised since the beginning of how much has changed since then. And I want to start there today, taking a bit of stock of what has happened 20 years ago and where we are now. And what WSIS, as my fellow panelists said, created was this vision for a people-centered information society and has created also a So, what we did was we created a forum where that vision can be furthered, which is the IGF, as a nondecisional body to discuss public policy issues related to Internet governance, but most importantly, what this has created was this concept of multistakeholderism, coined this concept of multistakeholderism, and, as I said, I wasn’t there, but I’ve heard from many of you how difficult it was to make that happen, how the governmental organizations, civil society, tech companies, the technical community, really bang on the doors of the negotiating room to be let in and have their voice. And what has happened since is, I’m going to quote what is written in our common agenda in paragraph 93, where United Nations Secretary General says, United Nations governments, the private sector, and civil society could come together as a multistakeholder digital technology track in preparation for the summit of the future to agree on a global digital compact. Right? So, it’s no banging on the doors, no asking to be let in, it’s an invitation to commonly come together and create something. So, that is, I think, an achievement on its own. Now, to Jordan’s point, is the IGF perfect? Is our Internet governance world perfect? Is multistakeholderism perfect? No, it’s not. Nothing is. There is room for improvement. There is room to build on what we’ve achieved. There is room to make it stronger. It should be doing that. But I also think we also need to think about, as we think towards the gaps so that I can get to the point of what I want to, what you’ve asked me to answer, we need to think about what the IGF is and what it isn’t, what it was created for, what it is, what it is not, and how we really use it effectively. So, is IGF going to solve universal connectivity? No, it will not. But it will bring together, it does bring together telecommunications companies, tech companies, We are working with the world’s largest digital markets, the world’s largest development banks, governments, to discuss what’s going on and to make it happen. There are projects that were born here at the IGF, they are now running over the world to do just that. Will it set technical standards? No, it will not, but it will bring together the technologists, the engineers, civil society organizations, human rights activists to make sure that the standards that we have in place, the standards that we have in place, will be implemented. Will it set norms for cyber security? No, it will not set norms for cyber security, but it brings together all the actors that can assess if those norms are properly implemented, and it can hold us accountable, all of us, if we’re doing our part or not. Will it set policies on responsible trustworthy AI? No, it will not, but it will bring together the policy makers that do that. Will it set standards for the public? No, it will not, but it will bring together all the stakeholders that can assess if those standards are properly implemented, and it can hold us accountable, all of us, if we’re doing our part, if we’re doing our part. That is what the IGF is. It is a convener for all of us to come together and see have we come far enough from that vision that was set 20 years ago, what else is necessary to do, and are the right people in the room, as Lisa said, is everyone here? Now, yes, there are gaps. There are gaps in the work that we’re doing, and we need to think about how do we create an awareness gap that is very dangerous, because that awareness gap makes others think that new things should be created, that it’s not good enough. We need to also think about what we do achieve. Have we marketed it properly? Have we shared that properly to the people that are not here, and have we made them aware in their own terms so that So I think we have to be very careful about what we say. We have to be very careful about what we say. So I think we have to open up our own IGF community that we have created and go directly and speak to others that are not here to make them part of it, and that only is possible if we properly share what the outputs of this forum are, what they can be, and what the values are, what the success stories are, and I think we have a bit longer way to go to do that.

Avri Doria:
So I think we have to be very careful about what we say and what we do. So thank you all for coming in with your perspectives. I’d like to invite the rest of you, the other participants who are sitting in those seats, to come up. We have, I guess, 38 minutes left on the timer of this, so I’d like to give as much time. Please come to the microphone, introduce yourself, and then comment either on what you heard or your own idea of what you want to say. And then we’ll have a chance to hear from the rest of you.

Audience:
Thank you very much. My name is Carlos Vera, I’m from Ecuador, and I must agree with two main ideas from the panel. A human-centered discussion, and also, as Jordan say, let’s maintain the multi-stakeholder model. This is essential. We have to have a strong, open, and transparent discussion in that panel. Now, there are six women, one man. It’s working. Thank you.

Avri Doria:
Thank you. Please, there are one, two, three, I count four microphones up there. There must be opinions, there must be comments. Otherwise, if you guys don’t have the comments, do you have any? I’m going to ask our online, and where is our online moderator to tell us? Yes, do we have any? No? Yes, we do. So can you please come up? read. Oh, well, please come to the microphone, if that’s okay. We do have a few comments, though. We have two hands up. I don’t know if you want to bring them in, but they’re on the Zoom. Oh, sure. If there are people that wish, yeah. I don’t have that showing on my, so please. There’s Ayalu with his hand up, his or her hand up. Oh, yeah. Please, are you unmuted and able to speak? Yes, please, go ahead.

Audience:
Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to put my question and opinions, and I joined IGF last year in Addis Ababa. My name is Ayalu Shibeshi. I’m born in Ethiopia. I’m working and studying in Australia. My research area is fiat, physical fiat currency or digital fiat currency and CDBC with accessibility and traceability. So if anyone interested, let me know. My question, I have two questions, and I have three proposals. The first question is how the nature of the Internet and Internet technology be inclusive and fairness with practical application while the government shut down and misuse Internet services. That’s one question. Two, is it possible to fully access technology via the Internet as a digital public infrastructure ecosystem while owned by the government or the nations of the country which is without international Internet governance So these are my questions. If you allow me to elaborate, I can propose my, read my proposal, or I have three proposals, or you can read it. It depends. It will take me another two, three minutes. Please go ahead. Okay. Advanced technologies such as AI, blockchain, quantum computing, and IOT, EOT, NFC, and NFT, all these technologies generate huge amount of data or information. These days, data or information is a wealth. The wealth accumulated in developed nations. All these technologies perform activities and services via the Internet. First, the need for United Nations Internet governance law. Dear participants, let us think about the root cause of the current Internet connectivity, major problems such as by the name of freedom of speech and democracy, universal human rights and unrestricted democracy and freedom of inclusive connectivity, EGC, affected local government and countries unable to control the internet and it distracts the country and the country shut down the internet. There is no accountability and also there is no international law to stop them. Second, we need to educate the cyber security because that’s the internet. We must start education cyber hackers to behave as a human nature, a natural human being, behave professionally and ethically, applying natural law rather than natural law with more soft skill rather than using the hard skill and if we all perform any task with integrity, honesty, humanity, kindness, apply responsibility and accountability for equitable benefit of all human beings, all humankind as a global society including all nations and benefit of this earth. The last question, the last suggestion, the third, current existing working system of the internet must be evaluated. We must break the current cycle of the world society governing system which is dominated everything by developed nations, even before the internet. We must build a new system that matches suitable, applicable and rapid advanced technology interest to all nations nationwide fully agreed and signed by the United Nations Internet Governance Forum and the ITU which is a member of all international countries of telecommunication Unless otherwise we don’t have standard regulations to accountable all each countries, we will not be rich and inclusiveness of the internet. I really appreciate it for giving me this time. Thank you so much.

Avri Doria:
Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. Now we have one person at a microphone and And we have another remote. So I think I’ll go with the microphone, and then I’ll go to the next remote, and then I’ll come back to the microphone, if that’s okay. So please, sir, introduce yourself.

Audience:
Thank you. And thank you for the rich discussion and the really hopeful proposals, I think, outlined today. My name is Peter Mysek. I’m general counsel at Access Now. I wanted to actually present the results of a discussion earlier this week. Civil Society met on day zero in a session about scoping of the Global Digital Compact. We had a diverse group inside and outside the room, and we’re able to reach a rough consensus on ways to really strengthen the process of the Global Digital Compact and ensure that it is representative and meets the kind of high and lofty goals that we’ve heard laid out. The three areas that we focused on, if I could present, were around transparency and responsiveness, synergies and coherency, scope, and then a bit of background. So first on transparency and responsiveness, we all have spent a lot of time already. There’s been a lot of opportunities to input into the Global Digital Compact, the deep dives led by the tech envoy office, regional collaborations and convenings, but we don’t know how these inputs are being used. We don’t know what the outputs will look like. We have only seen in the last couple months a very short paper from the co-facilitators of the process that we think doesn’t really reflect the rich discussions. And so getting more meaningful multi-stakeholder processes that are gender inclusive, that include clear, responsive feedback loops and the inclusion. of all stakeholders by design is really key. If there are to be multilateral discussions on the GDC, we need to know the timelines ahead of time. If they’re going to be in person, applying for visas to attend those is going to take time. And member states should take care to include civil society in their delegations. On synergies and coherency, we really echo what you’ve said about rooting the outcomes of the GDC in the IGF. And we are, this week, using the IGF itself to strengthen the Global Digital Compact. And we reach rough consensus that the IGF is an open and inclusive forum, and ever more so every year, we hope, and should not be replaced or duplicated by another forum, especially one based in a global north city that carries environmental costs and very real costs to attend and participate in. Finally, on scope, we want to redouble efforts to involve the technical community. Acknowledging that internet governance is broader than technical discussions, we think those are key stakeholders that really succeeded during the stress test of COVID when systems suddenly went online, and we all depended on the internet for our basic daily work, the horizontal technical governance succeeded. And we wish to kind of re-invoke and involve them in these discussions. So that’s where I’ll leave it. Again, that’s a rough consensus from civil society on Sunday. Thanks.

Avri Doria:
Thank you very much. OK, I just want to point out where we are. I have a Deborah Allen now who’s online. Then I have two people at microphones and one to read. So I think I’m going to call that the cues for now, given the time. So please, Deborah.

Audience:
Thank you very much. Hello, everyone, and thank you for hearing me on this panel. I want to make a couple of real quick comments to amplify the work you’re doing about what you all just said. Get the word out and participation. I mean, the fact that I’m, to introduce myself, I’m in the Hague. I’m from New York City, but I have a nonprofit here in the Hague called Find Out Why to promote digital fluency. We work with the European Internet Forum. And Lisa, I saw you in DC this summer at the Transatlantic Partnership. So this is an example of civil society getting on the mic at the panel. And I just want to commend all of you and say that it’s happening. It’s doing. You’re doing, right? Because here I am. That’s proof. That’s number one. The second comment was get the word out. Because of the fact that you’re in Kyoto, I’m wondering if anybody is familiar with the Peace Boat or peaceboat.org. Everybody should check it out for real because it’s one of the things. It’s phenomenal. It’s been around for quite some time. And it is an organization that, in terms of the digital, OK, let me see. me think how to put this. The digital era is quite young. There’s still a lot to be designed. And there’s a lot of convening that will happen just because of the fact that we’re designing this thing as we go, like one does with peace. And what the Peace Boat does, it carries various projects and campaigns to promote peace, human rights and sustainability, working with partner organizations and individuals in Japan, Northeast Asia and around the world. It uses local grassroots actions, international conferences, global networking, etc. Okay. But it’s an actual giant boat that goes around the world, building friendships for peace. And I think we could do the same. I mean, if there’s somebody that could fund it, obviously, to convene people on a mass, I mean, when you look at peaceboat.org and imagine it, it’s it’s something that we could get the word out we could use to get the word out because we’re in a new stage. And this is a design comment and idea. And my last question is, or my only question is, a lot of times I think in the conferences, we get so general, and I think that we’re all when we convene, we know that we need to do this, we need to do that. I’m super curious about one of the things that you’ve done at IGF, that you’re most proud of that you’ve seen have a big impact, because I know it’s there. And constantly hearing generalizations about what we should do and could do is, I think, less the point and more let’s get psyched about what we are doing. But yeah, thank you very much for giving me time on the mic.

Avri Doria:
Thank you. And I’m going to ask everybody here to remember the questions so that we when we unwind, after the last two speakers, we’ll be able to answer any of the questions that are pending. I think I’ll go to that mic first, because I think I saw you there first. And then we’ll go to Bertrand. And then I’ll read two statements that I’ve received, please. Oh, and there’s a person there. I’m sorry. One, two, three. Okay. Please.

Audience:
Brief to make space for everybody. My name is Emma Gibson. I’m with the Alliance for Universal Digital Rights, or AUDREY for short. And we were part of a number of organizations who launched these 10 feminist principles for including gender in the global digital compact. We did that on Saturday. And one of the principles is around around increasing the leadership of women in Internet governance and policymaking, so it was great to hear one of the contributors talking about the makeup of the panel and the success there. So really my question is around how important do you think the issue of gender is in Internet and digital governance? Thank you.

Avri Doria:
Add it to your questions. Bertrand, can I ask you a favor? I was just told that he had been waiting there forever, and it was my absence, so please. That’s what I thought, actually. Okay, thank you very much. Please.

Audience:
Thank you, Chair. I’ll try to be brief. I’m one of the authors of the Geneva Principles, that is to say, one of the state’s representatives in Geneva in December 2003, one of the many authors, so I have a stake in that. I’d just like to appeal for some recognition of the principles. The whole process has principles. They were developed 20 years ago, and nobody in this forum has actually mentioned principles. We’ve mentioned frameworks, we’ve mentioned action lines, many other processes, but it might be a good thing to go back and review the principles and just tick off what’s been done against those principles, because they took a lot of discussion. You would not believe how much discussion it took to actually agree on what are fairly simple principles. It took us a week to develop principles. Another comment that has been made this afternoon is that we need to have some sort of attention to the legal basis, or maybe the intellectual basis. of the work we’re doing. Well, for a legal basis, there was also, back in Geneva in December 2003, a huge amount of debate on the preamble for those principles, and there was a strong opposition at the summit to including references to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We managed by open debate, strong debate, to overcome that opposition, and we have now, we included the UDHR in the preamble of the Geneva Principles. That is the basis of a fairly good approach to, you know, legal consideration of the basis for the internet. So, take it back a few steps and review that document. It’s like tablets of stone, it’s the beginning, okay? This is the beginning. It’s like tablets of stone, it’s the beginning, okay? This is a suggestion. Thank you.

Avri Doria:
No, thank you very much. And before you wander off, please, because I can’t even really see you, because of the light in my eyes. Could you please introduce yourself?

Audience:
I’m sorry. Winston Roberts. I was, way back 20 years ago, a representative of New Zealand at the WSIS in Geneva. Now, working for an NGO, IFLA representing the global library sector. I love IFLA. That is access to information. Thank you very much. Also, the Nation Line. I’ll stop now.

Avri Doria:
No, I think it’s great, and I did read it once for the classroom, but I think going back to it is great. Thank you for the suggestion. Bertrand, please.

Bertrand de Chapelle:
Good afternoon. My name is Bertrand de la Chapelle. I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network, and the Chief Vision Officer of the Data Sphere Initiative. A few points. The first thing is, I love the title of this panel, because it’s the future of Internet governance, and we need to make sure that it contains both the future of the IGF, but it’s only a portion of the discussion of the future of Internet governance. And when we talk about Internet governance, I’m sorry to repeat myself, there’s this distinction between between governance of and governance on the internet. And the governance of the internet as a whole range, an ecosystem of organizations, they’re not perfect, but as has been said before, it is what kept us together as an infrastructure during the period of the pandemic. The governance on the internet, however, is a scattered piece of institutions that are working in silos, mostly intergovernmental, but also individual initiatives. And at the moment, it is what Laura Denardis has described as an inchoate system. It’s just an embryonic thing. So when we talk about the future of internet governance, I think there is a third layer, which is we’re talking actually about the governance, internet and the governance in the digital age. And governance in the digital age, and going back to what Jordan was saying, the key question that is in front of us is what is the digital society we want to build? And I like, although I don’t always agree with Anita, I agree that there are fundamental questions that are political questions regarding what is the internet and the digital society or the information society we want to build, and that’s what is in front of us. A more concrete thing to pick on what Jordan was saying, but in the reverse order, the resources for the IGF is a competition in hypocrisy. It is unacceptable that anybody complains, particularly among governments, about what the IGF doesn’t produce when the contributions are barely supporting a staff that is half the size of my own organization. This is unacceptable. That being said, this is one of the reasons why you cannot do more with what we have, and the IGF is just one of the building blocks that we need to build upon, which brings to the second point that he mentioned, which is the notion of coordination, and Timea was mentioning very rightly that the goal is not to make the IGF deal with everything at all levels. We have the dynamic coalitions. their first step towards what could be called issue-based networks that can be catalyzed in the environment of the IGF, where on an issue-by-issue basis the relevant stakeholders in a multi-stakeholder fashion get together to address an issue and report every year on what they’re doing within the IGF, on top of the dynamic coalition so that it’s operational. Finally, on the question of ambition, I said already that this is about the digital society we want to build. I like the reference, and there is a bunch of us in here, we were there at the WSIS, and the question of what is the digital society we want to build is actually a recognition that every single evolution of the communication in humanity, be it language, be it writing, or be it the printing press, has changed dramatically the way society is organized, and history is basically the effort of mankind to organize in larger and more and more interconnected communities. We have the challenge of organizing the coexistence of 7 billion people, 5 billion or 7 billion people connected online, and I want to finish by quoting this expression that has been attributed to Kofi Annan, I don’t know whether it is really him who said it, but at least his reference as having said that, in designing the governance for the internet or the internet age, we need to be as innovative as the people who invented it. We invented this new thing with the IGF, and I carry here the bag from the first IGF in 2006, which shows that it is sustainable by the way, but I think the challenge is what is the governance architecture that we need in the digital age, and this is why the title of this panel is a good one.

Avri Doria:
Thank you. Sir, I had already closed the queue, I think, before you came up, so… The queue was already closed, so I’m sorry. I’m going to read two that were submitted online, and then I’m going to go back to the panel. So please forgive me, but the queue had been closed. Yeah, so. Can I make a very short one? A very short one? Yeah. But I had already closed the queue, and I already chased two people away from the other line. That is only the exception. No. We also have this one. My question, what is the position of leadership panel on the nature of existing internet? Internet is a peaceful, development-oriented, and civilian environment, or internet as new battlefield for cyber warfare and as a weaponized tool against other nations. Do we need a global declaration to recognize internet as a peaceful and civilian-only environment? What would be the contribution of the IGF in this regard? That was a question from Amir Mokaberi. Hopefully, I pronounced the name somewhat close. And this comment from Segun Ulugbile. Again, forgive me. It is time to move from the IGF chambers discussion into action. Considering global efforts of the UN Digital Compact, IGF should start evolving into internet and digital governance forum. Many stakeholders speak to digital governance far more in contrast to internet governance. There can be no internet without the digital, but there can be digital without the internet. Time to converge these two most important critical elements of our modern life. People now interact through a digital sharing system without necessarily being on the internet. The ecosystem needs to be proactive and creative, as well as to transform the global internet and digital ecosystems into a unified space for peace, innovation, and development. So I’ve read those two. Now what I’d like to do is sort of unwind the panel, but basically from one edge to the other. Try and keep it to like two minutes, given that we haven’t much time and we did speak extensively at the beginning. And see if you can catch some of the questions, please. Thank you.

Timea Suto:
Thanks, Aubrey. I’ll try. And we have quite a few questions. I think I want to speak to maybe three of them. One is, what can we do to really address the gaps that we’ve been talking about? I think in this evolving nature of Internet governance, digital governance, is the IGF equipped to do digital governance, et cetera? It already sort of does, in my personal opinion. It has evolved from discussing purely Internet governance in the beginning to basically anything and everything that concerns digital, and that’s fine, that’s okay. It’s evolved organically. It is a bit crowded, though, sometimes. A good friend of mine sometimes says it’s like drinking from a fire hose. So we need to focus, right? We can discuss everything, but we cannot discuss everything at the same time. Look at how the SDGs are discussed at the global community, for example. We have 17 of them. We pick one or two each year, get together, have a political forum. We discuss progress, how it went, go away, take two others next year. We cannot do everything at the same time, and that needs to be, I think, recognized. Two, how important is gender? Extremely. The one thing, I think it was Doreen on one of the panels earlier this week, she said as the digital divides are shrinking in certain areas, as connectivity is shrinking, connectivity divide is shrinking, the gender divide is persistent. So as we get more people online, but as we get more people online, the gender divide remains the same between them. So gender is a critical issue, but it’s not an issue on its own. It’s an issue in everything we do, and we need to have the gender glasses on. We need to mainstream gender into conversations. It’s not something that you have to have a gender session at a conference or you have to have a gender track at the IGF. It needs to be in everything we do organically. And then third, what have we done that is a success? We’ve done this. First of all, we’ve gone very far with the multi-stakeholder model. We still have an IGF that convenes thousands of people every year, but we have dynamic coalitions, as Bertrand said. We have best practice forum. So, I think we have to be very careful about that. I think we have to be very careful about that, because if we don’t know how to produce outputs, what we haven’t done is talk about them so that other people know. So, I think I really don’t want to forget that.

Avri Doria:
Thank you. Anita, please, two minutes, or there.

Anita Gurumurthy:
Thank you. Just a couple of points. I do think that a co-proposition that the technical is also important, but I do think that a co-proposition of the Internet would also require a certain idea that it belongs to, it is a common heritage of humankind that is backed legitimately by some kind of public law. To address Bertrand, I’m very happy that we were able to meet more than halfway on something. The problem, I think, sometimes with a forum like the IGF is there is a lot of confirmation bias. There is a lot of bias, and, in fact, there are a lot of people who research and advocate around the Internet on what confirmation bias means, what a filter bubble means. So, if only you spoke to many like me, maybe there would be many more people who disagree with many people here at the IGF. That’s because there are people we work with on digital sequence information and synthetic biology, where natural resources management is today in huge conflict with data about natural resources in the world. We work with civil society, where you really don’t know what to do when public data sets are taken away from your governments by transnational digital companies, we work with indigenous people whose traditional knowledge and data ownership are two sides of the same coin. These are the majority world, they are 80 per cent of the world. In some ways, they are not present here at the IGF. They are not present in the world. They are not there in the world, but they are not present in the world. So, we need to think about the contributions. The COVID pandemic has been mentioned. Pathogen data is being given by countries from Africa into the corpus of the WHO, but the benefits occurring from pharmacological research from that data set is not going back to Africa. It’s going into the patent system controlled by a few corporations. governance on the Internet and governance of digital society? No. Because all existence is hybrid. And all our reality is hybrid. We are homo technicus, and I will leave that thought with you, because I do agree with Renata that it’s a futile argument to look at this except as two sides of the same coin. Thank you.

Renata Mielli:
Thank you, Avril. I would like to comment the aspect of gender, and I think it’s not enough to simply increase. It’s important, of course, and I’m glad to be here with one, two, three, four, five, six marvellous women in this panel, but I want to put something. It’s not enough to simply increase the diversity of participation. The diversity needs to be reflecting decision-making spaces. My presence here today also reflects the long-term transformations driving by multistakeholder discussions, not only within CGI, but also in the Brazilian community as a whole. I’m only here because I’m the first female coordinator of the Internet Theory Committee in Brazil since its creation in 1995. Another comment briefly is about the challenges we are facing here, about the future of Internet, the future of governance, the Internet and the digital, and the main principle of this effort, what Internet do you want? And I think, oh, my God, what world do you want to build for the future, for our kids, for our children? And I think maybe we have the, we agreed with the problems, with the diagnosis, and maybe we need to profound the solutions to face these problems we have today involving the governance in our community, and that’s why, and I’m going to put this as a commentary, that’s why I think. I think we have to deepen the debate about the gaps we have to fulfill to the IGF, and to address this discussion, as much of you have heard, CGI has recently decided to advance the dialogues and informal consultations with various stakeholders throughout the ecosystem to the opportunity, feasibility, and adherence to a possible event in Brazil in 2024 to discuss and produce a multistakeholder consensus on these themes we are discussing there, just to put this to everybody to think about it. Thank you.

Avri Doria:
Thank you very much. Lisa, please.

Lise Fuhr:
Thank you. We’ve discussed many crucial aspects of the future of Internet governance here today, and I’ve heard the principles that actually we build on are extremely important. I hear transparency of the choices taken by IGFs is important, and I agree, and also the substance of what we discuss is, of course, important, but we need to be open and inclusive. The challenges, again, have all the relevant parties involved. This means all genders to me, and I think gender is still an important one, but we also hear about different nationalities, and people need to be involved, and I completely agree. Funding of the Secretariat, yes, it is a very small Secretariat. We need to have stronger funding for the Secretariat because their task has grown bigger, and there it’s extremely important. Jordan talked about ambition, and I think ambition is a key for us. We need to have an ambition to develop and evolve IGF, but, again, there is a strong support and also in the leadership panel for human-centric Internet, the multi-stakeholder model needs to remain, so one last thing is we need to raise the profile of IGF. We need to set the agenda getting new participation on shaping the Internet for the future. Thank you.

Jordan Carter:
I’m not going to try and tackle specific questions. The first is, if this stuff is so important, we need to resource it properly, you know? There are as many people in my policy and stakeholder engagement team as there are in the IGF Secretariat. Similar story to Beton. The people with the checkbooks, and the biggest checkbooks are the governments, I think we need to take another look at this digital governance question and change the way we think about it. The second thing is, the profound political and governance issues that have been tabled in this panel, themselves could have used a lot more expansion and contest here, because we had an interesting discussion. I’m fascinated by some of what I’ve heard. I’m going to rush off to another session, and it’s the second to last day, and we go. So I wonder whether we’re actually paying enough attention to Internet governance, and I think that’s a challenge that comes here, because, you know, there are sexy issues, there’s the importance of AI, there are a hundred different topics on the agenda, and then we don’t get into the real foundations of the model that we’re sort of just swimming in. So I think that’s an observation that I offer. The third, I guess, is the reminder to look back at the principles that have come before, because you don’t always have to revisit the principles that have come before, you can reinvent or invent new things. Sometimes there are foundations that are out there that can be the basis of what we need to do. So just some reflections back.

Avri Doria:
Thank you, and I really like what’s been said. I really very much enjoy the symphony of provocative voices, and I, like you, wish we had been spent all day on this kind of discussion,

Ana Neves:
going through it, and with that, I give you the last word. Yes, so we are about to finish, but I’d like to emphasise as co-moderator something that was being said here, so I think that all the interventions from our speakers and from the audience, both here and online, they were very rich, very productive, and they will enlighten us for the future, and this future. So the session is called, you know, what is the future of AI? The session is called the future of digital governance. It is something that we reflect together on what we were talking about, and Bertrand said again something that he’s been telling for several years. We are talking about two different things, it’s governance of the internet and governance on the internet, and I think that with that … I think that we understand much better what we are talking about. It’s about the future of the Internet in the digital age nowadays, as it was in the information society age in the 90s, and then in the knowledge-based economies in the 20s, in the cyber in the 10s, and now we are talking about digital. But in two years we will be talking about something else. But one thing that will be always here is the Internet. So we are here for the Internet and to make it a weapon for peace, something for us as a good thing for humankind. Thank you very much. A big applause to our speakers. Thank you. Thank you.