Main Session on Future of Digital Governance | IGF 2023

Arguments

Fast evolution of technology can widen digital gaps

---

WSIS vision and goals

---

We are here for the Internet and to make it a weapon for peace, something for us as a good thing for humankind.

---

Report

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.

Arguments

The crisis of digitality is entirely a crisis of its governance

---

We need to move from a technical idea of data governance to humanize it

---

Global digital governance needs a system-wide reboot

---

Importance of viewing the Internet as a common heritage of humankind backed by public law

---

Need for equitable distribution of benefits from digital resources and data

---

Report

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.

Arguments

Human-centered discussion and maintaining multi-stakeholder model are crucial

---

Misuse and shutdown of internet services by government

---

Lack of international internet governance

---

Strengthen the process of the Global Digital Compact

---

IGF should not be replaced or duplicated by another forum

---

Promoting digital fluency is important

---

The importance of gender in Internet and digital governance

---

The author urges for acknowledgment and review of the Geneva Principles, developed 20 years ago, in the current processes of the forum

---

Winston Roberts is a former representative of New Zealand at the WSIS in Geneva, working currently for the NGO, IFLA.

---

Report

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.

Arguments

Avri Doria is discussing the future of digital governance and specifically the future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

---

Report

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.

Arguments

Internet governance includes both governance of and governance on the internet

---

Resources for the IGF is a competition in hypocrisy

---

IGF is just one of building blocks we need to build upon

---

We need to be innovative in designing the governance for the internet or the internet age

---

Report

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.

Arguments

Internet governance and digital governance cannot be separated

---

Effective Internet governance needs to be multi-stakeholder internet governance.

---

Internet governance system today is not perfect

---

We need to strengthen the IGF and address some gaps

---

The internet governance needs to be properly resourced

---

Governments need to reconsider the question of digital governance

---

Insufficient attention is paid to internet governance

---

It's important to remember existing principles when creating new solutions

---

Report

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.

Arguments

Cross-sector participation is critically needed in Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

---

Create a clear value proposition to incentivize participation in IGF

---

Need to close the internet access gap

---

Importance of transparency, openess and inclusivity in internet governance

---

Need of stronger funding for the Secretariat

---

Necessity of ambition for the development and evolution of IGF

---

Human-centric Internet and Multi-stakeholder model should remain

---

Need to raise the profile of IGF and set the agenda for new participation

---

Report

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.

Arguments

The Internet has enormously grown over the last 20 years expanding globally, penetrating lives

---

Internet governance community has grown and is nationally and regionally diverse

---

Challenges faced by the Internet include economic concentration, misinformation, cyber-attacks on democracy, hate speech, environmental impacts and risks of artificial intelligence

---

The multistakeholder model is rather challenging due to diversity

---

It's not enough to simply increase the diversity of participation. The diversity needs to be reflecting decision-making spaces.

---

We need to ponder about the world we want to build for the future.

---

Need for deeper discussions and solutions for the problems surrounding Internet governance.

---

Report

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.

Arguments

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a crucial platform to convene different stakeholders to discuss public policy issues related to internet governance.

---

IGF will not set technical standards, norms for cyber security or policies for responsible trustworthy AI, but it brings together all actors to ensure proper implementation and accountability.

---

The IGF needs to focus its discussions to avoid the current feeling of 'drinking from a firehose'.

---

The persistently unchanging gender divide in internet usage needs to be addressed and integrated into all IGF discussions.

---

IGF has made significant progress in implementing the multi-stakeholder model, and its outputs should be publicized more.

---

Report

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.