Main Session on GDC: A multistakeholder perspective | IGF 2023

Amandeep Singh Gill

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) is viewed as a crucial tool for addressing global challenges, and it should be considered within the broader context of global issues. The completion of the consultation phase of the GDC, with over 7,000 entities providing inputs, is seen as a significant milestone. Efforts to enhance multi-stakeholder engagement and inclusivity are necessary, inspired by the Secretary-General’s vision on digital cooperation. Balancing multilateral processes and multi-stakeholder engagement is acknowledged as a challenge, but innovative approaches have been taken, such as involving stakeholders in sensitive discussions. Stakeholders are encouraged to engage with local member states to foster greater involvement. Areas such as the digital economy and development issues require greater emphasis and action. The policy brief on the GDC outlines a strategic vision, addressing the digital divide, human rights, and agile governance. Gender inclusion and youth participation are emphasized as important themes. Accountability and adaptability are vital for the digital future, and the fragmented landscape of digital issues calls for better coordination. Critical gaps exist in addressing issues like misinformation, disinformation, AI governance, and human rights accountability. The success of the summit of the future rests on raising the level of ambition, activity, and coherence in responses.

Paul Wilson

The internet plays a vital role in our society, offering stability, availability, efficiency, and scalability. However, it is often taken for granted and overlooked. Cooperation among all stakeholders is crucial to maintain the internet’s critical qualities and prevent fragmentation or compromise.

Multistakeholder internet governance is essential for the internet’s continued success. The Global Digital Compact (GDC), a proposed framework for global digital cooperation, should recognize and support this cooperation. Paul Wilson, a member of the technical community, emphasizes the need for ongoing global cooperation in internet governance, particularly within the GDC negotiations.

Addressing the current state of internet connectivity is another crucial aspect the GDC needs to focus on. Although significant progress has been made, approximately 33% of the global population remains unconnected, and 66% lack meaningful internet access. Building upon the current state of connectivity is necessary to ensure more people can benefit from the internet.

The internet’s growth is expected to continue, but challenges with capacity, infrastructure, integrity, and security must be addressed. Inclusivity is also important, as the concerns of marginalized communities, youth, and underrepresented groups should be heard in internet governance and the GDC process.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which has been facilitating discussions for 18 years, should be focused on continuous improvement rather than reinvention. The IGF’s multistakeholder community is ready to discuss and enhance internet governance matters.

COVID-19 has highlighted the internet’s significance, as it enables communication, education, and job continuity during lockdowns. Lastly, addressing non-digital issues such as climate action, poverty, and hunger is essential for the internet to contribute to broader societal goals.

In summary, the internet’s stability and success depend on cooperation among stakeholders. The GDC should recognize and support multistakeholder cooperation. It should also address connectivity gaps, ensure internet growth, promote inclusivity, and harness the potential of the IGF. Additionally, the internet’s role in supporting humanity during crises and addressing non-digital challenges should not be overlooked.

Moderator 2

The Global Digital Compact Process has energized the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) community, attracting positive sentiment and drawing attention to the work of IGF and its national and regional initiatives. It has created opportunities for engagement and brought stakeholders together.

However, there is a need for greater clarity and forward-looking perspectives on how the Global Digital Compact can strengthen and expand the field of Internet Governance. To address this, a panel will provide additional insights and clarity on the future of the process, with the aim of enhancing Internet Governance and aligning it with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Another important aspect that demands attention is the complexity of the two governance forms: multilateral and multi-stakeholder. It is argued that the complexity of these forms may be underestimated, and efforts are underway to foster their complementary nature. The goal is to ensure that both forms can effectively engage and support one another.

Improving governance, accountability, and cooperation within and between the multistakeholder and multilateral processes is also highlighted as a crucial need. There is a call to enhance these aspects for more effective and inclusive Internet Governance, aligning with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

The Global Digital Compact process, along with the Summit of the Future, provides a specific focus on internet development and its intersection with broader governance. This focus closely aligns with SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) to address the specific needs of internet development within the broader governance discussions.

Moreover, the role of governments as enablers of people-centered development, human rights, and inclusion is emphasized. The WSIS outcome documents describe the role of governments as enablers in creating an environment that enables these important aspects. This implies that governments play a vital role in shaping and supporting internet development in a way that encompasses human rights and reduces inequalities, aligning with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16.

In conclusion, the Global Digital Compact Process has successfully energized the IGF community, bringing attention to their work and fostering engagement. However, there is a need for more clarity and forward-looking perspectives to enhance and broaden Internet Governance. The complexity of multilateral and multi-stakeholder governance forms is also highlighted. Additionally, improving governance, accountability, and cooperation within and between these forms is crucial. The Global Digital Compact process and the Summit of the Future focus on internet development and its intersection with broader governance, aligning closely with the SDGs. Finally, the role of governments as enablers of people-centered development, human rights, and inclusion is emphasized as a crucial aspect of internet governance.

Audience

The discussions on the Global Digital Compact (GDC) involve various perspectives from stakeholders. One argument is that the final stage negotiations of the GDC should remain open for contributions from multiple stakeholders. The EuroDIG community unanimously supports this stance and is ready to provide further inputs. The upcoming EuroDIG event encourages participation to gather stakeholder input for the future of the internet.

Another perspective is the role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in implementing the principles and commitments of the Compact. The goal is to achieve a free, open, secure, and sustainable digital future. The IGF is seen as a key platform for inclusive dialogue and stakeholder participation, specifically for SDG 9 on industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

Civil society voices are also important in the GDC process. Some argue for more involvement at the global level, while others advocate for greater participation at the country level. The objective is to ensure inclusivity and address the needs of marginalized communities.

Stakeholder engagement and active involvement are crucial for innovation in internet governance. It is believed that effective governance can only be achieved when all stakeholders are directly involved. Therefore, the UN should shift from consulting to actively involving stakeholders in decision-making processes.

Transparency and public involvement in negotiations are important. There is support for public involvement in governance issues and greater transparency in the GDC process.

Inclusivity and stakeholder mechanisms are discussed in relation to challenges with certain member states. Questions are raised about how to include stakeholders when member states are not inclusive or unwilling to work with critical voices. The aim is to find mechanisms that ensure all perspectives are considered.

Digital inclusion and reducing the digital divide are also important in the GDC process. The focus is on bridging the divide and providing access to quality digital technologies and connectivity for all.

Gender equality and intersectionality should be considered in the GDC process. Some argue for a feminist and intersectional approach to create a gender-just world. This includes addressing environmental impact, promoting women’s leadership in tech, and protecting against gender-based violence online.

Energy consumption of the internet is a concern. There is a need to focus on reducing energy consumption while ensuring reliable internet access.

The role of the IGF and its relation to the GDC are discussed. The relation should be clarified to avoid competition for resources and attention.

Accountability mechanisms in global compacts and partnerships are another area of concern. Stronger mechanisms are needed, and developed countries should support the capacity-building efforts of developing countries.

In conclusion, the discussions on the Global Digital Compact involve various perspectives, including multistakeholder contributions, the role of the IGF, civil society involvement, stakeholder engagement, transparency, digital inclusion, gender equality, energy consumption, the role of the IGF, and accountability in global compacts. The focus is on creating a fair and inclusive digital future by considering the perspectives and needs of different stakeholders.

Raul Echeberri

The high-level panel on digital cooperation, created by the UN Secretary-General, highlights the significant focus on digital cooperation within the UN’s agenda. Raul Echeberri welcomes this and considers digital cooperation a central point in the Secretary-General’s agenda. However, there are concerns about the inclusivity of the Global Digital Compact process. Raul suggests conducting more consultations at the regional level and involving the private sector to a greater extent. The private sector’s diverse interests, sectors, sizes of companies, and regional origins need to be considered in the Global Digital Compact process.

Active participation and involvement in consultations are emphasized, with several governments working hard to organize them. Raul himself participated in some contributions. Preferred sessions and formats for consultations are those that allow for more comfortable community engagement rather than just submitting comments.

There is a need for more opportunities for non-governmental stakeholders to participate in the Global Digital Compact process, with reference to the 2005 summit involvement. The expectation is that innovations will improve the process, but no specific evidence is provided to support this claim.

The similarities between the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)’s key agenda topics and the issues in the shared paper for the Global Digital Compact are noted, validating the IGF as a valuable venue for discussing the compact.

A positive outlook on technology evolution is expressed, with the belief that technology should be embraced positively as it continues to evolve.

The argument is made for the need to speed up innovation in every country to achieve inclusive development. Technology is expected to play a significant role in achieving equitable development.

The Global Digital Compact is expected to inspire and bring hope, with inspiration drawn from the message of the Prime Minister of Japan regarding optimizing technology benefits while reducing risk.

Caution is advised against creating new bureaucracies in the compact process, as this may create additional barriers for the participation of developing and small countries. It is important to ensure equal opportunities for participation and contribution.

Existing venues like the IGF are seen as capable of effectively handling challenges, eliminating the need for increased governmental control. The argument is made for multistakeholder mechanisms in digital governance to allow for the full participation of all stakeholders.

The role of governments in creating enabling environments for inclusive development and accelerating innovation is emphasized. It is crucial to ensure that the positive impact of technology benefits everyone worldwide.

Lastly, there is a call for more stakeholder participation and the strengthening of the IGF. More opportunities for stakeholder engagement are needed in the process towards the future summit, with the recommendation to maintain the IGF as the central venue for dealing with the issues at hand.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the importance of digital cooperation in the UN’s agenda, with the establishment of the high-level panel. Concerns are raised about the inclusivity of the Global Digital Compact process, and the involvement of the private sector and active participation from all stakeholders is advocated. Technology, equitable development, and government involvement in creating enabling environments are identified as key factors. Stakeholder participation and the strengthening of existing venues like the IGF are seen as crucial for effectively addressing the challenges of digital governance and achieving the goals of the Global Digital Compact.

Valeria Bettancourt

The Global Digital Compact process has received criticism for a lack of clarity and timely information provision, which hampers meaningful engagement and participation of civil society actors. There is a need for the Global Digital Compact to establish clear linkages with existing processes as the scope of Internet-related public policy issues expands and the distinction between digital and non-digital becomes blurred. Inclusion should be prioritized in the process, considering the social and economic impacts of the global pandemic. Efforts must be made to prevent the exclusion of those who are most affected by digitalization, and to challenge perspectives that maintain the status quo.

Addressing digital inequality and injustice is essential to ensure an inclusive digital transition and prevent developing countries from being left behind. Trade rules are used to weaken the digital rights of countries, particularly in the global south. International financial institutions need to make new commitments and big tech companies should be subjected to taxation to address these concerns.

The digital transition should prioritize creating public and social value, as well as expanding human freedoms. The successful implementation of the Global Digital Compact will require financial mechanisms and the strengthening of digital infrastructure skills and regulatory capacities for all countries.

The Human Rights Charter and the International Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights should serve as the basis for evaluating commitment to an open, free, and secure digital future. Existing processes such as the Universal Periodic Review and the Sustainable Development Goals can be utilized to further this objective.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should be strengthened to bridge the gap between liberative spaces and decision-making processes. Challenging the belief that big tech cannot be regulated is crucial. Global digital governance should establish conditions for equity and fairness. A feminist, sustainable, and transformative vision is necessary for a digital future that is open, free, and secure, and which promotes gender equality, reduces inequalities, and fosters industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

In conclusion, the Global Digital Compact process needs to address issues of clarity, linkages with existing processes, inclusion, digital inequality, trade rules, public and social value, human rights, financial mechanisms, taxation, the role of the IGF, and the need for a feminist and transformative vision. By considering these factors, the Global Digital Compact can work towards a more equitable and inclusive digital future.

Moderator 1

Upon analysing the statements made by the speakers, several key points emerged:

1. The first speaker argues that the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) plays a crucial role in facilitating discussions on global digital compact issues. They believe that the topics covered in the issues paper closely align with the agenda of the IGF, underscoring the forum’s value and relevance.

2. The second speaker advocates for embracing the positive evolution of technology. They argue that rather than resisting technological advancements, societies should adopt a positive approach towards them. The speaker believes that technology has the potential to significantly contribute to global development, aligning with SDG 9, which emphasises the importance of industry, innovation, and infrastructure. However, no specific evidence or examples were provided to support this argument.

3. The third speaker highlights the need to ensure that technological benefits are accessible to everyone globally. They emphasise the importance of achieving equitable development and reducing inequalities that arise from unequal technology distribution. This argument aligns with SDG 10, which focuses on reducing inequality. Unfortunately, no supporting evidence or specific examples were provided to strengthen this point.

It is worth noting that both the first and third speakers expressed positive sentiments regarding their respective topics. However, the lack of supporting evidence weakens the overall strength of their arguments.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the significance of the Internet Governance Forum as a platform for discussing global digital compact issues. It also highlights the importance of embracing technology’s positive evolution and ensuring equitable access to its benefits worldwide. While the arguments put forth by the speakers are compelling, the absence of supporting evidence or specific examples diminishes their impact.

Bitange Ndemo

During the discussion, speakers focused on several key topics related to technology and innovation. They emphasised the significant role of the internet during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in teaching and empowering micro-enterprises to leverage digital platforms for business. This highlights the internet’s ability to facilitate continuity and growth in challenging times. The sentiment expressed towards the internet was overwhelmingly positive.

Another important aspect discussed was the need for regulation in new technologies. The speakers highlighted the rush of people toward regulating these technologies and suggested that The Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) could provide guidance to governments on how to effectively regulate new technologies. While the sentiment towards regulation was positive, the speakers noted the importance of open discussions on standards and regulations in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). This neutral sentiment indicates the need for careful consideration in establishing appropriate standards and regulations.

The positive impact of digitalisation and innovation on young people was also emphasised. The speakers acknowledged that digitalisation has enabled young people to leverage technology for innovation, leading to productivity improvements. This highlights the value of providing opportunities for young people to explore their potential and contribute to economic growth. The sentiment towards this topic was largely positive.

The discussion also touched upon the relationship between innovation and regulation. It was argued that innovation should be allowed to take place openly before implementing regulation. The speakers believed that innovation precedes regulation and should not be stifled by unnecessary restrictions. This viewpoint suggests a positive sentiment towards embracing innovation and allowing it to flourish.

Language barriers were identified as a challenge in achieving internet access and inclusivity. The speakers noted that even with 100% internet coverage, language differences can prevent individuals from fully utilising the internet. To address this issue, the speakers suggested leveraging AI technologies, such as Language Learning Models (LLMs), to overcome language barriers. The sentiment towards this topic was neutral, indicating a recognition of the problem without offering a strong opinion on the solution.

In terms of AI, the speakers presented a positive stance, viewing it as an opportunity rather than a threat. They highlighted how AI can eliminate errors in marking academic essays and reduce reliance on outdated theories and rote memorisation in education. This highlights the potential of AI to enhance the quality of education. The sentiment towards AI in education was positive.

The convergence of thought regarding the future of the internet and individual human rights was also highlighted. The speakers referred to a previous session on the declaration of the future of the internet, which addressed similar issues. This convergence suggests a positive sentiment towards aligning the development of the internet with the protection of individual rights.

In terms of policymaking, the speakers emphasised the importance of inclusive development and involving civil society in discussions. They shared personal experiences of benefitting from engaging with stakeholders and civil society as policymakers. The sentiment towards this was mixed, with a negative view on governments sometimes excluding civil society from discussions. The speakers advocated for more open and inclusive policymaking with stakeholder involvement, recognising the value of diverse perspectives in policymaking processes.

In conclusion, the discussion highlighted the essential role of the internet during the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for regulation in new technologies. There was recognition of the positive impact of digitalisation and innovation on young people, and the importance of allowing innovation to take place openly before regulation. Language barriers were identified as a challenge to internet access and inclusivity, suggesting the use of AI technologies as a potential solution. The speakers viewed AI as an opportunity and emphasised the convergence of thought between the future of the internet and human rights. They advocated for more inclusive policymaking with stakeholder involvement, recognising the value of civil society contributions. This comprehensive analysis provides valuable insights into the various perspectives and considerations related to technology and innovation.

Moderator 1:
Hello, good morning, and good afternoon and good evening for everyone online as well. It’s nice seeing so many people in this session. We are starting very shortly. We have still one speaker who is on his way, but I think, Henriette, we can start slowly. So hello, everybody. My name is Jorge Cancio. I work for the Swiss government, and I have the pleasure of being co-moderator of this session with Henriette Oesterhuizen. So welcome to this session about the Global Digital Compact, a session organized by the multistakeholder advisory group of the IGF, and the title of the session is the GDC and Beyond a Multistakeholder Perspective. For this, we have indeed a multistakeholder panel with us today. We have Paul Wilson from APNIC, from the technical community, who is coming. I see him there. Hello, Paul. Faster, Paul, faster. I’m sorry, this is perhaps Swiss punctuality, or Japanese, of course. We try to be on time here, and we have Valeria Betancourt from the Association for Progressive Communications, civil society, she comes from a Gulag country, Raul Echevarria from the private sector, also Gulag. Constance Deleuze, she will be joining us virtually. On video, she is from the Project Liberty Institute Academia, based in a Wyok country. Then we have also the pleasure of having with us Ambassador Bitange Ndemo, Ambassador to Belgium from the Kenyan government, who was very much involved in the excellent IGF of 2011 in Nairobi. And of course, we have the pleasure of having with us Amandeep Gill, the Under-Secretary General and Envoy for Technology of the UN Secretary General from India. So with this, I think that the session, we will try to have it as interactive as possible. We have broadly structured it in three segments. A segment on the process, a process towards the Global Digital Compact. We are in midst of this process, but still a way to come to the outcomes. A second segment about the content of the Global Digital Compact. What will be there in this very important document? And finally, what will come after once the GDC is adopted? What will be the follow-up and the review? And in each segment, we will have statements, short statements, two minutes each from our panelists. And then we will go to the audience. And this will be repeated in each of these three segments. And we will finalize with one-minute takeaways from our panelists. So, Anne-Marie.

Moderator 2:
Thanks very much. I think that’s a really good point, and I think we need to think about the future of the Internet Governance Forum. I think that’s a really good point, and I think we need to think about the future of the Internet Governance Forum. Thank you very much, Jorge. I don’t have much more to add in terms of introduction, and I think the GDC is the global digital compact is not new to us, and I think it’s just really worth reflecting on the fact that there’s been a lot of debate around it, there’s been a lot of concern about what it might look like, and I think it’s the moment that we have to acknowledge and to think about the future of the Internet Governance Forum. On the positive end, I think what we really need to acknowledge and actually celebrate about this process is that it has galvanized this community, it’s made the IGF think about its place in the world, and where this place is heading. It has opened up engagement. The Internet Governance Community has a tendency to become quite insular, and I think the global community has a tendency to become quite insular, and I think that’s a good thing. I think it’s a good thing that we have this community of other processes in the world that deal with bigger and broader issues that also intersect with the issues that we deal with. And then I think it has also brought us to the attention and the work that has been done within the Internet Governance Forum, within the national and regional IGF initiatives, to the attention of people that were not aware of it. And I think that’s a good thing, and I think it’s a good thing that we have this community of other processes in the world that are opening up, reflecting, and engaging. So I really look forward to this panel taking us on that path, providing more clarity, but also being really forward-looking on how this process can actually strengthen and broaden the work that has been done in this space. So we’ll go, we’ll start. I’m going to start on that end. I’m going to ask Paul to open up the panel. We’ll change the direction, but, Paul, can you please open for us?

Paul Wilson:
Thank you. Thank you, Henriette. Apologies to the moderator. Look, I do want to say that as governments move into the GDC negotiations that it’s just so important not to take the internet for granted. I mean the stability, the availability, the efficiency, the scalability, everything that is intrinsic to the internet layer and I’m speaking as a member of the technical community here so I’m talking about the internet as the layer on which everything else depends and it is almost invisible and it is very easy to take it for granted. But the thing is regardless of the GDC of course and what the process is, whether it’s a multistakeholder or multilateral or something in between, the internet can only continue to thrive, the internet as we see it and the technical community can only continue to thrive on the continuing cooperation of all of the relevant stakeholders and without that there are critical qualities of the internet that are at risk of or will inevitably over time become fragmented or compromised. I’d like to just remember that multistakeholder internet governance was not an invention of the WSIS in 2005, it was a discovery by the Working Group on Internet Governance that the multistakeholder nature of internet governance was a key and is still a key today to the internet’s success. I’d like to say that for the GDC to be also successful it needs to recognise the multistakeholder cooperation that has been with us for so long, including over the last 20 years while it has been under the microscope and also not take that for granted, because the thing is that cooperation of any kind and particularly not global cooperation as we see it here, it never comes for free. work on the part of everyone involved that’s costly and it’s challenging, and that it can also be fragile. I think it absolutely warrants recognition in this process, it warrants encouragement and it warrants support, and I really hope that’s the goal of the GDC, at least in terms of the objectives related to the internet. Thanks.

Moderator 2:
Thank you. Thank you.

Bitange Ndemo:
I think this comes at the right time and I think everybody by now understands that internet is very key to our lives. Going through COVID-19, we were able to teach throughout that year, which put people aside. We worked with micro enterprises to leverage some of the platforms to do business. So this is a very important space and GDC comes at the right time to perhaps give government directions with respect to regulation. We see people rushing to regulate new technologies at the moment. We hope that we can have such discussions through multi-stakeholders to provide the best of regulations, especially in AI. We also need to talk about standards across the world. So many things are happening, innovation, young people leveraging digitalization to innovate. We have seen productivity improvements and we need to create a space for conversations to ensure that all this happens as we move forward. I think I’ll stop there. Thank you.

Moderator 2:
Thanks, Pitangue. Raul.

Raul Echeberri:
Thank you very much, Henriette. First of all, I think that we should recognize and be very happy to see that this has been a central point. the agenda of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, so it’s very good to see that finally the topics that we discuss, the issues that we discuss here, go to the top in the international agenda. And there has been a consistent path since the creation of the high-level panel on digital cooperation, so those are very good news. With regard to the process itself of the Global Digital Compact, I feel really that we could have contributed more and better, and it shows the complexity and the difficulty of organising a really global and inclusive process. The world is very big and the diversity is also very, very big, and I had the feeling that we could have had more consultations, probably through more partners, involving more people, because a Mandeep team cannot do everything. But maybe we could have organised more events, consultations at the regional level, involving more people. I feel that there is a large part of the community that comes from the private sector, so the small companies, small private sector associations, that are not aware of what is happening. In fact, I was in Montevideo, Uruguay, two weeks ago, in a global summit of parliamentarians. Some of them mentioned the Global Digital Compact and the Tech Envoy and other things, but I realised that the majority of the people were not aware of the processes. I don’t know how to fix it at this point, but speaking about the process, I have that feeling that we could have contributed more than that. With regard to my final point, with regard to the private sector, it’s a highly diverse constituency. because there are diversity of interests, diversity of sectors, but also diversity of sizes of companies and the regional origins, so it is difficult to involve everybody and we have to work more on that.

Moderator 2:
Thanks, Raul. Valeria?

Valeria Bettancourt:
Thank you very much, Andriet. I want to use this opportunity to bring up some of the issues that civil society organizations, including the one that I am part of, have identified as critical in regards to the process. The aspirations of the Global Digital Compact as an opportunity to strengthen the multistakeholder approach have faded. This aspiration had to do with building and expanding on the principles adopted by the WSIS in terms of multistakeholder participation, acknowledging that multilateral and multistakeholder global digital governance are not mutually exclusive and that both are really necessary to respond to the different and distributed ways and spaces in which global digital governance is undertaken. So far, the trend has been the lack of timely information provision for a meaningful engagement and participation of civil society actors, including clarity on what the whole process is aiming at, what the format and outcome will be, and how the input provided through the regional and global consultations, the call for contributions, and the deep dives will continue to be used. Humanity and the planet are experiencing the social and economic impacts of a global pandemic resulting in emerging and exacerbated structural inequality and injustice, an overlapping crisis, including the unprecedented climate emergency. The expectation was that the Global Digital Compact would establish clear linkages with other existing and ongoing processes and spaces in the midst of a rapidly changing context in which the scope of Internet-related public policy issues keeps expanding and the separation of digital from non-digital is diffused. So no open, free, and secure digital future for all can be shaped by excluding the voices and realities of the most affected by digitalization of all aspects of life and allowing the predominance of interest oriented to keep the status quo. The GDC could replicate the model of the WSIS Plus 10 review in which the primary participants were governments, of course, in accordance to its intergovernmental character, but which also allowed the possibility of effective and real engagement of other stakeholders in the preparatory and negotiation process. Inclusion should be the norm, not the opposite, not the contrary.

Moderator 2:
Thanks, Valeria. Amandeep, as usual, you’re the one that has to be put on the spot.

Amandeep Singh Gill:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Anjit. And I think Valeria has set it up very nicely for me. I like this reference to the non-digital challenges that we face. a standalone product or a process, it’s part of the highway to the summit of the future where there are these different tracks on those urgent non-digital issues. The debt crisis, the need for reform of the global financial architecture, the need to progress on the SDGs, the need to build new frameworks for peace, the new agenda for peace track. So the GDC should be seen as part of those, that larger picture, and it indeed is coming out of the Our Common Agenda report where this is just one of the 12 important areas that are mentioned for the international community to rally around. Now, the second thing I want to say is that we’ve just come through the first phase of the process, and that was the consultations phase. And within the limitations of time and resources, you know, I have a very small team with a very small budget. I think the team has done a phenomenal job. The co-facilitators have done a phenomenal job of getting more than 7,000 entities to contribute inputs, not only those eight thematic deep dives and other consultations in New York, but also consultations in Geneva, in many other places, regional consultations in Africa, Latin America, and in Asia. And that continues. And later this week, there’ll be a consultation in Korea, in Seoul, for the Asia-Pacific region. So we will keep that up, that inclusive, open process of consultations, listening in, reflecting what is happening inside the room. That will continue. So in many ways, as you’ve seen in the Secretary General’s statement and in the policy brief on the Global Digital Compact, this is an opportunity to also push the multi-stakeholder paradigm into new areas, new venues, and enhance participation. In a sense, when there is some method to this madness, you look back at the high-level panel on digital cooperation, this is programmed inflammation. One of my yoga teachers talks about programmed inflammation. So you need to kind of get, if you want to get the ecosystem to the next level, because tech is not waiting, the challenges are not waiting. They are multiplying exponentially. So we need to take the ecosystem to the next level of agility, dynamism, responsiveness. So the Secretary General’s vision on digital cooperation is inspired by that. So this is the next level of programmed inflammation. So obviously, when you are pushed to grow, there is, you know, from the body and the mind, there is some lethargy, there’s some resistance. And I think this is where some of the kind of, you know, sometimes, oh, what is happening? Where are we going? Et cetera, those kind of questions come. But stay tuned in, participate, as you’ve been doing in a fantastic manner. Adi Sababa helped inform the consultation process. And starting with this IJF, we are going to be informing the negotiation phase. I’m glad to see the Ambassador of Rwanda join us with his team. So the co-facilitators would appreciate your active engagement going forward.

Moderator 2:
Thanks very much, Amamdeep. And thanks, everyone, for mostly keeping to the time limit. Our final speaker, Konstanz Baumler-Deleuze, is not with us. So I think, Jorge, we can go ahead and get input from the audience.

Moderator 1:
That’s great. Yes, as we said at the beginning, we’re trying to have this session as interactive as possible and not waiting for the audience at the end of the session. So we have the privilege of counting now with the intervention from Ms. Agnes Vaciukivei-Ciute. I’m sorry for the pronunciation. Deputy Minister of Transport and Communications from Lithuania. The floor is yours.

Audience:
So good morning, everyone. It was very interesting to listen to all the speeches. I think we all have the same goal for the future of internet. And I would like to intervene on behalf of the EuroDIG stakeholders community, which has been engaged throughout the United Nations Secretary-General’s process on digital. cooperation. It is important now for the final stages of the negotiations of the Global Digital Compact in the United Nations to continue to be open to multistakeholder contributions. I think all the panelists agreed on this approach. Following the Summit of the Future next year, the IGF should have a central role in the implementation of the Compact’s principles and commitments to action for achieving an open, free, inclusive, secure, and sustainable digital future for all. I had fruitful discussions with the EuroDIG’s community in Vilnius and here in Japan, in IGF, so I can confirm they stand ready to provide a European channel for further stakeholder inputs. So I’m very proud to announce and invite all of you to participate in EuroDIG, which will take place next June in Vilnius, Lithuania. And I hope that the next year, and as colleagues mentioned, this is only the first step. So I think from the audience and all the panelists, the drive is to know more about the whole process and steps ahead. And I hope that the discussions and negotiations for the next year will be very fruitful, and we will come up with a future of Internet we all want. So thank you very much.

Moderator 1:
Thanks so much for that input, for those thoughts, and for being on time. We have four mics here, and in the good IGF tradition, you can line up and speak. We have time for three or four, perhaps, speakers. You have two minutes. Please share your thoughts. I see the gentleman. And introduce yourself. Yes, please.

Audience:
This is H.M. Bhojlu Rahman. I come from Bangladesh Internet Governance Programme. We have been involved with the Global Digital Compact process from the beginning, and we have already participated in the deep dive under the leadership of UNTEC. Thank you very much for involving us. summit of the future, there is no civil society space. So I would appreciate if you could allow us, if you could provide some spaces for the civil society voices from the country level. Thank you very much.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much. This is a direct input and I see a gentleman there, Jordan Carter, the floor is yours.

Audience:
Thank you, Jorge. Good morning, everyone. Jordan Carter from the .au domain administration, speaking personally. I agree with the comments about the need to be innovative in these processes, and I think that the multistakeholder Internet governance community has a lot of benefit it can add, but it shouldn’t just be seen as offering input on a consultation basis. I think the UN system needs to consider innovations that it can deliver to the negotiation process as well, and not just, again, consultation, but active engagement and involvement. I know given the nature of the UN and the multilateral system that that is a big thing to ask, but I think if we have a genuine belief that Internet and digital governance happens best by genuinely involving the stakeholders, not only to hear their points of view, but to help genuinely shape the decisions by being in the room, that is an innovation that could be done. And it isn’t necessarily an innovation because it’s been done before in the WSIS context and in other contexts. So my urging to everyone involved, to all of the representatives, particularly of member state governments who are here, because you are the key players in the UN system, is to take some innovations into this process itself to shift the dial from consulting us to involving us. Thank you.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much, Jordan. And as a government representative, I take note of that, of course. Don’t be shy. Come forward to the mic. But of course. course, is there any intervention, perhaps, online? Anghiet is multitasking so well.

Moderator 2:
Total support for the comments from Jordan Carter. I mean, I think I’ll just add, and maybe a question for the panelists when they respond to this, is that are we perhaps also underestimating the complexity of two very different forms of governance, both of which are imperfect in their own ways, and both which require a fair amount of evolution and improvement, multilateral and multi-stakeholder, that we need to get them to engage and be more complementary? And maybe we’re still in the phase where we’re kind of head bashing, and we still need to move towards the innovation that Jordan was talking about. And is there an online comment? Nnena Nwakanma has her hand. Can she be unmuted, please? She wants to speak. Nnena, please go ahead. She’s still muted. Nnena, you could type your question if you wanted to. And then we could, I don’t have a host. Great, we can hear you. Please go ahead.

Audience:
Thank you, Anne-Marie. Hello, everyone. Just a quick one. As we go into the negotiation phase, we do understand that this is mainly governmental. And like someone has said, we would love for it to be more than that. However, my submission would be that regular updates on these negotiations need to be made public so that we can follow. The reason I’m saying this is that I am participating in Kyoto online. And while we might be happy with negotiations that will happen in New York, it is very important that GDC recognizes that the greater parts of the GDC community are neither in New York. are not online and may need to follow things in other ways. So my submission will be that while negotiations are going on, the summaries will be regularly updated on the site of the UN Tech Invoice. Thank you very much.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much, Nnenna. And I think we have to keep moving because we have covered the timing for the first segment. But thank you so much for those interventions. I think-

Moderator 2:
Jorge, I just want to read one short question from Fiona Alexander. What changes can we see in the process going forward?

Moderator 1:
Okay, good question. Perhaps it’s something that panelists may weave in in their next statements. Raul, do you have a short intervention to that? Okay.

Raul Echeberri:
Yes, I think that’s what Jordan says is very important about the kind of participation and involvement. And this is, I don’t doubt that there were thousands of contributions. In fact, I participated in some contributions and there were several governments working hard in organizing the consultations. But clearly, it’s clear that we feel in this community more comfortable with this kind of sessions and formats of consultations than just submitting comments. And I think that’s what Fiona says and also Nnenna is crucial that toward the summit of the future, we have opportunities to participate for non-governmental stakeholders in the process as we did, or even better than we did in 2005 for which we would expect that we could improve the process and innovate in that sense.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much, Raul. Maybe short reaction?

Amandeep Singh Gill:
Yes, so several good comments and I love the point about building on the innovation that are already there. on multi-stakeholder participation, this kind of how do we square the circle between multilateral processes and multi-stakeholder, not just participation, but deeper engagement. We don’t have the perfect answer anywhere, so I’m a student of international learning in a historical sense. We really don’t have a perfect answer, but we have innovations out there. The cybercrime treaty negotiations, the negotiations involving the chemical industry recently that UNEP facilitated, and the negotiations, even on difficult, sensitive issues like lethal autonomous weapon systems, where with some inventiveness, you found a way to bring in experts into the discussions. So the co-facilitators are here, and they are listening to all these suggestions, and I’m sure working with member states, they would find a way to make sure that this is as open, as inclusive, as engaging as possible. Nena made this point about briefings, so intersessional engagement with different stakeholders has been a part of the approach that’s been adopted during the cybercrime treaty negotiations. So I would like to add, in addition to the suggestion that we’ve heard, I’d like to urge you also to work with the member states that you live in, that you work with, so that you can get into the delegations, get to engage the delegations more, particularly the delegations in New York and in Geneva. So we have to work at this problem from several angles. It is, there’s no magic fix to this.

Moderator 1:
Amandeep. This is a great segue to the next part of our conversation, and as you said before, and as we commented, we are at the midst of this process. We have seen a policy brief, and recently we have seen the issues paper, a very summarized version of what the deep dives and the many consultations have brought on the table from the perspective of the co-facilitators. So perhaps, and of course this is a provisional state of the situation, what would be your point of view, of your panelists, of what is worthwhile having in the GDC, what is still lacking, what could be innovations to bring really added value, a new substance into this global framework on digital cooperation. Maybe if I may, I would start with you, Amandeep, and you can give us.

Amandeep Singh Gill:
Of course, issues in the digital universe are many, many, and you had to organize them, and I think that those eight issues are a nice way of organizing the substance. And there has been in the imports, in the commentaries, et cetera, there have been suggestions, how do you tweak this, perhaps we need a greater emphasis on the digital economy, the kind of data for development, digital for development issues that are emerging rapidly. AI already finds a good place in the current structuring of issues. Again, there is an upsurge of interest, and I’m sure there is some time before the negotiation phase starts, plenty of time for the co-facilitators and their teams to think about how to organize for the next phase. I don’t think there is anything missing, it’s just a question of emphasis. If you look at the Secretary-General’s policy brief, again, this was a challenge for us across the UN system, all the UN entities working to help the Secretary-General prepare that policy brief. How do we bring it down to a solid vision? How do we structure that vision? So there’s threefold framing, bridging the digital divide, accelerating progress on the SDGs. Second, addressing the harms online, protecting and promoting human rights, digital trust and security type of issues. And third, the governance side of it, the agile governance, the responsive governance side of it, with particular reference to AI. So that was one way to bring it all together to a strategic level. And then those different action areas, they followed the co-facilitators’ lead in terms of the structuring of the issues, principles, objectives and example actions under those objectives. Because it will not be enough to have only principles. We have a surfeit of principles in the digital domain. We need to move to action frameworks, to commitments, and a way to follow up on those commitments. That is the potential for value addition from the Global Digital Compact.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much, Amandeep. So we have more flesh on the bones and more flesh to react on. Valeria.

Valeria Bettancourt:
Thank you, Jorge. Well, global digital cooperation is at a crossroads. The gains of connectivity are uneven and digital exclusion, including the gender digital gap, are preventing many to embrace the benefits of the digital revolution. So social and economic injustice and inequality present an urgent challenge to development and democracy. So if the agenda 2030 is to be realized, and if the Global Digital Compact is meant to contribute to it, bold and committed actions are needed to first take the benefits of digitalization to all countries and people. Second, govern digital resources in a transparent, inclusive, and accountable manner, protecting the public core of the internet. And third, may digital policies and law fit for catalyzing innovation that counts. We need definitely a paradigm shift, one that address digital inequality paradox. As more people are connected, digital inequality is amplified as all technologies converge into the larger phenomenon of digitalization. The threat that the digital revolution bypasses developing countries becomes more real. So this is not just about access to the internet. It is about the complex issues of quality of such access, affordability, and equal participation of countries in the global regime that set the rules of the game. And for people everywhere to have the skills to reap the opportunities of this paradigm. So it is paramount to understand that we have to bridge the gap between those who have technological and financial resources to use the internet and other digital technologies to transact, to prosper, to contribute to wealth of nations and others who don’t. So the powerful countries use free trade agreements to stifle digital rights of peoples and countries in the global south in particular. So trade rules are used to arm twist governments to hyper-liberalize data flows, take away local autonomy of public authorities to govern transnational. the monopoly corporations, and their algorithms, prevent the scrutiny of source code, and legitimise a permanent dependence of the developing countries on the monopoly corporations controlling data and AI power, so this kind of infrastructural dependence is equivalent to a neo-colonial extractivist order. The unfinished business of the WSIS can not be forgotten, and this is the reason why the WSIS is so important, and why the WSIS is so important, and why it is so important that the technologies that have emerged in the last two decades have to be addressed by the global digital compact. It is really necessary to enable political, regulatory, technical, technological, and financial conditions to increase the individual and collective agency and autonomy, and choice of people to connect to digital technology and spaces, as well as to ensure that people have the right to vote, and to participate in the democratic process. The WSIS is one base on human rights, intersectional and feminist frameworks to address the geopolitics of global inequality and injustice. The conclusive test for well-guided digital transition is in the public, collective, and social value it can create, and the human freedoms that it can expand.

Moderator 1:
Thank you very much for those thoughts, and, Raul, what’s your take?

Raul Echeberri:
Thank you, Jorge. I think that the issues paper that was shared very recently is a good collection of the points that have to be in the global digital compact, and it is very interesting to see that the similarities between the list of issues and the topics that are central for the agenda of IGF, so it means, between brackets, it means that IGF is a very valid and valuable venue to discuss those issues. What I would hope from, what I would expect from the GDC, I expect a positive emphasis in relation with technology. That’s the technology evolution will not stop, and we need humankind to embrace the technology evolution in a positive manner, so I would expect to have a message of hope and a call to speed up innovation in every country around the world, and to work hard to really achieve that the technologies help to have a more equitable development across the globe. that the benefits of the technology evolution is reached to everybody in the world. So it could not be just a regulatory approach or over-regulatory approach to the technologies. This is what I would expect. And I think that the message from the Prime Minister of Japan yesterday was very inspiring in that sense. He said something, I don’t want to quote the Prime Minister, but he said something like we cannot ignore the problems that we have, but we can optimize the benefits of technology reducing the risk, something like that. And so I think that this is very inspiring and this is the direction that the CDC should have trying to bring really a hope for humankind that’s a positive. We cannot just, we cannot try to stop the technology evolution, but we have to work to make that the technology evolution is good for everybody in the world. Thank you.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much, Raul. Very important thoughts. It’s really the task or one of the tasks of our time to really find that balance. Now Bitange, what’s your view on this?

Bitange Ndemo:
Yeah, I would explain this by giving just two examples. In 2007, one of the operators was looking for approval to allow digital money and that was what we call impersonal and we thought about it, there were too many spaces, government was fearing, but eventually took the risk and M-PESA went through a lot of inclusivity now when people talk in retrospect. If we can be able to understand here that innovation precedes regulation because what I’m seeing now with the prospect of AI is that people want to regulate before we are out there to do innovations. Having been a teacher for many years and having seen some of the applications in AI in education, some of us grew through the theories of Plato, the philosophies of Plato where children had to memorize everything and you come to get shocked what you memorize that is a theory that you needed to understand a couple of years ago. There are so many problems in education. One that everybody can relate to, that if you mark 30 essays and you give it to 10 other people, they would all make mistakes. But with the new technologies, such problems would go. If we can make sure that either we agree universally that we allow the innovations to take place, that we can be able to see, in this period of augmentation, especially in education, we could do much more to the world than just coming out and saying the propaganda about AI. It is bad. It’s going to take human beings and stuff. That’s what I can say about this.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much, Bitange. Of course, education is one of the basic pillars also of this digital world. Paul, what’s your take?

Paul Wilson:
Thank you. I think the GDC needs to truly acknowledge where we are and what we have already and build from here. I mean, one of the objectives of the GDC is an inclusive, open, secure, and shared internet. But we still have 33% of people still to connect. And I’d say out of the 66 connected, a lot who still need what we call meaningful internet connectivity. And it means we’re still in growth. We’re still in growth of connectivity, and accessibility, and content, and capability of the internet. And so the growth pains of the last 20 years that we’ve all felt, that we’ve all responded to, that this whole process is aiming to address, these growth pains are going to continue with building capacity, and infrastructure, and integrity, and security. They’re going to continue and require our cooperation. And people have asked me, why are we still talking about internet governance? And the answer is because the internet is changing, and growing, and new challenges are. are coming along constantly, and we’ve got incredible innovations so far, famously across the internet, but also in this room and in this process. And so I really think that while we’re in growth, we need to continue to use and build on those innovations, not to rearrange the deck chairs wantonly or to simply overlook what we’ve got. I think we need to continue the work of bringing benefits of the internet to more people, and urgently, and so out of respect for all of the work that’s been done and recognition for all of the work that’s been done, but also for the sake of sheer efficiency and the urgency of, let’s say, of overcoming the digital issues and paying attention to the non-digital issues that Valeria has mentioned, let’s recognize this and build on it. Thanks.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much. I see that Vitanga has an urgent reaction to that.

Bitange Ndemo:
I think he raises a good point. Even if we had 100 per cent coverage of internet globally, still a good percentage of people would not be able to be on internet simply because of language, and AI has come, all these LLMs, we need to enable these people through their local languages to be able to do something online. That is what I can call inclusivity.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much, Vitanga. Andrea.

Moderator 2:
We have, my apologies if I look like I’ve been on my screen. I’ve been having connectivity issues, believe it or not, so apologies to online participants if I’ve missed your questions, but we have a hand from Omar Farouk. Omar, do you want to speak? I’m trying to unmute you here. I’ve lost my connection again. So can you unmute him, please? I’m Rita. And Omar, just … briefly introduce yourself and keep your intervention short. Is there another question? Amrita, just switch on your mic and please read the questions. And to our tech team over there, I’m afraid I can’t unmute people because my connection keeps dropping. Do you not? Thank you, thank you Amrita. Sorry about that.

Audience:
So this is a question from Jyoti Pandey. She asks, what is the mechanism to include stakeholders in the scenario of member states not being inclusive or not wanting to work with critical voices?

Moderator 2:
Thanks for that. And I see Omar still has his hand up and I cannot unmute him. Thanks a lot, Amrita. Shall we take another question in the meantime? Over there, Nigel, and introduce yourself and then we’ll move over here. And I had a bet with Jorge that there’ll be more people coming to the mics when I’m moderating the open segment. So please help me win that bet.

Audience:
Thank you. I am Nigel Casimir from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union which is an intergovernmental organization of 20 member states and territories in the Caribbean. And we are following the processes of the GDC development on behalf of the Caribbean, our member states essentially. However, we being generally small island developing states, that’s the kind of perspective that we are bringing into the discussion. And we’ve heard many of the panelists talk about people who may be not even aware of the process of GDC, the need for inclusion. We still have a third of persons not yet connected and a lot of those persons and people who are not aware are in like small island developing states and others. So I’m wondering if there is a special, any special effort being made to involve them. I mean, it certainly is our challenge and we are taking up the challenge. Even here at this IGF, we have a forum on it on Thursday. But I’m wondering to what extent in the development of the GDC, what efforts are being made to reach these specific ones, these specific types of countries and to get their inputs and to make sure that they are appropriately. We expect and keep in mind that the

Moderator 2:
context of the research community and the

Audience:
innovation process is a very important area to be taken account of. Thank you. Thanks, Nigel. Stella, we’ll go to you. Just make yourself. I have a question for the pin list to help out the administration of this project as we should move through the

Moderator 2:
process of review after we’ve submitted our initial

Audience:
submissions. Thanks a lot. Erik, we’ll go over you first. Hello, I’m from Rizomatica. Well, my question is regarding I was remembering the process for WESSES Indigenous Peoples were actively involved in the process of I’m not sure if it’s the right word, but it’s the process of incorporation of Indigenous Peoples for Indigenous communities where was visited by the government of Canada, I remember well. So in this process of how Indigenous Peoples are being involved with and incorporated, especially

Moderator 2:
considering that most of the challenges that you have tremendously many need to finally something they need to accept and accept as a principle and as I said, to things that are part of our

Audience:
eternal history in our history, I would like to know what impact this process will have on Indigenous communities in India and alsoWhich countries areгеW gone and if we are going to as well? questions aren’t given properly and discussions, so my question is that then I am concerned that GDC Folsk negatives in the policy brief and prepared by the co-facilitators of GDC. So my question is how to bridge the digital divide and ensure that all children and young people have access to quality digital technologies and connectivity, because it’s really important that the future, the future, as the children and youth are the future, so we must ensure their connectivity and access to digital technologies. And then additionally, my another topic is that GDC should introduce substantive developments on quality digital technologies and how to hold the private sectors accountable for its role in the digital world and ensure that it protects the rights and interests of children and young people. So thank you to the young tech envoy for giving me the opportunity to represent children and youth globally.

Moderator 2:
Thanks, Omar. We’re going to close the queue now, so no-one else come forward. to the mics, Emma over here.

Audience:
Hello, I’m Emma Gibson from the Alliance for Universal Digital Rights, or AUDRI for short. And alongside other organizations, we’ve been consulting women and people of diverse genders and sexualities all year about what they think should be in a global digital compact so that it works for them. And essentially, what they’ve been saying to us is that the principles of the GDC that ensure an open, free, and secure digital future need to be infused with a feminist and intersectional approach if we’re going to ensure a gender just world. So we’ve come up with a set of 10 principles, which we launched on Saturday at a conference. You can stop and ask me for a copy. And a feminist GDC would work for everybody. And this includes making sure that the GDC is rooted in existing human rights law, that it’s protecting people from multiple people facing multiple forms of discrimination, that it ensures freedom from gender-based violence online, which is something we were disappointed wasn’t in the write-up of the deep dives, alongside freedom of expression, which we were also concerned was missing from that write-up as well. Another principle is obviously ensuring internet access for all, dealing with harmful surveillance. We want to expand women’s participation in leadership in the tech center and in policymaking. We need to reduce the environmental impact of new technology. The GDC needs to ensure data privacy and adopt equality by design principles for algorithms and digital tech development. And finally, the GDC needs to set safeguards to prevent discriminatory biases. When we launched this set of principles on Saturday to a variety of governments from around the world, and one government suggested that gender equality and feminism should be an additional pillar of the global digital compact. So I would really like to ask the panel for their thoughts on that. Thank you.

Moderator 2:
Thanks a lot. And apologies, I do have to interrupt people. OK, we’ll have this person over here who’s still scribbling her notes. Sorry. Is it Liz? Yes, I was adding some points. Introduce yourself.

Audience:
OK, my name is Liz. So, I’m going to start with the first part of the panel, which is the digital inequality and the intersectionality of the two. So, my name is Arembo from research ICT Africa, and we’ve made two submissions to the GDC process. These two submissions, when we’ve developed them, we’ve consulted African stakeholders, some who are in this room, and some who are not able to join us. The things that were pertinent in those two consultations were to do with multistakeholderism, which I’m not going to talk about in this panel, but to do with multistakeholderism, and to do with the intersectionality paradox that Valeria has talked about, and I’d just like to add that, with the people who are mostly disadvantaged at multiple sectors of inequalities, those are the people that we actually need to take into account with this new GDC process, and what you’re saying is that not just even issues of gender, but also issues of access, and access to technology, and access to the internet, and access to the internet, and people are accessing technologies differently in terms of gender, where they’re placed, economic issues, and all that. So, with that, we also put a solution, things to do with data, data access, or data, measuring data on digital assets, because at the end of the year, it is sådan time now where all the gigahertz companies start are starting. But you have data wires that are connected to lots of environments, than they are considered to be accessible, and so we, thereis a dependency of data when it comes to the position of Africa, how are we accessing our own data? How can we mass create new ways to ensure that we are not promoting concurrency to the rest of the world?

Moderator 2:
Thanks, Liz.

Audience:
Thank you. My name is Elisa Hever, and I’m from the Dutch government, and I’m a MAG member. The policy brief touches upon many important topics, though we are here today in Kyoto, and in exactly this building the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated. It was the first time that we internationally agreed upon acting for a sustainable environment. The energy consumption keeps on rising for the use of the internet, to connect all the people that still need to be connected, but also to have a faster internet and less latency. The policy brief only mentions in one bullet to develop environmental sustainability by design and globally harmonized digital sustainability standards to safeguards to protect the planet. It doesn’t mention the energy consumption of the internet, at least I couldn’t find it. However, in my opinion, we need to put more attention to this topic. For us to have a sustainable planet, we also need to decrease the amount of energy that we use on the internet. Thank you.

Moderator 2:
Thanks, Elisa. And our final contribution.

Audience:
Hello, everyone. I’m Alexandre Costa Barbosa. I’m a coordinator of the Brazilian Homeless Workers’ Movement Technology Sector. It’s the largest housing movement worldwide. It’s standing for 30,000 people. We have been doing in practice most of what the GDC is claiming for. We’ve been teaching in public schools digital literacy, digital technology education. We’ve been installing public Wi-Fi hotspots in the poorest regions in solidary kitchens. We’ve been developing ourselves platforms with democratic and cooperative-based platform governance to generate income for the last mile. So that’s precisely what it’s including everyone on digital technologies, as Raul mentioned. So my question, it’s something that is really somehow neglected in IGF’s agenda, which is the labor topic. But it’s in the policy brief of the GDC. It’s clear there. How can we share labor rights, right? So I’d like to hear how, in the process, until the summit of the future, can we really ensure fostering SDG number eight, it’s not only economic growth, it’s also decent work. How can we really ensure the participation of unions and other labor organizations in the development of it? Thank you very much.

Moderator 2:
Thanks. And the last contribution from over there. Sorry, Jeanette, the mic has been closed, but we’ll open. We’ll try to open once more.

Audience:
Hi, everyone. I’m Nermin Selim, the Secretary General of Creators Union of Arab, ICASA Consultative Estates. Thank you very much for all members of honorable stage. It’s just a comment, not a point of view, not a question. Allow me to add a point of view. I believe that one of the goals of the Global Digital Compact is to provide a safe digital environment for everyone. But I believe that it must include children from an early age in particular to protect them from electronic blackmail and violation of privacy. Therefore, we as a civil society organization contributed to this matter by adopting the initiative of one of our academic members who prepared a curriculum of digital safety and cyber security to provide a safe digital environment. So to know about this curriculum of digital safety and cyber security, we have a presentation on 12th of… Do you have a question for the panel? No, it’s just point of view to provide our curriculum of cyber security and digital safety for children to be as a part of the goals of digital global compact. So we invite you to take as idea about this curriculum to be generalized and all institutions, a large number of institutions that can take this curriculum.

Moderator 2:
Okay, thanks. Thanks and people can grab you. And I want to urge people when they take the microphone to ask a question of the panel. So apologies that we couldn’t take more, but we’ll try and open once more. I think we don’t have enough time for you to respond and then to go into the final segment of our session today, which is looking at the going forward, what comes after the GDC process. So I’m going to ask you to respond to the questions we’ve had on content. And I’m gonna add just one question to that, which is, we’ve looked a lot at the content of the GDC. Have we looked enough at the proposed content of the summit of the future? And is there perhaps a little gap here in how we as a community working with digital looks at our input at not just being focused on the GDC, but also other aspects of the summit of the future, such as the global agenda for peace. But so the panel, let’s start again. Shall we start with Amandeep? I think it’s your turn to start now. Looking forward, post GDC process, review mechanisms. What do you think can we do? How can we be innovative? But also if you can make some responses to the questions from the floor.

Amandeep Singh Gill:
Thank you. There were many, many questions. So I think we take a long time to answer all of them. Let me just try and group them in. to three categories. One is some of the specific interest groups, children, whether it is the small island developing states, and that point is well taken. In fact, many of the engagements have been around those kind of themes. Youth, for instance, working with Secretary General’s youth envoy, we’ve put together some consultations and Amur Omar, who spoke earlier, he’s been, he’s iconic in terms of youth participation in the GDC deep dives. The issues of sustainability and gender. If you look carefully at the issues paper, at the end of those thematic issues, the co-facilitators have very carefully articulated why those are cross-cutting strategic issues. So, Emma, you know, I was happy to join you on Saturday and you heard me speak about how the mainstreaming of gender on digital issues is an important goal for the Secretary General. And you should not only look at the GDC process, but what’s happening around it. This year’s commission on the status of women, CSW67, was an exciting opportunity because the theme was around digital and technology. We were able to make a lot of progress and that is going to have its own impact on the GDC process. Now, your point coming to this aspect of moving forward and I think that also featured in some of the questions, the process-related questions, and I love the title of this panel, GDC and Beyond, because we need to think about how do we take the GDC forward. As I mentioned earlier, you know, if the ecosystem is going to, hopefully, we have to have an ambitious outcome. So, if it goes… goes to the next level, then how do we make sure that it stays at that level and that we are organized in a multi-stakeholder fashion to follow up? So the Secretary General has presented some thoughts on that in his policy brief. They are meant to stimulate debate and discussion when the process resumes. I think the essential point, the fundamental point which he made in his remarks yesterday is that we need to pull things together in a better way. We need to make sure that we don’t again retreat into silos. And we need to make sure that there is accountability. That term came up in one of the questions, accountability of the governments or the private sector in terms of the kind of digital future that we want. So that debate is going to be interesting and exciting. It’s also going to be a little challenging. It’s part of that programmed inflammation paradigm. And I think, Paul, you also started to kind of talk a little bit to that. Because we can’t really rest on our oars. The Internet is growing. The user base is growing. It’s shifting. The data flows, if you look at where, what’s the quantum of data flows around the world. So you have new players. The majority of data flows are happening in a non-West European, non-North American context. Starting very recently. So how does the system adjust to these challenges? The advent of AI and in the future, perhaps ambient computing. So these are kind of interesting questions. And we need to make sure that we have agile frameworks, we have updated frameworks. And in that sense, again, WSIS plus 20 would be another opportunity to make sure that the ecosystem keeps up with the challenges. And we are able to handle this enhanced participation from across the globe in our existing forums and make sure that it’s meaningful participation. Governments and the private sector give it importance, land up, engage with other stakeholders, the tech communities. society, academia, and researchers, and help us to address the challenges in real time.

Moderator 2:
Thanks, and I know Amandeep went over time, but there were lots of questions to respond to, so, but I do want to ask people to keep to time. Valeria, do you have?

Valeria Bettancourt:
Is it on? Okay. Very briefly, in terms of the follow-up and review mechanisms, I think that the Human Rights Charter and the International Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights should be the basis for assessing a stakeholder’s commitment with an open, free, and secure digital future, so any review mechanism should be related to existing processes, such as the Universal Periodic Review, the Sustainable Developing Goals, the reporting system around those, the review of the implementation of the WSIS action lines, among others. It should also take into account existing instruments and frameworks, such as the UNESCO Internet Universality Indicators, that also applies to other tracks of the Summit of the Future, because all of them have digital-related components. So, in order to be implemented, the Global Digital Compact has to put in place financial mechanisms and reinforce the commitment for the development of digital infrastructure skills, but also regulatory capacities for all countries to navigate the terrain. We need new commitments for the international financial institutions in the form of reparation for all the data that has been appropriated from people and their interactions, from nature and also from common heritage, including indigenous knowledge, as someone from the audience referred earlier. In addition, taxing big tech for global and national financing is a must. We want countries to be able to bring into practice the Global Digital Compact. And last but not least, the IGF should continue and has to be strengthened, and its mandate should be extended to facilitate the operationalization of global digital cooperation, but also bridge the gap between the liberative spaces and decision-making processes, and serve as a central space for multi-stakeholder engagement. Thanks, Valeria.

Moderator 2:
Raúl.

Raul Echeberri:
Thank you. First of all, I think that the Global Digital Compact and the Summit of the Future, we have to be very careful, governments have to be very careful in creating new bureaucracies, and that makes it much more difficult to participate for developing countries, small countries, as Nigel pointed out, the complexity for participating in the global landscape for small Caribbean countries, among others, but also for other stakeholders that don’t have the power and the resources to participate in multiple processes. In that sense, I already said that the agenda of IGF is very aligned with the issues that will be part of the GDC, so we have to work in strengthening the IGF. Of course, the IGF has to continue evolving to accompany the evolution of the challenges, but this is a good venue, it’s a venue that has been very useful for everybody. And the UN has an important role in promoting the participation of more governments in the multi-stakeholder mechanisms, and actually, the UN is the organization that is best positioned for doing that. And I think that we have to take governments out of their comfort zone. At the end of the day, this will be conditioned by the intergovernmental decisions. The decisions will be by the governments, and so we have to make them, to help them to resist the temptation to increase governmental control or oversight in digital governance, but we don’t need more. more governmental control, we need more multistakeholderism. The issues are so complex that the only way to deal with the challenges that we have is with full participation of all stakeholders, and this is why we have to be there. This is why we have to participate in this process, and we need more participation of all the stakeholders to be disruptive and to, as I said before, to take governments out of their comfort zone.

Moderator 2:
Next role, Bitange.

Bitange Ndemo:
I think there is convergence in thought. We had a session on declaration of the future of Internet, which almost are similar issues enabling the freedom and taking care of every individual with respect to human rights, and I think they’re here. If we are able to look at such convergences a little more widely, we can be able to encompass or respond to all the questions that have been asked. Thank you.

Moderator 2:
Thanks very much, Bitange. Paul.

Paul Wilson:
Thanks, Henriette. I heard quite a lot of questions, and quite a lot of questions about inclusivity. Most of the questions were about inclusion, I think, about marginalised individuals and communities and small islands and youth and gender and homeless and children and others, and I also heard about inclusion in the Internet, in Internet governance and in the GDC process, so that’s a lot of inclusion that’s being asked about there. I think the fact that the questions that were asked can be asked here in this room and can be asked by the people who are directly concerned with those issues is a hint at the power of this model, of the IGF model. So this is the IGF. It’s not the GDC or the Summit for the Future, but I do think the answer is yes. answers to those questions of inclusion across the board, potentially in this room, because what’s happening here and what’s happened here for 18 years, if not perfect, and no one has said it is, can still absolutely provide the venue and the framework for what GDC apparently needs for follow-up of actions and objectives and reviews and so on, whether that’s by expanding the remit of the IGF or by replicating somehow, certainly by evolving it, but I really think the answers are here and do not need to be replicated. I mean, we’ve got this multi-stakeholder community here that’s ready, that wants to talk about strengthening and has done for quite a period of time. Eurodig, we heard, has called for it. Henriette said it. We’re ready for this. We’re looking for an opportunity for the IGF to provide its worth, to do its work better and further, and for us to exploit the potential that’s here in this room, the potential of the process and the people and the communities that are involved. So I think that’s where I would like to see the future, as I say, not as a reinvention, not as a rearrangement of deck chairs, but really as a way to just simply move forward and make things continually better. Thanks.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much, Paul. I think we have time for three short interventions from the audience, be it online or be it here. I see Jeanette coming forward again. Now we have time.

Moderator 2:
Can we check with Amrita, because my connection has dropped. Amrita, if there’s an online … Maybe just read it. Good.

Audience:
Jeanette Hofmann, Professor for Internet Politics in Berlin, Germany. A lot of the issues that were addressed so far seem to be covered more or less by the IGF. So in a way, I think I echo Paul Wilson’s point about how the IGF and the global compact will actually be related to each other. We talked a lot about Internet fragmentation. We also need to worry about fragmentation and Internet governance.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much, Jeanette. And please, we have to close the lines. We have the gentleman there to my left. Please introduce yourself.

Audience:
Thank you. I would like to get the opinion of the panel, when the Gambia, when we did our GDC consultation process, we involved all stakeholders, including the government, in doing the submissions, so I would like to know how you feel about that process, because we felt it was necessary to get our government input. Thank you.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much. And we go to my right, please.

Audience:
Hello. Thank you for the panel. My name is Laura Pereira. I’m a youth delegate from Brazil. My question is, I believe that the critics that were resonated in the panel are a reflection of how the label of multistakeholderism has been applied to multilateral process or to process in general as a synonym of public consultation. As we know, as a community in internet governance, that the multistakeholder model must be more than that, however hard it is to put a fiction into practice, to quote Hoffman here. Is it possible for us to use the GDC model and choose the IGF opportunity to set an updated standard to allow the use of the multistakeholder as a label to the process? Can we develop updated standards to classify a process as multistakeholder or not multistakeholder? Isn’t that the agenda for all of us here at the IGF? Thank you all.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much. We had…

Audience:
Hello. My name is Chat Garcia Ramelo from APC. I have a question for Amandeep. Two things. What would you see as a scenario of a failure for GDC? And on the other hand, what would you see as success like two years from now?

Moderator 1:
Thank you. Very concrete questions. And we have Amrita, please, from the online audience.

Audience:
Online comment from William Drake. He says he agrees with Raul. We don’t need a new bureaucracies on a new digital cooperation forum that competes with the IGF for resources and attention. We need to renew the IGF’s mandate and strengthen the process. This point has been made repeatedly throughout the GDC process.

Moderator 1:
Thank you, Amrita. And very shortly, the gentleman there to my left. Very shortly, please. Go. Very shortly. Go ahead.

Audience:
Thank you very much. We discussed a lot about the content of the global compact, digital compact, as well as the partnership. But what about the accountability mechanism after having the law or constitution? compact because we agree on many things, but the implementation part is always poor, especially the developed countries are not responsible to the developing countries to build their capacity for the smooth implementation of those compacts so that how the UN system and other agencies would be responsible and accountable in this matter. Thank you very much.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much for keeping it short, very important point, and in the interest of time we have to go already to your final takeaways, if you can react there very shortly in one minute each of you to what has been said now in this last round. I would begin with Paul, please.

Paul Wilson:
I’ve said before that the internet deserves a Nobel Prize for how it served humanity during COVID and I’m really inspired by the plea by Valeria actually which was to recognise real issues facing humanity and I think COVID was a fantastic example of a real issue addressed actually not just by the internet but by the digital capacities of the world, medical science for instance in a major way, and I really think there are other non-digital issues which are pending right now, they’re existential for communities and for humanity, and those non-digital issues need to be addressed, if they’re not, if digital issues only are going to occupy us then let’s be sure as I said, I think third time, not just rearranging deck chairs but building on what we have on the innovations here in this venue and around the world to produce real non-digital outcomes because that’s what the planet actually needs right now. Thank you.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much. Bitange?

Bitange Ndemo:
I think we have a real chance of coming up with a guiding framework for policymakers, governments and other stakeholders. This is the time to do it because we have seen the importance of the internet, we need to create a future that is more inclusive, we need to create a future that enables innovative programmes to come upon, but we must get a chance to deliberate those issues like we are doing right now. And as a formerly a policy maker, I benefited from discussing with the stakeholders, the civil society, it worked. Most governments sometimes push aside civil society into their discussions. But as you can see, there is so much we can learn from each other. Thank you.

Moderator 1:
Thank you so much, Raul.

Raul Echeberri:
Thank you, Jorge. Every stakeholder has a huge responsibility in this era, on these topics. Governments have a huge responsibility in accelerating innovation, in creating enabling environments for building new, more inclusive and equitable development models, and really creating avenues for making the technology impact in a positive manner in the life of everybody in the world. So this is a good opportunity for this discussion to reinforce that. With regard to the process, it’s clear that we need more opportunities of participation for stakeholders in the process toward the summit of the future and the adoption of the global digital compact. And of course, I echo everybody’s comments with regard to the need to strengthen IGF and keep IGF as the central venue for dealing with those issues after the summit of the future. Thank you.

Moderator 1:
Thanks so much, Raul. Valeria.

Valeria Bettancourt:
Thank you. I think we are all aware of the injustices of the current order, and we know the problem diagnosis already. We also recognize the power held by the few that control policy spaces. The silent consensus that we cannot regulate big tech has to be challenged. We need a political commitment, and we need member states to measure up. Global digital governance, including a global regime for that governance, should set the conditions for equity and for fairness, and in that way benefit. Everyone should benefit from the digitalization, and ensure that those benefits are distributed to ensure a dignified life for everyone. And any institutional arrangement decided in the framework of the Global Digital Compact must not walk the path of reinforcing the current in unjust order. What we seek and what we need is a feminist, sustainable and transformative vision for a digital future that is really and truly open, free and secure.

Moderator 1:
Thank you, Valeria. Amandeep, you have the last takeaway.

Amandeep Singh Gill:
Thank you. I like the last point someone made about accountability. I think there’s no doubt that the challenges are such that we need more action by more people. I think on that we can all agree. So the current level of action, the current level of response is not adequate. So we need to go to the next level. And it’s also important that we have accountability and we have justice in terms of the governance that the entry barriers to participation in the governance discussions are lower. And the point made by Raul about smaller delegations, there are 160 plus countries who shouldn’t be running from forum to forum and then figuring out what a whole of government perspective on digital looks like. So we need to make that task easier and make sure that people have agency over the digital transformation. Only a few countries, only a few corporations have the resources to engage on digital issues in multiple forums. So there is a fragmented landscape already. What we need to do is plug the gaps, just as in the Secretary General’s policy brief you see with that infographic, critical gaps on misinformation, disinformation, the accountability for human rights, the issue of AI governance. And there are ongoing initiatives like the IGF Leadership Panel to strengthen the IGF and to that gap. So that’s what we need today. And if you allow me a few seconds on the success of failure, just in one sentence, the failure is if we don’t use the opportunity of the summit of the future to raise the level of ambition, raise the level of activity, raise the level of coherence across our responses. Success is exactly the opposite. So we have to rise to that challenge. Thank you, Amandeep.

Moderator 1:
And I think really this community is up to that challenge. And thank you so much for being able, profiting from picking your brains, picking the brains of the audience, both here physically and online. And Henriette, please. Thanks. There isn’t

Moderator 2:
really time for closing remarks, but very briefly. I think when it comes to process, we have to abandon complacency. There’s a need for improving governance, for more accountability, as has just been said. We need that within this multi-stakeholder process. We need it within the multilateral. We also need more cooperation within each of these and between them. So let’s do this evolution and improvement together. On content, I think what is really challenging, but the GDC has put that into focus, is navigating the specificity of Internet development and growth and governance, but also how it intersects with broader governance issues. We need to do both, and I think the GDC and the Summit of the Future and the link with the SDGs is putting that into focus. It’s not easy, and we can do it, and the IGF is a very important part of that. I think in terms of follow-up, I just want to bring to us a phrase from the WSIS outcome documents, enabling environment. If you read the WSIS outcome documents, that’s how it describes the role of governments to create an enabling environment for people-centered development, human rights, and inclusion. So I think let’s keep that in mind, that it’s not just about the topics that we are discussing specifically in the GDC. It’s creating an enabling environment for not just dealing with current challenges, but also emerging challenges. So thanks to everyone for very good input, excellent panel, and apologies to online participants if we did not give you enough space. And to the MAG who organized this, thanks a lot.