NRIs Coordination Session | IGF 2023

Yaw Amevi

The detailed discussion presents a broad view of the roles and influences NRI leadership has, particularly concerning their supporting role towards IGF initiatives. Expressing a positive sentiment, the speaker commends the NRI leadership for their dedicated involvement in event organisation, networking and information dissemination, a contribution that aligns directly with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals).

Yet, the dialogue extends past singular praises, identifying areas where current practices could be enhanced. Specifically, the speaker underlines the need for the NRI leadership to provide greater support for national IGF events. This could be feasibly achieved by sending out substantial informational letters to coordinators, with the intent to bolster engagement levels.

A pivotal topic surfaced was the necessity for harmonisation between various IGF events, notably those at regional, local, and youth levels. The speaker proposes the introduction of a comprehensive timetable for differing NRI initiatives, which would be updated in real-time to ensure all coordinators maintain coordinated efforts, fostering a more unified operation.

An important suggestion from the speaker is the creation of a best practices guide dedicated to NRI. This proposition was met with optimism, as such a resource would lay out beneficial practices efficiently, while also identifying areas of practices that could be improved or where noticeable gaps exist.

Sustainability additionally emerged as a key theme, with emphasis placed on its importance within the framework of NRI initiatives. The speaker suggests tracking all recommendations raised across differing national, regional, and youth events to confirm tangible impacts and changes being effected. This approach encourages accountability and spurs continued improvements.

Finally, the speaker, taking a positive stance, aligns with the sentiments expressed by Mary concerning increased government involvement in the organisation of national NRI initiatives. The speaker concurs with the need for such intervention, implicitly aligning with SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. This infers an acknowledgment of the instrumental role of institutional support in ensuring the success of such initiatives.

Covering the discussion in detail, the comprehensive summary provides key insights into the multifaceted role of NRI leadership, their valued contribution to IGF initiatives, possible areas for improvement, and the need for harmonisation, resource creation, sustainability procedures, and active government support. This yields a broader perspective on the complex interplay of roles and initiatives within the context of IGF events.

Anya Gengo

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a worldwide multi-stakeholder network focused on discussing public policy issues tied to the internet, has witnessed remarkable expansion in recent years. Particularly, from the year 2015 to the present day, there has been substantial increase in the network of national, regional, sub-regional and youth IGFs. Evidence of this growth is shown in the rise from approximately 50 or 60 IGFs in 2015 to over 160 officially recognised IGFs to date, suggesting a growing awareness and participation in global internet governance discussions.

Besides this numerical growth, strategic measures have been implemented to promote inclusivity within the Nationally Recognised Internet Governance Forums (NRIs). Specifically, in 2015, a focal point was assigned to NRIs to cultivate growth both in quality and quantity. Notably, certain NRIs have adopted innovative operational strategies including arranging IGF meetings in diverse locations within their countries instead of consistently hosting them in capitals. Examples of this practice can be found in countries like Brazil, Italy, and Poland, which fosters inclusivity by making IGF processes accessible to a wider audience.

Looking ahead, the future implications of IGFs are also gaining attention. Specifically, the imminent VISTAs plus 20 review planned for 2025 is expected to encompass a reassessment of the IGF’s mandate, wherein NRIs are predicted to play a significant role due to their burgeoning growth and influence.

Despite these promising developments, there are persistent challenges faced within IGF governance. Sustainability has proved to be a key issue, evident from the difficulties faced in finding hosts for subsequent IGFs, indicating an absence of a clear and sustainable model for IGF hosting.

Additionally, while the number of IGF initiatives is on the rise, there is a lack of interconnection amongst the various national, regional and youth IGF initiatives, indicating room for improvement. At present, there are no robust mechanisms in place to facilitate efficient interconnection among the 160 existing IGFs, presenting potential obstacles to collaboration and synergy among these entities.

Issues of representation and accessibility too remain major concerns within the IGF ecosystem. Participants from disadvantaged areas, like Africa, often confront difficulties in accessing IGF events due to geographic barriers and visa constraints. To address these issues, involvement of governments and private companies is crucial to provide requisite resources and funding support.

Finally, there is considerable scope for improvement in the methods of sharing inputs and messages within the NRIs. The effectiveness of digital communication methods deployed for maximum engagement and information dissemination should be assessed and enhanced.

In light of these challenges and opportunities, Anya, an IGF representative, acknowledges the impactful work and dedication of the IGF community. She proposes actively engaging governments and private companies in the IGF dialogue to enhance accessibility and inclusion. Such participation could significantly improve accommodation alternatives and financial support, laying the groundwork for more effective and far-reaching IGF initiatives.

Julian Casas Buenas

The Colombian Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has led various initiatives this year, notably focusing on strengthening the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance. There is a major emphasis on motivating and engaging young individuals in these initiatives. These activities align with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 9 – ‘Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure’, and 10 – ‘Reduced Inequalities’. The strategy is met with a positive response as they are making strong strides in sharing the results of local discussions, assuring maximum engagement and impact.

Additionally, Colombian IGF is promoting the vital need to increase representation in the internet governance process. They believe that creating mechanisms for multi-stakeholder messages is of utmost importance for comprehensive and inclusive governance. They are diligently working to bring new actors to internet governance, highlighting their commitment to ensuring that underrepresented sectors are adequately involved.

The Global Digital Compact has notably contributed to these objectives by encouraging discussions on internet governance. The involvement of new organisations in these discussions is a positive development, substantially enhancing collaboration across all sectors, which is fundamental for global digital development. This aligns with SDGs 9 – ‘Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure’, and 17 – ‘Partnerships for the Goals’, radiating a supportive sentiment towards the Compact.

The Colombian IGF has publicly expressed their support for the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance. Drawing from their experiences from the Global Digital Compact, they advocaterecognising, protecting, and promoting this model as an essential element of internet governance. Despite the challenges, the Colombian IGF is steadfast in their commitment to keeping the multi-stakeholder model at the core of future internet governance discussions.

To summarise, the Colombian IGF is championing the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance, bolstered by the involvement of new, diverse actors and a firm commitment to inclusivity. This is supported by their endorsement of the Global Digital Compact and the successful examples it offers of implementing this multi-stakeholder model. Through their actions and stances, the Colombian IGF is working tirelessly towards achieving sustainable digital development and broader inclusivity in internet governance.

Ana Neves

The Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) has begun the review process for the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) plus 20. This move is in accordance with a resolution adopted by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in June. A central part of this roadmap involves gathering inputs through a survey questionnaire, leading to a synthesis report and a detailed report of the discussions, all to be submitted to the General Assembly.

Crucial to this review is the first multi-stakeholder consultation, scheduled for the 10th of October. This consultation is an integral part of the roadmap adopted by the CSTD, indicating its significance within the initiative. The sentiment surrounding the consultation is largely positive, signifying strong support for and confidence in the process.

On the matter of financial feasibility, the successful progression of the roadmap largely depends on the availability of financial resources, suggesting that investment and funding acquisition will be key in ensuring the roadmap’s effective execution.

A call has also been made for National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) to play an active role in the WSIS plus 20 review. Given that there are 160 national and regional initiatives of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the participation of all stakeholders – including governments, the private sector, civil society, academia, and international organisations – is strongly encouraged and deemed necessary. The sentiment here is also positive, further endorsing the notion that such broad involvement is vital for success.

In tandem, the same community is involved in discussion of the digital compact and the review. The Digital Compact discussion is expected to wrap up by September 2024, thus marking significant overlap and potential synergy with the WSIS plus 20 review process. These shared interests and discussions have the potential to unite these parallel initiatives and maximise their collective impact.

In conclusion, the roadmap for the WSIS plus 20 review shows a detailed interplay of multiple stakeholders, financial dependence, and community-driven discussions. Fostering support and momentum through targeted consultations and inclusivity could pave the way for significant progress and valuable outcomes by the projected 2024 timeline.

Lillian Naroga

Telecom companies, particularly the prominent actors in the private sector like MTN Group, indeed play a crucial role in the broadened dialogue on internet governance, and ought therefore to be included in these discussions. The potential value of their involvement has begun to be acknowledged, with fruitful dialogues focusing on digital human rights and skills advancement for Uganda’s youth and women. This seems to suggest a positive shift towards increased cooperative engagement from corporations in matters related to internet governance.

On the other hand, an escalated need for government involvement is emphasised, especially in issues pertaining to cyber security. This is seen as a vital sphere where governance participation cannot be compromised, signifying the intricate relationship between technological progress and national security. Evidently, initiatives like the East Africa School on Internet Governance have already taken steps towards this direction, incorporating a variety of regional entities within the East African Community, as part of their strategy in introducing internet governance and targeted cyber security.

Another notable revelation, however, unveils the intense demand for specificity in the operational approach of Internet Governance Forums. The generic, all-encompassing agenda of these forums should be overtaken by a targeted focus on specific, actionable areas of interest. Presumably, this would foster more engaging dialogues and effective collaborations amongst stakeholders. Notably, the concept of regional cyber security policy harmonisation has been pinpointed during the sessions of the East Africa School on Internet Governance, which suggests that this more focused approach may already be producing results.

In summary, these narratives highlight the pressing necessity to weave more stakeholders, from both the private sector and government, into the fabric of internet governance. A more engaging, focused, and actionable strategy within Internet Governance Forums can refine the process further, laying the groundwork for tangible outcomes and solutions. The emerging partnerships between telecom companies and government bodies, in tandem with targeted regional cyber security endeavours, evoke optimism for these ideals materialising in the near future in the East African Community, Uganda in particular.

Andres Bass

Andres Bass, a resident of New York from the United States, has made various observations about perceived shortcomings of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), an organisation concerned with discussions on internet infrastructure and policies. Notably, Bass highlighted the limited representation from the United States’ United Barrier-Free and Digital Association (UBES and DATI).

Bass, with his experience as a six-time attendee of IGF, noted issues pertaining to its engagement strategies and outreach. He proposed that the forum does not maintain a significant presence amongst the young demographics in America, despite their stated interest in the structural and regulatory aspects of internet governance.

Remarkably, Bass discovered that a large number of the youths he communicated with had little to no awareness of the IGF, despite their vested interests. This suggests an inadequacy in the communication and visibility strategies employed by the forum, indicating that improvements could be made to better target this crucial demographic.

Further criticism lies in the IGF’s event management. According to Bass, attendees perceive the forum’s sessions as a ‘one-time event’. This leaves them feeling disconnected once the session ends, thus preventing the creation of a sustained learning and engagement environment.

Bass recommends that a more constant and recurring communication strategy could help address this issue, providing attendees with something to look forward to and preventing feelings of hitting dead ends.

Finally, Bass points out that the IGF could better capitalise on its affiliation with the United Nations (UN). He asserts that effective advertising within this international body could significantly extend its reach. Bass found that the IGF’s global communication link was not widely known – in fact, he had to distribute this information himself.

In summing up, an analysis of Bass’ observations and criticisms suggests that while the IGF occupies an influential platform for internet governance discussions, there is considerable work to be carried out to enhance engagement, outreach, and communication, particularly in the United States.

Jennifer Chung

The analysis significantly underscores the pivotal role of the NRI (National and Regional Internet Governance) network in global decision-making processes. This expansive network, boasting over 160 functions, serves as a primary platform where internet governance is comprehensively thrashed out. Appreciating the insights and issues relayed within these forums could enable decision-making bodies to formulate robust strategies and policies in line with best practices.

Furthermore, the analysis accentuates the need for open channels to decision-making bodies. By participating in these meetings, decision-makers will acquire first-hand knowledge of how Internet governance is approached across various regions and the distinct challenges encountered therein, cultivating a more inclusive perspective. This interaction can prove useful in ensuring a more informed stance towards legislative and regulatory decision-making.

Moreover, the examination sheds light on the importance of co-located events, such as the Asia-Pacific Youth IGF, an instance that highlights the advantages reaped from such a configuration. Co-located events facilitate the revelation of a plethora of issues to a broader audience, engendering understanding of myriad perspectives and cross-fertilisation of ideas. This blend of viewpoints can trigger innovative solutions to the broad range of challenges intertwined with internet governance.

The analysis underlines the critical importance of decision-makers’ understanding of emerging issues. The Parliamentary track at ABIGF has demonstrated that those engaged in drafting and deploying laws and regulations ought to be cognisant of community discussions surrounding burgeoning issues. Such awareness empowers them to make legislative choices that are more in tune with the current challenges.

Lastly, in view of the scale and diversity of the NRI network, the facilitation of multi-way dialogue becomes a necessity. Gleaning wisdom from events like the Asia-Pacific Youth IGF, the analysis points towards a higher demand for expansive communication routes to bolster understanding and collaborative problem-solving, reinforcing the governance of the Internet.

To conclude, this review reinforces the essential role NRI networks can play in global decision-making pertaining to internet governance. It highlights the merits of increased engagement of decision-making bodies with these networks, the benefits of co-located events, the pressing need for a deeper understanding of emerging issues by legislators, and a call for enhanced dialogues within the network.

Tanara Lauschner

The Brazilian Internet Governance Forum (IGF), acknowledged for its inventive approach towards multi-stakeholder discussions, has made remarkable strides in involving decision-makers in its proceedings, signifying its importance on a national level. This has been accomplished through strategic alterations in the event format and by cultivating wide-ranging debates on subjects of national interest such as platform regulation. These endeavours have notably increased the positive sentiment surrounding the Brazilian IGF’s effectiveness, in perfect alignment with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16, which visualises peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Additionally, the pivotal role of National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) in facilitating multi-stakeholder discussions and the engagement of decision-makers has been accentuated. NRIs are urged to amplify their network connectivity with local, regional, and global debates, metamorphosing them into valuable resources for effective decision-making. Tanara Lauschner, the coordinator for the Brazilian IGF initiative, offers firsthand testament to this strategy, demonstrating its potential for success.

Moreover, NRIs are being encouraged to fortify their cooperation and solidarity, with a specific emphasis on creating more partnerships, exchanging experiences, and actively contributing to local, regional, and global debates. These recommendations stem from Lauschner’s perspective, setting a tangible precedent for the positive impact that such initiatives can generate.

Such developments align seamlessly with the broader vision of SDG 17, which advocates for partnerships to achieve the intended goals. By laying stress on cooperation and partnerships, NRIs can assume a crucial role in promoting stronger bonds on a multinational level. The positive sentiment surrounding these steps not only underscores their significance but also provides a promising outlook on their central roles in fostering peace, justice, and strong institutions.

In conclusion, the progression of the Brazilian IGF and the future direction of NRIs capture two key pathways for enhanced participation of decision-makers: comprehensive network adaptation to connect with broader debates and increased cooperation amongst NRIs. The firsthand insights from Tanara Lauschner illustrate the vitality of their implementation, emphasising the broader implications these strategies could potentially contribute to the achievement of SDGs 16 and 17.

Audience

Throughout a diverse and comprehensive discussion on the role and challenges of Internet Governance Forums (IGFs), a strong emphasis emerged on the importance of governmental involvement, private sector engagement, cross-border collaboration, and regional integration. The participants noted and largely praised the facilitative role played by the United Nations in aiding the progress of these multi-stakeholder processes.

However, a significant concern was raised regarding the issue of access and resource allocation. It was observed that while large, affluent nations such as Japan, Brazil and Mexico are frequently able to host significant global events, smaller countries often remain on the sidelines due to a paucity of resources. This discrepancy hampers equal representation of nations in these crucial forums and presents a challenge for achieving global sustainable development goals.

Several success stories and potential solutions were highlighted throughout the dialogue. A noteworthy example was the African regional Internet Governance Forum in Gambia, a multi-stakeholder initiative involving government, parliament and international organisations like UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). This participatory governance model was hailed as a promising method for effecting tangible change at the regional level.

The valuable contribution of Tanzania’s Digital Inclusion Project was also recognised, where the initiative has focused on enhancing digital literacy amongst women and young people. Key stakeholders commended such endeavours, underlining how IGFs can significantly contribute to local community projects, thereby addressing larger development goals.

A significant thread of conversation revolved around the necessity for deeper involvement of government officials in the discourses of IGFs. It was affirmed that ministries and regulators need to immerse themselves, not merely as participants but as influential actors in these forums. The active presence and participation of these key players would facilitate broader recognition of the policy formulation process and enhance the implementation of crucial recommendations.

The group made a clear gesture for sustainable funding and resource allocation within Internet Governance forums. The Nigerian case, where the government had pledged significant financial support for organising IGFs, was pointed to as a positive precedent.

In the face of regional integration and the expansion of a cross-border dialogue in internet governance, the potential for incorporating sub-regional economic communities like ECOWAS was identified as a beneficial strategy. This approach, backed by an increased representation of African parliamentarians in IGF discussions, was seen as a way forward.

However, some serious challenges were highlighted. One particularly pervasive issue was the lack of access and equality due to logistical restrictions. A call was made to rethink the current IGF hosting selection process and to adopt a more inclusive and globally representative approach. Additionally, potential threats to internet unity emerged, notably from policies like Sri Lanka’s Safer Internet Act which risks fragmenting the internet.

The conversation concluded on an optimistic note, showcasing the impactful efforts made by Pan-African Youth Ambassadors for Internet Governance. With the successful training of over a thousand individuals in internet governance in various African countries, and across multiple languages, the determination and potential of the youth in this crucial sector were patently demonstrated. This not only highlighted significant ground-level efforts, but also reflected on the promising future of internet governance if all the stakeholders unite and strive for inclusive and cooperative approaches.

Ananda Ferdarigot

Dialogues focused on the pressing need for a sustainable model in organising regional Internet Governance Forums (IGFs), particularly within the Asia-Pacific region. The need is primarily driven by the challenge related to finding hosts for subsequent occurrences of the event. Ananda Ferdarigot’s experiences underscored these challenges, highlighting the difficulties inherent in executing a successful regional IGF. Although the Taiwan Network Information Centre (TWNIC) has proposed to host the next year’s IGF as a short-term solution, a more enduring solution is essential for long-term continuity.

In addition to this, conversations emphasised the considerable need for a mechanism that could effectively interlink IGFs. A clear gap in communication and collaboration networks exists among national and youth initiatives from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the regional IGFs, indicating a distinct area for improvement. The establishment of a robust, interconnected model is viewed as crucial in fostering successful communication and cooperation amongst these initiatives.

Moreover, the dialogue demonstrated robust support for increased involvement from government and regional multilateral organisations. The sustainability of IGF initiatives could be notably bolstered by enhanced engagement from these quarters, aligning with and promoting the effective realisation of both SDG Goals 16 (‘Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions’) and 17 (‘Partnerships for the Goals’).

Despite acknowledged challenges, overall sentiments leaned towards enhancing industry innovation and infrastructure, further emphasising the significance of SDG Goal 9. Key insights from the discussions underscore the need for more proactive, collaborative efforts from governments, multilateral organisations, and primary stakeholders within the digital landscape in order to achieve these SDGs. The creation of a sustainable and interconnected digital governance model is evidently a multilayered challenge calling for the alliance and coherence of diverse stakeholders within and beyond the region.

Satish Babu

Established eight years ago, India’s School on Internet Governance has played a crucial role in the institution of the country’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Initially, India lacked a dedicated IGF, but this changed following the school’s advocacy. Due to their endeavours, the government recognised the significance of internet governance and established its own IGF three years ago.

Over the past two years, India’s IGF has made substantial progress. Characterised by successful multi-stakeholder collaboration, this forum has facilitated the participation of both high-level ministers and grassroots workers. This achievement has narrowed the dialogue gap between policymakers and the public, demonstrating the potential of India’s IGF to be a robust multi-stakeholder model for future policy-making.

Nonetheless, not all countries or regions have been successful in implementing such crucial multi-stakeholder structures, essential for guiding Internet Governance discussions. These collaborative arrangements encourage comprehensive dialogue, promoting superior policy decisions.

In alignment with Sustainable Development Goals 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, and 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, India’s development in Internet Governance emphasises the importance of collaborative partnerships, underpinned by an innovation-driven approach and robust institutional infrastructure. The laudable efforts of India’s School on Internet Governance, and the subsequent progression and achievements of India’s IGF, may potentially inspire and guide other nations lacking similar structures in their approach to internet governance. This could shape the global narrative, moving towards a more participatory, collaborative, and effective model of internet governance.

Gunela Asprink

The central discourse pertains to the marked under-representation of people with disabilities in Internet governance, thus bringing to the fore an issue of inequality. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), 15% of any populace are disabled, yet a contrasting statistic reveals that fewer than 1% of attendees at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a crucial platform for the moulding of global internet policies, are shown to have a disability.

This disparity underscores the pressing need for more inclusive representation of individuals with disabilities within the realm of Internet governance. The advocacy argues that the IGF should increase their support to enable greater participation of people with disabilities, thus reinforcing the objectives of SDG 10 – reduced inequalities.

The Asia-Pacific School of Internet Governance’s training programmes demonstrate a noteworthy initiative towards an inclusive movement. This institution is praiseworthy for its proactive efforts in empowering young people with disabilities by providing training in internet governance.

Moreover, the significant backing provided by industry giant, Vint Cerf from Google, underscores a commitment to disability inclusion within the sector. His support for the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability serves as an encouraging precedent for others in the Internet governance sphere.

However, the current state of disability representation highlights a critical discussion about persisting inequalities in this area. Nonetheless, the voices advocating for change, along with strides towards inclusion in the Asia-Pacific and the support of influential figures like Vint Cerf, suggest progress towards achieving Sustainable Development Goals pertinent to reduced inequalities (SDG 10) and industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9).

The review hence offers a balanced perspective. While the present scenario presents challenges, it also focuses on the positive measures being taken to improve the participation and representation of individuals with disabilities in Internet governance, thereby offering an optimistic outlook for the future.

Vakas Hassan

Discussions and debates on internet governance have seen a positive trend, with an increasing number of governments taking an active role, courtesy of platforms such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This has led to a shift towards more respectful and cordial dialogue among various stakeholders. However, an emphasised concern is the potential monopolisation of these critical discussions by single entities. Hence, it’s underscored that decisions should ideally involve multiple stakeholders to ensure a robust and multi-spectral participation, thereby fostering industry innovation and infrastructure.

A challenge identified in this realm is the imbalanced levels of stakeholder participation in these crucial dialogues. Not all parties are represented equally, leading to a potential imbalance in policy-making. Therefore, commentators such as Vakas suggest establishing clear criteria or thresholds for equitable representation from all stakeholders to address this disparity and uphold peace, justice and strong institutions.

Regarding leadership selection within internet governance, a strategic, organised, and regionally representative approach has been advocated. This involves identifying and nurturing the next generation of internet leaders at a national level before introducing them to the global sphere, thereby promoting gender equality and fostering partnerships for the SDGs.

Despite this increase in government involvement, particularly in leading forums like IGF and Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APR IGF), there remains significant room for improvement. While participation has risen, the quality of said participation demands critical examination. It was noted that increased quantity does not compensate for sub-par quality, hence there is a need for significant enhancements to foster balanced and well-rounded decision-making. In conclusion, achieving fair and effective internet governance requires strategic leadership selection and improved quality and quantity in government and stakeholder participation.

Moammed Abdullakh Anu

The critical analysis conducted reveals a favourable sentiment towards the proposition for establishing a Research Cell within the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process, administered by the United Nations. A paramount aim of this planned initiative is the development of sustainable models to support the growing maturity of the IGF process. This aligns significantly with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, and SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals.

The requirement for this proposal is increasingly evident with the growth of numerous IGF communities throughout Bangladesh, exemplifying the global shift towards incorporating innovative and sustainable infrastructure. The sustained maturity of the IGF process has solidified the need for sustainable models to support its continued evolution.

The proposed Research Cell is envisaged to act not only as a catalyst for the evolution of IGF but also to nurture connections and collaborative partnerships within the academic community. A unique aspect of the proposed cell will be its alliance with universities and academic institutions, strategically leveraging their intellectual capabilities to design and elucidate a sustainable model for the IGF process.

In summary, the creation of a Research Cell within the IGF process signifies a proactive measure towards ensuring its sustainability, further fostering innovation, and strengthening partnerships, in line with the targeted SDGs. Moreover, its association with academic institutions further broadens the prospect for profound research and balanced growth in the field. As such, the Research Cell provides the perfect avenue for academics and experts to shape, innovate, and implement sustainable models for the IGF process through research and collaborations.

Anya Gengo:
Well, once again, good afternoon from beautiful Kyoto to everyone that are here in person with us. We are indeed very lucky. Certainly, good afternoon, good morning, good evening to all our colleagues who are joining us online. I think we have already a nice participation, diverse of the NRI colleagues joining us. It’s still quite early in many parts, well, the majority of our globe, so I think Europe and Africa, especially the North and South America, it’s still early there, but I really greatly appreciate our colleagues for joining us online. So just for the record, my name is Anya Gengo. I work at the IGF Secretariat, and one of my core responsibilities is to work together and support the network of national, regional, sub-regional, and youth IGFs. When we started working together as a network, when the IGF Secretariat dedicated a focal point to the NRIs, we had, if I’m correct, around 50 or 60 NRIs, so that was the time when we were all enjoying Brazil in 2015. Today we speak about more than 160 officially recognized NRIs. The network is not just remarkably growing in quantity, it is growing in quality. If you look at the work that’s been done at individual NRI levels, then you can see that there are strong efforts invested continuously into making the IGF processes at national or regional levels, or specifically targeting youth engagement and youth empowerment, to be as inclusive as that’s possible. We have the NRIs, for example, that are strategically not hosting their meetings in the capitals, but they are touring the country, because colleagues from Brazil are on my left side, so they’re one of the examples, Italian IGF, Polish IGF as well, and so many others, and I think those are excellent practices to mention at the beginning. This is a traditional NRIs coordination session we host at every annual IGF meeting, and it is a day where we take the advantage of the fact that many of us are here present in person at the annual IGF meeting, and of course to connect with our colleagues online, to reflect on what has been done so far, where do we stand, what’s the status quo, and what needs to be done. Apologies, I have an instruction here. Thank you. I hope our colleagues in Zoom can hear us well and see us well. So as I said, it is a time for us to reflect, and specifically to try to compromise, brainstorm what needs to be done for future, for a strong NRIs network, which means strong internet governance and internet governance forum, ecosystem. And I think the momentum, you would agree, is very important, just because politically speaking, much is happening, also process-wise. You know that we are approaching the review of VISTAs, so VISTAs plus 20 in 2025. That also means the review of the IGF’s mandate in 2025. And the question today that we have for this session is, what is your view in terms of how to make the NRIs network stronger for a strong internet governance ecosystem, and specifically in the context of VISTAs plus 20 review, what could be the role of the NRIs? Of course, we will come also to other processes which are happening in parallel to everything that’s been done so far, that is the global digital compact, but also we shouldn’t forget about the sustainable development goals, which already was reported that we are behind, and I know that through the NRIs, the concept of sustainable development is very much addressed on several levels. Now, I think we’re very happy that part of the NRIs network is, on behalf of the Portugal IGF, is Ms. Ana Neves, who is also chairing the CSTD, the Commission for Science, Technology and Development, with the United Nations. And because the CSTD issued a roadmap for VISTAs plus 20 review, before maybe we ask individually all NRIs to speak about, in general, what could we all do together, collectively, but also individually, to make sure that we are a stronger network, and what could be the role the NRIs could play in VISTAs plus 20 review, maybe I could ask Ana to, as a chair, speak a little bit about the processes with the CSTD. How do you see the VISTAs plus 20 coming up, and specifically, what’s the value of local inclusive processes with respect to Internet governance? I think, Ana, you have the microphone next to you. Next to you. And I hope you can hear it. Okay. This is fine. Thank you.

Ana Neves:
Yes. Thank you, Ania, very much. Hello. I’m Ana Neves. I’m from Portugal, and I’m a member of the Bureau of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development of UNCTAD, which is the body of United Nations that has the responsibility to follow up on an annual basis the WSIS process. And since the last session of CSTD, last March, it started the process for the reviewing of the WSIS plus 20. So I would like to share with you, because I was appointed chair of CSTD for one year until next March. It’s a relative chairmanship of the Bureau, and so now I would like to share with you, as I was saying, that for the review, the ECOSOC adopted in June, so last June, a resolution requesting the CSTD to collect inputs from member states, all facilitators, and other stakeholders, and to organize during its 27th session in March 2024, and in the session in the following year, in 2025, substantive discussions on the progress made in implementation of the outcomes of the WSIS during the past 20 years, and to report thereon through the ECOSOC to the General Assembly. The CSTD members adopted last March a roadmap, so adopted the roadmap at its annual session in March 2023, to guide the CSTD’s work on WSIS plus 20 review. What is this roadmap about? So the roadmap includes open consultations at regional and global levels by CSTD or in partnership with other UN agencies and UN regional commissions, a survey questionnaire to all stakeholders, governments, international organizations, private sectors, civil society, technical communities, including academia, as well as written inputs from contributors to the regular UN Secretary General’s annual report on WSIS. It will prepare a synthesis report by the CSTD Secretariat based on these consultations and written inputs, which will be submitted to the discussion at the annual session of the CSTD in 2024 and 2025. The third layer of this roadmap is a report of the CSTD of these discussions to be submitted through ECOSOC to the General Assembly as inputs to the General Assembly’s review in 2025. So the roadmap is very ambitious and its full accomplishment depends, of course, on the availability of financial resources for these purposes. But what I would like to underline is that the first consultation will take place on the 10th of October, so next Tuesday, at 3.15 in the main hall, I think. So it will be the first consultation, the first multi-stakeholder consultation. Another thing that I would like to underline is that, as Anja said, we have over 160 national and regional initiatives of the IGF. That is so powerful, but the problem is whether over 160 governments, they are all aware of these national and regional initiatives of the IGF. So there is a lot of work to do among all these stakeholders. And another thing that we have to underline all the time is that it’s not only about public and private sectors plus civil society, it’s public sector, private sector, technical community, academia, civil society, international organizations. So there are several stakeholders, there are not only three. At the same time, we are having the discussion of the digital compact. Everybody says it’s a parallel process. It should end by the summit of the future by September 2024. So it’s the same community that is going to discuss it, but it will include governments. So it’s up to these 160 national and regional initiatives to inform your governments on the status quo, on the importance of these NRIs, because this made a huge difference to where we were in 2023 and where we are now in 2023. Thank you, Anja.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you very much, Anja. And I think you gave us… Yeah, indeed. It really deserves an applause. And I have to say that it’s very good that you are in the role of the chair with such strong direct experience as a founder of one of probably the youngest national IGFs and now one of the most exotic IGFs, I would say, the Lusophone IGF, which is such a good practice in the NRIs network, and I hope it will be followed by other language-centered communities. The floor is now open for you. So there are a couple of microphones at the beginning, so you don’t have to queue, but I’ll just ask for cooperation from the colleagues in the first rows to pass on the microphone if we have interventions from the back. And I already see Ananda signing up to speak. So the question is, what do we do to ensure that the NRIs network is better interconnected, first of all, that it’s sustainable, that we’re not leaving anyone behind? And then what Ana said very importantly, that we are on the radar of those who are making decisions and to make sure that we have a channel that those decisions are impacted by information coming from a multi-stakeholder nexus. So maybe you can start from the experience of your national and regional IGFs. What is it that you’re missing in your communities and where we could maybe support better each other? Maybe I’ll ask for Ananda just to take a microphone from the first row, but I’ll share my experience while Ananda is getting ready from this year. So this year I was very privileged to participate in person in a few regional IGFs primarily, and of course online in a number of national, sub-regional, regional and youth IGFs. And I’ve seen a difference, for example, with the Asia-Pacific regional IGF. I see Jennifer is here, I’ve seen a strong concentration of government entities coming from Australia as your host country, but also other countries in the region. And that’s something that probably changed statistically, Jennifer will tell us. Eurodig as well, I mean strong support from intergovernmental sector in Europe, different governments, of course other regional IGFs as well. But I wonder who is missing in our dialogues and how do we engage them better? So that’s the question. Ananda, please, you have the floor.

Ananda Ferdarigot:
Thank you so much. My name is Ananda Ferdarigot, I represent Youth IGF Nepal, one of the youth initiatives in APEC. So my question and sharing the experience, how do we engage in is like when we start doing things, people start to recognize and stakeholders actually accept. Like if we have done two national youth IGFs, and while we do our first, it was like, what is youth IGF, what does it do? And on the second year, a lot of stakeholders were really engaged and like they’re happy to be there and like learn more about it. What we focus is we focus on capacity building of youth so that they know about the IGF ecosystem and other stakeholders also understand the gravity of the issues that are happening around the digital landscape. That’s what we are doing. And what I see missing is like the real sustainability model. I’m also part of APR IGF and like how do we actually get the host for the next year is really a pain, you know, like who will host the event? Like for the next year, Taiwan has, TWNIC has proposed, but after that, another host has to come up and that is not that easy, you know, like making a regional IGF success is really, many people have to engage in that and the sustainable model is not yet fixed. For EuroDIG, I think it’s more clear. There’s EU that supports more in the engagement and organizing. I think the government part and maybe other regional, multilateral organizations should chip in into that so that these kind of initiatives are sustainable and can go. Another thing is like interconnection between these IGFs, like there are 160 IGF already. How do national and youth initiatives from APEC really connect to the Asia-Pacific regional IGF? We do not have any mechanism right now. And how do all the regional IGF connect with each other? There’s no actual mechanism for that as well. There’s a youth Asia-Pacific IGF that is not connected to youth IGF in the region. Like there’s a body, but like how do we connect? There’s same in like youth DIG and like all of the regional youth IGF that are. So we need to have a specific mechanism that is interconnected with from the youth initiative to the national initiative to the regional initiative and I think there are more sub-regional IGF as well. So there need to be a concrete model where all can communicate and maybe collaborate. So that is it. Thank you so much for the mic.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you very much, Ananda. So we have a couple of hands here. Can I, okay, can I ask Poncelet, because I’ve seen Jennifer firstly raising her hand, just or Emmanuel, just to help with a microphone to get to Jennifer, or maybe I can come actually down and help with that as well. And then we’ll come back to this row and then we’ll go there.

Jennifer Chung:
Okay, I’ll keep on standing over here so I’m not like looking at everyone. Hi colleagues. Hi everyone. My name is Jennifer Chung. I’m part of the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF Secretariat. Just reflecting quickly on what Anya has posed in the beginning and then I’ll kind of reflect a little bit more on what Ananda shared. So the question really is, you know, what is missing? What is the part where the NRI networks can be able to fulfill its strengths? We are 160 plus strong. How can we leverage our network, what we do best, into the upcoming processes such as WSIS Plus 20, whatever is going to happen with the GDC? So reflecting back is the two things that I’m thinking of. Really being able to open the channels to the decision-making people, for them to be able to hear what we have to say, the kind of best practices, the issues that we face in our regions, in our sub-regions, in our national jurisdictions and all of that. And the second part is having those decision-makers come to our meetings to be able to see what we talk about, to be able to feel exactly how Internet governance is being discussed in each and every single one of our forums and meetings. And so what Anya has mentioned earlier is actually really important. Asia-Pacific Regional IGF, we have had a stakeholder engagement committee that has been looking at and analyzing the participation data across the years and identifying the sub-regions and also the stakeholders that we are missing that we need to bring to the table. This year we’re really happy that the Australian government has really stepped up and been able to bring in more government folk that we are missing from Australia and also around the region. The second thing that we think has been really good for the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF, and I think I reflected this in last year’s coordination session, is for us, having co-located events actually increases the exposure of the local people. So in this case, the Pacific community and the community within Australia itself. This year we had NetThing, which is the Australian NRI. We also had Pacific IGF, which is of course a sub-regional IGF in the region. And also the Asia-Pacific Youth IGF. So we actually had four co-located events. Having that there actually increases a lot of cross-pollination of issues, bringing other people to be able to understand a lot more issues. I think that is something perhaps a sub-regional or regional IGF can consider in terms of sustainability. And the second thing that I wanted to point out is because we had the parliamentary track at ABIGF this year, I think this is also something that we also need to think about a little more. They are also decision-makers in the various jurisdictions, and they are the ones who are going to be making decisions. making, the regulations, the laws, the bills, and they need to understand what is being discussed in the community about all of these emerging issues, AI being one of them, internet governance, of course. And then finally, I wanted to echo what Ananda just said. It is really important to be able to facilitate multi-way dialogue. It’s not just one way, not just two way, especially when we’re talking about our network being so big now. It needs to be kind of a learning symbiotic relationship. And I think the Asia-Pacific Youth IGF this year tried for the second year to hold kind of an APAC Youth Leaders Dialogue. I think hopefully they can evolve that and grow that as well. And perhaps that’s another way for the NRI network to think about being able to leverage other events that are going to be talking about similar activities, including those people who are at these events already, who may not already come to your meeting. I think that is really important. Thanks.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Jennifer. I saw a couple of hands around you. Also, I think Carlos is the closest to you, then Vakas, then we’ll go back to where Emmanuel, Poncelet, and Nazar are.

Audience:
Thank you, Angel. Thank you, Anne, also. Hello, everybody. Well, I think we got a lot of improvements from the very beginning when we start this kind of process, multi-stakeholder process. And this is mainly because the United Nations give us a lot of support with people like you, for example, that works very hard for this kind of process. The most challenging is how the governments of our countries can collaborate more. And I guess we can make this better if we are able to have some more help from United Nations to work with our governments. So maybe also if we can have, only big countries can host these big events, like Japan or Brazil in Latin America or Mexico. But the small countries are not able to host this kind of big events. So it’s not so easy for the government to understand what’s going on in the world about this. So if you are looking for some way to make this sustainable, let’s get more involved with the government. I think this is a very, very good issue. Thank you very much for all your work, and thank you guys for the support also.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you very much, Carlos. Carlos is from the Ecuador IGF. Just if I’m sure there are colleagues who are not maybe familiar with all of us. We know each other well. We spend considerable amount of time every month together.

Vakas Hassan:
Vakas, please. Thank you. My name is Vakas Hassan. I work for the telecom regulator in Pakistan, but I also volunteer for regional and other initiatives, national initiatives on IG. I have two comments, wearing two hats. I think I’m in a position to make two comments, one from the government side and one from the other side. If you look at government participation in the regional and national initiatives and also at the global IGF, it is increasing because I believe that the discussion has become more respectable and more cordial between all the stakeholders. When this process started, there were, of course, there are points that you have to be strong about. When your voice has to be strong, you have to make your point. But I think the governments have now realized that this discussion on internet governance, it is not a one-handed decision. It has to be a multi-stakeholder decision, and now they’re becoming more active in these kind of forums because these discussions are more progressive in nature now. That being said, being associated with APR IGF as well, and all, I think there is still a lot of room for improvement. I think the government participation in these forums is increasing, but it is not, I don’t think that it’s at that level where we can say that there is an equal participation among all stakeholders, including the government. There will always be a disbalance, but there has to be a certain threshold that has to be maintained. If you look at the trend at APR IGF, at least, we have seen it growing over the years, and I believe this year it was around 25, 30%, maybe, where government stakeholders were there. Now, for the other thing where, when we’re talking about strengthening the NRIs network, there is a natural progression that we see. For example, your journey might, for example, my journey started with the school on internet governance that we have in Pakistan. I attended the school on internet governance, and then there is a Asian IGF, APR IGF, and then the global IGF. I think how we can collaborate is to identify people or the next generation of internet leaders that we see on a national level, and then maybe on a regional level, and then maybe share this with between us, introduce them to people who are at the global level or regional level so that the right kind of people are being selected for forums like APR IGF and IGF, who then progress to become the next generation of internet leaders from our country or from our region. So one of the things that we can probably strengthen a bit more within the 160-plus network that we have is information sharing about personnel that are actually being invited and being selected as fellows or as participants at these events. Thank you.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you very much, Vakas. Let’s go to, okay, you have already the microphone, so maybe we can go, I’m sorry, to the third row, then we’ll come back to the middle one.

Andres Bass:
Hello, everyone. My name is Andres Bass. I’m from New York, and I want to know why IGF do not have a lot of UBES and DATI from the United States. And by the time when I go to the UN with a lot of youth, and when I’m talking about the IGF, they don’t have no knowledge about what IGF, and this is my sixth one. I’m coming. And each time, I make sure I bring with me student from different part. They can see how wonderful that program is. And I think, yeah, I need to do a better communication with the regional. That’s the way they can have a platform when we send people. It’s not a one-time deal. I feel like IGF is one-time deal. Anytime they have a session, that’s why you know about it. After that, it’s like a dead end, and they don’t have somebody who know exactly how it is. And it is sad because it’s a program under the UN, and each time I went to those youth meeting, and I tell them, based on the competency and what they’re talking about the internet, how devoted they are for policy change, and structure, and governance, and they don’t even know about IGF. And I want to make sure that idea of IGF is not a one-time thing when the session is coming, but people can know more about it, especially if you’re in the UN, advertise it. Because the global communication, I think I’m the one who send them the link. They didn’t have the link about the IGF. Now, I think it’s supposed to have a better understanding on that. Thank you.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you. Thank you very much for your comment and suggestions. I think, is it Poncelet, or, yes, Poncelet, maybe we can give the floor now to you.

Audience:
Yes, thank you very much, Poncelet speaking, for the records. I will say, in terms of, I would like to make my comments in terms of improving based on what we have in Africa, and I’ll use the Gambia as an example, in which you have to have overall buy-in from your government, and your minister is involved, your parliament is involved, and even the local UNDP offices involved. So, in a sustainable way, the government has a budget for it. The UNDP supports it through their governance program, and I think, generally, when we, if other countries apply, I’m looking at what Anna said earlier on with the CSTD, they can come on the top during our regional IGFs to support and speak, but it also makes sure that, like the African regional IGF, we should have it harmonized, that all countries do this on time before it happens, because we still have a situation whereby there’s no harmonized calendars, and I think that applies to all regions. We should have a harmonized calendar that you have your nationals in the first two quarters of the year, and then the third quarter of the year, you have your regional before we come into the global. So, that is something I would like to see happen, and we should try to engage our various UNDP regional bureaus, whether it’s in Asia, whether it’s in Africa, or Europe, and to make sure they are involved in the process at the regional to amplify the voices. Thank you.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you very much, Poncelet. Any other comments? Yes, Anup.

Audience:
Oh, okay. Okay, thank you very much, Anya, and first of all, I would like to thank the Secretariat for the work that you put in in organizing us. It’s not a small job. It’s huge, but I think your team, does a very good job of putting everything together. That is number one. Number two, I would like to give an example of what we have started doing in Tanzania. You know, the IGF, previously in Tanzania, was known for having an event in a year, and you wait for another year, when you have the next IGF. So what we are trying to do now, however shoestring budget-based, is to have issue-based capacity-building workshops, where we invite all the stakeholders to be able to engage with us. For example, we had the issues of digital taxation, and we involved all the stakeholders, including the taxman, and the ministry, and now our IGF has been known for all these activities that we organize as interstitial activities, you know, towards the calendar of our national IGF. So what I would recommend for us to be stronger, and to continue to be, we are relevant, to continue to be more relevant, is that we become issue-based, you know, oriented outfit, where as we engage our multi-stakeholder on the ground, we also take issues that are on the ground and turn them into interstitial activities. For example, in Tanzania, we were very instrumental in terms of the Personal Data Protection Act that came into force last year. And also, we are now very instrumental in the digital strategy that the Ministry of ICT is actually rolling out for implementation and for the report. So I think if we were to take all these interstitial capacity building activities and invite all the stakeholders, we will make some inroads in terms of making sure that we become more relevant on the ground, and in the process, we’ll be known at the ground level as actually people who are not just doing the meetings, they are actually there to make sure that the issues that are on the ground are being discussed on and being acted upon. Last is about the issues of connectivity, for example. Our national IGF also undertook a project on connectivity, and we began a project known as Tanzania Digital Inclusion Project where we train women and young people on digital literacy. And also, we have created an example, an exemplary community digital innovation hub, where people from the community can come and access internet and also learn about how to use the internet, and so on and so forth. So if we have some tangible projects that we’re actually doing on the ground, people will see us not only as discussing the issues of internet governance and internet development, but actually creating solutions. So I think we also have to take this route where we do some concrete, even very shoestring budget-oriented little project in our communities that people can also emulate. So I think that can also be very helpful in terms of making ourselves strong and continue to, because it’s like if there was no IGF, for example, if you were, let’s say, in the worst case scenario, and you say today, no IGF. IGF has become one of the grassroots movements where you can actually implement a lot of stuff through the multi-stakeholder outfit that is on the ground. So I think, let me say that will be my 50-cent contribution. Thank you.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you very much, Nisar. Anu, please, you have the floor.

Moammed Abdullakh Anu:
Thank you, Ania. This is Mohammed Abdullakh Anu from Bangladesh. We are creating so many community, IGF community in Bangladesh, KISS IGF, IOTA IGF, OMEN IGF, Member of the Parliament IGF, and also Bangladeshi School of Internet Governance. Now we are hearing 18 IGF. IGF process is now is adult right now. Now we are searching how IGF process is sustainable. So my observation is, why not we are creating one research cell in IGF, under the United Nations IGF process. This research cell working with university, academia involved, they are find out what is the sustainable model is the IGF process. This is our observation. Thank you.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Anu. Can I, Anu, ask you just to pass on the microphone behind you to Satish and then we’ll go back to Emmanuel. Yes. Yeah.

Satish Babu:
Thanks, Anu. I’m Satish Babu from India. We have had a very interesting few years about the internet governance itself. Our IGF, our School on Internet Governance started eight years back, couple of weeks back, we celebrated the eighth edition of the School on Internet Governance. The school itself was very instrumental in pushing for an IGF, which we didn’t have for the longest time. Three years back, the school itself took the lead and pushed to the government. Finally, for the last two years, we have had the IGF. Second point is that the IGF has brought together the high-level ministers to the grassroots-level workers together in one platform. I think for India’s size, that’s a very important development. The third point is that not all regions or countries have multi-stakeholder structures to kind of drive this. In our case, what’s happened is that this IGF itself, India IGF itself has become a multi-stakeholder body that is not into pushing for decisions at this point, but at least discussions are happening in the multi-stakeholder model. I think it’s a very important development because IGFs are there in many countries, but very few countries have proper multi-stakeholder structures like Brazil has or like European Union has. So this IGF can become, for the future, the multi-stakeholder level model that can be then strengthened to take decisions also. Thank you.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you, thank you very much, Satish. Emmanuel, please.

Audience:
Okay. Thank you very much, Anya. So at the Togo IGF, so my name is Emmanuel from the Togo IGF. So at the Togo IGF, we have recognized that organizing a forum a day or two where the recommendation are not being implemented is not really sufficient because we have tried last year to track for the last nine years what kind of recommendation we put out there and what has been the implementation so far. So we’ve noticed that in Togo, for example, the regulator do participate in the name of the government, but the ministry, they don’t usually come as actors, they come as participants. So it’s quite difficult to track the implementation with them because they are not actors in putting those recommendation together. So what we try to do this year is do a stakeholder engagement with those stakeholders, the MPs, the government, and the regulator because this is a problem in most Francophone African countries where government don’t usually feel discussing on equal footing with civil society and other stakeholder group like the business. So this is a strategy we are putting in place. Together with Dr. Shango, we developed a training material. So this coming November, trying to organize a workshop for those stakeholders alone to explain what the internal governance means, the processes to them, because I think there’s a lot of ignorance. So usually when you send them a letter, they can dismiss anybody from the ministry to participate, but they are not really actors and also implementing those, how the recommendation. So we hope that by engaging them alone, they can actually join the conversation while we organize our next IGF. And the other point also is when we organize the schools, those government official don’t usually apply to join the school. So it’s also a very big problem. So we think that the workshop can try to solve that gap. And from the regional level as well, because I’m fortunate to coordinate the West African School of Internal Governance. At the regional level, the problem we have is that we don’t have funding for the school, but those schools are usually expensive than the forum. And the school represents a kind of ground where we train the future leaders for those conversations, because today, it has been a while, I don’t classify myself among the youth anymore, because I’m on the adult table and I’m on the youth table for years. And this is the same example in most African countries or West African countries where the same youths are the actors in the NRIs. So the hope is that we should be. able to train as much as possible young people to take lead in the, how do you call it, the youth conversation while we actually grow, you know, in the NRI level. So that is something. So we should find a mechanism to fund the schools, especially the regional schools, because they are very important to train those coming leaders. And if we don’t have one for it, it will be quite difficult for the sustainability of the processes at the regional level. Thank you. Thank you

Julian Casas Buenas:
very much, Manuel. Julian, please. Thank you, Anja. My name is Julian Casas Buenas. I’m talking on behalf of the Colombian IGF, where we, this year, will be implementing our doing. So one of the reflections came out after the participation of all these spaces, and we believe that we should continue supporting these local initiatives to strengthen the multi-stakeholder model, and also to identify those sectors that are underrepresented and find ways to get them involved in the process of the Internet governance. But very much focus also in encouraging young people to get involved. And we believe that we have to work in creating mechanisms that we can share the results of these local discussions to be systematized, to produce these multi-stakeholder messages for the development and the strengthening of the Internet, as it has been done in the last IGFs and other experiences with NRIs. And also bringing Internet governance discussion to new actors. We believe that the exercise with the Global Digital Compact in the Colombian IGF, what’s very interesting in involving about 25 organizations in the discussions from different stakeholders, and bringing together with these inputs that was requested from the Global Digital Compact. And also from that experience, we believe that this multi-stakeholder model should be recognized, protected, promoted, and supported an essential element for Internet governance. This collaboration among all sectors, besides being fundamental, is the most strategic and appropriate way to move forward the Global Digital Development. Also we believe that the Global Digital Compact should build on what has been built around Internet governance at local and global, regional, national levels, and other spaces and other initiatives that we have been participating in in the past. And discuss the future of the Internet, for example, as a network. Thank you.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you very much, Julian. Our special friend, I have to say, some of you will remember the bright days of Sri Lanka National IGF. Then we had a gap due to a very unfortunate situation in the country with the community. Maheshwara is back with us. The National IGF is getting refreshed and getting back, and very happy to have you here, Maheshwara. Thank you very much, Anja, allowing me to come

Audience:
back to the IGF. And actually 2016 and 2017 was the brightest IGF sessions that we had. But after 2019, with the Easter attack onwards, we had many problematic issues. You know, now we are facing the financial crisis as a country. So even now, we are facing Internet governance issues at the moment. Within those period, even though the forum is not conducted, there were many activities we did, regarding the policies, regarding the acts, regarding these things. Because Internet governance forum is just not a forum where I stand on an annual basis. There are actions in between. So most of the things that happen in the Cyber Security Act in Sri Lanka, they have tried to produce it in a multistakeholder, undemocratic way. Where that we have gathered, we have done few forums, not Internet governance forums actually, with the multistakeholders. We present our opinions and views. Where the government had took their step back in 2019, then after, now we are facing the same issue regarding the Safer Internet Act, where that it may have issues to be fragmented the Internet. So where that we are collecting here, connecting here, we are gathering here to keep one Internet. So as a suggestion, we as an NRI network, we can do something. We had only 14 days to analyze this whole policy that they have prepared. So what we can do, we can gather together as NRIs and work and we can share your opinions and we can build upon our views on that event. This not should be Sri Lankan policy, it should be done by Sri Lankans. What we can do is share in whole NRI network. So likewise I propose that thing and still we are planning our 2023 IGF version, a smaller version one. Hopefully your support will be there again with us. Thank you very much.

Anya Gengo:
You really deserve this applause. Thank you very much Maheshwara and also for being here all the efforts in re-initiating the National IGF. I know it’s far from being easy. Thank you very much. Any other comments? I guess we have here a comment.

Tanara Lauschner:
Hello everyone. Thank you Anja for giving me the floor. I will make a brief intervention trying to respond to your main question. My name is Tanara Lauschner. I coordinate the work group of Brazilian IGF initiative organized by Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and from our perspective the issue of how to convey the messages to decisions makers is key for this decision, for this discussion, sorry. In Brazilian IGF we have been able to gradually increase the participation of decision makers throughout the years either by making adjustments in the format of the event to guarantee real multi-stakeholder discussions with meaningful participation of all sectors or even by leveraging the opportunities of our annual events to foster national wide debates. The Brazilian IGF was a key resource in the past when it discussed the main Brazilian Internet law and the same has been happening recently with new trends such as the platform regulation debates. I believe and our eyes should find ways to adapt their networks to be more and more connected with local regional and global debates so that they can be seen as a valuable resource by decision makers. Other than that I believe we must find ways to strengthen our bonds and cooperation between the NRIs be it to simply exchange experience, be it to build whole new partnerships for consolidating useful models of discussing, participating and impacting local regional and global debates about the Internet, ICTs and the digital ecosystem

Anya Gengo:
as a whole. Thank you. Thank you very much Tanara. If you have new comments maybe I’ll just go since I think it was at the same time raised hand so I’ll go to Roberto from Bolivia then we’ll go to Gunilla. Thank you Anja. Hello everyone it’s

Audience:
great to be here again in this as you said traditional coordination session and I think I would like to share only a couple of examples as you mentioned before that I think are important for us to learn between each other and maybe as one of the colleagues said before there is not necessarily a particular prescription or a particular mechanism that we can actually apply in the different regions or different countries. One of the examples I would like to mention is how we managed to organize between the different IGFs in LAC region in order to arrange I will say a very interesting session that we have last year 2022 in which we actually achieved what we always wanted and that is to try to coordinate between all our regional IGFs in order to try to identify priority sized items, priorities in the region or important common themes that also could be very relevant in order to take them to higher levels meaning of course the global IGF and as you said before now in this and for the next year it will be very important more maybe than ever to come up with this kind of concrete coordination and identification of the themes that we really like to push to have as part of the discussion in the agenda of the summit of the future and of course including in the in the GDC. So I think it’s very feasible. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate Julian which under his leadership you know is going to take care about the secretariat of the local the regional our regional in LAC IGF so I think it will continue consolidating this kind of coordination in the future and the other thing that I wanted to mention because again it’s something that we are always concerned about is the participation of the governments. It’s true that among all the stakeholders it’s really difficult in some cases to actually take them to our to the table to dialogue table in different countries. Some countries succeed on that but some other don’t. In our case we had I will say we succeeded with them in our case in Bolivia IGF we succeeded having them in in the dialogue table and we even got very important results I’m talking about from 2017 until 2020 when we have very interesting outcomes in terms of adjusting public policy in terms that were very important for Bolivians. So I think the presence of them in these dialogues in our NRICs is really important and now it comes a suggestion Anja. We know that we always count on you on the secretariat you are always open to be part of our dialogues and we thank for that a lot even the MAC chairs usually attend to this kind of event one when we we actually invite you because I think it’s very important for us in our local dialogues to count with your participation because this gives even more formality to the to our events. What happens in 2021 in our case what we couldn’t manage to get the government because many of the people that we do to we which or to whom we were discussing before were out of the offices so they changed the different authorities. So in this kind of opportunities I think a good way to even get them again to our dialogue table will be to receive some sort of support from the secretariat meaning that maybe I don’t know if an invitation or a letter or something like that from the secretariat that goes to the government officials could help us a lot in order to positively persuade them to participate in this kind of dialogues. Thank you very much. Thank you

Anya Gengo:
very much Roberto and I certainly take that question and proposal to the secretariat’s management and up to discuss and I do agree with you probably it will be helpful and I also recall these types of suggestions from 2016 and 17 and maybe it’s time to act upon those. Thank you very much. I think Gunela you had your hand raised. So you have the floor. Yes then we’ll go to further to Lilian and I think I saw a couple of hands there. Hello Gunela

Gunela Asprink:
Asprink chairing the Internet Society Accessibility Standing Group and we’ve talked a lot about under-representation of particular groups from the community in the internet governance debate and one particular group of course is persons with disability and according to the World Health Organization at least 15% of any population has a disability and so we’re talking about 1.3 billion people across the world and if we’re looking here at the IGF it would be well well under 1% of attendees both online and on-site who have a disability so we really do need to increase that so that we have a disability voice speaking from a lived experience and from the Asia-Pacific region the Standing Group has developed a very good relationship with the Asia-Pacific School of Internet Governance to help train young people with disability and disability advocates to to build that understanding to build a new voice but in order to do that people need to have support to be able to participate in NRIs nationally globally and it’s quite it needs more support we had an issue with APR IGF and and needing more sponsorship for that support and certainly with the IGF support for persons with disability coming that could be increased and certainly some persons with disability need travel assistance and and assistance to be around the venue in all sorts of practical ways and there needs to be probably more understanding of that so we can have people here and fortunately the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability have had some support through Vint Cerf Google to bring people here but we need a lot more we need a lot more from various sectors and so that’s what I’m asking the IGF to provide more of that support so we can have the disability movements motto nothing about us without us here at the

Anya Gengo:
IGF. Thank you. Thank you very much Gwenella. Let’s hear from I think Lillian was first and then we’ll then we’ll go to Mary and we go to Rui and then I don’t know who else was up but you can prepare. Yes please. I can hear you well.

Lillian Naroga:
Thank You Anya and thank you for organizing this session. I wanted to share some experience from from Uganda and East Africa. My name is Lillian Naroga. I coordinate the Uganda Internet Governance Forum and the East Africa Internet Governance Forum. I think I’ve heard from a number of colleagues here you know talking about involving other actors like government, private sector and the youth and I think this is good. From the Uganda perspective we always had a challenge of bringing in the private sector into you know these conversations because I think just around the whole world wording around internet governance you know and most cases these conversations around you know policies because in my country and maybe in Africa we talk about so much regulation than you know being practical about some of the things that come out of these conversations. So what we have seen right now is the private sector is reaching out to us to be more involved in these conversations and just about last week we received an email from the from MTN group, MTN Uganda which is one of the leading telecom companies in Africa and in Uganda you know to just have conversations around digital human rights and they were more focused into digital skilling for young people and you know for women. So for us this is what this is a plus because in the past the platform has been used for you know bringing together people seeing how can we collaborate. At the regional level at the East African level we had a forum last year and some of the recommendations were to how do we involve more government people you know government entities into these conversations and one of the key issues were looking at the regional block was cyber security and this is where the pain is. So we are trying to see how can we translate our conversations into actionable items that can involve these key stakeholders that we are targeting. So this year around when we organized the East Africa School on Internet Governance we identified regional entities within the East African community and working with the secretariat at the East Africa community we were able to identify about seven institutions and we targeted you know to give them you know an introduction to Internet Governance but also targeting cyber security as one of the key areas that we wanted them to strengthen in terms of harmonizing regional you know policies and that kind of thing. So the key takeaway here for us is away from you know convening and talking how can we actualize the items you know the recommendations we get from the community and stakeholders and we are seeing this beginning to happen stakeholders reaching out to us and they’re like so for purposes of strengthening the you know talking about the continuity of the IGF that we see you know plus 10 and all that I think we can use our initiatives as So, I think, you know, we need to be able to identify the areas of interest that we need to be able to identify as platforms of engagement, because we’re already doing that, but then we need to be able to target and identify areas of interest to particular stakeholders, because if we come with this, you know, bigger, you know, conversations and all that, we tend to, people tend to shy away from these conversations. So, I think, you know, we need to be able to identify those areas of interest. So, the actionable items that we want to identify, I think that is the key take-away we can, you know, utilize from my perspective. Thank you.

Audience:
Thank you very much. Hello, this is Ray from the China I2F. I would like to share a quick point. So, we are a global I2F, and we are a global I2F in global community, so we will organize the salon or workshop to discuss some of the hot topic, for example, the universal acceptance, data governance, information, accessibility, such like that. And we will bring this information to the global I2F. So, I think, you know, we have a lot of opportunities to communicate, enhance the interaction with all of the regional or sub-regional I2F. So, maybe I have received many mailing lists that even I can learn many things from the other countries’ I2F. So, I would like to know if there is any other more way or motivation mechanism to promote interaction between different regional I2F or country I2F, for example, if I have a special topic I would like to discuss or I would like to share with others, maybe we can generate a room link or a room meeting or we can discuss together or something like that. That’s my quick point. Thank you very much. And I think we have a lot of time. So, I think China I2F will host a social event night on this Tuesday evening and we welcome all of you to come here. Thank you.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you very much, Rui. And I think you’ve all received the invitation to a social event hosted by our colleagues at China National I2F, so I hope we can also continue this excellent dialogue there. But let’s please now give the floor to Mary.

Audience:
Thank you. I think it should be evening, colleagues, and I just want to share, I just want to continue from where Ponslet stopped. I want to ask whether there’s anything that the UNDESA at its own level will do to connect other U.N. countries in the region, in our sub-regional level, so I’m going to leave it to the UNDESA and the UNHCR to do that in I2F processes in our countries, in our nations, in our region, in our sub-regional level. So, I’m throwing back to UNDESA and ANYA if there’s something that could be done at that level. Now, I share what has happened in my own country. I’m not a member of the UNHCR, but I was a member of the UNHCR, and I was a member of the Nigeria Internet Governance Forum, but we came to a point to say, look, not one person will continue to coordinate. So, we decided to move and find other stakeholders instead of the non-state actors. So, we decided to have a non-state actor, and that non-state actor would work as a project or a program for the year, and then fund most of the activities, so it’s sustained. So, just to share as an example, and the Africa IGF we hosted, Nigeria hosted this year, it was government, in particular, that spent the money, and it turned out to be very good. When Nigeria decided to bid, it was government agency that bid it, and they put it in their budget, and so funding was not a problem. I know sometimes it’s always difficult to get funding for our initiative and our processes and our conversation and our discussions. Then, at the sub-regional level, we involved the ECOWAS. ECOWAS is the sub-regional economic community of West Africa, and that’s where our secretariat is. And it’s part of the activity, the yearly activity, and when we want to draw up our focus for the year, we look at what conversations the member states would want us to discuss and come up with recommendations. And when these recommendations are made, it’s sent to the ECOWAS, who now present it at either the minister’s level, I mean, meeting at the ECOWAS level or the heads of state, so it doesn’t arrest, or it doesn’t stop from mere conversation. The communique is always carried forward. And, again, at Africa level, now that we have the African parliamentarians, we have the African parliamentarians, we have the African parliamentarians, and I’m so excited, the number of African parliamentarians that are attending the African track now is beginning to make sense, because those ones are either chairpersons of the ICT committee at the African level, or they are members of the ICT committee at the national level. So, again, the executive will bring issues that are coming out from the conversation and recommendation and messages from the executive to national assembly to look for funding and processes like that, or look for support, I mean, the parliamentarians would support, and also policies that they would support would be the one that would better the conversations we have in Africa. So, I think that’s all I have to say.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you very much, Mary, for bringing those good practices from the African IGF. I don’t know if we have any more hands in the room, but I would, if you agree, I would like to prioritize our online participants. We have a few NRI coordinators that would like to take the floor, and it’s very, very early for them, so that’s much appreciated, your commitment. So, I would like to ask the technicians to unmute Yaw Amevi.

Yaw Amevi:
Thank you very much. Can you hear me all right? Yes, we can. Thank you very much, and before, I am Yaw Amevi from the African IGF, and I’m also a member of the dynamic coalition on data-driven technology. So, before I start, I would like to thank you, Anya, for participating virtually to the first new 5G event in Benin. That was very awesome, and the support was really relevant, and we got very great feedback from your participation in this event. So, I would like to ask you, Yaw, your question about how we can make our collaboration better, and then what are the best practices? I would say, from my point of view, I used to call myself kind of a newcomer to the IGF event and initiative, so, from what I have learned, I think, so far, the engagement from the NRI leadership is something we have to actually praise, because you were there to support when we have initiatives, and listen to us, and then support in terms of organizing, networking, and sharing the event among the different stakeholders internationally. But I think what I’ve noticed to be done is that we have to make sure that we are not only supporting the IGF, but we are also supporting the NRI, and I think what I’ve noticed to be done better could be how we can find way from the NRI leadership to better support national IGF event, especially youth event, in the way of, I think I would stress that in some of our communication, if it is possible to give an issue, a certain, in a way, letter of information to the coordinator of the event, that would be a great plus. I understand that there might be some restriction and some other policy issue involved in that, but this is something, I think, we do, can strengthen engagement in terms of reaching out to various stakeholders, and I think that is something we can do. We can reach out to various stakeholders, and mainly government stakeholders, when those organizers, coordinators, national coordinators want to organize the event. And also, I think we should also find a way to harmonize regional, local, and youth IGF events. I think that is something we can do, and we plan to organize youth IGF events at national level, but at the same time, there will be regional IGF or any other NRI event. That will, I think, for the long run, since we want participation, both nationally, but also have all the sub-region organizers, I think having a clear database of what, yeah, you’ve done well in informing the global community on that, but I think strengthening the different timetable of different NRI initiatives in real time, informing the different coordinators, and interested parties can be a great plus in that direction. I will not finish my talk without strengthening the fact that we need to issue a best practice book for the NRI. And I know there’s already best practice forum, but I think we really need something from the NRI community as a global, as a handbook of best practice of what has been working so far, and on top of which we can build, and what is missing, and what we can do better in terms of organizing different activities, including funding, including engaging and empowering different underrepresented communities and stakeholders in this whole process. Sustainability, sorry to be long. I think we need to take measures also to make sure that all these initiatives are sustainable, and also take steps to track all the recommendations that have been issued to different national, regional, and youth events, so that we know why we are organizing this NRI initiative, and that the impact are really visible, and change are being made. And in that regard, I would like to support Member Mary’s point on how to make sure that the government takes over when it comes to organizing, for example, national NRI events, or sub-regional initiatives. And my last point, sorry to be long, would be fellowship selection. Select people, especially newcomers. I mean, newcomers for me will be newcomers of people who have never attended an in-person event. How we make sure that the process is more open, and if, for example, an applicant is not selected, we will detail especially what is the reason why he’s not been selected, not just general, sorry, you are not being selected, because we have many applicants. I mean, that will be very useful. And yeah, I will stop there. Thank you very much.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you very much, Yao. I’m getting warnings here that we are very much over time, and there’s a session after us. I would like us to wrap up with comments from two more online NRI coordinators. Umut, please, you have the floor, then Abraham, and then we will conclude for today, but there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss further. Umut, I hope you can be unmuted. Actually, you are now. Umut, I see that you are unmuted, but we are unable to hear you here, so it could be something also on your side. Okay, Anja. Can I continue with mine? Let’s hear from Abraham until Umut works on his audio.

Audience:
Okay. All right. Thank you, Anja, and I would like to take this opportunity to appreciate your effort, because sometimes I don’t know how to do it, because sometimes I really want to understand how you’re able to combine all this work from NRIs to all the IGF communications, and I have been supporting the West African IGF and West African IGF to us as well, and the Ghana IGF, and also belonging to the Pan-African Youth Ambassadors for Internet Governance. So, we have a very good discussion here following in terms of partnership and other governments, but this is my concerns, because when thinking of bringing people in partnership, as Mama Mary was saying and other people were talking about, we also have to factor the equality in terms of participation. When we look at this IGF, Africa is being underrepresented because we have some challenges in terms of assessing the locations that the events have been chosen, and we really want to engage private companies, stakeholder groups that can also support the IGF in terms so that they can understand the policies and formulations, but how can you also engage them when they can’t get access to even witness the practicality of the IGF? I know private companies from different African countries who are trying to assess this year’s IGF, but they couldn’t because of the location, visa restrictions, and others. So, what I will suggest is that we must be able to also think through from the MAG level to the decision-makers how we choose the selection of a place for IGF, which will not restrict so many people. We must also have a model, because I know the UN did a very good work with the host government, but things were not clear, so there should be an extensive communication to countries who are willing to host IGF. How will you facilitate to accommodate all the people coming from different regions? Because I know that ANJA was even sending a lot of consistent emails to different countries, different people, but they were still refusing. I know that there are countries that have been funded by the IGF, and they refused them because of some of these things. I know it’s very heartbreaking as well. Involving government as a decision-maker is very key. Sometimes, the IGF secretaries and NRS can also send invitations to government as well, so that the government will be able to work towards maybe we have funding for people, we can fund about 20 people to come to this IGF, which will also be another plus for IGF, so that they can extend some of the fundings to other people who will be influential. This is my take-away. I really thank everyone for contributing to this. We, as Pan-African youth ambassadors for Internet Governance, we tried as much as possible. We have trained over 1,000 people in Internet Governance in different languages, Swahili, English, Portuguese. We have trained over 1,000 people. We have trained over 1,000 people. We have trained over 1,000 people. We have trained over 1,000 people. We have trained over 1,000 people. We have trained over 1,000 people. We have trained over 1,000 people. We have trained over 1,000 people in different cultures, and we have trained over 1,000 people, as well, in Swahili, English, Portuguese, Arabic, and French. We were trying to create an impact within the various communities from different African countries, 52 African countries, but we wanted to have a few to bring these people on board, but we couldn’t due to some other processes. So, thank you very much and we appreciate that some of this, and consensus contribution will be taken into consideration. Thank you.

Anya Gengo:
Thank you very much, Abraham. Indeed, very valuable. Umut, if you want to try once again, we have a minute to go. You can try. I think we still can’t hear you. I see you are unmuted in Zoom. But it could be that your verbal comment would relate to your written comment, and technically, it’s about finding a way to improve the way of sharing our inputs, messages, ways to engage with people. And also our BPFs in order to know exactly what is going on with the NRIs. And that is indeed a message that has been said by several of you. The IGF Secretariat, as you know, will summarize all these valuable inputs into action points. This will inform our consultations for a bottom-up planning of the work plan for 2024. We will certainly, after the meeting, have a discussion about this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We will certainly, after the IGF, as you know, traditionally enter those consultations and hopefully start the next year with a new concrete work plan. And I’m very glad that we are on the radar as a network of other processes as well. As Anna mentioned, CSTD, the Vsys Plus 20 roadmap, but also the GDC. And thank you very much for your excellent, valuable work, and for the great impact and change that we are witnessing. And from the IGF Secretariat, just a big thank you to every single one of you. Thank you. See you at the gala dinner. And thank you, everyone, online. All right. Thank you, Anja. Thank you, everyone. I can see Atanasy. Thank you. Bye.

Audience:
Bye. Bye.