Scoping Civil Society engagement in Digital Cooperation | IGF 2023

Bruna Santos

Bruna Santos is an advocate for the Global Digital Compact (GDC) process and aims to help participants understand its various aspects. She emphasizes the importance of collaborative discussions and information sharing in order to facilitate a comprehensive understanding and effective implementation of the GDC. Santos supports stakeholder engagement and stresses the need for involvement from key players such as Big Tech companies and civil society.

To promote dialogue and knowledge exchange, Santos has scheduled two main sessions that focus on the GDC and the future of digital governance. These sessions are considered vital, as they are closely connected to the GDC and offer insights into the direction of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and digital governance as a whole. Santos believes in gathering inputs and perspectives from civil society during these sessions to ensure a more inclusive and comprehensive approach.

Discussions within the GDC could have a significant impact on the future of the IGF and the progress of digital governance and cooperation. The GDC has the potential to influence the decision-making process and shape digital governance strategies. However, there are concerns about the roles and implications of the GDC, IGF, and the proposed Digital Cooperation Forum. It is crucial to carefully consider these aspects to ensure the effectiveness and success of these initiatives.

Despite the enthusiasm surrounding the GDC process, there is a noticeable discrepancy between information and uncertainties. This lack of clarity can create discomfort and hinder the progress of the GDC. Additionally, engaging with certain member states who are less engaged or knowledgeable poses challenges. Santos highlights the difficulties faced when trying to engage with delegations from countries like Brazil or Chile.

Santos emphasizes the importance of expanded civil society engagement, both within the GDC process and in digital governance more broadly. She believes that civil society’s active participation and unrestricted engagement are crucial for the process to genuinely work. Santos also stresses the need for governments to foster the participation of civil society groups, including making them part of national delegations.

There are questions regarding how Global Majority Countries will connect the GDC with their G20 commitments. Santos highlights India’s advancements in the Digital Public Infrastructure debate within the G20 and Brazil’s focus on Information Integrity, showcasing the relevance of these countries’ commitments to the GDC.

Stakeholder engagement, particularly with Big Tech companies and civil society, is essential for the success of the GDC. Santos raises concerns about the potential exclusion of civil society from these conversations. She advocates for their inclusion to ensure a well-rounded and comprehensive approach in the development and implementation of the GDC.

Another noteworthy observation is the potential shift from a multi-stakeholder model to a mostly multilateral system. Santos expresses concern about this shift and its potential implications for the future of the IGF and the Digital Cooperation Framework (DCF).

To guide the GDC process, Santos proposes utilizing past multi-stakeholder processes and collective knowledge gained from initiatives such as the WCAG, NetMundial, IANA Stewardship Transition, WSIS, ICANN, and more. These examples serve as valuable templates for creating effective mechanisms and decision-making processes in future initiatives.

Santos also highlights the importance of fine-tuning the agenda and consolidating meeting notes into a coherent document with sign-ons. This approach promotes transparency, accountability, and collective ownership of ideas and decisions within the GDC process.

In conclusion, Bruna Santos is a passionate advocate for the Global Digital Compact (GDC) process and aims to enhance participants’ understanding of its intricacies. She supports collaborative discussions, stakeholder engagement, and the active involvement of civil society and Big Tech companies. Santos highlights the significance of the GDC’s impact on the future of the IGF and digital governance. While there are concerns regarding uncertainties, member state engagement, and the potential shift to a more multilateral system, Santos believes that leveraging past multi-stakeholder processes and refining the agenda can promote effective and inclusive decision-making.

Peter Micek

Peter Micek, the General Counsel at AXIS, is a strong advocate for collaboration and strategizing among participants in discussions on digital rights, inclusion, and equity communities. He believes that a collaborative and inclusive approach is essential for effective decision making. Micek envisions a room where everyone is in a circle, fostering equal participation and shared responsibility, rather than a hierarchical presentation format.

Micek also emphasizes the importance of convening civil society before the global Internet Governance Forum (IGF) begins each year. He recognizes that civil society plays a crucial role in promoting digital rights and advocating for inclusion and equity. By gathering civil society representatives together, Micek aims to facilitate dialogue and strategizing processes that can influence the agenda and outcomes of the IGF.

In line with his commitment to inclusion, Micek supports the proposal to include delegations in the intergovernmental process. He believes that including delegations will broaden representation and enhance the diversity of perspectives in decision-making processes. By involving various stakeholders in the intergovernmental process, Micek believes that more comprehensive and inclusive outcomes can be achieved.

Micek also stresses the importance of setting forward expectations or demands for inclusion in these intergovernmental processes. He believes that clear expectations can serve as a guide for decision-makers and contribute to more meaningful and inclusive outcomes. By articulating these expectations, Micek hopes to ensure that the voices of marginalized communities and civil society are heard and taken into account.

Furthermore, Micek underscores the need for civil society to understand the relationship between different processes, such as the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) +20 review. He recognizes that connecting these processes can amplify the impact of civil society advocacy efforts and contribute to more cohesive and coordinated outcomes. Micek agrees on the need for civil society to map and comprehend the intricacies of these processes to maximize their effectiveness.

Analyzing the discussions on data and cross-border data flows, Micek expresses disappointment that the aspects of privacy and surveillance were not adequately addressed. As a strong advocate for digital rights, he believes that privacy and surveillance are critical considerations when discussing data governance. Micek argues that discussions on data should always include an examination of the potential implications on privacy and surveillance to ensure a comprehensive and well-rounded approach.

Micek also highlights the importance of an AI governance approach grounded in human rights. He believes that human rights should be an underlying standard in developing AI governance frameworks. Additionally, Micek supports the idea of worker-led AI governance, recognizing the importance of worker perspectives in addressing the social and ethical implications of AI.

In addition, Micek draws attention to lower layer issues such as access to devices, infrastructure, and environmental impacts. He believes that discussions should not solely focus on the upper layers of digital governance but should also consider these foundational elements. By taking into account access to devices, infrastructure development, and environmental impacts, Micek aims to promote a holistic and sustainable approach to digital governance.

In conclusion, Peter Micek advocates for collaboration, inclusion, and strategizing among participants in discussions on digital rights, inclusion, and equity communities. He emphasizes the importance of convening civil society, setting forward expectations, and including delegations in the intergovernmental process. Micek also highlights the need for civil society to understand the relationship between different processes and the importance of privacy and surveillance in data discussions. He supports an AI governance approach grounded in human rights and calls for a focus on lower layer issues in digital governance. Micek’s insights and recommendations contribute to fostering more inclusive, comprehensive, and sustainable digital governance frameworks.

Sheetal Kumar

Sheetal Kumar, a member of Global Partners Digital and co-leading their advocacy engagement, strongly supports governance of digital technologies based on human rights and inclusive processes. They believe this approach is vital for ensuring equitable benefits from digital technologies.

One key initiative in this area is the Global Digital Compact, seen as an opportunity to shape global norms in digital governance. The compact was initially mentioned in the UN Secretary General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and underwent consultations from 2022 to 2023. Negotiations among member states are scheduled to begin in January and conclude in June.

Kumar values the Global Digital Compact as a platform to reaffirm the importance of human rights-based and inclusive norms in digital technologies. They emphasise its potential to establish global standards and principles aligned with these values.

During discussions, various approaches were suggested, including breakout groups for in-depth analysis and creative methods like using poems to envision the digital future.

Transparency emerged as a crucial aspect during discussions, with Kumar underlining the need for open and transparent processes in the development of the Global Digital Compact. They also highlighted the importance of coordination among civil society organisations to effectively monitor the compact’s progress.

Kumar expressed concerns about disinformation and hate speech in the digital space, emphasising the necessity of clear definitions and effective measures to combat these issues.

The digital gender divide and its impact on marginalised communities were also emphasised by Kumar. They stressed the importance of addressing this divide beyond mere technology access and advocated for prioritising marginalised communities in bridging the digital gap.

Overall, the desire for transparency, coherence, and inclusivity in the Global Digital Compact processes was evident. Collective actions and reflections were also seen as significant for shaping digital governance.

Audience

During the discussions on digital governance and cooperation, several key points were highlighted. One important theme emphasised the importance of community participation and bottom-up discussions in decision-making processes. The participants argued that it is crucial to reflect the needs and desires of communities when shaping digital governance frameworks. Collaboration across jurisdictions was stressed to ensure the inclusion of diverse community perspectives.

Another significant concern raised was the exclusion of civil society organisations and the perceived fast-paced nature of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) process. Participants expressed frustration over their limited contribution to the GDC and called for a more inclusive approach that allows meaningful civil society engagement. They highlighted the need for transparency and clear guidelines in the process to facilitate stakeholder participation.

The speakers also advocated for a more inclusive and multistakeholder model of governance. They emphasised the inclusion of civil society, the technical community, and marginalised groups in decision-making processes. The shift from a state-centred and politicised approach to a collaborative and inclusive approach was recommended.

Additionally, the importance of transparency and clear guidelines in the digital governance framework was highlighted. The speakers called for the protection of human rights in the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). Labour rights in AI regulation and sustainability in technology development were also emphasised.

Overall, the discussions revealed a strong call for collaborative efforts, transparency, and inclusivity in digital governance. Stakeholders stressed the need for community participation, human rights protection, and sustainability in technological advancements. The participants agreed that effective governance in the digital era requires the active involvement of diverse stakeholders and a commitment to inclusive and participatory decision-making processes.

Sheetal Kumar:
Well, if you’re online, welcome as well. I’m from Kyoto. It’s very nice to see you all and to be here. So I think what we’re going to do is just start with some intros and then explain what Bruna and I had in mind for this session. And please do let us know if you came here with a different idea. But we will set out what we have in mind for the next two hours. And there is a plan to maybe do breakout groups, so if that’s not what you were planning. Just warning you there. It’s really an interactive session, so hopefully we’ll get a lot out of it. So, yes, my name is Sheetal Kumar, and I co-lead Global Partners Digital’s advocacy engagement. And as a human rights organization, our vision is really the governance of digital technologies underpinned by human rights and inclusive processes. So for us, Global Digital Compact, which is the subject of the event today, is an opportunity to shape global norms on digital governance so that they are rights-respecting and inclusive. And I know that we share that with many of you, and so it’s so good to see you here. I’ll pass on to Bruna.

Bruna Santos:
Hello. Yes. Just saying hello and welcome to everybody. As Sheetal said, this is the civil society gathering, and the idea is for us to discuss how to properly engage in the GDC, which is a process that I know a lot of us are already engaging with. So some of the ideas for today is, like, walk through the process to the ones that don’t know as much about it, because we do have, like, some points about, you know, because we do have, like, some points about information sharing and how to streamline participation on that, and then also share a little bit on how the contributions from some of the NGOs have been so far in some of the movements. But that’s that. And I did introduce myself, but I’m Bruna, and I’m Global Campaigns Manager for Digital Action.

Peter Micek:
So nice to see everybody. Sure. Hey, I’m Peter Micek. I’m really happy to be here. I’m kind of envisioning this room as we’re all in a circle, more of a circle than, you know, a presentation. So, yeah, I’m General Counsel at AXIS now and lead our UN engagement. But I think beyond the pressing matter of the GDC, we also like to convene civil society from digital rights and inclusion and equity communities before IGF begins every year, this global IGF. And so stemming from the days of the Best Bits Coalition Initiative and, you know, through a lot of the organizing that we used to do in person on day zero, we are really happy to convene folks and wanted to make this as, like, our first point of connection and to help folks plan for the week ahead and hopefully collaborate and strategize too. So I hope that happens as well. Yeah. Thanks for coming.

Sheetal Kumar:
Thanks. Do people want to quickly do a round-robin and say who you are and where you’re from? Great. And a fun fact about yourself. No, I’m joking. Don’t worry. Thank you so much.

Audience:
Hi, everyone. I’m Ayden Férdeline, fellow of the Alfred Landecker Foundation. Hi, everyone. I’m Laura O’Brien, Senior UN Advocacy Officer at Access Now. Hi there. I’m Jutta Croll from the German Digital Opportunities Foundation. Mainly my focus is on children’s rights in the digital environment. Hi. Hello, everyone. Valeria Betancourt from the Association for Progressive Communications. Hi, everyone. This is Daniela Schnidrig with the Global Partners Digital, Head of Engagement and Advocacy. Hi, everyone. Veronica Ferrari, Global Policy Advocacy Coordinator at the Association for Progressive Communications. Hello. I’m Amalia Toledo, Public Policy Specialist for Wikimedia Foundation. Ziski Putz, Senior Movement Advocacy Manager from the Wikimedia Foundation. Jan Gerlach, also Wikimedia Foundation. I support these two.Stephanie Ivuerah I’m actually not civil society. I’m from the UK government, working in the Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology. Hi. My name is Shabnam Mojtahedi I’m Legal Advisor for Digital Rights at the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law. Hi. My name is Kasumi Sugimoto. I’m from National Institute of ICT in Japan, and I work for the Department for Cybersecurity. Hi. I’m Marianne Diaz, YID Campaigner at AccessNow. Hello. I’m Alexandre Costa Barbosa, Coordinator at the Homeless Workers Movement in Brazil. Hello. My name is José Renato. I am a Founder of the Laboratory of Public Policy and Internet, LAPIN, in Brazil. Hello. My name is Rafik Copeland. I’m the Managing Director at the Global Network Initiative. Hello. My name is Rafik Copeland. I’m the Platform Accountability Advisor at Internews. Hi. My name is Ariel Maguid. I’m a Program Officer for the Asia Region with Internews. Hello. I’m Alice. I’m a Facilitator for the Brazilian Youth Group. Hi, everyone. My name is Joanne de Cunha. I’m from Delhi. I’m part of the Center for Communication Governance. It’s an academic center at the National Law University. Hi. My name is Zhihao. I work at the Taiwan Information Environment Research Center focusing on misinformation and information manipulation. Hi, everyone. I’m Isabel Ho. I’m from Gov Zero, and I’m also the Secretary General of Taiwan AI Academy. Thank you. Hi. I’m Franziska Jacobs. I’m Digital Governance Advisor at GIZ, German Development Corporation.

Sheetal Kumar:
Okay. It’s amazing to see such a big group here, and well done on finding the room as well. I followed Bruna. So we wanted to start with a bit of context for those of you, like Bruna said, who might not have been as engaged with the Global Digital Compact as others. So just to explain where the Global Digital Compact came from, where we are in the process. And then we wanted to hear from you if you have been engaged with the process, with any of the consultations, what you have said, really, what your key messages have been. And I know that there have been some events, including yesterday, that colleagues at APC and others led on related to this process. So we want to make sure that we are really all on the same page as to what the discussions have been so far. Before we look forward, and hopefully we’re not being overly ambitious, but what we thought would be a really great output of this meeting is to consider where we have come to and then draw on that and on the issues paper that the co-facilitators of the compact have developed. It’s short. It’s only two pages. But it reflects back the consultations that have already happened. And drawing on that, we thought it would be great to get five or six key messages from this group that we can take forward into the IGF over the next week and then even further down the line. So I hope that sounds good to you. Does anybody have any questions? Or are you hoping to achieve something else today?

Audience:
When you say take forward, do you mean like presentation now?

Bruna Santos:
Yes. Yes. Just to flag, we’re going to have one main session about the GDC on the 10th, I think, morning, 11, or something like that. My schedule is confusing this time. But we’re also going to have another main session about the future of digital governance. So these are two that are vastly connected to the GDC and the future of the IGF. So it will be really interesting to gather some of these inputs in interaction moments for civil society.

Peter Micek:
Can I just get a raise of hands of who has heard of the Global Digital Compact? Cool. More than half. And then who’s engaged on it? Who’s, like, participated in some of the stuff? Yeah, less than half. Thanks. And some sort of, sort of.

Sheetal Kumar:
Okay. Around half, yeah. Okay. Which is why we’re doing our summary of where we have got to so far to begin with. And we actually wanted to pull up, if that’s okay, a colleague from, yeah. We wanted to pull up the timeline that is in the U.N. Secretary General’s policy brief from earlier this year. I think it’s the next slide. Oh, it’s so small. So let me just come up here and explain. So, yes. So the Global Digital Compact was first referred to in the Secretary General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, which was an output of a high-level panel that he appointed. And in that, it was suggested that the U.N. adopt a Global Digital Compact, which would outline shared principles and objectives for an open, secure digital future for all. And so, again, that was referred to in the SG’s report in 2022, our common agenda. And from there, kick-started consultations for what should be in the compact. There was a suggestion for overarching themes that the Global Digital Compact should be structured around, namely upholding human rights, and I can’t remember the rest, so I’m going to cheat by looking at my notes, avoiding Internet fragmentation, digital connectivity, promoting a trustworthy Internet. So a few themes that were suggested the compact be structured around. And so those consultations ran 2022 to 2023, and this year we also had oral consultations, so a number of opportunities to speak to these themes through both in-person and online consultations. And, Peter, I think you were trying to get a sense of who’s engaged on that already, and about half of the people here have, so that’s really good to see. And then just last year, it was just to kind of put this in the context of the broader framework within which the compact will sit. Last year, a resolution was adopted by the UN General Assembly for the summit for the future, which is envisioned for next year to take place in September next year. And as part of that, a pact for the future will be adopted. Within that, it’s expected the global digital compact will be part of that pact for the future. One of five chapters, I think it is, which will focus on digital issues. And the compact will be part of that. So really, it’s an opportunity, at least that’s how we see it, to reassert the importance of a human rights-based and inclusive, you know, norms to govern digital technologies and digital governance. And I know that there are a number of other key messages that others here also want to see reflected in this important document. Now, where we are is in 2023, of course, having had the ministerial in September, the preparatory meeting for the summit, which will take place next year, a resolution has been adopted which sets out that there are co-facilitators for each of those chapters I mentioned that will be in the pact. And the co-facilitators for the global digital compact are expected to be the same ones that have been running the consultations up until this point. And then the actual negotiations between member states. And it is in the resolution that the consultations for the compact will be intergovernmental. So I think that’s another, perhaps something else we can discuss is how to ensure that although, of course, the discussions will be intergovernmental, how will they be inclusive of all stakeholders? So that’s something we can discuss today. And those are expected to start in January and continue through to June next year where they will then wrap up. And it’s expected that there will be a text to adopt by the next session of the General Assembly. So that is where we are. Lots of dates. And I hope that that helped. And this is a timeline which I know is very hard to see. But you can also access it online. Let me stop there to see if anyone has any questions or indeed wants to correct anything I said. Maybe I got something wrong.

Bruna Santos:
Yeah. No, just really quick because also the reason why we opted for hosting the civil society gathering on this topic this year is because a lot of the discussions on the GDC, they might affect the future of the IGF and how this forum is moving onwards and what’s coming up next, right? So you might have heard about like a lot of discussions on what is digital governance? What is internet governance? How do all of these spaces connect with each other? What is digital cooperation in this kind of like broader landscape? So a lot of the debates surrounding the GDC and before that in the roadmap and a lot of the discussions on the roundtables, they had some ideas about the IGF plus and how we were moving forward or how are we moving the IGF towards this more kind of like a strategic and decision-making space. So that’s also why we opted for adding this to the agenda. And one of the points that was brought up at some point was the creation of this new forum, the digital cooperation forum, which would be a little bit overlapping with the IGF. So we also want to hear a little bit from you guys on what could be the impressions about improving or connecting these spaces or even how is it, how could the IGF serve this role of helping strengthen multilateral relationships and the UN and the whole discussion about the UN 3.0 that is also in one of the policy briefs. So just to add that.

Sheetal Kumar:
Oh, that’s a really good point. Thanks, Bruna. So yes, the future of the IGF is also part of these discussions. Does anyone have any other questions or reflections? Hello to people who have just joined us. Just to say if anyone wants to come in, there is a mic in the middle of the room, so you can just go there and say your name.

Peter Micek:
We did a round of introductions. So if anyone wants to yell out and say hi, go ahead.

Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. Thank you for coming. And we were just doing a set of introductions to where you are in the process, where you are in the process in the future. And now we’re going to hear from everyone about where they are in terms of their engagement, your engagement with the context that you’re on. So we don’t, you know we’re not starting in class. In this discussion, a number of us have already engaged, forwarded input into the conversations and been very active. And so it would be really good to hear from you so we don’t rebuild on what we’ve already been doing. And, you know, I’m happy to start with.AccessNow colleagues on that. Or anyone else who wants to share, if you have been engaged with the compact already? Have you sent any written inputs into the consultation? Or have you engaged with any of the oral discussions?

Peter Micek:
We’re going to stop talking, and then it’s going to be your turn.

Sheetal Kumar:
Well, it is your turn. Some people did. I think I do. You can speak first, right? OK. Well, there’s always someone, someone ready, and then I have to say, that was very sweet. Ooh.

Audience:
We submitted the written submissions in, like a big booklet, with our positions that also participate in all of the online dialogue. And there’s a few individual and media chapters on our platform, and you can get a bunch of them. And did you have a joke you think was really strongly reflected in your submission? Do you remember? I think the mic is off. OK. It’s on now. Yes, well, obviously. Oh, cool. Ah. Oh, it’s got that one there. Yeah. Maybe not so obvious, though. Wikipedia is all about community decision-making, and so that’s something that we highlighted, right? Like, if you think of sort of all the regulation that’s going to go into the digital compact, don’t forget about what the communities actually need, what collaboration looks like for folks across jurisdictions, especially. That’s something that we highlighted. And also some connections to AI, as there’s this separate project to regulate AI. So community-based. The importance of reflecting what communities want, bottom-up discussions.

Sheetal Kumar:
OK, great. Anyone else?

Audience:
Yes, thank you again. As I said in the tour de table, I’m a children’s rights advocate. And we, together with the Dynamic Coalition on Children’s Rights and the Digital Environment, we gave written input. But so far, we have not been able to take part in any of the consultations. And that is mainly because children’s rights organizations are understaffed and underfunded. So we just don’t have the resources to take part in all these meetings. But what we have seen so far is that in the roadmap for the digital cooperation, children’s rights have been an issue. And now we have upholding human rights in general, but not a special reflection on children’s rights, which we think, considering that children are the future, and they are right now, I do think one third of all internet users worldwide are under the age of 18. So considered to be children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So we think it should play an important role.

Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you so much. And then I saw a hand here. Yes?

Audience:
Maria Agne, Access. We were part of the Americas Consultation. I say we. That’s a royal we. I was in the Americas Consultation earlier this year. And one of the things that I would like to highlight from that conversation is that the agenda that was brought to the discussion was focused on connectivity and access, which is, of course, access now. But sorry for that. That was terrible, and I know it. Spare me, I just landed like an hour ago. But one of the things that a lot of the people that were present in the discussion wanted to bring into the agenda, and we did not have time for it because of the whole time devoted to connectivity, which of course, yes, is that surveillance and the intersection between surveillance, people on the move, and identity for Latin America. It is a moment of crisis. Well, the world is in flames. Let’s not go there. But there was a lot of conversation on the size of the meeting regarding the state of surveillance in Latin America, particularly state-sponsored surveillance specifically. And I think that it’s important that we bring that back into and not leave only connectivity as a topic for Latin America just because we are poor.

Sheetal Kumar:
I’m trying to take notes. Others are taking notes. The one in the back. Okay, great. So I’ll come to you.

Audience:
All right, I’m Eleni from the Global Network Initiative, but I’m also co-chair of the Freedom Online Coalition’s Advisory Network. It’s an advisory network of civil society that provides input to the Freedom Online Coalition, which is a group of 38 governments. And as an advisory network, we had submitted proactive advice to FOC governments on the GDC. And we published this, I think, because we felt so strongly about the implications of the GDC process. So you can find the advice online. And just to run through some of the concerns that the advisory network had highlighted, one was a shift from multistakeholder government’s model to multilateralism that we felt was being pursued in the GDC. Two were concerns about the digital cooperation forum undermining the IGF and multistakeholder forums and models of governance. The exclusion of the technical community as a separate stakeholder group. So the GDC focuses on governments, private sector, and civil society. But as we know, the technical community plays a really critical role in internet governance. And we felt that that was excluded. Then a focus on big tech business models, as well as a number of procedural concerns, including how fast this process has moved forward. And I think we see that same trend in a number of initiatives, including with the UN high-level expert body on AI that’s being put out by the tech envoy. A lack of meaningful civil society engagement. I know a number of different civil society organizations that feel frustration in trying to give inputs into the GDC process and participate. And then the fact that it’s been a New York-based process, which in the minds of the advisory network members, is a highly politicized, state-centered, less inclusive, and less experienced with multistakeholder governance models.

Sheetal Kumar:
So we have a really solid set of foundation, I think, to build on there with that and everything else we’ve heard. What did you say? Oh, sorry.

Audience:
Hi. We did a written submission with our sister organization, the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law, that focused on civic space, online civic space, issues across multiple of the topic areas. And one of the points we raised was kind of the siloing of human rights into one section. And so we were taking a rights-based approach through all the areas. But I just wanted to say that we discussed this quite a bit. We usually, when we do written submissions like this, we do consultations with our wider network of partners. And we were debating whether to do that for this written submission. But the scope was so broad and it was so unclear how this was all working or leading into the final process. And then the virtual consultations that took place were also kind of chaotic in a way. And so we just really didn’t know how to include our broader network in this space without feeling like we weren’t giving them anything concrete to work with. And so I just was really wondering what the vision is moving forward, how we can be working together as a group more strategically, and where our effort would be best placed.

Sheetal Kumar:
So yeah, that’s it. Those are great questions, thank you. We can try and answer some of those. Oh, sorry.

Audience:
Hi, I appreciate the time. We are from the Internet Alliance, which is an applied research lab for meaningful connectivity and data privacy. And we formed this this year because we are kind of recovering from big tech. And so we come from very technical backgrounds and trying to get involved in these kinds of forums. Some of the questions I think we would like to discuss, I’ve followed Access Now’s work really closely is how this coalition moves into actionable steps with these governing bodies. And I think even these coalitions with 38 governments that you were mentioning, where does the nexus of progress actually happen? Great questions. Laura and then Ellen? Yeah, Laura O’Brien from Access Now. So just to go over some of our engagement in this process, we’ve been heavily involved. We’ve done regional consultations, as Marianne alluded to in the Latin American context, but also in Nairobi. We’ve done some written submissions, as Ellen and I mentioned, harnessing the Freedom Online Coalition. And the FOC had done a written submission with all the different sub-entities, and Canada led that as the former chair of the FOC. We also worked on a written submission on targeted surveillance, which was led by Amnesty International and joined by a lot of other civil society organizations. And then we’re involved in supporting a gender submission, which was led again by another coalition, APC will speak more on that, I’m sure. In terms of the oral statements, I think being based in New York was beneficial to be in the room because we were trying to get a lot of the sense of whether we could engage on these or how the modalities were working. I think we can all recall that the Human Rights Online session from a full day to a half day and the repercussions of that were quite severe in the sense of human rights organizations not getting the opportunity to speak, even governments were being cut off. So that was super unfortunate and we did raise that in some engagement with the co-facilitators, Sweden and Rwanda, in upcoming sessions at the Rights Con, which was in Costa Rica. And also with the folks seated here doing a lot of work trying to get more information from the co-facilitators. I just wanted to highlight that I think in terms of topics or themes that are seeking more of a focus within the GDC so far, I think digital public infrastructure has been highlighted by the tech envoy quite heavily and also played a role in the Secretary General’s policy brief, so I think for today I think it would be helpful too if we could maybe have a discussion on that topic and how to advance human rights within that. But yeah, I’m happy to speak with more folks who are trying to navigate the GDC process itself. It’s something, like I mentioned, we’ve been tracking quite heavily. Thank you very much. Let me just provide an overview of our engagement, very similar to what Laura from Access Now has mentioned. We have been participating since the beginning, engaging with the global online consultations as well as the regional consultations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. And then participating in the deep dives around our priorities, which are around gender equality and gender justice, environmental justice, and obviously human rights and the nature and the scope of Internet governance. Concerns were many, many so far in the process about how the changes impacted in the ability and capacity of civil society to engage meaningfully, including the ministerial meeting of the Summit of the Future. As Sheetal explained, the Global Digital Compact is within the Summit of the Future. And it was not possible at the end, despite of all the promises from the co-facilitators about facilitating engagement of civil society, it was not possible to participate and to access the information and the details of the documentation for the negotiation happening in New York recently about the modalities of the Summit of the Future, which was very unfortunate. And that sets a very bad precedent in what is to come in relation to the negotiations. We also submitted written submissions, one of APC around these issues, the priority issues that I mentioned, but also we facilitated joint submissions around gender and another one around environmental sustainability. In relation to gender, we have been concerned with the fact that not only in the negotiations so far about the modalities, there are not specific mechanisms to ensure that there is at least gender balance in the participation of the different stakeholders in the civil society voice, but gender as an issue has not been prominent either. So because of that, we have been collaborating with different organizations to get a better commitment and a stronger commitment from governments to advance gender and to consider gender as a key aspect across all aspects related to the global digital compact, but also take into consideration gender issues. And in that regard, we took the opportunity of this IGF to organize yesterday a dialogue with first with civil society organizations. We put together these feminist principles for including gender, the GDC, which has been collectively developed with different groups. And we presented yesterday to other civil society organizations for leverage and obviously for contributions as well and also to exchange views around the strategies to advance a gender agenda around the GDC. And in the afternoon, governments were invited to have a dialogue and a conversation with us around feasible ways that they could as part of their own engagement in the process to help us to advance a gender agenda to the GDC. So I invite you also to look at the principles and share the details where you can find them. It could be very good if we can have you and your voices joining around efforts to make sure that gender is considered from obviously human rights and other considerations. Moving forward, we are very concerned about what the implications are going to be once the co-facilitators are confirmed and what the possibilities for participating and engaging in the negotiations are going to be. The process is based in New York and has been presenting a challenge in terms of civil society engagement so how that will play out in terms of the negotiations is a big, big question and also what’s the common vision that we should be pushing for and coordinating around altogether.

Peter Micek:
Could I just ask a follow-up, I suppose? In the room yesterday, what was the temperature of the room? Were people excited about this global digital compact and this process and the opportunities it provides? Are they sort of resigned that it’s going to happen with or without us anyways and so we may as well make our voice heard and perhaps are dismayed that gender wasn’t one of those key sub-themes, just not even registering that much on people’s agendas or maybe it’s not one of those three but just to get a sense of the room. Yeah?

Bruna Santos:
I think we more or less accepted that because to me the main impression about the process is there’s way more question marks than information about it, to us at least, right? From the conversations we had, the impression that it’s not every… member states that is as engaged. We have this kind of like, not focus, but more dominance or even like knowledge coming in from global north, generally speaking, or the ones that are champions in the human rights conversation. So that makes it much harder, like when you try to engage with delegations like Brazil or Chile or anything like that, right? So, and a lot of the doubts that at least I felt in the room as well was, how are we gonna actually ensure that if this is kept as an intergovernmental process, that the missions are gonna allow us in, right? It’s like the modalities question is the main one and the one we have been asking like ever since day zero. So there is some sense of discomfort in the room, right? So, but at the same time, like we need answers to some extent. And it’s interesting and important that tech envoy is engaging with civil society and so on, but to some extent, it’s also limited, the engagements and the answers and the decisions. So, I mean, yeah, just sharing a little bit on that.

Audience:
Yes, of course. I can come to you. Thank you. I think there is a high level type of engagement of governments in the GDC. So obviously there is a political commitment perhaps, because it is an intergovernmental process that it is within this bigger umbrella of the summit of the future. And I think governments have made commitments. There is a geopolitical dynamic that is also permeating the way in which they engage with the global digital compact. So yesterday, obviously the high level interventions were very positive in relation to their own role and their own commitment with making gender a key consideration. But then the big question that was also brought up is how that is going to take shape, how that is going to be translated into practice with the fact that the negotiations are going to start and we don’t know how the negotiations are going to look like. So I think that’s the question that remains and that we should keep asking the question. And I think perhaps one step forward yesterday, because obviously the participants that we had, including the UN Tech Envoy and very high level government representatives, was that I think the message is clear that there is expectations at the level of civil society groups for them to facilitate our participation, including through making us part of the national delegations. Because that’s the only way in which we are going to be effectively influencing the process. So I think that point, it was made clear to them and I hope my interpretation and what I want to use to put some pressure and demands on them is that their commitment to make gender a key consideration. So if they really want to do that, they have to work with us in different ways, including making us part of the delegations.

Bruna Santos:
Just to add as well, I think the, at least for some of the global majority countries, the elephant in the room is how actually, to me at least, the G20 processes are also gonna connect with this, right? Because India has made a lot of advancements with the whole digital public infrastructure debate within G20 and Brazil is bringing the information integrity into the G20 agenda as well. So are these discussions gonna be repeated in both places? Are they gonna engage with the G20 first and then just revert it back to the GDC or Summit of the future? So another on the list of questions, right? So yeah.

Sheetal Kumar:
Okay. Thank you. So lots of questions. And if we haven’t answered any of them, please let us know. But we wanted to check as well how everyone’s feeling at this point about tackling head-on the fact that the Global Digital Compact is meant to outline shared principles and objectives for an open, free, and secure digital future for all. And considering everything that everyone has said, breaking out into small groups to huddle and consider about two messages each to then discuss and perhaps see whether we can agree on. And as I mentioned at the beginning, for those of you who weren’t here, the idea is that we can take forward those and reflect them in the discussions in the upcoming week and indeed in the process going forward. And it would be great before we do that as well to share that we’ve looked at the issues paper that the co-facilitators issued about a month ago, which was a reflection of, it’s just two pages. It’s not very long, but it’s along the themes. And in fact, it refers to digital public infrastructure of the compact that have been recommended. And so there are a number of, well, reflections really, and it’s very concise. It also doesn’t refer to the Digital Cooperation Forum, which is an interesting reflection of just how strong the messaging around the Internet Governance Forum was in the oral and written consultations that were received. So it’s quite a good basis, I think, for discussion. So the breakout groups can draw on what you’ve heard on your own work, but also perhaps look at the issues paper that the co-facilitators have developed and suggest ways of strengthening it, strengthening the gender element, strengthening the community element, whatever you think, because in that way, it’s already been put out there in the world. It’s something that’s been developed. It’s building on what has already been discussed. So in essence, what we’re suggesting is that we break out into little groups. We use the basis of what the co-facilitators have put out, what you have said, draw out a couple of key messages and come back together and see whether there’s anything there we can agree on that we all want to reflect in the discussions around the GDC. Going forward, what do people think about that? Because we don’t have to do that. We can do something else. Do we hate breakouts at this point? Yes, right. I mean, I could get a feeling from your faces. A way of, well, what we could do, I mean, so let’s think of some options. I mean, if we don’t want to do breakout groups, we could go through the issues paper, para by para, and hear your reflections on it and how to strengthen it. It’s okay. I don’t know whether that’s sarcastic or not. I genuinely can’t tell. More options, more hope. You are so beautiful.

Audience:
I have a suggestion that might be a little bit out there, but more creative, hopefully. So maybe using some foresight practices, and we could do either first start out with an individual, like a poem or something that we write about this vision for this digital future, and then do a collective one. So what is the story of this digital future to communicate it in a different way? So that’s just an alternative option instead of maybe going paragraph by paragraph.

Sheetal Kumar:
And would you help us with that? Yeah. If people decide they want to do that, okay. So a more creative poem-based approach or something like that. Any other ideas?

Audience:
Not an idea, but a request that we can touch upon issues related to the process, and such, so our key concerns in relation to the process, and perhaps also the key concerns in relation to the issues. Because we know now what the issues are, the tracks, the thematic tracks. So what are our key concerns in relation to those moving forward?

Bruna Santos:
So maybe we can start with a round, right, of key concerns or even criticism of the process. I’m aware that this is a very diplomatic space, but. Yeah, yeah.

Sheetal Kumar:
Okay. So we have different ways to use, perhaps, the next 30 minutes before we think about next steps. So one is the breakout groups. Another is like a more creative poem-based approach. Then there’s the, well, going through the issues paper. And then actually focusing on process as opposed to the substance of the GDC. Or. No, I’m just saying both, process and substance. Process and substance. And format-wise, breakout groups are like off the table, or? Yes. Are we?

Bruna Santos:
I’m sensing a lot of like Zoom trauma in this room, so it’s fine. We can go with the collective therapy session, right? And then everybody shares concerns and questions. I think it’s. On the process for the first 15 minutes, and then we break out. Concerns and complaints, yes, yes, yes. Yeah, one very big therapy session, breakout group.

Sheetal Kumar:
Should we do a plenary concerns about the process and recommendations? Oh, Peter, yeah.

Peter Micek:
I think that’s the right question to ask, but I do want answers row by row. So each row is gonna choose a rapporteur. Yeah, that is gonna happen. Oh, the first row is gonna be. Ellen, yes, go ahead. Oh, do you wanna?

Audience:
I would just. I would just say, at least I’m really interested in theory. I don’t know, maybe this will come up in the next step, but like, oh, me and this group of people are supporting it. I think we’re both very. Yes. I. Okay. Yeah. So coordination. Do you wanna, actually, because it’s hard to hear you. Oh, sorry. Yeah, sorry, I was saying that something, at least I would be really interested in is how we as a group, as civil society, can coordinate better around these issues and take advantage of the fact that we’re here at the IGF in the same room together. I’ve heard a lot of disparate conversations around GDC coming in silos, and so how can we start to put together a more unified position? There’s some really key issues being debated with the GDC and other internet governance-related processes and visions right now, and I think it’s a key moment for civil society to come together and say what we actually really need for the governance of the internet. To me, it would be the multi-stakeholder versus this multilateral vision. That would be a key issue. I think a number of the ones raised in the FOC advice, but the really fundamental one to me is the multi-stakeholder versus multilateral, and there’s a lot of implications of which states are supporting which vision right now, I think, for the model of internet governance.

Sheetal Kumar:
Okay, thank you, and that can be the beginning of, as we say, a discussion that then we continue after we leave the room in terms of coordination and continuing to work on the issues, but, Bruna, so where are we? We are discussing.

Bruna Santos:
Let’s continue gathering the inputs and complaints about the process, and then we can use 40 minutes for strategy and next steps, right?

Sheetal Kumar:
Okay, so concerns about the process and recommendations, so we could spend some time on that, and then also on the substance question, though. We haven’t really heard much of that. Perhaps we can revisit whether there’s interest in maybe breaking out into a couple of groups about, for example, look, guys, it’s the beginning of the week. If you don’t want to do breakout groups now, it’s gonna be a long week. No, but we don’t have to do them, but somehow find a way to discuss the key pressing issues of the substance, and then we discuss how we take those forward. So on the process, any reflections, concerns, and indeed recommendations for how the GDC should be developed from now on? Transparency, okay, great. Transparency in what way? Everything.

Bruna Santos:
We want process, we want modalities. What else do we want? Timeline, a proper one.

Peter Micek:
What do you want to know about the process going forward?

Audience:
Hi, Svetlana, Article 19. Well, I mean, I will be speaking from the perspective of CSOs, which are not that well represented at the consultation side. First of all, the timeline, of course, the time difference. Well, when it comes to the Asia continent, when you have three seconds, I’m exaggerating, of course, like three minutes for your presentation, and it’s 2 a.m. in the morning, it’s hard to convey a message. So maybe the good idea would be have at least the regional groups which would collect all these voices, and of course, engage civil society from those regions in one spot, and then all together convey to the headquarters. Because otherwise, it’s absolutely impossible to have a voice, even though, for instance, before my times with Article 19, I was representing Myanmar civil society. And you have to have a really huge motivation to speak out, to wake up that night, and try to catch those consultation points. And I’m not the only one who was there. I mean, there have been other civil societies in the region who had really good presentations, and they will try to fit in the message within one minute. But sometimes they will cut off. I mean, this is technical, of course. And perhaps to have the regional focuses. Let’s say, authoritarian countries could focus on internet freedoms like what we are working right now, for instance, and we convey message in that side. So, yeah, thank you. Thanks. Regional consultations. I could say, as someone who was in the room for a lot of the deep dives, I don’t know what happened to all. They were taking notes of everything we said. I don’t know what happened to those notes. I think they all ended in the issues paper somehow. Yeah. But they were doing it. They thought they were taking notes. So. I’d say that happened to all the reports that were submitted. Yeah, the reports that were submitted that are on the secretary, the tech envoy’s website. But yeah, I’m not sure what else.

Bruna Santos:
Just to remind that we also wanted to try to get some messages out of this meeting, right? It’s like, something we could say. Just like, doesn’t it should be two paragraphs can be just one saying like, we need more transparency timeline. A proper process. We need missions to bring us to the meetings. New York is not an accessible place. Yeah, so more process points.

Audience:
Something like that. More process points. More process, yes. We all would love more process. That is exactly what we want. Now, the organizations I work with day in, day out, are like, 70% of them are just finding out that this is a thing that exists right now. So, I don’t know that transparency is the word that we’re looking for. Like, there is a dire lack of representation completely on organizations that are doing the actual work day in, day out. Not us, we’re just meeting rooms and that shit. So, that is something that I’m very concerned about because if they’re finding out just now and they don’t have the tools to engage because this is a very specific methodology and you have to kind of be in certain rooms to fucking understand what is happening and they’re just finding out and they’re like, what does GDC mean? What’s the letters? There is not enough time at all for them to engage with the process. And what I feel that in combination with the doodling is that this completely went a different way and if we were not heard being in the room, the chances of whatever they have to say getting to be heard in this process are close to zero. So, I don’t want to be horribly negative about it but just bringing what my people are feeling. Thanks.

Bruna Santos:
Anyone else? Thanks.

Audience:
Maybe building on what was shared, I feel like there’s this exclusion by design in the process. So, even the notes not being shared because for me, one of the big problems is that there’s just a lack of coherence across the board with these different priorities. So, we have this priority about the digital inclusion and digitalization or digital transformation very vaguely defined being pushed within, for example, the UN system that conflicts with our climate action goals. And so, there is this lack of coherence across the board and I feel like when you pointed out as members of civil society or groups that have been underrepresented in these processes, when that thing becomes very stark and apparent and we make it explicit that because there’s no real concrete way of trying to cohere all of this together without scrapping what’s kind of already been pre-drafted and what’s being pushed right now through these so-called processes because it feels very… are predetermined to me, what their end outputs are going to be. Even if we try to contribute in whatever ways, because fundamentally it’s been designed to exclude, that we’re not really getting anywhere just by thinking about how do we insert ourselves into a pre-created process, but rather thinking about how do we co-design and create something that we’re working towards collectively. That also works together with other movements that really matter in the space. So that’s my big thing, is there’s a total lack of coherence, lack of co-design, and it’s really undermining our agency at an individual and collective level. Thanks.

Sheetal Kumar:
Anyone else?

Audience:
Yeah, I think part of the process that’s already been alluded to is just the feedback loop, the need for a feedback loop of how the inputs are being used or processed internally. I mean, it’s not unique to the GDC. Anyone who’s contributed to the UN processes know it’s a black hole sometimes of information. But and then second, I think for me, and I don’t think we’re going to get that from the co- facilitators, but I’d like to, basically what Ellen and I was talking about, what’s at stake with this GDC? Why is it important? And why should partners care? Why should our networks care about this? And especially with all the different processes that are going on, there’s so many different frameworks being discussed. Civil society is being asked to contribute to a lot of them. And it’s overwhelming. And so why does this process matter? And why should we be paying close attention to it? I think we need to come up with that maybe internally too.

Bruna Santos:
Some of the questions we’re asking in the main session, or we suggested as a main session, like policy questions for this week, is how member states are going to ensure the buy-in from all stakeholders. Because we’re talking about the GDC as a broader kind of space or anything like that. It’s also something that’s going to discuss the code of conduct for information integrity. So how are they ensuring, like Big Tech is actually doing the buy-in into that conversation. If we, civil society, are also excluded from this conversation, how are we going to enforce that together with member states? So I think there’s a lot of questions, again, about the follow-up steps and what’s at stake, in fact, because it’s not just the future of the IGF or what the DCF is going to be. Or whether multi-stakeholder is going to be dropped off as a participation tool, and we’re going to move back to a multilateral mostly kind of system. But there is a lot of follow-up questions in that way. So plus one on that.

Peter Micek:
Could I just ask, does anyone think a new annual forum on digital cooperation based in New York is a good idea? Is something that we need? Yeah, I do too. Somebody want to speak in favor of it? Yeah?

Audience:
No, I do want to. Yeah, but perhaps it’s hard to engage the public. I thought I’m loud enough. Well, as a concept, of course, it’s not a bad idea. But in terms of practicality, it should be spread around the regions. Again, I’m for inclusion of the variety of civil societies and not only civil society, which works with the digital aspect. There should be civil societies which are somehow engaged through human rights line as well. And New York, it’s too far. It’s too expensive as well.

Peter Micek:
So I think we have rough consensus that civil society does not need a new annual space. Apart from me. All right. Yeah. Other process points we want to get at? We have regionalization. We have feedback fatigue.

Audience:
I just would like to know, we talk about multi-stakeholders. Obviously, we’re new here. But we’re coming from a really technical background, and it’s just not super clear how a technical community or stakeholder could help. And if anyone wants a two-finger on that. I just wanted to answer to the previous speaker from the back that I do think when we focus on civil society that is engaged in human rights, we still have a lack of competence of kind of digital literacy. Many human rights organizations are not very familiar what digital environment means to human rights. Although we are here at the IGF, where it’s very present and in front of our head, it’s not in general that human rights organizations are enough familiar with digital environment and what it means. So we still need some kind of training for civil society organizations, I think. I just want to say, we ran into that same problem as we’ve been talking to people. And it’s been really helpful describing internet access as a prerequisite to human rights, because I think that’s where it’s losing cohesion. Thank you. I want to advocate for a very proactive engagement of the technical community, because there is a setback in relation to the role that the technical community could play, and should play, and has been playing in relation to internet governance and global digital cooperation. One of the challenges and difficulties that has emerged in this process is that there is a setback in how internet governance is being conceived. So that was already discussed by the time of the WSIS, the World Summit on the Information Society. And there was broad agreement that internet governance is broad and goes beyond the management of numbers, and resources, and infrastructure, and technical resources of the internet. And now we are back to that conversation. It’s unbelievable. So that is why it was pointed out by the FOC in the event that the technical community is being left out of the process. So I think that a proactive engagement is necessary in order to counteract that narrative, and also to make sure that whatever comes out of the global digital process is not a setback in something that is so basic as the scope of internet governance itself. Just here. Thank you. I will think of a specific topic in terms of substance to think of process. The last policy brief version mentioned, for instance, sustainable digital public infrastructure. And also mentioned, refers to ensuring labor rights. But none of the multilateral organizations, like in AI regulation, AI debate, it’s touching the labor issue, for instance. Or even in the digital public infrastructure discussion, no one mentioned sustainability on that. Or carbon footprint for internet infrastructure, or even digital technologies. So I was wondering, until the launching of their common future agenda in one year ahead, what can really be done that civil society can bring back these really important elements that I think from the document to be put in practice from this multilateral organization somehow?

Peter Micek:
And you can mention the environmental impact of flying everyone to New York for yet another conference every year. I’m sorry to harp on that. But yeah. We have one more.

Audience:
Yeah. Yeah, I was just, you know, if there’s a sort of broad consensus around the frustrations of the consultation process and the kind of performative nature of some of this consultation and frustrations around inclusivity and everything, I was thinking about, you know, we talked about the idea of trying to identify some things to do as a coordinated effort and kind of collective advocacy. I mean, maybe what we should be trying to do is, rather than focusing on the content, is to actually subvert the process itself and kind of see if it’s, you know, and I don’t know. Maybe that’s just a waste of our collective energy at this point. But, you know, if that is something we want to do, it feels like it’s something that we need to do sooner rather than later.

Bruna Santos:
There is one ongoing idea that was issued by the IGF working group strategy. That would be to use this space, the IGF, as a sounding board to whatever came out from the GDC process, right, or the summit of the future. We submitted a letter to the co-facilitators. Obviously, it might be too soon to get an answer on that. But it was just acknowledged and nothing else. So it would be interesting to think about a follow-up mechanism or anything that would actually build up on the collective intelligence that the IGF is bringing up. So, yeah. Anyone else?

Sheetal Kumar:
We’re still on process. Yeah, we can reflect back some of the comments we’ve heard about process and see whether we want to cohere them or maybe, in some way, agree to them. So one point that was made was around the need for transparency. So transparency in terms of process is really key. And linked to that, that there has been, so far, exclusion by design. We can provide some examples of that. The need for more coherence and working together, and also the need for connection with other groups and movements. So I think labor rights and sustainability and environmental issues being linked is important. And then the need for a feedback loop. So that links to the transparency point. The primacy of a multi-stakeholder approach and the importance of proactive engagement of the technical community and reflecting the real scope of internet governance, not a very limited scope. So that’s what we’ve heard. I mean, that’s what I took notes of. So some of those are connected. And we can, perhaps, put them together so that they’re not duplicative. But those are some messages about the process. Do people generally agree that that reflects what’s been heard? Does anyone fundamentally disagree with any of those? No? OK. No new forum, sorry. Yeah?

Audience:
I understand that we don’t feel like the process has been fair or open, transparent, and so on. But we are just wondering here, the Wikimedians, we complain about this. But it’s not too late to hack the process where chances are changed? Or it’s just to speak out and let them know that we are pissed off about this?

Sheetal Kumar:
Yeah. Well, I think that’s a good question. And my understanding is that the co-facilitators are now tasked with holding consultations. And those are intergovernmental. But it’s up to them, as it is for all the co-facilitators that will be appointed for the chapters of the summit, will need to run consultations. So we can do our own advocacy with, we’re likely to be Sweden and Rwanda, I understand. But the co-facilitators, we can take their ear, I think, at this point. We have an opportunity. We did do that before. And they did respond. And they set up a civil society consultation, which they set up for three hours just to hear the perspectives of civil society. So they set up an online consultation once we shared concerns before. So I think there is, to answer your question, Amalia, I can’t say definitely we’ll make a difference. But I think we’re at a critical juncture where we can put out some recommendations, the concerns, and then some recommendations, and really try and speak with a loud and collective voice to shape how they will do the process.

Bruna Santos:
And what Valeria was saying earlier as well, like if the process is gonna be kept as an intergovernmental one, then the way out might be ask for delegations to include us, just like the ITU.

Peter Micek:
So, yes, I think we can put forward expectations or demands even, yes.

Sheetal Kumar:
Well, do we know when the first draft is gonna be released and who’s drafting it?

Audience:
But before we go, I want to respond to Amalia because I think it’s a very important question. And I do think that we have to see, I want to respond to you. I think what we have to, obviously the GDC is important, but we have to look beyond the GDC and understand that this is a very particular moment in which the proximity of the WSIS plus 20 review is also going to determine how the digital future is going to be shaped. Governments have just had Sustainable Development Summit like days ago, and they have agreed an agenda on how to accelerate the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. So there are these different processes happening and the GDC, and they are not connecting. So I think we have to go to see beyond that. So it’s not just only how to engage and make sure that we are being heard in relation to the Global Digital Compact, it’s also about the role that we can play as civil society to connect those processes. Because at the end of the day, the UN agencies are competing about leadership for these processes, how those processes are going to connect. Governments are being appointed to facilitate those processes. We should also be demanding these connections because all of them have to do with shaping the digital future and the governance and in this broader framework of the Global Digital Cooperation. So I think that’s how we should approach our engagement in the Global Digital Compact and keep pushing for establishment of synergies between those different processes.

Peter Micek:
And Access Now is in the process of mapping all of the summit of the future outputs and processes. And so we can hopefully share that and those timelines, a basic summary of what we know. Because again, the GDC is just one of at least six or eight outputs planned for the summit, which will be in September 2024 at the 79th General Assembly of the UN.

Bruna Santos:
Just maybe one last point about the converging spaces, right? It’s like, we have a lot of notable examples of multi-stakeholder processes in the past. Like it’s WCAG is one from 2005, NetMundial is one. It’s also rumored to happen again. What else is there? IANA, Stewardship Transition as well, WSIS, ICANN, and so on. There’s a lot of collective knowledge about multi-stakeholder participation and that should be moved forward as a good example and maybe a guiding kind of example for this process, regardless of the lack of information or the information we might have now about it being solely an intergovernmental process. So just to bring in some more examples.

Audience:
I also just wanted to raise that, in addition to the fact that we have the summit of the future also has other tracks that have digital components to them. How can we as civil society not just get too focused on the GDC that we’re missing? Like the security track has tons that are on digital that could implicate like cybersecurity. Yeah, exactly. So like, is there a way we can coordinate to track these different tracks? Like, I don’t know. I know we’re doing this, Peter, but like for the broader group, for the broader group. Yeah.

Sheetal Kumar:
Yes, I think that’s a really good point and we should collect ideas for how we move forward on that after we leave the room. But hearing a lot about the need for synergies between this process and others. So any ideas for that, how we coordinate as civil society, but also as a society, and how we can coordinate on that. How we coordinate as civil society, but also perhaps how we, in our individual ways or as different organizations, we work on making sure that we have that front and center, the need for coordination. Any ideas for that would be welcome.

Peter Micek:
And if any states want to facilitate that, there won’t be a rights con in June, 2024, right? Which would be three, four months before the summit of the future. Is there some, is there a time and a place that governments would support us to coordinate, enough in advance of the summit, but still after we actually know what’s gonna happen?

Sheetal Kumar:
Yeah, great. Okay, so we have about 30 minutes left. I’m just including my own buffer there of 10 minutes. But we do have a bit of time to review what we have discussed already, or we can talk more about the different topic areas of the GDC, for example, that have already been outlined. I’m not sure if that’s too ambitious. I want to get a feel for what people would like to do. Would you like to cohere the messages that we already developed around process and really work on those or start talking about substance? And perhaps the point about, the colleague who went to news earlier about the process, I think we can always put a proviso on anything that we say saying, without these fundamental points about transparency and openness being met, we do not believe that this process. it’s legitimate. I mean, I’m just offering an option there. But I think it is of value. I mean, clearly, I think it is of value. That’s why we’re having this discussion, to try and make some demands and recommendations of the leaders of the process. Four asks. Okay. Well, there are, I think, four already. One on transparency, another on coherence. And feedback loops, nobody links into. No new forums or, like, synergy. Maybe there’s two key ones there with some sub-themes already. And there was also that point about the scope of Internet governance and the need for truly multi-stakeholder engagement with the technical community being adequately and proactively engaged. Maybe there’s three there. Right. So, what do people think? Sure. So, is anything coming out of that? Like, the scratching of the head? Any thoughts you want to share? Or? You’re good. Okay. Not yet. Okay. Yes. Peter, what were you going to say?

Peter Micek:
Let’s move to substantive issues.

Sheetal Kumar:
Okay. Okay. So, we have those three themes around the process, which we can come back to. And perhaps we can discuss how we connect and really synthesize those afterwards. But is everyone up for talking about the substance of what’s in the GDC? Okay. I see some nods. Okay. So, we have – should we go through the themes? Or what should we – how do people want to do it? Do you want to look at the issues paper? No, I know nobody wanted to do that. Okay.

Bruna Santos:
No, we can just read out what’s on – I mean, just highlight what’s on the issues paper. Yeah. Okay. Yay.

Sheetal Kumar:
Topic-wise. Not going to read it from it. We actually – we’re going to project it here, but you can also look it up in your device. Excuse me. Could you – you know the second file that I shared? Oh, thank you. So, how do you search for it in a search engine of your choice? Yes. Yes, please. Okay. Sorry. I think they can do it on the – Hello?

Peter Micek:
Before we get to the remote participant, there was a proposal that we talked to Sweden about using the Stockholm Internet Forum, SIF, as the next kind of waypoint to coordinate civil society on some of the future. Can we get a – woo! All right. There’s a feedback – yeah, a couple of thoughts on that. Or are you scratching your head again? Oh, hello. We have the remote. All right.

Sheetal Kumar:
Okay. We can come back to that. We have Timothy on the line. Timothy, can you hear us? Okay. We can’t hear you. Can we get the remote? Timothy, we cannot hear you. Can you hear us? I can say the microphone. Okay. Welcome.

Audience:
Yes. You are there? Nice to – hello, all. I’m in Australia. So, I’ve been working for 13 years or so on mostly W3C work that led to the credentials and the digital identity, as you understand it, and ReadWriteWeb, which is now known as SOLID, and things related to my data, all those sorts of things. When you are doing W3C works, it is about getting the patents of all the largest companies in the world, right? It is not about defining exactly how they may be used. It is done in public domain. So, the really horrible human rights use cases, the ones about human trafficking, the ones about people who are left with nothing, the ones that are about children, you cannot do in the public domain. And they are not in the interest of large companies who are very focused on payments. So, in my view, there has been a rush by a group of participants to commercialise a particular type of outcome that do not support human rights very well and does not easily support the ability to support what’s called personal ontology. So, that is the idea that you have an artificial intelligent agent that is running on your laptop that knows everything about you and is able to help you with your healthcare, with your wellbeing, understanding which herbs you might be eating to improve your diet, using the commons of the world, the ability to have relationships with one another without a platform mediator who is issuing mandates in their terms of service agreement about the conditions upon which you are allowed to have relationships with one another. So, this is a very long time since the days where the Magna Carta was, and I note, negotiated in a place called Holborn in the UK. It was not mandated. There would be no human rights, there would be no Magna Carta if it was purely a mandate type system. So, in order to deal with the social ramifications, this very important social work, and to be able to build the artificial intelligence infrastructure that we need to be able to support every language of prayer, every mother tongue language, and upon that build our ontologies based on what we mean, because if I am as an Australian talking about my thongs, other people overseas may take that in a way that is not the same meaning, because in Australia it is footwear. It is not ladies’ underwear. So, in this I am looking to do an Internet Society global topic chapter that can be used

Sheetal Kumar:
as fundamental to achieve meaningful universal connectivity. Interesting that there is the term meaningful there. Meaningful is super important. Yeah, I think there is also some elements of this that we can perhaps emphasize as important. There is emerging convergence on the need to build digital capacities through engaging public-private partnerships and promoting greater financial investment in affordable, accessible, mobile connectivity. I think generally it means industry and government, but perhaps we could emphasize the need to engage. Develop and deploy technologies for the Internet infrastructure and maintenance of it in general. Perhaps we can emphasize the point that it should be all stakeholders. I don’t know if we can note that. Are we noting these? Thank you. She is hard at work, I know. Anyone else on the public-private? Yes, at the back. I think you rightly pointed that there needs to be a clear definition of public-private partnerships and that there is this risk of undermining the civic engagement in the development of these public services. I think we see this a lot in the local city context, especially with the capture of different infrastructure. Exactly, the whole smart cities thing that is being, I think, amongst us in the room, critically assessed, but not necessarily at a more public, wider global scale. Yes, that’s a really good point. Thank you. Yes, and just specifically around anything to do with the public sphere and public square and whatever being privatized kind of rings alarm bells. I don’t know that that’s necessarily a problem, but I just get private-public partnerships are not necessarily a good thing. Yes, so truly comprehensive and inclusive public-private partnerships need to reflect the engagement of all stakeholders, something to that effect. Any other points on this? Okay, and then what we have here in the next paragraph is the importance of an open, free and globally accessible internet, the significance of interoperable internet standards and protocols were emphasized, reference to the importance of the Tunis agenda was made, there is broad consensus that the Internet Governance Forum plays and should continue to play a key role in promoting the global and interoperable nature and governance of the internet. I’ll just add that this part was the part about fragmentation that was moved on to internet governance or digital cooperation, so it’s all kind of bundled up together right now. So the first line is definitely avoid internet fragmentation, and the second one is the one that talks about the processes and convergence and better coordination between them and avoiding duplication as well. So you’re saying this is a success of our input into the process so far? It is, it is, it is. I think so. I mean, to me that’s the main part that shows that the co-facilitators actually listened to the community, right, like reinforcing the IGF. Yeah, and on that point, I just want to emphasize that I think when we’re giving any feedback to the co-facilitators, we should include the positives that we’re noticing in this, not just the negatives, because we’ve received feedback in the past that we do need to be more mindful of emphasizing the good, not just focusing on the negatives. So I think that this point in particular is something we should lead with about how we are happy to see that. Yeah, absolutely. Great. I think emphasizing what is in here that is positive will be really helpful to strengthen that, I think, relationship with them. So thank you for that. And so when you go—the second paragraph also reflects, yes, the need for not duplicating existing forums and processes, which again is in line with many of the messages that came through in the consultations. Anything here that people think—I mean, there was a lot about process we discussed in the first part of this session that you think should be reflected here. Yeah, Brenna?

Audience:
Yeah, my suggestion for this one was just to think about the follow-up mechanisms, right? Like, there was a proposal for the IJF’s one. CIF, as I’m seeing, could be another one. Would there be any kind of, like, concerns about using any of these spaces as a follow-up kind of space or discussion or anything like that? Do we have an idea of what do we envision as a follow-up for the GDC?

Sheetal Kumar:
Oh, are you saying that we should perhaps say the IJF could play a role in that or—?

Audience:
That’s what the EWG strategy asks, but there is also the idea of CIF, so—or using those spaces for discussions.

Sheetal Kumar:
Any thoughts on what role the IJF could play or any other forum in the implementation of a future compact? Do people think? Yeah, Valerie?

Audience:
Oh. I think there is a lot of potential. One of the ideas that we have obviously considered in the evolution of the IJF is how it can incubate ideas and responses, and the policy networks, the dynamic coalitions, and the other intersessional mechanisms are definitely ways in which we can suggest that the IJF provides some guidance on the implementation and the monitoring of the Global Digital Compact. Not necessarily to be the monitoring body, but definitely to inform at least the type of indicators, the type of evidence that should be produced if we want the GDC to be monitored properly in relation to the principles that will be adopted.

Peter Micek:
Okay. If it continues to be something, there could be a DC on each side.

Audience:
Exactly. Exactly. An example is that there is a dynamic coalition around the UNESCO internet universality indicators that is providing guidance and feed and using the outcomes of the IJF to feed into the indicators. So something similar could be done for the GDC.

Bruna Santos:
We have been slowly converging to the same space for the last two years or three years. Two policy networks were created, one on fragmentation, another one on AI, as key topics and discussions for the GDC. The whole discussion and focus for this IJF on digital cooperation and governance is also in light of that. We want to make the agenda more fine-tuned with the process to use the space for bringing in proper input. I agree. We need to move on in terms of bringing in more suggestions.

Sheetal Kumar:
We’ve only got about 20 minutes left so we can try and do the rest of the paper and then we’ll move on to next steps.

Audience:
I wanted to add, I think we need to qualify what we mean by interoperable nature because that’s also being pushed by the different surveillance organizations. We see that a lot in the European context, for example, and it’s affecting displaced persons and migrants in particular. So advancing that interoperable internet is actually negative for human rights and so I think we need to be more explicit there what we mean by key role in promoting.

Sheetal Kumar:
I see some nodding as well. Did you want to react to that? I have so many reactions.

Audience:
No, I’m going to focus on the interoperable part. Yeah, the thing is that we use interoperable as the positive way of saying surveillance, basically. So we are talking about international data transfers, national data transfers, systems that are centralized so everything is connected to each other, and then this is sort of a buzzword in the whole conversation of global public infrastructure. And it’s kind of dangerous to go into that discourse. And on that note, I have another comment on sustainability but I’m going to keep it to myself. Just stressing that sustainability, no, interoperable is one of the critical infrastructures of things, like critical properties. My brain is mushy. I don’t even know what I’m doing anymore. I was going to wait until the end to say this but because it just follows from what you just said. This document is full of buzzwords and no substance really and it doesn’t contain, at least from what I see, the points that many of you raised as what you addressed in your submissions, written submissions. There’s no mention of shutdowns keeping on the internet. There’s no mention of the word surveillance or privacy rights. And there’s a lot of, like you just said, problematic issues contained in nice buzzwords like digital ID within the framework of DPI. And so I think there’s a lot of problems with this but is this going to be the basis of the global digital? What is this letter exactly? What is it going to feed into?

Bruna Santos:
The letter is the results of the deep dives. It’s how the co-facilitators, it’s basically what the co-facilitators learned from the deep dives. Then that’s a big problem. But it’s a very high level document. I agree.

Peter Micek:
Do we want to move to the following paragraphs?

Bruna Santos:
Yeah, because there is one on data rights right after that.

Audience:
Yeah, on the topic of interoperability and the open, free, and globally accessible internet stuff, I wanted to echo the buzzwords and I thought maybe a word that could counteract some of these buzzwords would be if, and you guys had mentioned kind of being more forceful in discussions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with brainstorming around deterrence systems and information sharing systems and some of the work we’ve done at our research lab has been about if there’s a region cut off from the internet, how could that region have a sister city pact with another region on the planet and they would receive an alert saying that this population had been taken off. These types of deterrence systems are just ideas that can be openly discussed and governments wouldn’t necessarily have as aggressive of a reaction to them because it’s more about a hypothetical system.

Peter Micek:
programs get to some of the meat, right, or the—

Sheetal Kumar:
Yeah, so there’s a need to articulate principles to guide regional and national approaches to data protection and governance. Leveraging data and cross-border data flows was emphasized while finding a balanced approach between free flow of data and data protection. Any thoughts on that?

Peter Micek:
They managed to talk about data without mentioning privacy or surveillance.

Sheetal Kumar:
Okay, so we can—yeah, any thought, any—

Bruna Santos:
The note is, data protection paragraph is awful. That’s the note.

Sheetal Kumar:
It’s not good. Rewrite in full, okay. And then there’s convergence around the potential for a compact to promote digital trust and security, and to address disinformation, hate speech, and other harmful content. Online content at GDC could advance transparent and responsible design and application, including human rights-based approach of digital technologies. In this regard, the Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on digital platforms that is being developed will be important. Okay, thoughts?

Peter Micek:
Jan seems to have a lot to say. What do you think about that?

Sheetal Kumar:
Hey, yeah, addressing disinformation, hate speech, and harmful content, none of these things mean anything legally or have any specific definition. So this means very little, unfortunately. So I think that needs to be—I mean, that’s what we—I’m with Article 19, and that’s what we always say, that these are, like, not legal terms. We use them sometimes, but we always use them in, like, parentheses because it’s just unclear except maybe hate speech as an incitement to violence. None of these words mean anything, and you can restrict a lot on that basis.

Audience:
I would just say that there’s also concerns about using framings of, like, digital trust and security to address disinformation, hate speech, and that it can easily be used to legitimize overly broad actions or regulation from governments.

Sheetal Kumar:
Okay, great. Yes, okay. Also very—needs to be redrafted paragraph.

Audience:
Just one comment on that. No, I just wanted to add one comment on that because it seems or some U.N. agencies are believing that a lot of the work from the Internet of Trust debate on UNESCO is converging to the code of conduct space. So there might be at some point a discontinuation of the UNESCO, which is ending, right? Like, they haven’t announced the end already, but there is an internal working group on this topic exclusively with UNDP and some other spaces and also talking about elections that is going to converge to this discussion as well. So it’s one of the key areas of discussion for the future.

Sheetal Kumar:
Okay. Is this on this point? Yep, okay. Go ahead. Sorry.

Audience:
I mean, yeah, that whole paragraph has got problems, but just specifically on the security question, maybe one very specific tweak would just be changing security to safety. I think when you talk about disinformation and hate speech and stuff, thinking of it from a safety perspective rather than a security perspective is—I mean, that sounds like actually maybe what that is supposed to say. Okay.

Peter Micek:
It also—it doesn’t use the term expression or free expression.

Sheetal Kumar:
Yeah. Positive. Okay, great. Thank you for that feedback. So the artificial intelligence paragraph is quite long. I wouldn’t read it in full, but it talks about the benefits of AI in enhancing productivity, value creation, and wider digital economy. There is a need to further a common understanding of the risks entailed. Forms of regulation standards and guardrails are mentioned as potential means to address some risks, emphasis on the need for a human-centric approach as well as transparent and equitable risk-based approaches. Any thoughts? Any burning reactions? Any—yes. Okay, just two at the back, and then we’ll—I’m afraid we have to move on.

Audience:
I would just say that it’s concerning that human rights isn’t included here as the approach, and so we’ve got, like, human-centric, which is great, but I think we really need to be pushing for human rights as the underlying standard.

Peter Micek:
Yeah. Human rights as the underlying— I think that together with human rights-oriented, there should be, like, even workers-led AI governance.

Audience:
It’s really missing the labor within it, and I think it’s a consensus in terms of public control, workers’ agency, or even the micro-work, which are the building blocks for AI, should be considered also.

Sheetal Kumar:
Great. Thank you for that. Okay, and—yes?

Audience:
Just one thing that is bothering me a little bit is that there is no mention, as far as I could see, to communities, like, what is the role of communities in supporting the development of technologies, supporting their governance, and et cetera, especially when we consider, like, indigenous communities or the traditional ones. I think that’s fundamental. Thank you.

Sheetal Kumar:
So, the next paragraph is very short, and it’s the only place that I think gender comes up.

Audience:
It says nothing. And it just says, addressing gender-digital divides is important. Yeah, this is just very, like, placating words. So, just requesting more detail here about what exactly gender-digital divides are they looking at. So, how is technology, gender-based violence included in here, access to smartphones and access to internet, what else, inclusive technology, how are cultural norms placating in societies and how women have access to phones, just kind of across the spectrum. In the hate speech and disinformation, it should flag gender specifically in that section too, probably, if they’re going to talk about it. Okay, noted. And then a couple here. Yeah, that was more or less the same. I wanted to say it’s not like we are talking only about a digital gender divide. It’s a cross-cutting issue across all the other issues that are mentioned in the paper, and therefore it’s—I can’t believe we have only these two lines about a divide. We need to highlight that. Yeah, no, I agree.

Sheetal Kumar:
It’s—sorry, this is not about me, what I think, but yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I also find it reductionist that when it comes to women and these issues, it’s always, you know, it’s reduced to digital equality and this digital divide, while it transcends that. And I think in addition to it, there should be a recognition, an outright recognition that marginalized communities are impacted by all of these issues disproportionately and differently, and therefore they should be prioritized. So beyond the gender, I think we should address that. Okay, so that mainstreaming cross-cutting. Yeah, it’s, like you said, very reductionist and will reflect that. Any—sorry, did you? Intersectionality. Okay, thank you. No, no, it’s fine. That might have been our shortest intervention. Yeah. Just one word there. Okay. Short and important. That’s good.

Peter Micek:
And not just because the ITU just walked in, but I think there—a lot of people have said, you know, named things that fall, like, lower in the stack maybe than, like, on the more, you know, content level. People are talking about access to devices, things like community networking, different forms of infrastructure. So, yeah, it seems like in a few different places there’s a lot—you know, and the environmental impacts and things like that hit at other lower layers maybe than on the top.

Sheetal Kumar:
Okay. Thank you. That’s a really good general point. And then the last one is on sustainability. The role of green technology and digitalization to accelerating climate ambitions was highlighted, and there’s something else about the need to address technology-related drivers of climate risk and growing consumption and e-waste.

Audience:
Sorry to go back to language, but sustainable. There are two ways in which the word sustainable is used. One is sustainable development goals. So the goals and the development is sustainable. And then sustainable in relation to climate, which hopefully one day—I don’t know—climate will be sustainable. But there is absolutely nothing in all the talk about the global—I’m sorry, the digital public infrastructure—about the sustainability of the technology itself. And this is when we say technologies have to be open and has to be inclusive. It has to be all of that, but it has to be sustainable. Because we come into these countries and we say, oh, this country is not developed. Let’s give them mirrors and Internet. And then we leave, and the technology is left there, and the technology falls apart after six months. And this is what we keep doing over and over and over and over. And this is nowhere at all. Okay. Thank you for that. We can reflect that.

Sheetal Kumar:
Just coming on to the last part of our session, we want to talk about how we reflect all of this feedback.

Peter Micek:
One more online. Oh, sorry. Are you able to facilitate that? Thanks. Online? Yeah, online. We’re inclusive and respect remote participation.

Sheetal Kumar:
Yes. And we’ll have to be very quick because we need to wrap up, really. How are we going to—all right, so we’ll talk about coordination, like concrete— Yes. So we have some ideas, which are just as fun as going through this paragraph by paragraph. Everyone really enjoyed it in the end. We have two hands up, and we have six minutes to the end of the session, so let’s— Okay. Yes. We’ll have this, and then we’ll discuss next steps.

Audience:
Just collective actions in relation to coordination, just two possible entry points. First, the ones that I mentioned. We can articulate around this that has been being produced by our collective process. So inviting all of you to engage with that process. And the other one is that we are launching here a campaign that is called the IGF We Want, and it’s related and responding to the fact that there are these attempts to replicate or duplicate or even disappear the IGF. We don’t know what the intention is. So building on the achievements of the IGF that are many, many, including the—I mean, proving how the multi-stakeholder approach can be implemented around internet governance. So we are launching this campaign here, and that’s perhaps an entry point for collective action. So you can contact me. The name of the campaign is the IGF We Want. Thank you.

Sheetal Kumar:
So we have to figure out what we do next with everything that we’ve discussed. We have three main themes in the first part of our discussion on process that we thought we could write out so that it makes sense to a wider community that wasn’t part of this discussion, and those themes are transparency, coherence, and need for accurate reflection of the scope. And then—oh, I’m afraid we—yes, we have to wrap up really quickly. Would you be able to share your points by email or in the chat, Timothy?

Audience:
Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Just really quickly, I think there should be a definition of digital slavery that is thought to be worked through, because we have at one end of the spectrum pervasive surveillance that apparently knows everything and provides cybersecurity. At the other end of the spectrum, there are many vulnerable people who cannot go to a court of law because apparently there is no evidence. So somehow, understanding what digital slavery actually means, I think, is an important reference. Thank you.

Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. Yes. And definitely send through any other comments either in the chat and by email. So those are the three process-related recommendations and reflections we had, and so what we can do is, as I said, write them up and then share them via your email, really, so that we can use those going forward. And then there was a lot of reactions to the co-facilitators paper, which when you asked about what is it, it is a basis for future discussion, so I think reacting to it could be quite helpful and perhaps drafting a reaction piece or something. What do people think? Thoughts?

Audience:
Yeah. I got a lot of notes from a lot of the things you guys brought up, like improve some of the meanings, qualify some of the terms that were used, resignify the language in a lot of spaces. So maybe we can work on that for the statement. Yeah. And just a quick note. There’s no mention of digital colonialism, and I feel like that one’s a really big piece that’s missing here. Yeah, exactly. I mean, there is a push within parts of the UN system for this, and then there’s a group of us working on decolonizing technology, and then the other one was green tech doesn’t really mean anything, so I think they need to take that out.

Sheetal Kumar:
One of those buzzwords. Lots of those buzzwords. Okay. Thank you for those. So we need to get a show of hands, maybe, or actually many reactions for the idea of setting out the process-related concerns and recommendations, sharing those with you by email. What do people think? Yes. Would you be interested in getting those in writing? Yeah? Is there a list, or do we need to get it? There’s no list. We just need to get your email here after the session. And then on the feedback on the co-facilitators’ paper, the substantive feedback, drafting a reaction piece and perhaps having some sign-ons to that could be a way forward.

Bruna Santos:
Yeah, we can put all the notes together and share with everybody and see if we can transform it into a document with sign-ons. But I would just like to flag interventions in the main sessions as well. It’s really key that we bring some of these issues to the main sessions. Otherwise, co-facilitators that are here and are listening to the meeting in a lot of the sessions will think it’s fine, it’s moodless, so it’s important to complain.

Sheetal Kumar:
That’s a great point, because they are here and in listening mode. Thank you.

Peter Micek:
Does anyone really want to advertise a session like where we have to be? Yes. All right. Quickly, please.

Audience:
Yes. I think the main session of the Dynamic Coalition, which is on Thursday afternoon, will address exactly these issues. And as the Dynamic Coalitions are a collective basis for civil society organizations, I do think it would be good to give it a follow-up there. Thank you. All right.

Sheetal Kumar:
Dynamic Coalition on Thursday. Any other events? The GDC main session on Wednesday. CSTD consultation on WSIS plus 20 as well. Okay. Really important. The JustNet IT for Change session. Yes. Day Zero event at 4 p.m. Any others? Okay. So I have some of your emails, and Bruna has some of your emails, and I’m sure Peter has some of your emails. If you come up here, we will get your email, and then we can send you, at the very least, the first thing we can do is send the process-related recommendations and concerns. Thank you, Sheetal and Bruna. And thank you, Peter, for being, like, in real teacher mode. I saw that. Thanks, everybody. Picking on people. Thank you, everyone. And thanks for resisting the breakout groups. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks.