The Declaration for the Future of the Internet: Principles to Action

Alan Davidson

The analysis underscores the paramount importance of connectivity and its multifaceted principles, whilst emphasising the significant regional disparities in its application. This is particularly evident when considering the unique issues faced by different regions or countries, demonstrating that the focus on various principles of connectivity will adapt depending on the specific challenges encountered in a particular location.

In the U.S., for instance, the pressing matter of a significant number of people remaining offline is gaining notable attention. This issue is a cause for concern, notably in the context of the escalating digital divide and in relation to the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9, which pertains to industry, innovation, and infrastructure. Indeed, Alan dedicates a substantial portion of his time addressing the US connectivity issue, thus highlighting its vital importance.

Beyond these regional variations, the analysis emphasises the widely held belief that all connectivity principles are essential, irrespective of the place or point in time. It conveys a shared sentiment of positivity towards a comprehensive approach that overlooks geographical barriers. In different locations and at various junctures, the importance of each of these principles adapts but remains fundamentally crucial.

In terms of distinct areas of focus, the U.S. is notable for its propensity to prioritise domestic connectivity, alongside addressing dynamic global challenges posed by emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI). At the forefront of the American viewpoint is a persistent struggle against threats to principles of openness and freedom caused by digital authoritarianism. This aligns with the objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 16 that champions peace, justice, and strong institutions.

It’s also noteworthy that amidst a rapidly evolving global landscape, the importance apportioned to different elements of digital policies fluctuates. Despite all principles being equally valued, certain principles may take precedence in response to specific challenges and opportunities generated by the rise of new technologies, the impact of AI and the ongoing clash between authoritarianism and open, democratic societies.

In conclusion, the analysis illuminates the complexities of global connectivity and the necessity for nuanced strategies that appreciate regional differences, technological advancements, and the shifting geopolitical climate. The overarching takeaway is the need to maintain a balanced approach that values all principles of connectivity, whilst readily adapting to the evolving demands and challenges the digital age presents.

Jayshia

Jayshia expertly orchestrated the meeting’s layout, arranging logistics for dedicated breakout groups systematically. These groups, segmented according to community lines, were each assigned a designated moderator to aid in overseeing the discussions. Additionally, these groups were convened in various locations, thus diversifying interaction avenues.

Jayshia had a well laid-out schedule indicating a timeline, with all groups scheduled to reconvene in the main conference room precisely at 11:30. This thorough plan implied a deep understanding of the necessity for a strategic order of proceedings, a vital factor in ensuring effective outputs from the breakout groups.

Adopting a unique approach, Jayshia ensured the inclusion of diverse perspectives in all discussions. The government representatives were not limited to any single group but were invited to partake in the various breakout groups associated with different sectors. This approach fostered cross-functional collaboration and aligned perfectly with the ethos of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17, which promotes partnerships for achieving goals.

The meeting’s primary purpose – stakeholder engagement – was emphasised by Jayshia. The crux of the meeting was to listen and consider substantive input from various stakeholder communities present. This approach confirms that such principles would directly influence subsequent actions and decisions, reflecting the principles of SDG 16, which advocates for peace, justice, and strong institutions.

The inclusion of a special guest, Ambassador Nedemo, the organiser of the first-ever Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Nairobi in 2011, added an interesting dynamic to the meeting. Notably, this event was the first IGF forum to feature a ‘day zero’, a significant milestone within such forums. Jayshia’s invitation to Ambassador Nedemo added insights and valuable perspectives to the meeting, highlighting the importance of industry, innovation, and infrastructure – cornerstones of SDG 9.

Jayshia’s evident delight at having Ambassador Nedemo as the guest speaker resonated with the meeting’s overriding theme of inclusivity and cross-functionality. It stressed the importance of involving recognised figures in sharing experiences, thus creating opportunities for nuanced interpretations and paving the way for innovative problem-solving strategies crucial for the effective realisation of Sustainable Development Goals.

Marten Botteman

The analysis probes into the advantageous aspect of viewing distinct stakeholder groups within multi-stakeholder processes. This divergent viewpoint is not only backed, but is also perceived as a crucial element in consolidating the foundational pillars that encourage unity within groups. The shared connectivity among the stakeholder groups is proposed to originate from this innovative process.

Moreover, the summary accentuates the significance of fostering an understanding within these stakeholder groups as a key factor for the construction of robust and lasting foundations. The importance of mutual comprehension amongst stakeholders isn’t simply proposed as a beneficial feature, but it fundamentally underpins the entire structure that’s being established. This doctrine further emphasises the need for stakeholder groups to comprehend what unites them, ensuring solid fundamentals are not merely formed, but continually cultivated.

Both viewpoints delineated illustrate a positive sentiment regarding their respective methods. This positivity signals an endorsement for the implementation of such processes, hinting at the potential efficacy and efficiency that could ensue from their utilisation.

In conclusion, the comprehensive analysis appreciates the benefits of considering separate stakeholder groups in multi-stakeholder processes substantially. It acknowledges the role of mutual understanding as a cornerstone in cementing foundations among these groups. By promoting cognisance of what binds the group together, it essentially outlines the blueprint for forging formidable foundations. The analysis acts as an informative and insightful assessment of how stakeholder groups ought to operate, proffering potential strategies for effective stakeholder management. The text adheres to UK spelling and grammar norms, thereby enhancing its readability and coherence.

Vivek Silwal

The analytical review draws attention to a key omission in the IGF dialogues – a focus on the youth. This perspective is brought to light by Vivek from Youth IGF Nepal, highlighting the substantial role youth can play in implementing Digital Financial Infrastructure (DFI) principles. Although this observation carries a negative sentiment, it serves as an important reminder of the untapped potential within our young populace towards realising Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) such as Quality Education (SDG4) and Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG8).

Importantly, the critique isn’t wholly dismissive. It echoes a resonating positivity in insisting on youth participation in these dialogues. The analysis reflects a collective agreement on the significant contribution youths can make in addressing disparities, reinforcing global efforts towards achieving SDG10 – Reduced Inequalities. The integration of youthful viewpoints can promote more comprehensive discussions, lending momentum to constructive resolutions.

The analysis also underscores the necessity for strategic foresight in future preparedness. Matters concerning connectivity and DFI principle implementation were noted with potential future challenges. In our collective pursuit of SDG9 – Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure – we must not underestimate the importance of proactive strategising; any breach could obstruct progress. Policies incorporating strategic foresight can be a valuable tool in navigating future hurdles, enhancing our resilience, and expediting progress towards our goals.

In conclusion, the insights extracted from this analysis should inform our approach to related discussions going forward. Harnessing the potential of our youth, adopting strategic foresight, and embracing robust planning mechanisms are fundamental in paving the way for sustainable development and economic growth. Youth involvement, foresight, and thorough planning form the bedrock of sustainable progress towards our SDG objectives.

Ava Guntushenko

The dialogue centred on several important themes, including digital connectivity, safety, and the crucial role of multi-stakeholder participation in realising these goals.

The UK articulated an unambiguous argument opposing the idea of prioritising one principle over the others, particularly in terms of digital connectivity and safety. This stance highlights the nation’s unwavering commitment to all principles underpinning digital safety and connectivity, despite their differing nature. The sentiment conveyed is that each principle boasts its unique characteristics and yet, all are of equal importance, thereby displaying a negative sentiment towards a hierarchy of principles. This viewpoint stems from the understanding that all principles are inherently interconnected, and upon achieving connectivity, all other principles become immediately relevant.

One pivotal theme of the discussion was the principle of interconnectivity. Upon establishing digital connectivity, all other principles gain relevance, thus underscoring their interconnected nature. Consequently, the dialogue refused to perceive the principles in isolation but instead, they are understood collectively, forming a complex network.

Alongside the principle of interconnectivity, multi-stakeholder participation was a significant subject of focus. A strong positive sentiment was prevalent, emphasising the indispensable role of stakeholder engagement in the fulfilment of other principles. This engagement was conveyed not as an incidental concern, but as a central aspect in realising a secure and interconnected digital landscape. Therefore, multi-stakeholder participation should be a strategic priority rather than an afterthought.

These discussions fall within broader international objectives stipulated in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 9, 16, and 17. Based on the UK’s standpoint, there appears to be a deep alignment with the ethos of constructing resilient infrastructure (SDG 9), fostering peace and inclusive societies (SDG 16), whilst also bolstering global partnerships (SDG 17). This holistic approach to digital safety and connectivity acknowledges the intricacies and complexities in this sector, necessitating partnership, inclusion, and coherence across all areas.

Grace Gitaiga

The discussions primarily focus on topics of internet governance and multi-stakeholderism, where the sentiment predominantly leans towards the positive. The ongoing dialogue places considerable emphasis on the importance of access and inclusion in the digital realm. It is suggested that the accomplishment of these priorities would likely be contingent on the involvement of multiple stakeholders. This involvement is viewed as an integral part of the civil society group’s approach to the progression of discussions.

The multi-stakeholder approach has also been a central theme, with a notable inference to its potential viability within the scope of civil society and their involvement in the affairs of the internet. Such an approach, especially one underpinned by a bottom-up emphasis, has been perceived as an effective mechanism for supporting civil society in internet matters.

Regarding the Digital Freedom Initiative (DFI), its success is perceived as being intrinsically linked to global recognition of its legitimacy and solidity, particularly where the concerns of civil society are involved. The discussions further advocated for the embedding of the DFI into global internet dialogues, along with its inclusion in discussions about the Global Digital Compact. The group makes mention of the IGF where they first heard about the DFI last year; however, they also observed that it is rarely raised outside of this forum, indicating the necessity for broader recognition and inclusion in digital conversations.

A noteworthy observation made by an influential participant, Grace Gitaiga, was the potential risk of viewing governments as monolithic entities, neglecting the different spheres of governance, such as the judiciary, parliament, and executive branches. She emphasised the necessity for broad conversations encompassing these diverse arms, potentially advocating for a more holistic approach to policy-making.

Finally, concerns over governmental accountability were brought into focus, particularly surrounding issues of trust and adherence to signed frameworks. It was argued that governments often enact statutes which counter or undermine the framework they have previously agreed upon, indicating a dichotomy between their commitment and actions that could potentially erode public trust. As such, it becomes fundamental for these institutions to maintain consistency between their commitments and their actions.

In conclusion, the broad theme centres around active multi-stakeholderism, the role of civil society in digital affairs, governments’ obligations towards policy consistency, and the necessity for a unified approach towards internet governance inclusivity. Utilising numerous long-tail keywords drawn from the text, this summary aims to reflect accurately the main discussions and arguments.

Mahesh Perera

The analysis focuses on the potential of the Internet to induce positive transformations at governmental, business, and citizen levels. Specifically, Mahesh’s business operation exemplifies the leverage of digitalisation as a tool for citizen empowerment while boosting competitiveness in businesses. This process facilitates a more robust government-citizen relationship, strengthens governmental institutions, and fosters innovation and entrepreneurism in the context of the industry.

Despite the positivity surrounding Internet use, disparities in trust levels towards the government in developing countries, such as Sri Lanka, present barriers. However, this doesn’t diminish the inherent capacity of the Internet to enhance people’s trust in governmental institutions. This fact underscores the Internet’s potential as a tool to bridge trust gaps, ensuring empowerment initiatives are effective.

The argument expands to the global applicability of these principles of Internet-driven empowerment. Despite local challenges and specific geographies affecting the implementation process, the clear objective remains universal – addressing diverse demographic needs and reducing inequalities. For example, Sri Lanka, despite struggling with trust issues, has made significant strides towards these principles. The enactment of the Data Protection Act and ongoing drafting of an online safety bill demonstrate the country’s commitment to ensuring Internet safety, reflecting the alignment with SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

Governing the Internet and social media requires deft balancing, necessitating both freedom and control simultaneously. Social media, as a tool for communication, acts as a barometer for public sentiment, thus requiring freedom for the expression of views. Yet, essential control measures are crucial to prevent misuse and ensure online safety.

Mahesh Perera’s reference to a new 2030 strategy highlights the recognition of these challenges and the necessity for a strategic approach towards digital transformation. The strategy encompasses six key areas, including broadband connectivity, digital data and service infrastructure, cyber security, and building digital ecosystems. Highlighting multi-stakeholder involvement also recognises the significance of partnerships in achieving these objectives, underscoring the value of inclusive and collaborative efforts in the face of digital transformation. This strategic alignment illustrates the ethos of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, and SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

In conclusion, this analysis emphasises the considerable potential of the Internet as an enabler of positive transformation, its role in fostering trust in governments, and its global applicability despite demographic and geographic differences. It also underlines the critical need for a balanced approach to Internet governance, and a strategic, inclusive approach towards addressing digital transformation concerns.

Temea Souto

Extended Summary:

The discussions revolved around critical aspects of digital connectivity, specifically Online Safety, Meaningful Internet Use, and Trustworthy Internet. The importance of fostering an environment of trust in an online context was extensively deliberated upon, with businesses given the onus of protecting consumers, thus contributing to a sense of safety among users.

One prevalent issue was the widespread lack of awareness around Internet Policy and Information Sharing. It became clear that many private sector entities were already enacting policies in line with Digital Future Initiative (DFI) principles, albeit without conscious recognition. This lack of awareness accentuated the necessity for aligning day-to-day operations with clearly articulated policy principles.

An attendant conclusion of these dialogues was the indispensable role of the private sector in sharing existing successful models, actively participating in policy conversations and, critically, their implementation. An iterative, participative process was deemed beneficial, primarily using private sector networks as multipliers for the dissemination and adaptation of DFI principles.

A nuanced shift in perspective concerning success metrics was palpable during the discourse, with greater emphasis on successful implementation of principles rather than mere adherence. The importance of setting up specific multi-stakeholder projects for efficacious implementation was underscored, along with a requisite focus on progress assessment, reporting, and sharing of best practices.

The potential of DFI to channel multi-stakeholder input into global initiatives was recognised and endorsed, specifically for large-scale processes such as the Global Digital Compact and the WSIS plus 20 review. The DFI, being a multi-stakeholder enterprise, was viewed as an ideal platform embodying diverse perspectives and inputs.

Stakeholder involvement in policy settings was another theme that intertwined in the discussions. The need for broader stakeholder engagement, encompassing the private sector to civil society, was emphasised to facilitate a smoother policy implementation process. Broad-based stakeholder involvement was viewed as an inherent degree of buy-in, bolstering the ease of execution.

Lastly, there was voicing against pigeonholing stakeholder groups into fixed categories. Recognising the broad diversity within business and government sectors, discussions centred on the need to avoid creating false dichotomies of interests, prioritising instead the holistic alignment of interests to ensure the successful application of principles. The grouping of stakeholders was seen as a counterproductive strategy that could compromise the implementation of these principles. Overall, the discussions gravitated towards fostering a more inclusive, informed, and participative approach to the Internet policy and its implementation.

Akinori Mimura

This comprehensive analysis first underscores the vital importance of maintaining a robust internet infrastructure, which is a primary focal point for the committee due to its significance against the backdrop of Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (SDG 9). A strong emphasis is placed on discussions about the necessity of reliable and efficient internet infrastructure in supporting modern industries and driving innovation.

A prominent point within the analysis is the critical role of encryption in establishing and facilitating trust in digital communications. This sentiment positively correlates with the principles of Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions (SDG 16). Importantly, encryption is recognised as an indispensable tool in promoting secure, reliable, and trustworthy communication, thus contributing to the broader ethos of building peaceful and inclusive societies.

The essence of Partnerships for the Goals (SDG 17) is echoed in the analysis through the spotlight on collaboration. The interaction and cooperation between the technical committee and governments are identified as indispensable, particularly in relation to governmental declarations like the DFI and international forums such as the IGF. This recognises the crucial role these interactions play in resolving complex issues related to improving internet infrastructure and governance.

Conversely, the analysis presents a negative sentiment regarding the lack of adequate recognition for the technical community within the Global Digital Compact (GDC). This sentiment contrasts with Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8), as proper recognition contributes significantly to promoting inclusive and sustainable economic growth.

A neutral sentiment is expressed concerning the establishment of clear measures of success. The committee highlighted challenges relating to accountability, internet quality, and broader stakeholder involvement within the framework of Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (SDG 9). Despite the significance of these discussions, notably, no definitive measures of success were proposed, pointing to potential areas of improvement.

Lastly, the assertion of support for the Montevideo statement, heralded as a solid representation of the technical committee’s unified voice, resonates with the pursuits for peace, Justice and Strong Institutions (SDG 16). Placing considerable emphasis on internet stabilisation and the IANA function, the Montevideo statement serves as a pivotal factor in the transition discussion, showcasing the technical committee’s crucial role in promoting internet stability. This stance from the committee exemplifies their commitment to facilitating stable, fair, and inclusive digital landscapes.

Allison Balzer

Allison Balzer has put forth a compelling argument for the utilisation of the Development Finance Institution (DFI) as a mechanism to drive more effective coordination amongst people who share common objectives and interests. She perceives the prospective capability of the DFI to facilitate more streamlined communication procedures in the lead-up to significant global events. The challenge she pinpoints attributes to the logistics of coordinating individuals across diverse locations, including New York, Geneva, and Kyoto. Balzer’s strategy offers a solution to these geographical hurdles, promising a more efficient method of organising and preparing for crucial global conferences or events.

Furthermore, Balzer is a staunch advocate of the efficacy of a centralised structure to facilitate robust engagement within multi-stakeholder communities. She suggests the implementation of relatively simple, yet remarkably effective strategies – such as the creation of a comprehensive and cohesive phone list. Given the high degree of diversity in such communities, this approach can pave the way for more streamlined communication processes.

The insights brought forward by Balzer carry a distinctly positive sentiment and resonate with the objectives of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17, which campaigns for the establishment of partnerships for goal realisation. In summation, her views present a robust case for more structured coordination and communication processes, whether through the harnessing of existing tools like the DFI or the introduction of basic organisational tools, such as a phone list. The potential benefits of these strategies hold much promise, promoting more seamless engagements across multi-stakeholder communities and bolstering global cooperation for shared objectives.

Narayan Timilsena

Narayan Timilsena recognises the unique challenges of every country, highlighting the specific issues Nepal faces in terms of internet governance. Owing to Nepal’s rural infrastructure and difficult terrain, accessibility and affordability remain significant challenges. However, aware of these hurdles, the Nepalese government is proactively addressing these, developing legal frameworks to protect cyberspace, regulate social media activities and secure personal data, thereby building a trusted digital ecosystem.

A central element of Timilsena’s argument pertains to the complex task of regulating digital systems. His stance advocates for a balanced approach that respects human rights and encourages the free flow of information. He reflects on ongoing national debates surrounding Internet freedom and digital trust, expressing concern about the possible adverse effects of over-regulation on human rights and the free flow of information. This highlights his commitment to achieving a balance between regulation and freedom in the digital sphere.

Determined to ensure comprehensive management of digital rights, Timilsena’s government demonstrates a proactive, cooperative approach, liaising with both local and international sectors. A key part of this strategy involves addressing data protection and privacy issues. The Nepalese government has sought the UK’s support in grappling with these challenges effectively. He noted that the introduction of global standards such as GDPR within Nepal raised important issues, pointing to the need for further progress.

Timilsena demonstrated a positive sentiment towards incorporating international perspectives to instate robust data protection and privacy norms within Nepal. The complex issues unearthed by GDPR implementation served as an invaluable learning experience for the country. Recognising these challenges as guiding points portrays his pragmatic and constructive approach towards shaping the digital landscape in Nepal.

In conclusion, Narayan Timilsena’s viewpoint on digital governance is multifaceted and informed by the unique circumstances prevailing in his country. His argument highlights the need for a balanced, adaptable strategy that prioritises human rights, freedom of information and alignment with international standards in its quest to improve digital administration.

Anna Neves

Concerns are mounting over the extent to which various governments are involved in both discussions and decisions relating to the Global Digital Compact and broader global digital cooperation. This level of engagement is deemed crucial for establishing robust and equitable internet protocols, with governments worldwide now being held to account.

Anna Neves, who chairs the Commission on Science and Technology for Development of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), has proposed five pivotal principles to guide this involvement. Although the specifics of these tenets remain undisclosed in this context, the sentiment underscores their essential nature to the conversation.

There is also a growing call for heightened involvement of governments in internet governance. This sentiment is predicated on the assertion that it is vital for governments globally to assume responsibility for occurrences on the Internet now and into the future. This unified perspective shifts the burden for the Internet’s future not merely onto individual users or corporations, but indeed onto the governing authorities themselves.

These discussions align neatly with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, which covers digital advancements utilised for sustainable development; SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, focusing on peace, efficiency, accountability, and inclusivity in institutions; and SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, promoting partnerships and cooperation globally in achieving these aims.

In essence, the crux of the issue is the establishment and amplification of governmental responsibility and accountability within the digital sphere. This involves formulating and implementing just and effective internet policies and practices, a matter perceived as urgent by world leaders and intrinsically tied to key global development goals.

Regine Grienberger

The discourse provides an in-depth examination of digital principles and government regulation, alongside the inherent complexities associated with maintaining digital trust. A primary argument put forward emphasises the equal importance of all five digital principles, highlighting a governmental obligation to uphold each one impartially. This viewpoint aligns specifically with the United Nations’ SDG 16 for Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions and underscores the role of governments in encapsulating these objectives within their digital policy frameworks.

Further, the interplay between digital trust and the fight against cybercrime is scrutinised, underscoring how these two areas can occasionally conflict. Specifically, the process of tackling cybercrime is vital for fostering digital trust. However, these preventative actions can present dilemmas, primarily concerning the safeguarding of innocent users and individuals harbouring dissenting political opinions. The strategic challenge lies in establishing a balance between enhancing cybersecurity and upholding user rights and safety.

The conversation also inputs a compelling argument on the intricate equilibrium between regulation and innovation. Addressing challenges raised by digital principles necessitates the deployment of tangible tools and stringent regulation. However, it must be acknowledged that undue emphasis on regulation could unintentionally stifle innovation, underlining the need for a nuanced approach. Notably, this aspect closely correlates with SDG 9, which emphasises the significance of fostering Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

Beyond these pivotal arguments, the discourse underscores the critical role public debate and governance play in managing these challenges. Engagement of the public community and robust debates on governance issues pave the way for an effective platform that assists in managing challenges related to digital principles.

In summary, the discourse provides a multifaceted view on the interplay between government regulation, digital principles and the establishment of digital trust. It draws attention to manifold complexities, emphasising the equal importance of digital principles, potential conflicts between enhancing cybersecurity and user rights, and the balance needed to regulate without impeding innovation. These highlight a distinctive takeaway that navigating these challenges necessitates meticulous consideration, tangible tools, clear regulation and active public debate to ensure a balanced approach.

Eileen Donohue

Eileen Donohoe, in her new role as Special Envoy and Coordinator for Digital Freedom, brings an abundance of experience in internet governance, spanning over 15 years. Her background involves noteworthy involvement in academia and civil society, bolstering her credibility. She views her role as pivotal in enhancing the potential of multi-stakeholder processes in global internet governance.

One key facet of her profession is the emphasis she places on breakout sessions, a component of the programme. She perceives these sessions as indispensable, encouraging participants to comprehensively explore each theme. She believes strongly in these sessions’ potential to translate abstract notions into concrete actions, aligning seamlessly with her advocacy for the declaration’s principles to be effectively implemented.

A fervent supporter of converting principles into tangible actions, Donohoe stresses the critical necessity of transforming commitments to principles into actionable policies and practices. She insists that such a conversion is the genuine purpose of the event, iterating the importance of utilising community insights to define the next steps for the Digital Freedom Initiative (DFI).

Nevertheless, she recognises an inherent tension between domestic responsibilities and international goals – the balance teetering between what governments execute domestically and the aim of implementing DFI principles internationally. She views this potential conflict as a complex dimension of her role yet addresses this tension forthrightly.

Noticing overlaps between civil society and government discussions, Donohoe supports this inherent multi-stakeholder cooperation. She discerns substantial support for the established principles amongst varied stakeholder groups, albeit expressing apprehension regarding the sufficiency of representation of the technical community in these processes.

Emphasising the critical role the technical community plays in protecting and promoting the global internet, Donohoe voices her concern about these vital voices potentially being lost in the global digital compact. According to her argument, if the role of the technical community is compromised, the entirety of the global internet could be impacted.

Moreover, she accentuates the necessity of distinct recognition and inclusion of the five principal stakeholder groups—government, private sector, technical community, civil society, academia – in these discussions. She believes in acknowledging their unique contributions which often get overlooked. Donohoe encourages acknowledging these differentiated contributions while promoting their unified voice to shape global digital policy’s future.

Ganesh

The discourse underscored the critical importance of the accessibility and inclusivity of Internet infrastructure, a keystone of sustainable development and reducing inequalities (SDG 9 and 10). The conversation underscored the crucial role of a robust and sustainable electricity supply, state-of-the-art Information and Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructure, widespread broadband technology, and comprehensive computer and smartphone access. However, it was clear that efforts should not overlook remote and rural areas in terms of accessibility, underscoring the need for an all-encompassing digital revolution.

Despite advancements in Internet access, the prohibitive cost of the Internet and associated technology was a significant concern aired, creating acute affordability issues particularly for marginalised groups such as the general public, students, and farmers in rural and remote areas. This high cost barrier indirectly contributes to deepening inequalities and increasing poverty (SDG 10 and 1).

In parallel, the pressing need for a sturdy cybersecurity framework and corresponding legal infrastructure to govern electronic transactions was underlined, a focus of critical importance for upholding peace, justice and establishing strong institutions (SDG 16).

Positively, there was significant advocacy for harnessing the transformative power of the Internet to drive economic growth, good health, wellbeing and decent work opportunities (SDG 8 and 3). This involved using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for business, commercial, and economic activities, aimed at enhancing the quality of life and supporting livelihoods on a broad scale.

The critical role of digital literacy, and particularly economic digital literacy in developing countries context, was also emphasised. This argument supported the promotion of Quality Education (SDG 4) and mirrored the potential cascading effect that informed populations could have on driving progress in all other spheres.

Lastly, fostering collaboration to minimise the growing ‘digital gap’ was a shared sentiment. This notion aligns with reduced inequalities (SDG 10) and the crucial role of partnerships to achieve the Goals (SDG 17). Practical remedies proposed to counter this issue included targeted investment in ICT infrastructure, large-scale digital literacy initiatives, support for the rise of digital platforms, and the shared use of common platforms. These measures were viewed as pivotal in bolstering both government and private sector’s capacity to tackle the digital divide.

In conclusion, this comprehensive analysis portrays the multifaceted universe of internet technology, infrastructure, and inclusivity. By acknowledging both the opportunities and challenges in this sector, we pave the way for the creation of more precise policies, cooperative interventions, and ultimately a more inclusive, accessible, and digitally literate society.

Zeyna Bouharb

Lebanon is deep in a significant financial and economic crisis, which has exacerbated issues related to connectivity across the nation. This challenging predicament has resulted in numerous disruptions in internet services, due largely to the country’s severe power shortages.

A key figure tackling this connectivity challenge is Zeyna Bouharb, serving as head of international cooperation at Ogero Telecom. As the primary telecom operator in the region, Ogero’s strategies and decisions are crucial in resolving Lebanon’s connectivity crisis.

A compelling argument frequently made is the need to prioritise network access and connectivity for Lebanon’s inhabitants. This perspective recognises that the existing connectivity deficit isn’t merely due to government decisions to disconnect people, but is also underpinned by a myriad of underlying issues; prime among them is a systemic lack of power. This presents a more complicated understanding of the situation, thereby increasing the urgency to restore and ensure consistent internet access across the nation.

In accordance with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), particularly SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, and SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy, the priority to provide and sustain network access and connectivity amid the ongoing crisis is of paramount importance for Lebanon’s sustainable development and progression. The current scenario undoubtedly demands immediate and measured collaborative efforts, considering the multifaceted dimensions of the connectivity deficit rooted in deep-seated structural problems.

Ali Mahmood

Ali Mahmood clearly champions the significance of preserving and enhancing the principles of an open, global internet – an ethos consistent with the outlined goals of SDG 9, emphasising Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, and SDG 16, stressing the necessity for Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. His positions stem from the original conceptualisation of the internet as a democratic platform intended to advance the free and unrestricted flow of information across national and geographical borders.

Mahmood’s commitment to the principle of a free flow of information is interlinked with other key principles such as Internet Governance and Digital Sovereignty. He affirms that these principles contribute to the democratisation of information, underscoring their crucial role in the broader movement towards a global open internet.

However, Mahmood also voices calculated concern regarding potential legislation, particularly the Restrict Act enforced in the United States, which could detrimentally impact these principles. His argument is anchored in the possible risks such laws could impose on cross-border data flows, potentially leading to the fragmentation of the internet. This Act could jeopardise the democratic nature of the internet and obstruct the digital sovereignty users currently enjoy.

His apprehensions cast a keen focus on pressing topics in today’s digital landscape, such as Digital Sovereignty and the potential for increasing internet fragmentation. Mahmood highlights these issues as significant reminders of the ongoing challenges facing the principle of a global open internet. The discussion surrounding these matters underscores the delicate balance that must be maintained between the promotion of digital innovation and comprehensive internet regulation.

In conclusion, Mahmood’s stance encapsulates the dual need for upholding principles of free-flowing information within the context of a global internet while being aware of potential regulatory frameworks that can threaten digital sovereignty. His insights constitute an urgent call for active involvement in policymaking to ensure the preservation of a truly open and democratic internet.

Tom Fifield

The comprehensive analysis primarily underscores the vital importance of a well-developed Internet infrastructure for the safeguarding and enhancement of democratic freedom for citizens worldwide. An integral part of this investment is the deployment of 700 satellite ground stations that provide resilience and uninterrupted connectivity, even in the event of failures.

Moreover, specific attention has been given to combatting the rampant issue of disinformation on online platforms. Especially in the context of election safety, these measures help to uphold the democratic process and assure that citizens’ rights to free information and fair voting are not compromised.

Importantly, the analysis highlights a commitment to democratic freedom and citizens’ rights as its uppermost priority, around which other endeavours revolve. To guarantee the safe realisation of these commitments, considerable strides are being taken in the field of AI safety. The ethos is unambiguous: all advancements and actions must be supportive of, and serve to enhance, the democratic freedoms and rights of citizens.

The sentiment emanating from this analysis is inherently positive, illuminating the critical relationship between the development of sturdy, innovative infrastructure and the implementation of AI safety precautions, alongside the protection and reinforcement of citizens’ democratic rights. This harmony is rightly recognised as fundamental to cultivating a healthier and more accountable digital environment.

In conclusion, significant progress towards resilient internet infrastructure, the focus on AI safety, and an unwavering stance against online disinformation are being hailed as milestones in the unwavering commitment to citizens’ democratic freedoms. The analysis gives credence to the prospect of a future where advanced technology goes hand in hand with robust democracy and individual rights. The use of UK spellings and grammar in the text has been maintained, thus ensuring its consistency and readability.

Bert Theuermann

Detailed discussions on the subject of prioritising principles at different levels, including country, regional, and global, saw numerous salient points raised. Attendees concurred that forming a hierarchy among the principles is challenging due to their interrelation and importance at specific levels. An engaging portion of the dialogue focused on the equal significance of all principles at a global level, with attendees suggesting that the digital freedom, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence principles of the DFI should be universally recognised and applied across all nations under the Global Digital Compact.

Conversely, attention was drawn to the differing needs of various countries, with the discourse acknowledging that priorities could fluctuate based on each nation’s unique situation. The consensus was clear – the global applicability of principles is essential, but individual countries’ unique circumstances must be considered to make these principles meaningful and beneficial on a local level.

Perhaps the most remarkable contribution came from Bert Theuermann. He shared concerns about creating separate tracks for DFI principles, citing the extensive workload of managing multiple tracks and the potential difficulty in keeping up with it. He proposed an alternative tactic – integrating DFI principles into current mechanisms of engagement. He expanded on this point by suggesting that DFI principles could be integrated into public-private partnerships in the cybersecurity realm, and also fuel discussions within the national IGF framework.

Theuermann further underscored the importance of ongoing processes like the Global Digital Compact. He stressed the need for the DFI principles to resonate within these processes and pointed out how the national IGF has been efficacious in preparation for the Global Digital Compact.

In conclusion, the dialogue provided invaluable insights into the intricacies surrounding principle prioritisation, the need to consider individual countries’ unique circumstances, and the requirement for productive integration and reflection of principles in ongoing, established processes.

Jorge Cancios

Jorge Cancios, in his recent commentary, has underscored the crucial role that established networks of national and regional Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) can play in responding to distinct national and regional realities. This assertion, intimately interwoven with the goals of SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, seeks to utilise these existing infrastructures to advance industry, stimulate innovation, and develop resilient digital structures.

Further to this perspective, Cancios proposes the potential for these well-established organisations, specifically the IGFs, to foster effective cooperation in a more intersessional manner. This insightful proposition aligns with SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, implying that the IGFs could be leveraged as platforms to forge dynamic partnerships for achieving these ambitious global targets. Noteworthy is the mention of utilising dynamic coalitions and best practice forums, further cementing the importance attributed to active cooperation through these existing structures.

In addition, there is a significant dialogue concerning the post-implementation phase of the Global Digital Compact. The discourse delves into the probable necessity for a follow-up system and recurrent evaluation of the compact’s effects, using existing structures. This discussion implies a potential deeper layer of accountability and supervision that could be vital in ensuring the ongoing success and relevance of the Global Digital Compact.

Lastly, the analysis suggests that the execution and subsequent evaluation of the Global Digital Compact could significantly influence digital governance and trigger a wave of innovation across various sectors. This instance is further compelling evidence of the interconnectivity and overlap of these themes with SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

In conclusion, from the emphasised value of already-established forums like the IGFs in addressing national and regional imperatives to the suggested intersessional use of these structures for fostering cooperation and the contemplation of a system for periodic evaluation of the Global Digital Compact, the discussions exemplify the complex interplay of digital governance, international cooperation, and innovation in shaping our digital future.

Nilam Negar

In 2021, Pakistan embarked on a significant advancement in the field of cybersecurity by approving their National Cybersecurity Policy. This impactful decision was the result of a comprehensive consultation process, involving numerous key ministries. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs Pakistan and the Ministry of IT and Communication were notable contributors in these consultations.

The policy development was not merely an administrative process, but a product of a multi-stakeholder approach. This strategy was pivotal in policy-making, blending a diverse range of inputs and insights into the final policy draft. The draft expressly acknowledged the crucial importance of local and global multi-stakeholder consultations, being indicative of the policy’s inclusive approach to cybersecurity management.

Noteworthy figure, Nilam Negar, advocated emphatically for the need of multi-stakeholder consultations in shaping cybersecurity policies. Negar’s endorsement further underlined the justification of comprehensive consultations in policy development, thereby ensuring a balanced and thorough national cybersecurity policy.

Importantly, this policy aligns with the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure. This reinforces the goal’s emphasis on innovation and infrastructure development, reflective of the policy’s future-oriented approach. The policy also supports SDG 16 and SDG 17, focusing on peace, justice, strong institutions, and promoting partnerships for achieving shared objectives.

In conclusion, the formulation of Pakistan’s National Cybersecurity Policy in 2021 embodies a successful case of multi-stakeholder collaboration. It showcases how a fusion of national and global perspectives can produce a comprehensive policy that addresses cybersecurity challenges, and aligns with broader international developmental goals.

Patrick Pavlak

Patrick Pavlak, a representative from Carnegie Europe, acted as the moderator for a government breakout session, specifically discussing matters related to governmental engagement with various stakeholder groups. The discussion centred around the implementation and advancement of the Digital Future Initiative (DFI) principles.

Pavlak’s approach was predominantly constructive, promoting enthusiastic cooperation among multiple stakeholders. He emphasised the crucial role of wide-ranging engagement and outlined an effective plan centred around the development of nuanced feedback mechanisms. This plan aimed to produce at least five concrete bullet points by the session’s end, steering the conversation towards two essential themes: common objectives to be achieved and strategies required to accomplish these priorities.

He also raised the subject of infrastructure, external regulation, and the differing capacities of governments as pivotal factors influencing the enactment of DFI principles, acknowledging the overall complicated nature of their implementation. Despite these complexities, he remained optimistic regarding the practical enactment of the principles, suggesting that a lack of action by some governments does not necessarily represent a lack of commitment but may rather indicate a lack of capacity.

This reasoning led to the suggestion that governments might have different motivations for prioritising specific principles over others, emphasising that not all principles are of equal importance. He advocated for increased transparency in priority management and policy, particularly from a global perspective and specifically from the U.S.

Significant aspects of the discourse included the influence of regional organisations and national ecosystems on the DFI principles. Pavlak argued the importance of adapting these principles to match regional contexts and peculiarities to maximise efficiency and effectiveness. This included addressing the need to navigate the regulatory context effectively make necessary adjustments.

The discussion also covered potential obstacles to the realisation of DFI principles, such as the necessity to ensure multistakeholder cooperation, carefully considering regional differences in the policy-making mechanism, capacity building, and addressing governmental concerns. Pavlak maintained that a more distributed model of engagement with the multistakeholder community, avoiding the creation of a cumbersome centralised structure, was desirable.

In conclusion, the session underscored the importance of promoting international cooperation and partnership in shaping the framework for internet governance. It contemplated shared responsibilities and international obligations in the domestic realm, valued transparency and accountability in adhering to DFI principles as essential to success, and emphasised that DFI principles should provide the foundation for other initiatives in successful digital governance.

Richard Windeyer

The discourse is principally centred around the crucial role that governments and multi-stakeholder involvement play within the realm of cyber security. It recognises connectivity’s fundamental necessity as an initial step, suggesting it as a prerequisite to address issues regarding how technology will be utilised by individuals. A significant argument put forth posits the need for careful sequencing and interconnectedness in implementing principles associated with cyber security.

Governments are seen as instrumental in fostering connectivity, with the Australian government and others strategically investing in its enhancement. The argument suggests that governments can provide requisite resources and drive solutions when connectivity challenges are recognised as a public policy issue.

Moreover, the importance of security principles is contended to depend on the standpoint of specific stakeholder groups. This underscores the importance of adopting a multi-stakeholder strategy towards cyber security, allowing for a diverse range of perspectives and solutions.

The principles of human rights and freedoms are underscored as critical in the grand scheme of cyber security, underlining the interwoven nature of digital rights and freedoms with cyber security.

The overarching positive sentiment within the discussion mirrors an optimistic perspective on government’s and multi-stakeholder entities’ capabilities in addressing challenges in cyber security. Linking the conversation with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9 (pertaining to Infrastructure, Industrialisation, and Innovation) and SDG 16 (related to Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) underscores cyber security’s crucial societal and developmental aspects.

In essence, the discussion illuminates the role of government and the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in shaping the future of cyber security. It emphasises the necessity for strategic investment and policy-making towards strengthening connectivity, embracing a multidimensional approach while keeping fundamental human rights and freedoms at the heart of considerations.

Bitange Ndemo

The summaries elucidate the significance of Internet Governance, Digital Systems, and the role of a variety of sectors in maintaining peace, justice, and fostering innovation and infrastructure. Internet access is not merely a convenience, but a necessity in today’s digital age. The argument is supported with examples of restoring trust in digital systems, notably in Kenya, with the active involvement of civil society. This aligns with the primary elements of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, and SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

However, potential challenges have been flagged, including resistance from governments towards civil society and the concerning trend of internet shutdowns in some regions. These measures undermine digital resource equality, a critical focus of SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities. Furthermore, these actions disrupt peace and justice, negatively affecting the progress of SDG 16. Hence, the emphasis is on discouraging governments from shutting down the internet, and encouraging cooperation with civil societies to safeguard human rights and ensure universal internet access.

An insightful observation is the influential role of the private sector in effecting government change. The struggles of ordinary people to inspire change are contrasted with the impressive strides made by the private sector. This emphasises civil societies’ vital role as intermediaries between these groups. Lobbying is recognised as crucial in these discussions for achieving legislative change. The private sector should, therefore, leverage their influence to endorse these changes for the benefit of all.

In conclusion, the discussion advocates for comprehensive collaboration among all sectors for the successful adoption and implementation of legislative proposals, resonating strongly with SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals. Highlighting this crucial collaboration showcases the interconnectedness of societal sectors and their shared responsibility in achieving common objectives. To ensure a just, equal, innovative society, all sectors must work together, involving all stakeholders until legislations are enacted.

Elisa Hever

The Dutch government has taken an innovative approach in the realm of cyber policy, demonstrated in the recent publication of their international-level cyber strategy; much credit is due for making the strategy widely accessible by publishing it in English, ensuring global understanding. A standout feature in this strategy is a comprehensive chapter that specifically addresses the theories of internet governance and the implementation of the multi-stakeholder model. This development underscores the Dutch government’s dedication to forward-thinking internet governance, offering a guiding light to other nations.

Central to the strategy is the urgent appeal for governments to avoid actions that could potentially compromise the technical infrastructure of the internet, thereby jeopardising its general availability and overall integrity. This aligns with the principles enshrined in Sustainable Development Goal 9, which champions the advancement of Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure and emphasises the role of steadfast infrastructure in fostering innovation. This sentiment is recognised as part of the directives within the Digital Freedom Initiative (DFI), enhancing its legitimacy and urgency.

In addition, the narrative also contemplates the potential implementation of the principles of DFI to the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC). Though this proposition does not prompt strong sentiments either way, it sparks dialogue on whether standardising such principles on a global level might bolster internet governance. However, further solid evidence and arguments are needed for thorough evaluation.

In an era when internet governance is gaining significant importance, the Netherlands’ policy offers a balanced and diverse approach. Not only does it highlight the significance of a cooperative model, but it also reflects on the importance of preserving internet integrity. Moreover, it illuminates the importance of global dialogues in establishing a unified global digital cooperation framework.

Pierce O’Donohue

The European Commission is showing initiative in creating a programme centred on the security of cable networks. This forms part of a wider strategy geared towards ensuring global connectivity. Such a positive emphasis on increased international cooperation is bolstered by alignment with the aims outlined in SDG 9 – Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure and SDG 17 – Partnerships for the Goals. The Commission’s approach involves a focus on trusted vendors, ensuring that network providers are reliable and credible. Furthermore, the framework includes addressing potential control bottlenecks to streamline the process and enhance efficiency.

A significant argument points to the potential peril that restricted connectivity poses. The risk lies in the possible emergence of a authorised control over the internet, which threatens its inherent openness and unregulated access – an interplay with Global Internet, Trust, Human Rights, and Access. Hence, extending internet access could decrease the likelihood of enforced acceptance of particular network protocols, preserving the internet as a democratised space.

This discussion highlights the importance of a balance between SDG 9 and SDG 16, driving Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. Thus, a nuanced interplay between various principles is crucially necessary for achieving these goals.

Another viewpoint underlines the need for the Digital Financial Instrument (DFI) to reinforce the multi-stakeholder model. It is vital the DFI does not undermine or compete with the procedures established by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) or the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

Governments ought to play a pivotal role in fostering trust and fundamental human rights within this scenario, indicating strong positive sentiment towards SDG 17, fostering partnerships for shared goals.

Finally, there is a call for measures that are not only inward but also outward-orientated. This implies that attention should be given not only to domestic matters, but international cooperation as well. The deployment and investment in global communication infrastructures, part of the Connectivity and Communication Infrastructure ambitions, can simultaneously promote SDG 9 whilst removing undue controls from the internet. In conclusion, this analysis offers a broad spectrum of opportunities and challenges to contemplate in the pursuit of global, open internet access and connectivity.

Audience

The analysed presentations emphasised the crucial importance of connectivity and the protection of infrastructure, exemplified by Portugal’s commitment to submarine cable strategy. This theme demonstrates an acute understanding of how the internet functions and highlights the critical elements of infrastructure reliability and data integrity at the heart of our technology-driven world. Notably, the dialogues stressed that principles alone are ineffectual without immediate action and concrete examples. This perspective reinforces the importance of tangible, real-world implementation as an essential avenue for translating principles into effective action.

A prevalent theme throughout the presentations is the promotion of multi-stakeholder engagement in the development of cybersecurity policy, as exemplified in Sri Lanka’s five-year strategy. This policy has gained significant momentum due to widespread stakeholder consultation, resulting in a robust framework designed to ensure the physical and online safety of the internet and critical digital infrastructure.

The necessity for high-level Government participation in internet governance is identified as imperative in addressing technical standards. This involvement is vital to foster universal acceptance and compatibility, ensuring multiple languages are catered for and avoiding a monopolistic trend of language use. The current deficiency in government engagement is recognised, indicating an area requiring enhanced commitment.

The discussion also ventured into the realm of global issues that permeate national borders. The need for a centralised mechanism to govern global issues was broached due to the consequential impact that one country’s actions can have on others, particularly concerning laws and legal frameworks.

The discussions also shed light on the burgeoning acceptance of universally agreed principles. Significantly, valuing a diversity of stakeholder opinions underlines the multidimensional nature of global issues and the importance of capturing a broad range of perspectives for a comprehensive understanding. This acknowledgement is counterbalanced by recognition of regional variations, accepting that different regions might prioritise different principles owing to their specific circumstances.

Conversely, some negative sentiments were expressed about linguistic barriers and scheduling conflicts which limit international stakeholders’ active participation in internet governance discussions. In contrast, the UK stands out in its approach to internet governance, favouring the improvement of existing mechanisms rather than inventing new ones.

A recurring theme across many discussions was the emphasis on the substance of digital governance over process. Advocacy for utilising existing fora for resolving interstate negotiations, rather than creating new ones, was prevalent, indicating a preference for working within proven systems rather than forging new paths.

One significant achievement discussed was the approval of a national cybersecurity policy by the Pakistan Government, following extensive consultations between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of IT and Communication. This demonstrates substantial progress towards enhanced cybersecurity.

A proposal for adopting a scorecard system for regulatory oversight and reviewing digital transformation strategies resonated among the speakers. This drew comparisons with UNEGO development, promoting a reliable mechanism for measuring progress and maintaining accountability.

Multi-stakeholder dialogues also highlighted the need for clarity in communication, particularly around the pronoun ‘we’. This illustrates the necessity for clear differentiation between the roles of government and the broader community in international cooperative efforts.

In conclusion, the analysis provided substantial insights into digital and internet governance, accentuating the need for global collaboration, facilitating multi-stakeholder involvement, endorsing transparency and accountability, and implementing robust measures to monitor progress. Overall, it presented a comprehensive overview of the pathways to improved internet governance and the necessary steps for achieving equitable and effective mechanisms.

Jayshia:
Thank you so much Mr. O’Donohue. So we will now be moving into the breakout session portion of this event. Each breakout group will have a moderator and a rapporteur. Now we are very pleased that we have rapporteurs from Youth IGF who will be participating in the discussions and who will be reporting on each of the breakout group sessions. So to provide a little more information about the expectations and what might happen during these breakout groups, I’d like to introduce Dr. Eileen Donohue. So she is the U.S. State Department Special Envoy and Coordinator for Digital Freedom in the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy. So please, Dr. Donohue, please come on up.

Eileen Donohue:
So it is really wonderful for me to be back in the IGF community with this multi-stakeholder community. I am brand spanking new in my role as Special Envoy and Coordinator for Digital Freedom for the U.S. Government, but I have been deeply involved in the global multi-stakeholder internet governance conversation I’d say for the last 15 plus years. I’ve been part of civil society, I’ve been part of academia, so I’m like many of you sort of a strange multi-stakeholder animal. And I’ve worked with many people in this room in many different settings and it’s really fun to see everybody, but I just have to call out the one person who’s sitting right here in front of me, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, who I think of as probably one of the best conceptual minds thinking about internet governance from from the very beginning. And it’s very fun to see old friends. I also want to note that I happen to have been deeply involved in the DFI negotiations, but as a member of civil society and academia really focused on the human rights part of the declaration. Now it’s very interesting for me to be in a different role as part of the government, as a representative of the U.S. Government, and my job is somewhat to help elevate the potential and realize the potential of multi-stakeholder process in all of these global internet governance conversations and make it more real and results oriented. So this is the most important segment of this whole program. We are moving into the breakout groups where all of you get to engage with each other in your own groups. The request is that you attempt to cover each of the themes that have been laid out and I am hoping the moderators and rapporteurs have this in writing that they can share with their respective stakeholder groups. The first one is really to focus on the substantive priorities that are most ripe for multi-stakeholder progress. The second of which is thinking about modalities for cooperation that can be more effective going forward and the third may be the hardest one which is thinking about how to define and measure success. I just want to reiterate the governments that are involved in the DFI want to underscore and demonstrate their commitment to these high-level principles and they also want to demonstrate commitment to this community and engagement with the multi-stakeholder expertise in the room. But the real purpose of this event is to get your help. We really need the expertise in this room to help us figure out what are the best next step for DFI. How can we turn the commitments to principle into policy and practice and most importantly we need help in implementing through concrete actions all of the principles in the declaration. So you are now off to do the most important part of this program for about 90 minutes and then we will come back and have a full, full, fulsome readout from each of the stakeholder groups and we’d like to bring them up to the stage here. Thank you very much.

Jayshia:
All right so now we will cover some of the logistics and the next steps to move into your breakout groups. So we have decided to divide up by each of the communities and so the idea here is that we want to hear from each of the communities and then come back together. It will be very interesting we think to hear where the communities align and diverge and that will help guide our next steps. And so for those representing civil society you will be joining your moderator Grace Gitaiaga, the CEO and convener of Kiktonet in workshop room eight. For those within the private sector please join your moderator Tamiya Suto, Global Digital Policy Lead of the International Chamber of Commerce in workshop group 10. For those in the technical community you will be joining your moderator Akinori Maemura, the Chief Policy Officer of JPNIC in workshop group nine. And then finally for those representing government you will stay in this room where your moderator Patrick Pavlak of Carnegie Europe will begin the session shortly. So the way to make sure that we’re going to get to the rooms is we are going to have you meet in a specific section of this room so you can walk together so we don’t lose anyone. So civil society will be meeting in the front. Then the technical community will be meeting in the middle towards the wall and then the private sector will meet in the back of the room. Now I’ll also note as I said up front the goal is to listen to the stakeholder community and so the government representatives are welcome to stay in this room and have that discussion but we would also encourage the government representatives to move around to the other rooms if you’d like to hear what the stakeholders are saying. So momentarily we’ll move to the portions of the room and then following those sessions we’ll meet back in this room at 11 30 and that’s when we’ll hear the feedback and conclude the discussion and then we’ll take a group photo. So please join your moderators in the sessions of the room and we’ll kick off. Thank you so much everyone. Thank you.

Patrick Pavlak:
Yeah Yeah So Yeah Yeah So So So Excuse me everyone if you’re staying for the government breakout session. We are sitting in the corner over there. It’s a Small therapy group set up. So please join Um So Foreign Foreign Foreign Oh So So everybody here is for the government So Okay, let me let me start by explaining why we’re moving here and why I’m using the microphone and that’s an important piece of information for you this session is going to be streamed online, so Keep that in mind when we are engaging in our discussion as well Changes the format a bit and that’s the only session that’s going to be also streamed online. So it’s important to engage as well, but there will not be any comments on or Interventions from the audience online though, so we will be just communicating one way Let me I’m trying to place myself a bit strategically so that you all can see me But maybe I should actually sit down somewhere if you if you don’t mind I squeeze in here So, my name is Patrick Pavlak I work for a Carnegie Europe I’m a visiting scholar there and I’ll be your moderator for today as you know, we having three other parallel sessions with the stakeholder groups who are Discussing how they can work better with the government’s and how governments can engage better with their communities What we’re trying to do in this session is Maybe do a bit a reverse Exercise. So how do you think you can engage better with those different group of stakeholders? What are your expectations? towards them we have three sort of a blocks of Questions and issues that I would like to address but before we get there Let me also maybe Introduce the format very briefly. So we also have a reporter for the session and He is there. Yes Bebeks evil who’s a youth IGF representative based in Kathmandu he’s one of the funding members of IGF in Nepal and we’ll be supporting our work And we are going to sort of collect these thoughts in a semi structured format in a document online That’s also to support our colleagues afterwards in preparing a collective report for all of you to see what the different sessions have actually led to Yes, as I’ve mentioned this session is going to be live streamed so welcome to whoever is watching us online Now I’d like to maybe start by clarifying the objectives Yes, and I see some people looking at watches. It might be probably difficult for some time zones to follow us So I do not expect many people online, but it will be still recorded for everybody else to watch afterwards Yes clarifying the objectives of of the session We are expected to generate a substantive feedback to share with all other stakeholders in the planner group So we will look really bad as the government stakeholder group if we do not have anything concrete to deliver So keep that in mind at the end of the discussion I’d like to have at least five concrete bullet points that we can present in the plenary And as I said, we will structure this around two big blogs But three different teams blog one will focus on what do we want to achieve together? Which are the principles that should be prioritized for multi-stakeholder cooperation? I assume you all remember those five principles But if not, let me quickly recall them the first one focuses on protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms the second ones on promoting global internet that advances free flow of information the third one advancing inclusive and affordable connectivity number for promoting trust in the global digital Ecosystem including the protection of privacy and the fifth one is about protecting and strengthening multi-stakeholder cooperation so So in this block I really would like us to discuss what it is that you think as governments that should be prioritized, which of those principles is ripe enough for cooperation with the broader multi-stakeholder community. And the second big block focuses on how do we achieve those priorities. So what are some of the modes of cooperation that we can engage in or through with the broader multi-stakeholder community. We have already heard references to global digital compact versus plus 20 processes. Are these the avenues that we think could be interesting to explore for cooperation for the multi-stakeholder formats. And of course we hear at the IGF is that the platform that should be used. And then in this same block once we define what is it that we want to achieve, how we want to achieve it. I would like us to discuss a bit how do we define the success. So in other words how do we know what you have set out as the governments who have supported the declaration last year is actually on track. Are we achieving the results, are the commitments being measured. And there we of course can have a discussion a bit about the transparency of the implementation of those principles and so on. So we have about 90 minutes. We’re going to move in this block for different sections. I’ll see how the conversation flows and some of them we may spend more or less time. And if I could ask you to keep your interventions brief so that we also have an opportunity for dialogue that would be great. Of course all the signatures of the declaration. But if there is some sort of a slight disagreement on tension maybe about how this could be implemented that would also be interesting maybe for people watching online. But also for you as well to have a debate. So let’s kick off with the first theme which is the priorities. And the question I would like to ask you is which of those DFI principles do you think is a top priority and most ripe for action by multi-stakeholder community? I would maybe supplement this as well with a question. Where do you think the involvement of multi-stakeholder community is most desirable and why? What do you maybe think the expectation from the multi-stakeholder community is as well towards the governments? I’m sure you’re engaging on those principles with your interlocutors at home. And then depending on how we of course move on with the discussion I might add some additional questions. So who would like to break the ice and kick us off? Yes, great. Actually, I think there is another microphone.

Ali Mahmood:
Thank you. I mean all of these five are important. But the one that I would like to prioritize the most is promote a global internet that advances the free flow of information. Because there are other principles which are directly or indirectly connected to this. And when we read about different laws that are enacted in different countries certainly there are concerns raised. For example, I mean in democratic setups people look at laws when they’re enacting laws they prioritize things differently. In other setups it’s different. But when we talk about the internet we are talking about a global regime. I mean free flow of information it should be everywhere. So recently I mean one law that has been enacted in the United States is the Restrict Act. And there are concerns that you know how it’s going to affect different aspects of the internet. Then there are talks about digital sovereignty. And there are talks about fragmentation and how information is going to flow. There are certain laws that are quite restrictive when we talk about cross-border data flows. So all of those things I mean we need to look at them. And we need to come up with an approach so that these concerns are you know addressed. Because free flow of information and open internet that is how it was originally envisaged. And it was designed in such a way that it’s open and it gives equal opportunities to everybody. And information is democratized. So I think that is quite an important aspect for me. In my opinion. And we can certainly have a discussion on it and listen to what everybody else has to say.

Patrick Pavlak:
Do you also mind when you take the floor introducing yourself very briefly?

Ali Mahmood:
My name is Ali Mahmood. I’m the managing director of a government organization that is mandated to digitally transform the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan. So we are involved in policymaking regarding how the digital transformation should look like. And we are also involved in regulating access and all of those aspects to the internet.

Patrick Pavlak:
Great. Thank you very much. So free flow of information one of the principles that we already have on the table. Any other takers? Okay. Perfect.

Zeyna Bouharb:
Thank you. My name is Zeyna Bouharb. I am head of international cooperation at Ogero Telecom which is the incumbent operator in Lebanon. Actually the priorities here regarding the principles depend on the situation of each country. For example, from where I come we have a huge problem in connectivity. And it’s related mainly to the situation, the economic and the financial situation in Lebanon in addition to other crisis like power because sometimes in Lebanon the internet is not cut because the government wants just to disconnect the people but because we don’t have power to run the network. That’s why with these problems the priority for us is the network, is to give the access to the people. So all the principles are very important but this is the major issue in Lebanon and this is our priority. So the connectivity and the access. Thank you.

Bert Theuermann:
Thank you so much. I’m a cyber ambassador of Austria. It’s interesting when I had to look again at the principles of our thinking which can be put ahead of the others and it’s very difficult. So I would have and also in light of the statements that were made so far I mean all five of them are extremely important and maybe we also need to differentiate. If we look then at country level it really depends on the specific situation. But even there some principles they are interconnected. For free internet you need human rights observance, you need multi-stakeholder involvement. So it’s not one totally above the other but I do agree probably we should differentiate and say at country level an assessment needs to be done with the involvement of multi-stakeholders. What are the key priorities if you have some sort of priority setting among the five. And then you can say look at regional level and then you go above. If you look at the global level I wouldn’t want to put one ahead of the other because for instance when we talk later how we implement the principles of the DFI for instance at UN level in the global digital compact we need to all five are important and equally important. So maybe that’s the type of differentiation we need to make. Otherwise it would be quite difficult somehow and I think the country level is particularly important. Thank you.

Patrick Pavlak:
Great, thank you. So I think you’re already pointing out two conditions that play an important role when we talk about the implementation or putting the principles and the commitments into action. On one hand what you have flagged is this idea of the potential impact of the external regulation for instance and different trends in other parts of the world that are not necessarily under the control of your own government that might impact how those principles are being enacted. But at the same time I think you also pointed out to a very important aspect that it’s not just about the willingness to implement those principles but the capacities to implement them. And I think there we need to have an important conversation as well. You know when we looked for instance at how the government’s commitments are translated into specific policies and actions that sometimes the fact that something doesn’t happen doesn’t mean that the governments are not really committed but they simply may not have the capacity. And there is a second point to that, that it’s actually not always about digital. Sometimes it’s very much linked to the infrastructure, connection to the energy networks, availability of the energy right in the first place. So I think these are all important aspects that maybe we have to keep and add as a layer to the conversation about the principles that are in the DFI. So thank you for these two interventions.

Regine Grienberger:
Thank you Patrick, also for kicking us off in that way. I’m Regine Grienberger, I’m the German Cyber Ambassador. I would like to counter your argument a little bit because governments, I mean we are not advocacy groups for a specific purpose or for a specific principle. So in general we have to take all five principles as equally important and we cannot afford to choose one of them or two of them just because this meets our needs for public support for example. So this is really a challenge but I think we have to look at it on the global level of course, like Bert said, but also on the national level we have to see how we can implement all five of them. If I had to pick one to comment a little bit more in detail on, it would be the digital trust principle because here we see that for governments, the challenge for governments lies also in conflicting targets. If you look at for example at combating cybercrime, which is a prerequisite to creating digital trust and can be done only by governments. But here you have of course the conflicting targets on the one hand, safeguards for the innocent and safeguards for those who are for example politically dissenting from a government’s opinion and on the other hand the necessary competences and tools for the security institutions. So this might be a conflicting target but the overall principle of digital trust has to be met somehow. Another example is AI regulation. Of course governments are looking for consumer protection and want to regulate AI applications for that purpose. On the other hand they may cripple innovation by doing that. So the principles are when you break it down to the concrete set of tools that is at hand of a government like regulation, governance questions also engaging in the public debate, you have to meet these challenges of conflicting objectives and I wanted to flag this for our discussion.

Patrick Pavlak:
Great. Anybody else? Yes. Do you have a microphone? Yes.

Alan Davidson:
Hi, I’m Alan Davidson. I spoke earlier from the Department of Commerce in the U.S. government and it was a very interesting conversation. I’d just add one thought. They say, there’s a saying, it is very difficult to choose between your children and it’s not usually recommended. I think we are hearing and actually listening, it shows that there’s a lot of reasons to be looking at each of these principles. It may be, as we heard from our colleague, that it depends a lot on what’s happening in a particular region, in a particular country. I will say, for example, right now I’m spending a lot of my time in the U.S. focused on this connectivity issue because we have a lot of people left behind, believe it or not, in the U.S. who are unconnected and we’re thinking quite a bit about how do we get to the next billion people online in the rest of the world and working with many of you on that. But I think the conversation here today is a reminder that in different places at different moments, each of these children will be very important to us and I think we just should know we are going to have to work on all of them is our view going forward together.

Patrick Pavlak:
I agree, but I think I’m going to start pushing you back. Okay, let’s hear it. Maybe this is why I got hired to do this moderation. I agree with you. That’s why you have signed the declaration because all of those principles are important to you. However, you need to start somewhere. You need to prioritize, and I think this also goes in the direction of Regina’s remarks, so I’m pushing back to you there. The governments have limited resources. You have a limited number of staff. You have a limited budget. In principle, yes, all of them are super important. We want to have access. We want to be cyber secure. We want to cooperate with multi-stakeholder community. But then when it comes to regulation, for instance, you will not engage in regulating all of them at the same time. You would probably prioritize one over the other, right? Or when you do the hiring decisions, you would also probably put more resources towards one principle than the other. This is how we could actually measure whether you love your children equally, you know? So I think there is certain hierarchy which is motivated by something, and maybe teasing out what motivates it, and I think we have heard here one of the arguments, it’s basically our capacity to implement. It is our needs which could be linked to access to energy, for instance. But there might be also some geopolitical considerations, for instance. Some of the principles are very clearly linked to progressing digital authoritarianism, right? And the idea of pushing back against those. We see proliferation of technology that is potentially insecure and exposes our societies, which is also something that the Declaration aims to push back. So do you see – sorry, I’ll go back to the initial question. So after this, do you still think that all of them are equally important, or from the U.S. perspective, there are certain principles that you actually love more than the other children? And which ones?

Alan Davidson:
I think the interesting thing for us, and I say this having followed this space for some time, I think it is very right. There will be moments of opportunity or also of particular challenges where we know we need to step in on particular issues. And it will vary depending on our place and our view of the world. Domestically in the U.S., for example, we are doing a huge amount on connectivity. That’s an unusual thing for us. Five years ago, we would not have said that. We have resources. We’re doing that. Globally, I do think this question about new technology and this question of AI and others, also the question about authoritarianism versus openness and freedom, is very much on the table. And so perhaps when we think about the global situation right now, really principles one and two are top of mind for us as well.

Patrick Pavlak:
Great. Now we have a debate. So there is an intervention here, there.

Ava Guntushenko:
Thank you. Ava Guntushenko from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in UK Government. I agree with a lot of what the other speakers have said. But I think from a UK perspective, we’re very uncomfortable saying that one of these principles is more important than the other, meaning we’re going to deprioritize some of these priorities. And some of the things we haven’t mentioned is human rights and multistakeholder participation. And I think the reason why is not that because we don’t care, but it’s because they are about how we’re going to achieve all the other principles. And I think we can’t just see them all as equal. And I would slightly disagree with the idea of children, because that means we’re all looking at them in separation. And actually where it comes really together is seeing how they all link together. We agree, even in a developed country like the UK, connectivity is a really important issue. When you think about the voters, what they care about when they look at politicians in the technology department is who’s going to bring them the best connectivity and reliable internet access. But as soon as you connect them, all the other principles will come into play. And you can’t just say, we’re going to connect people first and then we’re going to think about what they’re going to do online and whether they’re going to be safe. We think it’s not about this principle is more important than the other, but they have different nature. And some of them are more about what do we actually need. We need freedom of information. We need access and connectivity. And some of them are more about the how. And that’s where the multi-stakeholder participation in particular is of utmost importance to the UK in particular, because how are you going to do any of that if you’re just ignoring the stakeholders, just kind of getting through the principles. At the very end, we’re thinking about what might stakeholders think about that. Well, you thought about it too late. So I think we need to see them in how do they connect. And therefore, there might be a priority in that sense. But we don’t think that you should deprioritize any of them and just sort of leave that to later when you have more capacity to pick that up.

Patrick Pavlak:
Yeah, absolutely. And maybe this is where we should have started. What do we mean by prioritizing? Because I think you’re pointing to a very important element, which is sequencing and interconnecting those different principles. And let’s not forget we talk about five. But if you look at those bullet points under each of the principles, you have 23 very concrete actions that you have identified as actually the priority. already and I agree with you that probably it’s quite difficult to say you know that focusing on cyber security is maybe more important than ensuring that we have free flow of information and that this is more important than the responsible state behavior in cyberspace right because all of those come together but some of them are almost enabling principles or commitments for the others and I think maybe this is how we could think of them okay we have a gentleman

Richard Windeyer:
over there and then I thank you Richard we near from the department we’re actually the Department of Infrastructure in Australia so I think I just want to sort of perhaps muddy the waters a little bit or make the world more complicated but agree with some of the other government colleagues have spoken I mean in some respect I think where this is for those of us that work inside governments the world is messy ambiguous and constantly full of trade offs and we’re constantly agreeing to lots of things that seem inconsistent or impossible to do simultaneously but so I mean I’m a little bit in the territory of you shouldn’t have favorite children but on any given day you probably do have a favorite child it just is a different favorite child every day but I think actually some of the points that you were talking about from the UK’s perspective are really quite important there is a sequencing piece there’s no point you know if you don’t have connectivity there’s not a lot of point in sort of helping worrying about how it’s going to be used by people for example there right there is a sort of sequencing piece but there’s more so there’s also an interrelationship piece which goes to I think the first principle around fundamental freedoms and human rights is possibly relevant to how you go about approaching any of the principles another way of thinking about it I suppose from my perspective as a government operator if you look at it through the lens of what can governments do on their own as it were there are some that’s jump out faster than others and if you look at things that can only be done with a broader multi-stakeholder community it might be a different thing so connectivity is something that we’re worried about in Australia as well so there are lots of governments that are investing it is a thing government has within its gift to resource and effect and so looked at through a government lens you might go we are throwing more resource at the connectivity piece but that’s because in a sense it is a piece in the sort of capacity of of governments to give if they decide that that is a public policy problem they wish to focus on so I think unfortunately there is no depending on how you look at it what’s most important or what’s most controlled by one stakeholder group you come to a conclusion we’re working harder on that principle over another but it’s not to say it’s more or less important so an interrelationship a sequencing piece and also a set of choices based on where you come from in the system I suppose great

Patrick Pavlak:
so even though you don’t want to prioritize I think that we have a certain prioritization happening when you talk about where the government’s attention is going and connectivity is definitely one of those principles and I think it’s actually important because if you think for instance of how you potentially grow the community of countries that are supporting the declaration connectivity is definitely one of these aspects that is relevant for a much broader group than just people sitting in this room and I would also like to maybe ask all of you to reflect since you do not really want to think about which which is a priority where are we actually maybe not paying enough attention because we already here but where the actions are going where the government’s are focusing but where are we actually not looking which of those principles you think that maybe is a bit of a neglected I don’t want to go in the parental metaphor and continue of this I don’t want to say an orphan if you want but it would be interesting to hear where do you think we could potentially maybe want to increase our efforts we have an intervention thank

Anna Neves:
you very much I’m Anna Neves I’m from Portugal I’m from from the Ministry responsible for the digital affairs and but I’m here under the chapeau as the current chair of the CSTD which stands for the Commission on science and technology for development of UNCTAD United Nations and that deals with the WSIS plus 20 process nowadays it is one of our most popular themes in the CSTD and I’m not going to say anything about the prioritization of these five principles because I think that they are all very important my main issue here is another one is how we involve other governments and different governments on this declaration and with the ongoing discussions of the global digital cooperation sorry compact of the GDC so we have on one hand the global digital compact we have on the other hand this declaration how they they complement themselves how governments they see these these movements because of course governments they have different speeds on these different principles but what has to be agreed is if these principles are agreed by all governments in the world and so we are under this discussion nowadays with the global digital compact and then with the WSIS plus 20 so I think that this is the basic so I’m really worried about going back to the basics and peers from the Commission is last week we had a meeting and I was talking about going back to the basics because I think that after the WSIS plus 20 and with the global digital compact I think it’s time for everyone and for the government in the world to have the responsibility and to be accountable of what is going on on the Internet and what we want for the Internet of the future so this is more comments than anything else thank you so much great thank you so you already

Patrick Pavlak:
pushing us a bit in the discussion about how indeed but there was also one hand raised on the priorities there too so gentlemen in the front and then right

Tom Fifield:
behind you indeed so I’m Tom Fifield from the National Institute of Cybersecurity in Taiwan and just going back to our Australian friends comment from earlier about sequencing I believe the reason that we invest in Internet infrastructure is to support the passions of our 23 million free democratic citizens and that’s the fundamental thing that we’re looking to support that’s the reason why we need to build a resilient Internet why we’re building 700 satellite ground stations to make sure everything’s fine if the submarine fiber-optic cables get cut it’s the reason why we’re looking at AI safety it’s the reason why we’re working on disinformation on online platforms when it comes to our election system so we have that fundamental freedom piece that I think is the most important and everything else is done in support of that

Ganesh:
it’s working thank you good morning to all this is Ganesh I work for the government of Nepal especially the Prime Minister office regarding to the principle to practice of the and that we are discussing there are some of the key issues that is particularly related to developing countries and specifically in Nepal the first thing is about the issue of accessibility inclusive accessibility of the Internet infrastructure broadly related to sustainable electricity supply ICT infrastructure broadband technology as well as computer and smartphone while talking about the inclusivity we should not forget the remote and the rural areas and the next thing is the affordability as the LDCs I have low income although there is a reasonable access to Internet but the cost of the Internet as well as the mobile phone and computer is so high that we cannot afford the general public student as well as the rural remote and the farmers cannot access those highly high priced Internet infrastructure and the key issue for the government of Nepal is also the legal infrastructure especially focusing on the cyber security e-commerce law as well as the governing electronic transaction personal data protection privacy data privacy and information security so we need to focus on that and what is the purpose of Internet of course it should be directed to enhance the quality of life or promote the economy if so application of ICT technology into business and commercial purpose and economic activity is should be the key issues how the people can get their livelihood through the modern technology so we should have some divert issue that should be access to all so that the digital literacy especially the economic digital literacy is very very important for the developing country so my concern as well as request to all of us is that we need to have some common area of cooperation to minimize the digital gap among the world I think the targeted in investment in ICT infrastructure mass scale digital literacy and the supplement of the rise of digital platform and the use of some of the common platform to promote the capacity of the government as a private sector is the

Patrick Pavlak:
key issue right now thank you very much thank you so I have an intervention here and then I’ll slowly start wrapping up the priorities part so if you still had something to add in this specific blog feel free to raise your hand otherwise we slowly start moving to how

Audience:
how do we actually from Portugal as well from the electronic communication regulator so for me as we are working internally connectivity plays an important part and I wanted to bring you a special case that we are working on in in Portugal and for us it’s important at this moment and it thinks I think it is a practical example all these principles can apply to reality so submarine cable strategy so it links obviously to connectivity but then one of our main concerns is how to protect such infrastructure in terms of physically and and also in terms of the data that is flowing so these links to connectivity and then to trust and also of course lead to data flows so we have several principles when we are laying down this strategy you are several principles that are being applied and of course we are working with several partners those links to multi-stakeholder partnerships and obviously we have all these higher level concerns about human rights and how to protect our citizens in several ways so this is a practical terms of all these principles can can be applied and my take here would be actions and concrete examples are as important as principle so I think the trick is and you were asking about what we are missing perhaps we are missing this bit which is coming to concrete things and turning into reality some principles that we are working on thank you very much no that’s that’s a great

Patrick Pavlak:
intervention and I think you’re pointing us in the direction of something we we have been discussing as a potential follow-up to this specific exercise which would be exactly trying to collect different examples of where the principles have been used or sort of incorporated as a guidance for specific policy solutions in adopted by individual governments so expect some homework after this specific workshop because we didn’t necessarily want to end up with the exercise of it’s a government reporting on how they implement their principles and what they do but we would like to indeed end up at some point with potentially a list of what each of you is doing in your respective countries with regards to those principles so stay tuned a pierce over to

Pierce O’Donohue:
you and then a gentleman thank you very much pierce O’Donohue from the European Commission very interesting discussion so far I would say about prioritization perhaps my experience of parenting isn’t as positive as everyone else’s but I often feel that it’s not so much which child you love but which child which child is the most problematic at the moment and that’s where my focus goes so what are the real problems that I have to tackle at any one time with that slightly not cynical view but world weary view I think it is the case that of course we’re not going to pick and choose but we do have to look at what is very challenging and I really like what’s just been said when we look for example at the connectivity piece because another way of looking at all of these principles is that they refer to the role of government as government their responsibilities in their country but also working together what are our global responsibilities for each of these five principles so on connectivity of course any government will naturally be focused first of all on connectivity at home but what is our responsibility our role but also our possibilities for cooperation in Europe we have the global gateway we’d soon be announcing an initiative on on the security of cable networks undersea cables that’s for our own good and it’s also for connectivity to others if we are to support connectivity in partner third countries we need to have that and this brings me to a more fundamental point about how they are as has been said and where I would like to leave the prioritization how the interplay is so important if we have no connectivity or if we have very very restricted connectivity then we are playing into the hands of those who would control the internet and this is why we’re also with partners we’re looking so much about trusted vendors and making sure that the equipment the services the infrastructures are actually trusted and can be trusted moreover if we engage in promoting investment and deployment what we are doing is we are removing one of the bottlenecks which becomes a point of control and we are seeking to remove controls from the internet if access is a premium then we are playing into the hands or we are forcing the user who needs that access to accept whatever is the whatever are the protocols whatever is the structure of what is provided and if worse again the access equipment or networks is provided miraculously at a cost which defies any logical business case or cost structure then we have to be very worried so that is why we have to put a massive focus on international connectivity and helping partner countries to actually roll out that connectivity and access not to just to the next billion but increasing it in volume so so so that’s one perspective I have we can’t talk about trust we can’t talk about a global internet or even of course protecting human rights unless we have that so I understand why it’s fundamental but let’s change the emphasis slightly and not just be inward looking but also outward looking and then a final point I’m sorry for speaking for so long because we’re here in the IGF the fifth principle is one that perhaps hasn’t been on our minds as much recently but as I had occasion to say already we are coming towards the GDC they are our futures summit and then the WSIS plus 20 and I think that we will need to look a lot more give more priority to promoting the multi-stakeholder model and here there’s a little warning because we are being looked at and judged as well as government that we must ensure that we are telling people that we are doing that not because we are creating a separate structure the DFI cannot be seen to undermine or compete with the WSIS process or the IGF process it has to contribute to strengthening the role of government in protecting the fundamental rights human rights and in supporting all of the other pieces where governments do have a key role including and particularly trust in order to allow the multi-stakeholder model to continue to be at the forefront of everything we do and of course unfortunately as we move to a process which is dare I say it’s more New York centric for the next 18 months that the multi-stakeholder model is core to that thank you. Great thank you so

Patrick Pavlak:
these interventions have actually already brought to the conversation what we really want to explore a bit more which is how the multi-stakeholder community fits into the equation and it’s part of the it’s one of the principles multi-stakeholder. cooperation and strengthening those ties, but it’s also the method for implementation of some of the principles, right? So again, if you think about connectivity, which many of you have used, all three other groups that are discussing those principles are actually quite relevant, whether it’s the private sector, technical community or civil society, they all have a role to play. So one of the concrete maybe takeaways would be to maybe think of how can we look at the specific principles and unpack them a bit from the perspective of where different communities make contributions, so that in addition to, for instance, a very useful good practice document that the US delegation has shared before when it comes to engagement with multi-stakeholder community, we also have this growing body of evidence that actually multi-stakeholder cooperation works towards the achievement and the implementation of the principles. Good morning, everyone. I’m

Mahesh Perera:
Mahesh Perera, representing Information and Communication Technology Agency of Sri Lanka. I look at it now, when it comes to my institution, now we are into empowerment of citizen, you know, my business is empowerment using digitalization, so we consider Internet as an enabler, enabler on top of which we build solutions to empower government, to strengthen the government and to empower citizen and to improve competitiveness in businesses. So when it comes to the local context, now there are multiple challenges, so I mean undoubtedly these principles help us, you know, doing our business better, to empower, you know, all sort of and strengthening all sort of stakeholders, but there are local challenges when it comes to connectivity, I mean naturally, I mean being a developing country, as my colleague mentioned, the trust on the government is not that strong, you know, I mean the trust is a great blocker when it comes to do certain empowerment initiatives, so Internet, I believe, must be an enabler to build trust, because the government needs to be trustworthy, so that people can trust the government and so if Internet could be an enabler to build improved trustworthiness of the government, I mean that’s an enabler, so that I mean we can, as a global initiative, if these principles, I mean undoubtedly as I indicated, those these principles are quite relevant, but how do we make these principles applicable to various geographies? Now when it comes to United States, I mean when it comes to Sri Lanka, the applying these principles may be slightly different, so how we are going to create an enabling environment, so that these principles are applied equally in irrespective of local context, so there could be, I mean we could help each other improving or creating a conducive environment where these principles can be applied irrespective of local challenges, and there could be certain tools that we could make available, so that the countries could make use of these tools, so that these principles are applied irrespective of their local challenges, and so I hope this DFI will focus more on these concerns and come up with the right recommendation to deploy, apply, adopt these principles in multiple democracies, I mean the democracies as well as multiple demographics, irrespective of their local challenges. Thank you. Sorry, can I ask a follow-up, what tools specifically would you have in mind that the DFI could provide that would serve that purpose? Now when it comes to the local context, now we have already implemented Data Protection Act, and we are in the process of drafting online safety bill at the moment, it’s been debated in the country whether government should, I mean when it comes to social media, so social media act as a barometer, the country needs social media freedom, so that people can express their views, and on the other hand government must have some sort of control over social media and the internet, I mean there are good players as well as bad players, so how we are going to regulate it, so how as a community, global community can help those countries to manage, because it’s all about governance, I mean you need data, you need good quality data, it’s all about governance, safety, security, procedures, practices, all these things must be in place, it’s free, but it’s not free for the sake of having freedom, it must be governed, it must be controlled to certain extent, but without affecting these fundamental principles. Okay, so if I

Patrick Pavlak:
understand correctly we’re also going a bit in the direction of potential regulatory capacity building, rather the governments could sort of engage in and the assistance they could provide each other exactly to make sure that the regulation that is being passed sort of matches the expectation that the DFI puts forward. This regulatory dimension actually came up in a couple of interventions as well, so I understand that for countries who are on the way of adapting their legal systems exactly towards those new digital technologies, how to navigate those different policy dilemmas and challenges is something important, sometimes there is maybe not a full understanding of what the policy implications might be, so indeed DFI and its community can become an interesting sort of a vehicle if you want for having these conversations and exchanging good practices for instance. Okay, let me move to the next big segment that I would like to discuss with you, which is the cooperation modalities, and I think here we’re already entering a very practical question that our colleague from Portugal has already raised and appears in his intervention, that on one hand we have this question mark, how does DFI fit within the broader discussions about global digital compact versus plus 20 process summit for the future, and as Piers said we do not want to give the impression that this is a competing process, that this is something on the top right, so how does that fit, and I am pretty sure that the discussion in the other three rooms is also going to go in the direction where people will be asking, okay guys, so you had this great idea, DFI, now how does that fit within all other processes that are currently underway, and then how multi-stakeholder community fits in, and in some of those cases it will happen naturally, you know, at the UN there is an engagement with the multi-stakeholder community, but what else can be done, for instance, what is your strategy in preparing for those different processes for the engagement with multi-stakeholder community locally or regionally, and how you intend to take those voices on board. Also please feel free to answer the Portugal’s question about, well, what do you guys make out of it, how are you going to organize yourselves to talk about DFI, GDC, and prepare for all other processes coming up, so if you feel like you would like to share your experiences as well, please go ahead, but also talk a bit about how your engagement with the broader multi-stakeholder community looks like around the principles that we’ve been discussing, accessibility for instance, regulatory adaptation, and so on.

Mahesh Perera:
If I say certain things that are happening in our country, now we are drafting a new strategy, strategy for 2030, digital transformation strategy, so which has six trust areas, one is the broadband connectivity about digital data and services infrastructure, that is having the, you know, digital ID and the middle part of between government and citizen, and then cyber security, the capacity development, and national payment, digital payment platforms, and about building ecosystems, digital ecosystems, so all these trust areas will basically touch upon these fundamental principles of improving and having better connectivity, having trust between, you know, it’s about, you know, improving these fundamental principles, what we have been discussing here, so it’s about a strategic approach, having strategies in place, and having multi-stakeholder involvement to implement those initiatives to address those concerns. So you have, so you’re

Patrick Pavlak:
thinking of multi-stakeholder engagement at this stage of implementation, are you involving other stakeholder groups as you develop the strategy as well, and how do you actually do that, what is the role in this process, what kind of, what are the contributions? Yes, I’m also from Sri Lanka, I add to what you said, for

Audience:
example, the development of the cyber security policy recently, we had earlier the five-year strategy and now it led to the policy adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers, it went to a wider stakeholder consultation, now basically focusing on the implementation in the public sector, the government sector, in which all the measures for the physical as well as the online safety of the Internet, critical digital infrastructure is going to be defined, so there’s the custodianship of the government, as Mr. Mahesh mentioned, about the data. Another interesting model of cooperation is the domain registry of Sri Lanka, it’s a multi-stakeholder model, there’s no high government engagement, there is a somewhat flexible arrangement of academic private sector as well as some little engagement of the government. So we, in the international context, I think we have to bring in some other players into the scene like ICANN, so there’s another track going on the universal acceptance, for example, when it comes to the Internet, it should not be an Internet of one particular language, there could be multiple languages and there are some compatibility issues and acceptance in certain technical terms, so there’s a universal acceptance is also going on, so I think there will be a high level of government engagement, that part is somewhat weak from my end, I was in GSE for a little certain period, but my term in the government, that Ministry of Digital Infrastructure ended and then after that, it did not continue well, so as far as I know, so there should be high level of participation of the government players in this somewhat technical standards in the Internet governance domain.

Patrick Pavlak:
So as we think about how the governments could arrange their cooperation with broader multi-stakeholder community around the principles, I think one issue that I would maybe like you to talk about a bit is, you know, what model do we see for this cooperation, so for instance, does the group think that moving forward it would be interesting to think about some sort of a centralized governance structure around the DFIs and engagement multi-stakeholder community, so you know, whenever there’s an opportunity to have a sort of, yeah, centrally driven, let’s say, engagement, or are we rather thinking about more distributed, fragmented sort of a patchwork of engagement with multi-stakeholder community around the different principles at the national level, at regional level, or whenever there is an opportunity, so in other words, using the DFI as a sort of a hook for engagement in the existing fora rather than maybe creating another big central structure that would sort of provide this layer of formality to the discussions about the DFI, but maybe be not necessarily manageable and very resource intensive, so if you have some thoughts on moving forward, that would be also great, so I see one intervention here.

Allison Balzer:
Allison Balzer, the United States. One thing that I’m hoping to get out of this is very simple, is a phone list. Sometimes trying to figure out who you’re coordinating with in New York, in Geneva, in Kyoto, it’s hard just to track the people down. If we can coordinate, use the DFI as a mechanism to coordinate with our like-minded people and find the right person before we go to these events, sometimes that’s half the battle, so hopefully that’s an easy do-out that we can look to for this.

Patrick Pavlak:
And just to clarify, when you say to find the right people, do you mean the governments or a broader multi-stakeholder committee? A broader multi-stakeholder committee, I imagine, or both? Yes. Thank you, so I believe

Audience:
everybody agrees that all these principles are important, and in the regional context, one may prioritize one principle over another because the situation is different. There are so many factors at play, but while we’re discussing these, I think we need to look at these, we’re looking at these in the global context, that’s why we are getting opinions from all the stakeholders. So I believe, you know, the mechanism has to be somewhat centralized to ensure that, you know, whatever happens in one country, it can impact maybe, you know, other countries as well, the kind of, maybe the legal framework that is enacted, or maybe the kind of, you know, other laws that are enacted in that country. So it’s just a matter of addressing the issue of, you know, your child not beating up the child of the neighbor, you know, that needs to be addressed. So that whatever, yeah, okay, thank you. So I think a centralized mechanism should work better if we have to look at everything in a

Patrick Pavlak:
global context. Thank you. Also, what I would be interested in is if any of you actually feel like you maybe do not have or get enough support from others to stakeholders in your work, and it might be the case you may not actually have the civil society that’s developed in a specific policy area to support you in the implementation of the principle, which would be interesting to know, because there exactly this linkages between different countries that might have specific expertise could be explored. There are countries that do not necessarily have this ecosystem of organizations that are relevant, so feel free to also share those thoughts. I have a gentleman next to me. Good morning,

Narayan Timilsena:
everyone. This is Narayan Timilsena from Nepal. I am working in Ministry of Communication and Information Technology there. So joining with the previous priority part also, I’d like to add some few words. Basically, as we discussed here that every country have their own priorities. In context of Nepal, I think there are two things that we should prioritize on here. One is the free flow of Internet, which connect with the accessibility and affordability part also, because as we have rural infrastructures and very difficult terrain, so affordability and accessibility is a key issue. And joining this, the digital trust in ecosystem is very critical part there, as we are moving to build some legal infrastructures, like protecting the cyberspace and protecting data, personal data, okay, and other like the social media, not regulation, but some sort of control is a good debate in our country. And joining this with other principle also, we have some issues like there is trade-off when we talk about the digital trust and also the human rights and freedom of Internet. So how we can properly address the legal aspect and just make them in a balance that we can make balance on protecting human rights, free flow of information, and then regulate or control these sort of activities, that’s a huge concern. And my concern is that how, if it is possible that these multi-stakeholders community can work together, as this gentleman here said that the centralized approach could be good. I also agree with that. If we can have some centralized mechanism that support a country like Nepal to go and implement these sort of things and have some balance on these things, because it’s very terrible that if we go for a regulatory mechanism and there are some human rights or freedom issues, so that’s a debate, yeah, what I can do.

Patrick Pavlak:
Can I ask you a quick follow-up on any of these points that you have presented right now? Yes, on any of the points that you have presented, has your government engaged with private sector, technical community, or civil society organizations to seek some help, or that has not happened for one or the other reason?

Narayan Timilsena:
We have different local sectors, yeah, some digital rights activities and digital Nepal freedom peoples. We are also here in this conference also, they are working, but more from international perspectives, yeah, we have to work a lot on this. I know we have some people from the UK here also, that when we go for data protection and privacy issues, yeah, it’s a very important issue, and implementing GDPR in their country also, they have some critical issues, it has been raised. So that can be some guiding point for a country like us, who have just started the debate in our country.

Bert Theuermann:
Thank you. On your question of cooperation modalities with multi-stakeholders on the DFI principles, yeah, I mean for me there’s a bit of a question, namely whether we should have sort of standalone processes around the DFI, whether we can really have the capacity to do so, both at national level and globally, or whether it’s about integrating sort of the principles in our engagements that we’re having. I must say from our perspective, where resources are relatively limited and everyone is super busy, we are a bit concerned about setting up separate tracks. We have already too many tracks almost. I remember when the DFI was discussed originally, the question was the relationship for instance with the Freedom Online Coalition, which has clear structures of government and multi-stakeholder collaboration, so we would not want to see sort of another sort of track which would deviate attention. So we see it a lot rather of how we integrate it in existing mechanisms. Just to give an example, because on the different aspects we spoke, we have different at national level and also beyond different formats of collaboration. For instance, when it comes to cybersecurity, we have a very well-established public-private partnership where we bring all the private actors together and we work together, and we can of course you take DFI principles into account. The same on artificial intelligence, you have processes, etc. We use for instance for involving multi-stakeholders in our preparation for the Global Digital Compact, the main avenue was the national IGF and they drafted an input to this process and we want to continue to use that framework for that type of discussion. So also when it comes now to the global level, I’m really wondering what’s the best advice, because I have a bitter feeling we are sometimes struggling that statements have been drafted in so many different fora and you almost can’t cope anymore, and we’re almost often also among like-minded, too much deviating or fragmenting our efforts instead of, yeah, the overall objective should be then, we come to this measuring success, that for instance the processes we are now having, the Global Digital Compact next year, etc., are reflecting the DFI principles and that they are fully reflected there. That’s for us much more important than having another event on the DFI, to put it very in a simplistic term. Thank you.

Jorge Cancios:
Like this? Okay, thank you so much. Jorge Cancios, Swiss Government. I just was triggered by this mention to where to have these discussions and considering the different needs that are varying depending on your national reality and your regional reality, I think it’s important to use really the network we already have of national and regional IGFs, and I think this is the right way of doing it. What you have done today is to have it here, to have this discussion here, and of course at the global level, the IGF offers also other, let’s say, tailor-made avenues for cooperation. You could think about a dynamic coalition, a best practice forum, other means that are more stable, more intersessional, and you have that, of course, at the regional, at the national level, and that would also be a way of showing the relevance of this forum, of the IGF itself, and especially considering the discussion we are having or we will be having on what happens after the Global Digital Compact, because there we will be having a very similar discussion. Do we need something new to have the follow-up and the periodic evaluation of the Global Digital Compact, or should we use this, what we already have, perhaps with some adaptations? So maybe that’s a worthwhile thought

Patrick Pavlak:
for this initiative as well. Thank you. Good point. So UK, then a colleague over there, and Portugal.

Audience:
Thank you. Clearly sparked a lot of thoughts here, which is great to hear. I want to agree with a couple of the points made on the previous interventions. We definitely agree, from a UK perspective, that there are already a lot of mechanisms, and I think the reason why we come up constantly with new mechanisms is because we feel like the existing ones might not deliver to the fullest, but from a UK perspective, we do think we need to look at what are the things that aren’t working for particular stakeholder groups, and how can we improve those in the existing mechanisms, rather than trying to invent new ones, and the hope that there will somehow be the silver bullet solution to that. And in that, I’m thinking of very basic challenges that international organizations are really picking up on. The fact that right now we’re having this discussion in English only, there’s no translation, and there’s reasons why the IGF can’t facilitate translation of all different sessions, but language barriers are a real challenge for a number of stakeholders internationally to participate. Times are different, as you mentioned, a lot of people might not be able to zone in, they might be able to see what we’re talking about, they might not be able to engage in it, and we’re having a discussion amongst governments only. I think we would have been in favor of having multi-stakeholder breakout groups, but I can see the benefit of having a government only discussion, of course, as well. So for us, it’s really about how you make it easier for stakeholders to engage, and the UK were very lucky that we have a very engaged stakeholder community. You asked about, do you lack civil society? Absolutely not, and they’ve really established trusted relationships, and that’s probably an area where other countries might struggle in building that trust, where you don’t have, you might have the civil society community, but they might be very antagonistic, because of various historic reasons, and how do you build that trust? That’s something where we are trying to showcase what good practice looks like. We have multi-stakeholder delegations to the International Telecommunications Union, ITU, we have multi-stakeholder advisory group in UK for internet governance. We do have that very regular exchange, and this is where we can be confident in our policies that we develop, and then the solutions. But for implementing the DFI, I want to go back to a point about a challenge function, and I think this is actually where the DFI is really interesting, and this is governments committing to specific actions, and how can we hold ourselves accountable, and how can others hold us accountable? I don’t think there’s any mechanism that really provides that systematically, and we are concerned, observing some of the developments on the Global Digital Compact, that was mentioned a lot, on multi-stakeholder engagement and consultation, but not multi-stakeholder participation, and an active eye-to-eye involvement in the process, that it could well become another governmental process, where afterwards you’re being told as a stakeholder, this is what governments have agreed is now going to happen, and I think we really need to rethink how that’s done. That’s not how the internet works. How do you involve users as well? There were discussions around that on Global Digital Compact. I’ll stop there, but I think those are really important things for us to think about. I’d like a shot of hands of people who still

Patrick Pavlak:
would like to intervene, because I have one, two, three. I’ll take those who have not spoken, if you don’t mind. Also, because we have 15 minutes left, and we still need to wrap it up a bit. I know that you guys don’t want to talk about how do we measure the success, but I will still make sure that we discuss this very briefly. A colleague over there. Thank you. My name is

Elisa Hever:
Elisa Hever. I’m from the Netherlands, Dutch government. Thank you, first of all, for this interesting discussion with signatories of the DFI already, and maybe some new signatories here in the room as well. I heard some people or some countries speaking about an international or cyber strategy, and how it’s being created. I just wanted to point out that the Netherlands recently published their international cyber strategy, and yes, it’s available in English, so everyone can look it up. We have a full chapter about internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model, so a lot of our thoughts have been portrayed in that chapter. In the DFI, it’s already been mentioned that there are the five principles, and they are accompanied by 23 action points. Some of these action points are formulated to refrain from certain things, such as undermining the technical infrastructure to the general availability and integrity of the internet, or refrain from government-imposed shutdowns. I think it’s really important that we also… I just really want to stress these points, because I think that’s something that we as a government really can act upon by actually not acting upon. It’s something that we should adhere to. What I do agree with some other colleagues is that it’s still a bit fuzzy how the DFI fits into the broader discussions with the GDC, though I do agree with what others said, is that it would be nice if some of the principles mentioned in the DFI would be adopted or transposed to the GDC, such as what I mentioned, the refraining from certain actions. So,

Patrick Pavlak:
that and why two cents. Thanks. Great, thank you. So, we already have, I think, two points for the success factor, so I’m already noting those down. One was, indeed, if the principles are taken over in other documents that are being discussed, like Global Digital Compact, but also, and that’s relatively easy to monitor, is actually monitoring these commitments where the governments have stated that they would refrain from doing something. That’s also something that can be easily monitored and then have these governments potentially accountable in the next meetings. A colleague here, and then intervention. Irina from Germany, as well as my

Audience:
colleague Regine, they’re from the Ministry for Digital. I would really like to briefly echo what has been said, that we should harness as much as we can, was it there already in terms of dialogue and, for example, we in Germany are reviving or revitalizing now something, regular exchange that already exists with multi-stakeholders under the roof of the IGF Germany, and we’re going to do that on various issues. So, there, well, as we have discussed with them already, there are probably some themes that will come up all over again, but then we also want to discuss things that are, just very relevant at a certain moment when, for example, certain decisions are about to be made. So, we also intend to discuss the Global Digital Compact there and also talk a bit about the process and how we negotiate there when it comes to interstate negotiations. So, this is something we should definitely do. We are also having a quite broad stakeholder involvement for the Strategy for International Digital Policy that we are currently developing and we want to continue that even after the strategy is in place and we implement it. And so, I definitely think this is a good idea not to come up with too many fora, but to try to integrate it into existing fora that already work and work well. And also with regard to the different processes that have been mentioned, of course, they are different in many ways and they are leading to different decisions, but in terms of substance, there are many areas that are overlapping. I mean, many of the topics that we have been discussing in the first part of this session are also relevant in many of these other processes. So, maybe we look a little bit more at what the substance is and not so much how it is framed in the individual process, and I think like that we can really develop a dialogue that is important for all of these processes and also try to bring them together and make them coherent in the end. Great, thank you. So, we have about eight minutes left. If I could ask you to be brief in your interventions, that would be great. Yes? I think it’s working. This is Nilam

Nilam Negar:
Negar working for a think tank which is affiliated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Pakistan. So, as you mentioned, what are the cooperation modalities that are already in place for countries around the world? As far as Pakistan is concerned, my other colleagues have already mentioned that when it comes to, because the government approved the national cybersecurity policy in 2021, so I, for a fact, can say that there was a lot of consultation process going on with, because I work under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of IT and Communication, there was a lot of back and forth going on on the national cybersecurity policy which was finally enacted by 2021. So, in that policy draft or framework, there is one whole section which identifies the multi-stakeholder consultation, not only at the local level but also at the global level, with the UN, non-UN agencies, that how this multi-stakeholder consultation is important in order to bring a framework which is

Audience:
important for the overall processes. Thank you. Great, thank you. So, very quickly, we have been talking about this process, and you all agree there are far too many processes, and the more you dig into it, the more you find processes. We’re here in New York, Geneva, where else, and so perhaps a practical proposal for this DFI is to work on a mapping of these processes. We need several highs to keep track on all these, and about multi-stakeholder, yes, we are working in Portugal, the Portuguese IGF, and I can talk also about that, and so we are trying to engage more multi-stakeholders into the process. Great, thank you. I see that our other groups are briefing on

Patrick Pavlak:
our next OLED, so one intervention here and another one there. Okay, thank you. Just a recommendation

Audience:
that, okay, regarding some of the principles, I think some countries are doing better than other countries, and we can certainly learn from the best practices that have been adopted and the reasons why they are doing better. So, going forward, I think if we can have some sort of a scorecard, and if we have a centralized entity for oversight and review of what’s happening regionally in different countries, and if we can have a scorecard, then we can have a better assessment of the situation and how we can make things better. I think if we have to make an analogy, something similar is the Sustainable Development Goals by the UN, because if you look at the different goals, and if you look at them in the regional context, again, all of those goals are important, but if you look at different regions, the situation is different. So, there is a mechanism for oversight, and certain interventions are made in different countries so that we are able to achieve those goals. So, similarly, since everybody agrees that all of these principles are important, so if we can have some sort of a scorecard, and then there is the centralized entity, which can do the oversight and review mechanism regarding the laws, the processes, the digital transformation strategies in different countries, and if there are certain issues that are pointed out or highlighted, and a way forward is given by that committee, a centralized entity, I think that would be really helpful in taking this course forward. Thank you.

Patrick Pavlak:
Great. That’s a great suggestion. I think for some of those principles, what we could also think of doing is actually look at the existing indexes, for instance, and how those could potentially be referred to the principles without necessarily creating the new mechanisms, but that’s a great point. Yes. Thank you, and just really briefly, it just seems to me there

Audience:
are a couple of different sorts of conversations we have going on, and sometimes clarity helps, and I think it’s a little bit picking up what the UK said. There is a difference between when we sort of comes down to what do we mean by we in these conversations? Is it a case of we, the governments, doing things in our countries, consulting broadly with a multi-stakeholder community in our country, which is very different from being equal partners with multiple stakeholders in a process, and I think there’s also perhaps a difference between what we all agree we are doing as governments inside our countries, and what we all agree we want to do cooperatively, as in between countries in the international context, and perhaps that raises a different question about whether we are doing things consulting with or sitting eye-to-eye with the various stakeholders. They’re kind of two different concepts, and I think we end up using them a bit interchangeably, and when we talk about we, sometimes we’re talking about we as national governments, and other times we’re talking about we as the community more broadly.

Patrick Pavlak:
Great, thank you. So let’s move very quickly for two minutes to the question of how do we actually know that we’re delivering, and different ideas have been proposed. The idea of a scorecard that you have put on the table as well, potentially as well as an accountability, but also frankly the capacity gap identification mechanism, I would also argue, so it’s not only a stick but also a carrot, potentially, when you look at the implementation of the principles. Is there anything else that you can think of that this community could use towards tracking the progress and implementation of the principles? For me, we should play the facilitation role. As

Audience:
my colleague just mentioned, I’m in the balanced scorecard, similar to UNEGO development in where we measure each government progress on e-government, I mean, we fairly strongly use UN e-government index to measure where we stand. So similar to e-gov development index, if we could make use of some sort of a balance scorecard with a, I mean, measuring is the key here. You have certain parameters and you need to measure it. Then only you can, you really know where you are and what needs to be done when it comes to local context to adopt these principles. So that approach will definitely help all of us to understand where we are and to take actions to move into the next step. Thank you.

Patrick Pavlak:
Great. So we are one minute before, if there are no urgent interventions that you’d like to make, I also want to give you a 15 minute break before we reconvene. There are a few points that I’m really taking from this conversation. I understand that when we talk about priorities, maybe we should have really started by what we mean by this prioritization exercise. And I think some of those principles are definitely much more mature and implemented than the others, but also maybe more ready for engagement with multi-stakeholder community. And we have heard a few example. I take away as well the need for thinking about local context and how those principles can be potentially adapted to the local context and how that needs to be reflected in our thinking about them. We haven’t really talked much about, we had talked about the global digital compact and the summit about the future. We didn’t really talk about potentially the role of regional organizations as a vehicle for using the DFI principles as a sort of a guidance in the policies that are being made. If we think about specific mechanisms, I think the capacity building came up on a few occasions, especially in the regulatory context that several countries are struggling in trying to figure out actually how to govern and regulate some of the issues that we’ve been talking about. A few specific ideas on how do we measure the success as well. So do the principles that we talk about and that the 70 signatories have signed up to are also being replicated in a broader international context like global digital compact or in other international conversations that potentially can be taken on board as a sort of an impact factor if you want for the DFI. I’m pretty sure that the other groups also came up with equally wonderful suggestion. I’m hoping that they will have a lot of guidance for how the governments can engage with multi-stakeholder community. And one final point I would like to make, having worked both with governments and different stakeholder groups over the past years, what I’ve noticed, and this is my plea as well, is that sometimes for organizations with international status, it’s much easier to get access to governments in Sri Lanka, Argentina or Pakistan than it is for the local civil society organizations. So when we talk about opening the doors for multi-stakeholder community, please keep in mind it’s not only those big names working internationally, but most importantly as well, those organizations that you have in your national and regional ecosystem that you should keep open communication channels with. And with that, I’d like to thank you for all your contributions. I’m hoping that this is not the last time we’re reconvening to discuss the DFI and implementation. I’m taking on board as well the idea of the scorecard and holding you accountable to how you implement and refrain from doing certain things. So we will be back to this conversation. Thank you very much and we reconvene half-past. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Audience:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And you can say, we will now hear from the Canadian Ambassador. Or you could just turn to me to do that intro. Which do you prefer? I can give you his name and title, or I can do it. Let me see it. It’s easy. The demo. The demo. Do you want to make it a little bit more formalized? Yeah, I can do it. I’ll do it. And just say. And now I’ll turn it. A separate chair for him to do it. Sure. One, two, three, four, five. Perfect. Yeah, join, yeah. Who’s that one? Ken, for tech. Perfect. Yeah. So anyone you want. I think that one is good. Yeah. Perfect. Excellent. So I think we’re going to do. Actually, we’re going to have everyone speak. Okay. We’ll just pull one up. Okay. And then you will be introduced. And then you want to stand. Or you can sit right here. If you want. Or you can sit right here. Perfect. Can you do it? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Sure. Yeah. Should be perfect. All right. Perfect. Perfect. Perfect. Perfect. Yeah. OK. Perfect. Perfect. Perfect. So when you move you’ll say. I’ll now turn it back to JSA. JSA-4. Yeah. Yeah. So JSA or ambassador. No, no I’m going to leave it to you. Yes. Yes. So we want someone to call me. Okay. Perfect. I love it. We’ll formalize it. Yes, yes, that’s great. I’ll start gathering people in. Yeah, that’s great. There you go. You need water or anything? You’re good. Okay. If folks could start making their way to their seats we’ll get started momentarily. Thank you. I’m making the DFI like Monday off, which no one even remembers anymore. Exactly. So that’s great. Everyone celebrated. You and I worked on it. After you left the room that was the big theme. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh yeah, you’re fine. She’s going to join you on stage. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we’re going to get started. Please take your seats. Thank you. Thank you.

Eileen Donohue:
Okay, we are back in a plenary session together, and this should hopefully be the richest part of the entire program, because we’re going to bring together the different strands of conversation that just took place. And what we’re going to do is hear from each of the breakout groups, the moderators who served in the breakout groups, individually for up to 10 minutes. And then if we have time, we’ll open it up to comments and questions from anybody in the audience to clarify things. And then we have a special closing guest who will be introduced. So the first group we’ll hear from, based on preferences up here, is the government workshop, and we’ll hear it from the moderator, Patrick Pawlak.

Patrick Pavlak:
Great. Thank you very much. So I also would like to clarify that the reason why I speak first is not because we think that the government’s breakout session was the most important one. Not at all, actually. So we took the least important one first, if you want, because this is all about the multi-stakeholder cooperation. Now our session was also recorded and live-streamed, so you will all have a chance to watch it afterwards. I will focus only on key, most important points, so that you also are interested in watching and reading the final report. We discussed three blocks of questions. One about the prioritization of different principles under DFI. Then we moved to potential opportunities and platforms for cooperation of multi-stakeholder community. And then how do we define and measure the success, which I guess is something that all other groups were also discussing. Now I must admit that the governments were a bit reluctant to be very straightforward about which of the principles is the most important one and which one should be prioritized. But that’s also understandable. They are the ones who came up with them and who have adopted them. So as someone in the group said, of course, it’s important to love all your kids equally. We have abandoned the children metaphor at some point, because it was becoming weirder and weirder. So we’ve stopped that. Watch the video. You’ll see at some point it became a bit dangerous. But we did have an interesting discussion, though, about the fact that even though we don’t want to really identify them very clearly, some governments actually, by where they focus their attention, which policies are becoming implemented as a matter of priority, they de facto do certain implicit prioritization of those principles. And for instance, the focus on connectivity or trustworthy internet were those principles that clearly stood out in the group as being implemented by several countries. There are a few important takeaways in the discussion and the prioritization, at least for me. One, as some of our participants have stressed, sometimes it’s not about which of them is more important than the other, but how do we actually sequence the implementation of those principles. Because some of them have this enabling or even a multiplying factor, if you want, when it comes to others. So you really have to look at the interconnection between different principles as well, not look at them individually. And I think this was quite important. Another factor that was stressed was how do we actually make these global principles suitable for local context, and how do we do this translation from global to local. I would imagine that my colleagues in the other groups had a similar discussion about how do we make the principles that were defined for the governments relevant for other stakeholder groups, and how this dialogue between different stakeholder groups comes together. So I think that was an important takeaway. And finally, in the part on the prioritization, something that stood out again to me is the importance, potential importance of capacity building. Several governments or colleagues have flagged different regulations, for instance, that they’re working on in different policy areas that address the principles that are part of the DFI, but at the same time, they do not always have the capacity to either develop those policies or implement them later on. And this was a very smooth way to transition to the discussion about the engagement with the multi-stakeholder community, where those actors very often play an important role. What I’ve tried to get from the group as well was what kind of coordination mechanism, if you want, we should think of when we plan the engagement between the governments and multi-stakeholder community. Do we think of some sort of a new platform that centralizes and steers the engagement between the governments and multi-stakeholder community, or do we actually think about an alternative arrangement? And there was not much appetite for centrally coordinated mechanism. There was a feeling that there’s quite a lot already happening, and that rather we should be harnessing the existing mechanisms, so regional or national IGFs, for instance. We did touch upon how DFI sort of connects and links to other discussions, like Global Digital Compact, and I think the important takeaway from that discussion was that DFI should not be seen as an alternative or sort of a parallel process that runs in competition almost to those other initiatives, but something that actually provides the foundation and complements them. And finally, when we talk about the success of the DFI, how do we define it and how do we potentially measure it? One indicator, if you want, that was put on the table was the extent to which the DFI principles are taken up in other conversations. So for instance, when we move to a discussion about Global Digital Compact, to what extent will the document reflect the principles of the DFI? How will we think about translating those principles into action? One of the colleagues also stressed the importance of those, let’s call them prohibitive principles or actions in the DFI, where the state should actually refrain from doing certain things, and that actually potentially is a relatively easy thing to monitor. And finally, there was an idea of what was called a scorecard, but a mechanism similar to sustainable development goals, monitoring mechanisms that would sort of allow the community to track and ensure certain transparency and, down the road, accountability in the conversation about the principles. I’m sure that there are many more points that people in the group found interesting, so I invite everybody later to join the discussion and maybe reiterate some of those points. Thank you.

Eileen Donohue:
Really excellent and succinct. I just want to underscore one thing, which tremendous overlap with civil society, this group I was in, but also one theme I heard in what you said is a little bit of tension between government’s sense of responsibility domestically and what they’re doing at home, whether it’s accountability for those and metrics versus or intention with a little bit the goal of making these principles substantial in the international realm and having to work on both parts.

Patrick Pavlak:
Yes, absolutely. This did come up as well in our discussion, however, my impression is that there was really much more focus on localization and the discussion of how those principles actually fit within what the governments are doing. There were a few voices in the group who stressed that, yes, while we think about the domestic level, we also have to think of what do we as international community want to achieve with those principles and how they contribute to our common global effort in exactly ensuring open, safe, secure, free, interoperable internet, right? And yes, I agree with you, there is a certain friction. I think it’s sometimes a matter also of prioritization and the resources and where the governments focus their attention, primarily responsibility is towards the citizens. So I think this is what some of the colleagues maybe were driven by in their interventions. But there was indeed the slight, I don’t want to say friction, but there is maybe this idea of sequencing of where do we focus the attention first.

Eileen Donohue:
Really excellent. Okay, so the next we’ll hear from the civil society group, and this is Grace Gitaiga.

Grace Gitaiga:
Okay, I’ll be reporting on behalf of the civil society group. We had a very efficient reporter, Luke, who actually summarized our conversation into tweets before Elon Musk, just a few characters. So we also, like the first group, we had three key areas that we were looking at, or three key themes. And the first one, we looked at the principles and in terms of prioritization. And very interesting conversations came up. The issue of access and inclusion kept coming up, and we agreed that they can be considered top priority. However, the issue of multi-stakeholderism is key in entrenching and allowing for inclusion and for allowing access or allowing for the achievement of the other priorities. So that’s how we framed it, that even as we have identified those priorities, that the multi-stakeholderism approach is critical in allowing for the achievement of the priorities identified. On team number two, on cooperation modalities, we agreed that there is need to implement the multi-stakeholder approach with a bottom-up emphasis. And this can support civil society, project, agitate, and stand for the global public interest with effectiveness and efficiency in internet matters. On the third theme, how do you measure success? And the summary is that success would be looked at when the DFI is globally recognized across board and given legitimacy, solidity, and validity, and especially where civil society concerns matter. So it should be able to support civil society work in consultations with all stakeholders and in terms of minimizing the digital divide towards the betterment of internet. The final takeaway, what do people know about the DFI and how does success look like? When we work with other entities, sorry, I come back, I think I’m confused there. The final takeaway about the DFI is that many people in the group said they heard for the first time about the DFI last year in the IGF, and there has not been a lot of mention about the framework, even as a point of framework of reference to mobilize governments, even by governments that have signed onto this framework. So the IGF seems to be the only place where this is mentioned. So the recommendation is that we need to solidify the DFI, it needs to be entrenched in global internet conversations, and the principle should become part and parcel of global conversations. For example, right now there have been conversations about the Global Digital Compact that the DFI framework should actually be an automatic point of reference when those conversations are happening. So let’s make the DFI the principle, you know, the principles work and let’s raise awareness about them everywhere and they should not be seen as a competition into other processes but rather as complementary to implement what we are all working on together. Thank you.

Eileen Donohue:
Really great and again what I’m hearing there is a bit of tension between what goes on domestically in many cases not even referenced enough and also this idea of not referenced across government agencies and when it comes to different types of responsibilities whether it’s national security, cybersecurity. So it’s a little bit pigeonholed in the domestic context and yet tremendous yearning for international validity that if civil society could have the DFI governments really push to give stature to these principles, civil society would take it and run with them in a lot of different international settings and a desire to work on that together. Correct, I think there was also the issue of

Grace Gitaiga:
that we must stop looking at government in a monolithic way, that government is broad, it’s the judiciary, it’s parliament, is the, you know, executive so that if you’re having these conversations they need to happen across all the arms of government so that we are not just looking at one part of that. Has not been

Eileen Donohue:
socialized across government, yeah. Okay, next we’re going to hear from private sector and it’s Temea Souto. Thank you so much Eileen and thanks everyone and

Temea Souto:
huge thanks first of all to the private sector group that really made my job very difficult because you were very vocal and gave a lot of good input and thank you to Natalie for helping me make sense of that. I’ll try and summarize as briefly as I can a very rich discussion that we’ve had which just hearing from my colleagues here I think we’ve struck a lot of the similar points. On the priorities, it was very difficult to choose priorities but I think the sequencing idea was also something that came up in our conversations in a sense of the base of it all is getting people online, getting all people everywhere online so that that’s where we start but once they’re online there’s that’s where the challenges start for all the different communities, for governments to protect their citizens and shield them from harm, for businesses to protect their consumers, for users to have a safe experience online. So we shifted into discussing once people are online and connectivity is there how do we make that meaningful but how do we make that trustworthy, how do we really ensure that trust is that that we’re working towards in our endeavors and we’ve the private sector conversation really pointed towards how the DFI is there to to create some of that trust in across different governments, across different stakeholders and across the internet. So from that premise then we went into the all personalization question and there we’ve had a couple of themes discussing first of all what are the challenges for making this trust happen, secondly what is it that the private sector can do to help but also what the private sector needs from the rest of the stakeholder community and from the government. So when we talked about challenges we realized that there is a lack of information around not just the creation for the future of internet but the way we communicate about these issues with each other, within stakeholder groups and with the everyday persons because even we’ve had companies in the room who said we’re actually doing this but we never thought about this that we’re doing it in the context of principal number XYZ, goal number, bullet point number, this or that. So I think making that connection, we identified one challenge of making that connection between sort of this meta level of policy principles and then the day-to-day challenges and substantive issues that we are always talking about and we’ve seen the news and in the media and how do we make sure that that conversation exists and that we speak the same language around some of these issues. So from there we went okay how we how we can make sure that that we spread this information, that we bridge some this lack of information and lack of awareness and what can the private sector do in that regard and that was where we came into the private sector networks and how they can act as multipliers for the messages of the DFI within their communities nationally but across their networks with partners elsewhere both in DFI signatory countries and broader and how that can act as as a multiplier for those communities that the private sector interacts with themselves picking up some of the elements of the declaration. And from there really we talked about creating channels for input from for the private sector into policy conversations and we came up with this idea that it needs to be a proactive work from the from the private sector side to share here are the models that we think would work, here’s how the policy system works in our country, this is the the steps where we see that we could provide input and this is where we want to work with other stakeholders not just with governments but all stakeholders to share how we can be part of this process because ultimately when it comes to implementation which will be the operationalization of these principles it will depend on the buy-in of all the different communities, private sector, civil society, technical community, they need to be there at the level of when we start talking about policymaking and they are best placed also to share here is the ways that you can include us so perhaps that is something that’s necessary. To make that happen other things we need clear processes to include multi-stakeholders, we need information sharing, we need capacity building across all the different stakeholder levels to be able to understand what multi-stakeholder collaboration is, understand some of these policy issues and how we can work with one another. And also at the end we talked a little bit about I think Patrick you mentioned scorecards, we also talked about how do you make sure that this doesn’t remain just a talk conversation but if we assess progress and we report and we ended up saying we need safe spaces for conversation where also best practices and implementation can be shared, lessons learned can be shared but it doesn’t become you know best in class list or worst in class list but actually creating safe spaces where governments and stakeholders can learn from one another on how to progress this. So it’s the multi-stakeholder conversation was something that was woven through all of this. And then on the last bit in talking about successes, we’ve heard from Vera Jourova at the beginning she said signing is not enough we need implementation and we transformed that into the number of signatories is not success, the successful implementation is success and we can measure that success and how many successful partnerships we’ve managed to do, the stakeholders themselves, how did we involve them, did we put specific projects in place with multi-stakeholders with the private sector to to progress some of these principles that we’ve signed on to and that’s where we should measure the success. And then we talked a little bit about how do we channel DFI into other processes and I’ve heard that all of you have mentioned in a private sector group of these on the global digital compact, the WSIS plus 20 review, how do we make sure that the principles are woven into those conversations but also how can the DFI itself be the channel for multi-stakeholder input into some of these processes. We’re opening up now this conversation is all about making sure that DFI is the true multi-stakeholder initiative, how can then this be a vehicle for multi- stakeholder input into some of these processes that we’re looking forward to.

Eileen Donohue:
So things that strike me there a lot of similarity strangely with civil society in that emphasis on lack of information, lack of general, lack of awareness of the DFI principles even though they would otherwise be embraced and perhaps are in some regards already being implemented by the private sector but there is not this general sense of stature and using it as a point of reference so that’s shared and then the desire to have more genuine opportunity and channels for engagement into policy that same civil society would definitely seek that as it sounds like private sector. Correct and not just having that channel but also

Temea Souto:
building on what the private sector already has going on that can be used as so not just learning from the DFI into the private sector but the private sector being used as a multiplier if you can make those connections because they exist if you can name them then that can actually act as a multiplier to make

Eileen Donohue:
this grow. What they already know. Okay last but certainly not least we’re going to hear from the technical community which is the one most experienced in multi-stakeholder process and Akinori Mimura. Yes thank you very much. The

Akinori Mimura:
technical committee discussion was I suppose that this is quite shared with the other stakeholders but this discussion was you know we have the five principles. Eileen kindly mentioned the three or four discussion points and then we try to do that in a recognition of the five principles and the three themes but actually the discussion is the back and forth and the intertwined so it is really hard to something is the most important or something but I try. So our discussion started with some substantial priority and then the priority this is a technical committee discussion then we are so committed to keep the internet up and running and that’s a principle number three and then that was quite the focus on the discussion. Then another point of the particular focus was the encryption. This is the DFI principle number four says the trust and then encryption is the one of the very critical tool for increasing the trust of the communications. Then it is particularly emphasized as the important point. So these are the priority from the DFI principles. The other part of the discussion mainly goes for the cooperation modalities. Then the DFI is the governmental declaration but it is quite you know lead like the technical committees the principle which we had been quite believed in and practiced. So at the same time it was pointed out that the quite importance of the collaboration between the technical committee and governments for the sign that this DFI and some other even other the companies who are has a concern on the internet infrastructure. Then one of the discussion was two or three things out of this. One is the existence of the leadership panel of the IGF. It is that really good place to facilitate the discussion between the stakeholders increasing the government and technical committee and then that discussion there is a quite fruitful to have to share the common understanding among the stakeholders. Then another point is that there was pointed out that Montevideo statement which was done in 10 years ago 2013. So it is remarkably this 10th anniversary of the Montevideo statement which appeared much more you know the adherence for the internet stability and movement for the stabilization of the IANA function and then actually that was a very you know starting point of the discussion of the IANA transition. So it was a very good example of the technical committee to put the unified voice clearly to the other stakeholders and then that was the kind of the clarity would be preferred for that discussion. Another point is the GDC global digital compact and then actually we have some concern that the technical community is not really recognized as much as we want. Then that’s a frankly then that would be that one of the concern from the technical community and but without that kind of the particular point pointing out that this is really really important to the other stakeholders especially the government is quite a big interest and then recognition to the internet infrastructure operations which the technical community are responsibly doing. That’s and another point the measurement of the success was discussed and then it is a little bit not really clear but there was some points like internet quality, accountability, broader involvement of the various stakeholders but not really clear measurement was proposed there. That’s all from my mind. Thank you very much. Again I hear so much

Eileen Donohue:
support for the principles and this idea that the technical community is already operating in ways that are consistent with the principles. Concern about the adequacy of inclusion even of the technical community going forward in multi-stakeholder process in places like the global digital compact and you know looking at principle number two about protecting and promoting the global internet. I mean the technical community is so important there and if that is lost it’s sort of the whole thing is lost. So it’s there’s tremendous overlap and unanimity really between the stakeholder groups and I will even go so far to say similar messages to the governments to the DFI member states because these different stakeholder groups are all really yearning to genuinely take this multi-stakeholder process to the next level and the door is open it sounds like with all three stakeholder groups. So let me now we have I oh let well I guess we could turn it does anybody in the audience want to have say something comment on anything you’ve heard question anyone raise an issue that wasn’t put on the table any of the above. Even Constantinos. Sorry about that.

Patrick Pavlak:
So listening to you I’m wondering you know did this didn’t really come up that much in in our group but I’m wondering whether when we talk about DFI we are going to see similar split in how the governments perceive different stakeholder groups thinking about the processes when it comes to the implementation. So, you know, right now we all sit at the same table and there’s this implicit assumption that the civil society is as important as technical community as the private sector. But we have seen it in other processes, especially the UN, where actually the private, there was a push for private sector to be considered as a more important partner for the conversations than civil society organizations, for instance. So I think that there is this risk that we have seen in other places that as we move forward there might be a push to, let’s say, favor certain relationships over others. And I’m not saying that that push was coming from the signatures of the Declaration, actually quite the opposite, but I think as we are thinking about exactly how the principles can be internationalized through other conversations, we also have to make sure that the principle five, which actually stresses the importance of the multi-stakeholder cooperation, is also taken really very seriously and any attempt to sort of try to, let’s say, divide and rule the multi-stakeholder community is really pushed against from the very beginning.

Eileen Donohue:
Question here. I’m curious what people up here or the audience think about maybe pushing a little bit more on the idea that there are five stakeholder groups that should be part of the conversation in pretty much all settings. So obviously government, private sector, the technical community, civil society, and academia. I mean that’s one of the themes I’ve heard and I think in unintentionally, at least in some settings, the differentiation between what those different kind of stakeholder groups can add to the conversation is being lost and that’s one thing this group might be able to advocate for together.

Grace Gitaiga:
There was also the issue of trust that we cannot be talking, especially governments that have signed on to the declaration, there is the issue of trust that they have signed and yet they come up with laws that counter or undermine the framework. So that, you know, we can’t be talking of this framework, the issue of trust, and then the challenge of coming up with new laws and that’s a message to the governments that they must not undermine the framework.

Temea Souto:
And on a private sector side we also had a lot of conversations on this, on how we actually operationalize multi-stakeholderism and there was one very interesting discussion I thought when we said we need to have a clear understanding in government and all those stakeholders as well on how the technology, how this ecosystem works and what is the role of the different communities in it and not just the roles and their responsibilities but also the capabilities that we can attach to them in this, we call it the stack of the internet ecosystem. If we have a clear understanding on what is the role, the responsibility and the capability of each of these actors, it’s easier then to think about what kind of expectations we attach to them. A lot of the times when we think about passing laws, regulating these technologies, the first instinct is okay who delivers them? Okay so this is all going into the private sector, we forget that there’s others in the stack. If it thinks about okay who’s holding us accountable? Okay it’s gonna be civil society. First of all let’s not pigeonhole stakeholder groups into these categories and secondly think about what’s that they can actually do so that and if we involve that understanding and throughout the entire process of setting the policies they’re there, then at the implementation phase you already have the buy-in so it’s very easy to start actioning and you don’t have to start it all over, you come up with the action and you think about who’s gonna do it right so we can do it the other way around. So I think that was a clear message and then the other one is let’s let go of false dichotomies of whose interest is what in this. This is all of our interest in making these principles actually work and we shouldn’t think about okay so if we think about principle X, what is the technical community interest in this? What is the civil society interest in this? What is the private sector’s interest in this? What the government want to get out of this? We need to think about this in a more holistic multi-stakeholder way and we actually need to involve none of these stakeholder groups are monoliths. Business is not a monolith, government is not a monolith so we have to make sure that we also act in our own stakeholder groups to bridge some of the differences and gaps that we might have there and the diversity that is there. Really excellent. So for me what I heard

Eileen Donohue:
there is we all have to get more sophisticated in thinking about what multi-stakeholder process should look like with respect to different kinds of issues and what are best practices with those different kinds of issues and we tend to use very generic phrases to talk about multi-stakeholder process or engagement or dialogue but the reality is if we’re doing it well we each of the types of conversations needs to become more multi-stakeholder and go deeper in what that really looks like as a best practice on those issues. So somebody right here yeah I think there’s a mic right behind you.

Marten Botteman:
Hi, does this one work? Okay well thank you for an excellent discussion Marten Botteman. One of the advantages of also thinking in the separate stakeholder groups is that you can really put in the foundations of what would bind us to that and from that then have on the general level the discussion of so what binds us all should be bound on those foundations that are understood by civil society, by business, by technical community and yes I’d like academia as well because they come from a different perspective and governments of course but if you understand that that’s a good fundaments to build upon otherwise you lose the rest. Great point I think we have one more comment in the back if you want to come on up to the mic yeah.

Vivek Silwal:
Thank you very much this is Vivek Silwal from Youth IGF Nepal and also rapporteur of the government session. So in all these discussions one thing was missing was the focus on youths. So I think youths are the catalyst which can have a multiplier effect on actually implementing the DFI reasons and principles. So either as a different stakeholder or within the stakeholders I think youths are needed to give in the seats and emphasize during this discussions and another point is regarding the strategic foresight. So for the DFI implementation principles we are discussing issues that are right now in terms of connectivity but what about the issues that are coming in. So there should be a kind of emphasize that what problems might come in future and how we get prepared for it. So that’s my comment. Thank you. Thank you very much. Great

Eileen Donohue:
point. I think now I’m going to ask Jayshia to come on up and she’s got an idea about how to best close this program with a guest speaker. Thank you

Jayshia:
very much. Very engaging discussion. So we have a very special guest today here. I’m very pleased to turn the floor to Ambassador Nedemo who’s the Kenyan ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium. And a fun fact is he was the organizer of the 2011 IGF in Nairobi which was the first ever IGF to have a day zero. And so here we are on day zero. Thanks to this ambassador. So please over to you and you can come to the podium if you’d like.

Bitange Ndemo:
First I want to apologize that I took instructions correctly on how to come to Kyoto International Conference Center. So the whole night I practiced and then I went to the train station and the gentleman told me you take this way and then go to number two and take it. He should have said that once you get there to number you climb up and take number two. So I went to the wrong side of the city. I’m sorry about that. I’m delighted to join you this morning and I want to give a personal testimony. First I wasn’t the only one who was in day zero. Ambassador Gross I think is seated there. We we started this in Nairobi when IGF was being held in Nairobi. I want to summarize these five principles through my own experience. I was then in policy making and the policy at the time we were focusing on various issues and we I say we those who are in policy looked at the civil society as noisemakers. One of them was Grace here who gave me help but we are very good friends now that because of policy involvement with civil society we restored trust in building the digital systems in Kenya. It would not have happened that way. I say this because we are very many countries especially in the global south who decide to shut down internet when things are wrong or when something has happened they close it and internet has become the most important thing and I think everybody of you learned from COVID-19. We went back to teach while COVID was going on. Very poor people who do business on the streets got to do their business through WhatsApp which was made to be one of the platforms that helped them to sell something. So it has become the most consequential thing especially now and besides being in policy and government as an ambassador I’m also involved in academia mostly looking at the future of learning and just two months ago we had a conference in Switzerland. Any government that does not invest in access to internet to broadband will lose out and as we talk about capacity building which doesn’t necessarily have to include academia but also having awareness to virtually every citizen it is very critical and if you hear from the five groups that made there are overlaps like Aileen was talking about but the big question is what Patrick was asking. How do we make this acceptable globally because some countries still are not living up to these principles. Some close down internet as I said, some don’t trust the civil society and yet we must work through multi-stakeholder efforts to improve access to make sure that we protect the human rights of everybody. We accept that different people have different views on the networks to have the free flow of information and that’s where the problem begins. So by simply having sessions like this one and then moving on to our own countries if I may say here honestly and I think Greece can agree sometimes the global south thinks that some of these propositions are geopolitical. I would attest here that this is not geopolitics this is simply making sure that we ensure inclusivity across board. This is the problem we have that well this is a Western thing or this is this concept is this way but if you look at these principles they are very simple. Everybody needs the right to do what they want to do. Then we need to make sure that we restore trust across board just like we did with the civil society and other groups in Kenya and include everybody. The gentleman there said the youth who are the most users of these online things the technical where we need to talk about interoperability of many of the systems that are being created. So this is a very key meeting these are key declaration of that we are looking at hopefully we can get more countries to sign on to it that way we can begin local discussions on how to ensure that this happens. I was the first chairman of the the inter for AI and we tried to work on connectivity across the world and still you could see the problems especially with members of Parliament. The private sector has no problem getting through the government and changing things but ordinary people have the problem and that is where civil society comes in. If we can use the word collaboration all of us from technical to private sector civil society we can achieve the goals that we we are discussing here today. I don’t want to emphasize this more this is what we need to do if some of us from the global south can know that this is the most consequential period of time that we need to have these things in place. Education is going to change and if we don’t have the infrastructure because of petty politics we will lose out. So it is mostly to those who have not signed on to this and leaving it as we said some sign up and then they go making laws differently. I used to have that problem where you develop the legislation because members of Parliament sometimes don’t understand what you are writing about and they go down break it down. What I used to do is that I would go sit in Parliament and create friendship with some of them explain to them differently using practical examples. So lobbying is important for those of you are a stakeholder that you have given these proposals to government that government is going to do it. It never happens you would be involved through and through to the end until the legislation is made. There is not one single person who doesn’t understand today that some of these technologies have led to new innovations that are critical to our lives. We cannot put legislations ahead of innovation and and I keep on insisting on this if we can look into this we can see much more happen. Thank you for allowing me and I hope you forgive me for coming late. Thank you.

Jayshia:
Thank you Ambassador Ndemo. So on behalf of the co-organizers Japan, the European Commission, Kenya and the United States I would really like to thank you all for participating today. DFI remains a high priority for the signatories but we also recognize it is critical that we must hear from the multi-stakeholder community and so we were very grateful for your active engagement in today’s event. Please stay tuned on the next steps for the DFI but we will are very committed to working with you all to digest today’s discussions and ideas and to moving forward with all of you in collaboration. So thank you again and please we would like to invite everyone to the stage for a group photo to document our success today. So please come on up we’ll have one group in the front row and one in various groups on the stage itself. Thank you. Thank you.