Open Forum #12 Ensuring an Inclusive and Rights-Respecting Digital Future

Summary

This discussion focused on ensuring an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future, particularly in the context of implementing the UN Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the WSIS+20 review. Speakers emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in digital governance, highlighting the need to involve diverse voices from civil society, the private sector, technical community, and academia.

A key theme was the challenge of achieving meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in UN processes, especially in New York-based negotiations. Several speakers noted that while the GDC emphasizes multi-stakeholderism, its development process was not sufficiently inclusive. The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was highlighted as a valuable platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue, with calls to strengthen its role and secure sustainable funding.

Participants stressed the importance of capacity building to enable effective engagement from underrepresented groups, particularly from the Global South. The need for a multilingual internet and consideration of local contexts in digital governance was also emphasized. Speakers advocated for focusing on national and regional initiatives, such as national IGFs, to complement global processes.

The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) was recognized as an important platform for promoting human rights online and facilitating multi-stakeholder collaboration. Speakers called for continued support of the FOC and its Advisory Network. The discussion also touched on the role of the technical community in ensuring that governance discussions are grounded in technical realities.

Overall, the conversation highlighted the complex challenges of achieving inclusive digital governance and the need for continued efforts to evolve multi-stakeholder processes to address emerging digital issues.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in internet governance and digital policy processes

– Challenges with inclusivity and meaningful participation, especially for stakeholders from the Global South

– The role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and other forums in facilitating inclusive dialogue

– Implementation of the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 review process

– Building capacity and expertise among diverse stakeholders to enable effective participation

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how to ensure an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future through multi-stakeholder engagement in global internet governance processes, with a focus on implementing the Global Digital Compact and preparing for the WSIS+20 review.

Tone:

The tone was largely constructive and collaborative, with speakers building on each other’s points. There was a sense of shared purpose in promoting inclusive governance, though some frustration was expressed about the limitations of multilateral UN processes in New York. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end, with speakers emphasizing the need for concrete steps to improve stakeholder engagement and capacity building.

Speakers

– Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Senior Policy Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of the Netherlands

– Ernst Noorman: Ambassador for Cyber Affairs, Kingdom of the Netherlands

– Filippo Pierozzi: Office of the UN Tech Envoy

– Rasmus Lumi:Director General of the Department of International Organizations and Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia

– Anja Gengo: IGF Secretariat

– Emilar Gandhi: Global Head of Stakeholder Engagement, META

– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Executive Director, TechGlobal Initiative, member of the FOC Advisory Network

– Adeboye Adegoke: Paradigm Initiative

– Olaf Kolfman: Executive-level Advisor and Spokesperson, ISOC

– Fiona Alexander: American University

Additional speakers:

– Audience

Expanded Summary: Ensuring an Inclusive and Rights-Respecting Digital Future

This discussion focused on the critical challenge of ensuring an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future, particularly in the context of implementing the UN Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the upcoming WSIS+20 review. The conversation brought together diverse perspectives from government representatives, international organisations, civil society, the private sector, and the technical community.

Setting the Context: Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Global Initiatives

Ernst Noorman, the Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands and current chair of the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), set the tone for the discussion. He emphasized that a multi-stakeholder approach is crucial for addressing complex digital issues and highlighted the recent adoption of the Global Digital Compact. Noorman stressed the need for evolving multi-stakeholder governance and creating an appealing narrative to engage diverse stakeholders. He framed the GDC as integrating human rights, sustainable development, and technology governance in an interconnected way.

Rasmus Lumi, representing Estonia as the incoming Chair of the FOC for 2025, echoed the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches. He noted the increasing complexity of the UN ecosystem and emphasized the need for inclusive governance that respects human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Lumi suggested that the FOC could play a role in GDC implementation aligned with these principles.

The Role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

The Internet Governance Forum was highlighted as a valuable platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue on digital policy issues. Anja Gengo from the IGF Secretariat provided insights into the forum’s growth, citing statistics on increased participation. She emphasized the IGF’s role as an inclusive space for dialogue and its adaptation to emerging technologies like AI. Gengo also stressed the need for multi-disciplinary approaches in addressing digital governance challenges.

However, there was recognition that the IGF needs strengthening to enhance its effectiveness. Fiona Alexander from American University stressed the need for sustained funding to strengthen the IGF’s capacity, while others called for evolving the forum to produce more actionable outcomes.

Challenges in Multi-stakeholder Processes

The discussion highlighted significant challenges in achieving meaningful multi-stakeholder participation, especially in UN-based processes. Fiona Alexander provided a critical perspective, stating that “New York processes, by design and by structure, are limited in their way to involve stakeholders. And I don’t see a meaningful way to change that.” This unexpected consensus on the limitations of UN processes in New York sparked a broader conversation about alternative approaches and the importance of local and national initiatives.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya, Executive Director of the TechGlobal Initiative, and Adeboye Adegoke from Paradigm Initiative highlighted power asymmetries in multi-stakeholder processes. They emphasized the need for capacity building to enable effective engagement from underrepresented groups, particularly from the Global South. Diya made a thought-provoking comment on the importance of meaningful participation: “Even when we are in these kinds of spaces, and I think that’s where the technical community, the private sector, governments have a tremendous role to play in terms of how do we ensure that when groups have access to international spaces, are sitting on these tables, they’re active.”

Private Sector and Technical Community Perspectives

Emilar Gandhi from META provided insights into the private sector’s role, highlighting META’s human rights policy and employee training. She emphasized the importance of stakeholder engagement and creating intentional spaces for diverse voices in digital governance discussions.

Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society offered a technical community perspective, making a memorable analogy comparing multi-stakeholder mechanisms to large language models: “If you train a large language model and you provide it with incomplete input, it will start to hallucinate. And I think that the multi-stakeholder mechanisms, if you do not provide all the inputs that you have at the table, the output of the process will be a hallucination.” This reinforced the importance of including diverse perspectives, including technical expertise, in governance discussions. Kolkman also noted that the technical community often speaks a different “language” and stressed the need for mutual understanding among stakeholders.

Local and National Initiatives

Several speakers, including Adeboye Adegoke and Olaf Kolkman, stressed the importance of focusing on national and regional initiatives, such as national IGFs, to complement global processes. There was a shared viewpoint that local and national processes are key for implementing digital governance principles and engaging stakeholders effectively. Fiona Alexander particularly emphasized this point, suggesting a focus on local and national processes as a way to overcome the limitations of UN-based mechanisms.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion concluded with a recognition of the complex challenges in achieving inclusive digital governance and the need for continued efforts to evolve multi-stakeholder processes. Key takeaways included the crucial role of multi-stakeholder engagement, the importance of local and national processes, the need for capacity building, and the significance of technical expertise in governance discussions.

Several unresolved issues were identified, including how to effectively integrate multi-stakeholder input into UN processes, balance multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches, address power asymmetries within multi-stakeholder processes, and ensure meaningful participation from marginalized groups.

Moving forward, participants suggested focusing on renewing and strengthening the IGF mandate in the upcoming WSIS+20 review, securing sustained funding for the IGF, and encouraging stakeholders to engage in local and national digital governance processes. The discussion underscored the ongoing need for collaborative efforts to shape an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: for this year’s IGF. The session is called Ensuring an Inclusive and Right-Respecting Digital Future, and the session seeks to allow input from various stakeholder and regional groups on the role of the multistakeholder community in the implementation of the UN Global Digital Compact and the WSIS plus 20 review. Without further ado, I will give the floor to Mr. Ernst-Norman, Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands for his opening remarks.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much, Jakob. And welcome to all the friends of the Freedom Online Coalition, esteemed panelists, and, of course, also our online audience. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us today at the open forum session of the Freedom Online Coalition. Today, we are going to talk about Ensuring an Inclusive and Right-Respecting Digital Future. The Netherlands organized this session in its role as the current Freedom Online Coalition chair. The Netherlands is one of the founders who created the Freedom Online Coalition in 2011 and acted as the first chair, and has been an honor for our country to have been chairing this ever more important coalition this year for the second time. And I’m delighted to see such a great variety of panelists to the roles that we see as essential for discussions on digital issues. We have experts from the FOC advisory network, civil society, private sector, the technical community, and the tech and voice office, and the IGF Secretariat present today. And last but not least, my colleague and friend from Estonia, Rasmus Lumi, who will be chairing our coalition in 2025. When I first started my role as a cyber ambassador for the Netherlands, they were telling me that 2025 would be an extremely important year for internet governance and human rights online. Therefore, I must thank Estonia from the bottom of my heart for their willingness to take over our FOC chairship next year. At the same time, in 2024, we have not been calmly waiting for the Estonians to save us. The adoption of the Global Digital Compact at the Summit of the Future has been a key milestone in our journey towards the WSIS Plus 20 review next year. The events we have been hosting with the FOC over the course of 2024 have been largely focused on laying the groundwork while preparing ourselves for these important negotiations. As most of you are familiar with the WSIS, we do not need to start the review negotiations with a blank slate. I’m going to use a term that most of you will have a love-hate relationship with, but we do have agreed language to work with. The principles, commitments, and actions in the Global Digital Compact are closely linked to the existing WSIS agreements. The Tunisia Agenda and the Geneva Plan of Action. The GDC sets out a vision for digital cooperation built on principles ingrained in sustainable development and human rights, both mutually dependent and reinforcing, as well as for global internet and AI governance. The GDC also acknowledges the role of the IGF as a primary multi-stakeholder platform for discussions on internet issues. Moreover, in April this year, the Sao Paulo Multi-Stakeholder Guidelines were adopted at the NetMundial Plus 10 conference. These underline the need to protect and get participation in internet and digital governance. And lastly, just this week, on the initiative of Canada, the FOC published a joint statement on the future of the multi-stakeholder approach at the United Nations. The statement recognizes that multi-stakeholder processes must evolve to address emerging and complex challenges. It is precisely this idea of evolving that I would like to address in the remainder of my remarks. Agreed language is no guarantee in today’s world. Characterized by geopolitical dynamics, economic power concentrations, a decline in internet freedom worldwide, and rapid technological development. In order to actually strengthen and evolve the multi-stakeholder governance of the internet and digital technologies, we will need to have an appealing narrative, a narrative underpinned by commitments and actions that actually do, one, keep discussions on technical issues within the technical domain, two, bridge the digital divides without reinforcing existing inequalities, three, strengthen the protection of human rights worldwide, online and offline, four, govern emerging digital technologies in a responsible and rights-respecting manner, while making the existing multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance more inclusive. This is no way an easy task. But we as the Netherlands and the broader Freedom Online Coalition believe that these commitments resonate around the world and are the best way to work towards a digital future for all of us. The 20-year review of WSIS is around the corner. And it will be up to us to ensure that it will continue to steer global digital cooperation and governance together with the implementation of the GDC. I hope the forum session will not only address those issues that are close to our hearts, but we want to defend human rights online, multistakeholder governance, and the IGF itself, but also those issues that need to evolve to ensure that the implementation of the GDC and the WSIS process remain fit for purpose also in 2025. While I have full confidence in Estonia, in my chair of the FOC, it does set me to that today is the very last event that we are organizing as a chair of the Freedom Online Coalition. Nikki of the USA, most of you know her, asked me last night what the most memorable event for me was during our FOC chairship. As this is our last event, I hope this will be the one. So without putting any pressure on all of you, I wish you all a very fruitful and inspirational discussion. Thank you very much. And back to Jakob Pepijn.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you very much, Mr. Norman, for your opening remark. We will now have a round through the panelists, through the different speakers. Each panelist will have about five minutes to answer a question related to their role in the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance. And after that, we will have time for questions from the audience, followed by closing remarks from all the speakers. So without further ado, and also because Mr. Filippo from the Secretary General’s office, from the Office of the Tech Envoy, has to leave, unfortunately, already in half an hour, I will give the floor first to him. And Filippo, the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, so to ensure that it and other relevant processes maintain and are in alignment with international human rights law.

Filippo Pierozzi: Thanks, Jakob. And I would like also to acknowledge the statement from Ambassador Norman, and especially on the role of the Global Digital Compact, the role of IGF. I mean, I guess all of you would agree that if IGF didn’t exist, we would need to invent something like this. And this is also still a landing point of the Global Digital Compact, where most member states and all stakeholders found an agreement that the role of IGF and its convening role should be strengthened. Rather than weaken it, we count, I acknowledge also Director General Lumi, we count on the Freedom Online Coalition to work in this coalition building when it comes to the role of this multi-stakeholder forum. Now, the Global Digital Compact, and sorry, my body language, I’m trying to be in an open forum, trying to be as open as possible, and not turn my back on anyone. The Global Digital Compact is refreshing the agreement that member states found in 2005 with the Tunis Agenda, the principles, and introduces some areas that are new. It’s comprehensive. It’s comprehensive and has multi-stakeholder at the center. And most of you and several member states and even stakeholders ask me, hold on, that is an intergovernmental process. How can it be multi-stakeholder? And that is the tricky answer, the tricky question that we’ll need to answer. Because yes, the Global Digital Compact, as much as we exist, it’s an intergovernmental process. So something that I would like to see moving forward in both processes is to see a concerted effort from our side, from the United Nations, from member states to be as inclusive as possible from stakeholders. Again, even the concept of human rights that is the very core of this conversation developed and evolved. And as, again, Ambassador Norman said, it’s based on the sustainable development goals and human rights. If you’re going back to the Geneva Declaration of Principles of 2003, the concept of human rights was mostly anchored to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its freedom of expression. 20 years later, when we are in the digital space, we know that human rights is way more than just… freedom of expression. So ideally we want to work together with all stakeholders and start implementing the Global Digital Compact not in one year time, not in two years time, but right now. There are provisions that broaden the understanding of what human rights are. There is a section that is objective three of the Global Digital Compact that has a strong cluster of human rights and there are commitments from member states, there are calls for the private sector that is here represented at this table and it would be very good to hear from them how they plan of acting even further on new… is already undertaking. There is the digital advisory service run by the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights and that we hope it will be another tool to sharpen the accountability of the private sector and of member states when it comes to respecting human rights online. Coming back on how we can do this in a multi-stakeholder way, a provision in the Global Digital Compact is to have a call for endorsement and you might have heard me saying this over and over again versus a time or two days ago. Endorsement, yes or no. It’s an online form, stakeholders can tell the UN Secretariat what they are doing or what they plan to do to implement the Global Digital Compact and any reference in there to what you have been doing over the last 20 years in connection to WSIS are most welcome and there is again an option to endorse. We do understand that for some civil society organizations sometimes endorsing can be a tough undertaking so that’s why we wanted to give the option of just specifying the areas of action. The Secretary General will publish a report on the implementation map and this will constitute the way forward and will run in parallel to the WSIS process. Where did I have to dash to the airport and trying to, not to prevent, but maybe to address one of the FAQs that we are getting on how these two processes can go together and this is just my personal take having been in the GDC negotiation and consultations since day one. I don’t see this as two different roads that diverge but rather as a stack. WSIS is fit for purpose if we make it fit for purpose. The action lines encompass a lot of the areas that are in the Global Digital Compact but not all of them and vice versa. Ideally you will have the implementation of the Global Digital Compact strengthening and adding to what is already in WSIS because again times are changing and we hope that with over the coming months engaging in Geneva with the WSIS plus 20 consults, co-facilitators for the process will be appointed by the end of March in New York by the President of the General Assembly and with the Global Digital Compact implementation process. And again to all of you around this table it is very, very important to hear from you on what you would like to see in the implementation of the Global Digital Compact because again multi-stakeholder processes they don’t happen by themselves. We as the UN Tech Envoy office and as the UN we are committed to keep it as multi-stakeholder as possible and to preserve that dimension but we really need to hear from all of you and with this Jaco back to you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you so much Filippo and thank you for especially for elaborating on the Global Digital Compact laying out what it entails exactly also in terms of human rights and on how the implementation of the Global Digital Compact also can be nurtured and can be especially also endorsed or how the role of stakeholders in its implementation and upon that last point especially on the WSIS and the GDC relationship because I think that’s a question that many of us have and that we are all thinking about how we can best ensure that there is no duplication on that side and that we are not only reviewing text but actually implement it. So thank you Filippo and without further ado I will give the floor to Rasmus Lumi the Director General of the Department of International Organizations and Human Rights and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia and who is also going to be the Chair of the Freedom Online Coalition in 2025. Rasmus, what role can the FOC and individual governments play in the implementation of the Global Digital Compact and how can we ensure, how can governments ensure together with the stakeholders of course to make sure that the GDC and the relevant implementation of the GDC and the different aspects of that and the WSIS plus 20 are in alignment with the international human rights law.

Rasmus Lumi: Maybe, okay good. So thank you very much and first of all I should be thankful to Ambassador Norman for his kind keynote although I’m now a bit much pressure on Estonia that I don’t know how to respond to that. So thank you very much. Now if you’ll allow me in the very beginning I would like to concentrate a bit also on the issue of multi-stakeholderism and the importance of it in the upcoming processes but then definitely will also say a few words about the possible FOC role. As a government representative it’s to note that for us fostering the multi-stakeholder approach is extremely important and we too have been looking with concern into the situation that many discussions have been varying towards multilateralism and not so much multi-stakeholderism but we will have to see what we can do about it. So looking back of course in the last 10 years tech governance has changed quite a bit and the recent GDC negotiations have gained prominence and at the same time become much more contested and meanwhile the UN ecosystem has grown much more complex and there is an increasing number of agencies competing for their role in different technology-related mandates and also now that the new UN tech office is entering the fora it will be even more complicated to figure out what is the best way of moving forward. But despite all this complexity we have learned during many years that everything about it has to be a multi-stakeholder effort in order for it to be more successful and more inclusive. There should be absolutely no one single country or entity who is controlling the internet and we can see it very well at the national level where one government is in control of the internet structures then in the form of internet shutdown this is something that is happening in the world quite often and in our future endeavors we should definitely avoid this happening on a global scale. We also know that there is no way to have a comprehensive approach when some stakeholders are excluded from the discussions and especially those stakeholders who are in other ways. So ultimately if we don’t have a sufficiently inclusive approach the outcome will be worse for everybody especially of course the people. And there is plenty of room for improvement since we have millions and even billions of people still without proper access to the internet. But this is again something that the governments must not and should not do alone but the global community should support this and also play a part. Now the digital governance as opposed to the internet governance is of course a much broader topic with wider scope and focus where we include e-governance, cyber security, digital inclusion, artificial intelligence and so on. But just like internet governance we cannot and must be very important that even in digital governance each stakeholder plays its role and not only for the sake of inclusion but also because they have specific competencies and then they could use them to play their part in those discussions. And since the digital society is an ecosystem and not an institution we should not forget that when we also talk about implementation of the GDC. Now as I said in the beginning during the GDC negotiations also we felt a shift towards a multilateral approach and this is proving how and why we need to continue showcasing the benefits and support of other stakeholder. This is a great example of this being such a global policy dialogue and bringing all the stakeholders together from technologists to the governments to civil society. And therefore as we approach the WSIS plus 20 process and discuss the implementation of the GDC we must adopt a strong common approach to ensure the protection of internet’s decentralized model. Regarding digital governance we must prioritize the inclusive governance and policy making that takes into account and respects human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Count the governance system we already have created and how to use it to its full potential instead of creating new mechanisms that might duplicate already existing formats. And with regard now to the role of the FOC and individual governments I will just mention that in Estonia’s experience technology generally is a very powerful tool. accompanied by proper change management, which is very important. And we have to focus on how to transform the societies as a whole, with the help of technologies. Now, in the FOC, as a coalition of like-minded, we can message, and the FOC states can and will protect this principle, across different forums. As advocacy, as you know, is the FOC’s strongest tool. And another, and finally I will mention that another important aspect is capacity building. This is one of the priorities for the Estonian chairship in the FOC, and we will definitely continue our efforts in this regard. Often there is confusion and sometimes even resistance how exactly human rights can be followed and implemented when using and developing technologies. So, and by capacity building, it’s very important. And the OHCHR has a crucial role to play in this, which the GDC also affirmed. So, the FOC, as well as individual governments, will have to continue supporting the OHCHR and its work. And it also means that we have to continue doing it financially. So I will leave it to that for now, and maybe come back later after some questions. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you very much, Rasmus. And yeah, especially thank you also for mentioning the complexities, because indeed, digital governance, internet governance are very complex fields. But I think you would agree with me that if we underline that including as many stakeholders as possible in the conversation is not something that makes it more complex, but actually helps us engage with the complexities of the governance and of the technical and governmental issues. Governmental, yeah, the governing challenges which is emerging technologies and the internet. And especially also change management, which you mentioned. You mentioned it, of course, in the context of digital transformation, but I also think that for the WSIS plus 20 review, we need to develop together a very strong and agile change management for the WSIS. So, having said that, we will turn to Anja Jengel from the IGF Secretariat. I’m glad you could make it. How can forums and spaces like the Internet Governance Forum continue to serve as an inclusive space for dialogue amidst changes in the global digital ecosystem? Anja, I will give you the mic too.

Anja Gengo: Thank you. Thank you very much, Jaakko and Riad. Thank you for being patient and waiting for me. The Secretariat is extremely busy on the first and last day, especially of the IGF. But it’s a great honor for us to join the Freedom Online Coalition in this setup in Riad. We have been cooperating, collaborating particularly over the past two years very closely. And I use this opportunity to recognize the excellent work that the Coalition has been doing, especially during the consultations on the Global Digital Compact leading toward its adoption. And I use the opportunity as well on behalf of the Secretariat to congratulate the Chair, Ambassador Norman, on… …wonderful, and we welcome certainly working closely with Estonia and new leadership in the months to come. That is indeed a very important question. The IGF, as you know, has been convened in 2006 by the Secretary General as a neutral platform that will allow for facilitation of multi-stakeholder dialogue on issues pertaining to public digital policy. Indeed, some of the terms that especially in the recent times are present in our discourse, such as Internet governance and digital governance, what is the difference? It is an interesting debate. But essentially, I think nothing is better to tell us in terms of description of the digital public policy issues than people. And through the IGF, we really see, because of its bottom-up nature and, of course, multi-stakeholder approach, that people really see digital technologies as something that’s more and more integrated in their lives. And therefore, speaking indeed about one entity, one… …is really impossible now. It’s part of our lives, and it’s deeply integrated in all spheres. Therefore, including at the UN system, various institutions can now not even avoid not to deal with the digital, because it’s just there in every sphere of our lives and of our dynamics. If we look back in the past now 19 years of the IGF, things have been changing, and as digital technologies have been evolving, so has the IGF. I always like to start from the numbers, a nice indicator of the success or maybe of an alarm where we need to do more. And, you know, always these WSIS Plus 20 preparations are reminding me of my beginnings with the IGF, which was around WSIS Plus 10, when the IGF was hosted by the government of Brazil. And in Brazil, we could speak about certainly less than 1,000 stakeholders that were participating in Joao Pessoa’s annual meeting, coming from around 120, 22 different member states. The numbers in the past changed, I would say, in favor of all those who are diligently standing to protect the multi-stakeholder approach to Internet, which is, for example, that in Kyoto last year, we could speak about triple participation than 10 years ago, so more than 9,000 stakeholders participated from around 178 member states. That’s a significant increase in just a 10-year period. And that also tells us that the multi-stakeholder approach is being endorsed or adopted or visible in other various parts of the world. Another indicator, which I think is a mere fact of the endorsement of the multi-stakeholder approach through the IGF model, is the growing number of the local IGFs, national, regional, sub-regional and youth IGFs. So, for example, during the WSIS Plus 10, the Secretary has been reporting to the community that we work with about 50, less than 50, NRIs. They were really proud to say that we work with a very firm, robust, stable network of 178 national, regional, sub-regional and youth IGFs. And just to tell the number, but the community tripled the number of the IGF models that are deployed at the local level through the multi-stakeholder approach. So those are, for example, some of the indicators of the success. The IGF as a platform, and I certainly can speak for the Secretariat, continues to serve people around the world and continues to react on the demand that comes from the people. That’s why the agenda every year is changing, basically being reflective of the demand that’s coming from stakeholders from around the world through the public consultations. As the digital technologies are changing, as, for example, the artificial intelligence is becoming more and more prominent, or more and more part of us, so is the agenda or the program of the IGF annually speaking. Since 2016, there’s been a significant shift. Topics that were dominating the agenda by that time, such as cybersecurity, safety online, access and connectivity, have slowly been pushed a little bit on the maybe second place by the topics related to new and emerging technologies, especially artificial intelligence, just because it’s bringing a new wave of challenges to us and it’s bringing an additional layer of responsibilities in front of the multistakeholder community to respond how to govern this very important piece of technology that is more and more accessible. I would say those are the indicators, and I think in terms of the IGF, we will certainly see how the WSIS Plus 20 and the whole preparatory process will behave, but the Secretariat remains committed to its community to listen what is the demand, and then to respond within its capacity to the best of its ability to adjust the process so that it’s reflective of the needs and hopefully to help us resolve the issues that have been identified by the community for having a sustainable development overall. Thank you very much.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Aymar. Thank you for your remarks. And if I may try to summarize them, I think you wanted to emphasize mostly that the IGF, throughout its existence, has been, the character of the IGF has been very much bottom-up and flexible to make sure that it can actually stand the test of time and continue to evolve together with the technical, social, political, all the developments that are ongoing. And I think that’s also something that we want to retain. So thank you very much for that. And then we’ll move to the private sector because we have different stakeholders around the table. So we will move to the private sector now. To Emila Adladi, Global Head of Stakeholder Engagement from META. Emila, given the critical role of online platforms in the private sector in guiding global digital cooperation, how can industry contribute to the realization of a rights-perspective and inclusive digital future while ensuring accountability? And what does this look like in practice?

Emilar Gandhi: Thank you so much for… It’s weird when you hear yourself. Thank you so much for that question. So tough, the end of the IGF, after four or five days of conversations, but, yeah, I think that, you know, as private sector, we have a huge role to play. And META has taken several steps or several initiatives to ensure that we contribute to rights-respecting in the future. And some of it actually aligns with what the Director General said and what, you know, my colleague also mentioned. I think I’ll take a step back… a little bit and say, for us, our approach is stemmed from our goals or our mission as a company is embedded in how we actually approach human rights and how we build our products and how we build our policies. So by that, I mean, it’s good and nice to be here, for us to be able to share the tales. But if our foundation is not strong, then we might as well just be theorizing everything that we are saying here. So for us, it’s part of our mission. It’s part of how we approach inclusivity and how we approach human rights. And by that, I mean, in terms of our hiring, in terms of ensuring that we have people in our teams that actually also represent the people who are using our platforms. As most of you know, over 90% of the people that use our platforms are outside of the US and Canada. Of course, our staff is not at our levels, but ensuring that people who are working on these issues, particularly in terms of policy, have the lived experiences, can speak the languages and can engage and do outreach as we need. We also have a human rights policy team that actually experts on these issues. So that’s one. So having a mission that is actually, it’s inclusivity and inclusion at the heart of everything that we do. Secondly, multi-stakeholder engagements. We are here to be part of this conversation, one, at the Internet Governance Forum, but also in the FOC as a META member. I was a co-chair of the FOC Advisory Network for about three years. I think it’s an important platform in Estonia, as you take on the chairship. But it’s also a place where you have civil society, you have governments having conversations. I think that’s very, very important because you just do not want partners who tap you on the back to say you’re doing well, but also who will make sure that you are accountable. The third thing that I would also mention is our human rights corporate policy that we launched in 2020, which is, for us, groundbreaking. But also, it’s not just a policy that we say, now we have it, let’s tick a box. Within that framework, we are ensuring that we are training our employees internally for them to be aware of human rights principles, for our employees to be aware, not only to be trained, but also aware of the human rights principles as they build products and as they build policies as well. We also do regular human rights due diligence assessments to identify and mitigate as well. And the third thing that I’ll mention is, the fourth one is stakeholder engagement, and then I’ll pass on the mic. With regards to stakeholder engagement, I think this actually contributes to how inclusive our policies and products are. Every time we write our community standards, we engage externally. But I think that sounds nice on paper, but how we do it is ensuring that we identify not only people that identify themselves as experts, but also people with lived experiences. We go beyond just geographical, but we also look at cultural inclusion. Who has the cultural competence to ensure that they can engage with these issues? But also, I want to reference what the Director General also mentioned around, you know, some people not having access. So you might, and access, I mean infrastructure and also content access. So even if you are reaching out to someone because you want to be inclusive, but do they even have internet access to engage with you? Is engaging virtually something that’s, you know, is that the right format of engaging? Or should you ensure that you meet them where they are at? Content access, can they actually meaningfully engage in the issue that is at hand? Because for the engagement and for the stakeholder engagement to be inclusive and to be meaningful, then we have to also invest in ensuring that we build the capacity of the people that actually talk to us to ensure that we improve our policies. Otherwise, then it’s not inclusive at all. The transparency, which we can talk about later on once we’ve done all of this. But if we are not sharing about our decision making, who we engaged with, we have the transparency center where you can actually see the changes that go through our policies. Everything is there. But I think one criticism will be who has the time to go through that transparency center. And I think I’m sure we have so much more work to do to ensure that it’s not just there, but also it can be used as a mechanism for accountability.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, and thank you for being very comprehensive and explaining that I was working to actually holistically approach this issue with all the stakeholders and also touching upon your role in the advocacy advisory network, which of course, also, yeah, I’m going to repeat this many times, but the advisory network is also, especially because we want to include the stakeholders in our work as a free online We’ll go to the next question, which is the same question, both for Savannas and Boja. So, first, let’s refer to Savannas Pashithia, the executive director of TechGlobal Initiative and also a member of the advocacy advisory network. Savannas, how can stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, international organizations, and civil society work in collaboration with civil society to ensure that the voices of the global majority and marginalized groups are being engaged in both shaping and implementing global digital governance frameworks, like the UN Global Digital Conflict and the WSIS plus 20 review, taking into account the unique challenges of digital like the UN Global Digital Conflict and the WSIS plus 20 review, taking into account the unique challenges and local context in different regions.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, everyone, for having us here. So, at TechGlobal Institute, we primarily focus on getting the global majority stakeholders of the private sector, civil society, marginalized communities, refugees into the conversation around what does the internet mean to them and how do we govern it better. And I think it’s quite fundamental to us that when we see the differences, not only between the global north and the global majority, but also even within the global majority, there’s a number of different equities that are at play. For example, we have gender inequalities that continue to be persistent, even in rooms when there is multi-stakeholderism happening, we oftentimes see there’s more men or we see certain groups having a more majority role in these conversations than many of the other groups. So, I think to ensure that we have a truly multi-stakeholder model, I think we have to first acknowledge the fact that the multi-stakeholder model, while it is all well and good and has been the bedrock of internet governance for the last 20 years, is not perfect and that there are many power asymmetries that exist within the multi-stakeholder model itself, which has made many communities across the global majority particularly feel disenfranchised and excluded. And this is not just the communities that don’t have access to the internet as it is, but also communities that don’t have access to these kinds of spaces, whether it’s because of financial capital, because of knowledge, because of networks, there’s a number of different power asymmetries at play. I think it’s very important to acknowledge that. The director-general from Estonia has also alluded to, is really around even when communities are connected, sometimes because of shutdowns, they become disconnected and again, they’re left out of the conversation. So, there’s different layers to that and I think for us to really preserve the multi-stakeholder model and to be able to ensure that it works for the global majority and for people around the world, it is really important to start interrogating some aspects of the multi-stakeholder model to ensure that it is responding to the needs of the people on the ground. I think the second is really on the capacity piece. Even when we are in these kinds of spaces, and I think that’s where the technical community, the private sector, governments have a tremendous role to play in terms of how do we ensure that when groups have access to international spaces, are sitting on these tables, they’re active. In the last one year, we’ve seen that with the GDC and a number of other processes, it’s actually quite extraordinary the amount of things happening and it’s a lot to keep track of. And if you are a under-resourced suicide organization in the global majority, where you have existential crisis around not just the internet and being online and surviving online, but also in terms of food security, climate change, political geopolitics, there’s so many things at play and in that kind of environment, keeping track of what’s happening in New York and Geneva is really, really difficult. And so I think to be able to, again, make the multi-stakeholder model work, it’s really important to invest quite deliberately in capacity of communities from the very sort of grassroots up to the very… You heard from the IGF Secretary about the NRIs, and oftentimes in the last sort of 20 years, we’ve also seen that while NRIs are great in terms of engaging local communities, oftentimes they also are not sufficiently multi-stakeholder. They oftentimes become politicized or they end up only capturing the majority of voices that women are left behind. That has been at least my experience in my NRI. And so I think to ensure that if we want multi-stakeholderism to really work for the global majority, that there is a downstream effect along the way. We are very deliberate about, one, building that capacity, two, creating intentional spaces. And then three, are designing those spaces in a way where different voices have equal rights and equal say and are able to contribute to what they want on how the internet to be. And I think that lived experience that I think also, that Medha also mentioned is really critical. I think the last piece I’m gonna say is just in terms of ensuring a multilingual internet. I think that’s quite important in terms of that. And that’s a huge contribution of both the technical community as well as the private sector, that if the internet, and I think Medha also talked about the fact that 90% of the web is used, but if you see the websites on the world of the internet, it’s majority English. And that is also a huge problem in terms of access and the kind of content we’re designing and having the communities properly represented online. But at the same time, we also have to remember that now that with AI and other kinds of technologies, building a multilingual internet should not mean that we expect indigenous communities to contribute data for free. And so there’s also that power dynamic that we have to be quite cognizant of. So I hope that as we think about the implementation of the GDC and how the member states intentional about how we’re also thinking about the multi-stakeholder model, about inclusion, about space building, and about the inherent power asymmetries that are not unique to the multi-stakeholder model, that is structural asymmetries that exist. But I think we have a real opportunity as a community that to be able to build those spaces in a way so that everybody has an equal footing and an equal say and has an equal stake in these conversations. Because the internet, from where I come from, the internet is the world. And without its access, I think we fundamentally get cut off from the world. And so there is a very real stake here. And I hope as we are thinking about, as all these various stakeholders are thinking about it, that space building. Thank you.

Adeboye Adegoke: Hello, okay. Yeah, thanks. Excuse me. Thank you very much for the question and for the opportunity to contribute this conversation. My name is Adibwe Adigoke and I work for an organization called Paradigm Initiative. We work in Africa and we represent the global south community as well. I think the issue around stakeholderism within the context of global processes such as the WSIS and the GDC is a conversation that has been blocked, if not overflowed. And I think we are at the point where we need to come up with some tangible recommendations in terms of how to proceed in this conversation. I think one of the concerns that have been discussed is around the role of the IGF, for example, in implementation of the GDC, for example, whether the IGF represent a veritable platform to achieve that objective, or whether other options are to, I mean, the IGF has been that IGF is not known to be the platform that leads to actionable outcomes or tangible outcomes, which is a valid argument. But I would also argue that if it is not, if it doesn’t lead to actionable outcomes, who is to blame? Why is it so? It doesn’t lead to actionable outcome because it is not set up to lead to actionable outcome and we will make it to lead to actionable outcome if not the UN, if not the countries. We will decide to make it what it is right now. So I do think that if we do, if good reason, the reason why a lot of civil society organizations have bias for the IGF process is that it’s probably one of the few processes where civil society voices are at least visible. I mean, the point has been made about how invisible non-state actors were in the GDC negotiation, for example. So I do think that it is not enough to say the IGF doesn’t lead to actionable outcome. It’s about if we believe in multistakeholderism and if we think that IGF reflects multistakeholderism, then I think the question that should be on the table is how do we strengthen the IGF to be able to achieve or to lead to actionable outcomes? But I also think that one issue around multistakeholderism, especially from the global perspective, is that I do think that it’s about paying the deep service over the years and it has not helped us to really advance. My colleague was talking about a lot of dimensions of around marginalized voices, male, female, no dynamics and all of that. And I remember being in a room, in a panel where the moderator was introducing panelists and after he had introduced four men, he said, oh, we are gender conscious, so we also introduce a woman to join the panel. And I said, what happens a lot in a lot of processes whereby the issues that people complain about, multistakeholderism, gender balance, our response to it is tokenistic. We are not really interested in addressing the issue. And I think that is also the same thing with multistakeholderism. A lot of platform we set up to achieve multistakeholder objective are set up as a tokenistic response to the complaints. If we are more genuine about how to achieve it, I believe that we have what it takes to achieve it. And I’ll quickly, before I end, rather, some of the efforts or some of the initiatives that can help us to achieve multistakeholder outcomes. I do think that one of the challenges that multistakeholder process has is that it is not just enough that you don’t have diverse stakeholders in the room. It’s also because you don’t have equal capacity by diverse stakeholders. So even when you manage to get diverse stakeholders into the room, they cannot negotiate or discuss at the same level because they don’t have the capacity. I work for an organization that I think we are a bit privileged, coming from civil society, we’re a bit privileged to be part of organizations that do the kind of work that we do, don’t have. But I also think that what we also need to do at the multilateral level is that where we have opportunities to engage with organizations such as ours, it is not just about getting us in the room. It’s also about using us as a link between the government, between the multilateral processes and the diverse communities that we serve. So we don’t just want to be there and feel among. We want to be there knowing that we represent a whole lot of communities of people using our voice to make their opinions heard at the global stage. So I know I’ve been bashing multilateral, I’ve been bashing the UN. Now, this is also an advice to a few of us that get the chance to speak in rooms like this, to also recognize that we are not here to advance ourself. We are also here to represent the community. And we need to also create a process back home whereby we create engagement platforms where we can let the community know what kind of conversation is happening at the multilateral level, let them know how they can contribute to it. And so that when we show up here, we are not just discussing our opinion, we are discussing what our communities want us to talk about. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Boya, and thank you, Sabanas. Thank you very much for your remarks. I think they were especially very useful because you try to connect the local with the global level and try to especially also bring this input from the local level into the conversation, even though we have some conversations that are multilateral and maybe a bit more closed. While we are trying to open them up, we are also trying to create more opportunities and to create more momentum. Most are with a broad range of stakeholders at the IGF, but also outside of it. And I think that’s an example that many others could also follow. Without further ado, I will move to the last question to the panelists. It’s also a question for two of our speakers. So we’ll first introduce them and then mention the question. We have Olaf Kolkman, Executive Level Advisor and Spokesperson, and I think also Principal from the Internet Society and from the technical community. And we have Fiona Alexander here from the American University, who is also a member from the academia. And then to the question, building on what Boya and Shabana just mentioned also, how can we ensure that digital governance is not only inclusive, but also underpinned by the necessary technical expertise, leveraging the knowledge and expertise of the technical community and academia, and the lessons learned from previous processes, such as the WSIS Plus 10, but perhaps also the WSIS, the original WSIS process and the Tunis process that we had there. Olaf, I will give the floor for you.

Olaf Kolfman: I’m going to start with, I promised myself not to mention AI during this whole week, but I failed. If you train a large language model and you provide it with incomplete input, it will start to hallucinate. And I think that the multi-stakeholder mechanisms, if you do not provide all the inputs that you have at the table, the inputs that you have at the table, the output of the process will be a hallucination. Therefore, we need everybody at the table, including the technical community, which will help to produce an outcome that suits reality, so to speak, that is achievable. But also, of course, the other stakeholders, so that we’re not hallucinating about rights and about social justice issues. As a, I’m not going to call myself a representative of the technical community. I am somebody who has a technical community background. I’ve been contributing to the development of the internet for two and a half decades. I can only speak for my own organization, and there are many technical community organizations out there. First, I want to come back to, we heard how the GDC was developed, and we’ve heard that multi-stakeholderism is front and central as an output of it. However, the process itself was not a leading by example type of process with respect to multi-stakeholderism. And therefore, the question whether the GDC was a leading by example type of process with respect to multi-stakeholderism is not a leading by example type of process. And therefore, the question whether the GDC was a leading by example type of process is not a leading by example type of process. And therefore, the question whether the process or the outcome should be endorsed is one that we at least at the Internet Society answer is no, we will not endorse it. We were not part of this process. We were looking in through opaque windows and sort of guessing what was happening. At some point there was a consultation, but consultation is not multi-stakeholder engagement. It’s not a discussion. It’s not sharing what you’ve learned and improving on that outcome. And of course we understand that in a multilateral environment such as the U.N. at some points the doors close and decisions are being made, but those should be moment, not at draft one, two or whatever the draft number was. We like the outcome of the paper, the principle, the vision, and the objectives that the GDC defines and as the Internet Society again, I cannot talk for the whole community, we at least will be working towards some of these objectives, including making sure that the last people it is and probably more still are going to be connected to the Internet because that’s the basis of being able to reap the benefits of the Internet. And there again multi-stakeholderism is important because the initiatives that connect the people in the most difficult places are initiatives that are sort of local, local initiatives, community networks, innovative solutions that people build on the ground together with stakeholders that are technical and stakeholders that are interest groups, actual stakeholders. And I think that the role that the IGF structure from local to national to regional to global plays a role there. The IGF in that sense works as a norm and entrepreneur bubble up. They gain maybe formal, maybe informal consensus at the highest level and then trickle down again so that people can act locally while thinking globally. So I think that that is, for me, that is what multi-stakeholderism embodies. With respect to the role of the technical community, I have to say, and now I’m saying we, we speak a different language too. And we as technical community can, because we speak a different language, we use different acronyms than the people that are engaged with traditional governance issues. And that makes things difficult. You don’t land a technologist in this forum and accept them to be able to navigate it. NRI doesn’t mean anything to them. But if you take a policymaker and you dump them in a technical environment, TCP doesn’t mean anything to them. And I think it’s very important to be conscious about that. One of the things that I do in the Context Engineering Task Force is that we help policymakers understand that environment. We do policy programs. We expose policymakers to those groups. The ITF itself brings different communities into it to discuss issues that are relevant for society. We have a human rights and protocol research group in which we discuss those things. That doesn’t make the ITF from the global south and the global majority and doesn’t make it easy to contribute, but it is still an open forum in which people can contribute it should they have the capacity and resources, which that organization can unfortunately not offer. I know I am meandering around a few topics here, but I think that is sort of the gist of it. To get together, only then we can solve complex issues. And the technology is often an aspect of that complexity. So you need the technologists in the room. When we do that, we need to have a conscious and purposeful way of engaging. That goes two ways. And the IGF, I think, is a good forum where we exchange ideas and bring things back home so that we can implement them. Those were the three things. Thank you, Jaco.

Fiona Alexander: Apparently, I was clocked in earlier as being the fastest speaker at the IGF on Monday. So I will try to actually be much slower today. But who knows? I’m naturally a fast talker. So let me know if I get back up to that high speed again. Thanks for the invitation. It’s good. I’m happy to be here and talk about sort of this important topic. And I was sort of struck by not just the questions, but the interventions that everyone else has made. And it’s kind of the nice problem of being the last person. You get to kind of pull from what everyone else has said. So I’ll try to do that with what I’m doing as well. But the question is, how do you actually make sure that the conversations are underpinned by all the right expertise? And the only way you do that is by letting people in the room and giving them the capacity to be a meaningful peer. And as I reflect on the last year and all the work the FOC has done on things led by the ambassador and others, and what the AN has done, what I see from the New York processes this year is two processes that touched on digital issues that point to the limits and the inability of the New York UN processes to actually involve people. So not only do we have the experience of the Global Digital Compact, which several folks have talked about, we also had the experience of the UN Cybercrime Convention, where actually stakeholders were actually allowed, theoretically, to be in the room and give advice, and then were ignored for two years. So my takeaway from this past year’s experience is that the New York processes, by design and by structure, are limited in their way to involve stakeholders. And I don’t see a meaningful way to change that. I will keep saying it should change, and I will keep pushing for it to change. But the reality is those structures and systems are inherently set up not to allow that. So the way to address that going forward is to make sure FOC countries keep coordinating, make sure AN members are part of that process, FOC member states allowing other folks on their delegations, perhaps, kind of helps can address some of that. But the other, my takeaway, is that when I actually look at the final output of the GDC and I read it carefully, and I’ve been doing this work for 25 years. I was in the U.S. government for about 20 years before doing what I do now for the last five. They’re very new. Almost nothing, actually, as I read it and think about all the other things I’ve been involved in negotiating in the last 25 years. There’s a new conversation on data governance that the CSTD is doing, and luckily the CSTD actually has processes to involve people. So that’s actually a great win, I think, for us. And then there’s a new AI panel, which I’m still not sure what it’s for. But otherwise, there’s not much in the GDC that’s new. And when we talk about GDC implementation, I would offer, I think the GDC implementation is well underway, because the GDC is just reinforcing what we’re all already doing. And so while I think the conversations next year in New York are important, and clearly the resolution that will be adopted likely in December of next year about WSIS renewal and WSIS plus 20 will be pivotal, the conversation around that will inherently be intergovernmental. It will be the last quarter of next year, probably. So that means five months of next year. And I think the emphasis that we should collectively consider taking on is looking at our local and national processes. And I’m struck when Anya mentioned 178 national and regional IGFs now. And for those that weren’t involved in the beginning, the impetus for the national and regional IGFs happened because the UK stakeholders went home after the first IGF in Greece and said, oh, we should do one of these at home. There was nothing in the global IGF that said go forth and do this. There was nothing that anybody said you should do this. It was people from the UK, I don’t know, at some point. And they came back and they said, we should do this in our country. And that then spurred everybody else to take this on and do that around. And now 20 years later, you have 178 NRIs, local, national, regional, youth, whatever it may be. And that’s a pretty inspiring thing to think about. And 20 years later, we got to that. And, again, this gets back to my suggestion for going forward, which is, yes, we have to engage in New York and monitor in the way that we can. But GDC implementation is not something that needs to start. It’s already happened or is ongoing. And I think if we start thinking of it that way, then we can go back to focusing on what’s actually important, which is how do we actually involve and participate and solve these problems where we have structures to participate. When I think back to 20 years ago and even looking at the ITU or UNESCO, those groups were not particularly open and inclusive. And I’m not suggesting that they’re perfect now, but they’ve made great strides. So I think that the operating agencies of the UN, the executing agencies of the UN, whether it’s an IGF, which I would include in that, or whether it’s a WSIS forum, or whether it’s a UNESCO, or whether it’s an ITU, whether it’s these other IGFs that are outside the process, whether it’s an ICANN or an IETF, those processes all have mechanisms and those processes are making best efforts. So I think it’s time for us to go back and engaging in doing those things, not in a performative way, as you suggested in some cases, but actually undertaking that. And that’s where I think we need to shift our focus. Because I think the New York exercise and processes of this year have just reinforced for me that the New York processes aren’t going to ever solve our problems, because by design they’re going to be multilateral. We can keep pushing, we can keep demanding access, and we can keep working with FOC and other partner governments to make things better, but I think we’re going to hit a wall repeatedly over and over. And I really think that we need to focus on the other parts of the ecosystem and the WSIS ecosystem as we know it. That’s kind of my takeaway from this week, especially as I listen to the OSET Secretariat attempt to answer questions – I’m sorry, the flipper’s already gone – about how they’re going to go forward, and they don’t know still. And I think that just speaks to the lack of – even if they wanted to – the lack of opportunity in a meaningful way.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Piona, and thank you, Olaf, for your comments. And I’m very glad that both the national and regional initiatives and the transmission control protocol have been mentioned now, so that we can put in our pocket. And I’m also actually glad that you mentioned New York versus local versus national, and I think when we are engaging with the WSIS process, but also broader internet governance, that would speak to sort of double engagement, where we both try to meaningfully engage with these processes that are in New York or in Geneva and that are more multilateral-based, and trying to ensure that these are not too detailed, but that they are creating an enabling environment for those more locally-based and nationally-based initiatives. Because we don’t need to have all the details in New York. We can have general principles, we can have more general language, but that language has to be enabling for all those other initiatives. And I think on the other hand, we have to make sure that we have to engage with our stakeholders at home and within our own smaller or bigger circles of influence. So we have a few more minutes. We have, I think, about eight minutes for questions, and then we’ll have another round for all the speakers to give their last takeaway in about one or two sentences. So let me see, do we have any questions in the room or online? No? Okay. Because there are two comments online, but I don’t know if they are. Okay. If we don’t have any questions in the room or online, I think that just means that we have more time for our panel. Oh, we do. Yeah. More comments than questions, but very useful. Yeah. If we don’t have any questions online or in the room, I think we are going to go to our speakers for their final words. And I’m going to have the same order as we did before, except that, of course, Philippe was left. One second. So that means we will go to Rasmus for your final remarks.

Rasmus Lumi: Okay. So thank you. Is that 30 seconds now or a bit more? Okay. Yeah. So just to comment on a few, just to say that I very much agree that a lot is happening here and there and everywhere, except for one thing. And that is that there is a lot going on. And just to say that I very much agree that a lot is happening here and there and everywhere, except for New York in terms of multi-stakeholderism. So I think you’re quite right that the mindset in New York is very multilateral. It is very difficult to have a different type of access there. So I think the way we have been working in the FOC and in other fora is the right way to go in order to actually be able to get some input into the government’s thinking in order for them to carry it over then to the discussions in New York. I also think that it is important to work a lot on the national level, because, well, as it is said, all foreign policy is also domestic. So it means that a lot can be done and have to be done on the national level so that the governments will then appear on the international arena already with the necessary input into the civil society and so on in what they have gotten from their own country. It is obvious that it is not the same for every country and it is not even possible in every country, but at least this is the approach that should be tried everywhere by trying to show the governments that where their interest may lie in being inclusive in these processes. I also wanted to agree very much with the point that actually I just omitted in the beginning to make it later that we, even as a government, we also encourage our other government members in their delegations wherever possible in these discussions in order to make it more easy to have the multi-stakeholder approach working on the international level. So very much agreed with this point. And then maybe finally just to say that we very well recognize as a government that multilateral formats are not sufficient to handle all those questions and cannot everything alone with regard to discussions related to Internet governance and digital technologies and therefore we do need an inclusive approach. And the question is what is the best way of achieving it and one here in the IGF, we can say that this is exactly why we believe that IGF needs to be strengthened. It’s very important to pay attention to this when the mandate renewal for the IGF will come to discussion and we very much support the stronger Internet governance forum and its bottom up way. This is why I also mentioned in the beginning that we should put in more effort in making those existing multi-stakeholder formats work instead of trying to create new ones that might make things more complex. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you Rasmus and I think you almost stuck to the 30 seconds.

Anja Gengo: Thank you very much. I certainly would like to say that I do understand that sometimes maybe there is a concern or even frustration that we are slower in terms of our good action and policy with respect to the rapid development of digital technologies. But I also think that we should not underestimate everything that has been done in the past 20 years because it’s really remarkable. And that is this whole ecosystem that we established of various concept of local IGFs just because it’s the closest to us and I think it’s much easier to see the change on the ground through the national IGFs rather than through a global IGF because of the complexity. For instance, we are now working with more resources and more mechanisms at our disposal. So that’s I think an encouraging factor. Where we need to focus our attention more, I completely agree with Fiona and other colleagues who mentioned, is really the capacity development. We are not anymore in this narrative where we have four stakeholder groups represented by numbers. We have to look at that in a more nuanced way through maybe a multidisciplinary lens. We have been seeing that through the IGFs. Our statistics are always very nice in that sense. You are exactly seeing from which countries, for example, we have lower participation, especially looking, for example, in the past 10 years. We are also seeing which disciplines are missing in this discourse, especially as the technologies are becoming so integrated that it’s not anymore exclusive, for example, to the car industry or health sector to be part of these discussions. It’s not much needed in these areas. So that’s what I think, that now evolving from multistakeholder to multidisciplinary, having all disciplines involved with us is very important. That’s why this IGF, for example, legislators, parliamentarians, but also very much put emphasis on working more with the private sector of various backgrounds and with the judiciary as courts, prosecutors, the court system overall, is coming up with decisions that are reflecting all of us, one way or another, and that’s why it’s important to have them understand, first of all, what are they deciding against before any wrong decisions are made, which have long-term consequences on our human rights, first of all. Thank you very much.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Anja, and I will give it straight to Emilio.

Emilar Gandhi: I think, really, a good conversation. So, for me, just in terms of closing remarks, the IGF is an important space, but also, more importantly, the FOC, I think, is really, really an important space for us, this private sector, and I’m sure civil society. I was in civil society before I participated in FOC, and it was really important then, as it is important now. not only I think for pushing diplomacy or inter-goals, but it’s also an important space where we can all sit around the table, not only for change, but for relationship building, for trust building, particularly from an industry perspective, I also think it’s important not only as a space for, you know, like right now, creating statements or from a substance perspective, but it’s also important as an example of an inclusive process. It’s important and I… Second. Oh, it’s dead, sorry. It’s on, okay. Sorry, the mic, yeah. But, you know, but also the FOC is important, I think as a process, you know, is an exemplary process that we can all learn from, and I hope there will still be continued support for the Secretariat, who are also, you know, a lot of the work behind the scenes to support all the work that FOC and the AN is doing, and that cannot happen, and we cannot talk about inclusion and digital future without actually putting resources where our mouth is, so I thank you to everyone.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Indra, I’ll give it straight to Helen for your closing remarks.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thank you, Jakob. Thank you all for your insightful interventions. I think for us, for the majority, I think there were two main takeaways from the last year. And I see this being reflected also in this particular conversation, one is really the power of local networks, and whether that is national or governmental communities, and really, I think, while we cannot always influence all the purposes in New York, like Fiona said, we do have tremendous structures and networks built on at the local level and at the national level, and I think there’s a real opportunity to be able to engage with those networks to then be able to then influence international processes. And I completely agree with Rasmus and Fiona in terms of decentralizing these conversations as much as possible, and ensuring that stakeholders at that level, whether it’s governments, their private sector, civil society, authorities, are able to participate in a meaningful way, and then bring it up to the international level. And the second is, as we were participating in the last couple of years, but also particularly the last year, I think the issue of capacity really came up, and I think we also alluded to it, that even when we have access to these spaces, there’s a gap in capacity, so then we are unable to negotiate the way we would like to, and not all of us come from countries and have governments who are willing to engage with civil society, and so we also have to engage in very different ways and using very creative ways. And so that capacity piece is really critical, so I hope as we get into the future, the next few years, particularly next year, there’s serious consideration about how we’re building capacity of various stakeholders, including governments, in the global majority, to be able to come to these forums with a collective bargaining power, because I think that’s what’s gonna make all the difference when we think about the future of the internet.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, and we have three speakers left and a few minutes only, so I’ll ask you to keep it brief.

Adeboye Adegoke: All right, thank you. I think it’s helpful that the point about capacity has been made over and over again, but I’ll just use the opportunity of the last remark to, again, spotlight the work of the FOC, because I think the FOC has served as some sort of buffer for filling the gap around multi-stakeholder involvement. I personally consider the FOC as a very strategic coalition that has provided a platform for, especially through the advisory network, for a lot of expertise that exists outside of government to engage in global processes. I am a beneficiary of that, for example, so I think that’s very important. So this is commendation for the FOC, and I trust that with the leadership of the government of Estonia, that will continue to be the case as well. So I also just think that strategic initiatives such as the FOC’s like that, we should also to know that they complete in buffering some of the gaps that we have identified during this conversation. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Borja, and to Olaf.

Olaf Kolfman: Much has been said. I would underline the need for a bottom-up involvement, and I saw a good example this week, our Tanzania chapter, the ISOC chapter in Tanzania, and to organize a WSIS PrEP meeting. And I think that is the type of initiative that we should see basically everywhere, local communities self-organizing, going to their government and basically prepping this stuff.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Olaf. And then we have our final speaker. Of course, some of us know that the last remarks are best remembered, so I think we’re all getting pressure on each other. So I’m going to let you do that.

Fiona Alexander: Slow and conscious of time and not too much pressure. I think just agreeing with all the closing remarks everyone else has said, let’s make that slow. And I would just encourage us as we go forward as FOC and FOCAN, we really think strategically for next year about how best to leverage the collaborative nature that we have. And I think at least from my perspective, I think there’s two big priorities for next year for WSIS 20, and that’s obviously the renewal of the IGF. But I think it’s really time that we try to focus on getting some sustained funding for the IGF so that the IGF is not strangers to give them the money and actually give them some real money in the budget. So I think those would be my two big priority items for WSIS 20 next year.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you very much. Thank you to our speakers. Thank you to our audience. And I wish you a very nice day. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach

Ernst Noorman

Filippo Pierozzi

Rasmus Lumi

Anja Gengo

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Fiona Alexander

Multi-stakeholder approach is crucial for addressing complex digital issues

GDC implementation should involve multi-stakeholder engagement

IGF serves as an inclusive space for dialogue on digital policy issues

Global majority voices need to be engaged in shaping governance frameworks

All speakers emphasized the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in addressing digital governance issues and implementing the Global Digital Compact.

Need for capacity building

Rasmus Lumi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Fiona Alexander

Capacity building is needed for stakeholders to engage effectively

FOC serves as a platform to build capacity and expertise

Sustained funding is needed to strengthen IGF’s capacity

Multiple speakers highlighted the importance of capacity building to enable effective participation in digital governance discussions, particularly for stakeholders from the global majority.

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers emphasized the importance of local and national processes in implementing digital governance principles and engaging stakeholders effectively.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Local and national processes are key for implementing GDC principles

Bottom-up involvement and local initiatives are important

These speakers highlighted the importance of aligning digital governance with human rights principles and ensuring diverse voices are included in shaping these frameworks.

Rasmus Lumi

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

FOC can play a role in GDC implementation aligned with human rights

Private sector has a role in contributing to rights-respecting digital future

Global majority voices need to be engaged in shaping governance frameworks

Unexpected Consensus

Limitations of UN processes in New York

Fiona Alexander

Rasmus Lumi

New York UN processes have limited ability to involve stakeholders meaningfully

There was an unexpected consensus on the limitations of UN processes in New York to meaningfully involve stakeholders, with both government and academic representatives acknowledging this challenge.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches, the need for capacity building, the significance of local and national processes, and the alignment of digital governance with human rights principles.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among speakers on the importance of inclusive and rights-respecting digital governance. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for collaborative efforts in implementing the Global Digital Compact and strengthening multi-stakeholder processes in digital governance.

Different Viewpoints

Effectiveness of New York UN processes in involving stakeholders

Filippo Pierozzi

Fiona Alexander

GDC implementation should involve multi-stakeholder engagement

New York UN processes have limited ability to involve stakeholders meaningfully

While Pierozzi emphasizes the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in GDC implementation, Alexander argues that New York UN processes are inherently limited in their ability to meaningfully involve stakeholders.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the effectiveness of UN processes in New York for stakeholder engagement and the best approaches for implementing the Global Digital Compact.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement and the need for inclusive digital governance. The differences mainly lie in the specific approaches and emphasis on different aspects of implementation. This suggests a general consensus on the overall goals, which could facilitate collaborative efforts in addressing digital governance challenges.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of implementing the GDC, but differ on the approach. Lumi emphasizes the role of FOC in implementation, while Alexander suggests implementation is already happening through existing initiatives.

Rasmus Lumi

Fiona Alexander

FOC can play a role in GDC implementation aligned with human rights

GDC implementation is already underway through existing initiatives

Both speakers recognize the importance of the IGF, but while Gengo focuses on its role as an inclusive dialogue space, Alexander emphasizes the need for sustained funding to strengthen its capacity.

Anja Gengo

Fiona Alexander

IGF serves as an inclusive space for dialogue on digital policy issues

Sustained funding is needed to strengthen IGF’s capacity

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers emphasized the importance of local and national processes in implementing digital governance principles and engaging stakeholders effectively.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Local and national processes are key for implementing GDC principles

Bottom-up involvement and local initiatives are important

These speakers highlighted the importance of aligning digital governance with human rights principles and ensuring diverse voices are included in shaping these frameworks.

Rasmus Lumi

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

FOC can play a role in GDC implementation aligned with human rights

Private sector has a role in contributing to rights-respecting digital future

Global majority voices need to be engaged in shaping governance frameworks

Key Takeaways

Multi-stakeholder engagement is crucial for effective and inclusive digital governance

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) implementation should involve diverse stakeholders

Local and national processes are key for implementing global digital governance principles

Capacity building is needed to enable meaningful participation from all stakeholders

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) serves as an important inclusive space for dialogue

New York-based UN processes have limitations in involving stakeholders meaningfully

Technical expertise is necessary to underpin digital governance discussions

Resolutions and Action Items

FOC to continue supporting multi-stakeholder engagement in digital governance

Stakeholders encouraged to engage in local and national digital governance processes

Focus on renewing and strengthening the IGF mandate in upcoming WSIS+20 review

Work towards securing sustained funding for the IGF

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively integrate multi-stakeholder input into New York-based UN processes

Balancing multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches in global digital governance

Addressing power asymmetries within multi-stakeholder processes

How to ensure meaningful participation from marginalized and underrepresented groups

Suggested Compromises

Using FOC and other platforms to channel multi-stakeholder input into intergovernmental processes

Focusing on general principles in global frameworks while allowing for local implementation

Governments including diverse stakeholders in their delegations to international forums

The GDC sets out a vision for digital cooperation built on principles ingrained in sustainable development and human rights, both mutually dependent and reinforcing, as well as for global internet and AI governance.

speaker

Ernst Noorman

reason

This comment frames the Global Digital Compact as integrating human rights, sustainable development, and technology governance in an interconnected way. It sets the tone for discussing digital governance as a holistic issue.

impact

It established key themes of human rights, sustainability, and inclusive governance that were echoed throughout the rest of the discussion by multiple speakers.

Even when we are in these kinds of spaces, and I think that’s where the technical community, the private sector, governments have a tremendous role to play in terms of how do we ensure that when groups have access to international spaces, are sitting on these tables, they’re active.

speaker

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

reason

This comment highlights the importance of not just nominal inclusion, but meaningful participation of diverse stakeholders in governance processes.

impact

It shifted the conversation to focus more on capacity building and empowerment of stakeholders, rather than just formal inclusion. Several subsequent speakers emphasized the need for capacity building.

If you train a large language model and you provide it with incomplete input, it will start to hallucinate. And I think that the multi-stakeholder mechanisms, if you do not provide all the inputs that you have at the table, the output of the process will be a hallucination.

speaker

Olaf Kolfman

reason

This analogy creatively illustrates the importance of diverse stakeholder input for effective governance.

impact

It reinforced the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and technical expertise in a memorable way, influencing subsequent comments on inclusive processes.

My takeaway from this past year’s experience is that the New York processes, by design and by structure, are limited in their way to involve stakeholders. And I don’t see a meaningful way to change that.

speaker

Fiona Alexander

reason

This comment provides a critical perspective on the limitations of UN processes for multi-stakeholder engagement.

impact

It sparked discussion about alternative approaches and the importance of local and national initiatives, shifting focus away from solely UN-centered processes.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by emphasizing the interconnected nature of digital governance issues, the need for meaningful participation beyond formal inclusion, the critical importance of diverse stakeholder input, and the limitations of existing international processes. They collectively steered the conversation towards exploring more inclusive, bottom-up approaches to digital governance that leverage local and national initiatives alongside international efforts.

How can the implementation of the Global Digital Compact be made more multi-stakeholder in nature?

speaker

Filippo Pierozzi

explanation

This is important to ensure that the implementation process is inclusive and reflects diverse perspectives, despite the intergovernmental nature of the GDC.

How can we strengthen the IGF to make it more effective in producing actionable outcomes?

speaker

Adeboye Adegoke

explanation

This is crucial for enhancing the IGF’s role in shaping internet governance and ensuring it leads to concrete results.

How can we build capacity among diverse stakeholders, especially those from the global majority, to participate effectively in international digital governance processes?

speaker

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya and Adeboye Adegoke

explanation

This is essential for ensuring meaningful participation from all regions and stakeholder groups in shaping the future of the internet.

How can we ensure sustained funding for the IGF?

speaker

Fiona Alexander

explanation

This is important for the long-term stability and effectiveness of the IGF as a key platform for internet governance discussions.

How can we evolve from a multi-stakeholder to a multi-disciplinary approach in internet governance discussions?

speaker

Anja Gengo

explanation

This is important to ensure that all relevant disciplines are involved in shaping internet governance, given the increasing integration of digital technologies across various sectors.

How can we better leverage local and national initiatives to influence international internet governance processes?

speaker

Rasmus Lumi and Fiona Alexander

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that global governance reflects diverse local and national perspectives and experiences.