Open Forum #61 WSIS to WSIS+20: Enduring Principle of Internet Governance

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the evolution of Internet governance since the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003-2005, examining achievements, challenges, and key principles for the digital future. Participants highlighted the success of the multi-stakeholder model in fostering internet growth, with global internet usage increasing from 16% to 67% since WSIS. They emphasized the importance of preserving this model, which involves governments, civil society, the technical community, and businesses working together.

Key achievements discussed included the development of internationalized domain names, the expansion of internet exchange points, and the IANA stewardship transition. Challenges identified included the risk of internet fragmentation, cybersecurity threats, misinformation, and the persistent digital divide. Participants stressed the need for collaborative efforts to address these issues while maintaining a unified, secure, and resilient internet.

The role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was highlighted as crucial in facilitating dialogue and fostering inclusivity. Speakers emphasized the importance of engaging smaller countries and diverse stakeholders in the governance process. The technical community’s role in developing frameworks and technologies to counter risks and build trust was discussed, with examples such as DNSSEC and RPKI mentioned.

Looking ahead to WSIS+20, participants emphasized the need to preserve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder model, ensure inclusivity, and address emerging challenges such as AI governance. They called for continued collaboration, transparency, and accountability among all stakeholders to maintain trust and foster innovation in the digital future.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The achievements and challenges of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) over the past 20 years

– The importance of preserving the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance

– The role of the technical community in addressing challenges like cybersecurity and misinformation

– The impact of geopolitics on Internet governance and the technical underpinnings of the Internet

– The future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and preparations for the WSIS+20 review

The overall purpose of the discussion was to reflect on the evolution of Internet governance since WSIS began in 2003-2005, examine current challenges, and look ahead to how the multi-stakeholder model can be preserved and strengthened for the future.

The tone of the discussion was generally positive and collaborative, with panelists emphasizing the successes of the multi-stakeholder model while acknowledging ongoing challenges. There was a sense of urgency about preserving this model in the face of geopolitical pressures. The tone became slightly more serious when discussing threats to the open Internet, but remained constructive in proposing solutions.

Speakers

– Moderator: Facilitator of the discussion

– Brendan Dowling: Ambassador from Australia

– Kurtis Lindqvist: President and CEO of ICANN

– Raquel Gatto: Head of Legal at NIC.br and VP for ISOC Brazil

– Tripti Sinha: Chair of the ICANN Board

Additional speakers:

– Ian Sheldon: Vice Chair of the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) of ICANN

– Alexander: Audience member from an unnamed country

– Wallace: Audience member from the Global Ethics Foundation

Evolution of Internet Governance: Reflections on WSIS and the Path Forward

This panel discussion brought together key figures in internet governance to reflect on the achievements and challenges since the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003-2005, and to consider the future of internet governance. The conversation centered on the multi-stakeholder model, its successes, and the need to preserve and strengthen it in the face of emerging challenges.

Origins and Evolution of WSIS

The panelists unanimously agreed that WSIS has made significant contributions to internet governance over the past two decades. Kurtis Lindqvist highlighted how WSIS fostered multi-stakeholder collaboration, which has been crucial to the internet’s development. Brendan Dowling emphasized the dramatic expansion of global internet connectivity, with usage increasing from 16% to 67% since WSIS began.

Raquel Gatto provided important context for the evolution of internet governance, discussing three “waves” of IGF development:

1. The initial establishment of the IGF

2. The NetMundial initiative in 2014, which reinforced multi-stakeholder principles

3. The current phase, focusing on concrete outcomes and actionable recommendations

The panel also highlighted the IANA transition as a significant achievement in internet governance, demonstrating the maturity and effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model.

Achievements and Contributions of WSIS

Tripti Sinha pointed to technical advancements such as internationalised domain names (IDNs) and universal acceptance as key achievements. She emphasized the importance of these initiatives in making the internet more inclusive and accessible to non-English speakers.

The success of the multi-stakeholder model was a recurring theme. Brendan Dowling made a particularly striking comment, stating, “If the multilateral world 20 years ago was tasked with constructing, developing, spreading the internet, there would be no internet.” This statement underscored the unique capabilities of the multi-stakeholder approach in fostering innovation and growth.

Raquel Gatto noted the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee as an early example of a successful multi-stakeholder approach at the national level, highlighting the model’s adaptability to different contexts.

Challenges Facing Internet Governance

Despite the successes, the panel identified several significant challenges facing internet governance today. Tripti Sinha highlighted the risk of internet fragmentation, particularly due to state-driven governance approaches. Kurtis Lindqvist pointed to cybersecurity threats and misinformation as major concerns, while emphasizing the need to balance security measures with maintaining the internet’s openness. Brendan Dowling noted the persistent digital divide and lack of connectivity in some regions as ongoing challenges.

The discussion also touched on emerging challenges, such as AI governance. Tripti Sinha provided insight into the complexities of AI systems, stating, “For AI to be successful, there are essentially three pillars to AI, which is the data that’s fed into the engines, the algorithms that compute the outcomes, and of course the back-end infrastructure. So if the data is bad, so if the data that goes into it is bad, the output is bad.” This comment highlighted the need for robust data governance frameworks within the broader context of internet governance.

Preserving the Multi-stakeholder Model

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the importance of preserving and strengthening the multi-stakeholder model. Brendan Dowling emphasized that this model has been crucial to the internet’s success. Raquel Gatto stressed the need to engage diverse stakeholders at both global and local levels, while Kurtis Lindqvist highlighted the technical community’s role in building trust and security.

The moderator raised the important point of government participation within the multi-stakeholder framework. This led to a nuanced discussion about balancing diverse interests while maintaining the core principles of the multi-stakeholder approach. Brendan Dowling mentioned ICANN’s government engagement team and their network of 540 members from 85 countries as an example of efforts to involve governments in the process.

An audience member provided a thought-provoking perspective, stating, “I come from a country which actually really wants the world to be exactly multilateral, not multi-stakeholder. And in some cases, including our country, keeping multi-stakeholder relations and also technical relations like independent DNS, government independent DNS, is a kind of violation of law.” This comment highlighted the real-world challenges to implementing the multi-stakeholder model in some countries and prompted further discussion on how to address these issues.

Future of Internet Governance and Role of the Technical Community

Looking ahead, the panelists discussed several key areas for the future of internet governance. Raquel Gatto emphasized the need to strengthen the IGF’s role and impact. However, she also raised concerns about the IGF’s financial sustainability, stating, “The IGF really needs to have more of this financial support right now at the UN streams and how the fund works it’s really uncertain how it can keep going and to do all it’s done it’s really a miracle that is happening right now and it needs to have more of this resource level commitment.”

Tripti Sinha highlighted the importance of addressing emerging challenges like AI governance, while Kurtis Lindqvist stressed the need to preserve a unified, interoperable internet. Both speakers emphasized the crucial role of the technical community in developing and deploying security frameworks and technologies for trust and verification, such as DNSSEC and RPKI.

Raquel Gatto made an important point about the need to understand that the internet is not just social media or big tech platforms, emphasizing the importance of a holistic view of internet governance.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion concluded with a focus on key takeaways and action items. These included continuing to advocate for and strengthen the multi-stakeholder model, engaging policymakers and diplomats to inform WSIS+20 negotiations, developing and deploying technical frameworks to address security risks, promoting universal acceptance and internationalised domain names, and strengthening the IGF’s role and impact.

Unresolved issues were also identified, including how to balance diverse interests within the multi-stakeholder model, addressing the digital divide, navigating increased regulatory pressures and geopolitical tensions, ensuring data integrity and ethical use of AI technologies, and maintaining a unified, interoperable internet amid fragmentation risks.

The panel discussion provided a comprehensive overview of the current state of internet governance, celebrating the achievements of WSIS while acknowledging the significant challenges ahead. The strong consensus on the value of the multi-stakeholder model suggests a unified direction for future internet governance discussions and negotiations, particularly in preparation for WSIS+20. However, the complexities raised by audience members and the identification of unresolved issues highlight the ongoing work needed to ensure a secure, open, and inclusive internet for all.

Moderator: Welcome, everyone, to the IGF Open Forum WSIS to WSIS++20, Enduring Principle of Internet Governance. We have, I think, you should be able to hear in channel 3. Yeah, it’s, maybe you need a new device. Now you can hear, okay. I can hear myself, so if it’s not working, if hers is not working, she may need another one. We have some good speakers. Ambassador Brendan Dowling from Australia, Curtis Lindquist, ICANN’s President and CEO, Raquel Gatto, Head of Legal and NIC.br, and VP for ISOC Brazil, and Tripti Sinha, our Chair of the ICANN Board. And we are going to explore the evolution of Internet Governance since WSIS in 2003 to 2005, what are the achievements and challenges, and what are the key principles and actions for a transformative digital future. We have people who are participating here live, and we have a Zoom room where people can ask questions. We have an online moderator who can ping us when there is a question. And we will be sharing our perspectives on, you know, what are these achievements and challenges of the WSIS. I understand, Ambassador, that you have to leave after a certain amount of time, but you have somebody else from Australia who will step in. Yes, Ian, the Vice Chair of the GAC of ICANN, the Governmental Advisory Committee. Thank you for taking that role as well. And with that, we’re going to have, so we have three parts. We’re going to start with some questions. We’re going to, and please try to answer within like three minutes so that we can fit as many as the question, as the answers possible. And also we may have some online requests as well. So Curtis, to you is the first question. What do you think have been the most significant WSIS achievements and contributions in the past 20 years? And how do you think they shaped the internet we have today? Not a big question, three minutes. Did I get an entire panel by myself?

Curtis Lindquist: So I think WSIS was created 20 years ago, or 19 years ago this year as a platform for really to bring together the different parts of the multi-stakeholder model but in no particular order, governments, technical community, civil society, business, and and to foster a dialogue around what that means and how do we evolve the internet as such in all of these arenas and building on all the experiences and and mandates that these groups bring to it. And if we go back to 2005 we had 16% of the world population was on the internet and today we are over 67% of the world population is on the internet. So the internet has done a remarkable journey as during this time and obviously part of that is fostered by the the environment, by the outcomes of the multi-stakeholder model that was very much supported, or has been very much supported by the IGF since then and the and the outcomes and the Tunis agenda from WSIS 20 years ago. Very much part of the multi-stakeholder model has also been to actually foster this inclusivity across all these areas, way beyond just the perhaps more limited scope that led to the WSIS discussions 20 years ago. We now cover you know, multilingual domain names, IDNs, multiple script has been brought into the internet. We see a lot of work in this. There is a 151 internationalized domain names in 37 languages and 23 scripts. That wasn’t there 20 years ago, and we have supported all this. And beyond that the WSIS or the multi-stakeholder model has been embodied through the IGF and the WSIS process has gone from supporting exchange points builders around the world into areas that didn’t have exchange points before. It’s championed a lot of collaboration in many of these areas. The Coalition for Digital Africa that have supported these initiatives in Africa, for example, but we also see this in many of the other regions of the world. So I think it’s been actually very successful. It’s delivered a lot of value from the multistakeholder model, that’s a mouthful, and the IGF has really been the embodiment of this, which actually coming together once a year to enable all these groups, stakeholder groups, to have these discussions in a really open forum, transparent forum, to exchange

Moderator: ideas and share the vision from that. Thank you. Thank you, Curtis. Ambassador, the second question goes to you. In how the achievements of the WSIS shape the global environment across political, economical and social dimension, and again, not a very big question. I think it’s an incredible success story. When

Brendan Dowling: you look at the number of users that are connected to the Internet globally, how the Internet has become the most important piece of global infrastructure, possibly in human history. It has expanded along with the governance arrangements. So you’ve seen WSIS grow from, I think, what was seen as a niche technical discussion to a process now which is incredibly expansive, incredibly inclusive. WSIS has found new ways to engage new stakeholders, new countries. We’ve seen 190 regional and national initiatives buy into the process. So I think as connectivity has expanded, so has the processes for Internet governance expanded. When you look at how that has evolved, you don’t have the Internet as we know it today, functioning as we know it today, without that inclusive process. If you set out to design the Internet from scratch with a state-led process, with a multilateral process, there is no way it works. There is no way it gets us to where we are today. I think next year’s an incredible opportunity to review the arrangements, to look at how they’re working, what needs to adjust and evolve for the next 10 years. how we ensure there is that inclusive approach, how we ensure civil society, the technical community, small countries which us who are still on their digital connectivity journey, we need to evolve to make sure they have a voice, that we are inclusive, but I do think we should take time to reflect on the incredible success of how the model has brought us something that is so crucial to all aspects of human life today. Before I go to Tripti, if I may follow up, Australia has been actively involved obviously, but since the beginning, if I remember correctly, what is your stance about the WSIS plus 20, like where is Australia staying? I think our most important priority is twofold, one is to preserve the preeminence of the multi-stakeholder model to ensure there is equal footing for the range of stakeholders through the conversations next year. As I said, it only works when all stakeholders have a voice. I think WSIS is in some ways a unique arrangement where we bring a range of stakeholders on equal footing with an equal voice into those rooms. For us, that is a crucial priority. Our second priority is inclusivity. We are doing a lot of work with countries in our region, particularly in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, to say as connectivity spreads, and we’re strong supporters of digital connectivity in the region through our work on subsea cables and telecommunications access, we want to ensure that they are part of the process. We want to ensure the smallest Pacific island states are represented, are able to present their perspective. So our second priority is, as we preserve that multi-stakeholder process next year, to ensure there is a broader range of voices that are represented. I think we’re well on the way. way to achieving that. I think we do a lot of work in the region, a number of other people who are represented here today including ICANN are really active in ensuring those places have a voice. For me that’s a huge priority for next

Moderator: year. Thank you, that’s really important to have the smaller countries that usually don’t go to these events to be present. Tripti, again not a big question for the three minutes but what have been the most challenging moments in the last two decades since the WSIS started? Well it started more than two decades ago and what do you think are the key lessons that the IGF

Tripti Sinha: community should take away from this experience? Thank you Veni for the question. So I would say there have been many significant events and challenges some that I would classify as achievements and some that are challenges that have occurred recently that we must overcome. So among these challenges a key one that has been percolating in the last several years has been the risk of internet fragmentation at the technical level. So the calls for replacing the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance as we are currently witnessing with the new one which is multilateral oriented highlight the critical need for the technical community including ICANN of course to come together to deliver on our mission. Another event that I would like to highlight is the IANA stewardship transition which I believe is an achievement. It was a pivotal moment that required trust and compromise and careful management and this process proved and underscored the value of collaborative governance and provided a model for addressing some very complex transitions. And in other areas in terms of what I would consider challenges and threats is cybersecurity threats and misinformation and just the misuse of data and the value of data that has been presented to us in the last many years and this value has taken on all kinds of you know key attributes such as privacy has become critical and then the weaponization of data right. And so this can potentially erode public trust on the internet. And another very key thing is that no one I think ever imagined the speed with which information could move and actually impact and influence another part of the world. So balancing security with openness has proven to be difficult yet essential underscoring the need for very robust security measures and greater transparency. At the same time the persistent digital divide leaving close to a third of the global population unconnected. You know, highlights the need for innovative approaches to expand access, particularly in those regions that are not connected. So the key takeaway for the IGF community is, of course, ensuring that the multi-stakeholder collaboration in this model prevails. It involves governments, academia, civil society, the technical community, IGOs, businesses. Coming together, we have shown the resilience and adaptability, enabling all these different voices to come together and tackle problems together. And for example, I think the IANA transition proves as a model for us being able to come together and establish that intergovernmental cooperation, inter-multi-stakeholder cooperation actually works and is very effective. So looking ahead, the IGF community must continue to strengthen this model while advancing digital inclusivity and fostering trust and transparency to safeguard the internet’s future. Thank you, Tripti.

Moderator: You mentioned the IANA transition. Indeed, during the WSIS Plus 10 review process was in 2015, and this was exactly when the IANA transition was happening. And I won’t forget how the representative of China to the UN took the floor and actually supported the IANA transition, which was a very good sign of a major country supporting it. Raquel, last question is to you, and then we’ll open if there are any questions online or in the room for a couple of minutes. What key factor has helped us overcome some of the challenges in those past 20 years, some of those that Tripti mentioned? And how might that knowledge guide the development of a more inclusive, secure, and resilient digital future? And how do you think the IGF has contributed to this outcome? Thank you very much, Veni.

Raquel Gatto: And thank you very much, first, for the invitation for this rich panel. I think we are going to have a lot of discussion. questions on WSIS and this is another opportunity to to do so. So I would like to recall a little bit what was the breakthrough into the two rounds, the first two rounds of the WSIS process of 2003 and 2005. I think a good point has been made on the recognition of the technical community role and in all the internet governance mechanisms. But also a couple of months ago I was invited by LACNIC, one of the regional internet registries location to to make a talk for the tech guys on why it’s important to participate into those discussions. And I think the point that I want to make is not only the mechanisms of the decision-making mechanisms for the WSIS needs to be inclusive and open but also once they are, you need to have the stakeholders engaged. And this is pretty much one of the fatigue problems that you have when there are so many multiple discussions to see the relevance and the importance of participating. So allow me just, I will try to keep short, I know I have two minutes now, but to make it an example on another level. When we think about the breakthrough between the paradigm that you had into the two rounds, the first two rounds, which was the multilateral model for the multistakeholder model, what is the difference there? If you think about, you know, if you go to a restaurant, let me try into a pre-lunch session to use food as an example. If you go to a restaurant and you have a fixed menu, of course you are going to be fed but then you have just this, you know, kind of set choices that you can make. Imagine if you could go to the kitchen and everyone could go there and use your family recipe or if you don’t know how to cook, you can contribute by doing the dish washing or, you know. Everyone has a role there in the kitchen. And then when you are served, you have this diverse plates and experiences and exchange that can be made. And yes, it took more effort, probably more time. But then once you are at the table, you have just richer experience that can be shared among all the participants. So I know examples are tricky. This is not a 100% a good example, but I think it shows the difference between a fixed menu when you have multilateral model and when you have this rich kitchen experience that the IGF can provide when everyone isn’t at the room, everyone can participate and then the outcomes are much more richer and solid. And I think we are going to be talking about results later.

Moderator: Thank you, Veni. Thank you. Are there any questions in the room? Over there, if somebody can bring a microphone. And if there is no microphone, you may have to use one of those.

Audience: Thank you, Veni. Very great panel. I’ve been involved in the WSIS project through the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvement and Enhanced Cooperation, member of MAG. I’ve been very active in business constituency in ICANN. I followed the IANA transition. And throughout, I’ve seen that ICANN has a unique product and has their unique multi-stakeholder approach. And it played out during the call for the elimination of .RU, okay? And the community said no. So, that is a brilliant model, are we propagating this further, are we strengthening this because of internet shutdown, there are a lot of internet shutdowns around the place, can we project this model so that when it comes to shutting down, maybe we can have a forum to discuss?

Moderator: Who wants to take that question? Because if not, I mean, I have some experience with that because it’s related to how much governments are willing to take the experience of the last 20 years into their building their legislation, regulations, etc. And I come from Bulgaria, so I always give Bulgaria as an example because nobody can get upset about it, but Bulgaria has years ago now, 25 years ago, decided that there will be no regulation of any kind on internet addresses and internet names. Internet numbers, however, were regulated and the result was that with a 6.5 million population at the peak of that boom, there were 2,000 internet service providers in the country, which, you know, I live in New York City with 10 million people, there are two internet service providers, so not much of a choice. So I think one of the ways is what can be adapted from this model and how it can contribute to the intergovernmental and intergovernmental processes. Yes. Can I just add one thing, I mean, I want to come back to what we said about the, back in 2003 and 2005, this was not a given, right? There were other alternatives that we could have come down, right? And if you look at the discussions we, you know, look around us here today, you know, you ask the question, how can we broaden it? We have broadened it.

Curtis Lindquist: We, you know, we have a lot of other topics that has come here exactly because they’re seeking what this model offers, right? They want to have the broad participation, the broad multi-stakeholder model, and I think that that’s really a testament to the strength of what we have achieved, because that was far from certain back in 2003, certainly, maybe more certain in 2005.

Moderator: That was the other comment. Thank you. I’m going to move to the second question I now ask to you, Ambassador, because you have to leave, I know, so a little bit change in the order, but there has been, and it comes into the question actually, there has been a lot of talk in multilateral venues about strengthening multilateralism in the multipolar world. Given the global internet is a network of many networks, is a multilateral approach the answer to deal with some of those complex and transitional challenges? And is there room to preserve the multi-stakeholder approach in this increasingly geopoliticalized world? I think that’s the question that is really critical for 2025. But let’s be real. If the multilateral world 20 years ago was tasked with constructing, developing, spreading the internet, there would be no internet. That is the starkness

Brendan Dowling: of the choice. The multilateral world is not equipped on its own to develop a network of networks in the way that we have that. Now let’s imagine that. Let’s imagine a multilateral driven internet. Firstly, I don’t think it has spread in the way that we know it today. Digital trade, I think, is subject to far more national barriers and borders. We don’t have the globally connected world that we have today. So that is the starkness of the choice that we face. The multi-stakeholder model has worked. It has brought us all the benefits and upsides in a way that the multilateral world would never be capable of organizing. So we need to preserve what works with the multi-stakeholder model. We need to remember that multi-stakeholder means governments are in the room. Governments are a key part of the process. Governments have a strong role in shaping the future of the internet. So this is not a one or the other proposition. The multi-stakeholder model gives everyone a voice, gives everyone the ability to shape the future. Multilateral institutions are a core part of that. They are part of the process, they are part of the discussion. So yes we need to use next year and the WSIS processes as a way to evolve, to look at what the future arrangements should be, but let’s be in no doubt if we try to replace the multi-stakeholder model with a pure multilateral state-governed model, goodbye to the internet. That would be a catastrophe for us all, it would be a catastrophe for global development, it would be a catastrophe for meeting the sustainable development goals. We’re all invested in preserving the multi-stakeholder model and governments are a key part of that. Thank you, I guess you have to leave and

Moderator: be able to ask follow-up questions because I’m sure there will be. So Ian you can exchange seats, Curtis I’m gonna go to you and sorry for the change of order but I wanted the ambassador to have the answer this question. So there are a lot of challenges that we hear here talking about misinformation, disinformation, cyber security risk, regulatory pressures, how do you see the role of the technical community in addressing those challenges? Sir, I mean

Curtis Lindquist: without a doubt there is a issue of misinformation and well cyber security risks is a quite a wide topic ranging from true security risks to resilience and I mean there’s many topics under the umbrella and these are leading to increased regulatory pressure and I think we need to, from the technical community, we need to make sure that we have the frameworks and the technologies to counter the risks and I think they will also take some pressure of the regulatory need because if we can safeguard this through technology you might have less need for regulation but I mean there has been a lot of in the level throughout the last a few years, last 10, 20 years, maybe even, these risks has increased, and there are all kind of actors and drivers of trying to exploit these weaknesses. The technical community have very much tried to address these. We have on the DNS side, the domain name side, we have the DNSSEC, which is the technology and framework for ensuring trust in the identified resolution of namespace. That’s developed by the ITF and ICANN, very much are active in trying to get this deployed as far as possible, as wide as possible by all actors in the name resolution chain. And this, by building capacity and furthering this. And the same goes for the number space, so the IP address space, to ensure validity in this between RPKI and MANRS and other initiatives where we can validate that the authenticity and the trust in the system is maintained. And that is what we are doing as technical community

Moderator: to counter some of these threats. Thank you. Tripti, to continue from Curtis’ answer, governments have been paying close attention to those challenges as well. And so, in your view, in your observations, how does the geopolitical environment affect the technical underpinnings of the internet and the challenges that Curtis was talking about?

Tripti Sinha: So, I couldn’t agree more with what Curtis just said, that geopolitical and political movements do impact the technical underpinnings of the internet, and particularly the areas of regulatory complexities and cybersecurity events and risks and misinformation, the propagation of misinformation. And fragmentation risks have grown as some nations push for state-driven governance and infrastructure, including DNS resolvers. So these measures challenge the internet’s unified and interoperable nature, creating barriers that could disrupt its global functionality. And I think we need to recognize that as we’re promoting a multi-stakeholder model, this interconnected world, but I think the value that comes with such an interconnected world needs to be understood. So as the question that was asked earlier about countries turning off internet access, they only hurt themselves, because we are such an interconnected world that transactions will simply. start to fail, and I think many of us, many entities in the world don’t understand how things happen in the world today, whether it be economic transactions and communication transactions. So, you know, it’s really a situation of, you know, cutting your nose to spite your face. Coming to cyber security threats further compound the challenges, as geopolitical tensions escalate, state-sponsored cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, and misuse of digital platforms increasingly undermine the trust on the internet. And this erosion of trust, you know, highlights the urgent need for collaborative measures to strengthen the internet security and stability. The multi-stakeholder model continues to remain critical in addressing these challenges. It brings together all the different, you know, constituents, the different stakeholders, governments, the private sector, civil society, technical community, so that we can produce a craft, and craft a balanced solution, an inclusive solution. So ICANN’s ongoing commitment to this model, particularly through its work in promoting, you know, UA, universal acceptance, and IDNs, international domain names, you know, help bridge this linguistic divide and create a multilingual internet, which is essentially speaking to inclusivity. And so to safeguard the global internet’s integrity, and the stakeholders must collaborate on all regulatory frameworks that address security and content-related concerns without fragmenting the internet. Through dialogue, cooperation, the IGF community can help maintain a unified, secure, and resilient internet in this increasingly polarized world.

Moderator: Thanks, Steve. I’m looking at my watch, but we have one more question, and then we’ll open for some, to Raquel, and then we’ll open for some questions, and there is an online question, which we will also address. So Raquel, some critics argue that the multi-stakeholder model. is struggling to balance diverse interests and achieve concrete results. How would you respond to those critics and what changes or improvements if any

Raquel Gatto: might be needed? Thank you very much again Veni and well the burden of being the last one in the session is that you can subscribe to the other ones but then you have a challenge to bring something new and I will keep just a short answer into two points. So one is regarding the processes and the second more of the substance of the discussion. Regarding the processes I think it’s important also to remember that you can bring this multi-stakeholder approach also to the local level it’s not only a global discussion and I come from .br which has the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee which was set into a multi-stakeholder committee from 1995 so even before this was done even before ICANN and it was really a natural decision when you realize that to take on the big task of thinking the internet evolution and recommendations for the internet use at the local level one actor one stakeholder is not going to bring the solution so everyone come together to the table and make those recommendations so that’s the let’s say the inception of the multi-stakeholder at the local level and it’s not about only keeping the internet open of course and safe but also resilient and regarding the question on the on the shutdowns I mean of course you need to keep it on but you cannot avoid some of the decisions but you can make sure that you were bring back faster as you can and so this resilience is also very important not only on the infrastructure level but also on the political level and I’m going to talk a little bit about that but also at the global level when I’m still on the processes part CGI has undertook together with lots of the partners a huge effort on net mondial on making this global discussions realizing that you have those challenges so back in 2014 when you had these know the revelations on massive and pervasive vigilance you had this moment where internet governance principles were internet governance and the patient of the internet itself was at risk And bringing NetMundial, this global discussion, into a multi-stakeholder fashion was really important to reinforce our way ahead. And we were back to this moment this year, so the beginning of this year, there was NetMundial Plus 10, which also took the realization that we had new uses and new challenges for the Internet, and we need to be back together as a community to reinforce our principles, but also to look ahead how those processes can be improved in order to bring the solutions that we need and that don’t break the Internet. So that’s one of the points. And very shortly, in terms of the substance, I think our biggest challenge right now is to make the understanding what the Internet is, and in different levels, right? It’s not only for the governments, for the judiciary, for the Congress. I mean, it’s really hard not to bring what is more visible in terms of social media and the big techs and the platforms, and make sure they understand that the Internet is not only social media. Make sure that AI is a great breakthrough in terms of new technology, but the Internet still holds it together as a foundation. And that’s what I think it’s the cross-cutting substance that we need also to bring into those processes.

Moderator: Thank you very much. Thank you. We have a couple of minutes for questions after this session, at this part of the session. Anyone in the room? Well, it’s either everything is crystal clear or nothing is clear. Yes. Sorry, maybe a question will be a little related to the previous part.

Audience: But I come from a country which actually really wants the world to be exactly multilateral, not multi-stakeholder. And in some cases, including our country, keeping multi-stakeholder relations and also technical relations like independent DNS, government independent DNS, is a kind of violation of law. So we are slowly moving from light discussions, not decision-making activities, to activities which might be slightly illegal or in some cases very illegal. And this issue is not addressed anyhow. So ambassador from a free country may say good words. I can’t word and president can say good words. But how issue of lack of multi-stakeholder possibilities in non-free countries may be addressed by technical community and other stakeholders? Thank you.

Curtis Lindquist: I mean, it’s a complicated question. I’m going to offer observation. So the ambassador said that if the multilateral model were to design the internet, it would never have happened. Now, I’m a technologist from beginning and I’ve been around for a very long time and a bit of a nerd. Those of us who have been around long enough will remember that actually multilateralism tried to develop the internet. And in its place, we got the current internet. That was a successful model, was the multilateral model that actually out-competed the multilateral, well, competing technologies. It’s not exactly an answer to Alexander, but I think that the reality is that you need, in the end of the day, you need to have a working solution for it to catch on. And if you break it, it becomes unusable. The market forces in any country will act right. I mean, I think that’s the best that the technical community can do. community can do is prove that we have something that works.

Moderator: Thank you. And there was a couple of online questions. One of them actually related to the UN policies, which is not really our expertise. But the other one was asking whether ICANN can deprive a country, or I assume it can be expanded, not only ICANN, but the technical organizations like the RIOs, or ICANN can take off a country domain name or country IP addresses of the internet. And I think this was addressed actually almost three years ago now. There was a request coming from Ukraine to ICANN and RIPE, the European Internet Registry, about taking down the Russian top level domain IP addresses that were given to Russia. And the response that came from both organizations was that we cannot do that. That’s not in our powers. So that’s the situation there. Alexander, this answers your question, right? Is there another question? Yes, please. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you very much, Wallace. I’m from the Global Ethics Foundation. I have a question about the content of internet. I understand you touched upon many open, free, and multilateral framework. But it seems that, particularly in AI-driven age, how to ensure the information integrity, and we use that term that used in Global Digital Compact, how this governance framework, how the multistakeholders can ensure the integrity of information on the internet. Thank you. So this goes back to the topic of data governance. This is a big topic right now with the percolation of AI and the capabilities that are coming with AI.

Tripti Sinha: So for AI to be successful, there are essentially three pillars to AI, which is the data that’s fed into the engines, the algorithms that compute the outcomes. and of course the back-end infrastructure. So if the data is bad, so if the data that goes into it is bad, the output is bad. So it’s very critical that as AI governance models are being discussed, the data is appropriately tagged and labeled and fed into its repositories before it’s used. So there needs to be a data validation process, ensuring the veracity of the data, and the ethical tagging of the data. So this is, in my opinion, a very steep hill to climb, but it’s a hill that we must climb if we want to be successful in the use of all these emerging technologies that will be so impactful in our future. So I hope that answers your question to a certain extent.

Moderator: Thank you, Tripti. We’re gonna change the order now. Raquel, you complained that you’re the last. No, I’m joking. You did not complain. But now you’re gonna be first, and we’re gonna put the diplomat to answer last. So Raquel, the question to you is, how do you see the role of the IGF in transforming the digital future? What changes or evolution do you think is necessary to make the IGF more impactful? And what have we learned in the past 20 years? And maybe there will be another WSIS Review in another 20 years, who knows?

Raquel Gatto: Thank you very much, Veni, and for changing the order. I’m sure the diplomat is much more skilled to be the last one. And I’m going to use this as, it’s a very complex question for a one-minute answer. But then I think first, the IGF has proven to be the successful experience, but it is not one solution, right? And it’s not a one IGF that we are talking about. The first point I want to make is, the IGF is not only the event, but it’s the process that you do all year round. that matters. And I used to say that the IGF has, at least for now, three waves that were pretty much important. So the first wave, till about 2013-2014, for those revelations that I was mentioning, the IGF really consolidated into this global dialogue space, into a bottom-up process, into an eco-footing, and into changing and breaking this paradigm of the multilateral that was known so far. And it’s not only for the Internet, right? All other collective goods and rights, like the environment, are also taking on this model, because it’s really important to consolidate that it can be done, and it can achieve results, even though they are not the results we are used to. So that’s the first wave for the IGF. The second wave for the IGF has been precisely to bring more into the tangible results, and how it’s changed the intersessional work, how it makes sure to bring all the thematic relevance that was needed, but also to integrate into the other mechanisms. So looking for, let’s say, G20, ITU, and all the and even ICANN processes. So how we can make this coordination and cooperation really something that is tangible at the end, looking for the best practices. And now it’s the third wave, right? It has reached the kind of the highest level at the UN, and in order to be to be continued, right, and to think about the next 10 years, 20 years, or the IGF forever, as it was called into the one of the high-level sessions, I will bring some of the points also that was that are in the NetMundial plus 10a statement. The IGF really needs to have more of this financial support right now at the the UN streams and and and how the fund works it’s really uncertain how it can keep going and and to do all it’s done it’s really a miracle that is happening right now and it needs to have more of this resource level commitment but also in order I mean to make sure that it keeps going on being more inclusive and more open and it foster more of the national and regional discussions and you have a retrofit from those of course we have different challenges in each of our countries even in in some countries you have localities with different challenges and so on but make sure that this rise to the global discussions but also the global discussions keep having local actions and I think because of the time I’m

Moderator: going to keep that short thank you very much and I hope the IGF is renewed for those that are have the the decision powers thank you thank you Raquel but by the way you never know I may still ask you the last question Curtis what about your vision for you know digital future beyond 2025 and what can the technical community do to continue building the trust and maintaining the global internet I mean amidst it’s increasingly geopolitical polarised world so I think there’s a few things the unified global internet we have today that is is you know interoperable seamless is really the

Curtis Lindquist: foundation of all the value creation the internet has enabled right that is the fundamental aspect of the internet and as you say there is a question of trust in this model going forward that we need to ensure that that trust remains and by doing that we need to address some of the challenges that we have just talked about in the panel now, from security to verification, and also enabling that openness there, because that’s very much part of that value creation. And I think the technical community, like the ITF, who sets all the standards, ISOC, who does a lot of the work with business, civil society, ICANN, who the constituents we have in names and numbering, and all the other ICANN groups, GAC, etc. We really need to identify and understand these concerns, and what could possibly erode that trust, and how do we create a technical framework that meets that. Going forward, and I mean some of this work is done, as I said, we have MANRS for routing, as I said, BNSSEC before, and there’s a lot of other programs, so MANRS is a program for bringing RPKI and routing security to the world’s ISPs, and certify, and have a standardized way for doing it. KIND DNS for DNS is similar, so building on these frameworks to ensure that this gets globally deployed, because there’s also the other thing is that we might have the technologies, but we need to deploy them as well. We need to have them actually validated, and in the world, so we can actually provide that trust. One thing is to have the tools, the other one is to actually ensure the trust exists. And so to continue building that, so that we really have this trusted system, trusted ecosystem, and collaborate around all these efforts with all these stakeholders, both in identifying the challenges, but also delivering the solutions to them. And I think, again, that’s the multi-stakeholder approach. That’s how we work. We work together, and the technical community’s role in this is to ensure that the technical aspects provide resilience, security, and trust of the network that we want. And the other part that we haven’t talked so much about here, but there is another aspect of trust, is of course also the inclusivity. You know, trust is the technical trust, but they’re also feeling included, provides that trust, and that includes internationalized domain names, scripts, etc. that we work on so that people actually can use this and make sure we have the capacity building as well. So like the programs I talked about, so you feel included in that sense because that’s really where we start seeing value. Then people don’t feel, can actually trust beyond the technical trust, but also having trust in the system, trust in participation, trust in use. Thanks a lot.

Moderator: Tripti, the second to last question and not Sherian and Raquel. But what actions can the technical community, including ICANN and other key stakeholders take to ensure that the outcomes of the WSIS Plus 20 review preserve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder governance model? Thank you, Veni.

Tripti Sinha: There’s a lot that can be done. So to ensure the WSIS Plus 20 review strengthens this model, the multi-stakeholder governance model, the technical community, including ICANN, of course, and other key stakeholders, we must act with a shared vision and come together in collaboration and be determined to maintain this model. And it’s been said over and over again this morning, as we’ve talked, this model works and let’s not break it. And it’s been central to the internet success. The ambassador mentioned it, Curtis just highlighted it, we’re all highlighting it, that this has fostered inclusivity, transparency, collaboration, and innovation. Let’s not forget. I mean, this was built upon an open environment when you look at the early days of the internet. I mean, vibrant minds came together and said, let’s do something exciting. And why on earth would you want to break that and take that away? So let’s learn from our successful past and preserve the good of the past. And the technical community, we must advocate for the multi-stakeholder model by showcasing how effective we’ve been in addressing challenges. And the current prevailing challenges are security, inclusion, and all the other challenges that are coming with AI. AI is introducing many challenges. We’ve got to have standards. We’ve got to ensure that the data that’s being fed into engines is good. And that is not in turn used in the wrong way. So we’ve got to come together as a community, as a technical community, and be part of the solution. So that’s something that I would say is critical. Technical expertise must inform diplomats who will be negotiating the WSIS plus 20. So organizations like ours, ICANN, must share our technical expertise to ensure that people who negotiate WSIS plus 20 understand how the internet works and what the role is of each stakeholder. Because it’s not clear that there’s a common understanding of the different layers of the internet and how things interoperate. Can you hear me? Because I’m cutting in and out myself. I think I’ve lost. You can hear me? Okay. And so some other examples of how we can come together and inform diplomats is universal acceptance and IDNs, which actually these key elements of future services speak to inclusivity and preserving, making a multilingual Internet. And one thing that I’d like to mention is that I’m particularly tied or married to multilingual Internet because the language of science and technology has become English, which has helped us all come together and create new technologies. However, there’s some collateral damage that comes with it, which is we potentially are going to forget our languages and forget our culture because we have started to speak this common language, which is great. It’s producing some positive outcomes. But let’s not forget our rich cultural heritage, and we’ve got to preserve that. So for that reason alone, I think it’s very important that we make the Internet multilingual. And the other thing that’s very important is engaging policymakers. That’s equally important. Active participation in the UN consultations and global forums help shape these discussions, build understanding. Can you hear me? Because I’m interesting because I’m cutting out. I can’t hear myself. And it’s all right. I’m almost done. So this includes advocating for the continuation and strengthening of the Internet Governance Forum as this critical platform for dialogue and capacity building. And so it’s a pivotal moment for all the stakeholders to renew our commitment to the WSIS principles. So we’ve got to prioritize trust, security, and inclusivity. And the technical community can effectively contribute to an Internet Governance Framework that supports innovation, fosters resilience, and promotes inclusivity. in this digital world. So thank you Vinny. Thank you and sorry for the technical

Moderator: difficulties it was breaking here but I realized it’s only our two devices that were breaking. So the last question was for your ambassador so you only have no just kidding no from a government’s point of view though what do you think the government stakeholders or the government’s can do to preserve the trust while building upon the success of the digital transformation we’ve witnessed in the last 20 years. Thanks the question and thanks for letting me

Brendan Dowling: sub in for my cyber ambassador. Quite simply I think it’s it’s governments should allow ourselves to continue to benefit from the multi-stakeholder process. Multi-stakeholderism means we’re in this together. The internet only flourishes if the community as a whole works together. This requires trust. Trust requires two things transparency and accountability and for that to be a two-way street. This means that governments and all other parts of the multi-stakeholder community must ensure that there is clear communication between each groups and we all need to be accountable for each other’s roles and that we play in the internet successes. So the internet success don’t work if we if governments if only governments are committed to upholding the WSIS and similarly it doesn’t work if either governments feel WSIS doesn’t address their needs or if the multi-stakeholder approach is no longer at its at its core. Australia’s approach to our WSIS plus 20 preparations is a great example of this of this in action and we we committed to taking a multi-stakeholder approach to our preparations not simply and not just based on principle but because we genuinely believes it produces good outcomes and outcomes that we can take with us into the negotiating room. So our approach is guided by a number of core principles which are key to building trust with the multi-stakeholder community. It means being multi-stakeholder openness and transparency. and building on the perspectives and voices of all, taking a holistic evidence-based approach to outcomes and achieving long-term agreement. So certainly if you are interested in learning about the approach we’re taking to WSIS, please come by our booth, grab a Tim Tam, grab a koala, and we’d love to continue leveraging the deep expertise that the multistakeholder community has to offer as we approach the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations. Thank you. We also were able to take pictures yesterday.

Moderator: I think there was a… Thank you. We are wrapping up the discussion. So I think one of the references that I could give also is the government engagement team and we have a dedicated webpage. You can go to ICANN.org and government engagement and you can find the information that we share. We’ve created a network, can you hear me or no? We created a network of about 540 members right now from 85 countries. We exchange information which people find useful and we organize webinars every once in a while. We were very active during the Global Digital Compact negotiations, discussing every draft that was published. We’ll continue doing that in the WSIS process. So please sign up, read our papers that we are producing. Any last comments or words from you guys or else I’ll turn to Raquel. Thank you very much. I just want to say and appreciate the work you’re doing. It really helps us even at the local level, those materials we can spread. And I think that’s also the message here because I preached the importance of the IGF. For those in the room, it’s easy. It’s much harder when you go back home or back to your constituencies and then. you need to convince those of the importance and so having this background materials are really really important. Thank you Veni and Kurt and everyone for the work done. Thanks a lot, any last comments? No? Well thanks a lot, we finished actually three minutes before the end of time, which the local host will be very thankful we’re giving them time to rearrange the stage. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder model

Kurtis Lindqvist

Brendan Dowling

Raquel Gatto

Tripti Sinha

Fostered multi-stakeholder collaboration

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for internet’s success

Promoted inclusive internet governance processes

Advocating for multi-stakeholder model

All speakers emphasized the crucial role of the multi-stakeholder model in the success and development of the internet, highlighting its importance for inclusive and effective internet governance.

Achievements of WSIS in expanding internet access

Kurtis Lindqvist

Brendan Dowling

Fostered multi-stakeholder collaboration

Expanded internet connectivity globally

Both speakers highlighted the significant increase in global internet connectivity as a major achievement of WSIS over the past 20 years.

Need to address emerging challenges

Kurtis Lindqvist

Tripti Sinha

Developing frameworks to counter security risks

Addressing emerging challenges like AI governance

Both speakers emphasized the need for the technical community to develop frameworks and technologies to address emerging challenges, including cybersecurity risks and AI governance.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of inclusive decision-making processes in internet governance, highlighting the success of the multi-stakeholder approach at both global and local levels.

Brendan Dowling

Raquel Gatto

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for internet’s success

Promoted inclusive internet governance processes

Both speakers stressed the importance of the technical community’s role in developing security frameworks and informing policymakers about technical aspects of internet governance.

Kurtis Lindqvist

Tripti Sinha

Developing frameworks to counter security risks

Informing policymakers on technical aspects

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of multilingualism in internet governance

Kurtis Lindqvist

Tripti Sinha

Enabled technical advancements like internationalized domain names

Fostered multi-stakeholder collaboration

While not a primary focus of the discussion, both speakers highlighted the importance of multilingualism and internationalized domain names as key achievements of WSIS, showing unexpected consensus on the significance of linguistic inclusivity in internet governance.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement among speakers included the importance of the multi-stakeholder model, the achievements of WSIS in expanding internet access, and the need to address emerging challenges in internet governance. There was also consensus on the significance of inclusive decision-making processes and the role of the technical community in developing frameworks and informing policymakers.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was high, particularly regarding the value of the multi-stakeholder model and the achievements of WSIS. This strong consensus implies a shared vision for the future of internet governance, emphasizing the need to preserve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach while addressing new challenges. The high level of agreement suggests a unified direction for future internet governance discussions and negotiations, particularly in preparation for WSIS Plus 20.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to internet governance

Brendan Dowling

Kurtis Lindqvist

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for internet’s success

Developing frameworks to counter security risks

While both speakers support the multi-stakeholder model, Dowling emphasizes its crucial role in the internet’s success, whereas Lindquist focuses more on the technical community’s role in developing security frameworks.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to maintaining the multi-stakeholder model and addressing emerging challenges in internet governance.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of the multi-stakeholder model and the need to address emerging challenges. The differences lie mainly in the emphasis placed on various aspects of internet governance and the specific approaches to tackle these issues. This low level of disagreement suggests a generally unified vision for the future of internet governance, which could facilitate more effective collaboration in addressing challenges and implementing solutions.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need to address challenges in internet governance, but Sinha focuses on the risk of fragmentation due to state-driven governance, while Gatto emphasizes the need to strengthen the IGF’s role and impact.

Tripti Sinha

Raquel Gatto

Risk of internet fragmentation

Strengthening IGF’s role and impact

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of inclusive decision-making processes in internet governance, highlighting the success of the multi-stakeholder approach at both global and local levels.

Brendan Dowling

Raquel Gatto

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for internet’s success

Promoted inclusive internet governance processes

Both speakers stressed the importance of the technical community’s role in developing security frameworks and informing policymakers about technical aspects of internet governance.

Kurtis Lindqvist

Tripti Sinha

Developing frameworks to counter security risks

Informing policymakers on technical aspects

Key Takeaways

The multi-stakeholder model has been crucial to the internet’s success and should be preserved

WSIS has fostered global internet connectivity and inclusive governance over the past 20 years

Emerging challenges include cybersecurity threats, misinformation, and potential internet fragmentation

The technical community plays a key role in building trust and security for the internet

Government participation within the multi-stakeholder framework remains important

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue advocating for and strengthening the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance

Engage policymakers and diplomats to inform WSIS+20 negotiations

Develop and deploy technical frameworks to address security risks and build trust

Promote universal acceptance and internationalized domain names for a more inclusive internet

Strengthen the Internet Governance Forum’s role and impact

Unresolved Issues

How to balance diverse interests and achieve concrete results within the multi-stakeholder model

Addressing the digital divide and lack of connectivity in some regions

Navigating increased regulatory pressures and geopolitical tensions

Ensuring data integrity and ethical use of AI technologies

Maintaining a unified, interoperable internet amid fragmentation risks

Suggested Compromises

Governments should participate in multi-stakeholder processes while preserving the model’s core principles

Balance security measures with maintaining the internet’s openness and innovation

Develop technical solutions to address concerns while avoiding excessive regulation

Foster both global coordination and local/regional internet governance initiatives

If the multilateral world 20 years ago was tasked with constructing, developing, spreading the internet, there would be no internet. That is the starkness of the choice. The multilateral world is not equipped on its own to develop a network of networks in the way that we have that.

speaker

Brendan Dowling

reason

This comment starkly contrasts the multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches, emphasizing the unique capabilities of the multi-stakeholder model in developing the internet.

impact

It set a strong tone for defending the multi-stakeholder model and prompted further discussion on the merits of this approach versus a purely governmental one.

The IGF really needs to have more of this financial support right now at the UN streams and how the fund works it’s really uncertain how it can keep going and to do all it’s done it’s really a miracle that is happening right now and it needs to have more of this resource level commitment

speaker

Raquel Gatto

reason

This comment highlights a critical practical challenge facing the IGF, bringing attention to the often-overlooked issue of funding and sustainability.

impact

It shifted the conversation from theoretical benefits of the multi-stakeholder model to practical considerations for its continuation, prompting thoughts on how to ensure the IGF’s longevity.

I come from a country which actually really wants the world to be exactly multilateral, not multi-stakeholder. And in some cases, including our country, keeping multi-stakeholder relations and also technical relations like independent DNS, government independent DNS, is a kind of violation of law.

speaker

Audience member

reason

This comment from the audience introduced a critical perspective from countries resistant to the multi-stakeholder model, highlighting real-world challenges to its implementation.

impact

It prompted the panel to address how the multi-stakeholder model can be promoted or maintained in countries that are resistant to it, adding complexity to the discussion.

For AI to be successful, there are essentially three pillars to AI, which is the data that’s fed into the engines, the algorithms that compute the outcomes, and of course the back-end infrastructure. So if the data is bad, so if the data that goes into it is bad, the output is bad.

speaker

Tripti Sinha

reason

This comment succinctly explains the critical components of AI systems and highlights the importance of data quality, connecting the discussion to emerging technological challenges.

impact

It broadened the conversation to include considerations of AI and data governance within the context of internet governance, prompting thoughts on how these new technologies interact with existing governance structures.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by reinforcing the importance of the multi-stakeholder model while also highlighting its challenges. They broadened the conversation from a focus on past achievements to include considerations of future challenges, particularly around funding, resistance from some nations, and emerging technologies like AI. The discussion evolved from a celebration of the multi-stakeholder model’s successes to a more nuanced exploration of how to maintain and adapt this model in the face of geopolitical, financial, and technological challenges.

How can the multi-stakeholder model be propagated further to address issues like internet shutdowns?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This is important to explore how successful governance models like ICANN’s can be applied to other internet-related challenges.

How can the issue of lack of multi-stakeholder possibilities in non-free countries be addressed by the technical community and other stakeholders?

speaker

Alexander (audience member)

explanation

This highlights the need to consider how to implement multi-stakeholder approaches in countries with restrictive governance.

How can the multi-stakeholder governance framework ensure information integrity in the AI-driven age?

speaker

Audience member from Global Ethics Foundation

explanation

This is crucial to address emerging challenges related to AI and data governance within the existing internet governance framework.

What changes or evolution are necessary to make the IGF more impactful?

speaker

Moderator (to Raquel)

explanation

This is important to consider how to improve the effectiveness of the Internet Governance Forum in shaping future internet policies.

How can the technical community continue building trust and maintaining the global internet amidst an increasingly geopolitically polarized world?

speaker

Moderator (to Kurtis)

explanation

This is crucial to address the challenges of maintaining a unified internet in the face of growing geopolitical tensions.

What actions can the technical community and other key stakeholders take to ensure that the outcomes of the WSIS Plus 20 review preserve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder governance model?

speaker

Moderator (to Tripti)

explanation

This is important to consider strategies for maintaining the multi-stakeholder approach in future internet governance frameworks.