Open Forum #66 Next Steps in Internet Governance: Models for the Future

Summary

This discussion focused on the future of Internet governance models and the challenges facing digital policy. Panelists from Germany, Kenya, and India shared perspectives on their countries’ approaches to Internet governance. Key themes included the importance of maintaining a multi-stakeholder model, addressing the digital divide, and increasing youth engagement.

The German representative emphasized preserving the multi-stakeholder approach and the central role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Kenya highlighted challenges like the urban-rural digital divide and cybersecurity threats, while noting opportunities in government support for startups and youth engagement. India stressed the need to communicate the value of Internet governance to policymakers focused on economic development.

Participants agreed on the importance of bottom-up, inclusive approaches and international cooperation. However, resource constraints and unequal participation across countries remain challenges. The discussion touched on ways to strengthen the IGF, including empowering its Multistakeholder Advisory Group and increasing funding for the Secretariat.

Youth engagement emerged as a crucial topic, with panelists advocating for meaningful youth participation beyond tokenism. The digital divide was identified as a persistent issue, particularly for rural and marginalized communities. Innovative approaches and capacity building were suggested to address these gaps.

Overall, the discussion highlighted the complex landscape of Internet governance and the need for continued evolution of governance models to meet future challenges. Participants expressed optimism about the IGF’s future while acknowledging the need for reforms to enhance its effectiveness and inclusivity.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of maintaining and strengthening the multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance

– Challenges of digital divides and inequalities in Internet access and participation, especially in developing countries

– The need to engage youth and marginalized communities in Internet governance processes

– Potential improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), including strengthening its mandate, secretariat, and outputs

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore current Internet governance models and how they can adapt to address growing digital policy challenges, as well as identify best practices to enhance trust in digital governance processes.

The tone of the discussion was generally constructive and forward-looking, with panelists sharing perspectives from their countries and experiences. There was broad agreement on the value of the multi-stakeholder model, but also recognition of its limitations and areas for improvement. Toward the end, the tone became more urgent and critical regarding the need to evolve and strengthen Internet governance institutions, particularly the IGF.

Speakers

– Luiza Ferreira: Moderator

– Keith Andere: Executive Director of the Center for Climate Research and Information, Chair of the Kenya Youth IGF

– Rudolf Gridl: Director General of the Central Department of BMDB, the German Ministry for Digital Affairs and Transport

– Amrita Choudhury: Director of the Cyber Cafe Association from India

Additional speakers:

– Bertrand de la Chapelle: Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network

– Wout de Natris: Consultant, representing the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety

The Future of Internet Governance: Challenges and Opportunities

This discussion, moderated by Luiza Ferreira, brought together experts from Germany, Kenya, and India to explore the future of Internet governance models and the challenges facing digital policy. The panel included Rudolf Gridl, Director General of the Central Department of BMDB, the German Ministry for Digital Affairs and Transport; Keith Andere, Executive Director of the Center for Climate Research and Information and Chair of the Kenya Youth IGF; and Amrita Choudhury, Director of the Cyber Cafe Association from India.

National Perspectives on Internet Governance

The discussion began with panelists sharing their countries’ approaches to internet governance. Rudolf Gridl emphasized Germany’s commitment to the multi-stakeholder model, stating, “For us the future of Internet Governance is a multi-stakeholder one. It’s a multi-stakeholder process. It used to be and it should remain one.” He also stressed the importance of international cooperation, noting, “The bottom-up, the multistakeholder approach. Then our experience is, and it’s a very blunt experience, but it’s important, you need to take your money where your mouth is.”

Keith Andere highlighted Kenya’s challenges, particularly the digital divide between urban and rural areas. He emphasized the country’s vibrant youth population and their eagerness to engage in internet governance discussions. Andere also noted innovative approaches in Kenya, such as using community networks to bridge connectivity gaps and involving youth in digital literacy initiatives for older generations.

Amrita Choudhury discussed the complexities of implementing multi-stakeholder processes in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly in India. She noted the challenges of engaging diverse communities and the limitations of consultative processes in countries with varied backgrounds and literacy levels.

Multi-stakeholder Approach and Current Challenges

While the panelists agreed on the value of the multi-stakeholder model, they acknowledged significant challenges, especially in developing countries. The persistent digital divide not only affects access to the Internet but also impacts participation in governance processes. Choudhury emphasized the need for more contextualised approaches to address these challenges effectively.

Youth Engagement and Digital Literacy

A crucial theme that emerged was the importance of youth engagement in Internet governance. Keith Andere showcased Kenya’s efforts in involving young people in these discussions. However, Amrita Choudhury cautioned against tokenism, stating, “We should move away from tokenism. We just don’t, you know, many times you will see you need woman representation, so you put in a woman in a panel.” This called for more meaningful inclusion of youth and underrepresented groups in governance processes.

The panelists agreed on the need to enhance digital literacy programmes for marginalized communities, with youth playing a vital role in bridging the digital gap for older generations.

The Future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the future of the IGF and potential improvements to its structure and processes. Several suggestions were made to strengthen the IGF:

1. Renewing and potentially updating the IGF’s mandate

2. Institutionalizing its structure with a clear charter

3. Strengthening the IGF Secretariat with more human and financial resources

4. Empowering the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) to play a more effective role in agenda-setting and structuring the IGF

5. Improving the recognition and promotion of IGF outputs

Bertrand de la Chapelle, from the audience, provided a critical perspective, noting, “Being somebody who was at the summit, like many people here, I must confess that in the last 20 years, we haven’t invented much. The last two innovations were the creation of ICANN before the summit, and the creation of the IGF.” This statement prompted reflection on the need for innovation in Internet governance structures.

Wout de Natris, also from the audience, suggested finding a ‘Goldilocks zone’ for the MAG’s role in agenda-setting and enhancing the IGF’s output mechanisms without adopting a formal UN-style negotiation process.

Addressing Inequalities and Capacity Building

The panelists discussed various approaches to address inequalities in Internet governance participation. Keith Andere emphasized the importance of tackling basic issues like literacy and infrastructure in developing countries. Amrita Choudhury called for innovation in digital public infrastructure to increase accessibility.

Capacity building emerged as a crucial theme, particularly for policymakers in developing countries. Choudhury highlighted the challenge of communicating the value of Internet governance to policymakers focused on economic development, stating, “When you just say Internet governance, they may not understand the value. They value an Internet governance forum. They’ll never oppose it, but it’s not priority. That’s why you will not find high, you know, top officials coming here.”

Conclusion

In their final remarks, the panelists offered diverse perspectives on the future of internet governance. Rudolf Gridl emphasized the need for concrete projects and funding to support cooperation. Keith Andere stressed the importance of addressing basic infrastructure and literacy issues while leveraging youth engagement. Amrita Choudhury called for more inclusive and contextual approaches to internet governance, particularly in developing countries.

The discussion highlighted the complex landscape of Internet governance and the need for continued evolution of governance models to meet future challenges. While there was broad agreement on the value of the multi-stakeholder approach, participants recognized the need for significant reforms to enhance its effectiveness and inclusivity. The conversation underscored the importance of addressing digital divides, meaningfully engaging youth and marginalized communities, and strengthening key institutions like the IGF. As Internet governance continues to evolve, these insights provide valuable direction for policymakers and stakeholders working to shape a more inclusive and effective digital future.

Luiza Ferreira: My name is Luisa, and I’ll be moderating the session today called Next Steps in Internet Governance Models for the Future. And today we will explore the current Internet Governance Models and how they can adapt to the growing challenges that the digital policy poses to us, and also how we can identify best practices to enhance trust in digital governance process. And to do this, we have here our wonderful speakers with a lot of experience in Internet Governance, so let me introduce them to you. On my left side, I have Keith Andere. He is Executive Director of the Center for Climate Research and Information and also Chair of the Kenya Youth IGF. We have Dr. Rudolf Gliedl. He is Director General of the Central Department of BMDB, the German Ministry for Digital Affairs and Transport. And we have Amrita, Director of the Cyber Cafe Association from India. And our event will be composed of two sessions of two round questions for each speaker. And then we will open the floor for a quick Q&A afterwards. So if you are joining us via Zoom, you can just send the questions and then we will forward them to the speakers. So, considering we have a pretty tight schedule, I ask you to keep your answers to two or three minutes. And since we don’t have a timer, just excuse me if I have to jump in. So, let’s start to open our discussion. I would like to invite our panelists to share their perspectives from their countries. And because digital policies have evolved so much and there are different models everywhere, so it would be really nice to hear how your countries have adapted to it. So, first question for you, Dr. Gliedl. So, from the perspective of BMDB, what emergency priorities do you see for Germany in the future of Internet Governance, especially concerning the intersection with European and global markets?

Rudolf Gridl: Can you all hear me? Okay. So, thank you very much and thank you for having me on this distinguished panel. I would start with the obvious but I think very important sentence that for us the future of Internet Governance is a multi-stakeholder one. It’s a multi-stakeholder process. It used to be and it should remain one. Secondly, it’s also very important for us to have the IGF as the cornerstone and the central piece of this multi-stakeholder process of Internet Governance. We are very well aware that there are also at European level, of course, but also on the international level, new developments and new aspirations. But we see them and we participate and we are, of course, also active in the European Union, we are active in the United Nations. But also, we are active with an aim and our aim is to integrate most of what’s going on in these fora into the IGF world. Because, as I said, this for us is still the centerpiece. And when I’m looking inside Germany, we have a German IGF, we have the youth, we have many multi-stakeholder processes within Germany. And we would really not like to lose this momentum and this very active community by putting the whole questions on an intergovernmental level. So, it should stay on the multilateral level. On the multi-stakeholder level, it should not go to the multilateral level. That’s for us the most important future question nationally, European level and international level.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you so much for your answer, Dr. Gridl. And I couldn’t agree more, especially concerning the renovation of the IGF mandate next year. So, Keith, now next to you. In your vision, what are the unique challenges and opportunities of the Kenya Internet Governance Ecosystem? And how does this specific challenge influence your ideal model of Internet Governance, please?

Keith Andere: Thank you so much for having me. It’s indeed a pleasure to share some experience from Kenya. So, the Kenya Internet Governance landscape presents several unique challenges and opportunities that inform the ideal model for Internet Governance. I’ll mention some challenges, but I’ll also mention some of the opportunities that this presents. So, in terms of challenge, I think there are three challenges. One is the digital divide. The next is data privacy and protection and cybersecurity threats. I think on the digital divide, despite the progress that we’ve seen in the country, there remains a significant gap in the Internet access between urban areas and rural areas. So, when you go deep into the rural areas, you find that the access is still an issue. So, this limits opportunities, especially for young Kenyans, to participate fully in the digital economy and access essential services, given that a lot of government services have also been put online. So, you find there’s a huge challenge when the issues of access and affordability at rural areas for somebody who wants to access government services, including even something as basic as renewing a driver’s license, for example. The second one, which was on data privacy and protection, we have enacted the Data Protection Act in 2019. So, we already have a fully functional independent office of the Data Protection Commission, and this highlights the need for a robust framework to safeguard personal data. However, there are some challenges that persist in ensuring compliance and public awareness regarding data rights. So, we don’t know rights versus responsibility. I think many of the times we focus more on the rights, but never look at the responsibility. So, data processor, data handler, what are my responsibilities as an individual or as an organization? So, I think that still needs a bit of awareness. On cyber security threats, we’ve also seen an increased number of incidents, especially on cyber bullying. Hate speech has also gone up, especially around political processes and participation, and data breaches, of course, still pose very serious risks. And this is a risk both to individuals and organizations, you know, necessitating enhanced cyber security measures and public education on online safeties. So, on opportunities. Again, I’ll just very quickly go down on three of them. So one, we have some government support on startups. This has seen that there’s growing recognition from government regarding the importance of fostering innovation and entrepreneurship, which leads to initiative that supports startup growth in digital transformation journey. And then the second one is on youth engagement. Kenya has a very, very, very vibrant and innovative youth population, many of whom are eager to engage in Internet governance discussions, and that speaks to the youth IGF. We know we have a community of over 500 youth IGF community, and also from the Kenya School of Internet Governance, we’ve seen a lot of interest for the young people to actually take this School of Internet Governance to the extent that KikTernet has made this a paying module, so young people are even willing to pay to actually go through this school, and the model is actually growing, and these young people are beginning to now come and shape the policies. Then lastly is collaboration among stakeholders. The establishment of a forum like Kenya IGF, like I’ve said, have fostered the collaboration among stakeholders, government, civil society, academia, in a multi-stakeholder approach to address digital governance challenges. So I’ll stop here.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you so much. I feel like the challenges you said are very common to several countries of the global South, for my country Brazil, for example, it’s the same. And now back to Emirates. So when it comes to participatory process in digital governance, we can mention the consultative process that the telecom regulator authority have concerned during the last years, and I’d like to ask you what are the main lessons learned from these processes, and what are also the main limitations of consultative participation, especially in a country with such diversity backgrounds as in India.

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you so much, and thank you for having me. I’ll also try to answer something which you have been asking the other participants. So India initially was more for a multilateral process, but later endorsed the multi-stakeholder process. And one, I would say, example where the consultative process works is with the telecom regulatory authority, who looks after mostly the telecom services. So they have a consultative process wherein they have a consultation, stakeholders put in their comments, it is put up on the website, you can counter-comment on them within a particular stipulated time, they may have open houses where you can, you know, counter-interact with each other. That’s one good thing, which the transparency and accountability is something which is open, which normally in many of the processes we don’t see. But what needs to be done more there would be the lack of understanding apart from the people who are participating in the consultation, and many may not even know what the consultation paper, for example, is all about. It can be on, say, you know, spectrum, but it may also affect the community networks, the smaller ones, who may not even know that it may impact them. So the outreach or the capacity or even letting all the others know about it is one of the limitations in a country wherein you have various education levels, various languages, different terrains. So I think that’s a work in progress. It may be in many other developing countries. Now coming back to where the initial question you asked about, you know, Internet governance, India does have an Internet governance forum where things are discussed. However, in a developing country, when you talk about Internet governance, that may not be the priority of all the countries because the governments want to provide access to everyone. That is their first priority. They want jobs. They want technology to leapfrog. So if I’m looking at India, they would be more interested in having manufacturing of chipset in the country or access or even using AI as startups. When you just say Internet governance, they may not understand the value. They value an Internet governance forum. They’ll never oppose it, but it’s not priority. That’s why you will not find high, you know, top officials coming here. I think they need to know more about Internet governance forum is just not about names, numbers, protocols, or the traditional Internet governance things because a lot more is discussed from the developing world, which would impact them. So I think the narrative to them has not been expanded, that this is just not this. There is more discussed, and there is value for them to come. So I think that narrative is important, and I think it is important for most of the developing countries.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you, Amrita. Again, as you just said, regarding developing countries, I feel like this is pretty much a reality for Brazil as well, especially concerning digital divide and access to the Internet and equipments. So thank you, all of you. We’ll now go to our next slide, and it’s concerning multi-stakeholder approaches. So Keith, I’ll go with you first. And so you mentioned in your answers the access to Internet in rural or marginalized communities. So I would like to ask you where access disparities remain a challenge, and what additional steps could the multi-stakeholder model take to address the needs to bridge the digital divide, ensuring that the government’s policies reflect the needs of this population, not leaving them behind of the process.

Keith Andere: Sure, sure. Thank you so much. Yeah, so one is to enhance the digital literacy programs. And here, KiktaNet is currently involved in digital scaling for over 10,000 community digital champions in two marginalized counties. So we have the national government, and then we have county governments. So we’ve picked two counties that are of marginalized communities where we are already doing the community digital champions there. And this will, of course, further open to other counties as we continue. And so this collaboration is together with the UK government. We will also be doing the same for women in 10 counties in Kenya under the Women in Digital Economy Fund. By improving digital skills, we see that the community can better engage with online services and participate also in Internet governance discussions. There’s need to increase investments in essential infrastructure, such as reliable electricity. We see that this is a challenge where we don’t have reliable electricity and power and energy needs as it is when you’re talking about just transition. And telecommunication networks as well. We’ve also noticed that these marginalized counties do not have coverage because for many telecommunication companies, they don’t see these counties as opportunities for them to make business case in that sense. So again, collaborating with government and private sectors, stakeholders can help develop a robust framework for expanding connectivity and ensuring equitable access to digital resources. And lastly, to facilitate community engagement platforms, creating platforms for community members to voice their concerns and perspective in Internet governance issues, engaging local leaders in the decision-making process. We’ll also ensure that policies are informed by unique challenges faced by rural communities. So we think that these steps aim to empower marginalized communities, but it will also improve access to digital resources and ensure that their voices are integral in shaping Internet governance policies in Kenya.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you so much. Thank you so much and also for pointing out the participation of citizens in DPI. I feel like this is not really talked about enough when developing services. I’ll go now to Dr. Grindel. So Germany has been very active in multilateral discussions on Internet governance and digital governance in general, as well as in bilateral dialogues. So I’d like to ask you, what role do you envision for international cooperation in Internet governance, and how can countries and organizations better work together to address these global challenges?

Rudolf Gridl: Yes, thank you. Yes, we are actually very active on a multilateral, multistakeholder and also on a bilateral level. My personal experience or our experience is that the more we exercise a bottom-up approach, the more fruitful it becomes. becomes for everybody. So when we’re having our bilateral digital dialogues with countries around the world, from the global south, but even from the north, we always aim at having participation of all the stakeholders. In some kind of way, we don’t have one-size-fits-all solution. But that’s something which is very important to us, to have this bottom-up, not to have like one government or two governments sitting together and then imposing on the community what they have decided that’s not going to work. And we do it on a bilateral level. And we believe that we should also not do it on a multilateral, international level. So the bottom-up, the multistakeholder approach. Then our experience is, and it’s a very blunt experience, but it’s important, you need to take your money where your mouth is. So if you’re only talking, it’s fine. But it’s not enough. So if you want to really get into real cooperation, you need to have concrete projects. You have to have money from the development corporation, or as in our case, for instance, we are funding the IGF Secretariat also for the next year with 250,000 euros. So we really think the talking is important, but it’s not sufficient. Well, that’s another lesson learned. And we are trying to convince our fellow European and international partners to follow suit. And some of them do, as you know. And that is also something that we are bringing into the discussion with the WESIS plus 20 process next year, where we see many voices on the table and some tendencies of centralization, of having power projected from top to down. And we don’t like what we are seeing there. And we are working quite actively with our partners that are like-minded to guide this discussion and these negotiations that will come into a good direction.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you very much for your answer. As a part of the Secretariat of the International Digital Dialogue, I’m very proud of the work we have been doing. And I really believe that this bottom-up approach is the only solution, to be honest. So now, Amarita, you have been a very great advocate for youth engagement, both in India and in the IGF as a general. And from your perspective, what should policymakers do to ensure that the youth can actively contribute to internet governance, both in their respective countries and globally as well?

Amrita Choudhury: So we should move away from tokenism. We just don’t, you know, many times you will see you need woman representation, so you put in a woman in a panel. That happens many places. You know, many times you need to show women, so you have someone in the board. You have that kind of a thing. So many times you’ll see you want to have a youth, so you put a youth. But I think you have to take them seriously. We were having a discussion today, like what the narrative should be. I think you have to reach out to the youth in the way they work. For example, they are on messages, they are on videos, et cetera. Talk to them about what they think is the internet, how it should be shaped in the future, what they perceive are the challenges, or try to explain it to them that, look, what you take for granted today may actually hurt you. And obviously, build their capacity just like you do with the other politicians or the others. Is it better now? OK. So I think you have to talk to them in their language, try to understand them, not patronize them. That’s one. And also explain to them what is at stake. Give them the opportunities to come. You know, if they have to come, present, build their capacity, and also make them accountable. Simply, for example, if you have rules or regulations on online gaming coming and you want age gating, have you actually spoken to 16, 17-year-old young adults how they would want it? Are you giving them some amount of responsibility on how they could do it? I think that’s important. The youth IGF initiatives in the countries should be encouraged. Wearing my IGF support associations hat, we try to support them. And I’m sure many governments are also supporting those initiatives. Not only the discussions out there. Try to have more tangible discussions on, you know, I would say key takeaways, which they can implement, et cetera. Could be one way of looking at it. And whatever they have in their respective countries in terms of learnings, they push it back to the youth IGF, at the IGF. And whatever messages come, they are percolated down. Just before the session, I was speaking that the messages which come out from the IGF needs to reach everyone. Are we ensuring that happens? So even the youth initiatives have a lot of discussions which happen. Do the messages actually go to all the governments? I think those are certain things. If we do, at least baby steps can help.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you so much. As we have actually three panelists here that are kind of engaged with the youth. So this is a happy coincidence. And I feel like the first phrase that you said about don’t tokenize in people, this is actually the key role. So now we are going to an audience interaction section. So I’d like to know if we have any questions here in the room. No? Doesn’t seem like it. OK. Please welcome self and Judy to the microphone.

Audience: Thank you very much. I was looking at the topic itself. The next steps in internet governance into looking for modules for the future. I would like to contribute by saying the multistakeholder model will persist. At least for now, I don’t see any alternative. So like the presenter in the middle mentioned, it’s a multistakeholder compared to multilateralism. We have already seen the problems with multilateralism quite recently with the UN treaty. We have a lot of challenges being mentioned about it, yet it was negotiated in multilateral conditions. So I see internet governance persisting to be under multistakeholder situations. And the multistakeholder model itself has evolved. And I think the way it has evolved is that it has gone regional and it has even gone national. We now have national IGFs, but they are not enough. So in future, I’m looking at a situation where we will have more national IGFs, but also operating under the multistakeholder model.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you very much for your comment. Does anyone would like to comment?

Rudolf Gridl: Thank you for this intervention. I think it’s very, very relevant. We do have in Europe the EuroDIG, which is a regional European IGF. I myself have been to many meetings of the EuroDIG and what you’re saying is completely right. It is another perspective. It is a more comprehensive view about the challenges that people in the same region face regarding to internet governance. And I would, from my experience, wholeheartedly support this intervention.

Amrita Choudhury: Coming from the Asia-Pacific, I chaired the Asia-Pacific Regional IGFs and where that happened, explain. So we have something called a synthesis document which we release after each, you know, annual event. The challenge in Asia-Pacific is we have very diverse countries. We have the big ones like India, China. You have the small Pacific islands. You have the landlocked countries like Nepal, Afghanistan, not to forget. So we have various diverse countries with different sensitivities, et cetera. We do pass it, but it’s very difficult to come to a common ground on certain things. So yes, you need to have these dialogues within the country so that you can even influence your own governments wherever possible, even if you cannot do it from a regional perspective. Also, for example, we had our Asia-Pacific in Taiwan. Taiwan is not recognized in UN, so none of the UN people came there, you know, even the IGF. So those are hard facts which we face in our region, but they are very involved in it. So those are certain things we have to look at various places, and also the other thing is, you know, we are seeing all stakeholders. You may have, say, for example, I come from civil society. We may be working, we may be actively contributing, but when decisions are made, are civil society given that much of value? For example, when discussions on artificial intelligence is going on, yes, private sector has a bigger stake, and they are more involved, whereas there may be some people from civil society who understands AI or the issues. I’m not saying everyone, but at least people understanding. Are they taken into consideration then? Is, during this so-called multi-stakeholderism, some stakeholders given more power than others? I think those are also certain things we need to consider, but I completely agree with you, but reality at times is very skewed.

Luiza Ferreira: So we have a question online, and if it’s via chat, or you can open your mic and just go as well, please. Are you with us, at the beginning? Okay, so I’ll just pass to the room. Please open mic. Can the tech room open his mic, please? I think, I feel like he’s not able to open it. Just a second. Okay.

Audience: Okay, thank you, colleague. Do you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, thanks. Thanks a lot for the discussion. So, formats and approaches are highlighted during the discussion, have so many, how to say, different modalities, that it’s very difficult to say how such experience can be applied for future internet governance. Since we have a topic, next steps of future approach for internet governance. So, but we still see a big inequality in terms of, how to say, contribution of all countries for the moment to the global internet governance. Moreover, some multi-stakeholder approach, in one hand, how to say, provide a wide possibility to involve any actors, but in other case, we see that’s a, how to say, it brings the voices of business and other actors, who, how to say, frankly speaking, has to represent a global minority. My question, understand it’s maybe a more philosophical question, how we can avoid dictatorship, force it, push towards formats agreed by an active minority, but this minority which have maximum resources for research development, think tanks, in one case, and for practical implementation, use a governance approach in other case. How avoid this possible mis-equality? Thank you.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you for your question. Does anyone want to like to answer? Okay.

Keith Andere: Yeah, thanks. I think this inequality is really not going to be there for as long as, one, we have issues of access, because then that in itself is a barrier. Second thing that I think, you know, would still exhibit these inequalities is actually the issues of resources, and resources here speak both to technical and financial resources, because then, even just participating online, like the colleague has already done, if you don’t have resources to buy, for example, you can’t do it, that enables you to be here. That in itself stifles this. However, borrowing from some of the experiences of Global South, I think we are seeing a lot of governments also coming in very strongly to support and make it a priority, you know, for digital infrastructure and other ecosystem that support digital infrastructure. Things like energy, for example, is one of the things that we’re seeing government already working very hard to ensure that there’s last mile connectivity. If I was to compare Saudi and Kenya, for example, Kenya, I think, is one of the leading countries as far as renewable energy is concerned, right? And so we have a lot of potential in terms of just using clean, renewable energy, but only about 30% of the population is connected to the grid, whereas in Saudi Arabia, I hear it’s over 90%, almost 100%, despite the fact that this is a desert. In all intents and purposes. So you’d think that Kenya would, and Saudi Arabia would be the other way around. We have geothermal, we have all these things, but the things that are already pushing out these people, you know, to be connected and to be part and parcel of this kind of conversation. But I think now we need to start unlocking these inequalities by even just tackling the basics. Literacy, you know, in Global South is a challenge. So if literacy is a challenge, then how do we curb digital literacy in itself, yeah? Because at least you need to be able to read and write before you can actually operate a computer. My grandmother, for example, we got her a phone while she can do the basic reading and writing. So we got her a feature phone. But then she feels left out, that she also wants. However, as much as she really wants to be on WhatsApp, and when I’m here, she tells my cousin, oh, where is my other grandchild? Tell him to send me a WhatsApp. So I sent her a picture of me in this session. But then she says, oh, has she sent it? Open, open for me. Now, you see, that in itself is a challenge, because whereas a lot of these services and government issues are coming on to the digital platforms, there’s a risk of having a middleman, you know, who then can swindle some of them, all of these ideas. When we send them, in Kenya, M-Pesa is very popular. So when I send her a little money, she has a way to just know that that is a text message. So read it for me. Is it M-Pesa? Can I look at the numbers? And then after that, she can’t quite remember what was the balance. She just knows it was a 953, you know? So sometimes they go and remove maybe 100 shillings, and then it’s 853. Then she’s like, oh, there’s a 53, so that’s fine, you know? Just, you know, to conclude, how can we curb these inequalities? I think the next generation that is coming are the generation that are going to bridge the gap, you know, towards the generation that has been left behind with this digital journey, I mean, train that has already left. So my grandmother, just to sum it up, is now connected because she has grandchildren who can now read and write, who are technologically savvy. And so she’s able to navigate the terrain because of the people that are around her. So who do we support from the places and the communities we come from to hold and sort of handhold them and ensure that they’re also not left behind? So I think the honors is on us, really.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you very much. Another example of the importance of the youth, actually. Amrita, would you like to compliment?

Amrita Choudhury: I kind of agree, especially with senior citizens and people who are very new to the internet, using these technologies where you have been thrown. today, many of the government service, et cetera, is on internet, so you have to use need-assisted service. Assisted service always is not bad, because language also may be a problem. For example, many things may be multilingual, but when the payment comes, it may be English. So those are there. But if you look at it, there is innovation happening. Today, for digital public infrastructure, whatever, in India, even a fruit seller who can’t read can take money. And they do understand it. When they see value, they use it. They will scan, and they will write in their own language, send it to you. You can choose what you want. You pay to them. We don’t even have to talk. They are illiterate, but they know how to use it. So if they see value, and if you can put it in pictures or in audio, it works where people do not speak. And that is where the innovation comes in. But yes, there is a difference between the digital divide and the digital and technological divide is increasing. If you talk about AI, et cetera, coming in, the divides will increase further. And I think that’s where somewhere the GDC scores a point, at least in text. It talks about transfer of technology. Whether it will happen in reality, that’s a different thing. But it talks about it. And that’s what developing countries are also asking for. So I think there are a lot of capacity building which is done, and I do know German government has done it during the GDC also, building capacity in developing countries. I think those kind of capacity building can help to at least train parliamentarian or people who are in power to understand what is happening, what is not, and also others who are interested to build with judiciary. UNESCO is doing those work. So it is work in progress. You can’t change everything, but definitely things may change.

Luiza Ferreira: Thanks. Okay. Please go ahead. Is it working? It is.

Audience: Apologies for my sore throat. It’s not that I participated in so many panels, but I have a bad cough. I’m Bertrand de la Chapelle from the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network. And I want to address the question of the future and the institutions. In 2004, during the summit on the Information Society, Kofi Annan said something that has been quoted very frequently since then, which is, in designing the governance, I paraphrase, but in designing the governance mechanism for this internet, we need to be as innovative as the ones who invented it. Being somebody who was at the summit, like many people here, I must confess that in the last 20 years, we haven’t invented much. The last two innovations were the creation of ICANN before the summit, and the creation of the IGF. And if you are sincere, the IGF that we know here was entirely built because of two people, Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer, who are just like a blank state. And they invented this thing. They invented the MAG. They invented the chair of the MAG. There was a role of a secretary. We had a deputy secretary general of the United Nations who was a former minister of India who had a lot of weight. And we’ve been running on this since then without inventing much, apart from the national and regional IGFs, which has actually spread. But we are at the moment, 20 years later, where we are failing in our responsibility to invent what the next step is. The IGF, as it is, has all the components that it needs to be successful. And each of them is failing. Each of them is just not what it could be. The MAG is, for anybody who follows it, is not playing the role of a real agenda-setting and conference-structuring manner. The chair of the MAG is not empowered sufficiently to give a direction because the mandate is not sufficient. The secretariat has no resources, human or financial. All the building blocks are there, but each of them need a little bit of a push. To finish, we will have the WSIS Plus 20 review. We will not solve this problem, unfortunately, in 2025 because we will have the two co-facilitators that will be nominated God knows when. They will be running the consultations in the very traditional way. They will lead to, most probably, a roadblock at the end because I take personally the reconduction of the IGF for granted. There should not even be a question about the reconduction. The question is, how will it go and evolve? And there are two questions. One, do we revisit and update the mandate of the IGF? And two, do we institutionalize the structure with a charter of sorts? Same building blocks, but clarifying the roles and responsibilities. And to finish, the problem is that it was possible to create ICANN in another time, but it is still a not-for-profit based in one country in the US because you have only two ways to do things. Either you anchor something in one country and give it an international footprint, or you create an intergovernmental organization. We do not have, in our international system, a way to create a non-intergovernmental transnational institution. And if we wanted to create what is needed, i.e. to incorporate the IGF as a multi-stakeholder international organization, we don’t have the tool to do this. And that’s one of the challenges.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you very much for your input. We have another question there, and then we pass to the speakers, okay? Thank you.

Wout de Natris: My name is Wouter Natris. I’m a consultant in the Netherlands and here representing the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety. And I would like to add something to Bertrand that what came out of the IGF are also Dynamic Coalition’s best practice fora that are delivering content. But for the rest, you almost took everything away that I wanted to say, but I would like to add one particular thing. I think that the IGF has the capacity already to decide what its output should be, except we don’t make choices on it. And we have to start making choices. And the coalitions are really advocating making their outputs more recognized, perhaps even with some sort of a sanction of the IGF that it’s a good process, et cetera, but that we show the world what we’re actually doing and that we’re not a talk show, but everybody says we are. We are not a talk show anymore because a lot is coming out of it, but we need to promote it. And that’s what’s horribly wrong at this moment, that it’s hardly promoted what these outputs are. And as Dynamic Coalitions, we are going to fight for that, I think in 2025 to make this better known. So from your point of view, what should the MAG help here and what should change in the MAG to actually make that happen? What is your view there? Thank you.

Rudolf Gridl: May I? Yes. Thank you, Bertrand. Thank you, Wout. For those of you who do not know me, I’m not only at the moment in the Ministry for Digital Affairs, the Director General for Central Affairs. I used to be responsible for the organization of the Berlin IGF in 2019. And in this capacity, I was also a member of the MAG. So these are really very relevant. These are really very relevant questions that you are asking. And I think that we have now some months to find answers. We won’t probably find all the answers in that time, but we can open up some ways to continue. For this, I think the first thing in my view, and I have said it, but I think it’s really important and it goes without saying, the IGF is there, it will continue, and it will be the cornerstone or the central piece of the multilateral internet governance world. Now, what is the role of the MAG? Having been member of the MAG, I know that there have been really intensive discussions about the question, do we have the capacity? Do we have the mandate to set an agenda? Is this something that we can impose on the multi-stakeholders? Who are we? What is our legitimacy as a MAG? And now we have this process which is established, which is working, but it’s a little bit cumbersome and it’s not very like, and it’s, yeah, it could be improved. of asking to the community and bringing back the ideas and then setting the agenda. I have no solution, but I know that as soon as you start a discussion of the mag being some kind of front runner or agenda setting body, this will most certainly bring a great discussion on the table with uncertain outcomes. The second question was, I think about the Secretariat and the funding, I think that is something we have to tackle in human resources and in financial resources. The Secretariat is doing an incredible job. These are incredible colleagues and they are really, I mean, from the bottom of my heart, I thank them until this day for everything that they have done in 2019 and all the years before and after and it’s a great team, but they are really at the edge of what they are able to do. We need to, as a community, as a multi-stakeholder community that’s what I was saying, we have to put the money where our mouth is, we have to strengthen the Secretariat. That’s very, very clear. And then there have been ideas and the dynamic coalitions are one of them and there are others. We have to have not a negotiated declaration, not some cumbersome UN kind of style document, but something that gives the inspiration that we are receiving and that we are all encompassing here to the world, to the decision-making bodies, telling them, okay, listen, you have a negotiation on I would say AI and human rights, there are many very good ideas that have been discussed here and that’s more or less the framework in which you are positioning yourself. And that should be possible, I think, without having like a UN style negotiation. I stop here.

Audience: Yeah, maybe and thank you very much for giving me the floor for two fingers. As you mentioned, Rudolf, the discussions within the MAG on what is the extent of its mandate is an ongoing discussion. I always answer with a joke. The joke is you don’t have a bottom-up if you don’t have an app. And a bottom-up process is a Goldilocks zone. It’s basically you need to have something that is participatory, but we all know that if it’s uniquely participatory, you go nowhere. There’s no closure. If on the other hand, you consider as a MAG member and as a group that you have the absolute authority to set the agenda, you’re too far on the too hot for too cold. And I think the discussion is what is the right balance so that the input is being taken into account. But I wouldn’t be offended at all if the MAG in its own thinking were saying, we think that next year there should be three tracks that we put on place. There can be others that are produced entirely by the community, but on those three tracks, we would like to cluster the different workshops so that you have a structured agenda. And this Goldilocks zone is probably the approach for many of the things. And I agree with Wood. I mean, the dynamic coalition, the high-level panel, all of these are components, as I said, that are part of the architecture that we should build upon, but they’re not sufficient the way they are.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you. Amrita, before passing to you, I would like to, when you do your answer already, do your final remarks, please, because we only have five minutes. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you. I think most of the people in this room agree that the IGF needs to be renewed, as in, of course, right, that’s taken for granted. It has to have more teeth. Again, shamelessly talking about the working group strategy, many of you are there in the group. We prepared a vision document of how to strengthen the IGF and make it more strategic. I would suggest that if you can look at it, it’s on the IGF website. There are various things which have been written which could make it more strategic, more appealing, and yes, empowerment of the MAG, of the secretariat is very important. The MAG doesn’t even know how these workshop rooms were done up. People think those 300 sessions which are happening here is something which the MAG did. Unfortunately, no. It is about 84 which they decided upon. Rest comes to, they come to know as we come to know. So that’s the hard reality here. So I think we need to preserve what we have and enhance it. I would stop at that.

Rudolf Gridl: Thank you. My finishing words. We have a interesting, important year in front of us. We should stay focused. We should stay optimistic. And we should try to give our best, to have the best internet governance forum or the best internet governance mechanism that this 21st century needs. And last thing, no duplication of structures.

Keith Andere: Thank you. I do agree with my fellow panelists by looking into the future, especially for us from the Global South, whom we played catch up with IGF process. You’ll find that many national IGFs came into play maybe the last 10 years or so. So a lot of countries from Global South, this is just when they are settling in. Knowing the IGF, sometimes it takes a few years to convince the government officials at national level that this is a space that they need to come as stakeholders and not to come to be criticized. So I see, I remain very optimistic that the IGF will possibly be extended if not the mandate to be renewed. But I also look at the future of IGF in the sense that it should be characterized by increased decentralization. We’ve seen a lot of countries being very expansive in terms of geographical. And so maybe this decentralization should actually go below national level so that we are even contextualizing things at the very local grassroot. I think one of the speakers here spoke about bottom-up approach. And so this national level shouldn’t be And secondly, I see collaboration as a very, very important and significant thing among diverse stakeholders. And I also see that balancing innovation with the needs of security and inclusivity in a rapidly evolving landscape as a very, very key thing because this landscape is changing almost every second. And resources must be put into the processes. Again, about even the secretariat not being capacitated with the resources. So I think the resources must come. And lastly, I think also I’m being very biased but without apology that Afghans must also be allowed managing and controlling these resources because technically we don’t. Thank you.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you everyone for participating. I feel like we had a really great debate. I feel sorry for the colleague in the back that I couldn’t take her answer but we have a tight schedule. And thank you everyone for participating in the debate and everyone online as well. Yeah, and have a nice rest of the IGF. Thank you. Excellent, thank you so much. Thank you. Picture? Yeah. Yeah, because he has a microphone. Okay. Thank you for the excellent moderation. That was great. Thank you. Thank you for jumping in. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach in Internet governance

speakers

Rudolf Gridl

Keith Andere

Amrita Choudhury

arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach is crucial for Internet governance

Need for decentralization and grassroots engagement in IGF processes

Consultative processes have limitations in countries with diverse backgrounds

summary

All speakers emphasized the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in Internet governance, advocating for inclusive participation and decentralized processes.

Need for strengthening IGF structures and processes

speakers

Rudolf Gridl

Amrita Choudhury

arguments

Importance of strengthening the IGF Secretariat and MAG

Need for concrete projects and funding to support cooperation

summary

Speakers agreed on the necessity to strengthen IGF structures, including the Secretariat and MAG, through increased resources and concrete projects.

Addressing digital divide and enhancing digital literacy

speakers

Keith Andere

Amrita Choudhury

arguments

Digital divide remains a significant challenge in developing countries

Need to enhance digital literacy programs for marginalized communities

Need for innovation in digital public infrastructure to increase accessibility

summary

Speakers highlighted the persistent digital divide in developing countries and emphasized the need for digital literacy programs and innovative infrastructure to increase accessibility.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of tangible actions and resources to support Internet governance initiatives, particularly in developing regions.

speakers

Rudolf Gridl

Keith Andere

arguments

Need for concrete projects and funding to support cooperation

Need to enhance digital literacy programs for marginalized communities

Both speakers stressed the crucial role of youth in Internet governance and the need for meaningful youth engagement beyond tokenism.

speakers

Keith Andere

Amrita Choudhury

arguments

Youth can help bridge the digital gap for older generations

Importance of moving beyond tokenism in youth engagement

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of regional and national Internet Governance Forums

speakers

Rudolf Gridl

Audience member

arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach is crucial for Internet governance

National and regional Internet Governance Forums are important

explanation

There was unexpected consensus between a government official and an audience member on the importance of regional and national Internet Governance Forums, highlighting a shared recognition of the value of localized multi-stakeholder processes.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of the multi-stakeholder approach, the need to strengthen IGF structures, addressing the digital divide, and enhancing youth engagement in Internet governance.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on key issues, particularly on the multi-stakeholder approach and the need for concrete actions to support Internet governance. This consensus suggests a shared vision for the future of Internet governance, emphasizing inclusivity, resource allocation, and capacity building. However, there were some variations in the specific focus areas and approaches suggested by different speakers, reflecting the diverse challenges faced in different regions and contexts.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to addressing digital divide

speakers

Keith Andere

Amrita Choudhury

arguments

Need to enhance digital literacy programs for marginalized communities

Need for innovation in digital public infrastructure to increase accessibility

summary

While both speakers address the digital divide, Keith Andere emphasizes digital literacy programs, while Amrita Choudhury focuses on innovative digital infrastructure solutions.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around specific approaches to addressing the digital divide and strengthening Internet governance processes.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the fundamental issues but offer different perspectives or emphasize different aspects of solutions. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and the need for improvement in Internet governance, with variations in proposed strategies based on regional experiences and priorities.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for capacity building and resource allocation, but Gridl emphasizes concrete projects and funding, while Choudhury focuses specifically on capacity building for policymakers in developing countries.

speakers

Rudolf Gridl

Amrita Choudhury

arguments

Need for concrete projects and funding to support cooperation

Importance of capacity building for policymakers in developing countries

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of tangible actions and resources to support Internet governance initiatives, particularly in developing regions.

speakers

Rudolf Gridl

Keith Andere

arguments

Need for concrete projects and funding to support cooperation

Need to enhance digital literacy programs for marginalized communities

Both speakers stressed the crucial role of youth in Internet governance and the need for meaningful youth engagement beyond tokenism.

speakers

Keith Andere

Amrita Choudhury

arguments

Youth can help bridge the digital gap for older generations

Importance of moving beyond tokenism in youth engagement

Key Takeaways

The multi-stakeholder approach remains crucial for Internet governance

Digital divide and access disparities are still major challenges, especially in developing countries

Youth engagement is important but needs to move beyond tokenism

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) needs to be strengthened and renewed, with more resources for the Secretariat and MAG

There is a need for more decentralization and grassroots engagement in Internet governance processes

Capacity building for policymakers in developing countries is essential

Resolutions and Action Items

Review and potentially update the mandate of the IGF

Strengthen the IGF Secretariat with more human and financial resources

Explore ways to make IGF outputs more recognized and promoted

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance bottom-up participation with agenda-setting in the IGF

How to address the growing inequality in global Internet governance participation

How to create a non-intergovernmental transnational institution for Internet governance

How to make IGF outputs more impactful without becoming a negotiated declaration

Suggested Compromises

Finding a ‘Goldilocks zone’ for the MAG’s role in agenda-setting – balancing community input with structured planning

Allowing the MAG to propose key tracks for the IGF while still permitting community-driven sessions

Enhancing the IGF’s output mechanisms without adopting a formal UN-style negotiation process

For us the future of Internet Governance is a multi-stakeholder one. It’s a multi-stakeholder process. It used to be and it should remain one.

speaker

Rudolf Gridl

reason

This comment set the tone for the entire discussion by emphasizing the importance of maintaining a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance.

impact

It framed the subsequent conversation around how to improve and evolve multi-stakeholder models rather than considering alternatives.

Kenya has a very, very, very vibrant and innovative youth population, many of whom are eager to engage in Internet governance discussions, and that speaks to the youth IGF.

speaker

Keith Andere

reason

This highlighted the importance of youth engagement in internet governance, especially in developing countries.

impact

It shifted part of the discussion to focus on how to meaningfully involve youth and build capacity in developing nations.

When you just say Internet governance, they may not understand the value. They value an Internet governance forum. They’ll never oppose it, but it’s not priority. That’s why you will not find high, you know, top officials coming here.

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

reason

This provided important context on why internet governance may not be prioritized in developing countries facing more immediate challenges.

impact

It prompted reflection on how to make internet governance more relevant and valuable to developing nations.

The bottom-up, the multistakeholder approach. Then our experience is, and it’s a very blunt experience, but it’s important, you need to take your money where your mouth is.

speaker

Rudolf Gridl

reason

This emphasized the need for concrete action and funding to support multi-stakeholder initiatives, not just talk.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider practical ways to strengthen and resource internet governance efforts.

We should move away from tokenism. We just don’t, you know, many times you will see you need woman representation, so you put in a woman in a panel.

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

reason

This called out superficial inclusion efforts and pushed for more meaningful engagement of underrepresented groups.

impact

It prompted discussion of how to ensure authentic representation and participation, especially for youth and women.

Being somebody who was at the summit, like many people here, I must confess that in the last 20 years, we haven’t invented much. The last two innovations were the creation of ICANN before the summit, and the creation of the IGF.

speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

reason

This provocative statement challenged the status quo and highlighted a lack of innovation in internet governance structures.

impact

It sparked a critical examination of current models and discussion of potential reforms and new approaches.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by repeatedly emphasizing the importance of meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement while also critically examining current models. They pushed the conversation to consider practical ways to strengthen internet governance, make it more inclusive and relevant to developing nations, and potentially reform existing structures. The discussion evolved from general principles to specific challenges and potential innovations needed to adapt internet governance for the future.

How can the IGF mandate be updated and its structure institutionalized with a charter to clarify roles and responsibilities?

speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

explanation

This is important to address the need for innovation in Internet governance mechanisms and to improve the effectiveness of the IGF.

How can we create a non-intergovernmental transnational institution for Internet governance?

speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

explanation

This is crucial for developing a more appropriate organizational structure for global Internet governance that goes beyond current limitations.

How can the IGF’s outputs be better recognized and promoted?

speaker

Wout de Natris

explanation

This is important to demonstrate the value and impact of the IGF beyond being perceived as just a ‘talk shop’.

What changes should be made to the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) to improve its effectiveness in agenda-setting and structuring the IGF?

speaker

Wout de Natris

explanation

This is crucial for enhancing the IGF’s ability to address key issues and produce meaningful outcomes.

How can the IGF Secretariat be strengthened in terms of human and financial resources?

speaker

Rudolf Gridl

explanation

This is important to improve the IGF’s capacity to organize and manage its activities effectively.

How can the IGF produce output documents that provide inspiration and guidance to decision-making bodies without resorting to cumbersome UN-style negotiations?

speaker

Rudolf Gridl

explanation

This is crucial for increasing the IGF’s impact on global Internet governance processes.

How can the IGF process be further decentralized to reach sub-national levels, especially in the Global South?

speaker

Keith Andere

explanation

This is important for increasing participation and ensuring that Internet governance discussions are contextualized at local levels.

How can youth be more meaningfully involved in Internet governance processes beyond tokenism?

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that the perspectives of younger generations are genuinely incorporated into Internet governance discussions and decisions.

How can the digital divide be addressed more effectively, particularly in terms of access, literacy, and capacity building in developing countries?

speaker

Multiple speakers (Keith Andere, Amrita Choudhury)

explanation

This is important for ensuring more equitable participation in Internet governance processes and the digital economy globally.