WS #138 Empowering End Users Voices in Internet Governance

Summary

This discussion focused on empowering end-users’ voices in Internet governance through multi-stakeholder approaches. Participants emphasized the importance of including diverse perspectives, particularly from underrepresented groups, in shaping digital policies. They highlighted challenges such as digital divides, language barriers, and power imbalances that hinder meaningful participation.

Several speakers stressed the need to evolve multi-stakeholder models to be more inclusive and results-oriented. They suggested disaggregating stakeholder categories to better reflect diverse interests and improving mechanisms for filtering up local concerns to global forums. The role of governments in facilitating inclusion was debated, with some emphasizing their unique responsibilities while others cautioned against overreliance on traditional power structures.

Participants discussed strategies for engaging end-users, including citizen assemblies, opinion polls, and leveraging emerging technologies like AI for improved accessibility. However, concerns were raised about potential biases in AI systems and the need to involve underrepresented groups in technology development. The importance of creating channels for expression and empowering users to shape technologies’ future was emphasized.

The discussion touched on the changing digital landscape, particularly the impact of AI and the need for governance to keep pace. Speakers noted the challenges of balancing rapid innovation with inclusive decision-making processes. The upcoming WSIS+20 review was highlighted as a crucial opportunity to reaffirm and refine multi-stakeholder approaches in Internet governance.

Overall, the conversation underscored the complexity of ensuring meaningful end-user participation in Internet governance while adapting to technological changes and addressing systemic inequalities.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of including end-user voices in internet governance, while recognizing the challenges in defining and engaging diverse end-user groups

– The need to evolve and improve multi-stakeholder processes to be more inclusive, effective, and results-oriented

– The role of governments in internet governance and ensuring global agreements remain relevant amid rapid technological changes

– The potential of new technologies like AI to enhance participation, while also considering risks of perpetuating inequalities

– The importance of engaging youth and underrepresented groups in shaping the future of internet governance

Overall purpose:

The goal of the discussion was to explore ways to empower end-users’ voices in internet governance and improve multi-stakeholder processes to be more inclusive and effective in the rapidly changing digital landscape.

Tone:

The tone was largely constructive and collaborative, with participants building on each other’s ideas. There was a sense of urgency about the need to improve current approaches, balanced with optimism about potential solutions. The tone became more reflective towards the end as participants summarized key takeaways.

Speakers

– Pari Esfandiari: Moderator

– David Souter: Managing Director, ict Development Associates

– Carol Roach: Government stakeholder representative

– Olga Cavalli: Government stakeholder representative

– Amrita Choudhury: Civil society representative

– Wolfgang Kleinwächter: Expert in Internet governance

– Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Internet governance expert

– Ellen Helsper: Researcher on links between social and digital inclusion

– Sebastien Bachollet: Online moderator

– Yik Chan Chin: Summarizer of key takeaways

Empowering End-Users’ Voices in Internet Governance: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach

This summary reflects the discussions held during an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) session focused on empowering end-users’ voices in Internet governance through multi-stakeholder approaches. The session featured a panel of experts, invited community leaders, and audience participation, exploring challenges and opportunities in creating more inclusive and effective Internet governance processes.

Setting the Context

The session began with polls to gauge audience perspectives on multi-stakeholder approaches and end-user participation in Internet governance. Participants, including digital policy experts, government representatives, civil society members, and researchers, emphasized the critical importance of the multi-stakeholder model in Internet governance while acknowledging its challenges.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter highlighted the historical context, referencing the NetMundial Plus10 and the Sao Paulo guidelines, which laid the foundation for multi-stakeholder Internet governance. He noted, “We have no clear procedures how multi-stakeholder collaboration works in practice.”

Key Themes and Challenges

1. Inclusion and Representation

A central theme was the importance of including diverse perspectives, particularly from underrepresented groups. David Souter highlighted the digital divide between governments and other stakeholders, while Olga Cavalli pointed out barriers such as language, finances, and lack of information. Ellen Helsper emphasized the underrepresentation of vulnerable groups and the Global South, noting, “Young people in these regions make up a majority of the population but are often excluded from governance discussions.”

Carol Roach cautioned against oversimplification, stating, “We need to stop looking at people as being one dimensional and review how we label boxes and how we label people.” This insight challenged current stakeholder categorizations and prompted consideration of more nuanced approaches to representation.

2. Evolving Multi-Stakeholder Models

Several speakers stressed the need to evolve multi-stakeholder models. David Souter argued for disaggregating and expanding stakeholder categories beyond the current model of four groups, suggesting this doesn’t capture the complexity of interests. He stated, “We need to be multisectoral in thinking about it. The internet is not the end in itself, in other words, it’s means to an end.”

Amrita Choudhury stressed the need to strengthen the legitimacy of civil society stakeholders beyond tokenism. Carol Roach proposed considering media as a separate stakeholder group, highlighting its unique role in shaping public opinion.

3. Role of Governments and Power Dynamics

The role of governments in facilitating inclusion was debated. Olga Cavalli noted that governments have unique responsibilities but must understand the multi-stakeholder approach. David Souter highlighted the need to address power imbalances between stakeholders, a point echoed by Ellen Helsper who specifically mentioned the role of big tech companies in shaping the Internet.

4. Artificial Intelligence and Internet Governance

The potential of AI to enhance participation was a significant point of discussion. Olivier Crepin-Leblond was optimistic about AI’s potential to overcome language barriers, stating, “AI will help me in that. And I’ll develop a tool for this for my own means.” However, Ellen Helsper cautioned about AI models potentially perpetuating existing inequalities, highlighting the complex relationship between technology and inclusion.

5. Engaging End-Users and Creating Channels for Expression

Participants discussed various strategies for engaging end-users, including citizen assemblies and opinion polls. Wolfgang Kleinwächter emphasized the importance of creating channels for everyone to express their opinions. Amrita Choudhury highlighted the importance of creating narratives to engage end-users on issues that affect them.

Ellen Helsper stressed the need to counter disempowering discourse around technology, while Yik Chan Chin called for self-motivation from end-users, presenting an unexpected difference in approach to end-user empowerment.

6. Capacity Building and Awareness-Raising

Several speakers emphasized the importance of capacity building and awareness-raising for end-users. Olga Cavalli highlighted the need to understand how new generations use information and media, stating, “We need to understand how the new generations are using information and media.”

7. National and Regional IGFs

The importance of national and regional IGFs in fostering local participation and addressing context-specific issues was discussed by several speakers, emphasizing their role in building a more inclusive Internet governance ecosystem.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the complexity of ensuring meaningful end-user participation in Internet governance while adapting to technological changes and addressing systemic inequalities. It highlighted the need for more inclusive and representative Internet governance, improved multi-stakeholder processes, and careful consideration of the role of emerging technologies in both enabling and potentially hindering participation.

As the digital landscape continues to evolve rapidly, the conversation emphasized the urgency of addressing these challenges to create a more inclusive, effective, and forward-looking approach to Internet governance. The upcoming WSIS+20 review was highlighted as a crucial opportunity to reaffirm and refine multi-stakeholder approaches in this context.

Pari Esfandiari: Well, good morning and welcome everyone. Whether you are joining us online or here in person, it’s a beautiful day in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which has the honor of hosting the IGF this year. I would like to take a moment to express my heartfelt gratitude to the IGF for its invaluable contributions to the Global Digital Governance Dialogue. This platform not only brings us together, but also empowers us to engage in meaningful conversations and contribute to shaping the future of digital governance. My name is Pari Esfandiari, and it’s an honor to moderate today’s critical discussion on empowering end-users’ voices in Internet governance. As you can see on the screen, joining me is Sebastian Bachelet, a well-known figure in Internet governance. He’s joining us virtually and will moderate the online comments and questions. I am also joined by a distinguished group of panelists, David, Carol, Olga, and Amrita. They are here and will provide their perspective and thoughts. We are also joined by invited community leaders, Olivia, Wolfgang, who are here, and Ellen, who will join virtually, both to express their perspectives, but also to include you, the community, in this interactive session. We are also joined by Yek-Chan Chin. She will summarize the key takeaways. As you can see, we have renowned leaders in the field of Internet governance. Their contributions speak for themselves, and they hardly need an introduction. We go now to the next slide. Before we dive in, let me briefly outline our agenda for the next 90 minutes. First, I will set the stage and introduce today’s topic. Then our panelists will address three core questions, offering their diverse and unique perspective. This will be followed by invited community leaders sharing their responses, fostering a dynamic exchange of ideas. We will then open the floor to all participants for comments and questions. We will wrap up with reflections, a summary of takeaways, and closing remarks. So now let me take a moment to set the scene. As we gather here… Thank you. Thank you. Today, it’s clear that the Internet has evolved far beyond being just a tool or platform. It’s now the backbone of our interconnected world, driving economies, transforming societies, and deeply impacting personal lives. With its integration into nearly every aspect of life, governing the Internet has become an increasingly complex and critical task. This complexity is heightened by rising geopolitical tensions and the inherent friction between the Internet’s borderless nature and traditional nation-state frameworks. In this context, the need for inclusive global agreements, adoptable standards, and collaborative approaches is more urgent than ever. The evolution of Internet governance reflects a profound shift in the dynamics of power, influence, and collaboration in the digital age. Traditional multilateral and bilateral frameworks often struggle to keep pace with the rapid technological advancement and transnational challenges of the Internet. This is where the multi-stakeholder approach emerges as indispensable. Unlike conventional governance models dominated by governments, multi-stakeholder acknowledges the Internet as a shared global resource, requiring shared responsibilities and diverse representation. Where governments, civil society, technical community, academia, and the private sector work collaboratively to navigate this complex landscape. At the heart of this ecosystem are those who are impacted. Their perspectives are not only… valuable but fundamental to shaping an Internet that reflects the needs and aspiration of global communities. They bring critical first-hand insights into navigating the digital landscape, from addressing privacy concerns and ensuring accessibility to building trust and fostering innovation. Communities shaped by these lived experiences are more likely to be effective, trusted, and widely adopted. Conversely, excluding them risks governance being dominated by narrow interests, perpetuating inequalities and missing opportunities for meaningful progress. Yet, despite its necessity, as well as its amazing achievements, the multi-stakeholder approach faces serious challenges, as highlighted during NetMundial Plus10 earlier this year. These challenges include issues of representation, inclusivity, meaningful participation, inefficiency, and a perceived inability to deliver actionable results. These concerns underscore the need for reform, innovation, and a renewed commitment to making multi-stakeholder work, not just in principle but in practice. The stakes have never been higher as we approach the WSIS Plus20 review, a pivotal moment to shape the future of Internet governance. Now, with this context in mind, I would like to engage with our audience by launching three quick polls on today’s key topics. You can… You have one minute to respond. Okay. This is poll number one. Okay. Hmm. Oh, you can’t… I think there’s… Yeah, we have 8%, one and one, and I think we now stop the polls and we continue. Could we end the polls, please? Yeah, we have 8%. 1%, 1%, and 1%. So could we please end the polls, because I cannot now change the slides. Okay, it’s changed. Okay, could we? So, sorry for this. So, now we have three overarching questions as shown on the screen. To delve into this discussion, I would like to begin with David. So, if David is online, the issue of inclusion of internet user has been underscored, but who exactly are we talking about, and what are barriers here? Please limit the response to three minutes. So, I think I’d like to start by building on what you’ve just been saying, because to me, what matters about the internet and the work I do is on the development of digital policy,

David Souter: which includes at the moment, working for the United Nations on the 20 year review of the WSIS process. What matters most to me is issues around impact. And on the whole, internet governance has been largely led by digital insiders. So, by businesses, by the technical community, by governments that are government departments that are involved in the supply of the internet rather than its impact on society as a whole. So, the question here I think is particularly driven by the way the internet has evolved to be something that is now impactful across all areas of economy, society, and culture. So, the first part of the answer is. is actually not to do with the end users themselves, but to do with the expertise that is involved in internet governance discussions. I think that needs to be much, much more informed, at least as much informed by people whose expertise lies in those fields of impact rather than in the fields of the internet itself. So by environmental experts, by health specialists, by educators and so on. We don’t have sufficient space for that in internet governance. In terms of end users, they’re of course very diverse. And they’re the demand side rather than the supply side of the internet. So not just individuals, but also organizations, more businesses, trades unions, sports clubs, religious organizations, whatever. Not just organizations, but also individuals who are also very diverse from where they come in age, gender, education, in their requirements of the internet. Not just intensive users, but also occasional users. Not just those who want to take part in internet governance. We also need to understand the perspectives of those who don’t want to take part in the process. And not only users, because non-users are also severely affected these days by the impact of the internet on their lives and their societies. So there are ways to get a wider range of views like this. And just, maybe I’ll come back to these later. But I would particularly look at ways that do not just attract vested interests or insiders to the process. So a couple of things that might be considered here are the kind of household surveys or opinion polls that have been used a lot by Research ICT Africa, by Ofcom, the regulator in Britain. And citizens assemblies, which have been successful ways of bringing in the very wide diversity of views on controversial issues in some societies, to be in Ireland as ways of just ensuring that discussion is informed by everyone and not just by those who want to take part.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much David. And now Carol, you heard David’s comments and how he expands the concept of end-user. With your leadership experiences, why do you think that they remain invisible in multi-stakeholder process?

Carol Roach: Thank you. Thanks David. End-users are part of or trying to be part of the digital society, so that means that they want to get involved using technology for social reasons, that means education, health, employment, or even if you look at governments or civil servants, they have to provide services online. So the barrier for the multi-stakeholder, for the end-user, is that we don’t tend to determine that we may have missed an end-user within a group of persons. We tend to group them a lot. So you find that the barriers that you find offline are the same type of barriers that you would find online. So you might have an end-user that’s missed because of their economic standing, or they don’t have the capacity, they may have some kind of disability, and therefore they’re not aware that they could be part of the multi-stakeholder. They also say they think that there’s some representative out there and they’re doing the work, it’s not me. And I think it’s a lack of awareness because we tend… to categorize people and put them in this labeled box and sometimes I might be somebody that falls in more than one category. So therefore I’m not in a box anywhere. I’m totally left out. So I think we need to stop looking at people as being one dimensional and review how we label boxes and how we label people.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much, Carol. And with that, Olga, in your view, to what extent do the barriers lie in inclusion and how much are they rooted in a lack of participation?

Olga Cavalli: Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you very much. First, thank you very much for inviting me. I’m very honored to be with all these very important people here in this room. I would like to build upon what Carol said, and I totally agree with you. Whether you work in a big company or a government or in a civil society organization, you’re always an end user. You have your own life, you learn, you communicate with your first, with your students or with your friends or with your family through the Internet. So at the moment we are always end users. So I always find somehow weird this division, for example, in ICANN you have the end users in one place and then you have that label thing that you mentioned. I think it’s a very interesting way of describing it and put it into words. Barriers. The ones that we always come very easily to our mind, lack of resources to participate, which we all know that it’s a problem, especially for developing economies, people living far away from where the meetings are happening. This is the beauty of rotation of the meetings, because you always have the possibility of having something closer to your home or at your own town. And then it’s the language barrier. I don’t know in other regions I don’t have that deep insight, but in Latin America that is a big barrier. Many people are able perhaps to read English, but hearing a native speaker of other language, English, is complicated. So that is a barrier which is important. But I would like to also stress another barrier, which I think is a lack of information. Sometimes people don’t know where to go. There are diversity of spaces of participation. They don’t know how to direct their interests, which meeting they should be focused on. There are several and sometimes they don’t know how. There are sources of funding, for example, they don’t know. So I talk with my students about the fellowship of ICANN or some other fellowships from ISOC to participate in IGF, in ICANN, and they have no idea. So it’s communication, it’s information, and also it’s capacity building about this, how to participate and how to participate in a meaningful way in all these different spaces where we can make our voices heard. So it’s not only money, it’s not only resources, but it’s also information, communication, and a good networking to spread this news.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much. And with that, we go to Armita. Armita, from a grassroots and civil society viewpoint, what are your thoughts on this?

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you. So if you look at the end user, and I’ll go to that question first, end user where? Different processes will have different people as end user. A government also can become an end user of a process. So we need to be very clear who the end user is and what the impact, as David was saying. So that’s one thing, and end-users are not homogenous. If we think just bringing three people into the room when AI is being discussed would be end-user, no. Who is impacted? How is the kind of impact? Do they understand it? Is important. For the grassroots level, as Olga was mentioning, one of the important things is capacity. Everyone at the grassroots does not have the same resources to understand what the global discussions are all about. Are we building that amount of capacity? Because the learnings, the amount of learning which goes is extremely high. Are we building it? And I think the Sao Paulo principles also speak a bit about that. The other thing, obviously, finances is this. You know, resources are another thing. Even amongst grassroots NGOs, there may be bigger ones, there may be smaller ones. Are we making it equitable amongst the developed and developing countries? I think there are many things which needs to be looked into. Many dimensions, apart from languages, skills, et cetera. I’ll leave it at that.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much, Amita. With that, I go to Carol. From your experiences, what best practices ensure meaningful inclusion?

Carol Roach: A very good question. We tend to talk about inclusion all the time, but I don’t think we break it down to say, who’s not being included? We need to be able to identify and understand what their need is, why their need, and we go back again to thinking that persons are one-dimensional, and we’re not. So therefore, we need to look at a stakeholder management model, and there’s so many models that we can apply where we would look at, or something like a stakeholder. called mapping where let’s say we look at the interest level and the abilities of the person and we create a strategy based on that because just creating one strategy, it doesn’t fit everybody. So you really need to sit down and take stock of who the end user is, who we’re trying to reach, who we are missing. And another thing you need to do is to make it an iterative approach in terms of, okay, I tried this strategy. Who did I capture? Did I meet my objectives? If not, well, let me go back at it. Let me make a change to it. Let me see who I did miss out and then what’s my strategy to grab that person. And you just keep doing iterative approach so you could be more agile. Sometimes we write these big strategies on paper and we say, okay, that’s it, I’m done. Let’s try to implement it. And it usually doesn’t work or you don’t get the impact that you would want to. There’s also for stakeholder management, you can have a spectrum because people will fall somewhere on a spectrum and you can decide, okay, what’s my different criteria on the spectrum? And you could create different strategies for it. It’ll require more resources, but if you want to be impactful, then you need to take the time to understand as Amrita and everybody’s saying, who really is the end user? Am I trying to reach the government, the public service? Am I trying to reach the persons that use public services? Who am I really trying to reach? And what it is that they’re interested in. Sometimes we impose what we’re interested in onto what we think other persons are interested in.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much. And with that, I go to Amrita. Amrita, you heard Carol. So from your point of view, how could we grassroots approaches better support inclusion?

Amrita Choudhury: I think there has to be a bit of, for inclusion at the grassroots level, as in not from the grassroots. David gave an example of Africa, there are community discussions happening. But, training the trainer to work at the grassroots is important. For example, if I look at a country like India with 1.2 billion population, just five community meetings will not be enough. You need language, you need to build that capacity. So, building the capacity of, for example, it cannot be one size fit all for all topics. If I’m say, taking AI for good, which is a buzzword these days, and you want to use it, how is it helping in agriculture, or climate change, or even, you know, the change, even jobs for that matter. You have to know who in that range is working. Mapping, as Carol mentioned, how do you build their skills? Are your interests and their interests aligning? And how do you get the feedback and take it up when decisions are making? I think that’s also important, how you map. And it’s not going to be similar for similar places, but I think building the capacity, having that information flowing when you give suggestions, how is it being used, unused, the transparency in the processes, I think those are important, and building accountability. If, for example, the problem that many point out with multi-stakeholderism when we talk is, we don’t have stakeholder accountability. Are we trying to bring in some accountability of what I am preaching? Thank you.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much, Amirita. With that, I go to Olga. What role can government play in including underrepresented voices?

Olga Cavalli: Thank you for the question. There is one thing in multi-stakeholder concept that I usually say, it’s this confusion about equal footing and all stakeholders are equal. So that is something that people, oh, we all sit together and we all talk together, but the responsibilities of each stakeholder are different. And I think that the government has this kind of particular and important role because governments are responsible for security, for promoting the economy, for taking care of citizens, security at the streets and all that. So they have an important role and I think we as members of the community have a big challenge in trying to make the governments understand the beauty and the importance of building a real open multi-stakeholder environment to interact with this multilateral meetings. So both are okay. And there is this fantasy that multi-stakeholder is easier, no, it’s much more difficult because you have to bring everyone at the table but really all stakeholders have a good dialogue, an open dialogue. Multilateral is easier, you put all the representatives of government together, they talk with their advisors and that’s it and they do a document. That’s very important but at the same time governments must understand that the inclusion of end users and other stakeholders in the dialogue is fundamental for these new technologies that are impacting the society. So they are a very important stakeholder, I wouldn’t say more important than others but they have a kind of a gathering role of all parts of the society.

Pari Esfandiari: Actually that’s a great point to make and often it’s overlooked. With that I go to David. What strategies can help make multi-stakeholder process more inclusive for underrepresented groups?

David Souter: Okay, so I think the starting point here, which applies not just to issues around the internet but to everything really, is if you want to, as a policymaker, you want to engage with the people who’s… lives your policies impact upon. If you want to engage with them, you have to engage with them on the terms that have meaning for them and that encourage them to participate. So there are, I think, probably a couple of points here. First is that most people, and this includes most end users, don’t have the time, don’t have the inclination or sufficient interest to get deeply involved in the issues that are the priorities in most internet governance discussions. They’re not interested in how the technology works, they’re interested in what it does to them. And so the internet governance institutions, if they want to reach out to those whose lives are impacted, have to have to do so by starting from the point of view of what is important to them, what impacts matter to them, how are their daily lives affected, and then reach back from that to what the internet governance technology questions are, how they should respond to those. The internet is not the end in itself, in other words, it’s means to an end. We need to be multisectoral in thinking about it. The suggestions that I made earlier, I think, are trying to do that sort of reaching beyond. So the point of household surveys or of opinion surveys is to try and get to those people who would not naturally participate. And citizens assemblies, which I also mentioned, are a particularly effective way, I think, of doing that on complex issues over a period of time. What you do with those is you have a randomised selection made also representative of the population as a whole of maybe 100-200 people who over a period of time with expert input discuss an issue that is complex and difficult and challenging and seek to reach consensus about it, which is a consensus of the opinion of society. It’s been very helpful in a number of countries in dealing with issues that are highly contentious, such as those to do with reproductive rights, abortion and gay rights, for example, in Ireland. And I think that is a way of getting to the public, as opposed to the much easier thing that happens, which is internet governance, insiders talking to themselves.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you, David. And while I have you, maybe you could comment on one key challenge is fast changing digital landscape and how multi-stakeholder approach could adapt to it.

David Souter: What challenges, the biggest challenge in the digital landscape at the moment is to do with some frontier technologies and artificial intelligence that we use that term and other things, too, where the pace of technological change is too fast for our institutional frameworks to deal with that governance, the regulation, the governance to deal with the uncertainties and risks that are associated with them. That makes it particularly important to understand the purposes of technological change as being about the common good. And so understanding what the kind of long-term goals we might have for society as a whole, rather than seeing them as being about what is the good of technology itself.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you, David. With that, I go to Carol. How can multi-stakeholder discussions stay flexible and responsive to digital changes?

Carol Roach: So if you’re talking about global agreements, I think what persons that there’s usually an argument between multilateral and multi-stakeholder. But what I tell persons from, and it could be because I’m from the government stakeholder, is that at the end of the day, the people vote for governments. They don’t vote for civil society. They don’t vote for technical companies. They vote for people who will represent them. So when it comes to global agreement, as Olga says, no, not all stakeholders are created equal all the time, every time. So in a case where you’re talking about negotiations for global agreements, then the government is a important stakeholder. Now they have the influence, but a lot of times they don’t have the interest. So what we need to do is to ensure that we raise the interest level. We need to keep the awareness up. We have missions that go, each country or state have a mission that will actually do the negotiations for them. So therefore, we need to find some way in which we can raise the awareness to them. We have to ensure that we do it constantly. We just can’t say, okay, wow, there’s an agreement coming in up that has to be signed. Let’s try to get some meetings with them. No, if you keep them constantly updated and aware, then they feel comfortable that you’re not just trying to pressure them into learning something into an agreement. So I think we just need to keep it constant. And as I think another, I can’t remember who said it, we need to make the stakeholders more accountable. So you have to be a part of it, you just can’t sit back. You have to play a part. You just can’t say, oh, look what they did. Okay, you have to be accountable.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much. And with that, I go to Olga. How can governments ensure global agreements remain relevant amid rapid technological? changes?

Olga Cavalli: That is a very interesting question and a very difficult one. Also, governments are not equal among themselves. It’s not the same government of a small developing country than a global leader in the world. So for developing economies, it’s a challenge. Because developing countries, we, and I live in one, so the urgencies are other. So there are many things that are economy-suppressing things, strikes, or inflation, and other things that have to be solved in the short term. And they’re very, very impacting the society. So when you go to them and say, hey, we need to talk about something about artificial intelligence. Oh, Olga, what are you talking about? We don’t have time for that. But I think Carl made a very interesting point. We have to be consistent. We have to be able to approach information in a way that they can quickly digest and use. You cannot provide to them 100 pages to read. Perhaps a brief document that opens their eyes to be aware of some negotiations that could be global, but at the end will have an impact at the national level. So we have seen that, for example, with new GTLDs. I’ve been talking about with my government for decades. And once, one of the names of one of our regions in Argentina got a TLD named by a company that, oh, it’s so good that you’re there. OK, I’ve been talking about this for years. So it is a process. I would say that it’s the way that it’s not one point thing. It’s going patiently to their advisors and to the government to tell them that there are global decisions that will have, someday, an impact. at the national level, and they have to be aware of that. But it’s challenging, especially in developing economies.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much. And with that, I go to Amrita. Amrita, how can grassroots and civil society voices help keep multi-stakeholder processes adaptable?

Amrita Choudhury: By giving regular and constructive feedback, keeping many times, Olga rightly said that governments have sovereign interests they need to protect. However, many times in many developing countries, in the name of sovereign interests, the interests of end users or others are overridden. So end users, I would say civil society organizations should continue to raise their voice, point out the things which needs to be corrected, because at the end of the day, if you look at the internet or the digital technologies, it impacts everyone. And if the concerns are not taken up and deliberated in a nuanced way, no process or regulation can work. So that is, you know, why multi-stakeholder, why different stakeholders have to be there is not a question of having everyone in the table. It is to get the legitimate concerns and advantages coming to one point so that when decisions are taken, all aspects can be heard, not necessarily adapted, but at least heard. And there is a buy-in when you have to, you know, implement those things. So it is in the vested interest of a smart government if they really want things to happen in the ground. So I think grassroots level civil society have to keep on raising their voices and calling people out to make them more accountable. Thank you.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much. And with that, now we go to our invited community leaders. So you heard, we set the stage. you heard the panel. I would like you now to make two comments about what you have heard so far. Who wants to go first?

Wolfgang Kleinwachter: Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. It’s an inspiring discussion and this remembers me on debates we had nearly 30 years ago in the 90s when all this was new and people came up with ideas for a cyber democracy. So I think I haven’t heard too much in the last couple of years about cyber democracy but in the 90s this was the catchword and there was a question what is cyber democracy and some people said okay people with a passport are citizens and people with a passport are now netizens and they should have the same rights like citizens and so the idea of election came out because the accountability question was raised already in particular in the ICANN context and we had this very interesting experiment in the year 2000 to bring all, to give all internet users and users a right to participate in global election. At this time it was for five directors of the ICANN board. So this was an incredible experience and the conclusion from this election was that people who were first excited about this global election and global cyber democracy became a little bit out, you know, they lost their illusions in the process and were more skeptical and people who were skeptical in the beginning said okay yeah this is something new we should have reached a level for accountability also for stakeholder groups by continuing with the election. The wise decision which was made by ICANN in the year 2002 was, you know, to find a mix between what the American people want and what the European people want. democratic theory is called the representative democracy and the participatory democracy. So I think there was a long debate in this, whether the participatory democracy will remove or substitute the representative democracy. And the outcome was, no, this brings additional value to the process. So that means participatory elements are important in particular when the representative democracy has reached a certain limit. And insofar, the user participation is an important element, you know, to bring more sustainability to decision, to bring more voices, more perspective to the policy development process. And then it depends on the issue, because we always decided between policy development and decision making. I think for decision making, you have to have a certain authority. But I think before a decision is made, the policy development process is even more important. So that means if you have a good, broad, open, inclusive policy development process, then the decision maker, at the end of the day, just rubber stamps the recommendation which comes out from the PDP. This is in the ideal world. But the problem is, and I remember the argument 30 years ago, and said, okay, do you really want to go for global elections? Do you want to have five billion people who go to the ballot box? How you can organize this? So there was also a little bit illusions and some dreams around it. And to bring it down to a real situation in 193 countries. So it’s difficult, really. to have the wish to invite everybody to the process. So there is a natural barrier and not only barrier like language, finance and things like that. So that means people who buy a car, so do not have to be engineers and have not to understand to build a car, but people have to understand the rules when they use the car. And then so far, so it’s also a question when we speak about user involvement and user involvement, the question is then where and what? So that means you have to be a little bit more specific. For me, and it’s my final word, the most important thing is that you have a channel for everybody where he can express his voice, make his position heard. And I think in a democracy, we have to free media, we have all kinds where people can express their voices and can have a channel where they can participate in policymaking in their country. And in our internet world, that’s why the national IGF is the best institutional framework you can have, because an IGF gives you an opportunity to bring everybody to a table, it’s like a round table discussion. A business person has a different perspective than a technical expert, civil society organizations is a different and in governments are wise, they will listen to what’s going on there and then everybody goes home and does the decision where he has an authority to make decision. So this little bit idealistic, so I’m an academic person, so I’m working with models, but I think you have to have a vision if you want to move forward into reality. Thank you.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much. I see Olivier. is shaking his hand and agreeing with all the comments made. So maybe you would like to make comments.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yeah, thank you very much, Pari. Olivier Clapin-Hublot. And I agree with a lot of the things that were said in this session. Of course, having been involved with internet governance for quite some time, there’s a lot of things that we are hashing again and again, but we don’t seem to have solutions for them. Carol was mentioning the need not to put people in boxes, but it’s so easy to put people in boxes. It’s, oh, what stakeholder group are you? And then, there you go, you’ve got a label. We’ve dealt with those people. Let’s deal with the others. That’s one of the things that we’ve been used to do. Olga mentions that there’s big governments, small governments. You can’t just put all governments under the same banner. And of course, everyone is a user at the end of the day. Amrita mentioned that the learning is really high. And I’ve got a thought about this, because yes, there is a learning barrier with everything. And of course, Wolfgang mentioned that you don’t need to know how to build a car to be able to operate one, but you do need to learn how to operate it. My belief, and by the way, I don’t forget, of course, David’s description of methods, which I find interesting about the sampling of people, taking a sample, a representative population, and then asking them questions. I’m a firm believer in technology. And I think that we are, at the moment, living a fundamental change. The past maybe year, two years, a fundamental change into how everything is happening. First, we’re seeing this complete crazy instability worldwide with regards to politics. Things that we would have never imagined are actually happening. Things that nobody has even forecast are happening. It seems that intelligence agencies worldwide are either on holiday or something, but they didn’t tell us that something was gonna take place. And suddenly, you open the TV, and you think, oh, this has happened. And you’re just thinking, oh, we’re living this crazy reality TV show. And why is that? Well, I have no answer for this, but one thing that I do know is that there is a fundamental change in the way that we’re doing things that we need to embrace, and that’s the use of artificial intelligence. And that is a tool that is so powerful, I really think it will help us in our aim to make multi-stakeholder governance something that will succeed. Suppose the various barriers that we have in front of us, for example, languages. We all speak different languages, we all have a common language that we’re using, which is English. We all sometimes use interpreters, but that’s extremely expensive. I believe that AI with automatic interpretation will be able to help us greatly in this respect. Finances, well, okay, financing is still a huge problem because we all feel the need to meet face-to-face. But with the technologies that we have and that are going to be developed, it’s going to be easier and easier to not only interact on a Zoom room remotely, but with other tools as well to be able to interact. And when you start linking the physical world and the virtual world, that will make things a lot easier because you could have a meeting with someone with a holographic image that you just put on your glasses and say, oh, by the way, I’m having a chat with some person in New York at the moment. Sorry, I’ll talk to you in a second, I’ll just finish my chat with the person. This sort of thing, it’s stuff that is inconceivable today because AI is at the level where aviation was a hundred years ago. Now a hundred years ago, if you ever go to the Udvar-Hazy Center in, I think it’s in Washington DC, there’s a huge airplane museum and you see some of the earliest instances of aviation and you think, there’s no way in hell that I would ever even think of going on one of these things because it’s 99% sure you’ll kill yourself. And you know, whoever wants to fly are crazy people. And yet, the majority of us who have come from outside the country have flown into here, and we haven’t really thought twice about it. And that’s because, of course, aviation has got this whole history of improvements that have happened over the years. We are at the very early stage of artificial intelligence, and already we are able to summarize things using generative AI. We’re able to use it to take a complex idea that is presented in a professional paper from people who have written about a topic for the past 30 years, and that are able to use a certain jargon and a certain way of expressing themselves that is easy for them, but very difficult for newcomers. And we’re able to say, I don’t understand this, simplify it please. And the machine will do it for us. And it will, you know, it’ll write six pages. No way I’m writing, I’m reading six pages. Say it in one page. And it will do a pretty good job. Sometimes they’ll get it wrong. But it’s still very early days. It’s the days when you don’t want to go on that device that might jump over the cliff and kill you. In a couple of years’ time, all of these models are going to work better. And I really think… See, that’s the technology we have today. Yes. So that makes the point. We have very basic tools at the moment. The flight has crashed. Not at the moment. Sebastien, are you able to hear? No, it seems technology has failed us. How ironic. Shall I speak in French instead or another language? 60 page page. Want to be able to use. It’s very early on in the use of artificial intelligence. And I really believe that the tools that are currently being developed, that we ourselves can develop. Because AI allows us to develop our own tools too. I really believe that we will, as a group, as people, as end users, be able to develop tools for ourselves. That will help us in better being equipped for taking part in these discussions of Internet governance. Whether it’s explanations on things that we don’t understand when somebody else talks about it. Whether it’s ways for us to express ourselves. Because there are some difficulties sometimes when you enter a place and you have to convey a story, convey a point. But you don’t quite know what language to use for that. And at the same time also being able to do exactly what I don’t do. Which is to make very short interventions and let other people speak as well. AI will help me in that. And I’ll develop a tool for this for my own means. And I’m sure you will all be able to develop your own tools that will help you and the people around you in taking part in these issues and these discussions.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much, Olivier. And my apologies for the technical glitch we had. so far. So with that, I go to Ellen. Ellen, could you please make your intervention on the conversation that has taken so far?

Ellen Helsper: Yes, thank you very much. I hope you can hear me. I apologize for my voice. I’ve been ill, so it’s not that strong. I hope it’s okay. I’m actually quite glad to be following Olivier, because I’m going to give the exact counter argument that while how everything happens might be changing, and we’ve seen how everything happening changing at several occasions throughout the history in relation to technology, what doesn’t tend to change is what the result is, especially for people who are more vulnerable and unrepresented. We see that in digital spaces, their voices are often less heard than in, and their experience is less represented, because especially with AI, the models that AI is built on are built on the lived experience of those who have been most present online and who’ve created most content, and those don’t tend to be the people who are underrepresented in society in general, and who have historically been systematically excluded. My work is in the links between social and digital inclusion, so what happens to vulnerable groups as societies become increasingly digital, and what I find interesting in this discussion, and in the framing of this panel, and I would have to say I am in line also with much of what the other speakers have said, and especially David Souter, is that it’s interesting that we talk about users, because that presents in the internet, and let’s not forget the internet is not just the infrastructure, but all the applications and platforms that are on it, it presents people with something as a fact that they then need to become engaged with, and it’s interesting that we talk about users, because that presents So it presents them in a way as passive in the creation of these technologies and to have to get involved with something that wasn’t from the beginning, designed by or for them. So I think looking forward, and this is the kind of our experience in working with groups who tend to be underrepresented or have been excluded in various ways from society more in general, and especially from more digital societies, is that often there is a kind of individual responsibilization of people need to get skills to get engaged, they need to become literate on how to use technologies and what these processes are, and that this often feels quite exploitative for them. It feels like it’s passive for them as well. And I think this has also been mentioned before, it’s kind of a mismatch about what the internet and internet governance is for, that that’s not understood, that the outcomes of internet governance or digitization in general are not presented in ways that have meaning or are relevant to a lot of the people that I work with. In my research, and well, yeah, I think it is definitely governments and other powerful stakeholders that should be held accountable, but for kind of the outcomes that people get from this process of governance, but we should be thinking about what kind of internet and what kind of technology we want for the future and that future should include all these experiences. And including some of the work that I’ve done, I think there’s two things that it’s a bit rambling my thoughts because I’m following up on many very well made points earlier. But I think one of the two things that I’ve been thinking about the future that I think we haven’t really discussed yet is that there’s many, many, many young people on the world. world, and actually young people and children especially make up the majority of the population in the Global South. And both children and the Global South in general are underrepresented in terms of the kind of lived experience on the ground. And they also have a very hard time making up this future that we’re going to be living. They have a really hard time of getting their voices heard at a higher level. And when we talk, you know, there was talk about, you know, a level playing field, all stakeholders being involved. But in the end, even if we talk about local or national IGFs, there needs to be a mechanism for filtering up and governments and governance bodies need to be held accountable for putting the mechanisms in place. So that’s through the forums that David Souter talked about, but also through kind of civil society organizations that work very locally, that really understand the local impact of the way in which technologies are designed, that these organizations are involved and that they have a meaningful voice, that it’s not the responsibility of the individuals who are really struggling to make their voices heard, but that there’s a really clear process for that. I think also, and that’s the other point that I wanted to make, something that we haven’t mentioned, but that’s obviously the big elephants in the room, that internet governance cannot be talked about without talking about the huge power inequalities in terms of who is shaping the internet, its infrastructure, its content, its platforms, whose data gets used and collected. We have not talked about the enormous sums of money and funding that come from the tech industry itself. We haven’t mentioned them necessarily as a stakeholder. They’re also not here on the table, but in the end, many governments around the world are truly beholden. to what big tech companies from specific parts of the world, very specific parts of the world, will allow them to do in a way or help them to do by providing content platforms and infrastructure. And I think we really need to talk about that because in the design of these platforms and in the design of the content and the infrastructure, this is where we also see a huge under-representation. So I don’t think it’s not just involving people as end-users and focusing on who is most likely to be advantaged, not all end-users, but I would say especially people who tend to have been under-represented, making sure that they are heard through some mechanism without making them responsible for their voices being heard, reaching out to them, as David Souter was saying, but also to think about how governments and other stakeholders, civil society and other stakeholders, get more involved in making sure that in the design and the construction of the infrastructure and the content and the platforms, in these global tech companies and the global flows of money and funding, that they are involved from the beginning and not as an after-the-fact, here is a technology, how should we govern it, but really thinking ahead. So to make sure that these patterns that I was talking about before, that we can see happening with AI right now, in terms of who is represented, who are these technologies designed around to be made useful, that will prevent a more unequal future because these technologies are governed and designed in a way that doesn’t necessarily represent the best interests of these future generations of vulnerable populations. And I would say getting more young voices, young underrepresented voices, especially from parts of the world that have been underrepresented. And I don’t want to put people into boxes. My approach is always kind of understanding kind of a disadvantage or vulnerability or living in precarious conditions from an intersectional perspective, from a local perspective. But that requires accountability at the top for involving these voices and kind of perspectives from the beginning and not at the kind of pick box exercise I think was mentioned before. So that would be my contribution.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much. Thank you. With that, I think we go to Sébastien and open the floor for questions. Sébastien, the floor is yours. Sébastien?

Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you very much, Pariq. We don’t have any questions yet into the chat. If people want to raise a question right now, will be very useful. And maybe you have people in the room who would like to take the floor too.

Pari Esfandiari: Well, maybe why don’t we start with you? Maybe you could make your own comment.

Sebastien Bachollet: OK, I can. I can do that. Thank you very much. Thank you for all these exchanges. It’s quite interesting. And I will say that they are possible. I am Sébastien Bachelet. I was presented by Pariq at the beginning. Importantly, I am not with you, but a lot of my friends are there, and that’s good. It is a real interesting discussion. I would like to point out a few of the points you raised. And I will not pinpoint who said what, but artificial intelligence, yes, it’s an interesting tool. If it’s done by a foreign user, who is building it today? Therefore, do we need to trust them as we trust any of the other platforms? Therefore, yes, it could be one interesting tool, but it will depend on how the tool will be set up. The second point is why we are talking about end-users here. Because very often we don’t talk about them. I just want to give you a short story. When I started my first meeting in ICANN, I went to my government representative and they told me, while you are here, we don’t need an end-user voice. We are the voice of citizens of the country, therefore, we are there for you. Go away. I went to the representative of the CCTLD and they told me, but while you are here, we are gathering the users of the CCTLD of the country and we are the voice of end-users. You don’t need to be there. And so on and so forth. It happens that I am the only one still around. Okay, too long, but I’m the only one still around. And they left. Therefore, they left. Literally, there is no representative from my government anymore in ICANN. And therefore, it’s important that we keep the voice of all the stakeholders if we want to have multistakeholder reality. But don’t forget that end-user, it’s not just gathering the billions of people around the world directly. We can’t do that. democracy it’s not working like that therefore it’s important that we have also place where we gather people. Civil society or end-user organization are really really very very important and don’t forget that end-user are also organized more better in some part of the world but they are organized in a lot of places in the world and therefore you can’t say oh civil society it’s everybody but they don’t have any organization yes civil society get trouble for financing participation but we are we have organization um and um my wish my last point it’s a question of equal stakeholder i really feel that equal stakeholder it’s really really important no at the end of the day it’s not just a government we need to decide and and the south polo declaration it’s quite interesting with that because it show how we want to work between the two models um but uh uh we we don’t want to work and say oh multi-stakeholder will discuss and the multilateral will decide it it couldn’t work like that it’s need to be more uh agile than that and uh and once again the declaration of net mundial plus 10 was very interesting for for that um once again thank you very much for your exchanges i am sure that there are a lot of to to to say and and maybe some of the topic we are raising here during this discussion need to be taken into account in next session in next igf at the the national IDF, regional IDF, or global IDF. And my last point, yes, we can’t discuss everything here, but a lot of things are discussed in other rooms within the IDF today and during this five days. And we need to take all that into account in our thinking. Pari, back to you.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much. Thank you, Sebastian. With that, I would go to Yig Chen, please.

Yik Chan Chin: Thank you very much. I think it is a very inspiring and very interactive discussion, so I just pick up some points from the previous discussion. I think we have a kind of debate at two levels. One is, as the first speaker said, we have to raise the bar of the demand side, not only the supply side. So when we say demand side, we actually talk about the individual users and also civil society. So therefore, actually the whole debate is about the digital divide between the government and different stakeholders, including the users. So there’s a digital divide, which can be the financial issue, capacity building, or IT literacy. So I think this is one debate we have in here. One is about the digital divide, and the other side actually is about the role of the government. We talk about what the government’s role in this multi-stakeholder process. Should they understand more about the individuals and the different stakeholder groups? So I think that’s the issue from the government. But on the other hand, actually we have also, as an end user, or civil society, or other stakeholder, we also have a responsibility, just like a carousel. We need to raise the awareness. government, which is not entirely up to the government, but it is also up to us as a civil society or other sector to influence the government. I think the last two speakers, Alan and also, of course, Olivia, talked about the technology, how technology could enhance or empower us. I actually agree with him. But on the other hand, Alan also talked about the continuum and the mind and the represent of one of our book. But she made a very interesting comment about, you know, we should make, I think it was involved underrepresented group to get them involved without making them responsible to make their voice to be heard. So I’m a bit cautious about this argument. For example, I had a son, he’s 18 years old. I think for him, I needed him to be self-motivated to some extent. I cannot take an entire responsibility for his life and career. I think we need some kind of a self-motivation in that respect. And I really appreciate Wolfgang’s point about, you know, the most important thing actually is to have a channel, you know, for everybody can express their opinions and to get heard, you know. And that channel is very important. I think IGF is a very important and crucial platform for us to have that kind of exchange. I think I’ll stop here. Thank you.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you. Thank you very much. Amrita, you want to make one? Thank you. Thank you. So on that point, I think we are arriving to the reflection. So each of you have one minute to reflect on what has been said. Maybe I’ll start with Olga.

Olga Cavalli: Thank you very much. A lot of very interesting thoughts. For me, not a total conclusion. I think the way is the destination in all these processes about multi-stakeholder, something that came. up to my mind when Olivier was talking about, I’m an engineer, I was never considered part of the technical community, never ever. So I don’t know why. Many times I tried to participate, no, no, no, you’re not part of it, but I’m an engineer. And they usually are a lot of lawyers there in that stakeholder. So I think we have to be careful of the society that we are interacting with, especially young people, as you said, your son, and young people have a totally different way of using information and media. They don’t see television, they don’t use, my son and my daughter just don’t have television at home, just everything is through the internet and through YouTube channels, different channels that inform them. So we have to understand how new generations will use the information so they can build upon these processes that we are building upon. So we have to stay aware of what is happening with artificial intelligence and young people. And thank you for inviting me.

Wolfgang Kleinwachter: Thank you very much, you know, we have reached a certain progress in the last 25 years, because 25 years ago, it was a question mark whether civil society and end user are seen as a stakeholder. So in the middle of the 90s, it was a question mark. Today, I think that’s the good news. Civil society and users are recognized as an independent stakeholder group within the multi-stakeholder approach. The weak point is, that’s the bad news. So this fact is partly misused by others and they use it just to show you have a seat on the table, but you have nothing to say, or you have weak representation and things like that. So that means what we are missing are procedures, how multi-stakeholder collaboration works. in practice, both in negotiations, also in intergovernmental negotiations, how far non-state actors are involved in these negotiations, but also in multi-stakeholder bodies. So the procedures for interaction are not well defined or are not existent. Insofar, the NetMundial plus 10 multi-stakeholder guidelines, the Sao Paulo guidelines, are a step forward. It’s not the final solution, but we have now clear criteria where we can measure whether this collaboration can be labeled multi-stakeholder or not. So that means this is the next step and I think we have to work in the next couple of years, in particular also in the context of the global IGF, the national regional IGF, to make it more clear, also for outsiders, how the multi-stakeholder approach works in practice. So it’s not only a label which you put on a person’s fine and then, you know, it’s used as an excuse for traditional power policy. So, no, it has to be different, but we have not yet a full, clear understanding what the multi-stakeholder approach means in practice. Thank you.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Yeah, I want to thank Ellen, actually, for bringing me back down to earth from my technological heights around, but I was thinking about, not recent actually, a trip to India a few years ago. India has made incredible advances in technology and in spreading the use of mobile phones to a very large segment of its population. I remember being at the airport and the phone ringing repeatedly behind me and I turned around and the lady who was sweeping on the side was using a smartphone and had received the call and was speaking. And the tuk-tuk driver a little bit later was also with his smartphone. And I thought, wow, of course these people are able to use technology. And technology has reached a level where it’s affordable for them. There was a way for them to use the system. And I’m really hoping that the technologies that we have now today around AI are technologies that will be affordable and easy for people to use. And people, including those that Ellen was speaking about, the ones that are more disenfranchised, that are the young people, etc. I think young people have a faster capability to adapt than we do at our age. So I’m not too concerned about them. We just have to give them the chance. And giving a chance to those people that are currently not listened to and that are young and deprived communities and so on is not a burden for us but should be something of an asset. Because they’re the ones that will also help with the change. Thank you.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much. With that, I go to Ellen. Ellen, would you like to have your final reflection? One minute.

Ellen Helsper: Yes. Thank you, all of you, for following up on that. I can’t agree more. My final reflection actually is to position also the governance within a wider discourse that is going on in society at the moment where we see that there’s a kind of a disempowering discourse where there’s a lot of what in academia we would call panics around technologies where people feel that it’s running ahead of them. And I think one of the important things of the governance forum and other similar multi-stakeholder approaches is to try and counter this and give people the feeling again, and especially the groups that I work with, that there is still change to be made, that they can be involved. that they are not powerless in the face of the technological developments that are going on, and the documentaries that are out there about the terrible impacts that technology is having on our lives, and then things like that. I think that is a really important step, without falling into undue technological optimism about creating a very rosy future, but it is important that we give back this feeling of empowerment and influence over the future of technologies. I don’t have the best way of doing that, but I think that should be a priority to make the internet ours, as in the world’s and the end users, again, rather than in the realms of dystopias or utopias that are governed by people who are very much not like most of the citizens of the world.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you, very much, and with that we go to David. David, would you like to have your final reflection? One minute, please.

David Souter: Yes, okay. Let me come back to, we tend to talk about multi-stakeholderism, don’t we? So I think we have too simple a model of multi-stakeholderism, and we don’t sufficiently critique it. So the purpose of multi-stakeholder involvement is to improve the quality of decision making, and enable it to contribute more effectively to society. Sorry, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Sorry. Right, it disappeared from my screen. To contribute more effectively to society, we need to pay more attention to a number of things there. So we need to pay much more attention to power structures and power imbalances, which Ellen was talking about. In particular, I think we need to recognise the vested interests within each and all of us. stakeholder groups and how that influences the discussions that we have about governance. We need especially, I think, to disaggregate the four stakeholder groups that we tend to talk about or we tend to have in our minds of government, business, civil society and the technical community. I think that’s far too simplistic. It doesn’t recognize fundamental differences such as that between the supply and demand sides of the Internet. So if you look around you in the meeting in Riyadh, you know, ask yourselves how many businesses are there from the demand side of the Internet, the people who businesses that make use of it to do other things compared with how many are from the supply side of the Internet with their particular interests to pursue. And individual users are also much more complex. We need to consider them not just as consumers of the Internet, but also as citizens of their societies. There are differences between people here, but there are also differences within people about how they perceive their own context. We need to reflect on the diverse needs and priorities there and the fact that they are often in conflict with one another. So there are conflicting needs and priorities from the Internet and its governance. And then we need to reach out to that wider community of users in ways that they think are sufficiently relevant to them to bother taking part. In other words, if we want to hear from people, we need to listen to them and we need to create the opportunity for us to listen to them, which is also the opportunity for them to speak to us.

Amrita Choudhury: As reflections, I do agree with what Wolfgang mentioned that we have a stake in the table now, but it should not be tokenism. We need to strengthen it so that at least it is heard with legitimacy. and that’s where we need to work. And I also agree with Olga. If you want the next generation to get involved in these issues, you have to work and act with them the way they look at it. And simple, and another example I would give is when it hits the end user interests, end users rise. In India we had the Free Basics which came in. There was a huge furor from the end user community, civil societies, and it was pushed back successfully. So when it matters and when people understand that their interests are at stake, I think they work. So you have to create the narratives so that people understand what they would lose if they are going with it. And for the younger generation, they use technology, they take it for granted, but what they miss out or what are the risks or what are the trade-offs they are having, I think you need to explain it to them. Thank you.

Pari Esfandiari: Carol?

Carol Roach: I agree with what David was saying. We need to evolve the multi-stakeholder processes that we have, and it’s something that we’re looking for, trying to do with the IGF. Collaboration needs to be more effective. We need to be more result-oriented. Not a result for one particular stakeholder, but we need to come to some agreed set of objectives and then aim to meet those objectives. Each stakeholder has a different objective. But if we could come to an agreement, then it’s good. One of the persons from the media, they came to me and said, oh, I’m so glad that the IGF finally recognized the media as a stakeholder. And it came out from one of the meetings that we had. And when you look at it. you know, where does media fit? Are they private sector, are they civil society? But they have a different angle, and they have a different perspective, they have a different interest, and they have influence. So we do need to look at how we categorize stakeholders, so we need to be more flexible, we need to evolve the model, and to not only look at the issue, but look at the interest and the influence that persons, even end users have.

Pari Esfandiari: Thank you very much. I think we had a very insightful conversation here, and as we conclude, I want to emphasize the critical role of the multi-stakeholder approach in navigating the complexities of a rapidly evolving digital landscape, and the importance of end users’ participation in shaping our common digital future. The upcoming Visas Plus 20 review is a pivotal opportunity to reaffirm this approach, ensuring that end users’ perspectives remain at the heart of the internet governance decisions. With that, thank you all for your time and comments to this shared mission. Thank you to our panelists, invited community leaders, and participants, both online and in person, for your engagement and thoughtful contributions. Together, let’s continue to advance for an internet that reflects the needs and aspiration of all. Again, thank you to support group, thank you to technical community, and thank you to IGF. And with that, we end this meeting. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. . . . . . . .

Agreement Points

Need for more inclusive and representative internet governance

David Souter

Olga Cavalli

Carol Roach

Wolfgang Kleinwachter

Ellen Helsper

Amrita Choudhury

Digital divide between governments and other stakeholders

Barriers like language, finances, and lack of information

Need to avoid putting people in boxes/categories

Importance of having channels for everyone to express opinions

Underrepresentation of vulnerable groups and Global South

Need to strengthen legitimacy of civil society stakeholders beyond tokenism

Speakers agreed on the need to address various barriers to participation and ensure more diverse representation in internet governance processes.

Improving multi-stakeholder processes

David Souter

Wolfgang Kleinwachter

Carol Roach

Need to disaggregate and expand stakeholder categories beyond current model

Need for clear procedures on how multi-stakeholder collaboration works in practice

Importance of being more results-oriented in collaboration

Speakers agreed on the need to refine and improve multi-stakeholder processes to make them more effective and inclusive.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of understanding and including younger generations and underrepresented groups in internet governance discussions.

Olga Cavalli

Ellen Helsper

Need to understand how new generations use information and media

Underrepresentation of vulnerable groups and Global South

Both speakers highlighted the need for a more balanced approach to power and accountability among different stakeholders in internet governance.

David Souter

Carol Roach

Power imbalances between stakeholders need to be addressed

Need for accountability from all stakeholders, not just governments

Unexpected Consensus

Role of technology in addressing participation barriers

Olivier Crepin-Leblond

Ellen Helsper

Potential of AI to help overcome language barriers and improve participation

Caution about AI models being built on experiences of those already most represented online

While Olivier was optimistic about AI’s potential to improve participation, Ellen cautioned about potential biases. However, both recognized the significant role of technology in shaping participation, which was an unexpected area of alignment given their different perspectives.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the need for more inclusive and representative internet governance, improving multi-stakeholder processes, and recognizing the role of technology in both enabling and potentially hindering participation.

Consensus level

There was a moderate level of consensus among speakers on the need for change and improvement in current internet governance processes. This consensus suggests a shared recognition of existing challenges and a willingness to explore new approaches, which could potentially lead to more inclusive and effective internet governance frameworks in the future.

Different Viewpoints

Role of technology in empowering end-users

Olivier Crepin-Leblond

Ellen Helsper

Potential of AI to help overcome language barriers and improve participation

Caution about AI models being built on experiences of those already most represented online

While Olivier Crepin-Leblond sees AI as a potential solution to overcome barriers in participation, Ellen Helsper cautions against the potential biases in AI models that could perpetuate existing inequalities.

Approach to engaging end-users

David Souter

Amrita Choudhury

Need to disaggregate and expand stakeholder categories beyond current model

Importance of creating narratives to engage end-users on issues that affect them

David Souter advocates for a more nuanced categorization of stakeholders, while Amrita Choudhury emphasizes the importance of creating compelling narratives to engage end-users.

Unexpected Differences

Responsibility for end-user participation

Ellen Helsper

Yik Chan Chin

Need to counter disempowering discourse around technology

We need some kind of a self-motivation in that respect

While not directly contradicting each other, Ellen Helsper’s emphasis on countering disempowering narratives and Yik Chan Chin’s call for self-motivation from end-users present an unexpected difference in approach to end-user empowerment. This highlights a tension between institutional responsibility and individual initiative in internet governance participation.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role of technology in empowering end-users, approaches to engaging end-users, and the balance of responsibilities between institutions and individuals in promoting participation.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there are clear differences in perspectives and approaches, there is also a significant amount of common ground, particularly in recognizing the need for more inclusive and effective multi-stakeholder processes. These differences in viewpoints contribute to a rich discussion that highlights the complexity of internet governance issues and the need for diverse perspectives in addressing them.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for improved accountability and clarity in multi-stakeholder processes, but differ in their focus. Carol Roach emphasizes accountability from all stakeholders, while Wolfgang Kleinwachter stresses the need for clear procedures in collaboration.

Carol Roach

Wolfgang Kleinwachter

Need for accountability from all stakeholders, not just governments

Need for clear procedures on how multi-stakeholder collaboration works in practice

Both speakers agree on the need to address power imbalances and underrepresentation in internet governance, but they approach it from different angles. David Souter focuses on general power structures, while Ellen Helsper specifically highlights the underrepresentation of vulnerable groups and the Global South.

David Souter

Ellen Helsper

Power imbalances between stakeholders need to be addressed

Underrepresentation of vulnerable groups and Global South

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of understanding and including younger generations and underrepresented groups in internet governance discussions.

Olga Cavalli

Ellen Helsper

Need to understand how new generations use information and media

Underrepresentation of vulnerable groups and Global South

Both speakers highlighted the need for a more balanced approach to power and accountability among different stakeholders in internet governance.

David Souter

Carol Roach

Power imbalances between stakeholders need to be addressed

Need for accountability from all stakeholders, not just governments

Key Takeaways

The multi-stakeholder approach is critical for navigating the complexities of internet governance, but faces challenges in meaningful inclusion of end-users and underrepresented groups.

There is a need to evolve and improve multi-stakeholder processes to be more inclusive, results-oriented, and reflective of diverse stakeholder interests.

Governments play an important role but all stakeholders need to be held accountable in internet governance.

Technology like AI has potential to improve participation, but also risks perpetuating existing inequalities if not carefully implemented.

The upcoming WSIS+20 review is an important opportunity to reaffirm and strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach in internet governance.

Resolutions and Action Items

Work to develop clearer procedures for how multi-stakeholder collaboration functions in practice

Improve efforts to engage and include young people and underrepresented groups in internet governance processes

Explore ways to disaggregate and expand current stakeholder categories to better reflect diverse interests

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance power dynamics between different stakeholder groups

Best methods for including end-user perspectives without placing undue burden on individuals

How to ensure AI and other new technologies are developed and implemented in an inclusive manner

Specific mechanisms for improving accountability of all stakeholders in internet governance processes

Suggested Compromises

Combining elements of multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches, as referenced in the Sao Paulo declaration

Using tools like citizen assemblies to gather input from a wider range of voices without requiring extensive time commitment from individuals

Developing targeted strategies to engage different stakeholder groups based on their interests and capacities

We need to be multisectoral in thinking about it. The internet is not the end in itself, in other words, it’s means to an end.

speaker

David Souter

reason

This comment shifts the focus from technology to its societal impacts, challenging the technocentric view often prevalent in internet governance discussions.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion to include considerations of how internet governance affects various sectors of society and everyday lives of people.

We tend to group them a lot. So you find that the barriers that you find offline are the same type of barriers that you would find online.

speaker

Carol Roach

reason

This insight highlights how digital inequalities often mirror and amplify existing social inequalities, adding nuance to the discussion of inclusion.

impact

It prompted further discussion on the multifaceted nature of digital exclusion and the need for more nuanced approaches to inclusion.

AI will help me in that. And I’ll develop a tool for this for my own means. And I’m sure you will all be able to develop your own tools that will help you and the people around you in taking part in these issues and these discussions.

speaker

Olivier Crepin-Leblond

reason

This comment introduces a provocative perspective on how AI could potentially democratize participation in internet governance.

impact

It sparked a debate about the role of AI in governance processes, with subsequent speakers both building on and challenging this optimistic view.

We should be thinking about what kind of internet and what kind of technology we want for the future and that future should include all these experiences.

speaker

Ellen Helsper

reason

This comment reframes the discussion from reactive governance to proactive shaping of technology, emphasizing inclusivity.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards considering long-term visions and values in internet governance, rather than just immediate technical concerns.

We need to stop looking at people as being one dimensional and review how we label boxes and how we label people.

speaker

Carol Roach

reason

This insight challenges the oversimplification often present in stakeholder categorizations in internet governance.

impact

It led to further discussion on the complexity of user identities and the need for more nuanced approaches to representation in governance processes.

Overall Assessment

These key comments collectively shifted the discussion from a narrow focus on technical governance to a broader consideration of societal impacts, inclusion, and long-term vision. They challenged simplistic categorizations of stakeholders and users, emphasized the need for proactive shaping of technology’s future, and sparked debate about the potential role of AI in governance processes. The discussion became more nuanced, considering the multifaceted nature of digital inclusion and the complex interplay between online and offline inequalities. Overall, these comments pushed the conversation towards a more holistic, forward-looking, and inclusive approach to internet governance.

How can we develop more effective procedures for multi-stakeholder collaboration in internet governance?

speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwachter

explanation

Wolfgang highlighted that while civil society and users are now recognized as stakeholders, clear procedures for how multi-stakeholder collaboration works in practice are still missing. Developing these procedures is crucial for the effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder approach.

How can we better disaggregate and represent the diverse interests within each stakeholder group?

speaker

David Souter

explanation

David argued that the current model of four stakeholder groups (government, business, civil society, technical community) is too simplistic and doesn’t capture the complexity of interests, especially the differences between supply and demand sides of the internet.

How can we create more effective channels for end-users to express their voices in internet governance?

speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwachter

explanation

Wolfgang emphasized the importance of having channels for everybody to express their opinions and be heard in internet governance processes.

How can we ensure AI and other emerging technologies are developed and governed in ways that represent the interests of underrepresented groups?

speaker

Ellen Helsper

explanation

Ellen raised concerns about AI models being built on the lived experiences of those most present online, potentially excluding vulnerable and underrepresented groups.

How can we better involve young people, especially from the Global South, in internet governance processes?

speaker

Ellen Helsper

explanation

Ellen pointed out that young people, particularly in the Global South, make up a majority of the population but are underrepresented in internet governance discussions.

How can we create more effective mechanisms for filtering up local and national concerns to global internet governance forums?

speaker

Ellen Helsper

explanation

Ellen suggested the need for better mechanisms to ensure local voices are heard at higher levels of internet governance.

How can we address the power inequalities in shaping the internet, its infrastructure, content, and platforms?

speaker

Ellen Helsper

explanation

Ellen highlighted the need to address the significant power imbalances in who shapes the internet, including the role of big tech companies.

How can we evolve the multi-stakeholder model to be more flexible and inclusive of diverse perspectives?

speaker

Carol Roach

explanation

Carol suggested the need to evolve the multi-stakeholder processes to be more effective, result-oriented, and inclusive of diverse perspectives, such as media.