WS #143 From WSIS to GDC-Harmonising strategies towards coordination

Summary

This discussion focused on harmonizing strategies for implementing and following up on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Participants explored how the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) could support these processes and what aspects should be coordinated.

The panel emphasized the importance of avoiding duplication and fragmentation in digital cooperation efforts. They highlighted the IGF’s role as a flexible, inclusive platform for addressing emerging digital issues and suggested it could be strengthened to support GDC implementation. However, concerns were raised about attempts to undermine the IGF and the need to renew its mandate.

Participants stressed the enduring relevance of WSIS’s vision for a people-centered information society, while acknowledging the need to address new challenges like AI and data governance. They discussed the importance of coordinating efforts across UN agencies and leveraging existing frameworks like the WSIS action lines.

The discussion touched on geopolitical tensions and the need for international solidarity in digital cooperation. Panelists expressed fears about the centralization of processes and the potential weakening of multi-stakeholder approaches. However, they also voiced hope for creative solutions and strengthened cooperation through existing mechanisms.

Overall, the conversation highlighted the complex interplay between WSIS, GDC, and IGF processes, emphasizing the need to build on past achievements while adapting to new realities in digital governance. The discussion underscored the ongoing challenges of ensuring inclusive, effective digital cooperation in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The relationship between WSIS, the Global Digital Compact (GDC), and the IGF

– The need to coordinate and harmonize implementation of WSIS and GDC outcomes

– The role of the IGF in supporting digital cooperation processes

– Challenges to the multi-stakeholder model and the IGF’s mandate

– The importance of building on existing frameworks rather than creating new ones

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how to harmonize strategies for coordinated implementation and follow-up of the WSIS and GDC processes, with a focus on the role of the IGF.

The tone of the discussion was thoughtful and constructive, with participants offering nuanced perspectives on complex issues. There was a sense of urgency about the need to strengthen existing mechanisms like the IGF rather than creating new processes. The tone became more concerned towards the end as participants expressed fears about fragmentation and weakening of multi-stakeholder approaches, but also hopeful about the potential for creativity and collaboration to address challenges.

Speakers

– Anrienette Esterhuysen: Moderator

– Justin Fair: U.S. State Department

– Jorge Cancio: Swiss government, Office of Communications

– Christine Arida: Government of Egypt

– Anita Gurumurthy: IT for Change, India; Global Digital Justice Forum

– Amrita Choudhury: Civil society representative, past member of MAG

– Bic: From Vietnam

– Nigel Cassimire: Caribbean Telecommunications Union

– Jason Pielemeier: Global Network Initiative (multi-stakeholder organization)

– David Fairchild: Government of Canada, Geneva Mission

– Gitanjali Sah: ITU

Additional speakers:

– Valeria Betancourt: Online moderator, APC

– Bruna: Rapporteur, MAG member

– Flavio: (no additional information provided)

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Harmonising WSIS, GDC, and IGF Processes

This discussion focused on harmonising strategies for implementing and following up on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), with particular emphasis on the role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session began with a spectrogram exercise to gauge participants’ views on key issues, followed by a structured discussion on coordinating these processes to avoid duplication and fragmentation in digital cooperation efforts.

Spectrogram Exercise:

The session opened with a spectrogram exercise, where participants were asked to position themselves along a spectrum in response to questions about the relationship between WSIS, GDC, and IGF processes. This interactive element highlighted the diversity of opinions and set the stage for the subsequent discussion.

Key Themes and Arguments:

1. Role of the IGF in Implementing WSIS and GDC Outcomes

There was broad agreement on the importance of the IGF as a key platform for GDC follow-up and implementation. Amrita Choudhury and Jason Pielemeier emphasised the IGF’s role as an ongoing mechanism for flexible stakeholder engagement. Nigel Cassimire suggested that the IGF could be a place to develop concrete targets for GDC implementation.

However, some speakers highlighted challenges facing the IGF. David Fairchild, representing the Canadian government, expressed concern that the IGF is under threat and needs a strengthened mandate in the upcoming WSIS+20 review. Jorge Cancio from the Swiss government cautioned against viewing the IGF as a standalone solution, emphasising that it is part of a larger WSIS architecture.

2. Global Digital Compact (GDC) and its Relationship to WSIS

Participants discussed the GDC as a new initiative that builds upon the WSIS framework. There was emphasis on the need to integrate the GDC with existing WSIS processes rather than creating parallel structures. Speakers highlighted the importance of leveraging the WSIS Action Lines, which provide a framework for addressing various aspects of the information society, in implementing the GDC.

3. Coordination and Harmonisation of Digital Cooperation Processes

Participants stressed the need to build on existing frameworks rather than create new ones. Gitanjali Sah advocated for leveraging the existing WSIS framework and UN mechanisms like the United Nations Group on Information Society (UNGIS), which coordinates UN agencies’ efforts on information society issues. Jorge Cancio warned against the duplication and proliferation of new forums and processes.

Anriette Esterhuysen argued for updating the WSIS Action Lines to address new issues like artificial intelligence (AI) and data governance. This view was echoed by Amrita Choudhury, who emphasised the importance of addressing developing country needs in AI policy.

4. Challenges and Opportunities in Digital Cooperation

Several speakers highlighted ongoing challenges in digital cooperation. David Fairchild noted fragmentation between member states on the vision for internet governance. Jason Pielemeier stressed the need to resist efforts to weaken the IGF and the multi-stakeholder model.

Anriette Esterhuysen pointed out tensions between geopolitics and corporate interests in the digital space, introducing the concept of “neo-illiberalism” to describe the current global context. She emphasised the importance of international solidarity in addressing digital challenges.

David Fairchild raised concerns about the centralisation of processes, warning of a “New Yorkification” that could potentially exclude some voices. However, Jorge Cancio saw an opportunity to update the global architecture creatively.

5. Progress and Gaps in Digital Inclusion

Speakers acknowledged both progress and persistent challenges in digital inclusion. Gitanjali Sah highlighted significant achievements in areas like telecentres and distance learning. However, Amrita Choudhury noted persistent challenges in connectivity and digital divides, particularly in developing countries.

Anriette Esterhuysen called for a renewed focus on the WSIS vision of a people-centred information society. This sentiment was echoed by other participants who stressed the importance of addressing inequity and renewing commitment to civil society participation.

6. Role of Civil Society

Several speakers emphasized the crucial role of civil society in these processes. There was concern about ensuring meaningful civil society participation in both the WSIS and GDC processes, as well as in the IGF. Speakers noted the challenges faced by civil society organizations, including limited resources and the need for capacity building.

Key Takeaways and Unresolved Issues:

1. The IGF is seen as a crucial platform for implementing WSIS and GDC outcomes, but its role and mandate need to be strengthened, particularly in light of the upcoming WSIS+20 review.

2. There is a need to coordinate and harmonise various digital cooperation processes, including the GDC, with existing WSIS frameworks to avoid duplication and fragmentation.

3. Existing WSIS frameworks, including the Action Lines, and UN mechanisms like UNGIS should be built upon rather than creating entirely new structures.

4. Significant progress has been made in digital inclusion, but major challenges and divides persist, particularly in developing countries.

5. There are tensions between different visions for internet governance among member states, highlighting the need for continued dialogue and compromise.

6. Civil society participation remains crucial, but faces challenges in terms of resources and meaningful engagement.

Unresolved issues include how to balance multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches in digital cooperation, how to address the centralisation of digital governance processes, and how to ensure adequate funding and resources for the IGF and civil society participation.

Conclusion:

The discussion highlighted the complex interplay between WSIS, GDC, and IGF processes, emphasising the need to build on past achievements while adapting to new realities in digital governance. While there was broad agreement on the importance of coordination and the central role of the IGF, participants also acknowledged significant challenges in ensuring inclusive, effective digital cooperation in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. The conversation underscored the ongoing need for dialogue, compromise, and creative solutions to address these complex issues, particularly as the international community approaches the WSIS+20 review.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: And also to tell you we’re going to do this session a little bit differently. I’ll shortly be asking you all to take your headset and stand up. But before we do that, I just want to introduce the session. I’m going to take this off for now. I hear an echo. You know what it is? It’s my Zoom. I need to switch my speaker on. So welcome, everyone, and thanks for joining us. We’ve heard a lot about WSIS. We’ve heard a lot about the Global Digital Compact in the last few days. Is there anyone in the room who doesn’t know what WSIS stands for? I dare you. No, I’m serious. Is there anyone who doesn’t know what WSIS stands for? Well, that’s good. GDC? And this session, we actually want to build on all the previous discussions, because there’s been many of them, and I think we’re all together actually paving this way towards a better understanding of how these processes relate to one another, but specifically how we can harmonize strategies for coordinated implementation, and that’s what we’re going to talk about today. We have a fantastic panel. I’m going to give your names later, and they can say a little bit more about themselves. We have… Rita Choudhury from India, representing civil society, also past member of the MAG. Jorge Cancio from Switzerland, from the Swiss, from Barcom, the Swiss Ofcom, the Swiss Office of Communications. We have online Jason Pilemeyer over there from a multi-stakeholder initiative called GNI, Global Network Initiative, a membership organization. We have David Fairchild from the government of Canada in the Geneva Mission, very closely involved in all of this. And online we have Anita, Anita Goramurti from IT for Change in India, but also part of something called the Global Digital Justice Forum. I want to introduce my colleague, my online moderator, Valeria Betancourt from APC, who leads APC’s global governance work. And we have as our rapporteur, Bruna, and who is also on the MAG. And then Gitanjali from the ITU, also known as Ms. Wusses. I’m gonna use that because someone, and I’m not a grandmother Wusses, so really enjoy that label. So before we start, I’m gonna ask everyone now to get up. Get up, put your bags down, put your cell phones down, most importantly, put your cell phones down or put them in your pocket, but take this with you. Can I just take this with us? Yes. Valeria, you can stay there. I can stay here, yeah, to channel the participation. So you have to be there. I want you to go into that open space at the back. Just stand around, and I’m going to make you think, work, and talk, and walk. And we’re going to do a spectrogram exercise. Has anyone ever done a spectrogram before? No. You have, good. So I’m going to make a statement. And then based on your reaction to the statement, and remember, it’s the IGF, you are here as individuals, you’re not here as delegations, even though you might think you are. And so you can just have a gut reaction. If you agree with that statement, I want you to stand over there. If you disagree violently over there, if you’re uncertain, just position yourself somewhere along an imaginary line. I haven’t said anything yet. Okay, here’s the first statement. The Global Digital Compact provides exactly the agenda which the IGF needs to become more focused and effective. If you agree over there, if you disagree over there, if you think there’s a little bit of both, somewhere in the middle. Okay. Okay, let me ask someone, I’m going to ask you, sorry to do this to you, Justin, but you are kind of, I would say, just off center, just off center left. Why do you stand here? What is your view? Sorry, the idea is that as you listen to people, I’ll ask other people, you can put your hands up if you want to contribute. If you feel that the response is making you shift your position a little bit, then move your body to shift. Either you disagree even more, or you actually find yourself moving a little bit.

Justin Fair: I would say that the GDC is a good outcome. I think it has a good plan, norms. principles, some of the commitments, all that’s good, some of the way forward, but if you it’s still a negotiated document and there was a lot of kind of compromise from different folks in it, and so ultimately I don’t think it’s perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I would still say if I’m in the center left camp here that it’s it’s fairly good and something that can be built on going forward. On the IEGF, I think that there’s a lot in there for the IEGF. Now some of this is was explicit and I think there is was thought through how the IEGF, but some of it is how the IEGF responds to that. It’s not what New York or what member states tell the IEGF to do, but also there’s work there and I think now the question is does the IEGF community agree that there’s work that’s relevant for the community here to take forward.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: If I was standing over there, I think I would have moved a little bit. I think these agendas are what we make of them. Anyone on that side who disagrees that the GDC gives the IEGF what it needs, that want to share their view? No one here wants to speak. Flavio, no. Anyone else who wants to comment on this? Jorge, do you want to say anything?

Jorge Cancio: Yeah. Sorry. Jorge Cancia, Swiss government. My question would be, where’s the money for the IEGF, for instance? I think the GDC is a reasonable outcome for the negotiation it was, so it could have been much worse if we look at the initial draft, for instance, but it leaves many things open and now So, similarly to what Justin said, the ball is in the air, we have to kick it into the right direction, and the IJF community has a very important role to play there. But I think on the substance, there are many interesting, reasonable things we have to address. I’m completely in agreement with that. But on the architecture, I think there are some dangers there.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Jorge. Valeria, is there anyone online that wants to… I see Christine there as well, I see Anita and Jason. If you were in the room, where would you stand? GDC gives the IJF exactly the agenda it needs, or you don’t think so? Anita and… Yes, Christine, and then Anita.

Christine Arida: I would be leaning towards the right of the rule, but then I might take a few steps, because there’s some truth to that, just not completely.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: And, Christine, just introduce yourself to everyone.

Christine Arida: Sorry, I’m Christine Arida with the government of Egypt.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Christine. Anita.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you. I just wanted to say I would stand in the middle and agree with Jorge and Justin, because I think we mustn’t also forget that the objective of the GDC was not to actually provide direction for improving the IJF or make it effective. That was not the stated objective. And, of course, I think where is the money is a very, very important question. On the other hand, I do think that the GDC broadens the issues at stake for an inclusive information society, which the IJF can and must take up.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Anita. I’m just going to ask Justin to introduce himself, because I forgot to do that earlier.

Justin Fair: Justin Fair, U.S. State Department.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Okay, now you all did fairly well there. The next statement is, the concept of an inclusive, people-centered information society that came out of the WSIS is obsolete. Agree on this side, disagree on that side. I think people are right when they say the IJF lacks diversity. Okay, anyone want to say why they are standing where they are standing? There are quite a few people in the middle.

Amrita Choudhury: Hi, my name is Amrita. I think while the WSIS talks about information society, I think it’s still important because many of the visions in the WSIS have not been met yet. Like for example, we are not connected yet. But again, the WSIS talks about internet and how it is used. So even if you’re talking about digital technologies or any emerging technologies, they come under the overview of how internet is used. So you may use different ways, but the basic essence of WSIS still runs true. I would not call it obsolete. You may want to add a bit of it to it, like information and digital societies like Netmundial tried to do. That’s my take.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Any of you, I’ll come to you just now, Justin, but are people still using the concept of information society at all in their own disciplines or their works? Or the concept of knowledge society?

Anita Gurumurthy: In fact, Annarette, we work very closely with many UN agencies. So we’ve expanded it into information and knowledge societies at the ITU. The Council Working Group on WSIS calls it information and knowledge societies to include UNESCO’s work, FAO’s work. even more than that. And in fact, I heard the ADG of UNESCO say yesterday, they’re also now

Anrienette Esterhuysen: including, they’re linking data to data and information and how they relate to one another into transforming into knowledge. So they still have that concept there. Justin, yes, you’re actually in exactly the same spot you were before. Diplomats.

Justin Fair: No, I stayed here because I somewhat agree that I think that if you look back at the original WSIS documents, a lot of the norms and principles, we’ve seen an evolution of those from, you know, through the years, including through WSIS plus 10. And then even more recently with GDC, where that seems to have been updated. And that was one of the key elements of WSIS. A lot of the development plan has evolved over the years, including with the SDGs coming on top of it, which seems to have changed a lot of the development. And then one key thing the WSIS did is provide some framework on how different UN agencies or stakeholders can cooperate on certain areas, and then how they can come together through different processes in a follow-up and review. And all of that seems to have changed over the years. So I think in that way, going back to, you know, to those that are purists and look back to the original, it seems to have way changed from early 2000s on that. But I agree with Gitanjali, that just means that it’s an evolving process, and not to get too rigid in, you know, these exact outcomes from many years ago, because I think that there is a lot that’s been kind of evolved since then, updates, developments, new processes, things of that nature, which have kind of breathed new life into that. And so the question just going forward is how to do that, how to take a framework that has matured over the years, has changed and evolved, is still effective, but only if we can continue to strengthen it and evolve it. Sorry, you want us to move?

Anrienette Esterhuysen: So people, please come inside, please come inside so that we can, that we can, we’re nearly finished, so I think it’s fine. Okay, so anyone else who was standing on this more sort of that information society is an obsolete concept that wanted to add anything? Okay, then I’m going to go to my last statement, which was none of them turned out to be as provocative as I hoped they would, but this one might. The multi-stakeholder approach to digital cooperation entrenches existing dynamics of power and influence. The multi-stakeholder approach entrenches the status quo, existing dynamics of power and influence and internet governance. If you agree over here, somewhere in the middle over there, if you disagree that the multi-stakeholder approach entrenches existing dynamics of power and influence, over there, you agree. Can I, are you willing to speak? Just introduce yourself.

Bic: Hi, I’m Bic from Vietnam. So I think, you know, people, we talk more and more about this concept today, multi-stakeholders, but from, you know, my background, you know, and in the region as well, I feel like it’s still very much state-centric. So when we talk about that, then maybe, you know, it poses a challenge to the existing system.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Yeah, I think we, I think there was a lot of people in civil society during WSIS who supported the multi-stakeholder approach, believing that it would give them more power and influence. And I’m not sure they always… feel they really got that. But anyone there who feels that the multi-stakeholder approach has created more inclusion, democratization, anyone who wants to offer a view, introduce yourself, please.

Nigel Cassimire: Yes, Nigel Casimir from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. I think if you look at the difference between something like the WSIS Outcome Document and the GDC, you see a lot more commitment and multi-stakeholder. So I think it just takes time, right? What multi-stakeholder is trying to do is influence the multilateral framework. And you’re seeing, I would say, influence, certainly, right? It’s not something that will happen overnight. So I don’t think it entrenches. I think it is working, but slowly to gain influence in the multilateral space.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Nigel. And I must say, I follow your work quite closely. And I think what I see in the Caribbean is actually a real demonstration of how partnership and collaboration just deepens over time. Anyone online who want to respond to this statement? Valeria is there? No. Anyone there who really supports the multi-stakeholder approach and wants to add? Anita, please go ahead and then we’ll give it to one more person and then you can all sit down.

Anita Gurumurthy: Okay. I agree with my colleague from Vietnam that there is always in the world, you know, power. And, you know, we’re not starting on a fresh slate each day. So just like the power of the state, there’s also the power of the market and the power of big business. And all business, you know, is not the same. And therefore one very important thing. is I’d like to point to an interesting idea of multistakeholderism, which was enunciated by Netmundial in 2014, not the 2024 one, but the 2014 one, which says that internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. And what I think, therefore, is it’s important to remember that multistakeholder is not one thing, because, for instance, we can’t change a monopoly market situation with stakeholder interventions. You need regulation. So the role of the state and regulation, for instance, you cannot run a community network, you know, with interference from the state. So you need communities. So I really think that it’s extremely important to situate the idea of multistakeholderism in context. And without context, multistakeholderism is just an empty signifier. Thanks.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Anita. And I mean, I would just add one other thing that I think it’s important. And I think the Netmundial Sao Paulo guidelines also point this out. Stakeholder groups are not homogenous. There’s so much diversity between governments within civil society. The private sector is enormously diverse. So I think that’s the other thing that we also need to keep in mind. Okay, any last reflections on this topic? No. So you can sit down. I think a little bit more moving around would have been good, but we didn’t have enough space. Thank you very much, everyone, for participating in this exercise. So, everyone, while you take your seats. I hope everyone can still hear me. I now would like us to begin to think and unpack in a little bit more detail, more concretely, what we mean by coordinated implementation, follow-up and review, and ways of approaching this that takes us from WSIS to GDC and maybe back to WSIS again, but however you see that. So the first question that I want to ask, and I’m going to ask not a specific panelist, the panelists can decide who wants to respond, but the first question is, where is this first question? We at the IGF, we’re part of the IGF process at the moment, how do you see the IGF, but concretely, supporting these important processes that took place in 2024? We have the net model plus 10, which produced these guidelines on how to deepen and strengthen multi-stakeholder processes within multilateral, intergovernmental spaces, but also in multi-stakeholder spaces. We had the pact of the future, and part of the pact of the future is obviously the global digital compact, which gave us these quite high level objectives and commitments, and highlight some of the new and emerging areas that we are facing in digital governance. So yes, anyone want to respond specifically how you see the IGF? I think there’s probably a lot of consensus in this room that we want the IGF to be a key part of GDC follow-up and implementation, but some concrete suggestions. about how that can be done. Any one of our speakers online or in the room that want to, Amrita, please go ahead. You take the first step. And then I invite the other panelists to respond.

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you, Henriette. I’m taking a stab on behalf of the working group of MAG on IGF strengthening and strategy because we, and many of you are part of that group. And so this group has been trying to work a bit on it. And we’ve, as a community, created a working, a vision document for IGF. It’s also there on the website. I’m not too sure where the link is. So there has been discussions on how the IGF can contribute not only to the GDC, but also ally with the WSIS discussions and the others so that in a coordinated way, the IGF can work. There are various steps which have been proposed in terms of action. For example, to formalize IGF’s evolution, try to make the IGF model more strategic, and to also have, for example, a track where the implementation of GDC could be discussed in an open multi-stakeholder platform because even the GDC document recognizes the IGF, the national regional IGFs and its entire ecosystem. So that’s one. Even the Sao Paulo guidelines actually talk about, the NetMundial Plus 10 actually talks about IGF being the custodian to have more discussions on the implementation of many of these, how the multi-stakeholder process can be enhanced by different others who want to actually improve upon the processes, et cetera. Similarly, as I mentioned, the follow-up track of the GDC is something which has been spoken about, and how complementary relationship with the other WSIS partner institutions could be developed and strengthened. I would urge all of you to look at the vision document. I think the community has come up with fairly a good one, which is a bit more actionable. You are welcome to give more comments and I’ll leave it at that for now.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thank you, Marita. And maybe just to take a step backwards and ask the panelists, and actually if as many of you can respond to this as possible. When we talk about this harmonizing of strategies for implementation and follow-up of the WSIS and GDC, what exactly is it actually that we’re talking about? When we say there needs to be coordination, that we need to avoid duplication, what is it that we feel should be coordinated? There’s so many different elements of this process. There’s participation, there’s implementation and planning, follow-up, collaboration, partnerships. There’s also gathering evidence and research and identifying problems. So what do you think are the key processes where we need to facilitate a more harmonized approach? And Jason, do you want to start off with that? I know you’re speaking from a multi-stakeholder organization’s perspective. Do you want to respond to the IGF question? You’re welcome to respond to the IGF question.

Jason Pielemier: Thanks, Henriette. That’s what I had actually mentioned in the chat when you asked for comments on that. So maybe I’ll touch on that and maybe it helps segue to your second question. I think that the… So I want to build quite a bit on what Marietje was saying. I think that the… the Netmundial document itself did a good job of identifying the importance of avoiding fragmentation and duplication of fora at a stage earlier this year before the GDC had been concluded and I think a lot of what people had in mind at that moment was the GDC and the GDC went through a number of rounds of evolution and negotiation including opportunities for public comment and thankfully I think ended up in a place where some of what many in the stakeholder community saw as potential duplication was ironed out and we ended up avoiding creating new forums and spaces which is particularly important as the Netmundial São Paulo Principles and Outcome document indicate because of the challenges that stakeholders in particular, stakeholders from global majority, stakeholders coming from civil society, have a lot of challenges from a resource perspective in tracking, engaging, traveling to, and participating in multiple processes simultaneously and so I’m pleased that we were able to avoid some of that duplication at the end but I think there are still many open questions about the extent to which the GDC and its follow-up will be efficiently coordinated with WSIS and I think as the Netmundial Principles noted, the IGF is probably one of the best ways in which to ensure that coordination not just the annual IGF, but of course, the regional and national IGFs, which creates sort of a continuing, existing, well-known set of spaces where a diverse range of stakeholders have proven to be able to come together to address a pretty wide range of important digital issues. So to me, the role of the IGF is really as a kind of ongoing mechanism for engagement. It’s a flexible, the IGF doesn’t have a narrow mandate by any means. So the sort of substance and focus of what is engaged, what stakeholders engage on in the IGF is very flexible. And I think the question for us, and this kind of leads you to your second question is, so what specifically can and should we be focusing on? What are the tracks, whether using existing dynamic coalitions or thinking about new processes? The vision document is clearly an important piece of this puzzle. What are the specific things that we as part of the IGF community can now do to ensure that not only WSIS and the principles and objectives behind that process, but also the GDC continue to move forward in a coordinated and as participatory as possible manner. So that all starts, I think, with the need to renew the mandate for the IGF, which is critical and we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves. That still has to happen. And of course that happens in the context of the WSIS Plus 20 review. And I think Jorge alluded to earlier the importance of resources, right? The IGF has done an incredible amount in terms of the number of people it’s brought together, the number of… conversations, the range of topics addressed, with a fairly shoestring budget. And so if we’re going to ask the IGF, to bolster its role as this sort of interstitial tissue between these various processes around these topics, it needs to be resourced sufficiently and effectively.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: And thanks a lot for that, Jason. And Anita, I see you want to respond to my question about what it is, particularly in your case, from a civil society perspective, that you feel should be coordinated.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thanks, I think the question has two parts, you know, what should be coordinated and why, and I think you put it extremely succinctly, it’s extremely complex, and therefore, how to get to it should be guided by what’s the imperative. So the imperative here is, and in our view, if I could, I would dare say on on the behalf of some civil society organizations, the WSIS does remain, in some ways, I think, the mother framework. And I do think that there is an abiding vision in WSIS, and maybe I’m a hopeless romantic, but when I see those mentions of people-centered information society, I think we have a long way to go. But the very fact that the global community could commit to it, today, the what of coordination and harmonization is just grown exponentially. So we really need to look at the data and AI revolution. And that is why the GDC took a kind of a timely approach to flag the what. And I would say that updating the WSIS Action Alliance, for instance, through ideas of standards for digital public goods, what are the common standards? You know, what are the ethical standards? Also looking at private platform services and addressing the fragmentation of network standards, looking at democratic integrity and addressing hate speech, or looking at the data for development agenda and saying, what are the rule based you know, arrangements for data sharing at a global, regional, national, and subnational levels to achieve the SDGs. These are some what’s, but I think more important than the what for harmonization and coordination are two very important issues with the why. The first is without coordination and without harmonization, we will not be able to realize the vision of equality and inclusion. And therefore, coordination is very, very important to address the inequity that the GDC recognizes is characteristic of the information society. And we do need, I think, to pay attention to this kind of inequity. And the second reason I think why we need to coordinate and harmonize is the inclusion, participation, and the rightful agency of civil society requires a renewed commitment at this conjuncture. And I think there, if I might say the GDC falls short a little bit, it hasn’t, you know, been very vocal in its commitment or to renew its commitment to the participation of civil society. And here we need, I think, 21st century imagination of, and that’s why we think of the WSIS and cherish the memories of 2003 and five, because civil society said that, you know, multilateralism in its, you know, in its old bottle will not do, right? So we need, I think, a truly transparent, democratic, accountable governance of digital technologies at all levels. And this is one of the reasons, and this is one of the whys for justifying increased coordination and harmonization. I’ll leave it at that.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks a lot, Anita. And I think it’s fine to be a hopeless romantic about WSIS. I know of at least three WSIS relationships that are still going on and two WSIS babies, as we used to refer to them. And they’re now a young adult. Jorge, you wanted to respond and then David, I see you too. So let’s hear what you feel we should focus on harmonizing and coordinating as part of this process from a government perspective and from a Jorge perspective.

Jorge Cancio: Yeah, thank you, Henriette. So Jorge Cancias with government again, maybe there’s a personal but also a government perspective. I think if we’re talking about babies, I would start to say the GDC actually is a baby of WSIS. So when did it start really at the IGF 2017 in Geneva? We had a discussion about updating digital cooperation and then we had the high level panel on digital cooperation. And finally, we had the GDC after some years in the pandemic and everything. As Anita said, the GDC gives some impulses on the what we have to do. So data governance, meaningful connectivity nowadays, human rights, artificial intelligence governance, so many things. And what is the role of the IGF in that game? So that was also part of the question. I would zoom out and say the IGF, you cannot just talk about the IGF because the IGF is part of the Swiss army knife that is composed by the WSIS architecture. And the WSIS architecture are parts that are about mandates of organizations like the ITU who have been under WSIS investing hundreds of millions into connectivity, into capacity building, into outreaching to many countries. It is the action lines and there is also UNDP, UNESCO, all the UN organizations. You have the CSTD, which is the follow. up place where member states meet but also stakeholders meet together and then give a feedback to the UN system in New York. We have the WSIS forum where we look every year where the action lines stand, where we can update things. And then we have the IGF. And the IGF, you have to see it in the context of that Swiss Army knife. And it is there to have an open discussion on equal footing to identify emerging topics. That is completely valid today, I think. And what is specially needed, I think, is to avoid a proliferation of processes. So if you have a Swiss Army knife and something doesn’t work, you try to improve it. You try to get the blade again, that it cuts properly, whatever. But you don’t take another Swiss Army knife. And then you have to. And you don’t know which one to use. And you spend your time in that. So I think it’s time to use this impulse to update WSIS. But not only the IGF, the whole of the architecture. And there, I think, the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines can give us inspiration. Because it’s not only about multistakeholder processes like the IGF or ICANN. It’s also about more traditional multilateral processes where we can learn from the practice, the test bedding the IGF and other fora have been doing for 20 years. Thank you.

David Fairchild: who cover horizontally digital issues. So I have a privilege of covering a number of UN and multilateral processes in the space. I’ll try to be succinct so that we at least can move on to some other questions. And I’ve asked this question before. So what is the difference between WSIS in 2005, 2015, and 2025? And I think if you answer that to yourselves, I think you start to realize why the GDC exists. You can draw whatever answers you want away from it, but the GDC reflected the needs of some member states who felt that the WSIS or the architecture was missing the boat on certain areas. And so the negotiations of the GDC really reflects, unfortunately, yes, a multilateral process. I think we can all have a chin wag offline about how multi-stakeholder it was. But nevertheless, we were all at the table as member states and signed on to what is the GDC. So we can’t go back in history and change it whether we want to or not. But what I think is critical to understand is that there were member states who were actively undermining the IGF, actively undermining ICANN, actively undermining the internet governance model that exists today. You don’t see that in the news. You won’t see that in the final document. But I think if you talk to member states and they’re willing to tell you a little bit more, what you didn’t see was probably more important than what you saw as the final product, because what you did see in the negotiations was a clear differentiation of an ideological view of the future of the internet and how it should be governed, how the digital space needs to exist going forward. And I think that’s kind of bringing me – I think that is one of the most critical things that people need to understand. It is not all rose-colored glasses and status quo ante and we just move along and renew and things will carry on as they are. I think the second point here is as a like-minded, five eyes, G7 chair country, Canada needs to recognize is that there are valid needs that have been identified through the GDC that we need to take care of. And I think that’s where the impetus to take a real serious look at the WSIS process, not necessarily talking about updating the action lines, but I think we need to see whether they’re still fit for purpose and how they need to perhaps reflect some of the demands that have been coming forward. And the IGF, frankly, was under and remains under attack. I don’t wanna diminish the point, nor amplify it too high. If you go and look at the UN General Assembly 79, the ICT for development resolution that was just passed, there was a very minor voted change to diminish the language that was agreed in the GDC six weeks ago on how we refer to the IGF. They voted to, the G77 put forward a vote to diminish the word, to take out the word, the IGF as the primary multi-stakeholder forum. They voted to have the primary removed. So these are small data points, but on an aggregation level seem to suggest that for whatever reason, there are certain countries, certain blocks who have a different view of what the IGF is or isn’t and where it should go in the future. We tried to negotiate for the IGF to be stabilized and permanentized through the GDC. We were not successful. And so we are now in an inflection point as how do we sort of resuscitate our efforts through the negotiations, but to carry this forward through 2025. And so I think, I’m trying to give you something new to play with so we don’t just sort of hear the same old, same old that we heard from multiple workshops over the previous days. And so I think the other point we need to really pay attention to is how does the WSIS review and GDC implementation really play into the long game, which is 2030? And the SDG review. And I think if you go and look at the pact of the future, there are over 240 references in the pact to. development as a word search, which really suggests what is it that we really are trying to address. And I think what we are looking at is a convergence of, at a different time, digital ran on its own track, and there was the analog development world over on another track, and they ran in parallel. And we had the WSIS Action Lines and the Millennium Development Goals, which became the Sustainable Development Goals. We are seeing a convergence. We are living now in a digitalized 21st century. And I think we really need to take a step back and look at the architecture, and yes, Canada does not believe that we need to duplicate. We are looking for efficiency, and I think the system as it exists is more than capable. I mean, the IGF is a 20-year established and trusted environment. But there are member states who say, well, it only discusses internet governance. They seem to forget the second half of the same paragraphs from the Tunis Agenda, which says the IGF is actually responsible for considering digital issues, digital public policy issues. Every new issue can find a home in the IGF as long as we are willing to reconsider the existing language. And I’ll stop there.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks. Valeria, I’m out of the Zoom, so you can just tell me. My Zoom disconnected. Does Jason want to react? Jason wants to react. Jason, do you want to react directly to David? Because I think Geetanjali wants to give his perspective. But go ahead, Jason. Let’s hear from you first.

Jason Pielemier: Yeah, no, I just put a comment and I’ll read it out loud for folks who can’t see it. But just quick plus one to David’s points that I think should really help us focus on the WSIS plus 20. I think there’s perhaps a tendency with GDC and other things to sort of take our eye off of the ball here. The WSIS plus 20 should be an opportunity not only to expand the mandate of the IGF, but to strengthen that mandate and strengthen the institution of the IGF. But that’s not. guaranteed, right? That is going to depend on the conversations and the negotiations that happen this year. And I think we need to kind of redouble our focus on that because if we don’t, there is a chance, as David alluded to, there are some who I think would push for the IGF to be weakened. And I think that would take us in the wrong direction. So I just wanted to kind of footstomp on that point quickly and hand it back to you.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Yeah. Thanks, Jason. But I think I also heard David say, and maybe I didn’t hear correctly, but that this is not, when we talk about the what, to use Anita’s framing, the what is not just the IGF. There’s a bigger what and a longer term what out there as well. And it also sounds to me, David, from what you’re saying, that a big part of the what is building the kind of commonality and collaboration that WSIS did manage to achieve between North and South and between the developed and the developing world. And I think it’s wise of you to have reminded us that things are more fragmented in some ways. And Gitanjali, you work in the IT, you’re part of the WSIS process and you work in the UN system itself. From your perspective, what is the most important what and why?

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Anirudh. In fact, WSIS for us has been really the UN in action in terms of digital cooperation, the beautiful framework of WSIS action lines that we implement based on our mandates, like WHO has e-health, ILO has e-employment, UNESCO has mostly the knowledge societies one. So it’s a beautiful framework that all UN agencies are working together to implement. strengthen Anita’s point, you know, we should really build on this framework and the strength that we have. And it’s really not true that the action lines are very outdated. Because if you look at the WSIS forum page, you will see that the WSIS action lines are being updated in terms of like the emerging trends, the opportunities and challenges every year by the UN agencies involved. So you can see very, very beautiful presentations on the evolution of the context of each action line and what are the emerging trends. So you can have a look at it online. Also in terms of the existing mechanisms, we really feel, and ITU has been saying this, Doreen said it a couple of times, WSIS forum and IGF are really the successes of the WSIS where multi-stakeholders have got the platform to voice their opinions and to be part of the UN process. So really, the WSIS review gives us an opportunity to look at it. And from the UN perspective, the interagency mechanism of the UN called UNGIS, the United Nations Group on Information Society, that’s really an effective mechanism and that should be built on and used by the UN system. So we have rotational chairpersonship of ITU, UNESCO, UNDP and UNCTAD, along with the regional commissions and more than 35 members of the chief executive boards. So the frameworks and the systems are all in place and we should definitely utilize them. The other thing that brought back memories in the previous session is, again, what you and Anita have been talking about, that we have built this community to this point that now we are talking about things like emerging technologies like AI, but where did we start in 2006-2007? We really have to remember that effort, especially by civil society, the open source movement. the indigenous languages, the cultural aspects that UNESCO has been doing. You know, with the IDRC, we actually set up these telecentres in India, in the villages in India, where we were looking at how telecentres, post offices could be converted into telecentres, where they could provide e-governance services. You know, distance learning was a revolution in so many countries, where young girls could actually study because of distance education, you know. So we really need to also think of what we have achieved, like on the ground, all of us who’ve been working together so hard for all these years. And of course we’ve evolved from all of those technologies to now we are talking about AI, meta, new emerging technologies, but we really need to think about those challenges that we faced and overcame as well. The community radio stations, Anita will know about them, that we built in villages that provided information to the villagers, you know. So we’ve come a long way and we must commend the community

Anrienette Esterhuysen: for that as well. Thanks a lot for that, Geetanjali. And I think the sad thing is that we’ve come a long way, but also when it comes to digital inclusion, we’ve not come nearly far enough and many of those challenges still remain. We’ve now got less than 10 minutes left and I’m going to ask, I’m going to take just two inputs from the audience, very briefly, and then I’m going to ask the panel to share their closing comments with them. So I see a hand there. Juan, anyone else who wants to comment from the audience? No. So Nigel, you have to be very brief because we’ve got five minutes, less than five minutes left. So a bite-sized comment.

Juan: Yes, I don’t want to repeat many things that have been said. So I will concentrate on, if we want to coordinate, go back to there. We need to focus that each process should focus in their unique characteristic. The WSIS Forum should focus in their unique characteristic, the IGF should focus in its unique characteristic. I’m not going into it, into that now, because we don’t have time. But we should, in order to be efficient with what was from WSIS, the framework for WSIS, we have to get it to the, to make it efficient, and each one to what it has, including the intergovernmental process in the CSTD. If each one focus in their own characteristic, without duplicating, then they will need to create the communicating links between all of them, and in order to be efficient.

Nigel Cassimire: Nigel? Yes, thank you, I’m being heard? Okay. Nigel Casimir from the CTU again. I’m just wondering if the IGF could be, whether primary multi-stakeholder or just multi-stakeholder gathering, whatever, could be the multi-stakeholder place where we develop targets for the implementation of the GDC. The GDC is kind of high-level stuff, and maybe in this multi-stakeholder space, we could identify what are some of the specific things we want to see done under the GDC by a particular time. And maybe develop some performance targets for it.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks a lot for that, Nigel. So you know, it feels to me that we actually needed much more time with this session, but I think many sessions feel like that. And I mean, just to close us, and maybe to pave the way for further work, I want to ask each of the panelists. Firstly, do you think that the IJF should change its name to the Digital Cooperation Forum? And just a yes-no response. But then what I want you to close with is what are your fears and your hopes for this process of harmonizing GDC and WSIS implementation? I want you to start with your fear. Can you still hear me? Good. And start with your fear and end with a hope. So let’s start with our online speakers. Jason, why don’t you go first? Change

Jason Pielemier: the name or not. Yes, no. Your fear and your hope. No. And my fear is I think that the IJF, as we’ve talked about, it depends on—its strength is drawn from the broad and diverse range of stakeholders who are able to participate in it across the international IJF event, but also the national and regional ones, and all of the interstitial work, intersessional work. So hosting the IJF in countries where journalists, Wikipedia editors, women, LGBTQ people are systematically discriminated against or harassed, that works directly counter to that strength. It weakens the IJF. And it is, I don’t think, unintentional by any means. So that is a fear that I have, that the IJF will continue to be co-opted, will be diluted. And I think we need to to acknowledge that that is happening, acknowledge that there are countries that are working against the IJF, its mandate renewal and extension, and efforts to strengthen it. My hope is that we, the multi-stakeholder community, that support the IGF can resist that, can push back on that. And I think that’s going to take a lot of work, but I’m encouraged by the NetMundial process, encouraged by sessions like this one, encouraged by all of the incredible work that people in this room virtually and in person do. And I hope we can continue to work together, even if we don’t always agree on every topic, to support and strengthen the IGF going forward.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Jason. Anita.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you. My answer is, I don’t know. I mean, I’m ambivalent about the name, what’s in a name, but I want to actually answer your question about fear and hope by also responding to our esteemed contributor from the government of Canada. I think that for civil society, we are caught at a moment politically at this point in time, between very, very scary geopolitics and greedy geoeconomics. It’s really frightening, I think. And therefore, somebody said, we are not in an epoch of neoliberalism as so many social movements have fought against neoliberalism. Today, we are caught in neo-illiberalism. So we have the worst of both, right? We have illiberal politics and we have the greed of corporations. So in my view, I would like a better understanding among nation states, better understanding among peoples. And like Jorge said, I think regardless of whether it’s good practices in multi-stakeholderism or good practices in other fora, like the Biodiversity Convention, which has benefit sharing mechanisms with communities, with indigenous peoples, we really need to look at international solidarity as a unifying principle. And I’m not the first one to speak about it. And I really, really think that we should go beyond narrow blocks. And, you know, I’m quite happy. to question the G77 and my own government for a healthy politics. So at some level, I think that we need to understand why people are doing what they are doing and what they’re trying to protect, right, in an AI economy where most people are left behind. So we reject bad politics and we reject very poor economics. What we really want is a solidarity vision of interdependence and mutual reciprocity. Thank you.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Aineta. Amrita.

Amrita Choudhury: I agree to what Anita mentioned and even Jason mentioned and what you were saying. There are gaps which need to be addressed, not necessarily creating new structures. And what Gitanjali mentioned, we need to also sometimes look back and see the reach we have currently. If you look at the IGF and its structure, it’s huge. If you’re saying the IGF is not working on new things, look at what, for example, the Policy Network on AI or Internet Fragmentation is doing. The challenge today is when the reports come out, who is viewing it? Is it going to the necessary governments to see that they also reflect, like the policy P&AI is working mostly on developing nations, sustainability, labor wages, which are critical things for developing countries. Are the messages going? There have been many things which have come up from many of the meetings to strengthen the IGF. But have they really been implemented? Obviously the leadership panel did come in, the multi-year themes have come in, but how much more has it been used by the member states? I think that’s also important. There are gaps, but many things are being cribbed about. You can use these platforms. So I would say use existing resources and I’ll leave it at that. Thanks a lot.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: David.

David Fairchild: I’ll be very quick because I saw you got the two minutes.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: It will be done in three minutes, so you can relax.

David Fairchild: Okay. I’m agnostic to the name. I think it’s what color the cat is and whether it catches my statement. My fear is that we’re witnessing a centralization and a New Yorkification which in some parts is justified for the multilateral system but is being done at the detriment of the existing system and I’ll leave it there. Because I think what we’re suffering from is from a collective proximity bias. It’s like what have you done for me lately as opposed to what has WIS has done over 20 years and I think my hope I’ll leave with is sort of like that we wake up in time to sort of realize that the IGF actually does serve the entire community but and in that is in fact one of our positions is by stabilizing the funding and stabilizing the IGF we can actually bring it to where the voices need to be heard. I mean this is a very homogenous community at the IGF and we struggle every year to bring the different voices the different opinions around the table because that’s you know you can’t make a pearl without sand.

Gitanjali Sah: Thanks David. And Reda I’ll just share the hope that you know ITU as a UN agency specialized agency on digital we stand ready to support provide our secretariat support to all not only to member states but you know we have sector membership academia so we are there to support and to ensure that there is the process going forward as multi-stakeholder and you know that in the vision of WIS is beyond 2025 we do see some of these strengthened foundations of WIS. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: So to the brand I think the IGF is already has been for many years the digital cooperation or governance forum if the rebranding is good for branding purposes let’s be open about it. My fear is that the entire WIS system or the UN system doesn’t deliver on the promises. on really having a digital present where nobody is left out. And one fear there is that this proliferation of processes of fora makes the inclusivity and the work more difficult. And the hope is really the creativity of this and many other communities in being able to find solutions together. And I think that with that creativity that we’ve witnessed many times here in the IGF, we are able to update the global architecture, which is just a means to deliver on the goals we want to have to have a digital fair present and future.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much, Jorge. And I’m really sorry that we ran a bit over time. And I think, I mean, if there’s one key takeaway here, is that there’s a lot more to be said about the what. And I think also about the how. But I think the one key takeaway for me from your inputs in this session, and Valeria, I lost my Zoom connection. So I want to apologize to online comments that we’ve not included. But I think the lesson here is that even after 20 years more, if we add Geneva of WSIS implementation, we’re still grappling with issues of power, with issues of inclusion, with delivery and implementation. We recognize the strengths of the multi-stakeholder approach. We recognize its weaknesses. And I think we do see the IGF as a place where we can address that. And we see NetMundial as one of the tools we can use. But I think, so for me, any new process that’s trying to set up and enter this arena of digital cooperation really needs to keep in mind complexity and can we really afford to start new processes which after 20 years will be at this moment of learning and realization and solidarity and lack of solidarity that we are at now. We really can do better, I think. So let’s continue and let’s use our WSIS and our IJF processes to do this. So thanks very much everyone for your participation and thanks to everyone in the room and thanks to our tech people. Apologies. Thanks very much to Jason and Anita and all

Jason Pielemier: the online participants. Thank you, Henriette. Thank you, Bruno. Thank you, Valeria.

Agreement Points

IGF as key platform for GDC follow-up and implementation

Amrita Choudhury

Jason Pielemier

David Fairchild

Nigel Cassimire

IGF as key platform for GDC follow-up and implementation

IGF as ongoing mechanism for flexible stakeholder engagement

IGF under threat, needs strengthened mandate in WSIS+20 review

IGF as place to develop concrete targets for GDC implementation

Multiple speakers agreed on the importance of the IGF as a platform for implementing and following up on the Global Digital Compact, emphasizing its flexibility and multi-stakeholder nature.

Need to build on existing frameworks rather than create new ones

Jorge Cancio

Gitanjali Sah

Juan

IGF part of larger WSIS architecture, not standalone solution

Build on existing WSIS framework and UN mechanisms like UNGIS

Focus on unique characteristics of each process (WSIS Forum, IGF, etc.)

Several speakers emphasized the importance of leveraging and improving existing frameworks and processes rather than creating new ones, to avoid duplication and increase efficiency.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers expressed concern about threats to the IGF and emphasized the need to strengthen its mandate and resist efforts to weaken the multi-stakeholder model.

David Fairchild

Jason Pielemier

IGF under threat, needs strengthened mandate in WSIS+20 review

Need to resist efforts to weaken IGF and multi-stakeholder model

Both speakers highlighted the importance of updating existing frameworks to address emerging technologies like AI, with a focus on the needs of developing countries.

Anita Gurumurthy

Amrita Choudhury

Need to update WSIS Action Lines to address new issues like AI and data governance

Importance of addressing developing country needs in AI policy

Unexpected Consensus

Recognition of persistent digital divides despite progress

Gitanjali Sah

Amrita Choudhury

Anita Gurumurthy

Significant achievements in areas like telecenters and distance learning

Persistent challenges in connectivity and digital divides

Need for renewed focus on people-centered information society vision

Despite coming from different perspectives, these speakers all acknowledged both the progress made in digital development and the persistent challenges, suggesting a nuanced understanding of the current state of digital inclusion.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered on the importance of the IGF in implementing the GDC, the need to build on existing frameworks, and the recognition of both progress and persistent challenges in digital inclusion.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus was observed on key issues, with some divergence on specific approaches. This suggests a shared understanding of the importance of digital cooperation, but potential challenges in agreeing on specific implementation strategies.

Different Viewpoints

Role and effectiveness of the IGF

Jason Pielemier

David Fairchild

Jorge Cancio

IGF as ongoing mechanism for flexible stakeholder engagement

IGF under threat, needs strengthened mandate in WSIS+20 review

IGF part of larger WSIS architecture, not standalone solution

While Jason Pielemier views the IGF as a flexible mechanism for engagement, David Fairchild emphasizes the need to strengthen its mandate due to perceived threats. Jorge Cancio, however, sees the IGF as part of a larger WSIS architecture rather than a standalone solution.

Approach to digital cooperation processes

Anita Gurumurthy

Jorge Cancio

Gitanjali Sah

Need to update WSIS Action Lines to address new issues like AI and data governance

Avoid duplication and proliferation of new forums/processes

Build on existing WSIS framework and UN mechanisms like UNGIS

Anita Gurumurthy advocates for updating WSIS Action Lines, while Jorge Cancio warns against creating new forums. Gitanjali Sah suggests building on existing frameworks, showing different approaches to addressing digital cooperation.

Unexpected Differences

Perception of WSIS relevance

Anita Gurumurthy

David Fairchild

Need for renewed focus on people-centered information society vision

Fragmentation between member states on vision for internet governance

While Anita Gurumurthy advocates for renewing focus on the WSIS vision of a people-centered information society, David Fairchild highlights the fragmentation among member states regarding internet governance. This unexpected difference shows contrasting views on the relevance and unity of the WSIS vision in current discussions.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role and effectiveness of the IGF, approaches to digital cooperation processes, and the relevance of existing frameworks like WSIS in addressing current challenges.

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate, with speakers generally agreeing on the importance of digital cooperation but differing on specific approaches and priorities. This implies a need for further dialogue and compromise to develop a cohesive strategy for implementing the GDC and WSIS outcomes.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of the IGF and digital inclusion, but differ on how to achieve these goals. Amrita focuses on the IGF’s role in GDC implementation, Anita emphasizes addressing inequity and civil society participation, while Gitanjali highlights past achievements in digital development.

Amrita Choudhury

Anita Gurumurthy

Gitanjali Sah

IGF as key platform for GDC follow-up and implementation

Address inequity and renew commitment to civil society participation

Significant achievements in areas like telecenters and distance learning

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers expressed concern about threats to the IGF and emphasized the need to strengthen its mandate and resist efforts to weaken the multi-stakeholder model.

David Fairchild

Jason Pielemier

IGF under threat, needs strengthened mandate in WSIS+20 review

Need to resist efforts to weaken IGF and multi-stakeholder model

Both speakers highlighted the importance of updating existing frameworks to address emerging technologies like AI, with a focus on the needs of developing countries.

Anita Gurumurthy

Amrita Choudhury

Need to update WSIS Action Lines to address new issues like AI and data governance

Importance of addressing developing country needs in AI policy

Key Takeaways

The IGF is seen as a key platform for implementing WSIS and GDC outcomes, but its role and mandate need to be strengthened

There is a need to coordinate and harmonize various digital cooperation processes to avoid duplication and fragmentation

Existing WSIS frameworks and UN mechanisms should be built upon rather than creating entirely new structures

Significant progress has been made in digital inclusion, but major challenges and divides persist

There are tensions between different visions for internet governance among member states

Civil society participation and addressing inequity remain important priorities

Resolutions and Action Items

Use the upcoming WSIS+20 review as an opportunity to strengthen the IGF’s mandate

Update WSIS Action Lines to address new issues like AI and data governance

Develop concrete targets for GDC implementation through the IGF

Ensure IGF discussions and outputs reach relevant government stakeholders

Unresolved Issues

How to balance multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches in digital cooperation

How to address the ‘centralization’ and ‘New Yorkification’ of digital governance processes

Whether the IGF should be renamed to reflect its broader digital cooperation role

How to ensure adequate funding and resources for the IGF

How to bring more diverse voices into IGF discussions

Suggested Compromises

Focus each process (WSIS Forum, IGF, etc.) on its unique characteristics to avoid duplication

Use existing IGF structures like Policy Networks to address emerging issues rather than creating new forums

Be open to rebranding the IGF if it helps communicate its broader role, while maintaining its core functions

The multi-stakeholder approach entrenches existing dynamics of power and influence in internet governance.

speaker

Anrienette Esterhuysen

reason

This provocative statement challenged assumptions about multi-stakeholder processes and sparked reflection on power dynamics.

impact

It led to a nuanced discussion about the strengths and limitations of multi-stakeholder approaches, with participants offering different perspectives based on their experiences.

The GDC is a baby of WSIS. […] And what is the role of the IGF in that game? So that was also part of the question. I would zoom out and say the IGF, you cannot just talk about the IGF because the IGF is part of the Swiss army knife that is composed by the WSIS architecture.

speaker

Jorge Cancio

reason

This comment provided important historical context and framed the IGF as part of a larger ecosystem of digital governance mechanisms.

impact

It broadened the discussion beyond just the IGF to consider how different mechanisms and processes fit together in the overall digital governance landscape.

And from the UN perspective, the interagency mechanism of the UN called UNGIS, the United Nations Group on Information Society, that’s really an effective mechanism and that should be built on and used by the UN system.

speaker

Gitanjali Sah

reason

This comment introduced a specific UN mechanism that many participants may not have been familiar with, highlighting existing coordination efforts.

impact

It added depth to the discussion about coordination mechanisms and emphasized building on existing structures rather than creating new ones.

My fear is that we’re witnessing a centralization and a New Yorkification which in some parts is justified for the multilateral system but is being done at the detriment of the existing system and I’ll leave it there.

speaker

David Fairchild

reason

This comment raised concerns about shifts in power and decision-making within the UN system that could impact existing digital governance processes.

impact

It introduced a note of caution into the discussion and prompted reflection on the potential downsides of changes to the existing system.

For civil society, we are caught at a moment politically at this point in time, between very, very scary geopolitics and greedy geoeconomics. It’s really frightening, I think. And therefore, somebody said, we are not in an epoch of neoliberalism as so many social movements have fought against neoliberalism. Today, we are caught in neo-illiberalism.

speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

reason

This comment provided a broader geopolitical and economic context for the challenges facing digital governance, introducing the concept of ‘neo-illiberalism’.

impact

It elevated the discussion to consider larger global trends and their impact on digital governance, encouraging participants to think beyond just technical or procedural issues.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from specific mechanisms like the IGF to the larger ecosystem of digital governance. They encouraged participants to consider historical context, existing structures, power dynamics, and global geopolitical trends. The discussion moved from technical details to more fundamental questions about the goals and challenges of digital cooperation in a complex global landscape. This led to a rich, multifaceted conversation that highlighted both the progress made and the significant challenges that remain in achieving inclusive and effective digital governance.

How can the IGF be more effectively resourced to fulfill its expanded role in coordinating digital cooperation processes?

speaker

Jason Pielemier

explanation

Jason highlighted the need for sufficient resources for the IGF to effectively coordinate between various digital cooperation processes, which is crucial for avoiding duplication and fragmentation.

What specific actions can be taken to update the WSIS Action Lines to address current digital challenges like AI governance and data sharing?

speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

explanation

Anita suggested updating WSIS Action Lines to include modern digital issues, which is important for ensuring the continued relevance of WSIS framework in addressing current technological challenges.

How can the IGF develop concrete targets for implementing the Global Digital Compact?

speaker

Nigel Cassimire

explanation

Nigel proposed using the IGF to develop specific implementation targets for the GDC, which could provide a clearer roadmap for achieving the GDC’s high-level objectives.

What steps can be taken to ensure that the WSIS+20 review strengthens rather than weakens the IGF’s mandate?

speaker

Jason Pielemier

explanation

Jason emphasized the importance of using the WSIS+20 review to strengthen the IGF, which is crucial for maintaining a robust multi-stakeholder forum for internet governance.

How can we improve the dissemination and impact of IGF outputs, particularly to governments and policymakers?

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

explanation

Amrita highlighted the need for better communication of IGF outcomes to ensure they influence policy decisions, which is essential for the IGF to have real-world impact.

What strategies can be employed to resist attempts to weaken or co-opt the IGF?

speaker

Jason Pielemier

explanation

Jason expressed concern about efforts to undermine the IGF and called for strategies to counter these attempts, which is important for preserving the IGF’s integrity and effectiveness.

How can we foster greater international solidarity in digital cooperation efforts?

speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

explanation

Anita emphasized the need for international solidarity in addressing digital challenges, which is crucial for overcoming geopolitical tensions and ensuring equitable digital development.

What measures can be taken to avoid the ‘New Yorkification’ of digital cooperation processes while maintaining necessary multilateral engagement?

speaker

David Fairchild

explanation

David raised concerns about centralization of processes in New York at the expense of existing systems, highlighting the need to balance multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches.