WS #206 Evolving the IGF: cooperation is the only way

Summary

This discussion focused on how the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) could evolve to meet the challenges of the modern digital world. Participants emphasized the need for the IGF to become more focused, empowered, and relevant to decision-makers. Key suggestions included improving the IGF’s ability to produce concrete outcomes and recommendations, enhancing its connection to other UN processes, and better leveraging its vast archive of discussions.

Several speakers highlighted the importance of making the IGF more inclusive, particularly by addressing language barriers and improving hybrid participation options. There was debate about whether to reduce the number of sessions for more in-depth discussions or maintain the current format for diversity. The need for better funding and resources was a recurring theme, with suggestions for broader stakeholder contributions.

Participants discussed applying the NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes and potentially focusing on specific themes or issues each year. The role of National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) was emphasized as a crucial element in the IGF ecosystem, particularly for engaging local communities and addressing region-specific concerns.

Looking ahead to the 2024 IGF in Oslo, speakers stressed the importance of making it strategically focused and relevant to the upcoming WSIS+20 review. Suggestions for immediate improvements included creating an AI-powered bot to make IGF archives more accessible, conducting early community consultations, and enhancing the hybrid meeting experience. Overall, the discussion underscored the IGF’s ongoing evolution and the need for creative approaches to increase its impact and relevance in global internet governance.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– How to evolve the IGF to be more focused, empowered, and impactful

– Improving diversity and inclusivity, especially regarding language barriers and hybrid participation

– Better organizing and utilizing the wealth of information from past IGFs

– Applying the NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes

– Making the IGF more attractive and relevant to governments and other stakeholders

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore ideas for evolving and improving the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to better meet current challenges and increase its impact and relevance.

The tone of the discussion was constructive and collaborative. Participants shared ideas openly and built on each other’s suggestions. There was a sense of urgency about the need for change, but also optimism about the IGF’s potential. The tone became more focused and solution-oriented towards the end as participants were asked to provide concrete suggestions for the next IGF.

Speakers

– Annaliese Williams – Chair of Australia’s national IGF, works for .au domain administration

– Chris Buckridge – MAG member

– Renata Mielli – Chair of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), Special Advisor of the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation

– Amrita Choudhury – CCAOI, involved in Asia-Pacific regional IGF

– Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone – Internet Governance Coordinator for ZA Domain Name Authority, Secretariat for South African IGF Multi-Stakeholder Committee

– Jorge Cancio – Government representative

– Jordan Carter – Australian Domain Administration

Additional speakers:

– Wout de Natris – Consultant from the Netherlands, representing Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards Security Safety

– Desiree Miloshevic – Role/expertise not specified

– Masanobu Katoh – IGF Japan

– Baratang Miya – GirlHype

– Anriette Esterhuysen – Association for Progressive Communications

– Galvanian Burke – Civil Society representative

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Discussion: Evolving to Meet Modern Challenges

This discussion focused on how the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) could evolve to meet the challenges of the modern digital world. Participants, representing a diverse range of stakeholders from various countries and organizations, engaged in a constructive and collaborative dialogue about the future of the IGF.

Key Themes and Discussions

1. Evolution of the IGF

There was broad consensus among speakers that the IGF needs to adapt and evolve to address current global digital challenges more effectively. Amrita Choudhury emphasized the need for the IGF to become more focused and empowered, while Chris Buckridge noted that the IGF has already evolved over time and should continue to do so. Renata Mielli and Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone stressed the importance of producing more concrete outcomes and actionable items at continental and country levels. Jorge Cancio suggested viewing the IGF in the context of the broader World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) architecture.

2. Improving IGF Programming and Format

Speakers discussed various ways to improve IGF programming and format. Wout de Natris suggested reducing the number of sessions for more focused discussions, while others argued for maintaining diversity while improving programming. Amrita Choudhury highlighted the importance of improving the hybrid format and accessibility. Chris Buckridge proposed considering different formats for different themes. There were also suggestions to organize more lively debates and make the IGF a year-round process rather than just an annual event.

3. Enhancing Multi-stakeholder Participation

Improving multi-stakeholder participation was a recurring theme. Jorge Cancio proposed applying the NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes, which sparked a significant discussion about their potential implementation. Renata Mielli emphasized the need to address language barriers to participation, sharing the example of the Lusophone Internet Forum initiative. Annaliese Williams and Masanobu Katoh discussed better coordination between global, regional, and national IGFs to increase participation. Chris Buckridge stressed the importance of maintaining a broad funding base from multiple stakeholders.

4. Improving IGF Outputs and Impact

There was general agreement on the need for the IGF to produce more concrete and impactful outputs. Renata Mielli called for more concrete recommendations and guidelines. Chris Buckridge suggested making IGF archives and data more accessible and usable, with Jorge Cancio proposing the creation of an IGF bot to facilitate this. Amrita Choudhury emphasized focusing on strategic issues related to the WSIS+20 review. Renata Mielli also stressed the importance of demonstrating the IGF’s relevance to shaping digital policies and starting consultations earlier on desired outcomes.

5. Addressing Language and Accessibility Issues

Several speakers highlighted the need to improve language accessibility and the overall user experience of the IGF. Renata Mielli discussed initiatives to address language barriers, while Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone and others emphasized the importance of improving the hybrid format. Galvanian Burke suggested enhancing digital tools and user experience for IGF attendees.

6. Role of National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs)

The importance of National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) in the IGF ecosystem was emphasized by several speakers. Annaliese Williams mentioned the DNS Research Federation report on the impact of the IGF, which highlighted the role of NRIs. Speakers discussed how better coordination between global, regional, and national IGFs could increase participation and impact.

7. Funding and Sustainability

The discussion touched on funding issues, with Chris Buckridge emphasizing the importance of maintaining a broad funding base. Jordan Carter suggested that non-state stakeholders could contribute to the IGF trust fund to enhance its sustainability and independence.

Looking Ahead: Key Takeaways and Future Considerations

The discussion yielded several key takeaways for the future of the IGF:

1. The need for the IGF to become more focused, empowered, and relevant to decision-makers.

2. Improving IGF programming while maintaining diversity and inclusivity.

3. Enhancing multi-stakeholder participation, especially from governments.

4. Producing more concrete outcomes and actionable recommendations.

5. Improving the hybrid format, accessibility, and language inclusivity of the IGF.

6. Better coordination between global, regional, and national IGFs.

7. Leveraging the IGF community and existing resources more effectively.

8. Exploring the application of NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes.

9. Developing mechanisms for year-round engagement and earlier consultations.

10. Addressing funding sustainability through diverse stakeholder contributions.

As the IGF community looks towards the 2024 IGF in Oslo and beyond, these discussions provide a foundation for ongoing efforts to evolve and improve the forum. The upcoming IGF in Oslo holds particular significance in light of the WSIS+20 review, as noted by Jorge Cancio. The challenge lies in balancing diverse stakeholder interests while enhancing the IGF’s impact and relevance in shaping global internet governance.

Annaliese Williams: that multi-stakeholder opportunities for discussion on an equal basis are a good thing and a very positive thing to have and to continue. I see our speakers are just getting themselves organized. So we we have a bit of a discussion today on how we can evolve the IGF. We recognize that a decision will be made next year as to the you know the further mandate of the IGF but I think in discussions so far at this year’s IGF there seems to be the overwhelming view that that multi-stakeholder discussions are a good thing and I just wanted to note in the DNS Research Federation did a report on the impact of the IGF and there’s a quote to the effect of you know if the IGF didn’t exist we would have to invent it. So I think you know regardless of what is decided next year there is a need for these for this international multi-stakeholder discussions to take place and we hope that the IGF will continue long into the future. So our discussion today is just seeking some some thoughts about how we can evolve the IGF from where it is today so that it can continue to to meet the challenges of a digital world. We have four speakers with us today and we have an online moderator as well who will be keeping an eye on on the online participation and will let us know if anybody has comments to contribute. My colleague Everton will read them into the into the meeting for us. So I will let our speakers introduce themselves but and perhaps you can just do that briefly as you speak but just briefly we have Chris Buckridge who wears multiple internet governance hats. We have Renata Miele from .br. We also have another ccTLD represented, we have Plantina from .za. We have civil society represented with Amrita and our online moderator today is Everton also from .br. So we’re going to ask speakers to just reflect on a few questions and then I’m hoping that there will be an opportunity for speakers to interact with each other, respond to each other’s thoughts or build on each other’s thoughts. But we will start with Amrita I think and I’ll ask you all, you’ll all have an opportunity to respond to the same question. But Amrita if you would briefly introduce yourself and then perhaps share your thoughts on how the IGF should evolve to meet the challenges of a modern digital world.

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you so much Annalise and thank you for having me here. I’m Amrita. I am from India. I work for a civil society organization called CCUI. I’m involved in the Asia-Pacific regional IGF apart from other things and to respond to your question on how the IGF should evolve to meet the modern digital world, I think it needs to be more focused. It needs to be more empowered. In fact the working group strategy where Chris, me, Jorge and many others in this room who are involved, we did create a vision document where there have been certain concrete measures being drafted on how the IGF should evolve. IGF could evolve to meet most of the requirements which is being portrayed as gap areas. For example, it could be the place where everyone can come and it could be a test bed for people. It could be a place where the GDC’s implementations could be tracked. It could also be a place where even governments come and test out what they want to do, et cetera, apart from other things. So IGF has it in them, has it in itself, but it needs to be more empowered in terms of people, in terms of money, primarily so that it can do what it has been doing, but not formally being given the mandate. I would stop at that.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks very much. Thanks, Amrita. And just before I go much further in my enthusiasm to begin the conversation today, I neglected to introduce myself. So my apologies to everybody for that. My name is Annalise Williams. I work for the .au domain administration. I’m part of the technical community and I’m also very involved in Australia’s national IGF and I’ve been the chair of the IGF for the last two years. So my apologies for being so hasty. Chris, perhaps we might go to you. How does the IGF, how should it evolve? And I do want to come back to the point Amrita made, but if any of the other speakers wanted to chime in on the points about empowerment in terms of people and money, how the IGF is going to be funded is a live question. But Chris, would you like to share your thoughts?

Chris Buckridge: Sure. So my name’s Chris Buckridge. I’m currently a MAG member for the next two days at least. and then we see what happens with 2025. Yeah, I have a few other hats that I wear, but for the purposes of this, I’m a long time IGF gadfly, who’s happy to just sort of throw some comments in as to how things might evolve. I think the important thing is the IGF is and has always been a work in progress. It’s never been static in terms of what it is. It probably feels a little, you know, we come back every year and see a lot of the same people and that’s always good and fun, but there has been evolution and well, full disclosure, I was one of the co-authors of that DNS Research Federation paper. But yeah, part of what we found there was, you know, digging back through how it’s evolved, what’s happened, what the sort of results of those processes have been was fascinating and really turned up some very interesting examples, both sort of very practical examples, how it sort of helped to foster an IXP development in Africa and other global South countries, how it fostered the NRI, National and Regional Initiative ecosystem, and how important that has proved to be in terms of developing internet governance discussions. But I mean, also things like in talking to different people, hearing some really different perspectives on the impact that the IGF had. I mean, some people sort of saying, when we talk maybe about the IANA transition, yes, it was a hugely important crucible for discussion and ideas to come together. Other people saying, no, well, it was a bit separate to that. So I think, you know, there’s lots of perspectives, it has changed and grown over time. And I mean, the intersessional activities are an area where we’ve been very clear that there has been growth, there has been change in the last two decades, and they’ve evolved into something probably of the almost most value in this IGF space. And that’s the best practice forums, which. You know, we’ve had a cybersecurity best practice forum in operation for a good number of years now and has produced some really important and insightful work. We’ve had a policy network on fragmentation, which has also been, I think, now in its third year and has done some really insightful study on a very key issue right now in internet governance. We’ve also had one on artificial intelligence, which perhaps got a bit subsumed by some of the larger scale UN discussions, but if you read the report, it actually pre-predicted, I guess, what some of the, say, the Secretary General’s AI panel said in its report about things like regulatory interoperability. So, I mean, those ideas are percolating, really, in a very early stage in the IGF, and the IGF is helping to get them to that next level. I think that evolution needs to continue. I think we’re at a really fascinating point going into next year where we’ll have a quite different context. We’ll have a much shorter timeframe to prepare. We’ll have a different kind of mag. We may see that there’s a need to sort of consolidate a little to sort of bring it in to a bit more tight focus in how it works. There’s obviously going to be an eye to the WSIS plus 20 review, which will happen a few months after the IGF next year. So, I think we want the IGF next year to be at its best, and this, you know, a little pressure can force the change that you want and create a diamond. So, I hope that’s what we’re going to see in the coming six months in terms of evolution. Obviously, funding is a perennial issue. I do think there is, it’s important to be thinking that we maintain the broad base of funding for the IGF. Any multi-stakeholder model, you know, captured by a certain stakeholder group or demographic is a concern. And that applies as much to. you know, the UN and member states as it does to any other group. I think part of the strength is having funding come from lots of different sources so that the decisions about how the IGF evolves, the decisions about where it goes have to be taken in a multi-stakeholder way rather than the person who’s outlaid the most cash gets to steer the ship. So I’ll stop there. Thanks.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Chris. Yeah, important observations on a number of fronts there. I would agree with you about the need for broad-based funding. I think at the Australian government booth out there, they had a little survey asking people to indicate whether they thought their stakeholder group should contribute to funding. So I’d be interested to see what the results of all those surveys were. And just your point on the policy networks and best practice forums, I think that dynamic coalitions, that is also a really important point. You know, the IGF has already demonstrated that it can evolve to meet changing needs and it has demonstrated that it can do this successfully and I’m sure it will continue to do so into the future. I might go to you next, Renata, and then Plantina.

Renata Mielli: Hello. Thank you, Annelise. Thank you for inviting me for this interesting, important session about how to evolve in IGF. I will agree with Chris because I agree the IGF is a work in progress. So I want to emphasize that the IGF is a work in progress and it has been an important platform for the discussions about… of the internet, its applications and the impacts of the new economic models and services for users and also sites. And maybe if some governments and other decision-maker organizations had more involved with IGF, some of the things we are saying now, they are knowing previously because we discussed this a lot. So I think we are doing a good work, seeking best practice, the new forum. I think all this is important. But in my point of view, it isn’t enough. And we are at a moment where we can no longer afford to gather in deep discussions on critical global issues without taking a step forward and using these debates to develop a set of consensual proposals and recommendations to present to multilateral organizations. It’s necessary to improve mechanisms for building consensus and producing guidelines and recommendations in such a way that community’s voices have an impact on multilateral and other decision-making processes. So that these effective solutions to challenges we face can be found and implemented. We need to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between strengthening multistakeholder spaces and processes and the role of multilateral spaces. We are in this crazy moment that we are something against another. And we have to stop this and work together in a complementary way. So in my opinion, that’s why evolving the IGF is a core discussion for us. We need to have the courage to look to what we have achieved till now, together, and together we need to build new ideas. We need to step out of our comfort zone and think about how to make the IJF a space that is seen as relevant for shaping guidelines and digital policies. This is our challenge in my point of view. To transform the IJF in such a space, we need to deepen transparency and strengthen multi-stakeholder participation mechanisms. And we already have a good start point, and this point is the São Paulo NetMundial guidelines. We are beginning the process of reviewing WSIS Plus 2018, and in 2025 we will have the IJF in June, some weeks before the high-level meeting in Geneva. So I would like to bring a constructive challenge, nothing new, because Chris put this, how we are going to organize the next IJF in June, like we did till now, or maybe trying to look to this opportunity to think differently and try something new by applying the São Paulo guidelines to build the next IJF. So that’s my initial proposal. I believe in the update proposed by NetMundial, we challenge multiple sectors to jointly think of solutions for the current internet challenges. And maybe we can build an experiment with the next IJF, and maybe this will be important to all the WSIS process in this regard. Thank you.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Renata. I think it’s definitely a time to be creative right now. What you were saying about setting against one another, I was in one of the sessions yesterday and somebody said multi-stakeholder and multi-lateral are two sides of the same coin. that was something that resonated with me. I think we certainly need both, it’s not an either or. And each process, these multi-stakeholder discussions are very much enriched by having government participation on an equal level. And there is a lot of expertise that from the technical community and from other civil society that can be very useful for multilateral processes. So we’ll go to Plantina, and then we’ve had Jorge join us as well since we started. But I’ll go to Plantina, and then if you wanted to offer some initial observations, or you can wait till the next round if you like, Jorge. Go ahead, Plantina.

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone: Thanks, thanks, Anneliese. Thank you, everyone. Let me start also by introducing myself. My name is Plantina Mugoni. I am the Internet Governance Coordinator for the ZA Domain Name Authority. I also serve as the Secretariat for the South African Internet Governance Forum Multi-Stakeholder Committee, amongst other things that I do in my personal capacity. And just agreeing with Chris, I think we’re all gonna agree with Chris, in the sense that the IGF is a working progress. I think that a lot has been achieved from the time that I’ve been here and just witnessed just the level even of participation. I think a lot more still needs to be done, just also agreeing with my colleague. There’s a lot more that needs to be done. We need funding. However, one of the biggest things I think that remains an issue is that what happens to the discussions and that we have at IGF? What does our document, what does the IGF document turn out to do? I appreciate the fact that the multi-stakeholder forum, multi-stakeholder model that’s followed in IGF is a bottom-up approach. We solicit… inputs from different stakeholders, but what happens to those inputs? What do they lead to? What actionable items or actionable documents do they do, do they lead to? Because really if they lead to nothing, all this is is a talk show. You know, we need more funding for a continuous talk show. And I think, you know, yes multi-stakeholderism does emphasize that all parties within the multi-stakeholder model are equal, but in reality, you know, government is a decision-maker. We are not all equal. Government makes decisions. So we need to bring them into a discussion, negotiate with them. I think maybe that’s another element that we need to bring into IGF is to negotiate, because the internet as it’s evolving affects all of us in our individual and our business capacity. So I think my how the IGF can evolve is just really turn the discussions that we have within the IGF space into actionable items at continental level, at regional level, but also at country level. You know, and yeah, see how that works itself out. But really just I think the one of the things that does bother me with how we’ve been moving for the past couple of years is that we talk. And how does that translate into actionable items in individual countries? So maybe just have that as one of the action points just moving into next year in the WSIS Plus 20 review.

Annaliese Williams: Thank you. Thanks, Plantina. And we are going to sort of get into, I hope, get into a bit of discussion. And we may not come up with any solutions today, but I’m hoping that we can put forward some ideas and perhaps discuss these again or come up with a proposal for the Norway IGF and have some further discussion on them. But Jorge, did you want to offer any reflections on how the IGF could evolve? or did the processes need to change? Did you want to respond to anything that any of the other speakers have said? We’ve had some comments about governments make the decisions. I think that is, while it’s true, nationally they make laws and internationally they can make treaties. But a lot of the infrastructure is owned and operated by parties that aren’t government entities. So any thoughts you would like to throw into the mix, Jorge? And please introduce yourself as you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Annalise, Jorge Cancios with government. So happy to be here. Happy for the invite to share some thoughts. Maybe a thought that is important is that sometimes we love so much our baby, our IGF baby, that we just look at the IGF baby and how it has to walk and talk and start to run and everything. And we forget that it’s a larger family. So and this WSIS family has more members. Each and everyone has his or her role. And really the WSIS architecture is not just some dead letter documents of 2003 and 2005 where some older people like myself participated negotiating. No, it’s really a system that is working, that is delivering for the last 20 years where we as the global community and not just member states but also private stakeholders, civil society, academia, the technical community have invested. millions of hours of work, millions of dollars of any other currency in making the vision of WSIS a reality. More connectivity, e-health, e-whatever that was the old terminology. Everything had an e. Also human rights. Many issues were already considered then. So we have to see the IGF in that context. In the wider context where we have the action lines from WSIS giving guidance to the UN agencies and to many other actors to do stuff on the ground changing the reality, really delivering on the SDGs for the people. We have the WSIS forum where we get together each year to hear what has been done to implement the action lines. We have the CSTD where we discuss what was the progress and what do we feed up into the UN system. And there we have the different roles. Then it gets very intergovernmental. It goes to ECOSOC and if somebody doesn’t know what ECOSOC is, it’s the Economic and Social Committee. It’s like the non-war, non-peace brother, twin brother of the Security Council and from there it goes up to the UN General Assembly. Those are all parts of this WSIS family, of this WSIS architecture. And the IGF is like the more innovative kid. It’s the kid where we talk about new things, we invent new things, policy networks, emerging topics, but we still have to deliver. As Plantina was saying before, we have to deliver and there are things we have on our mandate for almost 20 years, like delivering recommendations. But it was a problem because, okay, it’s nice to have that in the mandate, but we didn’t know how. How do we do this? And there were also fears. So if somebody pops up with a recommendation, how was it that recommendation was developed, etc. So I think this is where the relevance, for instance, of the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines kick in. Because they tell us, okay, multi-stakeholder is not anything that is labeled as multi-stakeholder. It’s really something that complies with certain guidelines and those guidelines are, for instance, inclusivity and not just inclusivity with an open door where only the well-resourced pass the door. No, it’s inclusivity in a material, a substantive sense. That’s in guideline one of the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines. And it’s also process steps. It’s really getting everybody who is relevant together. It’s consulting with the community and it’s really explaining what has been done with the inputs from the community, avoiding this black box problem we’ve seen in other processes. It’s really giving the community also a role in being able to adapt the the outputs, etc. It’s a lot of guidance that our dynamic coalitions, our BPFs, our policy networks could get inspiration from and start delivering, start delivering those recommendations we have in our mandate. So looking back if we look at the IGF as part of this wider family maybe for instance those recommendations could each and every year be addressed then by the UN agencies when they are updating the working plans in the action lines and then Plantina if I may address you then we would know okay we’ve made a recommendation on data governance and that data governance recommendations goes to action lines XYZ and then later on they can report at the WSIS forum on what they what they did and addressing reflecting on the IGF recommendations if we think it the IGF as part of a system it makes much more sense and then it it is no longer in the perception because it’s for me it’s not a talk show it’s much more than that but also in the perception of everybody it would become much more effective much more impactful if it’s really part of a working WSIS structure and I talk too much sorry.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks for that Jorge. I just wanted to sort of touch on a couple of things that you said you know firstly about the well the thinking about the IGF admiring our baby I think that is you know sometimes the conversations do get around you know to focusing on the IGF and sort of only the IGF and not the broader broader system I think for me personally anyway it’s not so it’s not so much the the IGF but it’s the the principle of multi-stakeholder conversations and sharing of, exchanging of views and doing that sort of globally, sort of hearing from parts of the world that are far away from where you might live or where you might work. And the IGF is a good platform for hearing about the concerns from, that might be very different from your own. And also I thought it was, I think we do need to sort of really focus on the, that connection to the SDGs and the WSIS process was all about development. And I think it’s important that we all, the internet is recognised and digital technologies are recognised as an enabler of sustainable development. But I think it was Doreen on the first day, sort of something like a third of the world’s population still aren’t connected. So, we can have one set of conversations in one place, but in other parts of the world, they’re having very different conversations. People aren’t connected. And I was in a session yesterday where they were talking about not having electricity all of the time. So, even if they have the internet, they don’t have enough power for data centres or can’t access the internet all of the time. So, I think that is making sure that the conversations and making sure that the space to have consideration of the issues from everybody’s point of view and make sure that it’s, you know, that the needs of those in less connected parts of the world aren’t sort of left out of the conversation. I did also want to ask for views and I’ll just ask for a volunteer, I guess. I think, you know, the need for governments and for technical stakeholders, you know, technical experts, private sector, civil society. society, the need for meaningful conversations to take place, there is a real need, but there is perhaps not always the stakeholder balance here at IGF conversations, at IGF meetings to sort of have those conversations. So I wondered if anybody has any ideas or any suggestions for how the IGF could better facilitate conversations between governments and other experts. Does anyone want to address that first?

Amrita Choudhury: I think what Chris mentioned, that the focus, for example, for IGF may be much more sharper. You have the parliamentary track, but are you actually discussing things which the parliamentarians want to hear? There could be certain things where they may want to discuss, but they may, in a public forum, may be shy to ask or understand. Are we having those kind of, I would say, innovative approaches to bring them so that they see value in coming here and discussing things, also clarifying their doubts, as well as sharing their experiences. I think an innovative approach would be good. It’s not a one-size-fits-all kind of a situation, and perhaps showing value to people coming, as in, I’m sure the MAG always has been trying to get the right kind of speakers to come from different stakeholder groups to speak. But sometimes travelling is a challenge, you can’t fund travellers, you know, not everyone has deep pockets. Many private companies also may not come to speak because they are afraid of what they would say and how it would be interpreted. So I think there are multiple issues which would have to be addressed, but I think more focused approach, innovative ways of having discussions, lesser ones, because unfortunately… Nearly two-thirds of the sessions which happens at the IGF is not in the MAG’s hand. If the MAG was to design it, perhaps it may have been done differently, and others can respond to it.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks Amrita. Does anybody else want to go ahead, Chris?

Chris Buckridge: Sorry, I said that without really thinking ahead of what I was going to say. Look, I mean, I think we have good speakers, I think, in a lot of the sessions, and we are trying to be innovative in how we plan sessions. I think, you know, that extends to remote speakers and better integrating them, and I think we need to really focus, sort of, on the IGF as a hybrid event. This needs to be a space where, you know, you don’t need to be there in person to have a meaningful role and take a meaningful part. But, that said, obviously, I mean, we know that people being there in person is a different experience. It provides not just the opportunity for, you know, to look around at your fellow speakers in the table and respond in a more organic way, but also to have conversations in the corridor, to meet people in bilateral meetings. There’s a richness there. So, I mean, we need to still focus on bringing people to the venue and making it an appealing and attractive event to have people at. Now, I think that’s, you know, increasingly a challenge, partly because we do have this proliferation of venues. Next year only serves to highlight that, where we have the WSIS Forum one week, two weeks after the IGF. Two weeks before the IGF, we have an ICANN meeting, which will have a lot of similar stakeholders there. So, I mean, next year is probably unusual, but maybe not that unusual, given the trend and the way we see this developing. I mean, if we look at the last five years, the pace of regulation, of new bodies, of new initiatives at the UN level, at the sort of regional level, at the national level, is remarkable. It really has, I don’t know if anyone’s done a line chart of it, but it would be almost exponential, I’m sure, in the increase. So we need for the IGF to find, to carve its own space there where it’s actually competing for attention against all of these other spaces. And that, I think, leads just back to the first question of how do we evolve it to better meet the needs and wants of people? And there is a hunger for some more link to decisional developments. Not that the IGF can take the role of government, not that it can sort of step in, and it would fail if it tried, I think. But it does need to be producing much more effective interfaces to the governmental processes, to the regulators, to legislators. So yeah, having a parliamentarian track is a very fundamental element of that, and I think a recognition of the need to build that interface, whether it’s perfect or not yet, I don’t know. Probably, yeah, like everything, a work in progress. But that sort of evolution needs to continue, I think. Yeah, I’ll stop there.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Chris. And I see Renata wanted to add on to that, and I will after Renata has spoken, but if anyone wants to think about how do we make it more appealing and more attractive, particularly to those governments who might come once?

Renata Mielli: Okay, first of all, I apologize. I didn’t present myself in the first round, so I am doing now. I’m Renata Miele, I’m the chair of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGI.br, and also… Special Advisor of the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation. Well, I think this question is connected to the previous one, because why a government or a deputy, a parliament, come to IGF? What can we offer to them to make it interesting, important to be here discussing with us? And for me, we do marvelous debates. We do interesting workshops. We have maybe the best minds that are thinking about Internet, their applications, their impacts on social and economic levels and everything else. But why governments come here to talk with us? And for me, they will feel the need to be here if we can deliver something concrete that has some more impact in terms of discussions. We are not going to be ourselves the decision-making process, but they need to see in us, in IGF, in the community, a locus, a space relevant enough to inform and collaborate with recommendations and concrete outcomes that can impact in decision-making process. So, if we don’t do that… this, they are not going to come. Because there are a lot of spaces to go, and more relevant for them. So I think this, I don’t have the precisely magical answer to this question, but I think the start point is that, how to make IGF more relevant to the people who has the role to make decisions. So for me, this is the start point.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Renata. Plantina, did you want to add something?

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone: Yes, I did. I don’t know, I think too highly of the Internet Governance Forum. I really, let me just start off by saying that. I think all the discussions that have been while I’ve been here in the Internet Governance space are relevant, they’re well-informed, and they inform government. I mean, we provide so many, they have parliamentary trackers, there’s best practice sessions where we exchange knowledge and ideas on how to implement certain things, or how to structure certain guidelines and frameworks. I think much of the discussions that we are having on Internet Governance are relevant to them. They make policies that affect our well-being with regards to the evolution of the Internet. I think Chris said it, everybody that’s at ICANN, that’s at ITU is also here, and all in a multi-stakeholder model, following a multi-stakeholder model. So I don’t know if there is anything we can do beyond this. To make it more attractive and appealing to them. Because really, we are discussing things that affect. them, that affect how they regulate us, that affect socio-economic, that have socio-economic development implications, you know. So there’s, I think, me, what I was going to say is that the discussions that we have at our annual IGF meetings need to go on beyond MAG structures. We have multiple communities and sessions and they need to go on and maybe then that sits on us as NRIs or, you know, national initiatives to take back reports back to them and say we discussed this but there’s really not much we can do to make it because everything we’re discussing is relevant to them, it affects them, it affects their ability to make decisions. I don’t know if we want to dress it like a Christmas tree next time so that it’s more appealing. There’s no way we can do that. I think highly of the discussions that we have here. I make notes. I have four books full of notes just from each session that I’ve been in. They’ve been bilateral meetings. There’s just a lot of things. It allows for a lot of things. If you want to have bilaterals, there’s a parliamentary tracker, ministers are here, there’s networking opportunities. I don’t know how else we need to dress the IGF like a Christmas tree to make it more appealing. I think it is very important, the discussions that we have are very relevant to them. I think there’s maybe a need to induct them more into IGF. Maybe it’s a lack of awareness of IGF and the importance of it. So maybe, I mean, we just had, most countries have just gone through the election so there’s a new government or a new minister so there’s a need to maybe induct them into IGF. I mean, assuming that the ministry hasn’t yet done that already but having the stakeholders that are relevant to IGF speak to them about IGF stakeholders that are involved in IGF processes, speak to them about IGF processes. You know, I think that’s the best we can do at this point.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Plantina. Chris wants to jump in. I see that. I will let Chris jump in. But I did want to just flag, you said something about the national and regional IGFs, and so part of this discussion was do the IGF processes need to change somehow? So does there need to be some sort of mechanism through which national IGFs and the global IGFs sort of feed into each other?

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone: So this is my understanding of the NRIs, right? And as somebody that coordinates from a South Africa level, we have our national IGF ahead of the regional IGF and the Africa IGF and the global IGF. We write a report that we submit to the three structures, right? So it feeds the processes that it needs to go up through our minister’s office. I don’t think that should change because the reality is that each region has its own unique challenges that speak to that, so we need to also speak to regional issues and then take those regional issues up to global. So that structure should not change because SADC issues and Europe issues or Africa issues are totally different. But when we get to global, there’s best practice platforms where we exchange on a continental level, on a regional level of how things could potentially be better or how things could work. And maybe I’m just thinking of it from how practical it is for me in coordinating IGF and what I think I feed into the bigger global picture. But that can’t change because I also speak to our regional issues. I also speak to our continental issues. My report supports those dialogues that they have that address our issues. And then that report goes up into… inter-global, inter-global reports. Yeah.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Plantina.

Chris Buckridge: Sorry, I know I’m jumping back into here. Well, first actually I want to say to Plantina I think that that’s a really important point. On the flip side, the important, like, sending a report is wonderful. We on this side need to do something with that report. So how, what does that get, how does that get translated? And I think at the moment the IGF does not have a good sort of idea of how to do that. The other thing, the Christmas tree idea, dressing it up as a Christmas tree, my, the thing that has frustrated me for many years about the IGF and that I actually think the more we talk about it the more valuable, there is such a wealth of information in the archives of 20 years of IGF. We have videos, we have, there’s so much there. Most of it’s on YouTube, but it’s not in any usable form and we have tools, we have methods that we could pull out data, pull out summaries, pull out sort of, this is how many discussions there were of GDPR. These were some of the key themes that were talked about in relation to data governance. If there are people with deep pockets out there, listening, hello, I mean, that would be my Christmas wish for the IGF, would be to someone really step, and it has been tried before. There was a Friends of the IGF project, which worked for a while, and I think then kind of floundered and it was a very good step in the right direction. I would love to see that because there is so much information and it would be so valuable in selling the IGF, in bringing people into understanding what the IGF does, in giving them an insight into the different views of stakeholders. There is so much there and when we’re not using it and that’s my concern and my hope.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Chris. Jorge, I’ll come to you in a minute, but Everton has indicated that there is… a comment in the online?

Online Moderator: Not online exactly but I would like to take this opportunity just to invite as Chris was saying was talking about the hybrid IEGF so to take it as to take this opportunity to talk about the hybrid IEGF I would like to talk that we have an audience over there watching us and so they are invited to present us with comments but we have one comment one raise at hand in the room but through zoom which is Jordan.

Annaliese Williams: I’ll go can I go to Jorge first and then I’ll come to Jordan and I saw someone yeah I’ll come to you

Jorge Cancio: Jay I’m so Jorge conscious with government again no it was a very short two fingers I understand that it’s very difficult to navigate all that IEGF information if we take the position of the 2015 technology but nowadays couldn’t we train a bot an IEGF bot and you ask what’s the IEGF ideas information on this it isn’t that difficult I’m in another life I’m also a civil rights activist in my country and we’ve done that with no money with no means and it works perfectly you can train it why don’t we do that

Annaliese Williams: so Everton perhaps we can pass the microphone to Jordan and then and then what and thanks oh that’s weird

Jordan Carter: Thanks, Annalise. Hi, everyone. My name is Jordan Carter. I’m a colleague of Annalise at the Australian Domain Administration. This is a personal view. Rather than a Christmas tree, I think that there is room for some session types that we don’t necessarily have at the moment. One of them that keeps coming up in my mind is being able to engage people on a draft piece of legislation or something. It’s almost like a legislative or a regulatory workshop where some group, it doesn’t have to be a best practice forum. It could simply be a workshop proposal or some legislative testing category of session we don’t have yet. Just give someone, it might be a country, it might be a group of activists, a way to bring a legislative possibility to the IGF community for input. And then to take on board all the input they get here and then to share it out afterwards. That’s some session type innovation. Another might be, how many of us have sat in IGF sessions and really hoped there would be an argument and there wasn’t because everyone agreed on everything? Or there’s the start of a really interesting argument that only emerges in the last 10 minutes of a two-hour panel because the people on the panel didn’t spend enough time prepping to know that they disagreed with each other. So I think even within the current framework there’s the chance for more effort and more organizing to be done. To do that, one of the IGF reforms that needs to happen is that this insane process where no one is in charge of the program needs to finish. I’ve done one year on the MAG, I’ve had my thank you and goodbye letter, who knows what’s happening next time. But the MAG does about a third of the program. And so two-thirds is by either a national government or by the Secretariat. There are multiple sessions on the same topics with almost the same angles and 400 sessions. What if there was 100 sessions covering pretty much the same topics but with four times the amount of brain power that was going into them to actually generate something savvy and interesting? And then the third point I guess I’d make is echoing the point about resources. This is, governments say, the premier space for multi-stakeholder engagement and dialogue, and then governments provide enough resources for five staff members. It doesn’t add up. Like, you know, with a bit more resource to do analysis and communicate the resources that are generated through the IGF process, there could be so much more value arising from the community effort that comes here. And governments are primarily responsible for the overall digital policy architecture. It would be nice if they put a tiny little bit more money where their mouths were on that front. Hopefully none of them was too offended by any of that.

Annaliese Williams: I don’t know that they were. I would just ask, should it only be governments that contribute to the funding of the IGF? That’s something to think about. We will go…

Wout de Natris : Thank you. My name is Wouter Natris. I’m a consultant in the Netherlands, but also representing the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards Security Safety here in Riyadh. I think part of what I want to say was just covered by Jordan, so thank you Jordan. I hear a lot of things being said right now in the past half hour, and the only thing I can point to that in 2017 and 18, I’ve wrote two reports that were presented to the MAG, where are all sorts of recommendations how the IGF could be strengthened. And we’re talking six, seven years later about the same ideas. Read the report, it’s on the IGF website, and see what we can do with it. One of the examples is exactly, we have ten sessions on AI, on human rights, on women’s rights. All these brilliant people sit in individual sessions. Why not put them together in a room for a day and say, but you’re going to come out with recommendations, a toolkit, and guidelines, and you’re going to present them a day later. Instead of having ten sessions with perhaps five times the same people… talking on the same topic Where’s the added value because we have brilliant people to what Jorge said on the dynamic coalitions and output We as an IGF we do need to start organizing around that output I’m starting to sound like a broken record I know but this output is there if you were the main session this morning you heard what these dynamic coalitions are doing We are delivering the output, but we’re not doing anything I could not even present my report on the IGF website because it was broken they said So where do you go with working for a whole year a not being able to present it because you don’t get the time and Be not be able to put it on the website so what are you what are we doing this effort for and that’s where things are broken and that needs to be changed and The funding thing that I think that a lot of governments should start stepping up, but that we’re saying that for years as well I think you’re going to pass it on to that side so there’s a rare thing you’re here, and then they don’t decide

Desiree Miloshevic: Yeah, Desiree. I’ll switch. I’ll be very brief and Also agreeing with some innovative ways of making the IGF works More inclusively with the national IGFs and regional IGFs I don’t think we have seen a collective output of what they need and that I have been able to transfer that Even to the mag let alone the secretariat Whether it’s commitment to work on the IGF for next 10 years or some some kind of joint output but also in terms of this innovative Ways governments do get a lot of benefit. I believe out of the IGF They might have a separate governmental track, but they also have a lot of bilateral meetings that we other Stakeholders are not part of but I think there’s a lot of value in in in gathering Lastly something that’s been mentioned is this discussion of legislative proposals from region what I’m witness Here is the Arab region region has worked really in sync to look at the issues in their region. So maybe wherever the IGF takes place, this regional community should come together and have this focus, maybe workshops like what was just saying, working in a less workshoppy way, but for longer hours. Anyway, I’ll stop here for the sake of time. Thank you.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Desiree. We’ll go here, then here, and then I did want to turn the conversation around to the Netrundial guidelines. You may go ahead.

Masanobu Katoh: Masanobu Kato from IGF Japan. And I’d like to explain some of the experiences we had last year. You remember that we had the IGF Kyoto, which was very popular and we had many crowds there. And the Prime Minister spoke and three ministers came and talked about their policy on digital society. Very interestingly, major newspapers like the Nikkei newspaper had a report on how the Prime Minister attended the International AI Conference or something like that. I’m not specifically criticizing any particular press or so. That was a general impression of the people. This means that the IGF is not very well known to the public. This is very important. You know, people here knows what IGF is and we are talking about an improvement of IGF, but the other angle is to look at the people who do not know this and do not know the real value. And we have to be very active on getting more interest from those people. One other example, and I found this very interesting, I met with an AI expert in Japan who came to the Kyoto conference and asked him. of why. He said his counterpart in the UK or Europe invited him. So that means there are a vast majority of experts who do not know the IGF, but who are having international collaborations, meetings, and they say, oh, IGF is not a place to make any decisions. They don’t know how to deal with these very special issues they are working with. That’s not the case. Bring them in, in some way. And the one suggestion is, like Desiree said, focus more on the NRI. And NRI within Japan, we started to invite more experts, having periodical meetings, discussing on specific issues. If we invite government, for instance, in such kind of places, we can probably get their interest more. And they may even think, well, let’s see what’s going on in the world. What’s going on in the IGF meeting. And that’s the only way I think we can get more interest from other people. Thank you.

Baratang Miya: My name is Barata Mea from Gael Hype Women Who Code South Africa, and I organize women in IGF summit every year for the past three years. I want to talk about the experience, because I listened to comments prior, and maybe my experience will clarify why some things took a different turn. I was invited by the Secretary General of the UN in 2019. There was a group of us, I think there was five women who were invited across the world. And that was because prior to that, women had been saying there’s no women’s voice in IGF. there isn’t meaningful contribution of women’s voices, their workshops are being declined, and they do not know how to fill in forms, and they even had to do something, hence we were brought in. And that was in Germany, thanks to the German government, because they made sure we are there. And after that, I had learned so much about policies and how to contribute to the space, and I never stopped. I’m coming and I started knowing how to write workshops. And that has become a main thing that we discuss on the African NRI. So if you say there’s 400 sessions with lots of voices saying the same thing, it’s purely because they’re facing a challenge of who to decline, and if they decline, and they say, according to them, these are good sessions, as they make, then they might find that they declined lots of Africans, lots of women, and for diversity and equity, they need to find out how to balance it and how to get the right perspective. Maybe your suggestion of saying, put all of them in one room, and come up with a proper solution might be the best solution, but to reduce the number of session, it’s going to take the IGF backwards. We’re going to lose what the IGF has worked so hard to bring into the space, which is youth and women. Thank you.

Annaliese Williams: Sorry, I’m just writing that down so I don’t forget. So I have heard several times that focusing, or a deeper focus on the issue, rather than multiple sort of surface level discussions might be useful, and we had the observation that under the current sort of program design, there isn’t a single sort of source in charge, so perhaps that’s something that we do need to think about, how we design the programs in the future, and how we do have the space for. in actual solving problems, or at least coming to a genuine understanding of where all the differences of opinion are, instead of just talking about the issues at a surface level. And in terms of outputs of multi-stakeholder meetings, Renata, earlier this year we had the NetMundial which did come up with a multi-stakeholder output in the guidelines that could be useful for other processes, so I just wondered if we could perhaps start with you about whether or how the NetMundial guidelines could be applied in the IGF context, or other contexts as well.

Renata Mielli: Thanks, Annelies. Just before answering your question, I think we have a good discussion, this is a very good debate about the programming, because, yes, reducing the number of the sessions maybe has an impact on diversity, but in another way it’s so frustrating and exhausting trying to follow for all the panels that are… we got very crazy, to be very honest. So this is a very good point, I think MAG has, the new MAG, because we are going to be a new MAG, maybe needs to go deeper in this discussion about how to improve programming, maybe… build some consultations for the community? I don’t know. I don’t have the answer. I don’t, but I have the question. About guidelines and NetMundial plus 10 guidelines, I think we have, I think we need to start on these guidelines, but we need to not to just look to the guidelines and try to fit all them, all that points to IGF and or in the regional IGFs, but I think we need to start to discuss how and what guidelines we need to start, because there are a lot of good ideas and propositions in that guidelines regarding how we can guarantee more diversity and we call participation of all the stakeholders and how to do this, because we put the idea but we don’t say how and how to do this and I think there are a lot of things we have to think about it. For example, a very simple one, to be, to stay, to come to IGF, we need to speak English, because there are another, there is another language to talk, to participate, and this is for a lot of countries, this is a very, very, very restricted point. In Brazil, we don’t have a lot of people who speak English in civil society, even in academia, even private sector. There is no natural. So that’s one point. We say internet needs to be multilingual, needs to have language diversity. How can we do this on IGF? That’s something that occurs to me now. Because to guarantee diversity, we have to think about what the gap you need to fill. This is one, for example. The problem with fundings, the cost for traveling and staying, it’s another. Maybe the hybrid format is an answer, but it’s a part of an answer. It’s not totally. I think we need to do some work in understanding what kind of outcome the IGF can deliver. Because we say we need to have something. But what is this something? We don’t do this job on NetMundial Plus 10, for example. We say we need an outcome. We need something more concrete. But what is this thing, something more concrete, on the IGF to be produced as an outcome that has some impact? We are going to choose an issue to each IGF, maybe. I don’t know. Let’s talk about artificial intelligence to put something outcome. Or let’s talk about, I don’t know, data governance. I don’t know. how can we build that? We are going to make previously consultations for the community about some kind of ideas. I don’t know. So I think to apply the NetMundial guidelines to the IJF, I think we need to do some homework. And this is a new challenge for all of us. That’s my, previously, that’s what I see.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks Renata. And I’m just sort of listening, just listening to you speak about the language challenges and sort of thinking about the programming issues. Perhaps there is something there to better coordinate the program of the global IGF with the national and regional. So at least on some issues everybody can be having the same conversation in their region, in their language. And maybe there is something about putting forward a view for a global, for global discussion. The positions on that issue from, you know, the thoughts from those regions on a particular issue to be discussed here. I think we had a question or a comment at the back.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Just in response to Renata, I’m Renata Esterhosen from APC. Just very quickly, we had a similar session earlier today that looked at also NetMundial, Global Digital Compact and IJF. And someone from the Swiss government, who’s not called Jorge, made a very good suggestion about applying the, you know, the NetMundial guidelines about how you scope an issue and then you identify who’s affected by that issue, who are the stakeholders. But there are other guidelines as well within the NetMundial, but she suggested that we look at the IGF messages and how the IGF messages are produced and then distributed using relevant bits of the NetMundial guidelines. And I thought that was such a good, practical, concrete suggestion. Thanks Henriette. I think we have another comment, was it online or somebody else wanted to speak? Okay, go ahead. Oh, hello. Thank you.

Galvanian Burke: My name is Galvanian Burke, Civil Society. I also do have a practical suggestion. As an attendee, the experience using digital tools is quite difficult. I believe you could focus more on the hybrid format because many people cannot afford to travel, but provide them a great experience. Creating an account is difficult, browsing the schedule is difficult, finding the speakers are difficult, finding the Zoom link is difficult. So we did an event a couple of weeks ago on Zoom events, events.zoom.us. It was extremely user-friendly. Maybe using that platform as a test could prove useful and you might have many more people joining because the IGF is an incredible and unique forum. The first time I came in, I was like, I didn’t believe my eyes, it was so good. But also now I feel frustrated because finding content like the resources is extremely difficult. And maybe you do not have the money to do what you want, but you’ve got a tremendous wealth of knowledge, of people and of resources. So leverage your community, see what you do have in terms of people and what they can do. And maybe we can create a platform all together and apply the principles that we see are good for the future of the internet. Thank you.

Annaliese Williams: Thank you. Chris, did you want to speak?

Chris Buckridge: It was a very brief comment, I think. Kind of drawing on what Henriette said and on Jordan’s comment before about evolving and innovating in sort of formats, I mean, we have an IGF which usually has several sub-themes. It could be that we look at each of those sub-themes in a sense as a different distinct conference with its own modalities. So if you had, for instance, a data governance sub-theme in a year where there was a need or a desire to produce some sort of output like the equivalent of the São Paulo guidelines, that could be the focus of that theme. Whereas another theme like AI or whatever could be more traditional IGF, a bit freeform. So, yeah, I think there are possibilities there to sort of think in terms of different formats.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Chris. And just in terms of the language issue, Amrita, do you have any views? You’re very involved in the Asia-Pacific IGF. Anything you’d like to share?

Amrita Choudhury: So I think language is an issue, as Renata mentioned. It is at a regional level also. In Asia-Pacific, it’s more complicated because you have so many languages. It’s just not one, two. Even in a country, you may have 22 languages for that matter. So it’s difficult. Again, resources is a challenge when we have documents which are produced and then even getting it translated. But I think with technology improving, the translations may be cheaper. If not absolute accurate, but at least you can get the essence and some people can look at it. So I think those can help. I think that’s important. Another thing, Chris, while I do get your point about one topic, I also draw on it, what topic may be of importance to many parts of the world may not be for some people. So obviously a nice balance would be good enough out there. The other thing about the, I wanted to point because we were speaking about the NRIs, and that’s a huge achievement for the IGF. We kind of tend to forget it. We go to the countries which were not, you know, least developed countries having, you know, NRI initiatives. And I’m talking from Pacific, you know, Asia Pacific, we have the Pacifics doing, you have the small countries like Nepal doing, landlocked countries. You also have Afghanistan where you cannot have it, they are having it in hybrid mode. They recently had the Afghan IGF and NOG. So I think it gives the empowerment also like in places like Afghanistan where you can’t do things, where an IGF is held, we sometimes lose that, that what it is triggering. They’re talking about the SDGs, they’re talking about their national goals, which we forget. Obviously, they feed on to the IGF and whatever here, they hear, they take it down. So I think, again, getting back to how we can improve, we can improve our hybrid meetings. Sorry to say, this is not a hybrid meeting we are having at this point of time. As in, we need to be better in our hybrid modes. Because see, if you’re seeing it in hybrid nowadays, many times the text you can get, you can also translate it in your at least major languages. Those also help in YouTube, etc. We love, we hate big tech, but they help in innovation. Thank you.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Amrita. Jorge, did you want to? Do you hear me? Yes.

Jorge Cancio: Jorge Cancio, Swiss government again. So, just two short points. On the languages, and as we are talking about the Sao Paulo multistakeholder. guidelines. I don’t think you’ve mentioned it or Everton has neither mentioned it. It’s important to mention that they are available in about ten languages, nine languages. Surely ten will be forthcoming amongst other in the UN and the official UN languages. So Arabic, Russian, Chinese, English, French, Spanish. We have it also in Portuguese, in German, in Italian, so Japanese and there’s already talk of translating into some languages in Nigeria. So that’s very useful I think. But my Brazilian friends are too modest to say it loudly but we should because that’s very useful to apply them also at the local level because they are also useful at the local, at the regional, at many levels. And in fact the IGF could invite the NRIs to consider them, to see where they can be applied or where inspiration can be drawn from from them. And of course it would be a bit weird to invite others but not walk the talk ourselves. I think many BPFs, policy networks, dynamic coalitions, they already are producing outputs. So they are already striving for developing recommendations or best practice examples. So maybe I’m very naive but I think it would be easy to take a look at what they are doing, how they are doing it. and compare with the Sao Paulo Multi-Stakeholder Guidelines, perhaps they can improve 1.02, or maybe they already do everything perfectly, that’s possible, but at least I think we are going to have a conversation in some also national and regional NRIs, how we can look into that, and whether we, for instance, do our call for issues in a way that is consistent. Thank you.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks, Jorge. Renata, you wanted to respond? I think we’re close to…

Renata Mielli: Just to share another experience, initiative that we have. We started in CGI, the organization of the Forum Lusófono da Internet, Internet Lusófono. Lusófono is okay in English? Portuguese speaking. Okay. Forum of Portuguese speaking of Internet, governance of Internet, I don’t know how to say that. But it’s interesting, because we are bringing together all the countries that speak Portuguese to discuss the governance of Internet. We made the first edition in São Paulo in 2023, and this year in Cabo Verde in August, September, I don’t know. And we are going to have the next one in Mozambique, and this is another regional forum, and there is no regional approach, but there is a linguistic approach where we discuss how to improve the language and Portuguese on Internet. So, that’s another interesting thing. How to… This is a work in progress, too, because we are inventing new things. And this is important to achieve this goal that we need to have more people together on the governance space debating these things, and so let’s be creative.

Annaliese Williams: Thanks Renata. Evitin, was there a comment online? Yeah. Thank you Annelise.

Audience: We have three comments, or maybe some more. One from Mike Nelson, that at IGF USA they have organized some very exciting and lively debates over the years. Thank you Mike. One from Jordan Carter, that non-state stakeholders do sometimes fund the IGF trust fund and maybe more can be done. And another one from Avery Doria, that the suggestion to decrease the number of sessions has been made almost every year of the IGF, if she recalls correctly. Many however feed the many sessions, a rich resource that can be used long after the four-day meeting is over. It needs to stop thinking of the IGF as a once-a-year event. We have some inter-sessional work, but the notion of ongoing work is still foreign. So the MAGs is still a program committee for once-a-year conference. And there is also one more comment here, that improving hybrid would be a really cool idea. So one comment by Pedro Lama, and a comment about a guide to hybrid events by Kiki.

Annaliese Williams: Currently there is a guide to hybrid events, so we will take note of that. So we’re almost out of time, but I did want to just quickly ask all of our speakers in 30 seconds or so, having heard the discussion today and having your own ideas, if there was sort of one thing that you could do for the next IGF or for future IGFs, like one concrete idea, what would it be? What do you think needs to happen? Any volunteers? Should we start with you, Jorge, and just go around the table? Or should we start this way? We’ll go with Amrita first.

Amrita Choudhury: Next year is important, more strategically focused IGF. More strategically focused program? IGF to achieve the end results we want to achieve in VISIS plus 20.

Annaliese Williams: Plantina?

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone: After the discussion we just had on language and hybrid, I think improve that to make it more inclusive of attendees that are unable, participants that are unable to attend in person.

Renata Mielli: Oh my god, it’s so difficult to choose one, but I choose maybe because I agree with Amrita, this is a very strategic IGF, maybe we can start earlier with some kind of consultations regarding what we want to achieve with VISIS plus 20. Let’s put something on the net and listen to the community before the IGF starts. Maybe it will be something interesting to put some guidelines on the Sao Paulo Net Mundial guidelines. I don’t know.

Chris Buckridge: So I’m gonna go back and my earlier point, I think the one thing I’d love to see is a focus on cataloging and making usable and useful the rich data set that is all of the IGF archives that we have.

Jorge Cancio: So I vote for a bot that makes that accessible and apart from the bot, I think we need an IGF in Oslo that is relevant, that shows that this community delivers on the WSIS vision and that we are ready to update it to make it fit for purpose.

Annaliese Williams: So that brings us to the end. I think we do have some good ideas to be thinking about and if there are any, I know they don’t know yet, but if there are any people in the room who find themselves on the next MAG, perhaps they can take some of these ideas about the strategic focus for next time into consideration. But please thank all of the speakers and thank everyone for being part of this conversation. Thanks everybody online. you you you you you

Agreement Points

IGF needs to evolve to meet modern challenges

Amrita Choudhury

Chris Buckridge

Renata Mielli

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone

Jorge Cancio

IGF needs to be more focused and empowered

IGF has evolved over time and should continue to do so

IGF discussions need to lead to more concrete outcomes

IGF should produce actionable items at continental and country levels

IGF should be seen in context of broader WSIS architecture

Speakers agree that the IGF needs to adapt and evolve to address current global digital challenges more effectively, with a focus on producing more concrete and actionable outcomes.

Improve IGF programming and format

Chris Buckridge

Wout de Natris

Baratang Miya

Amrita Choudhury

Consider different formats for different themes

Reduce number of sessions for more focused discussions

Maintain diversity while improving programming

Improve hybrid format and accessibility

Speakers agree on the need to improve IGF programming and format, balancing the need for more focused discussions with maintaining diversity and improving accessibility.

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers emphasize the need for the IGF to produce more concrete, actionable outputs that can be applied at various levels of governance.

Renata Mielli

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone

Jorge Cancio

Produce more concrete recommendations and guidelines

IGF should produce actionable items at continental and country levels

Apply NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes

Both speakers highlight the importance of addressing language barriers and improving accessibility to enhance participation in the IGF.

Amrita Choudhury

Renata Mielli

Address language barriers to participation

Improve hybrid format and accessibility

Unexpected Consensus

Leveraging IGF archives and community resources

Chris Buckridge

Galvanian Burke

Make IGF archives and data more accessible and usable

IGF should leverage its community and resources better

Despite coming from different backgrounds, both speakers unexpectedly agree on the need to better utilize existing IGF resources and community knowledge, suggesting a shared recognition of untapped potential in the IGF’s accumulated expertise.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for IGF evolution to meet modern challenges, improving IGF programming and format, producing more concrete and actionable outputs, and enhancing accessibility and participation.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among speakers on the need for IGF reform and evolution. This consensus implies a strong foundation for implementing changes to make the IGF more effective and relevant in addressing global digital governance challenges. However, the specific methods for achieving these goals vary among speakers, suggesting that detailed implementation plans would require further discussion and negotiation.

Different Viewpoints

Number of IGF sessions

Wout de Natris

Baratang Miya

Reduce number of sessions for more focused discussions

Maintain diversity while improving programming

Wout de Natris suggests reducing the number of IGF sessions for more focused discussions, while Baratang Miya argues that reducing sessions could negatively impact the inclusion of underrepresented voices.

Focus of IGF discussions

Renata Mielli

Chris Buckridge

IGF discussions need to lead to more concrete outcomes

IGF has evolved over time and should continue to do so

Renata Mielli emphasizes the need for more concrete outcomes from IGF discussions, while Chris Buckridge focuses on the ongoing evolution of the IGF process itself.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to IGF programming

Chris Buckridge

Audience

Consider different formats for different themes

Make IGF a year-round process, not just annual event

While both suggestions aim to improve IGF programming, they represent unexpectedly different approaches. Chris suggests varying formats within the annual event, while the audience comment proposes extending the IGF process throughout the year, which could significantly change the nature of the forum.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the structure of IGF sessions, the focus of discussions, and the nature of IGF outputs. There are also differing views on how to improve accessibility and relevance to decision-makers.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there is general consensus on the need for IGF evolution, speakers have varying ideas on how to achieve this. These differences reflect the complex nature of internet governance and the challenges in balancing diverse stakeholder interests. The implications of these disagreements suggest that any changes to the IGF format or focus will require careful consideration and compromise among different stakeholder groups.

Partial Agreements

These speakers agree on the need for more concrete outputs from the IGF, but propose different approaches: Renata suggests focusing on recommendations and guidelines, Jorge proposes applying existing NetMundial guidelines, and Jordan suggests new session types like legislative workshops.

Renata Mielli

Jorge Cancio

Jordan Carter

Produce more concrete recommendations and guidelines

Apply NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes

IGF needs to be more relevant to decision-makers

Both speakers agree on the need for more practical outcomes from the IGF, but Amrita focuses on improving the hybrid format for better accessibility, while Plantina emphasizes producing actionable items at different geographical levels.

Amrita Choudhury

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone

Improve hybrid format and accessibility

IGF should produce actionable items at continental and country levels

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers emphasize the need for the IGF to produce more concrete, actionable outputs that can be applied at various levels of governance.

Renata Mielli

Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone

Jorge Cancio

Produce more concrete recommendations and guidelines

IGF should produce actionable items at continental and country levels

Apply NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes

Both speakers highlight the importance of addressing language barriers and improving accessibility to enhance participation in the IGF.

Amrita Choudhury

Renata Mielli

Address language barriers to participation

Improve hybrid format and accessibility

Key Takeaways

The IGF needs to evolve to be more focused, empowered, and relevant to decision-makers

There is a need to improve IGF programming by reducing the number of sessions while maintaining diversity

Enhancing multi-stakeholder participation, especially from governments, is crucial

The IGF should produce more concrete outcomes and actionable recommendations

Improving the hybrid format and accessibility of the IGF is important

Better coordination between global, regional, and national IGFs is needed

The IGF should leverage its community and existing resources more effectively

Resolutions and Action Items

Consider applying NetMundial multi-stakeholder guidelines to IGF processes

Focus on making the 2024 IGF in Oslo strategically relevant to the WSIS+20 review

Improve cataloging and accessibility of IGF archives and data

Start earlier consultations on desired outcomes for the next IGF

Explore ways to address language barriers in IGF participation

Unresolved Issues

How to balance reducing the number of sessions with maintaining diversity and inclusivity

Specific mechanisms for producing more concrete outcomes from IGF discussions

How to secure sustainable and diverse funding for the IGF

Ways to make IGF more appealing and relevant to government stakeholders

How to effectively transform IGF into a year-round process rather than just an annual event

Suggested Compromises

Using different formats for different thematic tracks within the IGF to balance focused outcomes with diverse discussions

Leveraging technology like AI bots to make IGF archives more accessible while working on more comprehensive solutions

Coordinating global IGF themes with regional and national IGFs to allow for discussions in local languages while feeding into global conversations

IGF could evolve to meet most of the requirements which is being portrayed as gap areas. For example, it could be the place where everyone can come and it could be a test bed for people. It could be a place where the GDC’s implementations could be tracked. It could also be a place where even governments come and test out what they want to do, et cetera, apart from other things.

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

reason

This comment provides concrete suggestions for how the IGF could evolve to become more relevant and impactful.

impact

It set the tone for discussing specific ways the IGF could change and expand its role, leading to further discussion on outputs and government involvement.

We need to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between strengthening multistakeholder spaces and processes and the role of multilateral spaces. We are in this crazy moment that we are something against another. And we have to stop this and work together in a complementary way.

speaker

Renata Mielli

reason

This insight challenges the perceived dichotomy between multistakeholder and multilateral approaches, suggesting a more integrated perspective.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards considering how different governance approaches could work together rather than in opposition, leading to discussion of the IGF’s role in the broader internet governance ecosystem.

What if there was 100 sessions covering pretty much the same topics but with four times the amount of brain power that was going into them to actually generate something savvy and interesting?

speaker

Jordan Carter

reason

This comment proposes a radical restructuring of the IGF format to potentially increase its impact and efficiency.

impact

It sparked a debate about the trade-offs between quantity and quality of sessions, as well as considerations of diversity and inclusivity in programming.

To reduce the number of session, it’s going to take the IGF backwards. We’re going to lose what the IGF has worked so hard to bring into the space, which is youth and women.

speaker

Baratang Miya

reason

This comment provides an important counterpoint to suggestions of reducing sessions, highlighting potential unintended consequences.

impact

It added complexity to the discussion about IGF reform, emphasizing the need to balance efficiency with inclusivity and diversity.

I think we need to do some work in understanding what kind of outcome the IGF can deliver. Because we say we need to have something. But what is this something?

speaker

Renata Mielli

reason

This comment cuts to the heart of the IGF’s purpose and challenges participants to define concrete goals.

impact

It refocused the discussion on the fundamental question of the IGF’s purpose and outputs, leading to more specific suggestions about potential outcomes.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from general observations about the IGF’s challenges to more specific proposals for reform. They introduced tension between different priorities (efficiency vs. inclusivity, concrete outputs vs. open dialogue) that reflect the complex nature of the IGF’s mission. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to proposing solutions, while also recognizing the potential trade-offs and unintended consequences of various reform ideas. This led to a more nuanced understanding of the challenges facing the IGF and the careful balance required in any attempts to evolve the forum.

How can the IGF better facilitate conversations between governments and other experts?

speaker

Annaliese Williams

explanation

This is important to address the lack of stakeholder balance at IGF meetings and improve meaningful dialogue between different groups.

How can the IGF be made more appealing and attractive, particularly to governments who might only attend once?

speaker

Annaliese Williams

explanation

Increasing government participation is crucial for the IGF’s relevance and impact on policy-making.

How can the IGF program be better coordinated with national and regional IGFs?

speaker

Annaliese Williams

explanation

This could help address language challenges and ensure more coherent global discussions on key issues.

How can the IGF’s vast archive of information be made more accessible and usable?

speaker

Chris Buckridge

explanation

Utilizing this wealth of information could enhance the IGF’s value and impact beyond the annual event.

How can the IGF improve its hybrid format to provide a better experience for remote participants?

speaker

Galvanian Burke and Amrita Choudhury

explanation

Enhancing the hybrid experience is crucial for increasing participation and inclusivity, especially for those who cannot afford to travel.

How can the IGF address language barriers to increase participation from non-English speaking countries?

speaker

Renata Mielli

explanation

Overcoming language barriers is essential for true global representation and diversity in IGF discussions.

How can the IGF produce more concrete outcomes or recommendations that have an impact on decision-making processes?

speaker

Renata Mielli and Plantina Tsholofelo Mokone

explanation

Creating more tangible outputs could increase the IGF’s relevance and influence on internet governance policies.

How can the IGF program be restructured to have fewer, more focused sessions without compromising diversity?

speaker

Jordan Carter and Baratang Miya

explanation

Balancing the need for more in-depth discussions with maintaining diversity of voices is crucial for the IGF’s effectiveness.

How can the São Paulo NetMundial guidelines be applied to improve the IGF process?

speaker

Renata Mielli and Jorge Cancio

explanation

Implementing these guidelines could enhance the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF and improve its outcomes.

How can the IGF be more strategically focused in preparation for the WSIS+20 review?

speaker

Amrita Choudhury and Renata Mielli

explanation

A more strategic approach could help the IGF demonstrate its relevance and impact in the context of the upcoming WSIS review.