WS #209 Multistakeholder Best Practices: NM, GDC, WSIS & Beyond

Summary

This discussion focused on multi-stakeholder best practices in internet governance, particularly in the context of recent initiatives like NetMundial Plus10 and the Global Digital Compact. Participants explored the challenges and opportunities in strengthening multi-stakeholder engagement using the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and other processes.

Key points included the need for balanced representation and meaningful participation from all stakeholder groups, including governments, civil society, the private sector, and technical communities. Panelists emphasized the importance of inclusive processes that give voice to diverse perspectives, especially from developing countries and underrepresented groups.

The discussion highlighted tensions between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches, with some noting the challenges governments face in global forums. Participants stressed the need for coherent stakeholder processes within groups to enable effective collaboration across sectors.

Several speakers pointed out that multi-stakeholder processes require significant resources and time to be truly effective. The importance of transparency, clear guidelines, and mechanisms to ensure authentic engagement was emphasized.

The role of the IGF in capturing learning and applying best practices was explored, with suggestions to better utilize IGF messages in other forums and improve host country selection. Panelists also discussed how to make processes like the Global Digital Compact more inclusive while recognizing the challenges of balancing different stakeholder interests.

Overall, the discussion underscored the complexity of multi-stakeholder internet governance and the ongoing need to refine and improve collaborative approaches to address evolving digital policy challenges.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The role and effectiveness of multi-stakeholder processes in internet governance

– Challenges and opportunities for improving multi-stakeholder collaboration

– The relationship between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches

– How to make the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) more impactful and inclusive

– Implementing lessons from processes like NetMundial and the Global Digital Compact

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine best practices for multi-stakeholder engagement in internet governance, particularly in light of recent processes like NetMundial+10 and the Global Digital Compact. The goal was to identify gaps, challenges, and opportunities to strengthen multi-stakeholder approaches, especially through the IGF.

The tone of the discussion was largely constructive and reflective. Participants acknowledged both the value and limitations of multi-stakeholder processes. There was a sense of cautious optimism about improving these approaches, balanced with frank discussion of challenges. The tone became more solution-oriented towards the end as participants suggested concrete ways to enhance the IGF and other multi-stakeholder initiatives.

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen: Chair of the Global Network Initiative

– Bruna Martins: Civil society representative, member of the IGF Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group

– Isabelle Lois: Representative from Ofcom, the Swiss government’s office on communications

– Flavia Alves: Director of International Organizations for META

Additional speakers:

– Tijani Benjama: Civil society representative from Tunisia

– Lina: Representative from Search for Common Ground and the Council on Tech and Social Cohesion

– Dana Kramer: Representative of Youth IGF Canada

– Manal Ismail: Works at the National Telecom Regulatory Authority of Egypt, former chair of ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee

– Aziz Hilary: From Morocco

– Arjun Singh Vizoria: Founder of Vizoria Foundation, a civil society organization in India

Multi-stakeholder Best Practices in Internet Governance: A Comprehensive Analysis

This discussion focused on multi-stakeholder best practices in internet governance, particularly in the context of recent initiatives like NetMundial Plus10 and the Global Digital Compact. Participants explored the challenges and opportunities in strengthening multi-stakeholder engagement using the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and other processes.

Role and Effectiveness of Multi-stakeholder Processes

The participants unanimously agreed on the importance of multi-stakeholder processes in internet governance. Bruna Martins emphasized that these processes bring diverse perspectives together and serve to bring civil society voices to the table. Isabelle Lois argued that governments should use their convening power to ensure inclusive processes. Anriette Esterhuysen stressed that multi-stakeholder processes need to survive even when there is serious disagreement, highlighting the need for resilience in these approaches.

However, the effectiveness of current multi-stakeholder processes was a point of contention. Flavia Alves critiqued the Global Digital Compact process for insufficient non-governmental participation, while Anriette Esterhuysen viewed it as an attempt by multilateral institutions to be more inclusive, despite imperfections. This difference in perspective underscores the ongoing challenges in implementing truly effective multi-stakeholder approaches.

NetMundial Plus10 and Sao Paulo Guidelines

Several speakers highlighted the importance of the NetMundial Plus10 initiative and the Sao Paulo guidelines as frameworks for effective multi-stakeholder engagement. Bruna Martins suggested that these guidelines provide a roadmap for implementation and could serve as a ‘litmus test’ for evaluating the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder processes. The Sao Paulo guidelines, in particular, were noted for their emphasis on inclusivity, transparency, and accountability in internet governance processes.

Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement in the IGF

Participants identified several areas for improvement in the IGF. Isabelle Lois argued that IGF messages should be better utilized in other forums and decision-making processes, highlighting the need to increase the impact of these discussions. Bruna Martins emphasized the importance of selecting host countries that ensure safety and inclusivity for all participants. Flavia Alves stressed the need for mapping evolving issues to keep multi-stakeholder processes relevant, addressing the need for adaptability in these approaches.

An audience member raised an important question about the participation of small-scale organizations in the IGF, highlighting the challenges faced by smaller entities in engaging with global internet governance processes. This sparked a discussion on the need for more inclusive and accessible participation mechanisms.

Relationship Between Multi-stakeholder and Multilateral Processes

A key point of discussion was the tension between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism, particularly in processes like the Global Digital Compact. Bruna Martins highlighted this tension, while Anriette Esterhuysen noted that governments are more comfortable with multi-stakeholder approaches nationally than globally. An audience member pointed out the gradual opening up of previously closed governmental processes, as seen in ICANN, suggesting potential for progress in this area.

Manal Ismail and Isabelle Lois emphasized the crucial role of governments in multi-stakeholder processes, noting that their involvement is essential for implementing outcomes and ensuring inclusive participation.

Thought-Provoking Insights

Several comments during the discussion challenged conventional thinking and added nuance to the conversation. Anriette Esterhuysen cautioned against romanticizing past multi-stakeholder processes, reminding participants of the difficulties in reaching consensus even within stakeholder groups. This insight highlighted the complexity of these processes and the need for coherent internal processes within stakeholder groups.

Lina from Search for Common Ground raised a provocative question about the honesty of discussions regarding the relationships between governments, the UN, civil society, and big tech. She suggested that litigation, regulations threatening fines, or extreme reputational damage were the primary drivers of change, challenging the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder forums.

Isabelle Lois offered an important perspective on inclusion, emphasizing that including more stakeholders does not remove power from those already involved. This reframing of inclusion as a non-zero-sum game could potentially make the concept more palatable to those resistant to change.

Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

Despite the productive discussion, several issues remained unresolved. These include balancing multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches in global internet governance, ensuring authentic multi-stakeholder processes rather than just rhetoric, addressing power imbalances between different stakeholder groups, making multi-stakeholder processes more resource-efficient while maintaining effectiveness, and better integrating perspectives from developing countries and smaller organizations in global processes.

The discussion generated several suggestions for future action, including using the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines as an evaluation tool, better utilizing IGF messages in other forums, reviewing and refining the IGF’s intersessional work models, and starting early preparations for the upcoming review of the IGF mandate.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the complexity of multi-stakeholder internet governance and the ongoing need to refine and improve collaborative approaches to address evolving digital policy challenges. While there was broad agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder processes, the conversation revealed nuanced perspectives on their implementation and effectiveness. Moving forward, the challenge lies in translating these insights into concrete improvements in multi-stakeholder engagement, ensuring that these processes remain relevant, inclusive, and impactful in shaping the future of internet governance.

Anriette Esterhuysen: We are starting two minutes late, which is unacceptable, but I hope you forgive us. It’s day three of the idea, so I think we are fading a little bit. My name is Anriet Esterhosen. I’m chaired by the Global Network Initiative, along with other partners. None of them are here, but I hope we do them justice. The topic that we’ll be discussing is probably a topic that I’ve certainly been in multiple sessions at this IGF, to talk about multi-stakeholder best practices, but particularly how we can understand multi-stakeholder best practices in the context of the NetMundial Plus10, which took place in May this year and which produced this document. It’s not an official document produced by the UN, but it’s a document that was created in a bottom-up way, which is, I think, really owned by all the people that were part of that process. I’m going to ask some of our panellists. I’m going to stray a little bit from the script. I hope I have your permission. And then also the Global Digital Compact, this new process, which became formalised at the Summit of the Future in September this year in New York, which gives very strong endorsement for the multi-stakeholder approach. And then, of course, the World Summit on the Information Society, the UN process that I think consolidated and mainstreamed the idea of multi-stakeholder collaboration as being, I think, generally a good idea. But in the case of the Information Society, the Internet and digitalisation, it’s kind of non-negotiable. You can’t actually do anything really effectively in development and digital and human rights and inclusion if you do not have effective collaboration and participation from the private sector, the technical community, governments and civil society. And I know we don’t always have them as a separate group, but the academic and research community, think tanks and researchers all around the world. So what we want to achieve, I want to check if Ramsha from JNI is online yet. Ramsha, I’m looking for you online. I don’t see you yet. But just to emphasize what the goal of this workshop is, we really want to look at where are the gaps and what are the key challenges and what are the opportunities that we can take from all these processes that I’ve just mentioned to really strengthen multi-stakeholder engagement using the IGF and coordinating and synergizing how we strengthen multi-stakeholder engagement. I think what the NetModial guidelines told us is that it’s not just in this multi-stakeholder arena that we need to strengthen our processes. Oh, fantastic, Flavia, welcome. It’s also in the multilateral space. But just to get us started and I think also to make sure there’s a level playing field. And I think everyone, I want you to, I’m not going to, I will open the audience, but I want people to raise their hands. I think we are on day three of the IGF. You’ve discussed many of these issues. So I’m going to ask people in the room to interrupt. If you want to say something at any point, put up your hand. As long as you’re brief, it’s absolutely fine. and so that we can have very dynamic interaction between the panelists and the room, assuming that’s okay. But I think let’s just, I want to start and ask Bruna. I said earlier that the NetMundial plus 10 and the Sao Paolo guidelines has very strong ownership from those who created it. It might also have had gaps, but can you just tell everyone in very brief terms, what is, what was NetMundial plus 10? What are the Sao Paolo guidelines? And why is there both on the one hand, strong ownership, but on the other hand, also feeling that it’s not official enough?

Bruna Martins: Thanks, Henrietta, and thanks for the invitation. I think that looking back at NetMundial plus 10, it was a community oriented and steered process, right? NetMundial was multisakeholder from its very beginning. It’s a initiative that was shifted towards by the Brazilians, Nick.br, but in the previous edition by the government, this year we had a huge support from the government yet. In terms of the ownership, I think it’s because it’s set for itself the challenge of addressing all of the gaps we perceived from the process and attempted to improving that. The Sao Paolo guidelines, they are a set of principles and process steps as a how-to for effective implementation of multisakeholder in internet governance and digital policy, right? And the goal, and in doing so, we must also look forward to implementing openness, inclusiveness, and agility in internet governance, as well as the need for all stakeholders to be well-informed. So I think, in very brief words, I think the ownership comes from that. It is a community bottom-up initiative. It lies a lot on the success of the first edition of the initiative. And last but not least, it aims in addressing all of the gaps that we saw throughout the GDC process. Thanks.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much for that, Bruna. And I didn’t introduce my panel. I was waiting for Flavia, but just that Bruna is from civil society. She can tell you more about herself. She’s a member of the IGF Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group. So one of the people that organized this event and that we are part of and also was on the, what was the body? The High-Level Executive Committee. The High-Level Executive Committee of NetMundial Plus 10. So just to jump into the kind of substance of multi-stakeholder collaboration. I mean, Isabel, it’s become quite a buzzword. We talk about it. Some governments are more explicit about how they support it, how they use it. Some governments are more cautious about how and when they use it. But from your perspective, Isabel is with Ofcom, the Swiss government’s office on communications. So very much right inside government, but very active in multiple multi-stakeholder processes. But what do you think governments should do to deliver on this promise and potential of multi-stakeholder processes? And what do you think they are, certainly in your experience, what are they doing well? And what do you think they’re not doing well?

Isabelle Lois: Thank you, Henriette. That is a great question and a very difficult question to answer. I think government can and should play a vital role in assuring that we have inclusive and open processes. I think the main point and our main responsibility as governments is to ensure that all of the relevant voices are being heard and are being listened to and are being taken into account. But the really difficult part is how can we do that and where is our capacity to do that highlighted. And I think governments have often a very strong convening power. We can sometimes set details on who will be included in a room in a discussion, and this is a power that we should use to make sure that everybody can be part of the conversation. So that means, on one part, being present in multi-stakeholder spaces, for example, at the IGF, be that the international IGF, the regional ones, the national ones, so being very active in those processes, making sure that governments are also there, and it’s not just other stakeholders talking in between themselves, being part of the conversation, but also making sure within other structures and other for us that where there is a space and a need to include stakeholders, we make sure that they are all in the room with us. So I think that would be, for me, the main role and the main possibility for governments to do, and of course this is much easier said than done, and there is a way forward. I think at least Switzerland tries its best to include all stakeholders in our discussions, in our conversations, make sure that if we are planning a panel, we are not just inviting governments to speak, and we are using our convening power as best as we can. There is more that we can do, and I think we should push for that and include that in all processes. I think that is the main point I would say here.

Anriette Esterhuysen: I want to ask you just a follow-up question, and anyone else is welcome to respond as well. What is the difference between a government facilitating multi-stakeholder cooperation and a government living up to its constitutional obligations for public participation and policymaking?

Isabelle Lois: I think that is a very good question. I think a lot there enters in how does government include this perspective nationally, and how do they make sure that this is also included? internationally. And I think this is a distinction that is not always very easy to navigate, I mean, for governments within their country and then internationally. In Switzerland we have a very strong will and we have a lot of public participation at the national level. We do a lot of consultations, we have a semi-direct democracy, so we vote on many issues and we have everyone sort of being part of the conversation at the national level. This is something we strive for and work for. And then at the international plane, this is where it becomes a bit more complicated. Because, I mean, first we have to find an agreement between governments and between stakeholders, who should be included, how should we include them, what is meaningful, how do we make sure everybody’s in the room. And this is where we think that the Sao Paulo Multi-Stakeholder Guidelines is a very useful tool to not just talk the talk, but actually walk the walk. It’s a way for us to see what are the main questions we should ask ourselves, how do we make sure that these principles that we find valuable and necessary, how can we actually use them. So what should we include, how should we include, how do we make sure that if there is a power imbalance, we have thought about it and try to mitigate it as best as possible. Of course, it will never be perfect, but we can do better. And now we have a sort of roadmap on how we can do better. And I think this is very useful. This is why it’s such an important document to read and to include in our processes.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much for that response, Isabel. I think, I mean, speaking from civil society and someone who does a lot of, not all, but a lot of my work in Africa, what you said actually, I think, mirrors, I think many governments who have some reservations about the multi-stakeholder approach don’t really have it about working at national level. They’re much more comfortable, they work very closely with the private sector at national level. Civil society sometimes thinks they work too. too closely with the private sector at national level. And they also collaborate with civil society and grassroots organization. It’s when you get to a global forum that there’s more caution about that multi-stakeholder approach. And I think that’s exacerbated by the fact that many developing country governments already feel fairly disempowered in global arenas. And when they feel they have to not just be effective and influential in relation to countries that are much more powerful and rich and influential that they are, but also deal with the multi-stakeholder community, it is quite challenging. But Bruna, as a member of the MAG, what are the lessons? And the MAG is a multi-stakeholder advisory group. It’s supposed to be perfect. And it’s been going for a long time. This is the, how many of IGF? 19th IGF. What do you think we can learn from the IGF? And in applying the multi-stakeholder approach, what are we doing wrong? What are we doing right?

Bruna Martins: Maybe I’ll start by saying that I think 2024 has been one of those inflection points, right? Or years where the internet governance space was all sorts of crazy or dynamic in that sense. Everyone was talking about with the CDC pact for future, what is gonna happen with the IGF, how ICANN is gonna react to those spaces, what happens with the ITF and many of those things and how all of those missions or questions would be integrated, right? We had a lot of meaningful processes. We had a lot of all of them taking place at the same time. And I think that some of those spaces like the GDC, in my personal opinion, they have presented a rather serious risk for the way we do things at the IGF, which is bottom-up multi-stakeholder and ensuring everyone has a say and has a microphone above all. right? And coming back to the IGF, I would say that this is the main value of this space that everyone is here, gets to come here or gets to join sessions remotely, given that the remote participation is working. And at the same time, this is a space that relies a lot on the diversity of perspectives and not just in terms of the difference of opinions, but the difference in terms of backgrounds and expertise. This is a space where you hear to people from the Pacific, from Brazil like me, or Tanzania, talking about different aspects around internet governance. And to me, that’s one of the core aspects. So the big diversity around stakeholders, perspectives, backgrounds, and so on. And I would say that this is what makes the IGF one of the primary spaces for internet governance and digital cooperation related issues. Because over the course of almost 20 years, the space has been leveraging on all of these vast community experts and expertises in order to move forward and to evolve its model. Back to the challenges, I would say, to put it more bluntly, I would say that the tension to what the GDC seems to have catered between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism is one of the challenges, right? And that is because there has always been somehow a clear ask for some member states for more silo discussions or exclusive mechanisms. And the point is that, right, we need to balance those two expectations. It’s something that the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines try to do by making some waves or some, you know, signalization to the multilateral spaces, but one should not overcome the other. We should achieve for balanced spaces in that sense. So maybe I’ll stop here, Rietz. Thanks. Thanks very much. Flavia, let’s go to you. Flavia is from, oh,

Anriette Esterhuysen: did you want to? Oh, sorry. Thanks a lot. Flavia is from META and META has really invested in time and people in participating in many of these spaces. Picking up from what Rune said about this being a year of, I guess you use the term inflection point, we had the culmination of the summit of the future, the global digital compact, and we have the WSIS plus 20 process well underway now, and of course we have the IGF. How have you participated as a company in this process and what, from your perspective, what works and what doesn’t work?

Flavia Alves: Sure. Thanks. Hi, everyone. I’m Flavia Alves, Director of International Organizations for META, and I have been doing an internet governance and multi-stakeholderism processes for the past 20 years. From the 19 IGFs, I think I have been on half of them, so maybe a good chunk of IGFs. As META, we believe it’s important to have a level playing field that all stakeholders should be part of processes that deal with internet governance. Historically, we are in the pick, and I agree completely with Rune, we are in the pick of diverse, of multilateral and multi-stakeholder processes. dealing with issues related to internet governance. If we go back to WSUS 2006, or WSUS Plus 10, or before WSUS Plus 10, there was a clear division between multistakeholderism and multilateralism, and what do we do in multistakeholderism as opposed to multilateralism. One of them was internet governance, and that’s why the IGF was created. Internet governance issues were supposed to be treated on a level playing field where all tech communities, civil society, private sector, governments, and international organizations would have a voice. Right now, we are dealing with processes where private sector might not have had voices, including tech communities and civil society. We are looking forward to see what the UN Global Digital Compact implementation is going to be, but the reality is that through the process, which is multilateral processes, which I should have said in the beginning, there is a difference between multilateral processes that once you have input from other stakeholders through multistakeholder processes. In the case of multilateral processes, I believe that the Global Digital Compact could have got a little bit more of participation from civil society, private sector, and tech community, and then be transparent on how those comments, or et cetera, were intaked and uptaken by the Global Digital Compact. We participated at the WSUS Plus 10 in the past, and there was an opening processes for consultations. There were consultations that were taken into account into a final document, and then a final document for folks to have comments on. Everything is still on the UN website. We have dates and meetings. We were in the room during WSUS Plus 10. I would have hoped that the Global Digital Compact was similar, and then I’m hoping the WSUS Plus 20 will be similar. We are now, we have an opportunity, and I think META is going to try as much as possible to be together with tech community and civil society to be part of the WSUS Plus 20 process, to work with the co-facility. to make sure there are consultations, that we are in the room and that we are providing comments through the several documents that are going to come. And I think we have those opportunities through the several other mood stakeholder process that we have in Sudan. There is the ICANN meeting, there will be other conference, but there is also IGF in Norway before the WSIS. And so I would invite this community for us to work closely together to see how and what do we want from WSIS plus 2020. There is also the discussion are we going to be able to build upon what WSIS plus 2010 has agreed on that resolution? Are we open for new comments? And then we need to map up with issues that we wanted to address as a community, as a multi-stakeholder community. What are the issues that are there that we should be re-addressing now? There are issues that unfortunately I think we’re gonna have a lot of challenging, challenged conversations should be able to agree on. To say the least, one on internet governance or another on human rights. However, there is the renewal of the IGF and I think we obviously we all want to renew the IGF, I would assume. The question here for this group is also how do we make the IGF more, even more relevant for others so that we can have more governments present, more civil society and even more colleagues of ours and other tech peers, private sector community present here. META is committed to the IGF and then through the years as the IGF changed location etc, we increased our participation back again after COVID. This year we had presence like a global diverse delegation from all over the regions but Europe and so I’m at Asia, LATAM, NORAM as well as content experts. So we had safety, privacy and I talking to stakeholders in every little corner here because we believe it’s important for us to exchange and the power of IGF among all is also the convening power that it brings. So I hope that we can continue that spirit and we can continue to invest on those processes but together. If we go in silos just as Bruno just said, governments sometimes want to work in silos, I think the other communities we should come together. The tech communities, civil society, private sector just as we do at the ITU, a multilateral firm where we all have a seat. I guess I’ll stop there

Anriette Esterhuysen: otherwise I could go for it for years. I mean it all makes sense but I think what I don’t hear is what does it mean to not work in silos? What does it mean to all come together? Do we all just come to the IGF? It’s a multi-stakeholder space. We all sit together, we talk together but does it make it, do we do we do we really effectively are we effectively able to engage about this is where there’s a common interest, this is where there’s a divergent interest, and do we come together as sectors or do we come together as individual companies, individual governments, you know individual civil society organizations. You know I think we sometimes we romanticize the past of the WSIS and the wonderful WSIS multi-stakeholder process. What we forget, those of us who were there at the time, like Tijani and myself, is that we had bureaus. We had a civil society bureau, we had a private sector bureau, and governments of course have to negotiate with one another. And we had within civil society before every opportunity to give an input on an item of the agenda, we had to reach internal consensus, and it was very very difficult. But we had to, and we were given the space by the WSIS process to meet, and we were forced to reach consensus, and then our consensus statement was given to governments, and governments took our consensus statements quite seriously. The same thing with the private sector, you did not have individual companies submitting their views, businesses had to work together and decide these are our priorities. And I think we sometimes forget that, that to have effective multi-stakeholder collaboration, you need coherent stakeholder processes within those stakeholder groups. And I think the same applies for regional multi-stakeholder processes. For Africa to have a strong voice in the global IGF or in the WSIS, Africa has to have a strong regional multi-stakeholder process, but it also needs a strong regional multilateral process. So I’m trying to unpack a little bit, how do we, I think we all believe in this modality, we believe in the multi-stakeholder approach, but I think we recognize that it needs to be better. I think NetMundial, Sao Paulo Guidelines is trying to make us do that. And I guess my final challenge, and I want you all to react to this, is that it takes resources. I think sometimes we look at the multi-stakeholder approach as a more cost-effective approach, because we put everyone in the same space, but is effective multi-stakeholder processes not also actually quite resource and time-intensive? But I’ve now challenged the panel, but I want to open it to the room and also online. If there’s anyone who wants to ask a question, or make a comment, and then we’ll go back to our panel. And Tijani, please, can we have a mic? Can we ask one of our… Excuse me, the volunteer on her cell phone in the back of the room. Sorry, can you help us with the microphone, please? Thank you so much, and very much… Tijani, just introduce yourself and be brief.

Audience: Okay, my name is Tijani Benjama. I am from Tunisia, civil society, from the beginning. And yet, I really thank you for asking how, what does it mean working in silos? We know that governments want to work in silos, but what about the other stakeholders? Are there any kind or any aspect of multi-stakeholder in their work? Do they consult with civil society? Do they consult with governments? This is a very important point. When we speak about multi-stakeholder model, we speak about it for all the stakeholders, not only for the governments. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Any other comments? Any other comments from the question? Please, go ahead, from the floor. Is that working?

Audience: Hi, my name is Lina. I’m with Search for Common Ground, a peace-building organization, and the Council on Tech and Social Cohesion. I wonder whether or not we’re being honest enough about the relationship between governments, the UN, civil society, and big tech. Because it feels like the only things that are actually making things move is litigation, certain regulations that threaten fines, or extreme reputational damage. And sometimes I’m just not sure that these kinds of forums are really raising the issue. And I think it is changed, right? We have billions of dollars of lobby funds going to countries that are trying to move the needle around certain regulations so that those regulations don’t happen. And I’m not seeing necessarily that big tech is wanting a coherence from a regulatory standpoint. And just to give an illustration of what I’m talking about, we’ve seen that when it comes to online safety, protection of women and children, the kinds of things that are on many panels here, that this information has been known by the companies for a long time. And yet, they’re waiting until regulations in Europe force them to do different things. Meanwhile, the global south is not benefiting from any of those changes and protections. So I’m really trying to just see whether or not the multi-stakeholder model isn’t being threatened by this. And are we being honest about that? Thank you. Hello, Dana Kramer for The Record, representing my youth, R.I. Youth IGF Canada. I’m curious about the panel. Can you hear me? Okay, sorry. It seems to be cutting in and out of my own. I’m curious if the panel can speak to implementation of the GDC and where it could be implemented. So kind of building off of the last question about IGFs, are we seeing that practical element? And I’m wondering if the panel can maybe speak to points of, would the IGF be the best place to implement the GDC so that there’s an action-oriented outcome within it for some of those principles, within the document for more safe internet? Sorry, I’m just building off of your question there. But where we can see some of this impact for multi-stakeholderism, because as mentioned earlier with the resource constraints, it’s easy when we’re all kind of coming together that this would be the most appropriate venue. Thank you. Thanks, Dana. And we have one more comment from online, and then I’ll ask you to respond. Manal Ismail, let me just see if I can unmute you. I can unmute you. So please go ahead and introduce yourself. Manal is someone with a very deep track record in the multi-stakeholder process. No, I can’t hear you. Can anyone else hear Manal? We have a remote speaker that’s trying to speak, Manal Ismail. We can’t hear her. I have unmuted her. Manal, try now. Sometimes the audio is going to the table but not to the speakers neither here So if you guys can change it and Manal you can type your comment and I will read it. Okay, I Will look in the chat in the meantime Let’s just oh she’s speaking but we can’t hear you Let’s see if I can unmute you again last try And we have one more question in the room and and and Manal just type your comment, I’m so sorry we can’t hear you The the remote participants can hear you but those of us in the room can’t hear you Whose hand was it Aziz? Please go ahead. Yes. I am Aziz Hilary from Morocco. I just want to add one quick question about What mechanism or criteria? can ensure that multi-stakeholders Is authentic And not just a rhetoric and just words What mechanism and criteria we can apply to ensure that multi-stakeholders is authentic?

Anriette Esterhuysen: They’re really tough that’s a tough question and It’s okay I think Manal says we should go ahead But I really do ask our technical team to try and make sure that our remote participants can participate and Here’s quite a wide range of Reactions there and challenging questions Who wants to go first?

Bruna Martins: Guess I’ll go to Lina’s point about the multi-stakeholderism and and whether or not it works or it’s been implemented Brazil is one of those countries, right that has been championing the multi-stakeholder model into policymaking into law enforcement and in some of those things But again, we must not conflate the issues right the IGF is not a regulatory body the IGF the IJF is a convening space for the discussion of ideas and it doesn’t have the interesting that they are muting everyone now. Can we please cut off the, but just to say that the IJF has it like, it’s a, it’s general, like general or initial idea of being a convening space for different thoughts and different approaches, but in any sense, can we please stop the interference on the microphone? But in any case, Brazil has been implementing that and just to quote two examples, we have the civil rights framework for the internet and also our Data Protection Act, which were all discussed and co-written by a group of stakeholders that were convened by the rapporteurs in the parliament and which main idea was to make sure everyone had its position. And the point that I always kind of mention when there is this kind of tension between big tech and the rest put at the table is that when we talk about policy processes, governments talk to business because they have the financial interest. Governments talk to business, to other stakeholders, technical community, because of different interests, but there is nothing that makes them talk to civil society depending on where you’re coming from and what country you’re going to. Obviously, if you master participation mechanisms and so on, that’s one thing, but there’s literally nothing that obliges governments to go to end users and the multi-stakeholder model serves its purpose that is bringing civil society to the table and making sure that here, it’s not a financial interest that’s at play, but the needs for including everyone above all. So maybe that’s kind of what I go,

Anriette Esterhuysen: but yeah, I’ll stop. Flavia. Hi, thank you.

Flavia Alves: There are a couple of issues that I would like to address. Just picking up on this last one just so that we get it first. First of all, we as Meta, and I won’t speak for other tech companies, are highly supportive. or harmonization and interoperable approach of key critical issues. We also comply with regulation globally around the world, and we appreciate processes that are either interoperable or harmonized. In a sense, right now, you might be very well familiar with the Global Digital GDPR, also EU AI Act, or Digital Services Act, or Digital Market Access Act, and so there are DMA, DSI, there are all of these processes that we were part of the process as they were developing, and now we are working together with governments to try to implement it as much as possible. So I would say we are supportive of regulatory making processes that are open, and then provide processes for us to provide our comments and together develop documents or regulations, as we said. META has always been proactive, supportive of regulation, particularly because we don’t want to be the ones trying to and having to determine what we should or should not have in the internet. On the safety, here at IGF, we have a child safety group that has been here for years, I think right now might have closed, and from that, we developed a community that today have continued working together on safety matters and have several different groups addressing online safety, particularly child safety issues. I can send you some of those details, my digital safety person is around here too, but that’s something that I wanted to make sure you understand. This convening helps us develop in the community to understand what are the issues and how can we address it together with tech companies. We have, well, several other groups as well. From the IGF perspective, and then coming back to Henriette and your comment, I do agree that sectors need to, together, come up with consensus. For me, I cannot picture, because I wasn’t at WSIS, but I cannot picture another process that worked as best as NET Mundial, the first and the second. So it was NET Mundial 2014 and NET World 2014. Mundial plus 10. I remember perfectly most of us there, having like the head of civil society, have everyone on the same level, and even on the negotiations, we each had a room, we each had processes, and then we had to come up with a consensus on a single document, with governments on the same level. Now, the document exists, and then we review it like last year. I think we should use this base for other processes, and perhaps that’s where we want to go. In fact, an interesting thing about NetMundial is that, imagine a room like this, but it’s very, very big, and then you have different microphones, one for civil society, one for government, one for business, one for the technical community, and they have to line up, but of course there are only so many speakers, civil society usually has loads, and as a result, we as civil society had to negotiate. We had a WhatsApp group, we had a Google doc, so that we could prioritize what, you know, we only had three opportunities to speak, so we had to prioritize. So I think in a way, it did capture that combination of stakeholders having to collaborate, as well as be on a level playing field. But you know,

Anriette Esterhuysen: just I’m going to give the mic to Manal, but I also want to say, isn’t the true test to respond to the comment from Search for Common Ground, isn’t the true test of an effective multi-stakeholder process that it should survive, even if there is serious disagreement on how to regulate, and what to regulate, by whom? Isn’t that ultimately what shows us that our multi-stakeholder processes has matured, that we don’t abandon them when we reach points of conflict? Same with governments that have different perceptions, different understandings of human rights, and compliance of human rights. Should we stop working with them? Because we disagree, but that’s another challenge. And Manal, please, you can, I think it works now. the team has sorted the problem, so please go ahead and share your experience. Hello everyone, can you hear me now, Andriette? We can.

Audience: Excellent, thank you. So, just very quickly, I was triggered by your comment that governments partner with civil society. Please introduce yourself, sorry, I didn’t introduce you yet. Sure, sure, I’m sorry. This is Manal Ismail. I work at the National Telecom Regulatory Authority of Egypt, and I’ve been participating to almost all the IGF meetings. And in ICANN, I participated to the represented Egypt on the governmental advisory committee in different capacities, last of which was chairing the committee. And I just wanted to share the experience of government’s participation to the governmental advisory committee of ICANN, and as said, I was triggered by your comment, Andriette, that governments collaborate and partnership with civil society and private sector at the national level, but they are more cautious globally. And I think this could be attributed to, if I’m participating in an individual capacity, it’s more easy and more flexible to just speak my mind. When someone is participating on behalf of the country, it is more difficult to speak up without really being prepared and consulted at the national level. We started the very first meeting I tried to participate to. I found the room was closed with a key, so it was a really closed government meeting. But over the years, we started opening up gradually. We opened up certain sessions, then all the sessions except the communicate drafting. But now all the meetings are open, including the communicate drafting. And I think a few things that help is, for example, sharing the topics and everything in advance so people can prepare and consult at the national level before they come so they can speak more freely in public. And also availing in real time interpretation also helped because sometimes the language is a barrier and people are very cautious. careful in choosing each and every word, because it’s going to be attributed to their governments and their country. I’m cautious of time, I leave it at this, but just wanted to share with you that after we had very close meeting with AKI, now we’re having all the meetings open, and we are also engaging with other stakeholder groups at ICANN, and thus benefiting from the multi-stakeholder nature of the organization. Previously, we were meeting in silos, all the stakeholders, but not in one meeting. I leave it at this. Thank you, Andrea, for the opportunity.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much for sharing that, Manal, and I think it’s a very good example of how one learns incrementally from processes. We have about 15 minutes left, and we want to look at what role the IJF can play in capturing this learning, capturing best practices, and applying them. I think we should also reflect, there’s been a lot of talk about the Global Digital Compact, but I’ve also heard many people say that it’s one of the most inclusive and collaborative processes that has been run from within the UN General Assembly. I think I felt frustrated by it, but I also sometimes would talk to the co-facilitators and see how much additional work they had from normally just facilitating a negotiation between members of the UN General Assembly. They also tried to get in all this other stakeholder input. It was imperfect, but there was a serious attempt. How do you think we can make these processes better? How do we use the Sao Paulo guidelines? What do you see the IJF doing concretely? Maybe it demonstrates, but maybe it can also innovate in making us get away from the happy, wonderful, multi-stakeholder community. to actually having deeper engagement that produces more concrete policy outcomes that might not always be consensus-based, but that are serving the broader public interest in the best possible way and the internet. So yeah, I know it’s a very long question, but I know you’ve been thinking about this and you are in these spaces. So let’s start with you, Isabel.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you. Okay, thank you for the question. Very, very long and there’s a lot of things. I just wanted to add one point on what we’ve said before that I think is very important. When we talk about inclusion, inclusion does not remove the power from the people who are already in the room, opening up to more stakeholders, more people, is not removing from those who are already there. And I think this is something that we need to be aware of. And I think this is something we have to remember and underline in all of the processes. So this was just my first little point that I think is important to highlight. On what we can do and how we can use what has been, we have 20 years of experience of trying to be as multi-stakeholder as possible and try to be better. We now have some guidelines on how we can make it effective. And I think this is something we should use to not have moments where we believe a process or is multi-stakeholder just by name because we name it, but without maybe actually being it, it’s sort of a whitewashing just because we’re using this buzz term and not actually living it up. And I think this is something that we now have some sort of litmus test that we can use with the Sopaldo guidelines of checking, is this truly multi-stakeholder or is this just called a multi-stakeholder process? So I think this is one of the points that we can emphasis on. And for the IGF specifically, it is difficult to see what it could do. And I think there are probably many, many ideas. But one of the points I would like to highlight is on the messages. We have messages at the end of every IGF. And, of course, these are not adopted by consensus. It’s a sort of summary of what has been discussed. But it gives us a very good knowledge of what has been shared, what are the issues that are raised, what are the opinions that have been raised in the different rooms. And I think we could do much better in using those messages in other forums, bringing them, highlighting them, saying, okay, this was discussed at the IGF, these issues were identified, and then bringing them in the other conversation, in the other rooms where there might be regulation or decision-making. Because the IGF is not a regulatory body. This is very important to highlight. But we are coming up with new ideas that might then just be lost in a document that is not read as much. So I think this is something where we can actively, we have the opinions of the different stakeholders, they are concretely written down, and we should use this more. This would be my little point. I’m happy to give it to you.

Bruna Martins: I think I’ll start with the idea that for the upcoming hosts, we should also make sure that the host country selection process takes into account safety of participants. You know, comfort around participants and whether or not the community, or whether or not the selection will result in one part of the community being less present, right? My stakeholder group is one that’s not present this year, or present in much smaller numbers, and it’s one of the main stakeholders within the IGF space. To anyone that’s here for the first time, this space is much more lively. I do miss my colleagues from Latin America. society and many other spaces in this broader conversation. So maybe looking at the IJF, making sure that the host country selection takes into account new aspects around safety of participants and so on is one thing. And lastly, I would just echo some of the guidelines, not the guidelines, but the suggestions issued by the MAG Working Group Strategy, because we just issued a vision document for the IJF looking into 2025. And a couple of the recommendations, they go around making sure the next year’s events takes a lot of makes a couple of discussions on how to improve the IJF mandates, a couple more things on making sure that the IJF has a track for GDC follow up and implementation and brings into a lot of the GDC follow up and implementation discussions through the workshops, main sessions and everything that takes place. But also working on the development of relationships between the IJF and some of the WSIS partner institutions and also continue some of the MAG discussions on NetMundial plus 10 alignment and last but not least, review and refine the intersessional work models. I’ll just wrap this by saying that if we don’t have every single, you know, group and stakeholder group at the table, this doesn’t work. And this goes both ways for civil society and private sector for academia. And, you know, many other parts of government, many other parts of this community, there is not a multistakeholder model where we don’t have one or where we don’t like one of them. And that’s the kind of the perk of it all and the joy of the IJF space.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks. Thanks. You want to make a comment? I just want to react quickly to what Bruna said. I think, yes, all stakeholders at the table, but I think what the NetMundial Sao Paulo guidelines tells us, scope the issue that’s being discussed. And based on that issue, identity, to identify who’s affected by that particular discussion, and then you bring the stakeholders. If it’s about meta and content regulation and gender-based violence, you bring together meta, you bring together feminist organizations, you bring together data brokers, regulators, and you bring together freedom of expression people because any kind of content regulation might impact on freedom. So you have to, I think, be quite focused and targeted as well. And I think Ned Montiel gives us steps to help do that. I said you could interrupt us, so you can, but you’re gonna have to get up and come and fetch your own microphone because if I get up, I’m gonna drop something. Thanks, Flavia. Yeah. Hello.

Audience: Thank you so much for the mic. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Arjun Singh Vizoria. I am from India. Here I am representing a civil society organization called the Vizoria Foundation that is founded by me in 2016. We are working in India in rural sector for the digital literacy. Now my question is here, how a small-scale organization can work with the IGF and is there any space to work with the IGF in India for the small-scale organization? And the second question is my to the matter. Sorry for the direct question. And I just want to know that how the matter is dealing with the cyber bullying. Sometimes I’m using the Facebook or certain platform. I see certain messages that are not relevant to me. It’s just like a direct message. Somebody is targeting. So how you are dealing with that?

Anriette Esterhuysen: Yeah. So that and then make your final remarks as well. And then you can answer the question about participating in national IGFs. Let’s talk on the side on this.

Flavia Alves: I am not an expert on cyber bullying. Sure, sure. So we are addressing it and we have our digital, head of safety here, so we can discuss with you. I guess most of the points I was going to make, particularly with regard to multistakeholderism and IGF, were made by my excellent co-panelists. Particularly, I think one thing that I keep hearing is we need to map the issues. We need to say, what are the issues? And this needs to be an evolving process. There is not a rule set in stone. Issues that we were discussing 10 years ago are different from the issues we were discussing now. At that time, we wouldn’t discuss content. Today, we have a whole DSA in content regulation issues. We have the UNESCO information integrity. We have the UN information integrity matters. And so, I think we should take this into account as we prepare for the upcoming review of the IGF mandate. I would love for the IGF next year in Norway for us to start early the process, particularly the country with the hosts, to make sure we bring stakeholders from all groups. My group is also not too present here. And so, I think we could partner in trying to make sure we bring others to the place. And with Norway, we agreed also to try to make available the list of participants earlier, so others have more incentive to be present, but also try to bring small business, small organizations, small developing countries, and making sure the remote participation is there as well. So, I would stop there. I know we are out of time.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much, Flavia. And Bruna, maybe you can talk to Bruna about how to participate in the national. And absolutely, national IGFs are completely open to any organization of any size. Well, I think, you know, it feels again like we’re almost scratching the surface of this, but I think that we should take this experience of the Global Digital Compact. I think it’s an important experience where a multilateral institution tried hard to be consultative. The results might not be what we are used to or expect from the multistakeholder space. That doesn’t mean that there wasn’t good intention. I think it demonstrates how difficult it is. So, I think let’s look at that. that process, work with multilateral processes to make these processes that originate from within the United Nations system more inclusive. I think you’ve outlined very clearly how the IGF can become more effective. And my closing, this workshop was convened amongst others by Global Network Initiative. And I wanna quote Rebecca McKinnon, she’s not here, but she’s the person that was the founder of the Global Network Initiative. And she always says it takes different types of initiative. There’s no one fix to all of this. There’s no one perfect process. And if we look at how we’re making progress in using the multi-stakeholder approach to have more accountable, democratic, inclusive, digital and internet governance, it takes all these different types of processes. And it’s kind of the imperfections of all of them together, I think sometimes that really makes us be more effective and more inclusive. So thanks everyone for joining us and thanks to our panel. Thanks to the remote participants, sorry about the tech issues. And thanks very much Manel for your contribution as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You You You

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder processes in internet governance

speakers

Bruna Martins

Isabelle Lois

Flavia Alves

Anriette Esterhuysen

arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes bring diverse perspectives together

Governments should use their convening power to ensure inclusive processes

Global Digital Compact process could have had more participation from non-governmental stakeholders

Governments are more comfortable with multi-stakeholder approaches nationally than globally

summary

All speakers emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder processes in internet governance, highlighting the need for diverse perspectives and inclusive participation.

Need for improvement in multi-stakeholder engagement

speakers

Bruna Martins

Isabelle Lois

Flavia Alves

arguments

Host country selection for IGF should consider safety and inclusivity of all participants

IGF messages should be better utilized in other forums and decision-making processes

Mapping of evolving issues is needed to keep multi-stakeholder processes relevant

summary

Speakers agreed on the need to improve multi-stakeholder engagement through various means, including better host country selection, utilization of IGF messages, and continuous mapping of evolving issues.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of civil society participation in multi-stakeholder processes, particularly at the global level where governments may be more hesitant.

speakers

Bruna Martins

Anriette Esterhuysen

arguments

Multi-stakeholder model serves to bring civil society voices to the table

Governments are more comfortable with multi-stakeholder approaches nationally than globally

Unexpected Consensus

Recognition of efforts by multilateral institutions to be more inclusive

speakers

Flavia Alves

Anriette Esterhuysen

arguments

Global Digital Compact process could have had more participation from non-governmental stakeholders

Multilateral institutions like the UN are trying to be more consultative, as seen in the Global Digital Compact process

explanation

Despite criticism of the Global Digital Compact process, both speakers acknowledged the efforts made by multilateral institutions to be more inclusive, which is an unexpected area of consensus given the typical divide between multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the importance of multi-stakeholder processes in internet governance, the need for improvement in multi-stakeholder engagement, and the recognition of efforts by multilateral institutions to be more inclusive.

Consensus level

There was a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on the importance and challenges of multi-stakeholder processes. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the value of diverse participation in internet governance, but also highlights the ongoing challenges in implementing effective multi-stakeholder approaches, particularly at the global level. The implications of this consensus point towards a continued push for more inclusive and effective multi-stakeholder processes in internet governance, while also recognizing the need for improvement and adaptation to evolving issues.

Different Viewpoints

Effectiveness of the Global Digital Compact process

speakers

Flavia Alves

Anriette Esterhuysen

arguments

Global Digital Compact process could have had more participation from non-governmental stakeholders

Multilateral institutions like the UN are trying to be more consultative, as seen in the Global Digital Compact process

summary

While Flavia Alves critiques the Global Digital Compact process for insufficient non-governmental participation, Anriette Esterhuysen views it as a genuine attempt by multilateral institutions to be more inclusive, despite imperfections.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the effectiveness of current multi-stakeholder processes, particularly the Global Digital Compact, and the specific roles different actors should play in improving these processes.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. While there are some differences in emphasis and perspective, there is a general consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder processes and the need for their improvement. These minor disagreements are constructive and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities in implementing effective multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of inclusive multi-stakeholder processes, but they emphasize different aspects: Bruna Martins focuses on the presence of all stakeholder groups, Isabelle Lois highlights the role of governments in ensuring inclusivity, and Flavia Alves stresses the need for continual updating of discussion topics.

speakers

Bruna Martins

Isabelle Lois

Flavia Alves

arguments

All stakeholder groups need to be present for multi-stakeholder processes to work

Governments should use their convening power to ensure inclusive processes

Mapping of evolving issues is needed to keep multi-stakeholder processes relevant

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of civil society participation in multi-stakeholder processes, particularly at the global level where governments may be more hesitant.

speakers

Bruna Martins

Anriette Esterhuysen

arguments

Multi-stakeholder model serves to bring civil society voices to the table

Governments are more comfortable with multi-stakeholder approaches nationally than globally

Key Takeaways

Multi-stakeholder processes are valuable for bringing diverse perspectives together in internet governance, but need improvement to be truly effective

The NetMundial Plus 10 and Sao Paulo guidelines provide a roadmap for more effective implementation of multi-stakeholder approaches

There is tension between multilateral and multi-stakeholder processes that needs to be navigated carefully

The IGF plays an important role in facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogue, but could improve in translating discussions into concrete outcomes

Inclusivity and safety of all stakeholders is crucial for effective multi-stakeholder processes

Resolutions and Action Items

Use the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines as a ‘litmus test’ to evaluate if processes are truly multi-stakeholder

Better utilize IGF messages in other forums and decision-making processes

Review and refine the IGF’s intersessional work models

Start early preparations for the upcoming review of the IGF mandate

Make participant lists available earlier for IGF events to encourage broader participation

Unresolved Issues

How to balance multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches in global internet governance

How to ensure authentic multi-stakeholder processes rather than just rhetoric

How to address power imbalances between different stakeholder groups

How to make multi-stakeholder processes more resource-efficient while maintaining effectiveness

How to better integrate perspectives from developing countries and smaller organizations in global processes

Suggested Compromises

Combine strong regional multi-stakeholder processes with regional multilateral processes to strengthen voices in global forums

Use targeted, issue-specific multi-stakeholder engagement rather than always trying to include all stakeholders in every discussion

Balance the need for inclusive processes with the need for concrete outcomes and decision-making

Work with multilateral institutions to make their processes more consultative and inclusive, while recognizing their distinct nature

I think sometimes we romanticize the past of the WSIS and the wonderful WSIS multi-stakeholder process. What we forget, those of us who were there at the time, like Tijani and myself, is that we had bureaus. We had a civil society bureau, we had a private sector bureau, and governments of course have to negotiate with one another. And we had within civil society before every opportunity to give an input on an item of the agenda, we had to reach internal consensus, and it was very very difficult.

speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

reason

This comment challenges the idealized view of past multi-stakeholder processes and introduces nuance about the difficulties of reaching consensus within stakeholder groups.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider the internal dynamics within stakeholder groups and the need for coherent processes within those groups for effective multi-stakeholder collaboration.

I wonder whether or not we’re being honest enough about the relationship between governments, the UN, civil society, and big tech. Because it feels like the only things that are actually making things move is litigation, certain regulations that threaten fines, or extreme reputational damage.

speaker

Lina from Search for Common Ground

reason

This comment challenges the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder forums and raises critical questions about power dynamics and motivations for change.

impact

It prompted panelists to address the role of regulation and litigation in driving change, and to defend the value of multi-stakeholder processes while acknowledging their limitations.

When we talk about inclusion, inclusion does not remove the power from the people who are already in the room, opening up to more stakeholders, more people, is not removing from those who are already there.

speaker

Isabelle Lois

reason

This insight highlights an important aspect of inclusion that is often overlooked – that it’s not a zero-sum game.

impact

It reframed the discussion on inclusion to focus on expanding participation without threatening existing stakeholders, potentially making the concept more palatable to those who might resist change.

Isn’t the true test of an effective multi-stakeholder process that it should survive, even if there is serious disagreement on how to regulate, and what to regulate, by whom?

speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

reason

This question redefines the measure of success for multi-stakeholder processes, emphasizing resilience in the face of disagreement rather than just consensus.

impact

It prompted reflection on the maturity and robustness of multi-stakeholder processes, shifting the focus from achieving agreement to maintaining dialogue despite differences.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by challenging idealized views of multi-stakeholder processes, introducing critical perspectives on power dynamics, and reframing concepts of inclusion and success. They moved the conversation beyond surface-level agreement on the value of multi-stakeholder approaches to grapple with the complexities and challenges of implementing them effectively. The discussion became more nuanced, acknowledging both the potential and limitations of these processes, and considering how they might evolve to better address power imbalances and maintain relevance in the face of disagreement.

How can we make multi-stakeholder processes more effective and resource-efficient?

speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

explanation

This question addresses the challenge of implementing multi-stakeholder approaches in a cost-effective and time-efficient manner, which is crucial for their sustainability and widespread adoption.

What mechanism or criteria can ensure that multi-stakeholder processes are authentic and not just rhetoric?

speaker

Aziz Hilary

explanation

This question highlights the need for concrete measures to evaluate the genuineness and effectiveness of multi-stakeholder processes, which is important for maintaining trust and credibility in these approaches.

How can the implementation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) be improved, and where could it be implemented?

speaker

Dana Kramer

explanation

This question addresses the practical aspects of implementing the GDC and suggests exploring the IGF as a potential venue, which is important for turning principles into action.

How can we ensure that all stakeholder groups, including those less represented this year, are present and actively participating in future IGFs?

speaker

Bruna Martins

explanation

This question addresses the need for inclusive participation in the IGF, which is crucial for maintaining its multi-stakeholder nature and effectiveness.

How can the IGF better utilize its messages and outcomes in other forums and decision-making processes?

speaker

Isabelle Lois

explanation

This question explores ways to increase the impact and relevance of IGF discussions in other policy-making arenas, which is important for the IGF’s influence and effectiveness.

How can small-scale organizations work with the IGF, particularly at the national level?

speaker

Arjun Singh Vizoria

explanation

This question addresses the need for inclusivity of smaller organizations in IGF processes, which is important for diverse representation and grassroots participation.

How can we better map and address evolving issues in internet governance through multi-stakeholder processes?

speaker

Flavia Alves

explanation

This question highlights the need for adaptability in multi-stakeholder processes to address new and emerging issues in internet governance, which is crucial for maintaining relevance and effectiveness.