Dynamic Coalition Collaborative Session

Summary

This panel discussion explored the evolving landscape of multi-stakeholder governance in the digital age, featuring representatives from various Dynamic Coalitions within the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session focused on making internet governance more inclusive and accessible, particularly for marginalized communities including persons with disabilities, children, and youth. Dr. Muhammad Shabbir from the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability emphasized that approximately 15% of the world’s population—equivalent to the population of India or China—consists of persons with disabilities who are not meaningfully benefiting from current digital governance systems. He argued for their meaningful inclusion in decision-making processes rather than tokenistic representation.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta highlighted the economic implications of digital exclusion, noting that 2.7 billion people remain unconnected to the internet, potentially limiting global GDP growth. He criticized the current multi-stakeholder governance model as being reactive rather than proactive. Representatives from UNESCO’s Dynamic Coalition on Internet Universality Indicators discussed their framework based on human rights, openness, accessibility, and multi-stakeholder governance principles. The Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values, presented by Olivier Crepin-Leblond, outlined fundamental internet principles including global accessibility, interoperability, and decentralized control, while noting that many of these values are being eroded.

Avri Doria from the Schools of Internet Governance coalition described their work in developing curriculum, providing practical training, and theorizing multi-stakeholder models. The discussion also covered emerging areas like interplanetary internet governance and children’s rights in digital environments. Participants debated whether Dynamic Coalitions should seek formal representation on the IGF’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) or maintain their current bottom-up, independent approach. The consensus emerged that Dynamic Coalitions serve as crucial testing grounds for innovative governance approaches and should focus on creating substantive impact through collaborative work rather than seeking formal institutional power.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Inclusive Multi-Stakeholder Governance**: The need to ensure meaningful participation of marginalized communities, including persons with disabilities (representing 15-16% of global population), youth, and other underrepresented groups in internet governance decision-making processes, moving beyond tokenism to genuine inclusion.

– **Dynamic Coalitions’ Role and Impact**: Discussion of how Dynamic Coalitions function as bottom-up, flexible organizations that work intersessionally on specific internet governance issues, with emphasis on their independence, openness, and ability to produce substantive research and policy recommendations.

– **Bridging the Digital Divide and Access Issues**: Concerns about 2.7 billion people still lacking internet connectivity and the economic implications, with calls for multi-stakeholder governance to prioritize access over emerging technologies like AI, and recognition that lack of internet access itself constitutes a form of disability.

– **Power Dynamics in Internet Governance**: Recognition that real power in internet governance lies with big tech companies rather than in IGF discussions, leading to debates about how to make multi-stakeholder processes more influential and whether Dynamic Coalitions need greater representation in governance structures like the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group).

– **Evolution of Governance Models**: Exploration of how multi-stakeholder models can be improved to be more global, equal, and effective, including discussions of age categorization for youth participation, the application of governance principles to emerging areas like interplanetary networks, and the need for governance structures to adapt to technological changes.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how multi-stakeholder governance in internet governance can evolve to be more inclusive and effective, particularly focusing on the role of Dynamic Coalitions in representing diverse communities and producing meaningful policy outcomes. The panel sought to address gaps in current governance models and propose ways to ensure all stakeholders have genuine voice and influence in shaping internet governance.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants showing mutual respect and building on each other’s contributions. While there were acknowledgments of serious challenges (power imbalances, exclusion of marginalized groups, slow progress on connectivity), the tone remained optimistic and solution-oriented. Participants demonstrated pride in the work of Dynamic Coalitions while also being realistic about limitations and the need for improvement. The atmosphere was professional yet passionate, with speakers clearly committed to their causes while remaining open to cooperation and learning from other coalitions.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Judith Hellerstein** – Panel moderator/chair, co-coordinator of Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability

– **Dr. Muhammad Shabbir** – Co-coordinator of Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability

– **Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta** – Representative of Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values (referred to as “Vajendra” in transcript)

– **Tatevik Grigoryan** – UNESCO representative, Dynamic Coalition on Internet Universality Indicators

– **Olivier Crepin-Leblond** – Representative of Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values

– **Avri Doria** – Coordinator of Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance

– **Roberto Gaetano** – Representative of Dynamic Coalition on Interplanetary Networks

– **Wout de Natris** – Representative of Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety

– **Jutta** – Co-chair of Dynamic Coalition Coordinating Group, representative of Dynamic Coalition on Children’s Rights and the Digital Environment

– **Marcus** – Co-facilitator of Dynamic Coalition Coordinating Group

– **Lubos Kuklis** – Online moderator/technical support

– **Audience** – Various audience members asking questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Kjetil Kjernsmo** – Unaffiliated individual, audience member

– **Henry Wang** – Singapore Internet Governance Forum (SGIGF), co-founder of Lingo.ai

– **Vasiliy Zudin** – Center for Global IT Cooperation, Russian NGO representative

# Multi-Stakeholder Governance in the Digital Age: Dynamic Coalitions and Inclusive Internet Governance

## Executive Summary

This panel discussion explored multi-stakeholder governance through the lens of Dynamic Coalitions within the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ecosystem. Moderated by Judith Hellerstein, co-coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, the session brought together representatives from six Dynamic Coalitions: Accessibility and Disability, Core Internet Values, Interplanetary Networks, Internet Standards Security and Safety, Schools and Internet Governance, and Children’s Rights and the Digital Environment.

The discussion focused on making internet governance more inclusive and accessible, particularly for marginalized communities including persons with disabilities, children, and youth. Participants examined both achievements and limitations of current multi-stakeholder governance models while highlighting the role of Dynamic Coalitions as experimental spaces for developing innovative governance approaches.

## What Are Dynamic Coalitions?

Dynamic Coalitions are bottom-up, open groups within the IGF that work on specific internet governance issues. As Judith Hellerstein explained in her opening, they emerged from WSIS 2020 outcomes and operate as flexible, inclusive spaces where anyone can participate by subscribing to mailing lists or applying for membership. Information about joining is available at the IGF booth in the village.

## Key Coalition Perspectives

### Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir emphasized that approximately 15-16% of the world’s population—equivalent to the entire population of India or China—consists of persons with disabilities who are not meaningfully benefiting from current digital governance systems. He argued against tokenistic representation, stating: “The system might be functioning for some, but there is a very huge number of population… who are not benefiting or meaningfully benefiting from the processes or the systems that our so-called perfect technologists, policy makers have evolved.”

Dr. Shabbir emphasized that Dynamic Coalitions function as facilitators rather than top-down directors, providing guidance and resources while maintaining their bottom-up character. He noted that while formal power structures may not voluntarily redistribute power equally, Dynamic Coalitions retain “the power of the people which cannot be taken away from us.”

### Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values

Olivier Crepin-Leblond outlined fundamental internet principles including global accessibility, interoperability, decentralized control, end-to-end connectivity, and robustness. He noted that many of these core values are being eroded and require active protection as the foundation for other internet governance work.

The coalition emphasizes openness, requiring no subscription or approval process and welcoming new members. Olivier committed to working one-on-one with other Dynamic Coalitions to identify partnerships and defend their work through core internet values.

### Dynamic Coalition on Interplanetary Networks

Roberto Gaetano introduced the emerging area of interplanetary internet governance, explaining that interplanetary communication requires different protocols due to delays and moving nodes in space. He referenced the São Paulo Declaration of NetMundial Plus 10 and emphasized the need to develop multi-stakeholder governance models for interplanetary internet before it becomes shaped only by telecom operators and space agencies.

Gaetano stressed that multi-stakeholder models must be truly global and equal, with stakeholder groups participating on equal footing, warning against the monopolization of voices within stakeholder groups.

### Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety

Wout de Natris highlighted a concerning gap between available security standards and their implementation, noting that many companies fail to deploy internet security standards that have existed for 20 years. He advocated for governments and companies to procure ICT that is secure by design.

De Natris argued that Dynamic Coalitions should advocate for representation on the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) to better integrate their work into IGF processes, noting that while coalitions have improved visibility through clustering approaches over the past 2-3 years, they need greater influence to move from being “an appendix on the side.”

### Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance

Avri Doria described comprehensive work in developing curriculum, providing practical training, and theorizing multi-stakeholder models. She emphasized that many people lack practice in multi-stakeholder participation and need safe spaces to develop these skills. The coalition provides coursework, practica for participation skills, and theory development, with students entering industry and institutions to create change “one classroom at a time.”

Doria strongly advocated for maintaining independence from MAG and UN strictures to preserve flexibility and grassroots engagement.

### Dynamic Coalition on Children’s Rights and the Digital Environment

Jutta highlighted that one-third of internet users worldwide are under 18 and deserve meaningful voice in internet governance. She noted that digital environments have opened new opportunities for children and youth to participate directly without adult accompaniment, fundamentally changing traditional participation models.

Markus, co-facilitator of the Dynamic Coalition Coordinating Group, advocated for fresh perspectives on age categorization, suggesting that children under 12, teenagers aged 13-18, and various adult categories have fundamentally different needs and capabilities.

## The Digital Divide Challenge

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta provided economic analysis of digital exclusion, noting that one-third of people globally—approximately 2.7 billion individuals—remain unconnected to the internet. He criticized current governance approaches as “reactive, not proactive,” arguing that at the current pace of progress, “it’ll take more than a decade for us to connect the people.”

Dr. Gupta challenged current priority-setting in internet governance, arguing that artificial intelligence is being prioritized over basic internet access. He suggested that “the issue is not with multi-stakeholder governance. The issue is governance of multi-stakeholder governance,” indicating that meta-governance structures need reform.

## Power Dynamics and Fundamental Challenges

The discussion took a critical turn when audience member Kjetil Kjernsmo directly challenged the panel’s premise, stating: “The power of internet governance is not in this room. It is chiefly with big tech… Shouldn’t we be moving towards polycentrism rather than multi-stakeholderism?”

This intervention forced participants to confront where actual power lies in internet governance and whether current approaches are adequate. The question of formal representation versus independence remained a key tension throughout the discussion.

## Additional Perspectives

Henry Wang contributed thoughts about decentralized protocols and infrastructure for the future, while Vasiliy Zudin extended an invitation for collaboration with Russian NGO’s Global Digital Forum, demonstrating the international scope of Dynamic Coalition work.

## UNESCO’s Internet Universality Indicators

Tatevik Grigoryan from UNESCO presented their Dynamic Coalition on Internet Universality Indicators, though audio issues made much of her contribution unclear. She emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation represents UNESCO’s official position, endorsed by 194 member states.

## Practical Outcomes

The discussion generated several concrete commitments:

– Dynamic Coalitions coordination group will work on making coalition membership and participation pathways more visible and accessible

– The Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values will work with other coalitions to identify partnerships

– Coalitions will continue their clustering approach while considering advocacy for MAG representation

– The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety will continue advocating for secure-by-design ICT procurement

– All coalitions committed to focusing on substantive work and measurable impact

## Conclusion

This discussion demonstrated the maturity of thinking within the Dynamic Coalitions community about multi-stakeholder governance challenges. While participants acknowledged significant limitations in current approaches—including power imbalances and slow progress on connectivity—they maintained focus on collaborative work and bottom-up innovation.

The conversation revealed Dynamic Coalitions as crucial experimental spaces within the IGF ecosystem, providing flexibility for innovation that more formal structures might not accommodate. The ongoing tension between seeking formal influence and maintaining independence reflects broader challenges in internet governance about balancing effectiveness with authenticity.

The session reinforced that multi-stakeholder governance remains a work in progress, requiring continuous adaptation to address emerging challenges while maintaining core principles of inclusivity, openness, and collaborative problem-solving.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much for coming to our panel. I know we’re competing with so many other ones, but it’s great to see a lot of people here. This panel will focus on exploring the evolving landscapes of multi-stakeholder governance in the digital age, with a focus on the outcomes of the WSIS 2020, and ensuring that all communities, including marginalized communities, persons with disabilities, and young adults and children are active participants in shaping the future of the IGF. So there are several different dynamic coalitions here, and we also have a booth in the main area where you can pick up information about the booth and about all of our RDCs that are there. Right here we have the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, which focuses on the future of multi-stakeholder governance and making sure that it’s inclusive, not only in principle but in practice. We also have the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values, as well as the Dynamic Coalition on Intergenerational Planets, the Dynamic Coalition on Security and Stability, the Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance, as well as the Dynamic Coalition on Digital Coalition on the Rights of Children. So we have all these coalitions here and we’re going to start first with the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability. And this is Dr. Mohammad Shabir. He along with myself are the co-coordinators of our Dynamic Coalition. So let me bring it over to Dr. Shabir.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much, Judith. Thank you for giving the opportunity. And my colleagues for being at this table to discuss the future of multi-stakeholder governance. From the perspective of Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, I would have a couple of points to make in the initial intervention. And then we can follow those points in the interactive discussion. The first thing is that there are a number of instruments at the high level, as well as regional and national level, that talk about inclusivity, accessibility, and rights of persons with disabilities in the digital spaces. These range from at the top of all these instruments sits the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which most of the governments by now have not just signed, but ratified. Then we have WSIS 20 plus, which is being reviewed this year. That could be that also talks about inclusivity. We have the Global Digital Compact, where inclusivity for persons with disabilities is also referred. And then we have digital. inclusion strategy by the UN Secretary General where inclusivity is talked about. While this year is very important, as we all know, we’ll be not only deciding the future of internet governance, but we will also be deciding that how the future of multi-stakeholder governance should be shaping up. So inclusion of persons with disabilities in the decision-making, as we discussed in the session on Beyond Tokenism, the inclusion of persons with disabilities in internet governance. This was one of the sessions where we talked about different ways and strategies that can be implemented in the way of involving persons with disabilities in further sessions. We, as Dynamic Coalitions, we also organized three key sessions in different clusters. I won’t go into the details, but yesterday in Hall 5, we discussed about capacities and how principle-based models can be made inclusive. And it ensured that persons with disabilities are included in the decision-making of the future. The question here arises, why do we include persons with disabilities, whereas we have so many people who could be deciding the future of digital governance, and they have been deciding it arguably, and it has been functioning. As a coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, I would say it might be functioning. The system might be functioning for some, but there is a very huge number. of population, well, that WHO would state that it is about 15 or 16 percent of the world population, which, considering the total world population levels at 8 or 9 billion, would be equal to the total population of the country, which is India or China. So a huge number of population is there who are not benefiting or meaningfully benefiting from the processes or the systems that our so-called perfect technologists, policy makers have evolved. Therefore, well, when Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability comes on the stage and says that if you have not been able to evolve the perfect systems, perhaps this was because you had not the right people at the decision-making tables when you were making the decisions about the future of the Internet. So it’s high time that while we evolve the future systems now, we include persons with disabilities into those decision-making. So I stop here, and we can discuss this further. Judith, over to you. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much for this. I’m going to next turn to my candidate on my left, Vajendra, with the D.C. economy.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you, Judith. And this is a very important topic from the governance standpoint. You know that the global economy is digital, but still one-third of the people are still not connected to the Internet, which brings me to the very important point that the world GDP was $110 trillion last year. It could be $150 trillion. Just think how much difference it will make to the economy, which brings a big question to the multi-stakeholder governance model we have. The empty seat here is symbolic, there are gaps and these gaps are that our multi-stakeholder governance model is reactive, not proactive. And still knowing well that people are not connected, we have not been able to. Every year we come and see that the 2.7 billion people not connected become 2.6 billion. At this pace, it’ll take more than a decade for us to connect the people. I think when we as the IGF put the tagline of internet we want, we also want everyone to be connected to internet. I think there should be a study that think tanks should do, is the internet usage per capita and the GDP per capita. I would think that would be a good correlation. And we have to somehow look at not the multi-stakeholder governance per se, but the governance of multi-stakeholder governance. How do we govern it? What kind of issues we prioritize? I think overly we are prioritizing AI over access of internet and not having internet itself is a disability, I would say. So I think the multi-stakeholder governance models need to reset a button to look at various dimensions and KPIs of what the governance should look like, what we should deliver before the end of the decade when the SDGs come to an end by 2030. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Dr. Vajendra, for this. As the time is very moving quickly, we’re going to move to my right and we’re going to hear from Tatjafik Grigoryan from UNESCO.

Tatevik Grigoryan: Thanks very much. I’m here from UNESCO, I represent the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Universality Indicators. As we talk about multi-stakeholderism, these indicators are rooted in multi-stakeholder approach. These are basically indicators… So, I would like to start with the M, multi-stakeholder governance, which is one of the key pillars of this indicators, and also one of the key indicators that help countries assess their Internet performance against the pillars of human rights, openness and accessibility, and multi-stakeholder governance, and cross-cutting issues such as gender equality, safety and accessibility, and also the importance of the digital environment, and I would like to start with the M, which is also very much in line with the work that the Dynamic Coalition does. For us, multi-stakeholder participation and engagement and governance of the digital environment is not just the principle, but also, at UNESCO, it is at the heart of our actions to our activities. So now, I would like to introduce Nicolas Sperb, from Solidarity Engineering Facebook, and they are contributors to the co-leadership of Solidarity Engineering Facebook, and Nicolas is the expert in multi-stakeholder confidence and trust, and he is also the co-leader of Solidarity Engineering Facebook. So, Nicolas, what are your thoughts on the outcomes of the assessments, and also the recommendations that we put forward to support the countries, improve their digital environment, and then we encourage this maintenance of the multi-stakeholder advisory board, also, in carrying forward and implementing this policy recommendations. So, the main thing is that we encourage the multistakeholder dialogue, and we encourage it in principle, but we also facilitate this in action, and bring, convene this multi-stakeholder dialogue in this scope, and ensure that everyone, every stakeholder, is involved. And I think it’s very important that we have a multi-stakeholder engagement and that the multistakeholder group has a say around the table on these matters. This is just one example of, as we speak, within this scope of dynamic coalitions of our work where we promote and foster multistakeholder engagement to the Internet Governance, but it is very much rooted in all of our activities. Thank you very much, Judith.

Judith Hellerstein: I think we have a lot of questions and answers later, but I want to make sure we have enough time for the panellists to make their quick statements.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: So I’ll next go to Olivier Crepin-Lamban for the D.C. on Core Internet Values. Olivier Crepin-Lamban speaking, and I’m here to speak to you about the Core Internet Values and the work of the Dynamic Coalition. So the Core Internet Values is a global medium, open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. It’s interoperable because it’s a network of networks. It doesn’t rely on a single application. It relies on open protocols, like TCPIP, like BGP. It’s free, open to all, and it’s a global medium, open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. It’s interoperable because it’s a network of networks. It’s open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. It’s free, open to all, and it’s a global medium, open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. It’s free of any centralised control, except for the needed co-ordination for the domain name system, the addressing, if you want, of the Internet and the IP addresses. It’s end-to-end, so the traffic goes from one end of the network to the other end of the network unhindered. It’s free, open to all, and it’s a global medium, open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. it’s robust and it’s reliable. But of course, that was a while ago when the Internet was created. A number of these values are being eroded, things are changing on the Internet, and so we’re tracking the change that we’re seeing happening on the Internet. Earlier this week, on Wednesday, we had a workshop that also looked at artificial intelligence, AI, and tried to see if we could apply core Internet values and derive from that some AI values. Very interesting discussion, it was very well attended, but one thing that did come out of the discussion was that the dynamic coalitions around this table, and in fact the ones that were in the other workshops, are all working sometimes on specific points that go on top of the core Internet values. You’ve got the Internet as the base, and other work grafts on the top of that. And so one of the things that my colleagues are not aware of now, one of the action items, is that we will be working with all of the different dynamic coalitions, one-on-one, and offering a partnership to try and see what core Internet values relate to their work, and how we can help defend their work through the core Internet values. I hope it’s a bit helpful, but I’ll be happy to answer questions later. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Olivier, and thanks for sticking to your time. Time is always not our friend here. Next I will go to Avri Doria, who’s going to speak for the Schools of Internet Governance.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Thank you, Judith, and thank you for chairing this session. My name is Avri Doria, and I coordinate the Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance. We do a couple things. First of all, there are many schools that have sprung up around the world over, I guess, the last decade. Each one of them is a bottom-up affair. So what the Dynamic Coalition tries to do at the very top level is sort of offer material. offer ways to look at things, we have developed a curriculum in the past that currently needs to be updated with all the new things that he’s been talking about. We’re currently working on a document, for example, on how to sustain a school and it’s once you found one and you get some money and you have all the enthusiasm of having created one comes year three and year four and how do you keep the thing running. So we’re doing that, it’s a very interesting exercise because that’s done differently in different places in the world, depends on how you’ve got. So that’s one of the things that the Dynamic Coalition does. The schools themselves basically do several things. One, they do coursework and they look at the various topics, you know, whether it’s AI, whether it’s how IP works, whether it’s what the political dimensions of schools are, etc. So that’s one of the aspects of schools. The other aspects of schools that we help work on is what we call practica and we have practicums where you look around the multi-stakeholder world and you find there are some of us that are constantly talking, constantly participating. The, what do we call the, but anyhow, the regular victims or the regular, but most people sit there quietly and it comes from, at least it seems to come from, they never had a place to practice. They never had a place to sort of figure out how to behave, how to interject themselves. To some of us it comes natural, to many it doesn’t. So a lot of these practica are there. The third thing that we focus on is actually what one could call it the theory of multi-stakeholderism or the theory of multi-stakeholder models. A couple years ago, and it may even be true for many now, people thought there was one. multi-stakeholder model, it was the IGF model, or maybe there was one multi-stakeholder model and it was the ICANN model, or maybe there was one, and then basically so we started looking at how you come down to the next level of what does it involve to have a multi-stakeholder model? Are there levels of maturity in a multi-stakeholder model? How do you progress in developing a multi-stakeholder model? So that in a very quick, hand-wavy manner is sort of what the schools on internet governance are about, and always happy to talk about it infinitely.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Avri, and thanks for sticking to your time. Next we’ll go to Roberto Gaetano, he’s with the DC of Interplanetary Networks, and this is they are doing internet in the space. Thank you.

Roberto Gaetano: Thank you, Judith. Yes, the DC on Interplanetary Networks, as the name suggests, is dealing with communication, interplanetary communication. Why is this different from the regular internet on earth? That is because for the distances in space that create delays in the communication and also the fact that we have widely moving nodes that can create interruptions in the communication. So basically, long story short, we have to use a different protocol that is delay and fault tolerance. So there will be some differences versus the… the regular internet. Another question is now that the way that interplanetary communication develops with the launch of space missions, for instance, with the possibility of communication to outer space and so on. Basically, what we have right now is a situation in which telecommunication operators are organization and organizations that are involved with launch of space vessels, NASA, for instance, just to name one. Those are the ones who are currently shaping up this scenario. So the problem is having also learned the lesson from the regular internet, where we had a bit in a hurry and under pressure had to develop a governance model in order to ensure that all interested stakeholders have a place in the table and can discuss how to govern the internet. In the same way, we believe that we need to develop and deploy an interplanetary internet governance model. And for instance, in these days, we are discussing and we are thinking of using, and that gives me the possibility. to advertise this booklet, which is the translation in several languages of the São Paulo Declaration of NetMundial Plus 10. We are going to be using this to develop with the community a governance model that is really multi-stakeholder, that will ensure that also stakeholders that are not completely aware of the development of the interplanetary networks, like for instance civil society or users that will be impacted, can get into the process early so that their interests and needs are represented. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Roberto. The last panelist we have here is Wout Denatris, and he is – no, you’re not on it, okay. So then we’ll go to our panelists of the DC Child Online Protection.

Jutta: Thank you, Judith, for giving me the floor, although I was not supposed to be a panelist, but I had prepared to give some input to this session, so we’re welcome. When it comes to multi-stakeholder collaboration, of course from the Dynamic Coalition on Children’s Rights and the Digital Environment, I need to refer to young people, and I really appreciate that we had many people around here at the IGF, many young people. We have the Dynamic Team Coalition that was engaged in our work, and we also have the Dynamic Coalition on – the Youth Coalition, let me say it in that way. I take the opportunity to refer to the General Comment No. 25 on children’s rights and the digital environment, because it And it has a whole chapter on the respect for the views of the child. And let me just quote, we did a child participation worldwide in preparation of the general command number 25. And there, the over 700 children in various languages reported that the digital environment afforded them crucial opportunities for their voices to be heard in matters that affect them. And I do think that we cannot deny with one third of all internet users worldwide are under the age of 18, though it means that they are a child in the sense of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that we have not only give them a voice, but hear their voices and respect their views in regard of internet governance. Thank you. Thanks.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. And Jutta is also along with Marcus, the co-chairs of the Dynamic Coalition Coordinating Group of all different 30 GCs. So now we’ll move to the next step. Well, okay, Brat wants to… In the end, he decided he wanted to speak. Great.

Wout de Natris: Is it on? Yes. My apologies. I was not aware that I was on the list because I had not submitted myself, but I can, of course, speak a little bit. My name is Wouter Natris and I represent the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety here at the IGF. And we just produced our report on post-quantum cryptography this morning, and it landed really successfully well, I think, with some of the people in the room. So that’s good to notice. Jutta, let me reflect on the future of multistakeholderism that we’re discussing and what we’ve been doing as Dynamic Coalitions as a group in the past. maybe three years by now, but certainly two and a half, is to try to organize ourselves and get ourselves better known so that people in the IGF environment understand better what we as Dynamic Coalitions are doing. And I think that from the way the people within the community look at us at this moment is different than it was three years ago, because I ran into people even on the Mac who were not even aware that Dynamic Coalitions existed, or let alone what they did. And I think that has changed. The fact that we are now reported on, for example, by the Diplo Foundation, that was not happening two years ago last year, is progress. And we have one and a half year probably before the next IGF, and how will Dynamic Coalitions present themselves in November or December 2026, when there is a new IGF anywhere in the world? We don’t know yet. I think that that is where we can make the next step, and we have time to make the next step. So what I’m advocating is that what we’ve managed to do with the DC clustering, it also brings together overarching themes. We notice that we start working on this, sort of working on the same topic from a different angle, and that allows us to make better messages, and perhaps common messages, like what you invited us to do, and thank you for that, Olivier. But also, I think that we need to have a bigger voice in the future, and what I would suggest that we try to advocate is that we have a spot in the MAG to make sure that the integration of our work becomes better known within the process, so that the clustering we have now become part of the themes. And that is something that has nothing to do with the workshop program, but it has something to do with getting the messages across of our work that we do during the whole year across in a far better and integrated way. That is something that we can discuss and organize and see if the other dynamic coalitions agree on. But it’s something that I would advocate to have a voice in the MAG so that we are at the same level and not that we’re always somewhere as an appendix on the side. And I think that would make multi-stakeholder and inter-governance far better, stronger and more influential in the future. So let me stop there and thank you for the opportunity, Jutta.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank you so much, Wout. And I’ll go over to Markus for a comment.

Marcus: Yes, thank you, Judith. You called me co-chair with Jutta of the Coordination Group. Actually we call ourselves co-facilitators, sounds less important than co-chairs. I had and very much support Wout’s comments. We really have come a long way and I think by clustering and having also the main session, we have a bigger impact. Now, whether or not a seat on the MAG will make that much difference, I’m not necessarily convinced, but we have a MAG liaison and we need to use this better, but let’s park that discussion. We can have it among ourselves. I was just going to make a minor point listening to Jutta and she pointed out that legally speaking somebody under 18 is a child, which obviously doesn’t make much sense. And I make myself here the spokesman of the Teens Dynamic Coalition who actually put forward a quite thoughtful paper saying we need to look at the ages in a different way. The UN category is youth is 18 to 35 and to be frank, a 35-year-old is a very mature youth. And it doesn’t make much sense, but we cannot change something. something that’s enshrined in a General Assembly resolution, but we can apply it maybe with more flexibility. And the Dynamic Teen Coalition, they suggest you have below 12, these are children. They fall in the category where we have to look after them. Whereas from 13 to 18, they are teenagers. Well, to 19, they are teenagers, but in most countries, when you’re 18, you’re adult. So you have different rights and responsibilities. And then they also go on, say, you know, they are young adults, young professionals, they’re people mid-career, and they are the oldies who maybe can take on a different role as mentoring. And I actually like this idea of looking at the age categories with a fresh eye. But we will not be able to change General Assembly resolutions, but I think the teens have made themselves heard, and Amrit was in various session, and he has my admiration. At his age, I would not have been able to argue so effectively and coherently. So these are my quick comments on this matter, but Jutta may have more comments because she’s a professional dealing with children and children’s rights. Thank you for listening.

Jutta: Yes, thank you, Markus. I just wanted to get into that because isn’t it also due to the opportunities that the digital environment opens up for children that they are now in this position? Because otherwise, like those teens that are under the age of 18, they could only have come to the internet accompanied by adults like we had in several years earlier on in the internet governance community. But now, with all these digital opportunities, they can take part via Zoom, for example. They can raise their voice. They can make them heard themselves. So kind of, you know, the internet. World Wide Web came up in 1989. That was the same year that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child came up. So we have kind of parallel developments, and I’m pretty sure they are interrelated with each other. The digital technologies have opened up for children’s evolving capacities, evolving in a certainly changed way than it was beforehand.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Jutta. And this will also go out to our next segment, which is some policy questions.

Avri Doria: Can I ask a question? If I can, I’d like to just add one thought to that. One, this is one reason why the DCs, when they started out, sort of declared a degree of independence from the MAG and the UN and its strictures, so that we wouldn’t necessarily be as bound by all the UN edicts, such as we could decide what we wanted in terms of how we were doing things and what. And two, as a street kid at 16, if anybody had told me I was a child, there would have been a battle.

Judith Hellerstein: It’s possible, but it’s only words. Yeah, no, this also leads us directly into our policy question of what policies are important in the process of enabling multi-stakeholder practices. Jutta touched on the idea of the digital ideas that we can now get the youth to engage themselves and they don’t have to come with an adult or other stuff. The teen coalition calls on the calls in the early morning and the early evening, and so they’re very active. But Vajendra, I know you wanted to make a comment on.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Yeah, I just wanted to add to what Marcus said, that as what I have experienced. over the decades at the DCs, I mean, this is the best model for looking at the multi-stakeholder governance. I think as Avri said, independent, flexible. I have not come across any time when anyone made a suggestion, it was thwarted or debated. Anything good, immediately accepted and acted upon. So I would actually congratulate those who facilitate the dynamic coalitions within the IGF and the Secretariat for keeping that spirit alive of change and hope along with continuity. Thank you. Yeah.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Yeah. So who wants to, Avri, do you want to talk about that question of policies

Avri Doria: that are important in the process of enabling multi-stakeholder? Certainly. I’m always willing to talk about just about any topic, but the policy certainly within the dynamic coalitions, it’s very important that we be open and accept the whole notion that bottom up these things are dealt. Thank you for being here, Marcus. Bottom up. Bottom up. Thank you very much for reminding me where I was. But basically, that that becomes a very important part because as I was saying before, when the dynamic coalitions get constrained into a certain rules, a certain box, a certain structure is when we find that we can’t be all that dynamic. You know, having the basic rules that we have, that we have to be open, that we have to have a mailing list, that we have to be coalitions, which means we have to have people from the many stakeholder groups is a very basic set of requirements. But beyond that, as multi-stakeholder models develop, as we get beyond thinking of there being a single model, a single way to do things. It really is in the dynamic coalitions that you sort of have the crucible where you can try things, you can fail, you can come, you can succeed and such that becomes more and more a problem as things start to have the blessing of the top-down. Part of the problem with the IGF is its top-down nature. Dynamic coalitions are the one place where we get to experiment with sort of the other half of what it means to be multi-stakeholder, bottom-up multi-stakeholder models. Thanks.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Any other coalitions want to mention something? Otherwise, we’ll go to the next question. Okay, so the next question is, how can multi-stakeholder models be further developed to make them more inclusive and accessible? And I’ll point the mic here to Dr. Shabir to talk about that.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much for that. And I’ve been listening to my fellow D.C. representatives talk about different aspects and I’ve been thinking that how best we can evolve this multi-stakeholder model that we have going up and running. And I reflected upon the suggestion that came out from Vout and then the discussion by every on the having a voice or space on the MAG by the D.C.s. And I would, for one, from the perspective of D.C.A.D., whereas I would want the multi-stakeholder model as it exists today to evolve that to include the voice of persons with disabilities on the MAG. Why so? Because this is the largest minority. that is just being made into a checkbox under the diversity umbrella. It should not be that. On the other hand, as the coordinator of Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability and one of the oldest dynamic coalitions in existence, I would argue for the argument that Avery has put forward. And that is we must guard the system that we have here within the dynamic coalitions. And that is bottom-up multi-stakeholder. We, as the coordinators of the dynamic coalitions, we are not the chairs who would give directions from the top to be implemented. We facilitate the work of the coalitions as Marcus very rightly said, that we are, Marcus and Yuta, are preferred to be recognized as facilitators of the work. Because our job is not to give directions. Our job is to give guidance, to provide resources, and to facilitate the work that community wants from us. And in that, I just was thinking that whether teens, I hear Amrit, and I am really impressed by his prowess and his argumentation at this age. But when I think of the other side of the teens with disabilities, those who do not have the right opportunities, then I need to consider that that multi-stakeholder model, so-called, needs to evolve. And it needs to be multi-stakeholder in true sense, and not just be some checkboxes here and there. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Dr. Shabir. I’ll go to Roberto Gaetano as he has some input.

Roberto Gaetano: Yes, Roberto Gaetano, DC Interplanetary. I have two comments on this. The first is once the former CEO of ICANN said a multi-stakeholder model has to be global and equal. And I think that this is very, very important. We cannot just have a vague representation of the stakeholders, but the model has to be global in the sense that those stakeholders have to represent different geopolitical situations. And equal, the stakeholder groups have to participate on equal footing. I think that this is something that is very important. It’s actually the band that has played in Music Night takes the name GEMS, which is exactly the acronym for Global Equal Multi-Stakeholder. So I think that we have to, one thing that we have to do is to make sure that whenever we speak about the multi-stakeholder model, we are very attentive on the fact that it is global and equal. There’s one other point that came, by the way, also in one of the sessions that I have attended. Within a stakeholder group, we have to make sure that that there’s not a subgroup that monopolizes the discussion, that monopolizes the presence. For instance, one of the most various, more diverse stakeholder group is probably civil society. But civil society comes in different shapes, in different forms. There are different types of stakeholder that belong to the bigger group of civil society. And we have to make sure that also, within the stakeholder group, the different types of stakeholder are represented. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Roberto. We have two more quick comments. One from Roberto, and I’m going to keep it short, because we want to make sure we have time for questions from the audience. And then, Wow. Thank you. I have a question, not question, actually a reflection back on the governance and the role of DCs, what we do.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta: So it should not be just the noise that some makes, and I’m not castigating or putting some people in the corner, but actually on the impact we create. I mean, if you look at the world’s work on standards, if you look at our friends’ work on the core internet values and others, these are substantive original works in contribution to the knowledge of domain of internet. I think that should be the primary focus. I’m not very, I would say, in favor of seats or titles. I’m in favor of original substantive works that adds to the knowledge for this domain of internet that creates an impact on ground. So I think we’ll have to look at today as 20 years of IGF, what it does. is our stated position as DCs on the issue of environment, because everything we do today in the digital economy has a carbon footprint. And we know global warming and what it’s doing to us. Second, what’s happening on the job side? Like as digital economy, we created project Creators. How do you use technology for jobs? Every time you open the news, you see that 30 million jobs will be lost today, what I read in the morning. So it’s scary at times. And I think this will boomerang into a huge mental health issue for the world. So we’ll have to look at DCs. And how are we addressing these issues to create an impact? A seat on the mag or not will not make much of a difference. But what we make as a difference to the digital economy is going to be measured in terms of what we have added to the domain. I think this is where it matters for us to be impactful. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Wout?

Wout de Natris: Yes, thank you, Judith. Whether we have a seat on the mag or not is not the real topic, I think. I think that what we’ve shown in the past two years is that we’ve learned from each other what we’re doing. That is one. That we’ll probably be able to integrate more because of the clusters and that way become more impactful. When I think of the IGF, just going back to 2009 when I visited my first IGF, I went to as many sessions as I could. And I was so impressed with the brilliant people giving brilliant solutions to topics. But some of them still have not been solved. So we’re 16 years down the line and still sometimes discussing the same sort of things. Maybe we call it AI now. But if you look one step up, it’s the same issue. In other words, we have the people to make a difference. Except somehow the integration of that message is not coming across in the places where it needs to land. And I think that that is the challenge of whether we get a five-year or a 10-year or an eternal mandate for the IGF. It is about. bringing people to the table that decide, I think I have to make a difference. And that will be the main challenge that the IGF faces, where it has to move from a talk shop to an influencing position. And if we can manage to do that, then we’ll change the world. And that’s why I advocate that our outcomes as dynamic coalitions should be heard better. And that starts with having more influence on the organization of the IGF, because that’s where we bring our message across. And Avri, just to come back to one of your comments, I think yesterday, I was not really aware what you guys were doing, but you make actual difference how you coordinate on topics and that sort of thing. So that should be heard. That’s not that someone comes to tell you, I want you to do this now, but that you send your message, we’re making a difference in the internet governance world. And I think that that is a sort of message that we need to start to share actively. And we have made that start and whatever, however, we continue. But it’s something we need to discuss in our group, like Marco said, internally, and then set the steps we need to take. So that’s how I want to advocate the IGF, the dynamic coalitions, and then I’ll shut up because I said what I wanted to say.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Wout. We want to go for a Q&A. And so there’s a mic set up over there if in person want to stand up for that. I’m just going to check of my colleague, because we might have some interventions online, so. Thanks, Judith.

Lubos Kuklis: Currently, we have 23 people taking part online and following us from everywhere around the globe. And there was a discussion going on, it was raised the attention by Carlos Alfonso on an development on the multi-stakeholder structure of the internet governance in Brazil. There’s a lively discussion going on, links and further information are provided. And there was a question raised by Emmanuel Orok from Uganda, who’d like to know more about the concept of a dynamic coalition. We are talking about what dynamic coalitions are doing and what they’re delivering and output and so on. But he wants to learn more about the concept and how to engage as an individual in a dynamic coalition.

Judith Hellerstein: Olivier? Yeah. And then Yuta. Yeah. Thank you, Judith. It’s Olivier speaking.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I’d be happy to answer that, because just a couple of days ago, I was asked a similar question. And the question I was asked is, what is a dynamic coalition? Why is it dynamic? Does it have a start, a beginning, an end? What do you people work on? Are these projects? Are these ongoing things? And the answer that I provided was potentially maybe one of many different answers, because we are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. And the answer that I provided was potentially maybe one of many different answers, because we are so many different coalitions, and so we deal with so many different topics. But the dynamism of a dynamic coalition is one that actually advances with times. It deals with issues that are related to the internet that is changing. And so the issues that we might have been working on or that we were focusing on a few years ago might be a bit, they might have evolved since. And in fact, for some, thanks to the work of that coalition, the issues have advanced. It’s dynamic because it’s moving, but it’s also open. And I think maybe that’s one of the things we’ve not actually emphasized enough. They are all open. You don’t need to pay a subscription or to queue up or to be co-opted into it by some panel that will check whether you’re worthy of being in that coalition or not. It’s actually open to everyone, and all of them are open. They’re all very friendly. They are run by people who have years of experience in trying to get more people involved. And this is one of the big difficulties we’ve had. I’ll be very frank, is actually attracting more people to go and join because, yeah, there is intersessional work going on. There’s a lot of work needed. We’re not dealing with simple issues that can be fixed in a matter of seconds. But it’s also exciting because it kind of puts this bridge between the different IGFs. It’s not just something that happens once a year. It’s something that happens all the time and that continues to grow. So that’s what I wanted to say about it.

Judith Hellerstein: We have a quick one from Utah and then we have Shabira and you.

Jutta: Yes, because we all have been approached over the last four days by people who wanted to join a dynamic collision. It’s really useful to have this booth in the IGF village where everybody can meet us. But still, when it comes to how do I get to become a member of a dynamic collision, it’s a bit tricky. You go to the website, you need to have a look on the intersessional part, even understanding that it’s intersessional work the dynamic collisions are doing is a bit difficult. But to make it short, everybody can subscribe to the mailing list of the dynamic collisions to get informed about the work the dynamic collision, the respective dynamic collision is doing. Secondly, you can apply to become a member. It’s just saying my organization or me as an individual, I want to be a member of this dynamic collision. Then you will be listed in the list of stakeholders within that dynamic collision. And these are the first two steps, and then it’s up to each of the individual dynamic collisions to set up how they work together. Some meet on a regular basis, other meet only occasionally. Some produce a joint report, some gather information of what their members have been doing in regard of the objectives of the dynamic collision. So that is different across the dynamic collisions. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. And Dr. Shpil, I know you wanted to make a comment as well.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: I think Yuta and Olivia have best described, so I’ll go.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank, and Al-Avri.

Avri Doria: Yeah, quick thing, I’m really glad you put it. And just to sort of marry it to something that Waud has been saying, perhaps we’ve also can take on an action for the coordination group that says, we have to make that more visible. We have to make that something easier for people to find and put it out. So perhaps we should give ourselves sort of, after this is all over and we’ve rested, indeed make ourselves more visible by making that easier for people to find and do it.

Jutta: We had a meeting with the MEC chair yesterday, the day before yesterday, agreeing exactly on that approach.

Judith Hellerstein: Yes, okay, so now I know our colleague over there has been waiting patiently by the mic. So I will go to him. Please tell us your name and your organization.

Audience: Thank you, so my name is Kjetil Kjernsmo. I’m kind of unaffiliated, I represent only myself. I have three assumptions or perhaps even observations. And one of them is that the power of internet governance is not in this room. It is chiefly with big tech. The second thing is that I was sort of a part of the global digital compact process. And I noticed there were no challenges to multi-stakeholderism in there. Whereas digital commons were completely removed, even though there were many excellent contributions in a dedicated deep dive. And the third thing is that polycentrism, which is part of the digital commons narrative, has been used by humanity for thousands of years. and there is a rich theory and a rich practice. So aren’t we trying to reinvent the wheel here? Shouldn’t we be moving towards polycentrism rather than multi-stakeholderism? Thank you.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Yeah, so very right intervention. And I think if you heard my statement, the issue is not with multi-stakeholder governance. The issue is governance of multi-stakeholder governance. I think as we see the world today, it is small number of large companies that drive the internet rather than large number of small companies. And that’s the difference we have to make. And I think it’s not reinventing the wheel. We should first break the wheel and create something different. And that is what the flexibility we all have in this room to speak our mind and to work towards it. And luckily no one stops us. I mean, our reports have always come out based on inputs given by people from 60, 70 countries, and we have released them here at IGF stating that this is the way to go. What Vau told us, we should not start appreciating a problem over time. We should try to solve it. And I think that collectively we have to start. Question is when? The time is now. We are already late.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. And Avri?

Avri Doria: Yeah, just one quick thing. I don’t think anybody is ignoring any of the historical. I think there’s a lot of admission that multi-stakeholder models have evolved from previous models, that there have been models throughout history that have given us the ideas that we’re building on. So it’s really not an ignoring history. It’s sort of, there’s a lot of parts of history that sort of had their moment and then got forgotten. And how do we take what was really valuable in those and sort of incorporate it in sort of the things that are being done now? And totally agree with you. We have to use what we’ve got here to indeed make more of an impression. on those that do hold the power at the moment. So really don’t disagree with anything except that we should use old words instead of new words.

Judith Hellerstein: Wow, make it quick.

Wout de Natris: I will. In internet security that I reported I’ve written about five years ago now, we identified that it’s about the tragic of the commons. The internet is sort of from everybody despite those five, six, seven or eight major companies, but it’s everybody’s. So when it’s everybody’s, nobody cares at some point whether it’s secure or not because somebody else will do it for me. And I think that that is not reinventing the wheel, it’s going back to the very fundamentals of how things once started thousands of years ago. And we’ve sort of forgot that lesson.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank you so much. Dr. Shabir, real quick, I wanna get you.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: Yes, thank you very much, Judith. And since I have the notice from the moderator, so I’ll be quick without. Power politics is my subject as a student of international relations and we all know it is not equally distributed. And through the centuries it has not been and it would never be. Power that be would not voluntarily give the equal distribution of it to anyone. So while we may not have the power to change things at our will in this room, we do have the power in this room to influence things. And that’s what we are doing. Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability is trying to make the internet and internet governance spaces equal for people with disabilities. And that’s where the power of our dynamic coalitions, all our dynamic coalitions comes. We have the power of the people which cannot be taken away from us. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Let me check with our online. Do you have any questions online? Okay, so we can go to the gentleman over there.

Audience: Okay, thanks, thanks. Give me the floor. I’m Henry Wang from Singapore Internet Governance Forum, so S-G-I-G-F, and also I’m the co-founder for Lingo.ai. So yes, for the last 20 years, the power is not in the room. It’s controlled, dominated by the large companies, definitely, but for the next 20 years, the power will be in this room. Okay, it’s not because we are discussing, we’re talking about that. It’s because of the dynamic of the internet. The protocols are evolving, so the protocols for the people are coming, and not only coming, it’s already invented, and it’s ready to be deployed for the power of people. So why the large company dominate for the last 20 years, even after IGF was established? Because the protocols lead to the centralization of our data, and also lead to the centralization of our infrastructure, but now it’s different. So for the next 20 years, the infrastructure will be decentralized by the D-PIN network. It can be built by the community with space ground integration network, with mesh network to be built by people, not necessarily by centralized carriers. That’s on the infrastructure level. On the application level. The data currently centralized in large companies will be decentralized and by protocols like solid, like MetaLife. It will be controlled by every users. So yeah, so the day is coming. So a dynamic, I mean, coalition will play an important role together with NRIS.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank you so much, Henry. We have to have one more quick question and then we’ll go to the panelists. It’s maybe like in my comments. Could you introduce yourself, please? You just need not to, it’s on.

Audience: It’s okay. Yep. Thank you very much for all panelists. My name is Vasiliy Zudin. I represent the Center for Global IT Cooperation, Russian NGO, which actively works within ITU and IJF formats. And I would like to say many thanks for this really interesting panels and the main idea that dynamic coalition is very important and appreciated in the world. In Russia, we have IJF forum, youth forum, and this June, they hosted the first global digital forum, which bringing together representatives from technical communities, experts, society, and government from more than 100 countries, including high level of UN and ITU representatives. In this case, we invite the dynamic coalition to collaborate with us. And so the main thought and the main idea, let’s work together. Thank you very much for your dialogue. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank you so much. We have, if you can make your answers short, because I want to go to the wrap to give you a time or maybe best try to answer the question along with your 30 seconds of wrap up.

Jutta: And so I will go to Utah for. society organization we are improving on not only making the children’s rights heard but and their voices heard but also their rights to not only making the children’s rights heard but and their voices heard but also their rights to be respected. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Shabir, 30 seconds. Yes, thank you. Very

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: difficult so I would just go directly to the concluding statement that I have. So Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability is stands ready to work with our fellow dynamic coalitions and there are number of subjects that one can one can work with. If we want the people to use the internet meaningfully we need to not just think only about those 2.7 billion who are not connected but 1.5 billion people who may be connected maybe in a well-developed country may have state-of-the-art devices with the high-speed internet but still be unable to use the internet and I invite you to think about that situation and put yourselves in that what would you do if you were in that situation. I rest my

Judith Hellerstein: case. Thank you. Dr. Vick. Thanks very much. I just wanted to reiterate that for the UNESCO Internet Universality concept that is grounded in Rome principles A being accessibility and M being multi-stakeholder participation and governance is UNESCO’s official position endorsed by 194 member states which we do advocate for and we do reinforce on the ground too and it is very much grounded in other processes and activities that UNESCO carries on and this is this has been our position and we continue working so engaged the diverse stakeholders on the ground and yes for us this is the reality, this is the present and we will continue.

Avri Doria: Thank you so much within the dynamic coalition on schools and in terms of making a difference from the full schools and in terms of making a difference from the full schools perspective we have seen our students from the various schools going into industry, going into all the institutions and the association and there really is a concept of making the change, making the difference one classroom at a time, one student at a time. I meet them all the time and they are pushing the values we try to

Judith Hellerstein: convince them of. Thanks so much Avri Roberto. Yes first of all what is the

Roberto Gaetano: value for for us as dynamic coalition on interplanetary network to work with the other dynamic coalitions is that in order to to build our model of governance, we can use the experience of all the other groups, and that is very good. On the other hand, what we can bring to the dynamic coalitions is to add another dimension, that means the ability of further developing the governance model to apply that to situations that are not part of the ordinary Internet.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much.

Wout de Natris: Yes, thank you. On behalf of the Dynamic Coalition Internet Standards, Security and Safety, I would say that it’s a disgrace that many companies have still not deployed Internet standards that are sometimes there for 20 years that would secure us immediately. So every government and big company around the world has to start procuring their ICT secure by design, because that’s an economic incentive that won’t be ignored. On Dynamic Coalitions, let’s rock the world in 2026 and make sure that we’re better heard. So thank you for this session, because we really said what needed to be said.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much for everyone for coming to this session, and please come to our booth, and that’s where you could learn more about us. So again, thanks for coming. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Dynamic Coalitions should maintain bottom-up, flexible governance structure

Speakers

– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Avri Doria
– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Arguments

Dynamic Coalitions function as facilitators rather than top-down directors, providing guidance and resources

Dynamic Coalitions should maintain independence from MAG and UN strictures to remain flexible and bottom-up

Dynamic Coalitions should focus on creating substantive original work and impact rather than seeking titles or seats

Summary

All speakers agree that Dynamic Coalitions work best when they maintain their independent, bottom-up structure with coordinators acting as facilitators rather than directors, prioritizing substantive work over formal recognition

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Multi-stakeholder governance must be truly inclusive in practice, not just principle

Speakers

– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Roberto Gaetano
– Judith Hellerstein

Arguments

Persons with disabilities represent 15-16% of world population but are excluded from decision-making processes that affect them

Multi-stakeholder models must be global and equal, with stakeholder groups participating on equal footing

Multiple Dynamic Coalitions work together to ensure inclusive multi-stakeholder governance in practice, not just principle

Summary

Speakers agree that current multi-stakeholder models often fail to achieve true inclusivity and that meaningful participation from all stakeholder groups, including marginalized communities, is essential

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Digital technologies have transformed participation opportunities for traditionally excluded groups

Speakers

– Jutta
– Judith Hellerstein

Arguments

Digital environment opens new opportunities for children and youth to participate directly without adult accompaniment

Digital technologies enable direct youth participation in internet governance without adult accompaniment

Summary

Both speakers recognize that digital platforms have fundamentally changed how young people can participate in internet governance, enabling direct engagement without traditional barriers

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Dynamic Coalitions need better visibility and accessibility for potential participants

Speakers

– Wout de Natris
– Avri Doria
– Olivier Crepin-Leblond

Arguments

Dynamic Coalitions have improved visibility and coordination through clustering approach over past 2-3 years

Dynamic Coalitions need better visibility and easier pathways for people to find and join them

Dynamic Coalitions are open to all, require no subscription or approval process, and welcome new members

Summary

All speakers acknowledge that while Dynamic Coalitions are open and welcoming, they need to improve their visibility and make it easier for people to understand how to participate

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both recognize that internet governance power is concentrated in large technology companies rather than being distributed through multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Audience

Arguments

Small number of large companies drive internet rather than large number of small companies

Power in internet governance currently lies with big tech companies, not in IGF discussions

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Both advocate for more nuanced understanding of youth participation in internet governance, recognizing that different age groups have different capabilities and needs

Speakers

– Marcus
– Jutta

Arguments

Age categories need fresh perspective – children under 12, teenagers 13-18, and various adult categories have different needs

One-third of internet users worldwide are under 18 and deserve voice in internet governance

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both recognize that the challenge lies not in the concept of multi-stakeholder governance but in how power dynamics actually operate within these systems

Speakers

– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Arguments

Power holders will not voluntarily redistribute power equally, but Dynamic Coalitions have power to influence

Real issue is governance of multi-stakeholder governance, not the model itself

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Dynamic Coalitions as experimental spaces for multi-stakeholder models

Speakers

– Avri Doria
– Wout de Natris
– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Arguments

Dynamic Coalitions should maintain independence from MAG and UN strictures to remain flexible and bottom-up

Dynamic Coalitions should advocate for representation on MAG to better integrate their work into IGF processes

Dynamic Coalitions should focus on creating substantive original work and impact rather than seeking titles or seats

Explanation

Despite disagreeing on whether Dynamic Coalitions should seek formal representation, all speakers unexpectedly agree that Dynamic Coalitions serve as crucial experimental spaces for developing and testing multi-stakeholder approaches, representing a unique value within the IGF ecosystem

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Technology as both solution and challenge to inclusivity

Speakers

– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Jutta
– Audience

Arguments

Connected individuals with disabilities may still be unable to meaningfully use the internet despite having access

Digital environment opens new opportunities for children and youth to participate directly without adult accompaniment

Future internet protocols will enable decentralization of data and infrastructure, shifting power to people

Explanation

Speakers unexpectedly converge on recognizing that technology simultaneously creates new barriers and new opportunities for participation, requiring nuanced approaches rather than simple technological solutions

Topics

Human rights | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the need for genuine inclusivity in multi-stakeholder governance, the value of Dynamic Coalitions as bottom-up experimental spaces, and the transformative potential of digital technologies for participation. They agree on fundamental challenges with current power structures while maintaining optimism about the potential for change through collaborative work.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles and challenges, with tactical disagreements about implementation approaches. This suggests a mature understanding of multi-stakeholder governance issues and strong foundation for collaborative action, though strategic decisions about formal representation and power-seeking remain contentious.

Different viewpoints

Dynamic Coalitions representation in MAG

Speakers

– Wout de Natris
– Avri Doria
– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Arguments

Dynamic Coalitions should advocate for representation on MAG to better integrate their work into IGF processes

Dynamic Coalitions should maintain independence from MAG and UN strictures to remain flexible and bottom-up

Dynamic Coalitions function as facilitators rather than top-down directors, providing guidance and resources

Summary

Wout advocates for Dynamic Coalitions to have a seat on the MAG to gain more influence and better integrate their work, while Avri argues for maintaining independence from MAG and UN constraints to preserve their bottom-up, flexible nature. Dr. Shabbir supports the facilitator model that emphasizes guidance rather than top-down direction.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Priority focus for internet governance

Speakers

– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Arguments

AI is being prioritized over basic internet access, when lack of internet itself constitutes a disability

Connected individuals with disabilities may still be unable to meaningfully use the internet despite having access

Summary

Dr. Gupta argues that basic internet connectivity should be prioritized over AI development, viewing lack of internet as a disability itself. Dr. Shabbir focuses on a different aspect – that even connected individuals with disabilities may be unable to meaningfully use the internet, suggesting the issue goes beyond mere connectivity.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Approach to creating change and impact

Speakers

– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Wout de Natris

Arguments

Dynamic Coalitions should focus on creating substantive original work and impact rather than seeking titles or seats

Dynamic Coalitions should advocate for representation on MAG to better integrate their work into IGF processes

Summary

Dr. Gupta emphasizes that impact should come from substantive work and knowledge creation rather than formal positions or titles, while Wout believes that having formal representation and voice in governance structures is necessary to create real influence and change.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Definition and scope of disability in digital context

Speakers

– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Arguments

AI is being prioritized over basic internet access, when lack of internet itself constitutes a disability

Connected individuals with disabilities may still be unable to meaningfully use the internet despite having access

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers advocate for inclusion and accessibility, yet they have different conceptualizations of what constitutes digital disability. Dr. Gupta broadens the definition to include anyone without internet access, while Dr. Shabbir focuses on traditional disability categories and their specific challenges with internet usage even when connected.

Topics

Human rights | Development

Historical precedent vs innovation in governance models

Speakers

– Avri Doria
– Audience

Arguments

Students from various schools are entering industry and institutions, creating change one classroom at a time

Power in internet governance currently lies with big tech companies, not in IGF discussions

Explanation

The audience member’s suggestion to move toward polycentrism rather than multi-stakeholderism represents an unexpected challenge to the fundamental premise of the panel. While Avri acknowledges historical models, she defends the evolution and adaptation of multi-stakeholder approaches rather than abandoning them entirely.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center around governance structure (formal representation vs. independence), priority setting (connectivity vs. accessibility vs. AI), and approaches to creating impact (substantive work vs. structural influence). There were also conceptual disagreements about disability definitions and governance model evolution.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with constructive tensions rather than fundamental conflicts. The disagreements reflect different strategic approaches to achieving similar goals of inclusive, effective internet governance. These tensions are healthy for the multi-stakeholder process as they represent diverse perspectives on how to improve current systems while maintaining core values of openness and inclusivity.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both recognize that internet governance power is concentrated in large technology companies rather than being distributed through multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Audience

Arguments

Small number of large companies drive internet rather than large number of small companies

Power in internet governance currently lies with big tech companies, not in IGF discussions

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Both advocate for more nuanced understanding of youth participation in internet governance, recognizing that different age groups have different capabilities and needs

Speakers

– Marcus
– Jutta

Arguments

Age categories need fresh perspective – children under 12, teenagers 13-18, and various adult categories have different needs

One-third of internet users worldwide are under 18 and deserve voice in internet governance

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both recognize that the challenge lies not in the concept of multi-stakeholder governance but in how power dynamics actually operate within these systems

Speakers

– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Arguments

Power holders will not voluntarily redistribute power equally, but Dynamic Coalitions have power to influence

Real issue is governance of multi-stakeholder governance, not the model itself

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder governance must evolve to be truly inclusive, particularly for persons with disabilities who represent 15-16% of the global population but are largely excluded from decision-making processes

Dynamic Coalitions have successfully improved their visibility and coordination over the past 2-3 years through clustering approaches and should maintain their bottom-up, flexible structure

The digital divide remains a critical issue with one-third of the global population still unconnected, limiting economic potential and requiring more proactive rather than reactive governance approaches

Power in internet governance currently lies with big tech companies rather than multi-stakeholder forums, but Dynamic Coalitions retain the power to influence change

Internet security standards that have existed for 20 years remain undeployed by many companies, requiring governments and organizations to procure ICT that is secure by design

Children and youth participation in internet governance has been enhanced by digital technologies, allowing direct participation without adult accompaniment

Multi-stakeholder models must be global and equal, ensuring stakeholder groups participate on equal footing and diverse subgroups within each stakeholder category are represented

Resolutions and action items

Dynamic Coalitions coordination group to work on making coalition membership and participation pathways more visible and accessible to newcomers

Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values to work one-on-one with other dynamic coalitions to identify partnerships and defend their work through core internet values

Dynamic Coalitions to continue clustering approach and consider advocating for representation on the MAG to better integrate their work into IGF processes

Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety to continue advocating for secure-by-design ICT procurement by governments and companies

All Dynamic Coalitions to focus on creating substantive original work and measurable impact rather than seeking titles or formal positions

Dynamic Coalitions to prepare for stronger presence and influence at the 2026 IGF

Unresolved issues

Whether Dynamic Coalitions should seek formal representation on the MAG or maintain their current independent structure

How to effectively address the governance of multi-stakeholder governance itself, not just the model

How to balance maintaining Dynamic Coalitions’ bottom-up flexibility while increasing their influence on decision-making processes

How to better integrate Dynamic Coalition outputs into places where decisions are actually made

How to address environmental impact of the digital economy and job displacement from technology advancement

Whether to move toward polycentrism rather than multi-stakeholderism as suggested by audience member

How to ensure meaningful participation of persons with disabilities beyond tokenistic checkbox inclusion

Suggested compromises

Maintaining Dynamic Coalitions’ independence while improving their integration with IGF processes through better coordination rather than formal MAG representation

Applying age categories with more flexibility – recognizing different needs of children under 12, teenagers 13-18, and various adult categories while working within existing UN frameworks

Balancing the need for Dynamic Coalitions to maintain their experimental, bottom-up nature while also seeking greater influence and visibility in internet governance

Using existing MAG liaison relationships more effectively rather than seeking new formal positions

Focusing on substantive impact and original contributions while also working to improve structural representation and influence

The system might be functioning for some, but there is a very huge number of population, well, that WHO would state that it is about 15 or 16 percent of the world population, which, considering the total world population levels at 8 or 9 billion, would be equal to the total population of the country, which is India or China. So a huge number of population is there who are not benefiting or meaningfully benefiting from the processes or the systems that our so-called perfect technologists, policy makers have evolved.

Speaker

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Reason

This comment powerfully reframes the disability inclusion debate by using concrete numbers to illustrate the massive scale of exclusion. By comparing 15-16% of the global population to the entire populations of India or China, it makes the abstract concept of disability inclusion tangible and urgent.

Impact

This comment established a foundational argument that resonated throughout the discussion, with multiple speakers later referencing the need for genuine inclusion rather than tokenism. It shifted the conversation from theoretical discussions about governance to concrete recognition of systemic exclusion.

Our multi-stakeholder governance model is reactive, not proactive. And still knowing well that people are not connected, we have not been able to… Every year we come and see that the 2.7 billion people not connected become 2.6 billion. At this pace, it’ll take more than a decade for us to connect the people… I think overly we are prioritizing AI over access of internet and not having internet itself is a disability.

Speaker

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Reason

This comment introduces a critical systemic critique by distinguishing between reactive and proactive governance, and challenges current priority-setting by suggesting that AI discussions overshadow basic connectivity issues. The phrase ‘not having internet itself is a disability’ creates a powerful conceptual bridge.

Impact

This comment introduced a meta-level critique of governance effectiveness and shifted the discussion toward questioning fundamental priorities. It influenced later discussions about the need for Dynamic Coalitions to focus on substantive impact rather than procedural improvements.

The power of internet governance is not in this room. It is chiefly with big tech… Shouldn’t we be moving towards polycentrism rather than multi-stakeholderism?

Speaker

Kjetil Kjernsmo (audience member)

Reason

This comment directly challenges the fundamental premise of the entire discussion by questioning whether multi-stakeholder governance is even the right approach. It introduces polycentrism as an alternative framework and forces participants to confront the reality of where actual power lies.

Impact

This intervention created the most significant turning point in the discussion, forcing multiple panelists to defend and reframe their work. It elevated the conversation from operational improvements to fundamental questions about power structures and governance models.

Power that be would not voluntarily give the equal distribution of it to anyone. So while we may not have the power to change things at our will in this room, we do have the power in this room to influence things. And that’s what we are doing… We have the power of the people which cannot be taken away from us.

Speaker

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Reason

This response to the power critique provides a nuanced acknowledgment of power realities while articulating a theory of influence-based change. It reframes the Dynamic Coalitions’ work from attempting to gain formal power to exercising ‘people power’ through influence.

Impact

This comment provided a philosophical foundation for the Dynamic Coalitions’ work that other speakers built upon, helping to resolve the tension created by the power critique while maintaining the legitimacy of their efforts.

The issue is not with multi-stakeholder governance. The issue is governance of multi-stakeholder governance… We should first break the wheel and create something different.

Speaker

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Reason

This comment introduces a crucial distinction between the concept of multi-stakeholder governance and how it’s actually governed, suggesting that the meta-governance structure needs fundamental reform rather than incremental improvement.

Impact

This reframing influenced the discussion by suggesting that the problem isn’t the multi-stakeholder model itself but how it’s implemented and managed, leading to more nuanced discussions about structural reforms.

We have one and a half year probably before the next IGF… what I would suggest that we try to advocate is that we have a spot in the MAG to make sure that the integration of our work becomes better known within the process… getting the messages across of our work that we do during the whole year across in a far better and integrated way.

Speaker

Wout de Natris

Reason

This comment shifts the discussion from abstract principles to concrete institutional reform proposals, introducing specific actionable steps for improving Dynamic Coalition influence within existing structures.

Impact

This proposal sparked a debate about whether institutional integration or independence is more valuable, with Avri Doria defending the bottom-up independence of Dynamic Coalitions. It created a productive tension about strategy and tactics.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by creating multiple layers of analysis – from operational improvements to systemic critiques to philosophical foundations. The conversation evolved from initial presentations about individual Dynamic Coalition work to deeper questions about power, effectiveness, and alternative governance models. The audience intervention about polycentrism served as a crucial catalyst, forcing participants to defend and refine their approaches while acknowledging real limitations. The discussion ultimately became more honest and nuanced, moving beyond promotional presentations to genuine engagement with fundamental challenges facing multi-stakeholder governance in the digital age.

Study on the correlation between internet usage per capita and GDP per capita

Speaker

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Explanation

This research would help demonstrate the economic impact of internet connectivity and support arguments for prioritizing internet access as a development issue

How to sustain internet governance schools beyond the initial years of operation

Speaker

Avri Doria

Explanation

The Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance is currently working on a document addressing this challenge, as many schools struggle with sustainability in years three and four after initial enthusiasm wanes

Development of governance models for interplanetary internet that include all stakeholders from the beginning

Speaker

Roberto Gaetano

Explanation

As interplanetary communication develops, there’s a need to establish inclusive governance structures early, rather than retrofitting governance as happened with the terrestrial internet

How to apply core Internet values to derive AI values

Speaker

Olivier Crepin-Leblond

Explanation

This emerged from a workshop discussion and represents an important area for developing ethical frameworks for AI based on established internet principles

How to better integrate Dynamic Coalition work into IGF themes and processes

Speaker

Wout de Natris

Explanation

There’s a need to move from being an ‘appendix on the side’ to having better integration and influence within the IGF structure to make their work more impactful

How to make Dynamic Coalition membership and participation processes more visible and accessible

Speaker

Avri Doria (responding to online question from Emmanuel Orok)

Explanation

Many people are interested in joining Dynamic Coalitions but find it difficult to understand how to engage, suggesting need for clearer pathways to participation

Research on addressing the digital divide for persons with disabilities who may be connected but unable to meaningfully use the internet

Speaker

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Explanation

This addresses the 1.5 billion people who may have internet access and devices but still cannot effectively use the internet due to accessibility barriers

How to move from polycentrism to multi-stakeholderism in internet governance

Speaker

Kjetil Kjernsmo (audience member)

Explanation

This challenges whether the current multi-stakeholder approach is the best model, suggesting that polycentric governance models used throughout history might be more appropriate

How to address the environmental impact and carbon footprint of the digital economy

Speaker

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Explanation

As the digital economy grows, there’s a need to understand and address its environmental consequences in the context of global warming

How to address job displacement and mental health impacts from digital transformation

Speaker

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Explanation

The potential loss of millions of jobs due to digital transformation could create significant mental health challenges that need to be addressed