From Principles to Practice: Operationalizing Multistakeholder Governance

Summary

This discussion focused on operationalizing multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance, particularly in preparation for the WSIS+20 review process. The session was co-hosted by Global Partners Digital and the Global Network Initiative, bringing together experts from various sectors to examine how multi-stakeholder principles have evolved since the original WSIS summits.

Carl Gahnberg from the Internet Society emphasized that multi-stakeholder governance should be viewed as a principle rather than a rigid model, noting that many successful projects already operate as multi-stakeholder collaborations without being formally labeled as such. He highlighted the functional value of inclusive processes, particularly in internet development projects like community networks that require collaboration across sectors. Jhalak Kakkar from India’s Centre for Communication Governance discussed how multi-stakeholder understanding varies across international and national contexts, emphasizing the importance of meaningful engagement rather than checkbox activities. She stressed the need for genuine consensus-building processes and highlighted challenges in ensuring Global South voices are heard in international negotiations.

Ian Sheldon from the Australian government provided a detailed case study of Australia’s structured multi-stakeholder consultation process for the WSIS review. This process included capacity-building workshops to educate stakeholders about government processes, transparent drafting sessions for policy documents, and ongoing collaboration with both domestic and international communities. Thobekile Matimbe from Paradigm Initiative shared insights from African contexts, noting the disconnect between government participation in global processes and local awareness, emphasizing the importance of transparency and trust-building.

The discussion concluded with recognition that while multi-stakeholder approaches require significant effort, they produce higher-quality policy outcomes and should be expanded beyond traditional internet governance issues to broader digital policy areas.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Evolution and operationalization of multi-stakeholder governance since WSIS**: The panel explored how multi-stakeholder approaches have developed from principles into practice over the past 20 years, emphasizing that multi-stakeholderism is a governance principle that can be implemented through various models rather than a single prescribed approach.

– **Functional versus normative value of multi-stakeholder processes**: Speakers emphasized that multi-stakeholder engagement provides instrumental benefits beyond just being the “right thing to do” – it produces better policy outcomes, reduces blind spots, and improves implementation success through broader buy-in and trust-building.

– **National-level implementation challenges and successes**: The discussion highlighted significant variations in how countries operationalize multi-stakeholder principles, with Australia’s structured WSIS review consultation process serving as a detailed case study of effective government-led multi-stakeholder engagement, including capacity building for participants.

– **Barriers to meaningful participation**: Key challenges identified included the tendency for multi-stakeholder processes to become “checkbox exercises,” limited financial resources for Global South participation in international processes, and the need for transparency, consensus-building, and inclusive representation beyond just having stakeholders “in the room.”

– **Future directions for embedding multi-stakeholder approaches**: The conversation explored how to better integrate these principles into broader digital governance issues beyond traditional internet governance, the importance of documenting and sharing successful models, and the need for continued capacity building and relationship-building between stakeholders.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine how multi-stakeholder principles established through WSIS and other processes are being translated into practical governance approaches at national, regional, and international levels. The session sought to identify what has worked well, ongoing challenges, and strategies for strengthening multi-stakeholder engagement in digital governance, particularly in preparation for the WSIS+20 review.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, characterized by genuine knowledge-sharing and mutual learning among participants. While speakers acknowledged significant challenges and shortcomings in current multi-stakeholder implementation, the overall atmosphere was optimistic and solution-oriented. The tone became particularly engaged when discussing concrete examples like Australia’s consultation process, with participants expressing enthusiasm about documenting and replicating successful models. The conversation reflected a community of practice dynamic, with speakers building on each other’s insights and expressing gratitude for the learning opportunities.

Speakers

– **Ellie McDonald** – Works for Global Partners Digital, a civil society organisation working to ensure that human rights underpin the development, use and governance of digital technologies

– **Carl Gahnberg** – Director of Policy Development and Research at the Internet Society

– **Ian Sheldon** – Director of the Internet Governance Section at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication, Sport and the Art, Government of Australia

– **Jhalak Kakkar** – Executive Director of the Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University in Delhi

– **Thobekile Matimbe** – Senior Manager for Partnerships and Engagement at Paradigm Initiative (an organization working across the African region promoting digital rights and digital inclusion)

– **Lea Kaspar** – Works with Global Partners Digital

**Additional speakers:**

– **Eleni Hickok** – Managing Director of the Global Network Initiative (mentioned as online moderator but did not speak in the transcript)

– **Jorge Cancios** – Government representative (mentioned as being with government, from Switzerland based on context)

# Multi-Stakeholder Approaches in Internet Governance: Operationalising Principles for the WSIS+20 Review

## Executive Summary

This discussion, co-hosted by Global Partners Digital and the Global Network Initiative as part of their project “Shaping the WSIS+20 Review for a Unified Internet Multi-Stakeholderism,” brought together experts from civil society, government, technical community, and academia to examine practical implementation of multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance. The session featured speakers from Australia, India, Africa, and Switzerland, providing diverse regional perspectives on translating multi-stakeholder principles into effective governance mechanisms.

The conversation focused on moving beyond theoretical discussions toward practical implementation strategies, with participants sharing concrete examples of successful multi-stakeholder processes and identifying key challenges that remain. The discussion revealed both significant progress in operationalising multi-stakeholder approaches and persistent barriers, particularly around financing meaningful participation and ensuring quality engagement beyond superficial consultation.

## Participants and Context

**Moderator:** Ellie McDonald, Global Partners Digital

**Speakers:**

– **Carl Gahnberg**, Internet Society – providing technical community perspective on multi-stakeholder principles and implementation

– **Jhalak Kakkar**, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University Delhi – offering insights on Global South participation and transparency requirements

– **Ian Sheldon**, Australian Government – sharing detailed case study of national-level multi-stakeholder consultation processes

– **Thobekile Matimbe**, Paradigm Initiative – presenting African regional perspectives and civil society experiences

The discussion was framed around preparation for the WSIS+20 review process, with participants examining how multi-stakeholder approaches can be more effectively implemented at national, regional, and international levels.

## Key Themes and Discussions

### Multi-Stakeholder Governance as Principle, Not Model

Carl Gahnberg opened with a fundamental reframing, emphasising that “when we talk about multi-stakeholder governance, we’re really talking about a principle of governance, about how we exercise governance… there could be very different models for implementing governance towards the same principle.” This perspective allowed for recognition that different institutions – ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force, and the Internet Governance Forum – can all operate according to multi-stakeholder principles while implementing them differently.

Gahnberg stressed that the core goal is “allowing for participation of the users, producers, developers of this digital system to be part of the governance of that system,” providing a clear framework for evaluating different approaches. This principle-based understanding proved valuable throughout the discussion as it enabled speakers to explore contextual variations without being constrained by rigid model requirements.

### Implementation Beyond Formal Meetings

A significant theme emerged around recognising that multi-stakeholder governance extends far beyond formal negotiations. Gahnberg highlighted that “the actual governance process is happening outside of this room, it’s happening after the event, it’s happening at the local, the regional levels.” He emphasised the importance of making existing multi-stakeholder work more visible, noting that many successful projects already exist but aren’t formally labelled as multi-stakeholder governance.

Gahnberg pointed to community networks as a prime example: “Community networks… you cannot do community networks without having a multi-stakeholder approach because you need to have the local community, you need to have the technical people, you need to have some government regulatory framework, you need to have some private sector involvement.” This practical example demonstrated how multi-stakeholder principles are already being successfully implemented in internet development work.

### Australian National-Level Case Study

Ian Sheldon provided a detailed case study of Australia’s comprehensive multi-stakeholder consultation process for the WSIS review, which generated significant interest from other participants. The Australian approach included several innovative elements:

**Transparent Process Design**: Australia established “a standing invitation to our multi-stakeholder community to be part of a working group” and implemented “quite a number of workshops to help educate our local community on the mindset of government. What do these multilateral negotiations look like? How do they work? What are the dynamics at play?”

**Collaborative Drafting**: The process involved “opening the doors to really show some of our internal processes, really help them get their heads around what kind of positioning the Australian government might want to take” and collaborative development of policy documents with stakeholder input.

**Functional Benefits**: Sheldon emphasised practical advantages: “the stronger the process the stronger the outcomes and the more implementable they are… the quality of policy output is immeasurably improved because of the process.” He described the work as “hard work but hugely rewarding” and noted that it helps “de-risk future positioning for governments.”

**Broader Applications**: Sheldon referenced Australia’s participation in ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee and the Internet Governance Forum as examples of how these approaches extend beyond single consultations to ongoing multi-stakeholder engagement.

### Global South Perspectives and Challenges

The discussion revealed significant regional variations in multi-stakeholder implementation, with speakers highlighting particular challenges in Global South contexts.

**African Regional Context**: Thobekile Matimbe shared experiences from Paradigm Initiative’s work across Africa, noting that “at African national level, there’s no prioritisation of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance.” However, she also highlighted positive developments, particularly around trust-building through transparency.

Matimbe provided a specific example from Zambia: “there was a disconnect between what government was doing at global level… and what was actually known at local level and there was no trust but once people began to have that openness and exchange of this is what we are doing there’s this process… everybody’s like why don’t you say so so it’s like let’s have a conversation.”

**Participation and Presence Challenges**: Jhalak Kakkar emphasised critical barriers to meaningful Global South participation: “if Global South leaders, thinkers, decision makers are not in the place physically, they are not being able to influence the final outcomes… if you don’t have them in the corridors of Geneva and New York, you’re not actually going to get the outcomes, which truly reflect the needs of those regions.”

**Financing Constraints**: Both Matimbe and Kakkar highlighted that meaningful participation requires adequate financing, particularly for Global South representation in international processes. This challenge has become more acute with reduced funding availability, creating barriers to the physical presence that Kakkar identified as crucial for actual influence.

### Quality of Engagement and Transparency

A critical theme throughout the discussion was distinguishing between meaningful engagement and superficial consultation processes. Jhalak Kakkar particularly emphasised this challenge, noting that “engagement with industry tends to be meaningful while engagement with other communities often becomes a checkbox activity.”

**Requirements for Meaningful Engagement**: Kakkar argued that “true multi-stakeholder models require consensus building and iterative feedback processes, not one-time consultations.” She identified specific transparency requirements including “publishing submissions, consultation summaries, and points of convergence/divergence.”

**Technology Solutions**: Kakkar suggested that “AI technologies can potentially support decision makers in enabling more transparency despite resource constraints,” offering a potential solution to capacity limitations that prevent adequate transparency in consultation processes.

**Inclusivity Considerations**: Speakers emphasised that inclusivity must ensure diversity of perspectives within stakeholder groups, including marginalised voices, moving beyond simple category representation toward genuine diversity of experiences.

## Questions and Discussion

The session included several important questions that highlighted key implementation challenges:

**Documentation and Replication**: Jorge Cancios asked whether Australia would consider “documenting and mapping their process against established guidelines” to enable replication by other governments. He shared a Swiss example of the EID law, where “stakeholders felt excluded from the process” and “the consequences were that the law was challenged through referendum and rejected by the people,” illustrating the risks of inadequate multi-stakeholder engagement.

**Delegation Composition**: Lea Kaspar asked about “including working group members in delegations” to international negotiations. Ian Sheldon responded that Australia is “considering mixed delegations” and noted the value of having multi-stakeholder input directly available during negotiations.

**Expanding Beyond Internet Governance**: Kaspar also raised questions about applying multi-stakeholder approaches “beyond internet governance to AI, cybersecurity, and other digital policy areas.” Sheldon confirmed that the Australian model “is applicable to other policy areas” and represents broader collaborative approaches to policy development.

## Ongoing Challenges and Opportunities

Despite the productive discussion, several significant challenges remain:

**Financing Meaningful Participation**: The question of securing adequate financing for Global South participation in international processes remains critical, especially given the importance of physical presence in key negotiation spaces.

**Scaling Implementation**: While successful examples exist, scaling multi-stakeholder approaches across different regions and contexts requires continued capacity building and adaptation to local circumstances.

**Moving Beyond Consultation**: Ensuring that multi-stakeholder engagement extends beyond formal consultation to meaningful participation in implementation and ongoing governance remains challenging.

**Documentation and Learning**: The need for better documentation of successful processes to enable learning and replication across different contexts was highlighted throughout the discussion.

## Conclusion

This discussion demonstrated significant maturation in thinking about multi-stakeholder governance, moving from theoretical advocacy toward practical implementation strategies. The strong consensus on fundamental principles, combined with diverse regional experiences, provides a solid foundation for continued development of multi-stakeholder approaches.

The Australian case study offered a concrete model of effective national-level implementation, while insights from Global South contexts highlighted both challenges and opportunities for broader adoption. The emphasis on functional benefits – improved policy quality, risk mitigation, and implementation success – provides compelling arguments for expanding multi-stakeholder approaches beyond traditional internet governance issues.

As the global community prepares for the WSIS+20 review, this discussion provides valuable insights into how multi-stakeholder principles can be more effectively operationalised. The commitment by participants to continue sharing experiences and documenting successful models suggests ongoing collaborative efforts to strengthen multi-stakeholder governance for addressing digital policy challenges.

The conversation reinforced that while multi-stakeholder approaches require significant effort and resources, they produce higher-quality policy outcomes and should be expanded to address the full range of digital governance challenges facing the global community.

Ellie McDonald: Thank you for joining our session from Principles to Practices of Regionalisation. My name is Ellie McDonald and I work for Global Partners Digital. We’re a civil society organisation working to ensure that human rights underpin the development, use and governance of digital technologies. We’re co-hosting this session with the Global Network Initiative or GNI, the leading forum for accountability, shared learning, engagement and collective advocacy on government and company policies and practices at the intersection of technology and human rights. So why did we want to have this discussion today? As many of you will know, the original WSIS summits and the Working Group on Internet Governance, which evolved from them, provided a blueprint for multi-stakeholder engagement, consolidating a working definition of multi-stakeholder internet governance and a decentralised approach to the implementation of the action lines, supported by multi-stakeholder collaboration. Since then, the IGF and a range of other technical bodies and processes have continued to practice different models of multi-stakeholder governance. More recently, the NetMundial outcome document effectively captured how multi-stakeholder principles should be integrated across national, regional, multilateral and multi-stakeholder processes, and specifically how broader stakeholder input can enhance multilateral processes. So, to contribute to realising the aim of meaningful multi-stakeholder inclusion in the context of the WSIS review, GNI and GPD are running a project shaping the WSIS plus 20 review for a unified internet multi-stakeholderism, supported by the inaugural ICAN grant programme. This aims to uphold and strengthen a rights-respecting and multi-stakeholder model of internet governance as a foundation for the internet’s global, open and interoperable nature. So, with that scene setting out the way, our workshop today hopes to build on that context. We’d like to discuss how multi-stakeholder approaches are being operationalised in different settings and at different levels. Our aim is to stimulate discussion of what has worked, what challenges remain and what we should do next. So, we’re quite an intimate group, so I hope we should be able to achieve that even in the relatively short time that we have. So, we have an expert panel of speakers joining us. I’ll be relatively brief in my intros. So, starting from my left, I have Carl Ganberg, the Director of Policy Development and Research at the Internet Society. Closest to me on the left, Ian Sheldon, the Director of the Internet Governance Section at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication, Sport and the Art. That is a long one, Ian, of the Government of Australia. And then to my right, I have Jalat Kakar, the Executive Director of the Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University in Delhi. And then on my far right, Tobekele Matimbe, the Senior Manager for Partnerships and Engagement at Paradigm Initiative. And last but not least, Eleni Hickok, Managing Director of the Global Network Initiative over there is our online moderator. So, in terms of the structure, I’ll start with an initial round of questions to the speakers, but would encourage you to let me know if you’d like to react or respond to anything you’re hearing from the other panellists. And after that, we’ll open the floor for questions. I think with a quick round of questions, we should have time for a good Q&A portion. So, without further ado, I’d like to begin with a question for Karl. So, Karl, from your perspective at the Internet Society, how has the multi-stakeholder approach been operationalised in practice since the original WSIS summits? Perhaps you could focus on some examples of success as well as challenges.

Carl Gahnberg: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the introduction and thank you very much for the invitation to join this panel. I wanted to start kind of before getting into the examples to give a little bit of background context that I think plays to the title of this session, which I really like the title of this session because it points out something that I think is really important to keep in mind, that when we talk about multi-stakeholder governance, we’re really talking about a principle of governance, about how we exercise governance. So, sometimes there’s a tendency to kind of get stuck in discussions of, like, what does one model look like versus another model? And I think it’s important to acknowledge that there could be very different models for implementing governance towards the same principle. So, for instance, an institution like the ICANN or the ITF or the Internet Governance Forum or even the WSIS Forum, they might all sort of operate according to a multi-stakeholder principle of governance, but they might implement that principle in a different way and operate in different manners. So, I think that’s just good to keep in mind that what we’re really talking about is a principle around fundamentally allowing for participation of the users, producers, developers of this digital system to be part of the governance of that system. And if that’s the principle, we’re trying to figure out how do we make that happen in practice, so to speak. The second point that I wanted to raise is that, and this also goes a little bit to the fora that we’re in now, I think there’s a tendency that when we’re in fora like this, we tend to think about this being the end all of multi-stakeholder processes, that people have a seat at the table, people are here discussing and so forth. But that’s kind of a very small component of the actual governance process. The actual governance process is happening outside of this room, it’s happening after the event, it’s happening at the local, the regional levels. So, when we’re kind of pushing this message of the importance of multi-stakeholder governance and multi-stakeholder collaboration in WSIS, it’s not only to have a seat at the table at negotiations and discussions such as this one, but it’s really about enabling multiple stakeholders to be part of the implementation process as well. And I think that sometimes gets lost in these discussions. And that’s not only for a normative ideal of having everyone at the table and everyone should be sort of participating in all of that thing, it’s really for a functional perspective as well, an instrumental role of having all the stakeholders involved, because it tends to produce better outcomes if you do that. And when you think about it that way, if you think about multi-stakeholder process, not only as the kind of agenda setting events like the ones that we have today, but really about how it’s practiced out in the real world, so to speak, there’s quite a few examples of multi-stakeholder governance and multi-stakeholder collaborations that don’t necessarily get branded as such. It’s almost like a categorization error that we don’t label it, but they do happen quite frequently. And I would actually argue that the vast majority of the work that we do at the Internet Society, especially in the area of internet development, where we deploy internet exchange points or connect the unconnected, etc., the vast majority of those projects, if not all of them, are de facto multi-stakeholder projects, multi-stakeholder collaborations, and they wouldn’t work if they weren’t. So to give you a very concrete example, the work that we’re doing around community networks, which is this really cool connectivity model that I recommend everyone to learn about, which goes to effectively enabling local communities to build their own networks to then connect to the broader internet. Those community networks are typically a multi-stakeholder collaboration. They tend to be put on the agenda by civil society participants that recognize the gaps in connectivity in a country. They tend to collaborate with governments to ensure that licensing and other sort of regulatory issues are moved out of the way or conducive to deploying such networks. It’s a matter of connecting those stakeholders with private entities that might be providing the backhaul for those networks, etc. And our organization, coming from the technical community, is often involved in capacity building towards those ends, etc. So those types of projects are quite frequent, but we don’t tend to label them as multi-stakeholder collaborations. They just end up being such. So I think that’s important to recognize that they do happen and that they are practiced. And that also goes for, in many cases, countries that might not formally endorse or champion the multi-stakeholder model. We do have a lot of multi-stakeholder processes happening even in those countries. So a big part of the message around multi-stakeholder governance that we try to promote is to make it visible where we can, because that’s one of the important ideas behind ensuring that it’s included in statements around WSIS, around negotiations in the UN, etc., is to make sure that they are made visible also for those governments that might not sort of formally… embrace it today, but to recognize that it’s actually instrumentally very valuable when you’re getting to the practical implementation of digital governance. The final thing that I wanted to mention is that I started off by saying that, you know, there are different ways of how we can implement this principle of multi-stakeholder governance, and I think we’ll get to some of that today. So, how do you move it over to practice? And I think, and we’ll get to that, I’m sure, there has been some really important events of last year, not least with the NetMundial plus 10 event that tried to codify, if you will, guidelines or best practices around how do you actually conduct multi-stakeholder process? How do you sort of live the principle, if you will? And that, again, is not to, you know, saying that there’s only one blueprint that is going to work everywhere and for everyone, but rather a set of guidelines that helps you sort of question, are we actually operating in accordance with this ideal of inclusiveness and participation from all stakeholders? So, looking forward to these discussions here, but I wanted to highlight that I think we should also look at processes that we don’t necessarily call multi-stakeholder process, but are de facto operating according to this vision.

Ellie McDonald: Thanks a lot, Carl. Yeah, really found that emphasis at the end useful, as well as the point and emphasis you put on the functional, not just the normative value. I find that really useful. I’d like to turn next to Jalak. I think Carl’s given us a really helpful, broad and global view. I know you have experience both at the global level, but also in national context. So, my question for you was perhaps reflecting what you’ve heard from Carl. How has the understanding of multi-stakeholder approach evolved over time? And particularly, what kind of differences do you see in how this concept is actualized on an international versus a national level?

Jhalak Kakkar: Multi-stakeholderism in various contexts, whether it’s internationally, domestically, across various domestic jurisdictions, we see a lot of variation, which is contextual to cultural norms, but also shifting socio-political realities. You know, I was talking to a colleague from the EU, and they were talking about how across the EU, they’ve seen a dip in the level of engagement with civil society on various processes. So, I mean, where in the past, sort of in many instances, legislation and policy coming out of there was held to a certain standard of having gone through multi-stakeholder processes. So, I think there, you know, at any given moment in time, there’s an ebb and flow that we constantly see. Of course, there is an ideal of multi-stakeholderism, which is grounded on principles, which all of us in the room know, things like openness, transparency, inclusiveness, the need for consensus building. I think when we talk about openness and transparency, that’s really the process and the foundation of it, which is that you want to ensure that it’s not a checkbox activity, that it’s actually meaningful, because very often in various country contexts, we see that this interaction with, and when we talk about multi-stakeholderism, who are the stakeholders, right? We’re talking about civil society academia, researchers, we’re talking about the technical community, we’re talking about local communities in various instances, but we’re talking about industry as well. And very often, interactions with industry tend to be meaningful, but with a lot of the other communities, it tends to be a checkbox activity. And then the question is, how do we design many of these processes to ensure that they’re actually meaningful engagement? There is sometimes a resistance in certain country contexts because they feel that engaging too deeply in these conversations opens them up to criticism. But I think one sort of approach and tactic that we have increasingly found useful, which goes back to the point made earlier, is to highlight the relevance and value of this engagement, that it’s useful and impactful in operationalizing and the broader objectives that a particular policy or legislation is seeking to live up to. So I think emphasizing on the usefulness, the functionality, is perhaps a hook that we, across the multi-stakeholder community, need to leverage and emphasize to decision makers to make them feel more comfortable around the value of continuing to engage with us. I think in terms of transparency, it’s sometimes challenging because I think it depends on regulatory capacity as well as financial capacity of various regulators and institutions, because a lot of transparency, there’s a certain basic level of transparency you always, of course, want. But many, you know, we, you know, as civil society, we asked, okay, as our academia, we ask, as a very minimum, we want all submissions that go to a government during a public call be published and put online, right? But what we also want is summaries of consultations that are held, points of convergence and divergence. And sometimes some of those things start to become a little more challenging. It can seem like a very small thing, but in a regulator or a government institution that is relatively low-resourced and managing many things, sometimes these kind of things, while the wish may be there, in practice, it becomes difficult to implement. But with increasing availability of AI technologies, I think we can think about how these can be strategically used to supplement and complement and provide, you know, support to decision makers to enable more transparency. I think there’s a question about consensus building, and I think there is where the multi-stakeholder model, sort of the value of it, where it moves beyond checkboxes, where you actually ensure that there is that consensus building happening. Because very often what we’re seeing is, increasingly, that a lot of sort of closed-door meetings between governments and industries, especially in the digital technology space, happening where civil society is not in the room. Fine, we may not always need to be in the room. There may be instances where it makes sense for them to talk one-on-one. But I think it is very often just a space which is created for civil society to share their views. But there is no consensus building that happens. There is no dialogue that happens both ways. It’s a one-time, one-and-done system, rather than a sort of an iterative process of feedback, which, you know, flows into the final decision making. So I think there is a need to really think through mechanisms that enable such consensus building to really, truly operationalize the multi-stakeholder model, many of which are articulated in things like the Sao Paulo Guidelines, the NetMundia, all things that have been mentioned before. But sort of highlighting these practices and systems to governments, regulators, ministries, that actually operationalizing these things on the ground is important, and to sort of highlight to them in a particular instances what are particular steps and actions they can take. Because very often, even if the intention is there, they don’t quite know how to operationalize and facilitate truly multi-stakeholder models. And we see that even within, you know, many UN agencies which have the intentionality but don’t always know how to operationalize it in practice. And the last thing I want to end with is inclusivity, right? And, you know, it’s at the domestic level, what I want to talk about is we need to be mindful of ensuring that there are diversity of perspectives, even within civil society, academia. There’s a whole spectrum of perspectives on the table, and we need to ensure, and governments and regulators need to ensure that they’re not only engaging with those who resonate with ideas of the government, but those who may have a different or critical stance. As well as, you know, engaging with marginalized groups or groups that don’t traditionally have an opportunity to come to the table. And I think at the international level, there’s an increasing recognition, I would say, in the last several years of the need for global voice, South voices to be spotlighted and heard. And it’s interesting that it comes at a moment when there is less funding available than ever before, perhaps, to actually facilitate these voices coming to the table. Of course, hybrid mechanisms are wonderful, but all of us know that the real negotiations and the real decision making doesn’t happen in a And then we have the panel. So in the process of making these conversations, as I said, it actually happens in conversations like this. It happens in the corridors. It happens in those little meeting rooms where if Global South leaders, thinkers, decision makers are not in the place physically, they are not being able to influence the final outcomes, right? So this is a starting point. But this is really not the process that actually finally influences and dictates the outcome in those international processes. So I want us to recognize that, that there is value, of course, in ensuring that, you know, you have voices from different parts of the world, you know, from different stakeholder groups sitting at the table, at public forums. But if you don’t have them in the corridors of Geneva and New York, you’re not actually going to get the outcomes, which truly reflect the needs of those regions, because they are not in the rooms where those decisions and negotiations and those strategy meetings are happening to really influence and shape what the digital world looks like and whether it reflects the realities of the regions they come from. I’ll stop there. Thanks so much. Yeah, I really appreciate your articulation of how the digital world is changing, and I think it’s a really important part of the conversation. I think it’s a really important part of what we’re doing in the region.

Ellie McDonald: It’s a really important part of what we’re doing in the region. And I think it’s a really important part of what we’re doing in the region. I think it’s a really important part of what we’re doing in the region. And I really appreciate your kind of how each of those principles, the kind of sticky point, but the kind of functional value that each of them have on the outcome. I’m really pleased that Ian, you’re speaking next because your government has direct very recent experience of managing a really structured process for input into the WSIS review process. So I wonder if you could reflect a little bit on that, maybe share that experience of how you’re taking the approach, and I’m thinking, you know, it’s not a one-size-fits-all. And I’m wondering if you could share that experience with us. Also, looking forward, yeah, based on having undertaken that structured multi-stakeholder engagement process, how do you think stakeholders could be more effectively integrated into this WSIS review?

Ian Sheldon: Thank you. My name is Ian Sheldon. I’m the director of the intergovernance team in the Australian government. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this panel. So Australia, as you know, is one of the most diverse countries in the world. So we have a lot of different stakeholders. We have a lot of different stakeholders. And we’re really excited to be here to talk about this panel. So Australia has had a long history of multi-stakeholder processes in our policy development, in the legislative work we do, in the regulatory work we do. A lot of it’s multi-stakeholder consultation. And we were very keen to be as transparent, open, and thorough as possible in our preparation processes for the WSIS review. We’re quite fortunate in Australia. We do have a small but highly engaged community who were following the WSIS review process. So we were very keen to be as transparent, open, and thorough as possible in our preparation processes for the WSIS review process. We do have a small but highly engaged community who were following these issues, who come from a broad suite of the technical community, civil society, academia, other parts of our government system, as well as a strong youth cohort, who are all already following a lot of these things. So we started our process reasonably early, with a couple of principles that underpinned our work. We wanted to make sure that we had a strong youth cohort who were already following a lot of these things. So we started our process reasonably early, with a couple of principles that underpinned our work. We wanted to make sure that the preparatory process was as open as possible. So there was a standing invitation for anybody from our community to join a multistakeholder working group, to take part in the preparatory process, to get briefings from us, as well as share what information they may be hearing from their communities about how the WSIS process is unfolding and what they might have been hearing. So we started our process reasonably early, with a couple of principles that underpinned our work. We wanted to make sure that we had a strong youth cohort who were already following a lot of these things. We wanted to make sure that there was transparency baked in. We know that a lot of this process can be quite murky. Governments don’t particularly do a great job of explaining some of our thought processes, some of the systems that we need to work in, how we structure a lot of our work. So we ran quite a number of workshops to help educate our local community on the mindset of government. What do these multilateral negotiations look like? How do they work together? How do they work together? What do these multilateral negotiations look like? What are the dynamics at play? What does a negotiating mandate look like? A lot of these things were foreign to our community, even though they’ve been following processes like WSIS for a while, opening the doors to really show some of our internal processes, really help them get their heads around what kind of positioning the Australian government might want to take through this work. I think that was a really kind of key piece of what we were trying to do. I think that was a key piece of what we were trying to do. That was a really kind of key turning point, and it really supercharged a lot of our community’s engagement and thought process in helping us structure our thinking. A lot of this culminated in the drafting of our non-paper. So the non-paper is a really good articulation of both the Australian government’s creative kind of forward-leaning thinking, as well as a lot of the ideas that our local community brought to us as well. So that was a key turning point. So that was a key turning point. So that was a key turning point. So it was really important that this document was as multi-stakeholder driven as possible. There was quite a number of drafting sessions. We shared early drafts with our community for their feedback. We had a lot of very frank discussions about what works, what doesn’t. And then we continued to have those discussions, both domestically as well as regionally and in the community. As well as regionally and globally as well. So for us, our multi-stakeholder community is both local and domestic, but we also drew very heavily on our regional and global communities as well. Particularly in a lot of spaces where they may not have those mechanisms in their own countries to provide their thoughts and thinking. And we’re very, very happy to leverage as much of this expertise and knowledge that they were very freely happy to share with us. So I think for us, we will continue to openly collaborate. Our negotiating mandate is still being worked through. A lot of our thinking, a lot of our positioning that will be taken through into the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations are being revised as we speak. Taking in feedback from this community, taking in feedback from our local community and really trying to help shape Australia’s direction to be as robust as possible. I have to say, it was hugely rewarding, but it was a lot of hard work. And I think it very much has paid off. If you haven’t seen the document, please come see me. I’m very happy to share a copy with you and very happy to hear if you get any other thoughts on how to improve some of our positioning for this. So I guess looking forward, and I think it’s hard going third because I think a lot of the comments I was going to make have already been made. Things like the NetMundial multi-stakeholder principles are fantastic starting points. I think there’s a real opportunity here for governments looking at both the review and the implementation of the WSIS review to try and look at opportunities to bring multi-stakeholders into their processes themselves. Sometimes it’s not always feasible. Sometimes there are governments with structures which may be incompatible to community-driven policymaking, but there are lots of opportunities for governments to themselves be part of that multi-stakeholder community to bring their views, their perspectives, and help influence some of those other broader policy discussions as well. The GAC at ICANN is a fantastic example of some of those processes in play. The IGF in Oslo, again, where everybody can come together on equal footing, are really good examples of reasonably accessible mechanisms for governments to take part and learn about the value of multi-stakeholders and see the conversations that can be had, how it can improve functional policymaking and broaden some of those horizons. I think going forward it’s important to find those forums and those bridging mechanisms for government to come to share their views, perspectives, and experience, as well as have that constructive two-way dialogue because I think it’s often hard for some governments to find those sensible points. Certainly, even if ICANN or ITF are too difficult, there are courses that ISOC run to help policymakers get their heads around this fantastic digital world, what might be on offer, and help make some of those personal connections, which I think makes multi-stakeholder participation a lot easier. I think there’s certainly a lot on offer and a lot of the successes and mechanisms in place over the last 20 years are going to be a lot of the same ones that I think will take us forward for the next 20. I might leave it there and we can come back to this later. Thank you.

Ellie McDonald: Thank you so much. I’ll just pick out one element. I find that you did capacity building with the stakeholders at the start, a really cool element. Maybe we could hear a bit more about that later. I’m going to turn to Thobekile now and perhaps Thobekile you could continue on this kind of forward-looking theme and I wonder it’d be lovely to hear from you and I think all of our speakers have already picked up on how multi stakeholder principles can be better embedded so maybe and carrying on with that trend and looking forward to the WSIS review and other digital governance processes and what do you think is important?

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you so much Ellie, I’ll repeat that I’m Thobekile Matimbe and I work for Paradigm Initiative which is an organization working across the African region promoting digital rights and digital inclusion. I think picking up from I think where Ian left I was just listening to Ian I was like wow this would be super cool where I come from because what we’re seeing I think at national level is that there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and it becomes so such a complex idea for some governments at this level to be able to grasp what we’re discussing because 20 years later we’re still you know trying to you know emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholderism and thankfully because of the NetMundial you know guidelines that are coming out of this it’s quite clear that it’s important what are the benefits they are immense when looking at transparency on policy processes transparency on even you know where government governments are participating in global processes around internet governance it’s very important for trust building and we did a research as Paradigm Initiative a project that we’re working in collaboration with the Global Network Initiative and GPD and we were doing consultations at country level and we particularly focus on Zambia and at that country level what we’re trying to do we brought different stakeholders in one room including the government’s technical community we had civil society organizations in the room and the media as well and you know there was a disconnect between what government was doing at global level it was clear in that meeting it was an open conversation and what was actually known at local level and there was no trust but once people began to have that openness and exchange of this is what we are doing there’s this process there was this process and this is what we’ve been trying to do over the years towards meeting the action lines and then everybody’s like why don’t you say so so it’s like let’s have a conversation so I think multi-stakeholderism is it’s it’s something that is supposed to come on board and build trust foster you know you know buy-in from communities especially when we’re looking at any information it’s a society that is people-centric it’s very important that becomes something that is supported and promoted so that specific engagement I think was just you know a sneak peek into what else is happening other countries at least on the African continent around transparency of you know these processes and engagement and it’s important to actually you know build the capacity as well of communities and on these issues because some of the things that we’re talking about in that engagement trust me people were not aware of what it was the media was also saying look we also left behind we’re not involved and it’s good that you know the government has been at least in Zambia been engaging a lot with the private sector a lot of public private partnerships ongoing but civil society not included in that whole process so inclusion I think it’s something that is very important in the conversation of multi-stakeholderism and not just inclusion in the sense of having you know certain groups of people in a room but actually enabling that there’s meaningful participation and I think that has been elaborated enough in the Sao Paulo guidelines the importance of ensuring that these you know access and also meaningful participation and I know that there was also one of the panelists talked about the importance of ensuring access and I think financing is something finances a very important subject matter to this whole conversation to have meaningful representation and participation of global South actors I think it’s important to talk about the issue of adequate resourcing for that to happen and access is something that is very critical and important I would add and I think one of the key takeaways I think from our specific engagement in Zambia was that it was important for government to be you know more out there reaching out and you know communicating whatever is happening and even consulting even when they do submit you know recommendations at global level those should have been ideally informed by consultations at local level you know where inputs are gathered from diverse stakeholders and yeah this is why I say I was really like saying wow you know when Ian was speaking about what what initiatives that they’ve been running out as well so I think there’s something that can be lent there and obviously in terms of engagement what is having stakeholders in the room what are the immense benefits and I think for me my focus basically was on the importance of you know articulating the importance of transparency at least in the processes in those global processes they would be better shaped with you know the voices of everyone being included.

Ellie McDonald: Thank you so much Ms. Thobekile Matimbe, I think that was really useful to set us up with a few different national and global contexts too for the discussion that will follow and so I think we should have time for some questions but before we open the floor perhaps would any of the panelists like to react to anything that they’ve heard briefly?

Carl Gahnberg: It’s very briefly and I think someone mentioned it but it’s really impressive to hear about the Australian government kind of educating about the process I think that’s something that is sometimes overlooked that we can talk about all we want about participation and ensuring people are included etc but having awareness about how the process is working go a really long way to to ensuring that that can work in practice so I thought that was really interesting to hear.

Ellie McDonald: Yeah, agreed. Elena, do we have any online questions? Great, well done Australia. So participants in the room, maybe we can take a few together, yeah. Jorge, go ahead. I’m sorry but I’m Jorge Cancios with government but this is a very exciting topic and I was very interested, well I found it great how you did things in Australia and I was wondering whether you did some documenting of the process that can be shareable and whether even if you made some mapping of that process with the self-governing multistakeholder guidelines which would be exceedingly great because yeah it’s important to really show how things can be done and we are trying to do that for the Swiss IGF to do some mapping of that and yeah there would be many things to cover but just one thought as a selling point to governments which is the stronger the process the stronger the outcomes and the more implementable they are. So in my country in Switzerland it’s a bit embedded in many processes because we have, if you look at process step 10 of the Sao Paulo multistakeholder guidelines, in Switzerland you have the community powers which is the people can struck down any law if they are not agreeing, if they were not consulted, if they were not included. Obviously it’s not perfect, it’s not everything can be improved and we had a very nice example like four or five years ago we had a EID law being produced in Switzerland with all the consultations, with everything that is in built for 20, 30, 40 years in in the Swiss legislative process but it wasn’t really inclusive in the sense of really incorporating all the interested stakeholders into the process itself so they felt excluded. They garnered 50,000 signatures and in the referendum the the option, the EID option was struck down and now they learned, our friends, our colleagues from the Ministry of Justice, that they had to really include stakeholders in a much more proactive fashion and now they have worked out a different law, a different approach and finally we have again a referendum because other people, because of different reasons, are against that approach which is a more public interest approach and we will have a vote at the end of this year so we will see if this time we got it right. Really interesting. Yeah, would you like to come in?

Ian Sheldon: I mean I think the idea of mapping the process is absolutely a fantastic one. Maybe when we get a bit of breathing room between forums, and we’re back in Australia, we’ll sit down and map out some of this. We had a concept of how we thought it should work going into it, and we tried to map some of that stuff early on, but doing a bit of analysis after we’ve tested some of the products I think is going to be useful, and very happy to compare notes. Just to pick up on your second point, multistakeholderism for us, there are a lot of virtues in inclusivity and making sure we have a breadth of perspectives, but it’s also one of necessity in de-risking. Coming back to more traditional policy-making processes, it’s making sure we didn’t have blind spots, it was de-risking future positioning, and like you said, making sure that the outcome and the output is as robust as possible. For us, we hear about the virtues of multistakeholderism, but really the value is in the product, and we really saw the quality of the product improve when we broadened out our consultation, our engagement, and so I don’t think we stress that point enough when we talk about governments making use of multistakeholder processes, because they are hard work, but the quality of policy output is immeasurably improved because of the process, and I think that’s one that sometimes gets lost in the wash when we talk about this approach. Thanks.

Ellie McDonald: Thanks a lot, Ian. Yeah, I was about to ask if we have questions, so maybe we’ll take Lea’s question, and then maybe the panellists can also wrap in your conclusive remarks too, but Lea, go ahead.

Lea Kaspar: Thank you, Ellie, and thanks, everyone. My name is Lea Kasper, I’m with Global Partners Digital. My question is going to be to you, Ian, as you’re a very rare breed in actually giving us a practical case study for operationalising something we’ve been talking about in theory for many, many years, which is why I think a lot of us are looking at you and really wanting to capture how you’ve been approaching this. As a long-standing member of the UK equivalent of what you’ve been trying to do, so the UK government has a multistakeholder internet governance group that’s a standing body, which also is convened to inform UK positions on internet governance, and goes all the way up to including UK non-governmental stakeholders into their delegations at ITU conferences and elsewhere. So besides the point that it would be really great to do a comparative study on how different governments have been operationalising this when it comes to multilateral processes, because I think that’s what we’re talking about now. As someone said at the beginning, maybe the rep from ISOC, it’s really going to depend, the operationalisation will depend on where you are at the national level, depending on which issue you’re dealing with. But if we’re talking about multilateral processes, and WSIS Review being an example of that, now hopefully it goes well. I have two small questions. One is, have you already considered including members of this working group that you’ve convened to become members of your delegation as we go into WSIS negotiations? So that’s one question. And then the other one is, what are your thoughts on expanding, I want to say, the model beyond internet governance issues, although I would say that all of these issues are internet governance issues, but internet-related public policy issues such as artificial intelligence, such as cybersecurity. If you have any thoughts on how we convince governments to go beyond just, say, WSIS Review and think more broadly about applying the model.

Ellie McDonald: Thank you.

Ian Sheldon: So to the first question, yes, absolutely. It’s something that we’re considering, and I think we’re very much waiting to see what the schedule looks like from here on, and then we can start to make more concrete plans about how we operationalise a mixed delegation. To your second point, I think, yes. So frankly speaking, internally within our system, we strongly champion this model. It’s a good way to approach policymaking. There are quite a lot of other complexities that we need to balance through this process. And also, I guess in other parts of the Australian government system, it’s one that’s been deployed on non-digital issues as well. Before I came to this file, I worked in employment policy, and we used, before I learned about multi-stakeholderism and the internet’s history, we were using a very similar approach to design employment policy using kind of a mixed cohort of a taskforce to go work through these challenges. So I think I bring that up to say that the model we’re talking about here isn’t particularly unique, and I think there’s work to be done to find those common touchpoints with other policy processes that already exist in other parts of government, and try to use language that may be similar or align those processes to show that what we’re talking about here and the successes we’ve had here aren’t necessarily completely foreign to other challenges as well. So I think it’s, in theory, a lot easier to import this model to other digital challenges, but it’s something that we’re certainly turning our minds to domestically.

Ellie McDonald: Thanks. Thanks, Ian. I know we should wrap up, but I want to bring in the other panellists. I wonder if there’s anything you’d like to reflect on from what you’ve heard. But I also think that question of the kind of broader internet-related public policies and embedding these approaches there is a really interesting one. So if you’d like to reflect on that or just anything else you’ve heard, and I can save us some time. I won’t do closing remarks. So, yeah.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you so much, Ellie. I think my last reflections will just be that enabling and also strengthening, I mean, stakeholder models is very important. It’s important for fostering trust, and it’s also important for buy-in and support for implementation of whatever outcomes, from global processes all the way to national level.

Jhalak Kakkar: Yeah, I want to say I’m thankful for this community, because every time we sit down and talk about these things, I always learn so much, which is useful to take back into our own domestic context and sort of try to operationalise and seed, so that in future, we have a more robust mechanism feeding into these processes.

Carl Gahnberg: Yeah, thank you very much. I think just kind of concluding remarks, I would say kind of two messages that I want to leave the room with. The first one is really to consider multi-stakeholder process, sort of the value of it really beyond just the agenda setting and also to the implementation. I think that’s really, really important and sometimes get a little bit lost. And the second part is that there is a value of this information exchange that we’re doing now. We learned about the Australian case, for instance, about some practices there. And I think it’s, in a way, it’s kind of to be, I don’t know, have a positive outlook to these efforts and have a little bit of leeway when they’re trying to be implemented. And I think the NetMundial principles are quite, or guidelines are quite helpful in that they’re kind of helping you do better. And the model that worked in Australia for this consultation, I think that can inspire other countries to do something similar. It doesn’t have to be identical, but it might further improve it or try to do something similar. So to kind of have a glass half full type of approach and recognize that I think many actors are trying to do the right thing. It’s not always easy to put multi-stakeholder into practice. The guidelines are helpful for that. But to recognize that it’s kind of a principle that we’re striving for. We might never sort of reach perfection, but getting there is part of the implementation.

Ellie McDonald: Truly thanks to the panelists. I think we’ve had this conversation a lot this week, so it can sometimes feel tedious, but I think you’ve really brought some fresh and new ideas. And I think chronicling how this all goes and hearing more about all of these cases when we do have a breath of fresh air will be really useful. And we hope also that GNI GPD project, which is fostering some national level consultations that Ms. Thobekile Matimbe mentioned, the one in Zambia. We hope we can also share some of the results from that. So thank you, everyone. Wishing you a good rest of your day. Thank you. Recording stopped. Thank you for tuning in.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder governance as a principle rather than a rigid model

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Ian Sheldon

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance is fundamentally a principle of governance about how we exercise governance, not just one specific model

Different institutions like ICANN, ITF, IGF can all operate according to multi-stakeholder principles but implement them differently

The model can be expanded by finding common touchpoints with existing policy processes in other government areas

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that multi-stakeholder governance should be understood as a flexible principle that can be implemented in various ways across different institutions and contexts, rather than a one-size-fits-all model.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Importance of capacity building and education in multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Ian Sheldon
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Government education about multi-stakeholder processes and their value is essential for broader adoption

The Australian process included capacity building to help stakeholders understand government processes and multilateral negotiations

Multi-stakeholder approaches foster trust building and buy-in for implementation of outcomes

Summary

All three speakers agree that educating stakeholders about processes and building their capacity to participate meaningfully is crucial for successful multi-stakeholder governance implementation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Multi-stakeholder processes extend beyond agenda-setting to implementation

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance extends beyond agenda-setting events to real-world implementation at local and regional levels

Multi-stakeholder approaches foster trust building and buy-in for implementation of outcomes

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that multi-stakeholder engagement is not just about having seats at negotiation tables but about ensuring stakeholder involvement in actual implementation of policies and outcomes.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Transparency as a fundamental requirement for meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Ian Sheldon
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Transparency requires publishing submissions, consultation summaries, and points of convergence/divergence

Australia implemented a structured multi-stakeholder process for WSIS review with transparency, education, and open participation

There’s often a disconnect between what governments do at global level and what’s known at local level, creating trust issues

Summary

All three speakers agree that transparency in processes, including publishing submissions and maintaining open communication, is essential for building trust and enabling meaningful participation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from Global South contexts highlight the challenge of superficial engagement with civil society and other non-industry stakeholders, contrasting meaningful industry engagement with checkbox exercises for other communities.

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Engagement with industry tends to be meaningful while engagement with other communities often becomes a checkbox activity

At African national level, there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of adequate funding and physical presence for Global South stakeholders to have real influence in international processes, not just token participation.

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Physical presence in negotiation spaces like Geneva and New York is crucial for actual influence on outcomes

Meaningful participation requires adequate resourcing and financing, especially for Global South representation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers represent developed country approaches that have institutionalized multi-stakeholder engagement through formal structures and processes, including stakeholder participation in official delegations.

Speakers

– Ian Sheldon
– Lea Kaspar

Arguments

Australia implemented a structured multi-stakeholder process for WSIS review with transparency, education, and open participation

UK government has established a standing multistakeholder internet governance group that informs UK positions and includes non-governmental stakeholders in delegations

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Multi-stakeholder processes already exist but are not labeled as such

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Ian Sheldon

Arguments

Many successful multi-stakeholder projects exist but aren’t labeled as such, particularly in internet development work like community networks

The model can be expanded by finding common touchpoints with existing policy processes in other government areas

Explanation

Both speakers recognize that multi-stakeholder approaches are already being used in various contexts (community networks, employment policy) without being formally labeled as such. This suggests the model is more widely applicable and already practiced than commonly recognized.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Functional value of multi-stakeholder processes for policy quality

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Ian Sheldon
– Jhalak Kakkar

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes should focus on enabling participation of users, producers, and developers in the governance of digital systems

Multi-stakeholder processes improve policy quality and help de-risk future positioning for governments

True multi-stakeholder models require consensus building and iterative feedback processes, not one-time consultations

Explanation

There’s unexpected consensus across different stakeholder perspectives (technical community, government, civil society) that multi-stakeholder processes have clear functional benefits beyond just normative ideals – they actually produce better policy outcomes.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on fundamental principles of multi-stakeholder governance, including its value as a flexible principle rather than rigid model, the importance of transparency and capacity building, and the need for meaningful rather than superficial engagement. There’s also agreement on practical challenges, particularly around funding and inclusion of Global South voices.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on principles and challenges, with constructive differences mainly around implementation approaches based on different national contexts. This strong agreement suggests a mature understanding of multi-stakeholder governance that could inform future WSIS review processes and broader digital governance initiatives.

Different viewpoints

Current state of multi-stakeholder implementation globally

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Many successful multi-stakeholder projects exist but aren’t labeled as such, particularly in internet development work like community networks

At African national level, there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance

Summary

Gahnberg presents an optimistic view suggesting multi-stakeholder processes are already happening frequently but aren’t recognized as such, while Matimbe presents a more challenging reality where governments, particularly in Africa, struggle to understand or prioritize multi-stakeholder approaches even 20 years after WSIS

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Effectiveness of current engagement mechanisms

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Carl Gahnberg

Arguments

Engagement with industry tends to be meaningful while engagement with other communities often becomes a checkbox activity

Many successful multi-stakeholder projects exist but aren’t labeled as such, particularly in internet development work like community networks

Summary

Kakkar emphasizes systemic problems with current engagement being superficial checkbox exercises, while Gahnberg focuses on successful examples that demonstrate the approach is working in practice

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Optimism vs. realism about multi-stakeholder progress

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Many successful multi-stakeholder projects exist but aren’t labeled as such, particularly in internet development work like community networks

At African national level, there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are advocates for multi-stakeholder approaches, yet they present fundamentally different assessments of current progress. Gahnberg’s optimistic framing suggests the approach is already working but needs better recognition, while Matimbe’s experience suggests basic understanding and implementation remain significant challenges

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers showed remarkable consensus on principles and goals of multi-stakeholder governance, with disagreements primarily centered on assessment of current implementation effectiveness and regional variations in progress

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers fundamentally agree on the importance and value of multi-stakeholder approaches but differ in their assessment of how well these approaches are currently working in practice. This suggests a mature field where practitioners agree on direction but have different experiences with implementation challenges, which could actually strengthen collective advocacy by providing multiple perspectives on the same goals

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from Global South contexts highlight the challenge of superficial engagement with civil society and other non-industry stakeholders, contrasting meaningful industry engagement with checkbox exercises for other communities.

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Engagement with industry tends to be meaningful while engagement with other communities often becomes a checkbox activity

At African national level, there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of adequate funding and physical presence for Global South stakeholders to have real influence in international processes, not just token participation.

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Physical presence in negotiation spaces like Geneva and New York is crucial for actual influence on outcomes

Meaningful participation requires adequate resourcing and financing, especially for Global South representation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers represent developed country approaches that have institutionalized multi-stakeholder engagement through formal structures and processes, including stakeholder participation in official delegations.

Speakers

– Ian Sheldon
– Lea Kaspar

Arguments

Australia implemented a structured multi-stakeholder process for WSIS review with transparency, education, and open participation

UK government has established a standing multistakeholder internet governance group that informs UK positions and includes non-governmental stakeholders in delegations

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder governance should be viewed as a principle of governance rather than a single rigid model, allowing for different implementation approaches across various institutions and contexts

Successful multi-stakeholder processes extend beyond agenda-setting meetings to real-world implementation at local and regional levels, with many effective projects already operating under multi-stakeholder principles without being formally labeled as such

Australia’s structured approach to WSIS review preparation demonstrates the practical value of multi-stakeholder processes, including transparency, capacity building for stakeholders, and iterative consultation that improved policy quality and helped de-risk government positioning

Meaningful participation requires more than checkbox consultations – it needs consensus building, iterative feedback processes, adequate financing (especially for Global South participation), and physical presence in key negotiation spaces

Multi-stakeholder approaches provide both normative value (inclusivity, transparency) and functional value (better outcomes, trust building, implementation buy-in), with the functional benefits often being more persuasive to governments

There are significant disparities in multi-stakeholder implementation between regions, with some African countries showing limited prioritization while others like Australia demonstrate comprehensive engagement models

The NetMundial guidelines and São Paulo principles provide helpful frameworks for operationalizing multi-stakeholder processes, offering practical guidance for governments unsure how to implement these approaches

Resolutions and action items

Australia committed to considering including multi-stakeholder working group members in their WSIS negotiation delegation

Australia agreed to document and map their multi-stakeholder process for sharing with other governments, potentially comparing with NetMundial guidelines

GNI and GPD project will continue fostering national-level consultations and share results from ongoing work including the Zambia case study

Participants agreed to continue information exchange and learning from successful models like Australia’s approach to inspire similar efforts in other countries

Unresolved issues

How to secure adequate financing for meaningful Global South participation in international processes, especially given reduced funding availability

How to move beyond checkbox consultations to genuine consensus-building mechanisms in countries with limited multi-stakeholder traditions

How to scale multi-stakeholder approaches beyond internet governance to broader digital policy areas like AI and cybersecurity

How to address the disconnect between global-level government participation and local-level awareness and engagement

How to ensure meaningful inclusion of marginalized groups and diverse perspectives within civil society and academia

How to build regulatory capacity in resource-constrained environments to enable transparency and meaningful consultation processes

Suggested compromises

Recognition that multi-stakeholder implementation doesn’t need to be identical across contexts – countries can adapt the principles to their specific cultural, political, and resource constraints

Acknowledgment that perfect multi-stakeholder processes may not be achievable, but incremental improvements toward the principle are valuable

Suggestion to leverage AI technologies to supplement government capacity for transparency and consultation processes where resources are limited

Proposal to find common touchpoints between multi-stakeholder approaches and existing policy processes in other government areas to ease adoption

Recognition that some closed-door government-industry meetings may be necessary, but these should be balanced with inclusive multi-stakeholder processes

When we talk about multi-stakeholder governance, we’re really talking about a principle of governance, about how we exercise governance… there could be very different models for implementing governance towards the same principle… what we’re really talking about is a principle around fundamentally allowing for participation of the users, producers, developers of this digital system to be part of the governance of that system.

Speaker

Carl Gahnberg

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by distinguishing between multi-stakeholderism as a principle versus specific models of implementation. It moves the conversation away from rigid structural debates toward flexible, principle-based thinking that can adapt to different contexts.

Impact

This foundational insight set the tone for the entire discussion, allowing subsequent speakers to explore contextual variations without getting trapped in ‘one-size-fits-all’ thinking. It enabled Ian to later discuss Australia’s unique approach and Jhalak to explore regional variations as legitimate expressions of the same principle.

The actual governance process is happening outside of this room, it’s happening after the event, it’s happening at the local, the regional levels… it’s not only to have a seat at the table at negotiations and discussions such as this one, but it’s really about enabling multiple stakeholders to be part of the implementation process as well.

Speaker

Carl Gahnberg

Reason

This comment challenges the common assumption that multi-stakeholder governance is primarily about formal meetings and negotiations. It highlights the critical but often overlooked implementation phase where real governance happens.

Impact

This insight shifted the discussion toward practical implementation examples. It directly influenced Thobekile’s later emphasis on national-level engagement in Zambia and Ian’s focus on Australia’s domestic consultation process, moving the conversation from theoretical to practical applications.

We ran quite a number of workshops to help educate our local community on the mindset of government. What do these multilateral negotiations look like? How do they work? What are the dynamics at play? What does a negotiating mandate look like? A lot of these things were foreign to our community… opening the doors to really show some of our internal processes, really help them get their heads around what kind of positioning the Australian government might want to take.

Speaker

Ian Sheldon

Reason

This comment introduces a crucial but rarely discussed element: the need for capacity building and transparency about government processes themselves. It recognizes that meaningful participation requires understanding how the system works.

Impact

This insight became a focal point for the remainder of the discussion. Multiple participants, including Carl and Jorge, specifically praised this approach. It introduced the concept of ‘educating stakeholders about process’ as a prerequisite for meaningful engagement, which hadn’t been explicitly discussed before.

There was a disconnect between what government was doing at global level… and what was actually known at local level and there was no trust but once people began to have that openness and exchange of this is what we are doing there’s this process… everybody’s like why don’t you say so so it’s like let’s have a conversation.

Speaker

Thobekile Matimbe

Reason

This comment reveals a fundamental problem in multi-stakeholder governance: the disconnect between global participation and local awareness. It shows how transparency can immediately build trust and engagement.

Impact

This observation validated and expanded on the Australian model Ian described, showing its relevance across different contexts. It reinforced the importance of transparency and communication, and led to broader discussion about trust-building as a core function of multi-stakeholder processes.

If Global South leaders, thinkers, decision makers are not in the place physically, they are not being able to influence the final outcomes… if you don’t have them in the corridors of Geneva and New York, you’re not actually going to get the outcomes, which truly reflect the needs of those regions, because they are not in the rooms where those decisions and negotiations and those strategy meetings are happening.

Speaker

Jhalak Kakkar

Reason

This comment exposes a critical limitation of current multi-stakeholder approaches by highlighting the gap between formal inclusion and actual influence. It challenges the assumption that hybrid participation or formal representation equals meaningful participation.

Impact

This insight introduced a more critical perspective on the limitations of current approaches, balancing the optimistic examples shared by other speakers. It brought issues of power, resources, and genuine influence to the forefront, adding depth and realism to the discussion about what effective multi-stakeholder governance actually requires.

The stronger the process the stronger the outcomes and the more implementable they are… multistakeholderism for us, there are a lot of virtues in inclusivity and making sure we have a breadth of perspectives, but it’s also one of necessity in de-risking… the quality of policy output is immeasurably improved because of the process.

Speaker

Jorge Cancios and Ian Sheldon

Reason

This exchange shifts the justification for multi-stakeholder approaches from normative (it’s the right thing to do) to functional (it produces better results). This pragmatic framing makes the approach more appealing to skeptical governments.

Impact

This functional framing provided a new lens through which to view all the previous examples and challenges discussed. It offered a practical argument that governments could use internally to justify multi-stakeholder approaches, potentially addressing some of the resistance issues mentioned by other speakers.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it from theoretical advocacy for multi-stakeholder governance toward practical, nuanced implementation strategies. Carl’s opening reframing established multi-stakeholderism as a flexible principle rather than a rigid model, which enabled subsequent speakers to share diverse approaches without contradiction. Ian’s transparency about Australia’s capacity-building approach introduced a concrete model that other participants could reference and adapt. Thobekile’s Zambia example and Jhalak’s critique of Global South exclusion added important reality checks about current limitations, while the functional arguments provided pragmatic justifications for the approach. Together, these comments created a rich, multi-layered discussion that acknowledged both the potential and limitations of multi-stakeholder governance, while providing concrete pathways for improvement. The conversation evolved from ‘why multi-stakeholderism matters’ to ‘how to make it work effectively in different contexts,’ which represents a significant maturation of the discourse.

How can multi-stakeholder principles be better documented and mapped against established guidelines like the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines?

Speaker

Jorge Cancios

Explanation

This would help demonstrate practical implementation of multi-stakeholder processes and provide replicable models for other governments to follow

What are the specific mechanisms and steps that can enable true consensus building in multi-stakeholder processes rather than just checkbox consultations?

Speaker

Jhalak Kakkar

Explanation

Many processes currently involve one-way information sharing rather than iterative dialogue and consensus building, which limits the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder engagement

How can AI technologies be strategically used to supplement transparency and support decision-makers in multi-stakeholder processes?

Speaker

Jhalak Kakkar

Explanation

This could help address resource constraints that prevent regulators from providing adequate transparency in consultation processes

How can adequate financing be secured to enable meaningful participation of Global South actors in international processes?

Speaker

Thobekile Matimbe

Explanation

Physical presence is crucial for real influence in international negotiations, but funding limitations prevent Global South participation in corridor conversations where actual decisions are made

How can the Australian multi-stakeholder model be expanded beyond internet governance to other internet-related public policy issues like artificial intelligence and cybersecurity?

Speaker

Lea Kaspar

Explanation

This would demonstrate the broader applicability of multi-stakeholder approaches across different digital policy domains

What would a comparative study of different governments’ approaches to operationalizing multi-stakeholder processes in multilateral contexts reveal?

Speaker

Lea Kaspar

Explanation

This could identify best practices and common challenges across different national approaches to multi-stakeholder engagement

How can multi-stakeholder processes that aren’t formally labeled as such be made more visible and recognized?

Speaker

Carl Gahnberg

Explanation

Many effective multi-stakeholder collaborations exist but aren’t recognized as such, which limits their potential as models for replication

What are the common touchpoints between multi-stakeholder approaches in digital policy and similar collaborative approaches in other policy areas?

Speaker

Ian Sheldon

Explanation

Identifying these connections could help demonstrate that multi-stakeholder approaches aren’t foreign to other government processes and facilitate broader adoption