The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> AVERI NEVES: Hello. I know it was a very quick break. I know it was very quick for people to leave and come back. We apologize. We are here, we are now, we are starting.
So, this session is the future of digital governance. One of the wonderful things about the future is we really don't know what it's going to be like. So it's a good place to start.
So, we have seen this week, we have seen in writeups, we have seen all kinds of suggestions and ideas for new mechanisms, GDCs, new kinds of digital fora, new kinds of mechanisms and such.
And it prompted some of us to, sort of, start asking the question, well, what's wrong with the IGF? And part of that question came out, well, there are lots of gaps and in fact, if you read each one of these testaments that people are putting out about the best idea for the future, there is a gap. And there is a saying that, well, this gap needs to be filled. It's important. There are other importance. The IGF, you have been around for 18 years and you have got these gaps.
One of things that we started looking at and one of the things I started looking at was, well, we have been around for 18 years. We are about to go into that renewal season. And when you go into the renewal season, you look at, well, what do you need to do for the future? The future that we are here to talking about, about digital governance or internet governance or whatever we call a future governance. And we started to look at, well, if something that was started a while back, that was started with great intentions, with great promise has done good things, is well formed, took a lot of work, took a lot of money, took a lot of time, and when we talk about starting a new forum, believe me, there's a lot of work to do.
I have been watching the IGF since it was first conceived of in the Working Group on Internet Governance and nursed through the original, had the honour of being on the Secretariat. Had the honour of being on the MAG. Had the honour of being a voice in the wilderness. I have done all of those roles quite happily.
So, one of the questions that we started to looking at was, what are the gaps? What are really the gaps? And how is it that the IGF could conceivably fulfill them? Could conceivably fulfill them without having to incur all the expense and bandwidth and pain and suffering of trying to start something new.
So, we have got a certain number of pre‑existing questions, but we also yesterday, while talking to the panelists sort of said thing about Tunis Agenda, thinking about what remains to be done, thinking about the gaps, how could we solve those gaps, could we? And if somebody wants to say the IGF couldn't possibly fill that gap, why not?
So, basically, that's, sort of, the shape of what we are having a conversation here, both amongst ourselves and, hopefully, with you all, to try and explore that gap space and see what it would really take to solve the problems of that gap.
So, with that, I pass it on to my co‑moderator, Ana Neves and please take it away.
>> ANA NEVES: Thank you very much, Avri. Hello, speakers. Hello to all. Avri, don't you think everyone, maybe they are a bit confused about all these movements that we have nowadays at global level on digital?
>> AVRI DORIA: A little confused?
>> ANA NEVES: A little confused. After this, it is the fourth day of the IGF, including the 0 day, of course. And I think that with the people that I have been talking to, it was interesting to see that people are becoming some more confused, some more thinking in different things, than they were thinking before, that they came here.
But the thing that topics related to digital are nowadays front and centre on the international agenda.
So, and nowadays, we are talking a lot about artificial intelligence. So, during this IGF there was a lot of sessions about artificial intelligence.
But my point here is that the first evolution of technology, new approaches and the developments such as the metaverse and all that include emerging technologies, as well as web 3.0, the centralization, need for ubiquitous connectivity, higher speed low latency and high connectivity. May contribute to widening the digital gap on regional countries and on a local level. These will cause major difference in evolution and development in economy, social, political and educational areas, as well as reduced possibility for certain visions of the world to effectively participate in digital internet governance processes.
I just would like to remember and then I will give the floor, of course, to our speakers, but, well, I and Avri, we are here trying to make the context and to give you the context. And I just would like to remember that the goal of WSIS, towards the Information Society that gather heads of state in 2003 and then in 2005, the minister is responsible for the Information Society, so the goal of WSIS was, is to achieve a common vision, desire and commitment to build a people centric inclusive and development oriented Information Society where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information.
The Geneva action plan agreed at the first WSIS senate in 2003 identified 18 areas of activity in which government, civil society, businesses and international organizations should work together and are working together to achieve the potential of ICTs for development.
The Tunis agenda for the Information Society was a consensus statement of the WSIS, adopted on the 18th of November 2005 in Tunis. It called for the creation of the IGF and a novel, lightweight multistakeholder governance structure for the internet, which includes since then the public and private sectors, the technical and academic communities and civil society.
And nowadays we have all these processes, including the WSIS+20, which includes the Summit of the Future that will include the digital, through the Digital Compact, and we have other processes at work by level.
So, what will be the future as Avri was saying? And why IGF is not good enough, or is it good enough, or which are the gaps, as Avri very well said.
So, let's go to hear our speakers and I will give the floor, first place, to Jordan Carter, international governance and policy director at .au, domain administration Australia. Jordan, please.
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you very much, and good afternoon, everyone. Great to be on this panel today, joining an interesting group of speakers. I am just making some personal remarks here having thought about this stuff for a long time and I'm going to try and stick to making three main points. And the starting point, of course, is the centrality of the internet to our day‑to‑day lives. If anyone thought that wasn't the case until 2020, they got a brutal reminder of that in the course of the COVID‑19 pandemic.
And whether it's the internet itself or the services and applications that we rely on that run on top of it, this digital realm, this internet realm is central to our lives, which is why it is so important. So important that the Secretary General identified it as one of the two major challenges facing the planet along with the climate crisis.
So, I want to make three main points to you today, because if we get this right, we can support the human flourishing that we should have as our vision for this planet. We can have just, peaceful and prosperous societies, sustainable economies all around the world. So, there's a lot to play for here.
And my first point is a simple one that relates to the slightly provocative title of this panel. We cannot separate internet governance and digital governance. They are intertwined. And they are intertwined because almost all digital technology relies on communication and the communication network that we all rely on is the internet.
It is true that where digital policy issues stray too far away from an internet aspect, they may need their own institutions and discussions and me being me I would say if they are having their own spaces, they should definitely apply the multistakeholder approach to having those conversations.
But most of the time the digital and internet realms are intertwined and should stay that way, because otherwise, we will see a bifurcation of these policy dialogues, increasing complexity and more and more resources being spent in forums that are very close to duplicating each other.
My second point is to say that effective internet governance needs to be multistakeholder internet governance. I have already talked about the centrality of the internet to our lives to the Information Societies that we are building. And that is why the IGF is such an important forum. Its structure and its scope forces the collision of the broad concerns and interests and perspectives from around the world and around the different stakeholder communities and it does that by making sure there's a seat at the table and space in the room for all the stakeholder groups, civil society, for the technical community, academia, businesses and the private sector and, of course, for governments.
Without this blend, we could end up just having an interesting technology discussion or an interesting policy discussion. But that is not what we need. What we need is internet governance.
And nothing could be worse than building a duplicate structure for digital governance issues alongside it. We have the forum already, we are all right here in it today.
But, actually, something could be worse than that. It would be moving it into a single stakeholder denominated forum around which there are some proposals floating around. A government preferenced forum that would be worse than duplication. And it's something I urge us all to oppose.
My third point is to talk about the gaps that the Moderators mentioned before, because I don't want to pretend that the internet governance system we have today is perfect. Put your hands up if you think it is perfect. Yeah, there are no hands up in the room. And I am not going to ask about the Zoom room.
The world has changed a lot since the settlement of the early 2000s and it's sad to say it is not always for the better the ways that it has changed. So, we need to strengthen the IGF and address some gaps. And I just want to propose three for your consideration. Hopefully they are a little bit provocative and help you start thinking about these to engage with the panel with the floor.
I think there's an ambition gap, a coordination gap, and a resource gap. And just to speak briefly. On the ambition side, I don't have the future vision that the internet needs. But I know that if we want to get the internet that we want, we need to take the daring step of describing it and describing the goals that will get us there.
What is our ambition for the Information Society? How will we measure our progress, how will we support the Sustainable Development Goals, support human flourishing? What is the internet we want and how do we build it?
So, to close that gap, let's develop and agree goals to do that. That could focus the work of our internet governance system. And it could be a way to develop or create a need to develop new working methods here in the IGF to be able to discuss and agree such things. Not to replace the SDGs, not to create a route for a back, but to focus our efforts.
The second is the coordination gap. We have a distributed model of internet governance with different institutions and different communities all doing part of the job. For that to work, it needs incredibly strong coordination. And the IGF can be the forum to do that coordination. But once again, there are some working methods to do it.
In our own technical community, we have been articulating a need for stronger coordination. I think it applies more broadly as well.
And briefly, the third gap is the resources gap. If you think about the incredible work our IGF Secretariat does with five people, five people, and then you think about the scale of the overall governance systems in individual countries, let alone the global level, you can see that none of us together as stakeholders are putting enough resources into this forum. And we are also not resourcing well enough the diverse participation that we need, both to make the outcomes of the IGF more useful and to make its legitimacy stronger. So, the resources gap is one that needs to be closed.
To recap in closing, we should not separate digital governance and internet governance. We must maintain a multistakeholder approach and model in doing it. All key stakeholders groups are required and nothing could be worse than removing digital issues to an intergovernmental forum and we must close gaps to strengthen the IGF and deliver the internet we want, the ambition gap, the coordination gap, and the resources gap. Thank you very much.
>> ANA NEVES: Thank you very much, Jordan. Thank you for your initial remarks.
And then I will give the floor to Renata Mielli, the coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee for her first comments and remarks, please.
>> RENATA MIELLI: Thanks, Ana.
Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to greet my fellow participants, my fellow session participants and thank the IGF for inviting me to be part of this panel, which encourages to come together in the main session to address the various concerns and discussions we have followed throughout this event about our future as a governance community.
I will bring to this discussion some reflections that stem from the experience of the internet in Brazil. A multistakeholder governance group that has been built with dedication over its 28 years. The first point of this reflection is to look at the journey we have take up to this point.
Today's internet is very different from what it was 20 years ago when the first round of WSIS took place. It has expanded globally, irreversible penetrating people's lives. It has grown technically stronger, becoming more resilient and faster than we ever imagined it. It has been a critical infrastructure for economic, social and culture development. The layer of applications and content which gives the internet concrete meaning in people's lives has also developed.
With this expansion, our governance community has also grown. National and regional initiatives now from a Global Network across different countries and regions, youth and dems. As an example, I may show the recent hosting of the first Internet Governance Forum in Brazil less than a month ago. This spaces have become more diverse and inclusive. The diversity of sectors and actors at this IGF which brings together 8000 people in person and online is evidence of its growth. This expansion of the internet and its applications has also brought emerging challenges to be addressed, increased economic concentration in the ecosystem and infodemic of misinformation, the use of the internet to attack the democracy processes are impacts of our infrastructure. Children's and adolescents on the internet and all the possibilities and risks that arrive with artificial intelligence, another topic that has catalyzed the topics on this.
We cannot ignore this trajectory and the current challenges especially in light to the dilemma that internet governance community faces. We have been discussing and participating in various different arenas in the complex no signs of decreasing. The WSIS+20 and the Global Digital Compact are only two among all the processes being undertaken within the ecosystem, which most of them potentially overlapping in several streams.
Concerns about the future have been growing and transparency support and meaningful participations in discussions and decisions. In this context, multiple stakeholders are calling for avoiding defragmentation of internet governance arenas, splitting discussions about the internet from those covering digital issues. Those topics are inseparable pair like two sides of the same coin. Their challenges intertwined as Jordan said.
Decisions about one impacted the other. We all need to the Tunis Agenda which remains extremely relevant. Many of the goals established there are yet to be achieved and the Guiding Principles are still fully valid. Our role as members of the internet governance community is to review our own mechanisms and the institutions based on the promoted by the Tunis Agenda. Our current concern can be summarized in two major points. Avoid defragmentation of the debate and the creation of competing governance spaces that could weaken multistakeholder participation as we have seen in the construction process which has resulted in uncertainty about its outcome.
How to improve the IGF's model of debate in participation so that it can address the challenges at hand, generate discussions that can contribute to ‑‑ by various stakeholders.
To achieve this, we must fully embrace diversity to improve multistakeholder participation which is essential for the future of the internet.
Gender diversity and as many other forms of diversity are critical to driving our governance community. This is the path we have been per viewing in Brazil.
The multistakeholder model is challenging because it brings together this diversity, gathering different perspectives and we don't always agree. But when we bring our difference to the table, rather than ignore them, we all grow. Let's take this opportunity to reflect on the achievements that internet governance community has already made and how we can contribute to charging the paths to address the inequalities that fuel exclusion. If achieving multistakeholder participation is crucial for any proposed solution to our internet‑related issues include the so‑called digital ones. And in our perspective, the IGF was, is and must be the definite place for these discussions to take place in order to provide inputs that enable effective outcomes all around the world. Thank you for the opportunity and we continue.
>> ANA NEVES: Thank you very much, Renata.
And now I will give the floor to Lise Fuhr, member of IGF Leadership Panel. Lise, please.
>> LISE FUHR: Thank you, Ana. And good afternoon and thank you for the invitation to speak on this panel. We speak about many, many topics here at the IGF. We speak about security innovation, skills, connectivity, sustainability. But exactly this topic that we are discussing here comes first at a very important time and it asks a very important question, because it's the overall question of what is the future of Internet Governance Forum? And internet governance as such.
But why is this timing important? Well, we have heard it both from our Moderators and also the two panelists, we have the WSIS+20 coming up. But we also have a number of other policy initiatives underway in the UN, such as the Global Digital Compact, which will be a part of a wide ranging summit for the future, driven by Secretary General Guterres.
And we also see that there is now a Tech Envoy in the UN following developments in technology, but also governance. He's also an ex officio member of the Leadership Panel.
And here today I speak as a member of the Leadership Panel. In my daily life, I am Director General of ETNO, which is a telecom trade association in Brussels. But be mindful, I speak as a Leadership Panel now.
So, if we look at IGF itself, we see there have been some innovations in the past year or two. So, the UN Secretary General established and gave a mandate to the Leadership Panel. And you have heard from us last year and throughout this week. And as a Leadership Panel, we will also be serving until the next IGF.
This is a panel of experts chaired by Vint Cerf and we bring together the technical community, academia, civil society, private sector and governments. And we have been working in our respective constituencies to raise the awareness of IGF and also amplify the messages of IGF.
And one of the most important aspects of the Leadership Panel lately, but it will develop in the coming years, has been to set a framework of the internet we want. And we see this as forming a basis for a series of goals or objectives to support the development of an open, secure, right respecting internet across the globe.
We have set a framework and that's not meant to ‑‑ that we will have a top‑down process on this. We are now hoping that these principles will be unfold by and supported and set ‑‑ the goals will be set by the global community. So, we will consult broadly, not only as we used to call the internet, the international intent community. To me, we need to consult with the global community, because everyone uses the internet these days.
We as a Leadership Panel, we have also contributed to the work on the Global Digital Compact by sharing with the co‑facilitators the messages that we have seen and agreed with all of you. And it's vitally important internet governance community. So, you gave us input both in Addis Ababa. But also in 2021. So we as a Leadership Panel Dayton take our own position on this but we tried to condense the input from the last two IGFs and conveyed it to the Global Digital Compact consultation.
If we look at the gaps, we have talked about the gaps and we see there is a lot of activity on many fronts. But I want to look at what aspect of internet governance need to be strengthened. Because we as a Leadership Panel see it as we need to strengthen the IGF because we see IGF as a part of internet governance future.
So, for us, key is the representation and participation. We have seen a huge number of participant as this very IGF in Japan, more than 8000, I heard numbers of 9000 across the globe have signed up and followed both online and in person.
But the UN reminds us that 2.6 billion people are still offline. And we are, actually, far from reaching the SDGs and from harnessing the benefits of digital, which should get us there, and we think this is a virtual circle.
And at the same time, we also have technologies that digital and internet governance is no longer the sole remit as a small part of society and business. The uptake and impact of the internet is now a whole of society matter.
So, to me, the biggest gap, and this is what should drive our work as a community, is we need a greater and more diverse participation at IGF. We should not be an eco chamber talking to each other of like minded communities.
What does that mean? That means greater industry participation and not just tech and telecom companies. We need other sectors like banking, public administration, manufacturing, transportation, healthcare. All of them are using the internet and connectivity in new ways. And I don't mean only using. But these actors are actually imploring high skilled developers to create tailor made digital solutions.
So, we need to see these people at IGF. And it means also more participation from legal professions. The internet is now fundamental to our lives and economies. And with new challenges from security to data protection, to workers rights, implication of new technologies on equality, safety in the workplace, access in education, taking out a bank loan, signing up for an insurance, the applications are endless. And with that comes a need for highly qualified legal professionals from solicitors to barristers to judges and magistrates, to bring their expertise here, but also to learn from us who are sitting here right now. So, we all need to interact and we need to see these people here at the IGF.
And it means consistently and constantly increasing participation from the Global South. This is the group which needs access to high‑quality connectivity devices and skills. And they must be here to shape the internet we want. And, again, we need to see these people here at IGF.
So, how do we get there? This is my last part. Speaking as a member of the Leadership Panel, I know we have a role at this and an immense challenge. But we need to make a clear value proposition to these groups that I talk about. And this means strong and impactful outreach and showcasing IGF as the place where you can be a part of the process of how we want the internet to be tomorrow. We need to share with the peers and other sectors on the challenges and the opportunities of the internet and digital technology. And reinforcing the multistakeholder model.
So, a final word on the future of the internet governance. The internet we want can and should be an important component of the Global Digital Compact. And I believe that the GDC should be anchored in the IGF. And the IGF is a well‑established, well‑respected mechanism to monitor and implement the decisions taken by the multistakeholder community for the future of the internet. Thank you.
>> ANA NEVES: Thank you very much, Lise, and thank you very much for putting in the context of this internet governance and the digital technologies and importance to reach all these different stakeholders from the healthcare, insurance companies, banking, et cetera, extremely important.
So, now I am going to give the floor to our last speaker ‑‑ no, sour. Not the last. Before the last one, Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director IT for Change, India. Please, Anita,.
>> ANITA GURUMURTHY: Thank you so much. I think that some of the points I will make may, perhaps, take a note or two that are slightly different from my predecessors.
We, in our network and in our organization believe that the crisis of digitality is entirely a crisis of its governance. So, how do we reframe global digital governance and how do you ensure that the future of global digital governance takes into account a world besieged by extreme inequality.
The GDC process initiated by the Secretary General precedes the review as has already been mentioned in the World Summit on Information Society in 2025. The arrangements forged through the GDC must correspond to the momentous changes providing the normative directions and key themes to inform the WSIS+20 review process.
But where do we begin and what must we acknowledge? A productive and fruitful engagement with the GDC process requires recognition of a historical fault line. A ‑‑ to this geopolitical tensions are also rooted in the strangle hold over the digital economy of a few large transnational corporations from mainly two countries. The distressing degeneration of the public's fear and the future of the AI governance. With the data and technologies decisively shaping value chains and market power in a pandemic stricken world, public policy discussions on digital issues are also now part of the entire multilateral system from digital trade, biodiversity, food, health and oceans. This is the story, complexity and uncertainty. Where do we go from here?
First we do not want ton running in the same place as we invent the new institutions of tomorrow. The Secretary General's July 2023 policy brief conceptualizes two main institutional arrangements, a tripartite digital policy space which is termed the Digital Cooperation Forum for the short term, and a global commission on just and sustainable digitalization for the long term. The Digital Cooperation Forum and its tripartite mode seems to bring back ethos of the IGF, and caution is needed so it does not simply reproduce all the flaws of the IGF, with due respect, to the strengths of the IGF.
We know that dialogue is important. But public policy is more than dialogue. It is based on tenets of public interest and democratic deliberation. It cannot be held Hodge to tokenistic and diversity optics. Reinvented multilateralism as a worth wide idea. Mandate from the WSIS+20 process build democratically with engagement from civil society. The most powerful counties from the Global North do not want new arrangements. Please read our missions online to the GDC consultation process. Second we need to move from a technical idea of data governance to humanize it. To evolve rights adequate to the epoch of homotechnicus, a restrain that strips the real politics of data governance, reducing any contention with the cross‑border flow of data to the singular issue of data privacy guarantees. What we need is a new articulation of rights that accounts for people's development sovereignty in the digital paradigm. A new narrative of data flows with rights, including the right to connectivity and data public goods, the right to be forgotten, the right to be represented or not in digital systems. Data rights for algorithmic work environments and so on. We need a people's data and AI constitutionalism at the international level that is an instrument that also let's collective right to, A, determine how aggregate data resources are utilized, and, B, enjoy their rightful claims in the benefits of data enabled intelligence. Without a bedrock of principles, the mechanisms to achieve coherence across the multilateral system cannot evolve.
Third, without reigning in the power of digital TNCs through mandatory obligations in all jurisdictions of their operation, global digital governance cannot anchor innovation, economic pluralism or environmental sustainability. It cannot respect people's rights.
We are at an inflection point, the planet is not sympathetic. We need ambition.
Global digital governance cause for systemwide rebooting. We need a reform of national financial institutions and the international tax regime for public finance of infrastructure development. The conversation must shift to public digital innovation ecosystems that are not shared globally so that private enterprise with thrive everywhere and people can be connected on that terms.
To conclude, the present of digital governance is not in a good place. This assessment is based on a simple counterfactual. Had we evolved the governance institutions and mechanisms that were adequate to our digital coexistence, the Information Society would have been more like the aspirational values of the Geneva declaration it would have and I quote fostered justice and the dignity and worth of the human person, it would have respected peace and upheld the fundamental values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, shared responsibilities and respect for nature, all of this articulated in 2003.
We are nowhere close. The test of successful digital cooperation would be in one core idea. The right to flourishing of people and the planet. This would mean public built in pluralism and inclusion, economies that thrive on peering and reciprocity and societies of unlimited creativity and self‑actualization. Thank you.
>> ANA NEVES: Thank you, Anita. Thank you very much.
And now I will give the floor to our last speaker at this round, Timea Suto. She is global digital policy lead at the ICC.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you, Ana, and thank you, panelists, and thanks for the audience for waiting until the last speaker. Promise will turn it over soon.
My name is Timea Suto. I'm a digital policy leader at the International Chamber of Commerce. For those of you who don't know us, ICC is a global business organization encompassing members of over 45 million companies of all sectors and sizes all over the world. We are present in over 170 countries.
And also for those of you who don't know us, ICC was the business focal point back at WSIS time almost 20 years ago. I haven't myself been there 20 years ago, but I was at WSIS+10, and I can't believe it's been 10 years from there.
Some of you have been there at the beginning of how much has changed since that. And I want to start there today. Taking a bit of stock of what has happened 20 years ago. And where we are now.
And what WSIS as my fellow panelist said created was this vision for a people‑centered Information Society. And has created also a forum where that vision can be furthered, which is the IGF. As a nondecisional body to discuss public policy issues related to internet governance.
But most importantly what WSIS created was this concept of multistakeholderism and coined this concept of multistakeholderism and as I said, I wasn't there but I have heard from many of you how difficult it was to make that happen, how the representatives of nongovernmental associations, the technical community, tech companies, really bang on the doors of the negotiating room to be let in and have their voice.
And what has happened since, as I am going to quote what is written in Our Common Agenda in paragraph 93, where United Nations Secretary General says, United Nations governments, the private sector and civil society could come together as a multistakeholder digital technology track in preparation for the Summit of the Future to agree on the Global Digital Compact. Right?
It's no banging on the doors. No asking to be let in. It's an invitation to commonly come together and create something. So, that is, I think, an achievement on its own.
Now, to Jordan's point, is the IGF perfect? Is our internet governance world perfect? Is multistakeholderism perfect? No, it's not. Nothing is. There is room for improvement. There is room to build on what we have achieved. There is room to make it stronger. Should be doing that.
But I also think we need to think about as we think towards the gaps so that I can get to the point of what I want to ‑‑ what you asked me to answer, we need to think about what the IGF is and what it isn't. What it was created for and have we really used it effectively.
So, is IGF going to solve universal connectivity? No. It will not. But it will bring together, it does bring together telecommunications companies, tech companies, development banks, governments to discuss what's going on and to make it happen. There were projects born here at the IGF, they are now running all over the world to do just that.
Will it set technical standards? No. But it will bring together the technologists, engineers, civil society organizations, human rights activists to make sure the standards we set are the right ones for our digital future.
Will it set norms for cybersecurity? No. But it brings together all the actors that can assess, if those numbers are properly implemented and it can hold us accountable, all of us, if we are doing our part or not.
Will it set policies on responsible trustworthy AI? No, it will not. But it will bring together the policymakers that do that as those policies are set to hear from all of us whether or not we are going in the right direction. We have seen it happen two days ago. That is what the IGF is. It is a convener for all of us to come together and see, have we come far enough from that vision that was set 20 years ago? What else is necessary to do. And are the right people in the room? As Lise said, is everyone here?
Yes, there are gaps. Not everybody is here. We don't have the necessary resources to always make these things happen as the way we should. And I think that creates an awareness gap that is very dangerous, because that awareness gap makes others think that new things should be created. That it's not good enough. We need to also think about what we do achieve, have we marketed it properly? Have we shared that properly to the people that are not here. And have we made them aware in their own terms, so that it resonates with their work, with their interest that they should be here, that we need them here. But that means we need to open up our own IGF community that we have created and go directly and speak to others that are not here to make them part of it and that only is possible if we properly share what the outputs of this forum are, what they can be and what the values are, what the success stories are and I think we have a bit longer way to go to do that. If I can leave you with that in terms of the gaps.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much. Thank you all for coming in with your perspectives. I would like to invite the rest of you, the other participants who are sitting in those seats, to come up. We have, I guess, 38 minutes left on the timer of this. So, I would like to give as much time. Please, come to the microphone, introduce yourself, and then comment either on what you heard or your own idea of what the gaps are and what needs to be done. Please.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is Carlos Vera, I am from Ecuador. And I must agree with two main ideas from the panel. A human‑centered conclusion, and also as they say, let's maintain the multistakeholder model. This is essential. I have been around for 25 years in these panels. And maybe I see seven men in that panel. Now there are six women, one man. It's working. Thank you.
(Applause)
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Please, there are one, two, three, I count four microphones up there. There must be opinions, there must be comments. Otherwise, if you guys don't have the comments, do we have anybody with a comment who is in the online and where is our online Moderator to tell us? Yes, do we have any? No? Yes, we do. Can you please read? Well, please come to the microphone, if that's okay.
>> We do have a few comments. We have two hands up. I don't know if you want to bring them in. But they are on the Zoom.
>> AVRI DORIA: Sure. If there are people that wish ‑‑ yeah, I don't have that showing on mine. So please.
>> There's Ililu with his or her hand up. Yeah.
>> AVRI DORIA: Please. Are you unmuted and able to speak? Yes, please go ahead.
>> AYALEW SHEBESHI: Can you hear me? Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to put my ‑‑ the question and opinions. I joined the IGF last year in Addis Ababa. My name is Ayalew Shebeshi. I ‑‑ my research area is physical failed currency or digital faired currency in (?) with accessibility and trustability. So, if anyone interested, let me know. My question, I have two questions. And I have two ‑‑ three proposals.
The first question is how the nature of the internet and internet technology be inclusive in fairness with practical application, while the government shut down and misuse internet services? That's one question.
Two, is it possible to fully access technology where the internet as a digital public infrastructure ecosystem while owned by the government or the nations of the country which is without international internet governance law.
So, these are my questions. If you allow me to elaborate, I can propose my ‑‑ read my proposal or I have three proposals. Or you can read it. It depends. It will take me another two, three minutes.
>> AVRI DORIA: Please go ahead.
>> AYALEW): Advance of technology such as Blockchain, quantum computing and IOTNOTNFC and NFT, all these technologies generate huge amount of data or information. This data ‑‑ these days data or information is a wealth. The wealth accumulated in developed nations. All these technologies perform activities and services with the internet.
First, the need for United Nations internet governance law. Let us think about the root cause of the current internet connectivity, major problems such as by the name of freedom of speech and democracy, universal human rights and restrict ‑‑ unrestricted democracy and freedom of inclusive connectivity, affected local government and countries, enable to control the internet and it distract the country and the country shut down the internet. There is no accountability. And also there is no international law to stop them.
Second, we need to educate the cybersecurity, because that's the internet. We must start education cyber hackers to behave as human nature, natural human being behave professionally and ethically, applying natural law. Natural law is more soft skill, rather than using the hard skill. And if we all perform any task with integrity, honesty, humanity, kindness, apply responsibility and accountability for equitable benefit of all human beings, all human kind as a global society including all nations and benefit of this earth.
The last question ‑‑ the last suggestion, the third current existing working system of the internet must be valid. We must ‑‑ we must break the current cycle of the world society system which is dominated everything by developed nations, even before the internet. We must build a new system that makes suitable, applicable and rapid advancable technology interest to all nations, nationwide, fully agreed and signed by the United Nations Internet Governance Forum and the ITU, which is a member of all international countries of telecommunication, unless, otherwise, we don't have standard regulations to accountable all, each countries, we will not be rich and inclusiveness of the internet. I really appreciate it for giving me this time. Thank you very much.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. Now we have one person at a microphone and we have another remote.
So, I think I will go with the microphone and then I will go to the next remote and then I will come back to the microphone, if that's okay. Please, sir, introduce yourself.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. Thank you for the rich discussion. And the really hopeful proposals, I think outlined today. My name is it Peter Mysack. I am general counsel at Access Now. I wanted to present the results of a discussion earlier this week, civil society met on day zero in a session about scoping of the Global Digital Compact. We had a diverse group inside and outside the room and were able to reach a rough consensus on ways to really strengthen the process of the Global Digital Compact and ensure that it is representative and meets the kind of high and lofty goals that we have heard laid out.
The three areas that we focused on, if I could present were around transparency and responsiveness, synergies and coherency, scope, and then a bit of background.
So, first on transparency and responsiveness. We all have spent a lot of time already. There's been a lot of opportunities to input into the Global Digital Compact, the deep dives led by the Tech Envoy office, regional collaborations and convenings, but we don't know how these inputs are being used. We don't know what the outputs will look like. We have only seen in the last couple of months a very short paper from the co‑facilitators of the process that we think doesn't really reflect the rich discussions.
So, getting ‑‑ more meaningful multistakeholder processes that are gender inclusive, that in ‑‑ that include clear, responsive feedback loops, and the inclusion of all stakeholders by design is really key. If there are to be multilateral discussions on the GDC, we need to know the timelines ahead of time. If they are going to be in person, applying for visas, you know, to attend those is going to take time. And Member States should take terror to include civil society in their delegations.
So synergies and coherency, we echo what you have said about rooting the outcomes of the GDC in the IGF and we have ‑‑ we are this week using the IGF itself to strengthen the Global Digital Compact. And we reach rough consensus that the IGF is an open and inclusive forum and ever more so every year, we hope. And should not be replaced or duplicated by another forum, especially one based in a Global North city that carries environmental costs and very real costs to attend and participate in.
Finally, on scope, we want to redouble efforts to involve the technical community. Acknowledging that internet governance is broader than technical discussions. We think those are key stakeholders that really succeeded during the stress test of COVID when systems suddenly went online and we all depended on the internet for our basic daily work. The horizontal technical government succeeded and we wish to reinvoke and involve them in these discussions. So, that's where I will leave it. Again, that's a rough consensus from civil society on Sunday. Thanks.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much.
Okay. I just want to point out where we are. I have a Deborah Allen now who is online. Then I have two people at microphones at one to read. So, I think I am going to call that the queues for now, given the time.
So, please, Deborah.
>> DEBORAH ALLEN: Thank you very much for hearing me on this panel. I want to make a couple of real quick comments to amplify the work you are doing about what you all just said, get the word out. And participation. The fact that I am introduced myself, I'm in the Hague. I'm from New York City, but I have a nonprofit here in the Hague called find out why promote digital fluency. We work with the European internet forum and Lise, I saw you in DC this summer at the trans Atlantic partnership. This is an example of civil society getting on the mic at the panel and I just want to commend all of you and say that it's happening. It's doing ‑‑ you are doing it, right, because here I am, that's proof.
That's number one. The second comment was get the word out, because the fact that you are in Kyoto, I am wondering if anybody is familiar with the peace boat or peace boat.org. Okay, everybody should check it out for real, because it's one of the ‑‑ it's phenomenal. It's been around for quite some time and it is an organization that, you know, in terms of the digital ‑‑ okay, let me think how to put this. The digital era is quite young. Still a lot to be designed. And there's a lot of convening that will happen just because of the fact that we are designing this thing as we go, like one does with peace.
And with the peace boat does, carries various projects and campaigns to promote peace, human rights, sustainability, working with partner organizes and individuals in Japan, northeast Asia and around the world. It uses local grassroots actions, international conferences, Global Networking, et cetera. Okay.
But it's an actual giant boat that goes around the world building friendships for peace and I think we could do the same, if there's somebody that could fund it, obviously, to convene people on ‑‑ when you look at PeaceBoat.org and imagine it, it's something that we could get the word out. We could use to get the word out because we are in a new stage and this is a design comment and idea.
And my last question is, or my only question is, a lot of times I think in the conferences we get so general and I think that we are all, when we convene, we know we need to do this and that. I am super curious about one of the things that you have done at IGF that you are most proud of that you have seen have a big impact, because I know it's there. And constantly hearing generalizations about what we should do and could do is I think less the point and more about get psyched about what we are doing. Yes, thank you very much for giving me time on the mic.
>> AVRI DORIA: I'm going to ask everyone here to remember the question so when we unwind after the last two speakers we will be able to answer any of the questions that are pending.
I think I will go to that mic first because I think I saw you there first and then we will go to Bertrand and then read two statements that I have received. Please. Oh, and there's a person there. I'm sorry. One, two, three. Okay.
>> AUDIENCE: I will try and be brief to make space for everybody. My name is Emma Gibson. I am with the Alliance for Universal Digital Rights, or AUDR for short.
We were part of a number of organizations who launched these 10 feminist principles for including gender in the Global Digital Compact. We did that on Saturday.
One of the principles is around increasing the leadership of women in internet governance and policymaking. So, it was great to hear one of the contributors talking about the makeup of the panel and the success there.
So, really my question is around how important do you think the issue of gender is in internet and digital governance. Thank you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Add it to your questions.
Bertrand, can I ask you a favor? I was told he had been there waiting there forever and it was my absence.
>> AUDIENCE: That's what I thought, actually,.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much. Please.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you, Chair. I will try to be brief. I am one of the authors of the Geneva principles, that is to say, one of the state's representatives in Geneva in December 2003, one of the many authors. So, I have a stake in that.
I would just like to repeal for some recognition of the principles. The whole process has principles. They were developed 20 years ago, and nobody in this forum has, actually, mentioned principles. We have mentioned frameworks. We have mentioned action lines. Many other processes. But it might be a good thing to go back and review the principles and just tick off what's been done against those principles, because they took a lot of discussion. You would not believe how many discussion it took to, actually, agree on what are fairly simple principles.
It took us a week to develop principles. And one ‑‑ another comment that has been made this afternoon is that we need to bring in ‑‑ we need to have some sort of attention to a legal basis or maybe the intellectual basis of this work we are doing.
Well, for a legal basis, there was also, back in Geneva in December 2003, a huge amount of debate on the preamble for those principles. And there was a strong opposition at the summit to including references to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We managed by open debate, strong debate to overcome that opposition and we have now ‑‑ we included the UDHR in the preamble of the Geneva Principles. That is the basis of a fairly good approach to, you know, legal consideration of the basis for the internet.
So, take it back a few steps and review that document. It's like tablets of stone. It's the beginning. Okay? That's a suggestion.
>> AVRI DORIA: No, thank you very much. And before you wander off, please, because I don't even really see you, because of the light in my eyes. Could you please introduce yourself.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm sorry. Winston Roberts. I was way back 20 years ago a representative of New Zealand at the WSIS in Geneva. Not now. Now working for an NGO, representing the global Library sector. That is access to information.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much.
>> AUDIENCE: Also national line. I will stop now.
>> AVRI DORIA: I think it's great. And I did read it once for the classroom but going back to it is great. Thank you for the question.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm Bertrand La Chapelle. I'm the Executive Director of the policy network and the director of the DataSphere initiatives. I love the title of this panel because this is the future of internet governance and we need to make sure it contains both the future of the IGF, but it's only a portion of the discussion of the future of internet governance and when we talk about internet governance I'm sorry to repeat myself there's a distinction between governance of and governance on the internet and the governance of the internet as a whole range, an ecosystem of organizations, they are not perfect. But as has been said before, it is what kept us together as an infrastructure during the period of the pandemic. The governance on the internet, however, is a scattered piece of institutions that are working in silos, mostly intergovernmental, but also individual initiatives.
And at the moment, it is what (?) has described as an embryotic thing. When we talk about the future of internet governance, I think there's a third layer which is we are talking about the governance ‑‑ internet and the governance in the digital age. And governance in the digital age and going back to what Jordan was saying, the key question that is in front of us is what is the digital society we want to build. And I like although I don't always agree with Anita, I agree that there are fundamental questions that are political questions regarding what is the internet and the digital society or the Information Society we want to build. And that's what is in front of us.
A more concrete thing to pick on what Jordan was saying but in the reverse order. The resources for the IGF is a competition in hypocrisy. It is unacceptable that anybody complains, particularly among government but what the IGF doesn't produce when the contributions are barely supporting a staff that is half the size of my own organization. This is unacceptable.
That being said, this is one of the reasons why you cannot do more with what we have and the IGF is just one of the building blocks that we need to build upon. Which brings to the second point that he mentioned, which is the notion of coordination, and Timea was mentioning very rightly that the goal is not to make the IGF deal with everything at all levels. We have the dynamic coalitions. Their first step toward what could be called issue‑based networks that can be catalyzed in the environment of the IGF, where on an issue by issue basis, the relevant stakeholder in the multistakeholder fashion get together to address an issue and report every year on what they are doing within the IGF. On top of the dynamic coalition so that it's operational.
Finally, on the question of ambition, I said already that this is about the digital society we want to build. I like the reference and there is a bunch of us in here, we were there at the WSIS. And the question of what is the digital society we want to build is, actually, a recognition that every single evolution of the communication in humanity, be it language, be it writing or be it the printing press has changed dramatically the way societies organize. And history is, basically, the effort of man kind to organize in larger and more and more interconnected communities. We have the challenge of organizing the coexistence of 7 billion people, 5 billion or 7 billion people connected online.
And I want to finish by quoting this expression that has been attributed to Cofiana and I don't know if it is who said it but at least he's referenced as having said that. In designing the governance for the internet or the internet age, we need to be as innovative as the people who invented it. We invented this new thing with the IGF and I carry here the back from the first IGF in 2006, which shows that it is sustainable, by the way. But I think the challenge is what is the governance architecture that we need in the digital age and this is why the title of this panel is a good one.
(Applause)
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Sir, I had already closed the queue, I think, before you came up. So, the queue is already closed. So I'm sorry. I'm going to read two that were submitted online and then I'm going to go back to the panel. So, please forgive me, but the queue had been closed.
>> AUDIENCE: Can I make very short one?
>> AVRI DORIA: A very short one?
>> AUDIENCE: Yeah.
>> AVRI DORIA: But I had already closed the queue and chased two people away from the other line.
>> AUDIENCE: Exception.
>> AVRI DORIA: No. We also have this one. My question, what is the position of Leadership Panel on the nature of existing internet? Internet is a peaceful development oriented and civilian environment or internet as new bath field for sign warfare and as a weaponized tool against other nations. Do we need a global declaration to recognize internet as a peaceful and civilian only environment? What would be the contribution of the IGF in this regard? That was a question from Ameer Mulkaberi.
And this comment from Segun. It is time to move from the IGF chambers discussion into action. Considering global efforts of the UN Digital Compact IGF should start evolving into internet and Digital Governance Forum. Many stakeholder speak to digital governance far more in contrast to internet governance. There can be no internet without the digital. But there can be digit without the internet.
Time to converge these two most important critical elements of our modern life. People now interact through a digital sharing system without necessarily being on the internet. The ecosystem needs to be proactive and creative, as well as transform the global internet and digital ecosystems into a unified space for peace, innovation and development.
So, I have read those two. Now what I would like to do is, sort of, unwind the panel, but, basically, from one edge to the other, try and keep it to two minutes, given that we haven't much time and we did speak extensively at the beginning. And see if you can catch some of the questions, please. Thank you.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thanks, Avri. I will try and we are looking at quite a few questions. But I think I want to speak to maybe three of them. One is what can we do to really to address the gaps that we have been talking about. I think in this evolving nature of internet governance, is the IGF equipped to do digital governance, et cetera. It already, sort of, does in my personal opinion. It has evolve from discussing purely internet governance in the beginning to, basically, anything and everything that concerns digital. And that's fine. That's okay. It's evolved organically. It is a bit crowded, though, sometimes. It is good friend of mine sometimes as like drinking from a fire hose. We need to focus, right. We can discuss everything but cannot discuss everything at the same time. Look at how the SDGs are discussed at the global community. We have 17 of them. We pick one or two each year. Get together, have a High‑Level Political Forum where we discuss progress, how it went, go away, take two address next year. We cannot do everything at the same time and that needs to be I think recognized.
Two, how important is gender? Extremely. The one thing I think it was Doreen at the panels this week, she said as the digital divides are shrinking in certain areas, as connectivity is shrinking, the gender divide is persistent. As we get more people online but as we get more people online, the gender divide remains the same between them.
So, gender is a critical issue. But it's not an issue on its own. It's an issue in everything we do and we need to have the gender glasses on, we need to mainstream gender into conversations. It's not something that you have to have a gender session at a conference or you have to have a gender track at the IGF. It needs to be in everything we do organically.
And then third, what have we done that is a success? I have done this. First of all. We have gone very far with the multistakeholder model. We still have an IGF that convenes thousands of people every year. But we have Dynamic Coalitions as Bertrand said. We have Best Practice Forum, we produce outputs. What we haven't done is talk about them so that other people know so I think I really don't want to forget that.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you: Anita, please, two minutes.
>> ANITA GURUMURTHY: Thank you. Just a couple of points. I do think that the co‑proposition that the technical is also political is very important so I do agree that any internationalism of the internet would also require a certain idea that it belongs to ‑‑ it is a common heritage of human kind that is back ultimately by some kind of public law.
To address Bertrand, I am very happy that we were able to meet more than halfway on something. The problem I think sometimes with the forum like the IGF is there is a lot of confirmation bias. I don't really have to lecture people who research and advocate around the internet on what confirmation bias means, what a filter bubble means.
So, if only you spoke to many like me, maybe there would be many more people who disagree with many people here at the IGF. That's because there are people we work with on digital sequence information and synthetic biology where natural resources, management is today and huge conflict with data about natural resources, that is getting stolen. Trade and data flows where you really don't know what to do when public datasets are taken away by ‑‑ you know, from your governments by transnational digital companies. We work with indigenous people whose traditional knowledge and data ownership are two sides of the same coin. And these are the majority world. They are 80% of the world.
So, in some ways they are not present here at the IGF. And I really think that at the WHO we are fighting about data right in terms of contributions. The COVID pandemic has been mentioned. Pathogen data is being given by countries from Africa into the corpus of the WHO but the benefits occurring from pharmacological research from that dataset is not going back to Africa. It's going into the system controlled by a few corporations.
I think we really need to think about one thing. Is there a real separation between governance on the internet and governance of digital society? No, because all existence is hybrid. And all our reality is hybrid. We have homotechnicus, and I will lead that thought with you, because I agree with Renata, it's a futile argument to look at this except as two side of the same coin. Thank you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Renata, please.
>> RENATA MIELLI: Thank you, Avri. I would like to comment the aspect of gender. And I think it's not enough to simply increase, it's important, of course, and I am glad to be here with one, two, three, four, five, six marvelous women in this panel. But I want to put something. It's not enough to simply increase the diversity of participation. The diversity needs to be reflecting decision‑making spaces.
My presence here today also reflects the long‑term transformations driven by multistakeholder not only within the IGF but also within the Brazilian community as a whole. I am only mere because I'm the first female coordinator of the internet representing Brazil since its creation in 1995.
Another comment briefly is about the challenges we are facing here about the future of internet, the future of governance, the internet and the digital and the main principle of this (?) what internet do you want. And I think, oh, my God, what world do you want to build for the future for our kid, for our children.
And I think maybe we have ‑‑ we agreed with the problems, with the diagnosis and maybe we need to profound the solutions to face these problems we have today involving the governance in our community. And that's why, and I am going to put this as commentary, that I think we have to deepen the debate about the gaps. We have to fulfill today IGF and to address this discussion as most of you have heard, CGI has recently decided to advance the dialogues and informal consultations with various stakeholders the ecosystem to the opportunity, visibility and the (?) representing Brazil in 2024 to discuss and produce a multistakeholder consensus on this items we are discussing there, just to put this to everybody think about it. Thank you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much.
Lise, please.
>> LISE FUHR: Thank you. We discussed many crucial aspects of the future of internet governance here today and I have heard the principles that, actually, we build on are extremely important here, transparency of the choices taken by IGF is important. And I agree. And also the substance of what we discuss is, of course, important.
But we need to be open and inclusive. The challenges, again, have all the relevant parties involved. This means all genders, to me, and I think gender is still an important one, but we also hear about different nationalities and people needs to be involved. And I completely agree.
Funding of the Secretariat, yes, it is a very small Secretariat. We need to have stronger funding for the Secretariat, because their task has grown bigger. And there it's extremely important. Jordan talked about ambition and I think ambition is a key for us. We need to have ambition to develop and evolve IGF. But, again, there is a strong support and also in the Leadership Panel for human centric internet, the multistakeholder model needs to remain.
So, one last thing is we need to raise the profile of IGF. We need to set the agenda, getting new participation on shaping the internet for the future. Thank you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.
Jordan, please.
>> JORDAN CARTER: Three quick thought I'm not going to try and tackle specific questions. The first is if this stuff is so important, we need to resource it properly, you know. There are as many people in my policy and stakeholder engagement team as there are on the IGF Secretariat. Similar story to Bertrand. The people with the checkbooks and the biggest checkbooks are the governments. I think we need to take another look at this digital governance question and change the balance.
The second thing is, the profound political and governance issues that have entailed in this panel themselves could have used a lot more expansion and contest here because we had an interesting discussion. I am fascinate by some of what I have heard. Then I'm going to rush off to the other session and it's the second to last day and we go. So I'm wondering if we are paying enough attention to to internet governance at the Internet Governance Forum and that is a challenge that comes here. There's sexy issues. There's the importance of AI. There are 100 different topics on the agenda. And then we don't get into the real foundations of the model that we are, sort of, just swimming in.
So, I think that's an observation that I offer.
The third, I guess, is the reminder to look back at the principles that have come before, because you don't always have to reinvent or invent new things. Sometimes there are foundations out there that can be the basis of what we need to do.
So, there are some reflections back.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. And I really like what's been said. I really very much enjoy the symphony of provocative voices, and I like you wish we would have spent all day on this kind of discussion, going through it. And with that, I give you the last word.
>> ANA NEVES: We are about to finish but I would like to emphasize as co‑moderator something that has been said here. So I think that all interventions from our speakers and from the audience both here and online, they are very rich, very productive, and they will enlighten us for the future. And this future. This session is called the future of digital governance. It is something that we reflect together on what we were talking about. And Bertrand said again something that has been telling for several years. We are talking about two different things. It's governance of the internet and governance on the internet. And I think that with that, I this I that with understand much better what we are talking about. It's about the future of the internet in the digital age nowadays, as it was in the Information Society age in the 19s and then in the knowledge based economies, in the '20s, in the cyber, in the 10s, and now we are talking about digital.
But in two years we will be talking about something else. But one thing that will be always here is the internet. So, here for the internet and to make it a weapon for peace, something for us as a good thing for the human kind. Thank you very much. A big applause to our speakers.
(Applause)