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.
***
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Can you hear me? So good afternoon, everyone. Everyone that's joined us here in the room and everyone that's watching us via Zoom, it's a pleasure to have all of you here. My name is Luiza, I'll be moderating next steps in Internet Governance, models for the future. We will explore the Internet Governance models and how they can adapt the growing challenges that digital policy poses and how we can identify best practices to enhance trust in digital governance process.
To do this we have here our wonderful speakers with a lot of experience in Internet Governance. So let me introduce them to you.
On my left side, I have Keith, he's the director for the climate research and information and also Chair of the Kenya youth IGF. We have Dr. Kudo, he's the Director General for the center department of the German ministry. And we have Amrita, Director of Cybercooperation in India. Our event is composed of two sessions of two rounds of questions for each speaker. Then we will open the floor for a quick Q&A afterwards. If you're joining us via Zoom, you can send the questions and we will forward them to the speakers.
So, considering we have a tight schedule, keep your answers to two or three minutes. Since we don't have a timer, excuse me if I have to jump in.
Let's start with our introductions of our panelists to share their perspectives from their country. Because digital policies have evolved so much and models everywhere. It would be nice to hear how your countries have adapted to it. The first question to you, Dr. Gridl, from the perspective of what the priorities you see in Germany in the future of Internet Governance especially considering with the intersection of European and global (Audio breaking up).
>> RUDOLF GRIDL: Can you all hear me? Okay. So, thank you very much, and thank you for having me on this distinguished panel. I would start with the obvious but I think very important sentence for us, the future of Internet Governance is a multistakeholder one. It's a multistakeholder process. It used to be, it should remain one.
Secondly, it's also very important for us to have the IGF as the corner stone and the centrepiece of this multistakeholder process of Internet Governance. We are very well aware that there is also European level, also international level new developments and new aspirations. But we see them and we participate and we are, of course, also active in European Union. We're active in United Nations. But also, we are active with an aim. Our aim is to integrate most of what's going on in these fora into the IGF world. Because, as I said, this, for us, is still the centrepiece.
When I'm looking inside Germany, we have German IGF, we have the youth. We have multistakeholder processes within Germany. And we would really not like to lose this momentum and this very active community by putting the whole questions on an intergovernmental level. So, it should stay on a multilateral level and multistakeholder level. It should not go to the multilateral level. That's, for us, the most important future question nationally, European level and international level.
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Thank you very much for your answer. I couldn't agree more, especially concerning the IGF next year. Keith, next to you. In your vision what are the unique challenges and opportunity of the Kenya Internet Governance ecosystem. How does this specific challenge influence your ideal model of Internet Governance, please?
>> KEITH ANDERE: Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to share some experience from Kenya. So, Internet Governance landscape presents several unique challenges and opportunities that inform the ideal model for Internet Governance. I'll mention some challenges but I'll also mention some of the opportunities that this presents.
So, in terms of challenge, I think there are three challenges. One is digital divide. The next is data privacy and protection and cybersecurity threats.
I think on the digital divide, despite progress that we have seen in the country, there remains a significant gap in Internet access between urban areas and rural areas. So, when you go deep into the rural areas, you find that the access is still an issue. So, these are opportunities for young Kenyans to access essential services given a lot of government services have been put online. You find there's a huge challenge when the issues of access and affordability for somebody who wants to access government services including something basic as renewing a driver's license, for example. The second one, which was on data privacy and protection, we have enacted data protection act in 2019. So, we already have a fully functional independent office of Data Protection Commission. This highlights the need for robust framework to safeguard personal data.
However, there are some challenges that persist in ensuring compliance and public arenas. We don't rights and responsibilities. Many times we focus more on the rights but never look at the responsibilities. So, you know, data processor, data handler. What are my responsibilities as an individual or as an organisation? I think that needs a bit of awareness.
On cybersecurity threats, we've also seen an increased number of incidents, especially on cyberbullying. Hate speech has also gone up, especially around political processes and participation and data breaches, still pose very serious risks. And this is a risk to individuals and organisations necessitating enhanced cybersecurity measures and public education on online safeties.
On opportunities, again, I'll quickly go down on three of them. So, one, we have some government support on start‑ups. It is growing, recognition from government regarding partners fostering innovation and partnership which leads to growth in digital transformation journey.
The second one is on youth engagement. Kenya has a very, very vibrant and innovative youth population, many of whom are eager to engage in Internet Governance discussions. And that speaks to the youth IGF. We have a community of 500 youth IGF community. And also, from the Kenya school of Internet Governance, we've seen a lot of interest for the young people to actually take the School of Internet Governance to the extent that KICTANet has met this model. So, they are willing to pay to actually go through this school. The model is actually growing. Young people are beginning to now come and shape the policies.
Lastly is collaboration among stakeholders, the establishment of Kenya IGF the collaboration among stakeholders, government, Civil Society, government, to approach Internet Governance challenges.
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Thank you so much. I feel like the challenges are very common to several countries at the Global South. My country, Brazil, for example, it's the same.
Now, back to am re‑Dan, when it comes to the process in Internet Governance, we can mention the process that the telecom regulator authority have concerns during the last years. I would like to ask you, what are the main lessons learned from these processes and what are also the (?) in participation especially in a country with such diverse backgrounds such as in India.
>> Thank you for having me. I'll also try to answer something which you had been asking the other participants. So, India initially was more for a multisection process but later adopted the multistakeholder process. One, I would say, example where the consultative process works is with the telecom reg tear authority who looks after mostly the telecom services. So, they have a process wherein they have a consultation. Stakeholders put in their comments. It is put on the website. You can counter comment to them within a stipulated amount of time. They may have open houses where you can counter or interact with each other. That's one good thing which the transparency and accountability is something which is open which normally many of the processes we don't see. But what is ‑‑ what needs to be done more there would be the lack of understanding apart from the people who are participating in the consultation. Many may not even know what the consultation paper, for example, is all about.
It can be on, say, same spectrum but it may affect the smaller ones who may not know it come back to them. The outreach or capacity or even letting all the others know about it is one of the limitations in a country wherein you have various education level, various languages. So, I think that's a work in progress. It may be in many other developing countries.
Coming back to the initial question you asked about Internet Governance. India does have an Internet Governance forum where things are discussed. However, in a developing country, when you talk about Internet Governance, that may not the priority of all the countries. Because the governments want to provide access to everyone. That is their first priority. They want jobs. They want technology to leap frog. So, if I'm looking at India, they would be more interested in having manufacturing (?) in the country or access or even using AI start‑ups. When you just say Internet Governance, they may not understand the value. They value Internet Governance Forum. They never oppose it but it's not priority. That's why you won't find top officials coming here.
I think they need to know more about Internet Governance Forum is not just about names, numbers, protocols or the traditional Internet Governance things. Because a lot more is discussed from the developing world which would impact them. I think the narrative to them has not been expanded. This is just not this. There is more discussed. And there is value for them to come. I think that narrative is important. And I think it is important for most of the developing countries.
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Thank you, Amrita. Again, this is just regarding developing countries. I feel like this is pretty much a reality for Brazil as well, especially concerning digital divide and access to the Internet.
So, thank you, all of you. We'll now go to our next slot. It's concerning multistakeholder approaches. So, Keith, I'll go with you first. So, you mentioned during your answers the access issue Internet in marginalised communities. I would like to ask you, where access remains a challenge and what additional steps could the multistakeholder model could take to address the needs to bridge the digital divide and sharing the government's policies reflect the needs of this population, not leaving them behind in the process?
>> KEITH ANDERE: Sure. Thank you so much. So, one is between digital literacy programs. Here KICTANet is currently involved in digital scaling for the community digital champions into marginalised counties. So, we have the national government, and then we have county governments. So, we picked two counties that are of marginalised communities where we're already doing community digital champions there. This will, of course, follow into other counties as we continue. So, this collaboration, together with the UK government, who will also be doing the same for women in ten counties in Kenya by improving digital skills. We see that the community can better engage with online services and participate also in Internet Governance discussions.
There's need to increase investments in essential infrastructure, such as lab or electricity. We see this is a challenge where we don't have lab or electricity and power and energy needs. When you're talking about transition, telecommunication networks as well, we also notice that these marginalised countries do not have coverage because of communication companies they don't see these counties for them to make business case in that sense.
Again, collaborating with government and private sectors stakeholders can help develop a robust framework for expanding connectivity and ensuring equitable access to digital resources.
Lastly, to facilitate community engagement platforms, creating platforms for community members to voice their concerns and perspective on Internet Governance issues, engaging leaders. We also ensure that policies are informed by unique challenges by rural communities. So, we think that these steps aim to empower marginalised communities. But it will also improve access to digital resources and ensure their voices are integral in shaping Internet Governance policies in Kenya.
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Thank you so much and also for pointing out the participation in DPI. I feel this is really not talked about enough when developing services.
I'll go now to Dr. Gridl, Germany has been very active in multilateral discussions on Internet Governance and digital governance as well as dialogues. What role do you envision for international cooperation in Internet Governance and how can countries and organisations better work together to address these global challenges?
>> Yes. Thank you. Yes, we're actually very active in a multilateral, multistakeholder and also on a bilateral level. My personal experience, our experience is that the more we exercise a bottom‑up approach, the more fruitful it becomes for everybody. So, when we're having our bilateral digital dialogues with countries around the world from the Global South, but even from the North, we always aim at having participation of all the stakeholders. In some kind of way (Audio breaking up) (no audio)
But that's something which is very important to us to have this bottom‑up, not to have like one government or two governments sitting together and then imposing on the community what they have decided. That's not going to work. We do it on a bilateral level. And we believe that we should also not do it on a multilateral international level. So, the bottom‑up, multistakeholder approach.
Then our experience is ‑‑ it's a very blunt experience, but it's important. You need to take your money where your mouth is. So, if you're only talking is fine, but it's not enough. So, if you want to really get into real cooperation, you need to have concrete projects. You need to have money from the development corporation or in our case, for instance, we are funding the IGF Secretariat, also for next year, so we really think the talking is important, but it's not sufficient. That's another lessons learned.
We're trying to convince our fellow European international partners to follow suit and some of them do, as you know. And that is also something that we are bringing into the discuss with WSIS+ 20 process next year where we see many voices on the table and some tendencies of centralisation, of having power projected from top to down. We don't like what we are seeing there. And we are working quite actively with our partners that are like minded to guide the discussion and negotiations that will come into a good direction.
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Thank you very much for your answer. As a part of the Secretariat of the international digital dialogue, I am very proud of the work we have been doing. I really believe the approach is the only solution, to be honest.
So now, Amrita, you have been a very great advocacy educator for youth engagement, both in India and the IGF in general. From your perspective, what should policymakers do to ensure that the youth can actually contribute to Internet Governance, both in their respective countries and globally as well.
>> AMRITA ADHIKARI: We should move away from tokenism. We just don't ‑‑ many times you will see you need woman representation so you put a woman on a panel. That happens many places. You need to show woman, so you have someone on the board. You have that kind of thing. Many times, you'll see you want to have a youth, you put a youth. But I think you have to take them seriously. We were having a discussion today like what narrative should be. I think you have to reach out to the youth in the way they work. For example, they are on messages. They are on videos, et cetera. Talk to them about what they think is the Internet, how it should be shaped in the future. What they perceive as the challenges or try to explain it to them, what you take for granted today may actually hurt you and build their capacity like you do with the other politicians or the others. Is it better now?
So, I think you have to talk to them in their language, try to understand them. Not patronise them. That's one. And also, explain to them what is at stake. Give them the opportunities to come. If they have to come, present, build their capacity, and also make them accountable.
Simply, for example, if you have rules or regulations on online gaming coming, have you spoken to 16, 17‑year‑olds, young adults how they would want it? Are you giving them some amount of responsibility on how they could do it? I think that's important.
The youth IGF initiatives in the countries should be encouraged. Many IGF organisations have tried to support them. I'm sure many governments are supporting those initiatives. Not only the discussions out there. Try to have more tangible discussions on, I would say, key takeaways, which they can implement, et cetera, could be one way of looking at it. Whatever they have in their respective countries in terms of learnings, they turn of push it back to the youth gif. And whatever messages they come, they are percolated down. Just before this session I was speaking that the messages that come out from the IGF needs to reach everyone. Are we ensuring that happens?
So even the youth initiatives have a lot of discussions that happen. Do the messages go to the governments? I think those are certain things. I think baby steps can help.
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Thank you so much. As we have actually three panelists here that are engaged with the youth. So, this is a happy coincidence. This is the key by not patronizing people.
Now we will go to the audience interaction section I would like to know if we have any questions here in the room? No? It doesn't seem like it okay.
(No audio)
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. I was looking at the topic itself, the next steps in Internet Governance, looking for models for the future. I would like to contribute by saying the multistakeholder model will persist at least for now. I don't see any alternative. So, like the presenter in the middle mentioned, it's multistakeholder compared to multilateralism. We have already seen the problems with multilateralism quite recently with the UN treaty where a lot of challenges are being mentioned about it. Yet, it was negotiated in a multilateral conditions.
So, I see Internet Governance persisting to be under multistakeholder situations. Multistakeholder, the model itself has evolved. I think the way it's evolved is that it is regional, it's even gone national. We now have national IGFs, but they are not enough. So, in future, I'm looking at a situation where we will have more national IGFs but also operating under the multistakeholder model.
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Thank you very much for your comment. Does anyone that would like to ‑‑
>> Thank you for this intervention. I think it's very, very relevant. We do have in Europe, the EuroDIG, which is a regional European IGF. I, myself have been to many meetings. And what you're saying is completely right. It is another perspective. It is a more comprehensive view about the challenges that people in the same region face regarding Internet Governance. And from my experience I wholeheartedly support this intervention.
>> AMRITA ADHIKARI: Coming from the Asia Pacific, where that ‑‑ we have something called a synthesis document, which we release after each annual event. The challenge in Asia Pacific is, we have very diverse countries. We have the big ones like India, China. You have the small Pacific Islands; you have landlocked countries like Afghanistan. You have different countries with different sensitivities. It's very difficult to come to a common ground on certain things. So, yes, you need to have these dialogues within the country so that you can even influence your own governments wherever possible, even if you cannot do it from a regional perspective.
For example, we had Asia Pacific in Taiwan. Taiwan is not recognised in UN, so none of the UN people came there, even the IGF. So those are hard facts which we face in our region. But they are very involved in it. Those are certain things. We have to look at various places the other thing is we're seeing all stakeholders, you may have ‑‑ for example, I come from Civil Society. We may be working. We may be actively contributing, but when decisions are made, our Civil Society given that much of value. For example, when discussions on artificial intelligence is going on, yes, private sector has a bigger stake. And they are more involved. There is maybe some people from Civil Society who understands AI or the issues ‑‑ I'm not saying everyone, but people understanding, are they taking into consideration. Is during this so‑called multistakeholderism, some stakeholders given more power than others? I think those are certainly things we need to consider.
I completely agree with you. But reality at times is very skewed.
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: So, we have a question online. I don't know if it's via chat or you can open your mic and go as well, please. Are you with us, Evgeny? Okay. So, I'll just pass to the room. Please open mic. Can the tech open his mic, please? I feel like he's not able to open it.
>> AUDIENCE: Can you hear me?
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Yes, we can hear you.
>> AUDIENCE: Okay. Thanks a lot for the discussion. So highlighted in the discussion have different modalities, it's very difficult to say how such opinions can be applied for future Internet Governance since we have a topic, next steps, a future approach for Internet Governance. But we still big inequality in terms of contribution of countries to the global Internet Governance. Moreover, some multistakeholder approach you provide a possibility to involve actors. In other case we see ‑‑ we bring voices of business and other actors who rep a global minority. My question ‑‑ how we can avoid dictatorship by active minority. This minority we should have maximum resources for research and for practical implementation, the governance approach in another case. How to avoid this possible inequality, thank you?
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Thank you for question. Does anyone would like to answer?
>> KEITH ANDERE: Thanks. I think this inequality are going to be there as long as, one, we have issues of access. Because then in itself is a barrier. Second thing that I think we still have inequalities are actually issues of resources. Resources speak both to technical and financial resources. Because then even just participating online, like the colleague has already done. If you don't have resources to buy, for example, they want you to be here, that in itself (?) however, borrowing from some of the experiences of Global South, we are seeing a lot of governments coming in very strongly to support and make it a priority for digital infrastructure in other ecosystems that support digital infrastructure. Things like energy, for example, is one of the things that we see government already working very hard to ensure that there is connectivity.
If I was to compare Saudi and Kenya for example, I think Kenya is a leading country as far as renewable energy is concerned. We have a lot of opportunity as far as using green renewable energy but only 30% of the country is connected to the grid. Whereas in Saudi Arabia, it's nearly a 100% despite this is a desert. You would think it would be the other way around. There are things that are pushing out these people to be connected and to be part of this kind of conversation.
I think now we start ‑‑ we need to start unlocking these inequalities even by just tackling the basics. In Global South is a challenge. In leaders is a challenge, then how do we have digital literacy in itself? You need to read and write before you can operate a computer. My grandmother, for example, we got her a phone. She can do basic reading and writing. We got her a picture phone. Then she feels left out that she doesn't want it. As she wants to be and when I'm here, she tells my cousin, where is my other grandchild, tell her to send me a WhatsApp. I send her a picture of me in this session. I see you sent it. Open for me. That in itself is a challenge. Because whereas a lot of these services and government issues are coming on to the digital platforms, there's a risk of having a middleman who then can swindle some of them in all of these ideas. Kenya (?) is very popular. When I send her a little money, she has a way to know that is a text message. Read it for me? I look at the numbers. And then after that, she can't remember what was the balancing. She just knows there was a 953. Sometimes they go and remove 100 shillings and then it's 853. Then she's like there's a 53. So that's fine. Just to conclude, the inequalities, I think the next generation that are coming is the generation that is going to bridge the gap towards the generation that has been left on with this digital train that has already left.
My grandmother, just to sum it up, is now connected because she has grandchildren who can now read and write who are technologically savvy. She's able to navigate the terrain because of the people around her. Who do we support in the places and communities we come from to sort of hand hold them and ensure they're also not left behind. I think the onus is on us really.
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Thank you very much. Another example of the importance of the youth. Amrita, would you like to complement?
>> AMRITA ADHIKARI: I kind of agree, especially with senior citizens and people who are very new to the Internet using these technologies where you have been ‑‑ many of the government services, et cetera, is on Internet, so you need assisted service. Assisted service is not always bad because language may be a problem. Many things may be multilingual, when the payment comes, it may be English. Those are there. But if you look, there is innovation happening.
Today for digital public infrastructure, whatever, in India even someone who can't read can take money. When they see value, they will use it. They will write in their own language, send it to you. You can choose what you want. You don't even have to talk. They are illiterate, but they know how to use it. If they see value, and if you can put it in pictures or in audio, it works where people do not speak. That is where the innovation comes in.
But, yes, there is a difference between the digital divide and the digital and technological divide is increasing. If you talk about AI, et cetera, coming in, the divides will increase further. And I think that's where some where the GDC scores a point, at least in text. It talks about transfer of technology. Whether it will happen in reality, that's a different thing, but it talks about it. That's what developing countries are also asking for.
I think there are a lot of capacity building which is done, and I do know German government has done it during the GDC also, building capacity in developing countries. I think those kind of capacity building can help to at least train parliamentary or people who are in power to understand what is happening, what is not. And also, others who are interested to build with judiciary. UNESCO is doing this work. It is work in progress. You can't change everything, but definitely things may change.
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Please go ahead.
>> AUDIENCE: Is it working. Apologies for my sore throat. It's not that I participated in so many panels but I have a bad cough. I'm Bertrand de La Chapelle from the Internet and Jurisdiction Network. I want to address the question of future and executions. In 2004, during the Summit of the Information Society, Kofi has said something that has been quoted since then, in designing the governance, I paraphrase, mechanism for this Internet, we need to be as innovative as the ones who invented it.
Being someone who was able to summit like many people here, I must confess that in the last two years, we haven't invented much. The last two innovations were the creation of ICANN before the Summit and the creation of the IGF. And if you're sincere, the IGF that we know here was entirely built because of two people [] Markus Kumar, they invented the MAG, the Chair of the MAG, there was a role of Secretariat. We had Deputy Secretary‑General of the United Nations who was a former Minister of India who had a lot of weight. And we've been running on this since then without inventing much apart from the international language in all IGFs which has actually spread. But we are at the moment 20 years later where we're failing in our responsibility to invent what the next step is.
The IGF, as it is, has all the components that it needs to be successful. And each of them is failing. Each of them is just not what it could be. The MAG, for anybody who follows it is not playing the role of a real agenda setting conference structure. The Chair of the MAG is not sufficiently to give direction because the mandate is not sufficient. The Secretariat has no resources, human or financial. All the building blocks are there. But each of them need a little bit of a push.
To finish, we feel the WSIS+ 20 review. We will not solve this problem unfortunately in 2025. Because we will have the two Co‑Facilitators that will be nominated who knows when. They will be running the interventions in a very traditional way. They will lead most probably a road block at the end, because the conduction of the IGF is taken for granted. There shouldn't be a question about the reconduction. The question is how will it go.
There are two questions. One, do we revisit and update the mandate of the IGF of IGF? And two, do we institutionalise the structure with a charter of sorts? Same building blocks but clarifying the roles and responsibilities.
To finish, the problem is that it was possible to create ICANN in another time. But it is still a not for profit based in one country, in the US. Because you have only two ways to do things. Either you anchor something in one country and give it an international footprint, or you create an Intergovernmental Organisation. We do not have in our international system a way to create a non-intergovernmental transnational institution. And if we wanted to create what is needed, IE, to incorporate the IGF as a multistakeholder international organisation, we don't have the (?) to do this. That's one of the challenges.
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Thank you very much for your input. We have another question there. And then we pass to the speakers.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm a consultant in the Netherlands here representing the Internet coalition on safety. I want to add on to Bertrand on the best practice fora that are delivering content. For the rest, you almost took everything away that I wanted to say. But I would like to add one particular thing. I think that the IGF has capacity already to decide what outputs should be, except we don't make choices on it. And we have to start making choices. And the Dynamic Coalitions are making their outputs more recognised, perhaps even with some sort of a sanction of the IGF that it's a good process, et cetera. But we show the world what we're actually doing and that we're not a talk show, but everybody says we are. We are not anymore because a lot is coming out of it. But we need to promote it. That's what the role at this moment. It's promoted what these outputs are. As Dynamic Coalitions we're going to fight for that, I think, in 2025 to make this better known.
So, from your point view, the MAG help here and what you change in the MAG to actually make that happen, what is your view there? Thank you.
>> KEITH ANDERE: Thank you Bertrand for those of you who not know me, I'm not only in the Ministry of Digital affairs. I used to be responsible for the organisation of the Berlin IGF in 2019. In this capacity I was also a member of the MAG. These are really, really relevant questions that you are asking. And I think that we have now some months to find answers. We probably won't find all the answers in that time, but we can open up some ways to continue.
For this, I think the first thing in my view, but I think it's really important and it goes without saying that the IGF is there. It will continue. And it will be the corner stone, the centrepiece of the multilateral Internet Governance work.
Now, what is the role of the MAG? Having been a member of the MAG, I know that there have been really intensive discussions about the question, do we have the capacity? Do we have the man detail to set an agenda? Is this something we can impose on the multistakeholders? Who are we? What is our legitimacy as a MAG? Now we have this process which is established, which is working but a little bit cumbersome and not very like ‑‑ yeah. It could be improved of like asking ‑‑ to the community and bringing back the ideas and then setting the agenda.
I have no solution, but I know that as soon as you start a discussion of the MAG being some kind of front runner or agenda setting body, this will most certainly bring a great discussion on the table with uncertain outcomes.
The second question was, I think about the Secretariat and the funding. I think that is something we have to tackle. Human resources and in financial resources. The Secretariat is doing an incredible job. These are incredible colleagues. And they are really, from the bottom of my heart, I thank them until this day for everything that they have done in 2019 and all the years before and after. It's a great team, but they are really at the edge of what they are able to do. We need to, as a community, as a multistakeholder community, that's what I was saying, you have to put the money where our mouth is. You have to strengthen the Secretariat. That's very, very clear.
And then there have been ideas and the Dynamic Coalitions are one of them. There are others. We have to have not a negotiated declaration, not some cumbersome UN kind of style document but something that gives the inspiration that we are receiving and that we are all encompassing here to the world to the decision-making bodies, telling them, okay, listen. You have a negotiation on AI and human rights. There are many very good ideas that have been discussed here. That's more or less the framework in which you are positioning yourselves.
And that should be possible, I think, without having like a UN style negotiation. I'll stop here.
>> Thank you very much for giving me the floor. As you mentioned, the discussions within the MAG of what is the extent of the mandate is an ongoing discussion. I always answer with a joke. The joke is you don't have a bottom‑up if you don't have an up. The bottom‑up process is Goldilocks zone. Basically, you need to have something that's participatory. We all know that if it's uniquely participatory, you go nowhere. If on the other hand, you consider as a MAG member and a group that you have the absolute authority to set the agenda, you're too far on the too hot or too cold. I think the discussion is, what is the right balance so that the input is being taken into account? But I wouldn't be offended at all if the MAG in its own thinking were saying, we think that next year there should be three tracks that we put in place. There can be others that are produced entirely by the community, but on those three tracks, we would like to cluster the different workshops so that you have a structured agenda. And this Goldilocks zone is probably the approach for many of the things. I agree with wetter, the Dynamic Coalition, the panel all of these are components as I said, that are part of the architecture we should build upon but they're not sufficient.
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Thank you, Amrita, before I pass it to you, when you do your answer, do your final remarks please because we only have five minutes, thank you.
>> AMRITA ADHIKARI: I think most of the people in this room agree that the IGF needs to be renewed. Of course, that's taken for granted. It has to have more teeth. Again, shamelessly talking about the working group strategy. Many of you are there in the group. We've prepared a vision document of how to strengthen the IGF and make it more strategic. I would suggest if you can look at it, it's on the IGF website. There are various things which have been written, which could make it for strategic, more appealing, and yes empowerment of the MAG of the Secretariat is very important. The MAG doesn't even know how these workshop rooms were done up. People think those 300 sessions which are happening here is something which the MAG did. Unfortunately, no. It is about 84 which is they decided upon. The rest comes ‑‑ they come to know as we come to know. That's the hard reality here.
So, I think we need to preserve what we have and enhance it. I would stop with that. Thank you.
>> My finishing words? We have an interesting, important year in front of us. We should stay focused. We should stay optimistic, and we should try to give our best, to have the best Internet Governance Forum Internet Governance mechanism that this 21st Century needs and last thing, no duplication of structures.
>> KEITH ANDERE: Thank you. I do agree with my fellow panelists by looking into the future, especially for us from the Global South whom we played catch up with IGF process. You'll find that many national IGFs came in to play maybe the last ten years or so. So, a lot of countries from Global South, this is just when they're settling in, knowing the IGF, sometimes it takes a few years to convince the government officials at national level that this is the space that they need to come add stakeholders and not to come to be criticized. I'm very optimistic that the IGF will possibly be extended if not the mandate be reviewed. But I also look at the future of the IGF in the sense that it should be characterized by increased decentralisation. We've seen a lot of countries being very expansive in terms of geographical (Audio breaking up) so maybe this decentralisation should actually go below the national level so that we're contextualising things at the very local grassroots. I think one spoke about the bottom top, bottom‑up approach. So, this national level shouldn't be (Audio breaking up) level.
Secondly, I see collaboration as a very, very important and significant thing among diverse stakeholders. I also see that balancing verification with the needs of inclusivity and involving the landscape as a key thing because this landscape is changing almost every second and resources must be put into the processes. Like, again, about even the Secretariat not being with the resources. I think the resources must come.
Lastly, I think also I'm very biased but without apology that (?) also be allowed managing and controlling these resources because technically we don't. Thank you.
>> LUIZA FERREIRA: Thank you, everyone, for participating. I feel like we had a great debate. I feel bad for the colleague in the back we couldn't take her answer but we have a tight schedule. Thank you, everyone, for participating in the debate and everyone online as well. And have a nice rest of the IGF. Thank you.