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.
***
> AJITH FRANCIS: Hello and good afternoon everybody. Welcome to yet another session on WSIS+20. However we hopefully today are going to talk about the technical community perspectives on WSIS+20. But also what are the challenges with regards to governance when it comes to the technical architecture.
The purpose of today's session really is to provide a framing and a brief understanding on the technical layer of the internet and technical architecture. Its governance. But also the role of the multistakeholder model.
We also want to sort of spend a little bit of time to sort after address the role of the IGF, and maybe try to articulate the positive vision for the IGF as well.
We often take the technical underpinning of the internet for granted. And that is with good reason because the end user doesn't necessarily need to know the actually ins and outs of how the internet works as they navigate the internet. But when it comes to the actual questions around policy and governance, that understanding of what is the actual technical layer and the different component of it are extremely critical.
The technical architecture underpinning the internet is definitely not a monolith. But it is actually a set of federated entity, operators and actors that work together to actually keep the internet running and accessible for all of us. So to help me understand some of these perspectives on what is the technical layer, but also what are the governance parameters, as well as challenges facing the technical layer at the moment, I'm joined by a stellar panel with diverse sets of expertise and perspectives.
So I'm joined today and I'm going to go alphabetically by. I'm joined by Chris Chapman. Member of aCann board. I have Joyce Chen who is the senior advisor for strategic engagement at APNIC.
And Ellie McDonald policy and advocacy lead at global partners digital.
We also have our colleague Paulos Nyirenda joining us online. Also joined by Israel Rosas. And finally, but definitely not the least, we also have Frode Sorensen, senior advisor for Internet Governance at the Norwegian Communications Authority.
Alishah Shariff also policy and public affairs lead is also helping us moderate and has also helped put this session together. Thank you all very much for joining today's session. I really appreciate you taking the time out to speak to us today.
We have will have short blocks of Q&A in between the session. So for those joining us in person, we have two mics on either side of the room. So please feel free to use that. If you are joining us virtually, please feel free to put your comments in the chat box or the Q&A bot. And online moderator Alishah will help us navigate that.
So I have provide ad very generic and very broad overview of what is the technical layer. But I really want to turn to my fellow panelists today to really dig into some of the nuances of the technical layer. And I'm going to start with Israel. If you wouldn't mind giving us your perspective, particularly on the standards and protocol side that make up the internet. Particularly, given your role at the Internet Society and your interactions with the ITF and internet architecture board. If you can frame out the standards and protocols.
>> ISRAEL ROSAS: Thank you very much. I think this is really relevant conversation nowadays that we've seen many organisations from the technical community of the internet participating here.
And just for ‑‑ and thank you for framing the question that way. Because the Internet Society is a non profit organisation founded in 1992 to support the community of people working on the internet layer at that time.
Then we've seen different parts of the internet being developed in different ways. And one particular part is the internet (?) architectural board. I cannot say I speak on behalf of them. We've seen some of the members of the IEB are here at the IGF. So if you would like to get in touch with them, they are around the halls. I can see Warren here and there are only other members. The chair of the ETF also here.
I would like to highlight from that part of the technical community is not necessarily the topics. But how that part of the community addresses multistakeholder open conversations. Because something that has been catching my attention these days that we've been having conversations on the WSIS+20 review and high‑level discussion of this kind, is that some actors perceive that the IETF or that part of the community should solve something when a problem is identified, for instance.
I what we've seen is that we can all be IETF in some way. For instance, with government official, the Internet Society we have a policy makers programme we invite government official, policymakers to attend the IETF meetings. See how the standards are developed. Even these ways of measuring consensus with the humming the hmm... in the rooms. That is something that really surprises some of the policy makers in our product. And how do you vote? Now let me explain. Like rough consensus, these kind of discussions.
It is important for them to understand that any organisation, any team having technical people within their organisations, they can join these conversations of the I it have. And there are mechanisms attend the meetings in person, online, to participate mailing list. And that is why e we have that (?) policymakers, for them to understand they can be part of the solution instead of asking the body to solve particular issues.
So I would like to leave it at this point to keep the conversation going. But I think that is the most important part. Like these organisations are showing how the open model of voluntary option of standardisation can work. And then that how can be implemented some other spaces some other ways.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thanks Israel.
So maybe I'm going to turn now to online panelist Paulos. Would you mind giving us your perspective on sort of the name side of the internet technical layer?
>> PAULOS NYIRENDA: Thank you, Chair. Can you hear me?
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Yeah we can hear you.
>> PAULOS NYIRENDA: Thank you. So technical layer of the internet is responsible for things like routing, data pact packets across the network. And it is used by people. And people (?) addresses for addressing services on the internet, like vast amounts of information that. They do online, and shopping and various forms of internet. They do learning.
And all these human interfaces with easy to remember addresses for the resources. However as we all know computers use numbers for sending the data across the internet. And so there is need for an intermediary. The domain name system converts the addresses to IP addresses which the computers use for sending the traffic across the internet.
I think my task here is to look at this naming site. And the DNS in particular. The DNS has a priority. So there is the rule at the top managed by ICANN and server operators..com, and domains like dot MW for Manawi and. As we see. The technical layer of the internet involves many players. And it attracts a multistakeholder approach to its governance.
As manage the internet and also managed by civil society, we see multistakeholder coordination is really necessary for Internet Governance. And the IGF has a role to play in presenting a platform for this.
Names, organisation, or management or governance. Question think of the ICANN as being at the top. With its individual supporting organisations. GMSO, CCFO. (?). CCNSO for country codes. And many countries have taken a particularly keen interest on their country code domains.
Which figured highly in WSIS. And figures highly in IGF discussions. We have governments taking part under GAT. Government advisory committee. And users Alec as a constituency of ICANNs. And there are many other ICANNs. Like support or present platforms for many stakeholders. To come in.
Around the origins of the internet, the US government used to play a critical role in approving things like registrations for domain names. Updates at the top level, and operations at the rote level. That was the so called US oversight role. That role ended in 2016 with transition to (?) functions and in the current multistakeholder model of Internet Governance.
So right now oversight at ICANN is now (?) using supporting organisations.
The INF function plays critical role at the top level. Day to day basis. By (?). Maybe I should stop there for now. Thank you very much.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Maybe joist if you wouldn't mind chatting with us the perpetratives of the numbers community.
>> JOYCE CHEN: Thank you. And good afternoon, good morning, good evening to those online and joining us from all over the world. Thanks for having me. So the way that I would like to approach this question is to sort of describe the work of APNIC. And as well our process, which I think many people in the room are quite familiar with how ICANN (?) works but may not be as familiar with how the original internet recommendationries approach our policy development.
For those who might be new very quickly, to this world, and may not be as familiar with the terms, those of you who already are very familiar, this is the part where you can switch off. APNIC is the original internet registry. I've mentioned that before. Also the term RIR. It is not‑for‑profit. We are also member‑based. And we play a vital role in the technical coordination of the internet.
We are one of five regional internet registries around the world that does the work of managing and allocating internet number resources, such as IP addresses and autonomous system numbers or ASNs. And internet number resources are fundamental resources because they allow devices and networks to communicate across the global internet.
Let's talk about policy development. What it refers to how the rules and guidelines are created for managing internet number resources within the Asia‑Pacific region. What that means is we have community‑based policy development for the region by the region and this is the same practise across the regions in the world.
These policies do not determine who gets IP resources and how they are uses and how they are. Process is open to all. Bottom up. Consensus basessed. Transparent and documented. It means anyone not just APNIC members can propose a policy change or participate in discussions.
By upholding these values in our policy development we ensure fairness and IP address distribution. Our aim is to protect the integrity of the global internet by maintaining consistent technical standards.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thanks, Joyce. I think to round this out, maybe Chris, if you could, you know, give us your perspective on the role of ICANN, which also Paulos has alluded to as well. Over to you Chris.
>> CHIS CHAPMAN: First, thank you for having me on the panel. I've never been described as part of a stellar panel before. So there is always a first.
And talking about firsts, this is my first IGF. I've been on the ICANN board for nearly 3 years. Currently the deputy chair. I note that in the audience in the front row is our current chair. So I feel like I'm here having an annual performance review.
But in all seriousness, I joined the board having a longstanding ‑‑ sorry, I'll just two back one second. I'm a lapsed lawyer by training.
And a bit like being a lapsed catholic, which I also am.
But throughout my career whether it was ultimately running the seven network broadcasting in Australia or building the olympic stadium in Sydney or running the opt disk broadband telecommunications initiative or being for 10 years the inaugural Chairman of the (?) communications and media authority which was probably the first genuinely converged regulator, broadcasts telecommunications spectrum and so called online services. Or indeed from 2016 to 2023 being the president of the international institute of communications, which is 56 years old. Based in London. It is a hosting platform. Stroke think tank for media communications, started in public broadcasting, broadcasting, telecommunications and now has, like all things, evolved into the digital ecosystem.
I have always thoroughly enjoyed working within the technical community. Although I would not in any way, shape or form say I'm technically savvy. But I emphasise all that because on each and every occasion, the technical side of those businesses is what has ensured long‑term prosperity, long‑term stability. It has been the sanity cheque, the reality cheque. They are the foundational pillar of any system that you want to have that is effective, efficient and ultimately enduring.
So I joined ICANN with new curiosity about what that technical community meant in the internet space and the unique identifiers. I joined it with an absolute fascination for the multistakeholder model. Disillusioned as I am about the multi lateral institutions, and great challenges facing society globally. And I have become its greatest advocate. Late adopters are often the most passionate.
So what I came to realise over the last several years is ICANN is not the be all and end all. It is merely the senior player within the unique identifier space, the domain name system, that is the ultimate coordinator. Not only within a very engaged broadly global‑based community. But also with a number of collaboration partners and I players. So the model is deeply nuanced, respectful, intelligent, broadly‑based, bottom‑up, than I could have ever contemplated. And I've enjoyed every moment of being within the community and being educated by the community. And learning from the community.
Short point, short question you've asked me and I've been listening to Paulos and Joyce. And if I could synthesize those I'd have the perfect description. But ICANN's mission is essentially to coordinate the global internet system of unique identifier, ensuring a stable, secure and unified online experience.
In practise this means ensuring that there is one internet. One unique hierarchal name space based on a unique route.
If you were to go a little deeper you would break it down into three buckets. There is the technical aspects, ensuring the stable and secure operation, the internet's unique identifier systems by coordinating the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the domain name system.
There is facilitating the coordination, operation and evolution of the DNS route name server system. Coordinating at the topmost level of internet numbers and autonomous system numbers.
And then you have the whole policy side of the multistakeholder model, which, you know, is not perfect but it is a very impressive model. And it could be more efficient it. Could be more effective. And we'll I think see over the next five or so years further evolution in that effectiveness and efficiency.
But you have the coordination of the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second‑level names and generic top‑level domains. You have the facilitation of the development of global number registry policies. And finally over and above that, and it is an evolving self‑evident necessity. You have got the need to collaborate. Collaborate more and more and more with other bodies as appropriate to provide registries needed for the function of the internet in coordination with example the IETF, IR Rs, the Internet Society and the research that goes with it. So thank you for the opportunity to say all that. I hopefully, finally, finally, finally. The ICANN new strategic plan from '26‑'30 starts I think 1st of July is Monday it. Starts on Monday. It represents an evolution in the strength of conviction that ICANN is bringing to the table. And interestingly, ICANN's 2030 vision is is to be the trusted steward ‑‑ trusted steward ‑‑ of the internet's unique identifier systems. ICANN is dedicated to strengthening the single globally interoperable internet for all. And those words of trust bridge credibility, institutional legitimately is what it is all about. We invest in trust. We invest in our institutions. We invest in our capabilities. We invest in each other. And that's what makes the world happily go around. Thank you for that opportunity.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thanks Chris. I think these interventions are highlight how complex the technical layer is and how there are different parts of it.
And given there are so many different entities involved in the provisionalling of the internet I think the question of collective governance and coordination becomes extremely important. At the level of operation matters and also policy. I'm going to turn now to Ellie and Frode to sort of giving us your thoughts on how the Internet Governance ecosystem has benefited a secure, stable and open internet rooted in human rights. But also what does the multistakeholder model mean to you. Maybe start with el Li and then go to Frode.
>> ELLIE MCDONALD: Thank you. I can briefly introduce. Civil society and human rights organisation and we work to ensure that the frameworks, norms and standards that underpin digital technologies rights respecting and also developed in an inclusive way.
As part of this work we've engaged in multistakeholder venues like the IETF earlier mentioned, multi lateral ones like the ETU. And of course the IGF, the multistakeholder discourse of beautiful but flawed forum that we find ourselves in now.
And so maybe I can build a bit on what the other panelists have said, in particularly, Israel. I think what's particularly special about this ecosystem is that it does provide these unique spaces where you could have on one hand an engineer, a company, government representative, and a human rights defender to come together and to shape. And all of the various things that we've just discussed.
I think there are clear examples of how this can work in practise. I'm sure that the panelists can furnish us with a lot. I'll just give a couple. One that comes to mind is the Public Interest Technology Group in the IETF. I think in being established this offer ad really safe space to be able to exchange information. For different layers of knowledge to come together. So the technical. The advocacy, the normative, the human impacts to be brought together.
And it permitted, has permitted public interest actors to engage at the early stage of development. And that is really critical to ensure human rights respect and design.
Another example that comes to mind is the evolution and the establishment of the hate TPS protocol. I this this is a really beautiful example how that can work in brackets. And both identifying problems, issues that needed to be addressed. Both technical ones but also the resulting issues in terms of surveillance. And having the appropriate technical solution and then being able to test it with end users and other experts who could say whether it would be fit for purpose.
I would like to add that I don't think anyone here would say that that means these spaces are functional perfectly. They are resource intensive and that makes it particularly hard for underresourced communities to engage. There are naturally asymmetry of knowledge that make it difficult too. Sometimes issues of access and then of course just the challenge of translating between different lexicons. And the IGF, which I think we'll come to shortly, I think is a really special place where that translation work happens.
And all of that to say, despite there being these kind of issues of reforms that need to be made, doesn't mean that we should abandon these spaces. They are tremendously useful and helpful.
Yeah. I can pause there.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thanks Ellie. Frode.
>> FRODE SORENSEN: Thank you Ajith. And thanks for very interesting exchange of views so far. Norway a strong supporter of the multistakeholder approach for Internet Governance and digital cooperation. Furthermore Norway also a strong supporter of the ICANN as the core institution for technical Internet Governance and IETF as a body for internet technology.
It is paramount that the internet remains open, free, resilient and interoperable. This should be the core of the discussion of the ongoing discussion about the multistakeholder model. And future of the IGF. How can the model and the forum be designed to support an open and secure internet?
It is also worth noting that the broader topic of digital cooperation is closely linked to the open and secure internet. Since this underpinning the running of applications and sharing of information which facilitates direction, public discourse and economic activity.
So why is the governance at the technical layer so special?
Governance of the internet infrastructure is based on the running of technical equipment that requires insight of the technical community to ensure that internet works stable, robust and interoperable.
The internet may become fragmented if some of the stakeholders are excluded from the Internet Governance discussion. And in case the technical community is not toughly involved, the administration of internet resources and thereby the internet itself may destabilise. And furthermore the value of the internet may become weakened since it restricts the usability of this global network.
In particular, the underlying technical layer of the internet is fundamental for the functioning of the internet. This ensures interoperability of the core functions of the internet. And furthermore, without an open and secure and interoperable infrastructure, the applications built on top of it may become restricted. Ultimately without an open and secure internet, it may threaten human rights. In particular freedom of speech and freedom of association. And furthermore the value of the internet to support democratic processes globally may become undermined if the internet communication is restricted.
In summary, the expertise from the technical community is instrumental to the running of the internet. Involvement of the technical community for the global Internet Governance is important for an informed discussion based on technical realities. This is a prerequisite for maintaining an open and secure internet.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thanks Frode. If anybody wants to pose questions, please feel free to use the mic. And I'll come to you very shortly.
I think what Frode points to is very interesting. Because there is often this risk that often thrown out which is this question of internet fragmentation. And fragmentation at two layers. Both technical fragmentation. But also policy and regulatory fragmentation.
So with that sort of broad overarching perspective, I open the floor to any of you to share your perspectives on why are we having this conversation today. What is the role that the technical community and civil society and government stakeholders are playing in this conversation?
Joyce do you want to go first?
>> JOYCE CHEN: Sure. The question was, why are we having this conversation now? I think it speaks to the urgency of protecting the internet's global open nature, amidst rising geopolitical, technical and regulatory pressures. 2025 the year is an inflection point. We are reviewing WSIS in an environment of growing geopolitical tensions. Driving nations to assert digital sovereignty leading to proposals for national firewalls, data localization laws. Alternative DNS systems. Developments that risk breaking the internet into isolated silos.
The rise of cybersecurity threat, misinformation, abuse of platforms, they are all prompting calls for more centralized control. There are increasingly hostile actors that weaponize the use of the internet to disrupt lives and push political agendas. We have yet to reach global agreement on governments ‑‑ governance frameworks for new and emerging technologies like AI.
All this to say that there are real risks that if we don't actively preserve the internet's open and global architecture, we risk losing it.
Internet organisations and coalitions such as the TCM, the technical community coalition on multistakeholderism. I love I said that all in one go.
They are ensuring that governance decisions are informed by technical realities. The technical community brings evidence‑based, operational expertise that is essential to preserving a global, secure, and resilient internet.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Israel.
>> ISRAEL ROSAS: If I may. The things I kept thinking different things my fellow colleagues have shared. And I keep stealing ideas from Joyce and Ellie all the time, I have to say. Because in a previous meeting Joyce mentioned that the I IETF. And ‑‑ and Ellie mentioned translation space. Both true and complementally. For instance, with policymakers programme for IETF. It is not we're asking policymakers to become technologists and to participate in the deep root of the technical operation. We want them to understand first of all how the policies are developed. How the group works. How the ecosystem works in that part. But at the other ‑‑ at the same time, we want the same from the technologists to understand that the policymakers have valid concerns. And end of the day perhaps to your question, we are having this kind of conversations. And we are facing threats of fragmentation.
Because I don't know why, I've seen a trend to avoid disagreement. In fact disagreement is good. It is positive. Because different stakeholders might have different view, different interests. But if we pursue the same objective. And if we start talking, bridging our disagreements. It is through that consensus, discussion, that we can reach consensus. And that discussion of course is going to be longer, going to take longer. It is going to probably be more complex. Going to need more translation, more influence like in these spaces, in other meetings, in other spaces.
But at the end of the day the result is going to be more resilient. Without fewer not internet consequences and securing interoperable internet, single internet, global internet.
So I think that is why it is important like to take reference of different ways of implementation of multistakeholder model. And I think this kind of opportunities are really good for that. Thanks.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thanks Israel. I want to go to Ellie. And then Chris. And then questions on the floor.
>> ELLIE MCDONALD: Thank you. Maybeky speak a bit to the governance aspect of the question. I think this panel is about WSIS so I think we're one of the reasons we're having this discussion is because that is a space where this will be stress tested and in fact come under quite severe threat I think probably.Em and we all see the risk of how this could play out in the months ahead.
And not only with respect to this process. But I think Joyce also mentioned discussions about emerging technologies and I think in discussions of the AI mechanisms, that kind of final 11th hour negotiations. We see risks of more state centric process to the appointment of experts and exclusion of military applications from the scope of assessments they will do. Lack of genuine multistakeholder accountability. And many of you in the room are working to mitigate those risks. But I suppose I really loved Israel's positive take, but to give more of the risk take. I think in the midst of everything else happening, the conflict, the challenges at the moment it is important we keep close attention to the processes is and that we don't lose anything in the course of the next year. And that we're not next year sitting without this forum that we've already kind of praised in so many ways.
Yeah.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thanks. Chris?
>> CHRIS CHAPMAN: Just to add to that and synthesizing some of these thoughts. I often discuss the prospect that, you know, with 200 countries say in the world. Sovereign powers. At last count I got to 420 digital media regulators around the world. That was last count, about three years ago when I laboriously went through it.
We have seen whack a mole legislators that just make complete inferences with the unintended consequences when they enter into decision making and have unfortunate impact on the network and operations layer within which we operate.
And I think this is just going to ‑‑ my apprehension about that will increase. So where as we think we're travelling okay. I'm quite positive about the outcome over the next few months I feel a very good vibe throughout the IGF and from what I'm hearing and seeing.
But collectively our work is just starting. We're going to have to double down. We're going to have invest, reinvest in mutual trust through our collaborations. Because we ain't seen nothing yet.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thanks. A I'm going to take the question from the floor and then come to you Paulos.
Please go ahead.
>> Hello. This is Mia from the internet architecture board and IETF. I just want to comment, how important it is for us to get this broad input from all kind of people because it makes our standards and internet better. It makes it possible to take all requirements into the development process as much as we can so we don't get surprised later on but it is also very essential for getting the protocols deployed. Because we are not like a government that can anything. It is like voluntary employment. And only if you consider everything, people will actually use it at the end and will be in success so this is very essential for us. And I also want to underline the openness of these fora. Because as was said, there are of barriers. There are different languages. Both space, the internet, the technology and the policy world is very complex. Right? So nobody expected to be easy.
So having these open places where we can all come together and all the voices are counting the same. I think is really important. To make progress here.
Thank you.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thank you very much for taking the floor and I'm sorry to have kept you waiting. Paulos?
>> PAULOS NYIRENDA: Thank you, moderator.
For us in Africa, maybe I should talk a little bit about how opportune it is now to be talking about governors of the technical layer. As you know our registry in Africa for IP addresses is having tremendous governance‑related problems at the moment.
That have resulted in, for example, (?) elections just a few hours ago. So management and governance of the technical layer is particularly pertinent to our region, as our internet registry. Similar to happening to Asia is going through these problems. And we would appreciate raising the issues about multistakeholder bottom‑up model governance. Because this is causing us a significant amount of trouble at the moment. At this technical layer.
Thank you.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thanks Paulos. That is a fair perspective. Go ahead Joyce.
>> JOYCE CHEN: This is Joyce. Thanks very much Paulos for bringing that up. The as very critical issue. And it really requires urgent attention from the internet community. Not just the internet technical community. The community at large.
And what I would like to applaud is that because this crisis has come to our doorstep, we have collectively decided that there needs to be lot of renewal of the processes and policies that we have taken for granted. Since the beginning.
And so if you look at the evolution of the internet and especially at the technical layer, its always been on a best‑effort basis. Its always been very voluntary basis. We're all just trying our best to keep the lights on, essentially.
A lot of the work took many years to professionalize. And it has taken a long time for the community to sort of refine the way we do things, refine the way that we do governance. So I might point you to this process that is going on now, which is the review of the RIR governance document. This is a global effort. It is being run by the ICANN ASO, the address supporting organisation. And really it looks at the process of establishing and derecognising RIRs. So this is a fundamental document of RIR governance. And I highly encourage you to look into this.
I just wanted to add onto these remarks. Yes we have a problem, we are facing a crisis, but the community is coming together to find solutions before solutions are found for us.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thanks Joyce. I'm very conscious of the time because we have 15 minutes left. And I want to switch gears to talk about the IGF, which is the venue that we're at. And the IGF, but also the multistakeholder model has worked really, really well for the Internet Governance ecosystem and particularly the technical layer.
There is an interesting question that's emerging which is, you know, is the IGF fit for purpose with regards to a lot of the new emerging digital governance issues that are sort of emerging at the moment? And this is in the context of a new, sort of, framic that is emerging that's been increase used between governance of the internet, which is the actually standards, protocols, the namings and the number system. But also governance on the internet, which is at the governance of the application layer.
So I'd be very curious to get Frode, particularly your perspective on how you see the role of the IGF in this sort of emerging new context.
>> FRODE SORENSEN: Thank you. The IGF has been a successful prototype for the implementation of the multistakeholder approach in the UN system. And one could build on this to seek to strengthen multistakeholderism in other parts of the UN system.
The CSTD, for example by broadening representation of different stakeholder groups. The multistakeholder model helps to build trust between those who otherwise would not have a common space for discussion. It strengthens legitimacy and.
The complexity is constantly increasing and leads to continuous need for insight from the technical community can provide supplement for the government's societal perspective. Some has Cruzed IGF for not having decision making powers. But this is part of the careful design. IGF a global forum for building capacity, identifying and discussing internet‑related issues.
However, there is a need to make IGF outcomes more accessible and useful for policy making. In addition to core issues of Internet Governance which are closely related to the internet infrastructure, another aspect of the WSIS processes and IGF has been in focus often referred to as the digital cooperation, originally referred to in the Tunis agenda enhanced cooperation. WSIS and IGF have consequently also covered digital cooperationality. Agendas of IGF meetings and WSIS forums have included various topics. This implies the global GDT compact in practise largely is a duplication of this activity in the WSIS programme.
Digital cooperation within IGF has covered various areas related to the use of the internet as opposed to the underlying infrastructure. Examples of such areas are cybersecurity, intern openness, data governance, platform economy, platform regulation, as well as artificial intelligence.
There is a need to better connect WSIS and the GDC. Otherwise we risk duplicated and fragmented efforts, which is unnecessary since both initiatives have similar goals.
It should be possible to better coordinate the interplay between the two.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thanks Frode.
And really understanding this tension between governance of and governance on, I think there is this question how does the technical community per viva this tension. And also civil society. Curious Joyce, and Israel and Ellie your perspectives on this topic.
>> ELLIE MCDONALD: Israel do you want to...
>> ISRAEL ROSAS: Yeah I. Can I'm still stealing ideas from others. Something I've been hearing from our community is several references to yes the IETF has been for purpose and has been for many years. Thing if we take a time machine I don't know, five years, seven years before this one? Probably the conversation wouldn't be around artificial intelligence but block chain.
And I don't know what would happen if we would have renamed this I don't know like blocking governance forum or something like that.
This thing we have working definition of Internet Governance that works, that is still valid. That mentions emerging technologies, whatever emerging technologies are in 2015, 2018, 25, 2038 ‑‑ I don't know.
So as that working definition is valid, the IETF remain valid to tackle issues. And one of the results or signals of that is that we've been having discussion at IETF about different technologies way before (?). Way before (?) United Nations.
So the community or at least my perspective is reacting to this topics without necessarily receiving the signal from the governments from the UN, for instance.
So my sense is that that is going to keep happening. Within the current configuration. And that is why I was referring at the beginning about who is IETF or who is APNIC, for instance. If there is a decision that needs to be made, it is not that you need to reach out to a person in APNIC to make a decision because it is not unilateral. It is based on processes of the (?) community. Same with IETF, same with ICANN. Same with (?). It is (?) something. Community also working on how keep shaping meetings. Or everyone NRI. So short answer, yes I think (?) purpose. And building what Frode mentioned, difficulty of tracking the results. If this is space of influence and translation, (?) published paper on footprints of IETF trying to track local level just to is have more elements discussion.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Joyce, do you want to add to that?
>> JOYCE CHEN: Sure. I struggle to come up with ideas, more ideas from like so many days of WSIS panels and discussions. And what else do I have to add to this conversation? Is there something new that I could say? And I think across days already heard for calls of sustainable funding of the IGF, more resources. Rebranding the IGF. The DGF. Et cetera.
And the reality is we are asking the IGF to do many things without really thinking about whether the current IGF structure is able enable all this to happen. I would like to hear more proposals around how we can streamline IGF processes and intersessional work and how we can help prioritise the work of the IGF and give it more focus. One of the strengths of the IGF is that it is incredibly flexible. Every year we are able to frame conversations around new and, you know, hot topics.
This year, for example, is all about AI. And the programme itself reflects this, that we are all discussing issues to do with AI, for example.
But the issue that I want to point out is that we're very good at picking up things. But we don't know how to put them down. You know to make space for other pressing issues. We're trying to juggle everything. And we're trying to please everyone. And to me this is a disservice to everybody. Because it is impossible to dive deeply into particular topics.
And I'm saying this because the internet technical community are one of the top financial contributors to the IGF. I was sitting in the donis meeting yesterday, IGF donis meeting yesterday and I think was mentioned the IGF technical organisations actually comprise 30% of the overall IGF trust fund. And that is big. We believe in the mission of the IGF. We're doing everything we can to support the multistakeholder community and its perseverance is critical for ongoing legitimacy of the multistakeholder Internet Governance ecosystem.
However over the years we're seeing fewer technical topics being discussed at the IGF. The space for the technical community I feel is growing smaller. And I understand that the technical topics are dry. It is hard to make something dry seem interesting in a policy space. And we struggle with this. Even though these are toppings that are core to the functioning of the internet. In summary, I think the IGF could benefit from greater focus, you know, efforts to prioritise this work.
I hope to see more concrete proposal on how it would streamline better against certain agreed upon priorities. And whether or not the IGF moves to being action oriented or it remains non prescriptive. It will still require some housekeeping to remove some of the bloat. I think it bears reminding that all things digital are made possible by the internet.
Whether we are the DGF or the IGF. We're really all just talk about the internet and the use of the internet.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thanks Joyce. Ellie and then Chris, but if you could keep it very brief because we're running short of time and I know we have an online question.
>> ELLIE MCDONALD: Okay. I'll try my best. I would definitely underline a lot of what the other panelists said. I think we did some research as Global Partners Digital, sorry to shamelessly plug. But we looked at the breadth of stakeholder positions on the IGF. We wanted to do this because we thought it could be quite useful to see where the convergence lies and also where there might be similarly intended attempts to operationalise different changes to its structure.
And I say this because I think that was really remarkable convergence about certainly elements. I think as others have said, the bottom‑up nape of the IGF is really so critical. Because it allows various communities to come with different lexicons, different ideas and to bring ideas to the table.
I at the same time as I say that I see a lot of sense? What Joyce is saying. And then maybe just lastly because I should be brief, to pick up on something Frode said. I think that we should also be mindful of the danger of being too restrictive about this model, this multistakeholder model. Because it has huge benefits that we wish to translate and roll out into other digital governance discussions. And so yeah, let's promote and sell the IP further I suppose.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Chris, you have the last word before online.
>> CHRIS CHAPMAN: I would endorse Frode's comments. And even though, as I said at the beginning I'm new to the IGF and therefore hesitant to be prescriptive, I share Joyce's cry from the heart about what needs to be done.
From the ICANN perspective, we are 101% supportive of renewal of the IGF adequate resourcing, proper mandates. It is the only place globally where stakeholders can come together as peers. And it is from ‑‑ and the ICANN will continue to support it, as it has done on a long‑term basis.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thanks Chris. Alishah, can we have the online question.
>> ALISHAH SHARIFF: Yeah. It is quite a long one. From Nicholas Fumerelli. ISOC chapter. And strengthening resilience of the global internet. And Nicholas wonders if we are witnessing the next global wave of San Bernardino hardening through security extensions like RPKI and GNS sec. So these are Beth things that use cryptography to try and prevent kind of root hijacking on one hand and also adding signature to DNS records on the otherred soft quite technical. Saying we're seeing federal enforcements rooting security and increasing DNS sec mandates. But we cannot look in isolation. ‑‑ (?) and root and edge. So Nicholas is question is, how do we ensure that security extensions reinforce trust and interoperability in a truly open internet? And what guardrails should we be building now ahead of the WSIS+20 outcomes.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thanks. Israel.
>> ISRAEL ROSAS: I think we have a quick question. Shouldn't mix those processes. High level process. For instance, we can agree we want more secure, more trusted internet. How? Well that is for the community to work in specific spaces. Because, for instance, the interesting thing that here we could identify. I don't know. We could say RPKI is important. And each of us are going to make different things to support the deployment of RPKI. Different things. And all of them are going to be valid and complementary.
So would say important to keep having those conversations. Important part is that I've seen that RPKI is widely community‑driven process. And if some recommending (?). It is important to realise (?) operating networks part of the internet.
Again multistakeholder implies governments. It is not governments and other stakeholders. It is good reminder of that.
>> AJITH FRANCIS: Thank you very much Israel. And I see the red light blinking. So we're at time. I want to say thank you very much to all of my fellow panelists. I enjoyed having this conversation. And I hope the audience took something away from it as well. Thank you very much and have a good rest of the day.