A bottom-up approach: IG processes and multistakeholderism | IGF 2023 Open Forum #23

Knowledge Graph of Debate

Session report

Anriette Esterhuysen

The analysis emphasises the significance of multi-stakeholder engagement in policy processes, specifically in the context of internet governance and UN processes. It argues that involving multiple stakeholders in policy development promotes compliance, understanding, and commitment to the outcome. When stakeholders are included and have a clear understanding of the policy process, they are more likely to adhere to it. Additionally, engaging multiple stakeholders creates a demand-side angle, further promoting and advocating for the policy’s outcomes.

However, there are concerns raised regarding the loose use of the term “multi-stakeholder engagement.” It is suggested that bad policy processes are being labelled as multi-stakeholder, which undermines the credibility and effectiveness of such processes. This raises questions about the transparency and appropriateness of applying the multi-stakeholder approach in policy development.

The analysis also highlights the shrinking opportunities for participation in UN processes related to internet governance, as discussions become increasingly centralised in New York. This centralisation leads to less diversity in representation and cross-pollination of ideas. Furthermore, certain stakeholder groups are being overlooked, such as the technical community, which is not seen as a legitimate stakeholder group in discussions on the Global Digital Compact. This limited representation in UN processes restricts the perspectives and expertise that could contribute to better internet governance.

Although the principle of multi-stakeholder engagement has been widely adopted in the UN and other institutions, there is a lack of effective implementation. While there may be some use of the principle in these institutions, the application falls short. The analysis suggests that the implementation of the multi-stakeholder principle needs improvement to ensure its effectiveness in policy processes.

It is argued that a meaningful application of the multi-stakeholder process requires a granular understanding of stakeholder groups. To ensure an inclusive and diverse representation of interests, stakeholders from various backgrounds and areas of expertise should be involved. For instance, discussions on AI policy should involve not only technologists but also educators and sociologists. This highlights the importance of considering a wider range of perspectives in developing policies to address complex issues effectively.

Another noteworthy point is the unique characteristic of the WSIS process when it was based in Europe. During this time, the process involved different institutions such as UNESCO, WIPO, ITU, and human rights institutions, ensuring a comprehensive approach to internet governance. This observation highlights the need for collaboration among various organizations and institutions in policy development.

The analysis also highlights the role of power dynamics in multi-stakeholder processes. It points out that power imbalances between different countries and within gender and racial dynamics affect the outcomes of these processes. Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge and counter the impact of power dynamics in the design of multi-stakeholder processes. Transparency about power dynamics is also emphasized as an essential aspect of fostering trust and inclusiveness.

Lastly, the analysis underscores the significance of clarity of purpose and flexibility in multi-stakeholder processes. Not every multi-stakeholder process is the same, and it is essential to assess the objectives and desired outcomes of the process. Furthermore, the design of these processes should allow for relationship building and a deeper understanding of differences among stakeholders.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in policy processes, with specific reference to internet governance and UN processes. It stresses the need for a more thoughtful and nuanced application of the multi-stakeholder approach, ensuring diverse representation, addressing power dynamics, and promoting clarity of purpose and flexibility. By addressing these factors, the multi-stakeholder process can become a more effective and credible means of policy development, avoiding its misuse as a mere shortcut or superficial tactic.

Panelist

The discussion revolved around the different aspects of internet governance and its effects on economic growth, inclusion, and stakeholder engagement. Several key points were raised during the discussion.

One of the main topics of the conversation was the positive impact of WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) activities on economic growth. The participants pointed out that global GDP has more than doubled since 2003, with examples such as Nigeria’s GDP increasing from $100 billion to about $500 billion. The argument put forward was that the activities of WSIS have contributed to this growth.

Another important aspect that was discussed was the need for inclusive participation and representation in internet governance. The participants noted that having focal people to represent different regions can encourage multi-stakeholder participation. This approach enables representatives from different areas to participate on behalf of others, promoting inclusivity.

The conversation also highlighted concerns about the lack of diverse and engaged participants in internet governance meetings. The sentiment expressed was negative, with participants raising the issue that the same individuals have been attending these meetings for years and that new participants often do not stick around. This lack of new and engaged participants was deemed problematic for effective discussions and decision-making.

A significant point that emerged from the discussion was the importance of active outreach and the use of alternative communication channels in countries where the internet is not a priority. The participants emphasised that in many countries, the internet is still considered a luxury, and people face more pressing issues like water scarcity or environmental challenges. Therefore, the UN and other organisations were advised to adopt different means of communication, such as radio, television, or traditional letter-writing, to engage with uninvolved individuals.

Additionally, the panelists highlighted concerns about the societal and economic impact of trade agreements, including those related to digital trade provisions. They pointed out that while some panelists expressed concern about these provisions, experts with backgrounds in trade policy observed and analysed all trade-related concerns from the internet community.

The importance of interdisciplinary communication and collaboration was stressed throughout the discussion. The panelists emphasised the need for professionals from various fields, such as engineers, trade lawyers, and economists, to work together in an interdisciplinary approach to address internet governance issues effectively.

Furthermore, the conversation shed light on the importance of knowledge for effective engagement and representation. The panelists believed that adequate knowledge, especially in technical areas related to the internet, is necessary for someone’s voice to be heard.

The lack of global representation and contribution from local organisations in internet governance was also discussed. It was pointed out that the majority of participants are from Western countries, with little involvement from local organisations in countries like Japan. This apparent inequality in representation was considered a negative aspect of internet governance.

The participants also highlighted the lack of knowledge and awareness about internet-related issues among organisations such as the Japan Consumer Organisation. This observation raised concerns about the need for education and awareness programmes to bridge the knowledge gap.

Barriers to inclusive participation in global internet governance meetings were also mentioned, such as the high costs associated with attending these events and the burdensome administrative processes, including visa applications. These barriers were seen as hindrances to inclusivity in the internet governance process.

The discussion concluded with the consensus that there is a need for stakeholder inclusion and consultation through channels beyond physical and virtual meetings. This approach would enable a more diverse range of individuals and organisations to provide input and be involved in internet governance discussions and decisions.

Finally, the importance of genuine and credible multi-stakeholderism in internet governance was stressed. It was emphasised that multi-stakeholderism should not be mere window dressing, but a genuine and credible approach that includes bringing people along, listening to different perspectives, and enacting positive change.

Overall, the discussion highlighted the complexities and challenges of internet governance, emphasising the need for inclusive participation, knowledge dissemination, and interdisciplinary collaboration. It underscored the significance of actively reaching out to uninvolved individuals and organisations and the importance of genuine multi-stakeholderism in achieving effective and inclusive internet governance.

Keywords: WSIS, economic growth, multi-stakeholder participation, inclusion, diverse participants, active outreach, alternative communication channels, societal and economic impact, trade agreements, interdisciplinary collaboration, knowledge gap, global representation, barriers to access, stakeholder inclusion, consultation channels, capacity building, genuine multi-stakeholderism.

Timea Suto

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is represented by Timea Suto, who serves as the global digital policy leader. The ICC is a powerful organisation that represents over 45 million companies across more than 170 countries. It has been the primary business focal point in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process for two decades.

In discussions on effective decision-making and progress, there is a consensus that an essential aspect of a successful multi-stakeholder process is ensuring the inclusion and active participation of all stakeholders. Various speakers stress the significance of hearing every stakeholder’s voice and point out that stakeholder mapping plays a crucial role in identifying those who agree or disagree on certain matters. They also highlight the need for capacity building at all levels to enable stakeholders to effectively engage and contribute.

Furthermore, there is a strong desire to expand the multi-stakeholder model to make it more inclusive. The involvement of new voices in decision-making processes is seen as essential for promoting diversity and reducing inequalities. Mentorship is viewed as a valuable tool for learning from experienced stakeholders, while sponsorship is seen as crucial for representing and promoting innovative approaches in processes where they are not yet present.

The United Nations (UN) has made progress in recognising the importance of a multi-stakeholder process. The UN acknowledges the concept of a multi-stakeholder process and describes how governments, businesses, civil society, and the technical community can come together to achieve common goals. However, there is a call for UN multi-stakeholder modalities to save time and resources. Discussions at the beginning of each process on whether to allow stakeholders in should be avoided by establishing UN modalities for multi-stakeholder engagement.

In conclusion, the ICC, with its global digital policy leader Timea Suto, plays a crucial role in representing millions of companies worldwide. The discussions highlight the significance of hearing every stakeholder’s voice, stakeholder mapping to identify diverse perspectives, capacity building at all levels, and the expansion of the multi-stakeholder model to make it more inclusive. Additionally, there is a recognition of the progress made by the UN in acknowledging the importance of a multi-stakeholder process, along with a call for UN multi-stakeholder modalities to streamline engagement and maximise efficiency.

Alan Ramirez Garcia

The analysis explores the multi-stakeholder model in Internet governance and its efficiency in addressing this process. Various speakers argue that this model, which involves researchers, businesses, government, and users, is the most effective way to govern the internet. They emphasize the importance of continuous engagement and allocation of resources to ensure the model’s success.

Furthermore, the involvement of United Nations leaders and governments is seen as crucial in supporting and advancing the multi-stakeholder model. Alan Ramirez Garcia stresses the need for their increased participation in the process. This is considered essential for creating a more connected world and maximizing opportunities in the digital governance sphere.

The speakers also emphasize that the multi-stakeholder model should yield benefits for public problems and allow for the exercise of human rights. Alan Ramirez Garcia urges the need for solid evidence on how the model can address public issues and safeguard human rights.

In addition to these points, there are suggestions for a prospective approach in facing future challenges. Alan Ramirez Garcia highlights the importance of applying a forward-looking method to identify and address emerging risks. It is also advocated to evaluate these risks and their potential impact.

To mitigate the risks that are identified, speakers recommend the immediate implementation of appropriate strategies. Alan Ramirez Garcia specifically supports the prompt execution of mitigation strategies for the risks identified. This aligns with the goal of taking action on pressing issues, as demonstrated by his endorsement of mitigation strategies for climate-related risks.

Overall, the analysis concludes that the multi-stakeholder model is effective in addressing Internet governance. However, it highlights the need for continuous engagement, the involvement of United Nations leaders and governments, and the consideration of public problems and human rights. The analysis also emphasizes the importance of applying a prospective approach to identify and evaluate emerging risks, and the immediate implementation of mitigation strategies to address those risks.

Rosalind KennyBirch

The UK is actively preparing for the WSIS plus 20 review process and has strived to ensure that the process is fully inclusive to the multistakeholder community. The goal is to create a collaborative discussion platform that allows for direct input from a wide range of stakeholders. While the main focus of the session is on WSIS plus 20, discussions may also cover inclusion in other UN processes related to internet governance.

The session, designed as a panel discussion, aims to encourage active participation and foster collaborative discussions among the multistakeholder community. This format recognizes the importance of diverse stakeholders’ direct input in achieving an inclusive WSIS plus 20 review process. The evidence suggests that this approach has garnered positive sentiment and support.

Additionally, the inclusive approach to the WSIS plus 20 review process aligns with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). By promoting inclusivity, these goals can be better addressed, leading to a more equitable and just society.

Overall, the UK’s proactive efforts to ensure an inclusive WSIS plus 20 review process through collaborative discussions with the multistakeholder community are commendable. The session’s format and goal of increasing direct input reflect a commitment to creating a participatory and inclusive process. This approach not only supports the achievement of SDGs but also demonstrates the significance of engaging diverse stakeholders in shaping internet governance policies.

Mary Uduma

The emergence of the Internet has necessitated a multi-stakeholder approach due to its boundary-less nature, requiring involvement from various stakeholders in decision-making processes. This approach was discussed in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), highlighting its importance in achieving inclusive Internet governance.

Regulators now recognise the value of collaboration and consultation in policy-making, opting for a more inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach. They take into account the opinions and feedback of stakeholders before implementing policies, leading to positive reception.

UN agencies have also expanded their processes and involved more actors, embracing the outcomes of the WSIS. Agencies such as UNESCO, ITU, and UNTAD have opened their doors to promote inclusivity. The Secretary General is exploring the creation of a global digital compact, indicating the expansion of UN processes.

However, concerns exist regarding the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The participation of certain stakeholders, such as ICANN, has diminished over time. Additionally, government representation in the IGF is insufficient. Language barriers also pose obstacles, though the UK government’s sponsorship of translations in UN languages has been appreciated.

To address challenges effectively, consultations, collaborations, and grassroots involvement are crucial. Government departments and various actors are encouraged to prepare collectively and engage in discussions for the next level of WSIS Plus 20.

In addition to inclusive global processes, proactive national-level preparation is vital. Preparatory meetings for the WSIS in 2003 have demonstrated the benefits of such an approach. Understanding the global landscape and proactively engaging contribute to more effective decision-making and governance.

In summary, the impact of the Internet highlights the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach. Regulators, UN agencies, and stakeholders recognise the significance of inclusivity in decision-making processes. Efforts are being made to overcome challenges, such as diminishing participation and language barriers. Consultations, collaborations, and grassroots involvement are seen as key, along with proactive national-level preparation.

Speakers