IGF to GDC- An Equitable Framework for Developing Countries | IGF 2023 Open Forum #46

Knowledge Graph of Debate

Session report

Rodney Taylor, Caribbean Telecommunications Union

During the discussion, several important topics were addressed, including the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC), internet governance, and the challenges faced by Small Island Developing Countries (SIDS) in actively participating in ongoing processes.

One of the main concerns raised was the limited resources, both financial and human, that hinder the active participation of SIDS in these processes. This constraint prevents SIDS from fully engaging in discussions and decision-making. Additionally, barriers to entry still exist despite the multi-stakeholder nature of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which theoretically allows participation from all stakeholders. These barriers may include technical expertise or access to necessary resources.

Another topic of discussion was the value proposition of the investment in the IGF. Some participants questioned whether the IGF, being a place for discussion and networking, actually leads to actionable outcomes. It was argued that although the IGF provides a platform for dialogue, it does not necessarily result in concrete actions or solutions. This raised concerns about the effectiveness of the IGF and its ability to address pressing global challenges.

A key distinction was highlighted between the United Nations (UN) and multistakeholder forums. It was noted that countries have more influence in the UN, where the priority is given to member states’ interventions. On the other hand, in multistakeholder forums like the IGF, all attendees are considered equal, providing an opportunity for greater inclusivity and diverse perspectives. This observation emphasized the different dynamics and power structures between the two approaches.

Despite the challenges and questions raised, there was a general sense of positivity towards the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC). Participants expressed hopes that the GDC would lead to positive outcomes and address the complex issues discussed in the IGF process. However, skepticism was also voiced regarding the GDC’s ability to effectively tackle these complex issues, especially within the context of global collaboration on internet-related matters.

It was acknowledged that the GDC could provide a platform for small states, such as SIDS, to have a stronger voice in global digital cooperation. However, participants recognized that attaining positive outcomes in these forums would be challenging due to various factors, such as the limited capacity of small states to actively participate and support the GDC.

The potential of the GDC to address digital inequality, especially in SIDS, was highlighted. It was noted that approximately 2 billion people, mostly in developing and small island developing countries, are still not connected to the internet. The GDC was seen as an opportunity to focus on these issues and improve connectivity and digital infrastructure in these regions.

The focus and scope of the GDC were discussed, particularly in relation to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. The GDC was expected to play a role in addressing these global key issues and potentially leading to an expansion of the IGF’s role or the creation of a new process to tackle these specific challenges.

There were concerns raised about the duplication of processes and internet governance fragmentation. Some participants argued that there may not be a need to create a new process focused solely on digital issues, as this could lead to further fragmentation in internet governance. It was suggested that efforts should be made to avoid duplication and instead strengthen existing processes.

The implementation of global cybersecurity norms was highlighted as the responsibility of national parliaments and local authorities. It was emphasized that discussed global agreements should be actioned at the local level to implement mutually agreed norms for routing cybersecurity. This observation emphasized the need for concrete action and implementation at the national and local levels, rather than relying solely on global conversations and agreements.

In conclusion, the discussion covered various important aspects of the GDC, internet governance, and the challenges faced by SIDS in actively participating in ongoing processes. While there were concerns raised and questions about the efficacy of some processes, there was also a sense of optimism for the GDC’s potential to address global issues and promote digital cooperation. The need for inclusivity, concrete actions, and the implementation of agreed norms were recurring themes throughout the discussion.

Sorina Teleanu, Director of Knowledge, DiploFoundation

The discussion revolves around the challenges faced by countries in keeping up with the complexities and rapid evolution of digital diplomacy and Internet policies. It is overwhelming for both small and large countries to contribute meaningfully and keep pace with these intricate issues. The lack of capacity to become experts in all aspects of Internet governance is a major hurdle for countries.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has played a partial role in mitigating these challenges. It serves as a platform where people collectively learn from each other, but there is room for improvement. However, the IGF and the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) serve different functions. Therefore, direct comparison between the two is not appropriate. The GDC, on the other hand, holds promise and potential to address the challenges faced in the realm of digital diplomacy and Internet policies.

One of the significant challenges highlighted in the discussion is the limited participation of governments in the IGF. This poses a hurdle to the effective implementation of Internet policies. The GDC aims to address this challenge and provide a platform for discussing digital governance and reducing inequality.

The discussion also stresses the importance of considering past events, such as resolutions and outcomes from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), which can be built upon. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) rely, in part, on technology for development. The GDC should take into account these previous events and avoid reinventing the wheel.

A forward-looking GDC is seen as a potential solution to address digital inequalities. It is viewed as a mechanism that can work in harmony with the IGF to strengthen global digital governance. Many people have endorsed the concept of ‘IGF Plus’, which suggests that the GDC could serve as a follow-up mechanism for the IGF.

In terms of resource availability, stakeholders must consider the multiple processes and issues involved in Internet governance. Collaboration rather than competition for resources is considered essential for effective implementation.

In conclusion, the discussion unveils the challenges faced by countries in keeping up with digital diplomacy and Internet policies. The IGF has made some progress in mitigating these challenges, but the GDC shows potential to address them. The GDC and the IGF serve different purposes and should not be directly compared. The GDC should build on and strengthen the IGF to foster global digital cooperation. Stakeholders must consider resource availability and find ways to collaborate effectively.

Otis Osbourne, Deptartment of Information Technology, University of the Commonwealth Caribbean

The analysis reveals several insightful points discussed by the speakers. One key issue raised is the economic barriers faced by small island developing states in their digital transformation and access efforts. These states are hindered by a lack of trust in digital transactions, which is a major concern for small to medium-sized business service providers and consumers. This lack of trust could potentially limit the growth and adoption of digital technologies in these states.

Another important point highlighted is the need for national Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) to guide initiatives on the ground. It is noted that some countries, such as Jamaica, do not have national IGFs. The absence of these forums could impede the progress of internet governance and hinder the development of policies that promote an inclusive and accessible digital environment.

The analysis also acknowledges that small island developing states are progressing at a slow pace in transitioning to the new digital global economy. This transition is crucial for these states to effectively participate in the interconnected world and leverage the benefits of the digital economy. The need for adequate support and resources to propel this transition is highlighted as an important concern.

Furthermore, the speakers emphasize the recognition of universal access to free internet as a human right, particularly for facilitating e-governance and reducing social exclusion. They argue that without data access on their phones, individuals are unable to access e-governance services. Thus, governments are urged to acknowledge free internet as a fundamental right to ensure equal access opportunities and promote inclusive digital societies.

The importance of online security, privacy, and safety is also emphasized, and it is noted that these aspects must be prioritized alongside the recognition of free internet as a human right. However, the analysis does not provide specific evidence or examples to support this point.

Regarding the implementation of best practices in securing the internet, it is highlighted that despite discussions in IGFs, most Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and network operators have not adopted the necessary actions to secure data being routed through the internet. Additionally, many organizations, including NDAs, Ministries, Departments, Agencies, SMEs, financial, and educational institutions, have not implemented cost-free DNSSEC and IPv6 standards. This lack of tangible implementation raises concerns about the effectiveness of IGF discussions in shaping concrete and practical outcomes.

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) is seen as a potential solution that could address the shortcomings of the IGF. While no specific details or evidence are provided to support this viewpoint, the speakers express optimism about the GDC’s ability to enforce successful internet practices.

It is also noted that UN directives hold power and influence, and governments are expected to eventually follow through, particularly in the domain of the digital economy for realizing the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This indicates the significance of international cooperation and collaboration in driving digital transformation and achieving the SDGs.

Further observations highlight the exclusive nature of discussions at the UN level, suggesting that they may be out of touch with grassroots realities. This excludes start-up entrepreneurs and university students from directly accessing or relating to the discussions. It is argued that more efforts should be made to make UN discussions more accessible and relatable to these groups.

Despite the potential overlap with the GDC, the speakers reaffirm the continued relevance of the IGF due to its unique reach from grassroots to corporations. The IGF’s focus on Internet Governance is seen as a clear indication of its purpose and provides a platform for individuals and small to medium-sized businesses to actively participate and gain a better understanding of internet governance issues.

In conclusion, the analysis explores various aspects of digital transformation, internet governance, and the challenges faced by small island developing states. It highlights the economic barriers, the need for national IGFs, the slow pace of transitioning to the digital global economy, the recognition of free internet as a human right, the importance of online security, and the potential of the Global Digital Compact. The analysis also discusses the power of UN directives, the exclusivity of UN discussions, and reaffirms the relevance of the IGF.

Tracy Hackshaw, Director, Trinidad and Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group

The Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) initiative has the potential to positively impact digital governance and address global inequalities faced by Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The GDC aims to establish a global framework for digital cooperation and promote a more inclusive and equitable digital world, especially for SIDS. SIDS encounter challenges in prioritising internet governance due to limited resources and attention as they grapple with significant issues such as climate change and economic challenges.

One of the key arguments in support of the GDC is that it can provide a platform for SIDS to have their voices heard. Existing forums like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and regional spaces like LAC, AP, and Africa do not adequately emphasise the representation and voice of SIDS. This results in SIDS feeling marginalised, and their concerns not receiving the attention they deserve within the digital governance discourse. The GDC process could provide a more equitable platform for SIDS to contribute their perspectives and address their specific issues.

Moreover, SIDS face challenges in resource allocation and attention towards internet governance. These challenges arise because SIDS have competing priorities that include climate change adaptation, infrastructural issues, and economic development. As a result, internet policy issues and digital issues do not receive much priority. The GDC could play a crucial role in mitigating these challenges by collaborating with governments and prioritising capacity development, knowledge transfer, and addressing the digital divide. This includes actively engaging with SIDS governments and communities to understand their needs and working towards real skills and knowledge transfer.

Another important point worth noting is the emphasis on the digital divide. While digital technologies have the potential to bridge gaps and create opportunities, it is essential to recognise that not everyone is connected. The digital divide persists, and assumptions cannot be made that connectivity is universal. The GDC process must take this into account and work towards addressing the digital divide by ensuring accessibility and connectivity for all.

In conclusion, there is optimism and support for the GDC and its potential positive impact on SIDS. The GDC’s aim to establish a global framework for digital cooperation and promote an inclusive and equitable digital world resonates with the challenges faced by SIDS in prioritising internet governance and addressing global inequalities. By providing a platform for SIDS to have their voices heard, collaborating with governments, and focusing on capacity development and knowledge transfer, the GDC process can contribute significantly to addressing these issues. It is crucial to recognise the unique needs and perspectives of SIDS and actively work towards creating an inclusive digital world for all.

Quintin Chou-Lambert, Office of the UN Tech Envoy, New York

The analysis explores different perspectives on Internet governance and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). One argument raised is that the approach taken by the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) can overwhelm participants with an excessive number of meetings. Delegations in New York are already burdened with various other issues, and the urgency of Internet governance matters can be pushed down as a result. On the other hand, it is argued that the IGF holds significant value in facilitating networking and information exchange. By bringing people together, the IGF helps them better understand Internet governance issues. Networking and exchange are becoming increasingly important, especially considering the challenging political conditions.

Furthermore, the analysis suggests that developing countries, landlocked countries, and least developed countries may need to unite and express their concerns collectively in the global process. Internet governance challenges and the way the IGF addresses them are common in these countries. This unity can enable them to have a stronger voice in shaping global policies.

The GDC is highlighted as an opportunity for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and other nations to address their specific concerns regarding the use of digital technologies and data. The GDC will assemble leaders to make decisions on global digital issues, providing a platform for SIDS to voice their concerns and benefit from digital advancements.

The rise of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and data, has raised concerns about safety, monetisation, and inclusivity. The GDC offers a platform to address these issues at a high level. It becomes crucial to ensure safety while harnessing the benefits of these technologies on a global scale.

It is argued that the GDC should reconcile the goal of globally spreading the benefits of new technologies, while ensuring safety and inclusivity. The GDC will bring leaders together to make these important decisions and presents an opportunity to update the focus and ambition in utilising these technologies.

Challenges within the IGF include the absence of decision-making and a vast capacity gap, making it difficult to keep track of everything happening in the digital technology landscape. There are also questions about whether the GDC can effectively address these challenges.

The GDC is seen as an opportunity for the digital economy to grow and evolve. The Secretary-General emphasises the importance of a unified and ambitious GDC. It also allows for debates on how countries can adapt their digital architectures in the future.

The analysis highlights the critical need for countries to consider the significance of the digital transition and its potential for growth. Many delegations are observed to be overstretched in their capacity, making it essential for countries to look beyond immediate crises and envision a digital future.

Reviewing and following up on GDC commitments is deemed important, but questions remain about the extent to which governments can participate in these follow-ups.

To address gaps in existing digital governance, the creation of a Digital Cooperation Forum is proposed by the Secretary-General. This digital governance platform would pool emerging internet governance issues, ultimately saving resources and efforts. Implementing a central place for countries to discuss digital governance issues would allow them to focus holistically on digital governance and defragment governance efforts.

It is emphasised that while bringing politicised discussions to digital governance platforms can change their nature and spirit, it is vital to safeguard the unique character and spirit of various digital governance platforms. This can enable free and creative discussions.

Lastly, raising the voices of different groupings in the GDC process is seen as crucial. Voicing the interests of various groups can lead to better reflecting their interests in the outcome document.

In summary, the analysis presents diverse opinions on Internet governance and the GDC. It highlights the challenges and benefits of the IGF and emphasises the need for unity among developing countries. The GDC offers an opportunity for SIDS and other nations to address their digital concerns. The analysis also explores the concerns surrounding new technologies and the importance of safety and inclusivity. Challenges within the IGF are discussed, as well as the GDC’s potential to foster the growth of the digital economy. The significance of considering the digital transition and reviewing GDC commitments is stressed. The proposal for a Digital Cooperation Forum to address gaps in digital governance is mentioned, along with the importance of preserving the unique character of various digital governance platforms. Finally, the importance of raising the voices of different groups in the GDC process is highlighted.

Audience

The annual meetings featured a range of speakers who shared their perspectives on various topics. Carol, the new MAG chair from the Bahamas, emphasised the significance of taking strong actions to achieve desired outcomes. It was highlighted that robust actions are necessary to accomplish the goals effectively. This emphasised the importance of prioritising action-oriented approaches in order to make progress.

One of the main concerns discussed was the need for capacity building among parliamentarians and missions. It was noted that there is often a lack of understanding due to limited technical and domain knowledge. To address this issue, there was an emphasis on the importance of providing funding and support for capacity building initiatives, particularly through the IGF.

Carol also encouraged active involvement and feedback from the audience. She urged participants to provide their thoughts and feedback in a written format for higher authorities to consider. This inclusive participation was seen as crucial for creating a more transparent and participatory decision-making process.

In terms of policy-making, Carol expressed the belief that relevant departments should be empowered and involved in decision-making processes. She criticised the practice of relevant departments receiving meeting notes only when it is time for the government to make decisions. This approach was considered unfair, as it prevents these departments from having a comprehensive understanding of the issues.

The discussions on digital transformation revealed gaps and challenges in implementation. Sri Lanka, for example, has implemented digital strategies for the past two decades, but many gaps remain. There is a lack of clarification and guidance on who should be responsible for driving digital transformation initiatives. Therefore, it was argued that there is a need for developing frameworks or best practice guidelines to provide direction and ensure efficient implementation.

The importance of citizen satisfaction and establishing citizen-centric governments was also stressed. It was highlighted that digital transformation initiatives should prioritise the needs and satisfaction of citizens. This approach is key to fostering trust and improving the overall effectiveness of digital transformation processes.

The role of the IGF in facilitating outreach and regional initiatives was positively acknowledged. The IGF was recognised as instrumental in the development of regional initiatives, which promote collaboration and partnership in achieving the goals of industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

There was also an important discussion on the coordination of global, national, and regional issues. The speaker emphasised the need for a coordination mechanism that takes into account national and regional differences. This approach ensures that similar initiatives can be encouraged and implemented effectively.

It was observed that the problems and solutions in small island regions, such as the Caribbean and the Pacific, have distinct local aspects. This highlights the importance of considering and addressing these unique aspects when developing strategies and solutions for these regions.

The increasing importance of data flow and digital connectivity was brought to attention, including the prediction that data flow will grow significantly by 2026. However, it was noted that developing countries are at risk of becoming mere data providers in the global market due to a data divide and digital inequality. This issue raises concerns about the potential disadvantage and limited benefits that these countries may face in the digital era.

Overall, the discussions at the annual meetings shed light on the importance of taking strong actions, building capacity, promoting inclusive participation, empowering relevant departments, developing frameworks for digital transformation, prioritising citizen satisfaction, and addressing global and regional challenges. These insights and perspectives provide valuable considerations for policymakers and stakeholders as they work towards achieving the sustainable development goals.

Olga Cavalli, National Director of Cybersecurity, Chief of Cabinet of the President of Argentina

Olga Cavalli, an active participant and supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), expresses her belief that the IGF serves as a fantastic space for defining and creating numerous Internet-related changes. She has been involved with the IGF since its creation in 2005 and highlights its role in bringing about significant developments in the global coordination of the Internet, such as changes in ICANN and the IANA transition. Moreover, she emphasises that the IGF has also been instrumental in giving rise to national and regional IGFs, as well as schools of Internet governance.

Cavalli appreciates the chaotic nature of the IGF and considers it an essential part of its beauty. She argues that the creative chaos of the forum allows for free discussions and an organic exchange of ideas. Cavalli personally experienced the chaotic atmosphere during the forum, recounting a moment when she had difficulty finding the correct panel room. However, she believes that this sense of being lost adds to the overall experience of the IGF.

In terms of the Internet’s global impact, Cavalli emphasises the need to make it a global public good. She supports initiatives like the Global Digital Compact (GDC) that aim to mitigate digital issues. Cavalli led a consultation process with fellows from the School of Internet Governance to contribute to the GDC. Their contribution, focused on seven digital issues, includes connecting everyone to the internet, data protection, and regulating artificial intelligence, and has been published on the GDC’s website.

Cavalli highlights her preference for more open, bottom-up, and multistakeholder processes in digital governance, as opposed to closed multilateral processes. She finds value in the inclusive nature of multistakeholder discussions and believes they offer a path forward in addressing the challenges of the digital economy. However, she notes a trend towards establishing more closed multilateral processes, which she criticises. Cavalli stresses that the way forward should be through multistakeholder engagement, as it allows for a more diverse range of perspectives.

While Cavalli recognises the challenges faced by delegates from developing countries, particularly in handling the overwhelming number of digital governance processes, she sees value in coordinating and concentrating these processes. She believes that a certain level of coordination or concentration is necessary to ensure effective digital governance and prevent fragmentation.

Overall, Cavalli greatly values the unique, free-spirited nature of the IGF. She cherishes the open and inclusive atmosphere that allows for free discussions and networking. Cavalli argues for the preservation of the IGF’s special character, as she believes it is an essential forum for shaping the Internet and addressing global digital challenges. With her extensive experience and involvement in the IGF, Cavalli’s perspectives and support carry significant weight in the ongoing dialogue on Internet governance.

Shernon Osepa, Director, Caribbean Affairs and Development of the Internet Society (ISOC)

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a platform established for open discussions to identify solutions rather than making decisions. It was created to address the challenges faced in various jurisdictions through meaningful discussions. The IGF allows stakeholders to engage in free and open conversations, enabling them to explore potential solutions.

One of the key purposes of the IGF is to provide an opportunity for small island developing states to voice their ideas and suggestions through the global digital compact process. This process allows these states to take an active role in drafting proposals and receiving feedback from others. It is seen as a way to empower these states and reverse traditional power dynamics.

The original intention of the IGF was to serve as a place for discussions, not decision-making. It aimed to facilitate dialogue and exchange of ideas to understand different perspectives. However, there is a growing need for action-oriented outcomes in countries. Merely discussing issues without taking concrete steps towards solving them may not be sufficient.

Collaboration and partnership are emphasized as important factors in the IGF process. This requires stakeholders to work together, leveraging each other’s expertise and resources to develop effective solutions. The call for collaboration is in line with the focus on SDG 17, which emphasizes the importance of partnerships in achieving sustainable development goals.

Consideration of climate change and natural disasters is highlighted as critical when building infrastructure. These factors can have a significant impact on the effectiveness and longevity of infrastructure projects. It is essential to incorporate climate resilience measures and robust disaster management strategies to ensure the sustainability of infrastructure investments.

Overall, speakers at the IGF urge problem-solving specific to the needs of different regions. By identifying and addressing the unique challenges faced by each jurisdiction, more effective and tailored solutions can be developed. This regional focus allows for the formulation of strategies that are relevant and impactful in driving positive change.

In conclusion, the IGF serves as a platform for open discussions and solution-oriented dialogue. It provides small island developing states with the opportunity to voice their ideas, emphasizes the importance of action-oriented outcomes, collaboration, and partnership, and underscores the consideration of climate change in infrastructure development. The push for region-specific problem-solving highlights the need for tailored approaches to address the diverse challenges faced in different jurisdictions.

Moderator

The discussions centred around the challenges faced by small island developing states (SIDS) when actively participating in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). SIDS have been part of the IGF process since 2005, but resource constraints, both financial and human, limit their active participation. The cost of attending IGF meetings and the need to get up to speed with the issues were identified as barriers to entry. Despite being a multi-stakeholder process that allows anyone to participate, it was argued that the IGF primarily serves as a platform for networking and discussion, with little focus on generating actionable outcomes. The need for a clear value proposition for the time and effort invested in the IGF was emphasized.

Tracy Hackshaw was highlighted as an example of an active participant who serves on multiple boards, including the IGF, ICANN, and ARIN. It was suggested that his active participation benefits the region. The importance of capacity building and building institutional capacities across governments and stakeholders was emphasized. It was acknowledged that no individual can be an expert in all topics, hence the need for capacity building.

The discussions also explored the connection between internet governance issues and critical issues faced by SIDS, such as climate change, economic issues, and cybersecurity. It was argued that linking digital and internet governance issues with these critical challenges could help prioritize them. Cybersecurity and emerging digital threats to the economy were mentioned as notable areas to focus on.

The IGF was acknowledged as a successful platform for bringing people together to learn from each other. However, it was also noted that the overwhelming nature of the IGF approach, with its federated network of networks and numerous meetings, poses challenges. The low governmental participation in the IGF was highlighted as an issue that could potentially be addressed by the Government Digital Service (GDS).

The discussions highlighted the potential of the IGF to provide a space for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to have their voices heard. The Caribbean IGF, Pacific IGF, and Indian Ocean IGF were mentioned as great platforms for SIDS to voice their issues at national, regional, and global levels. The Trinidad and Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group was cited as an example of such an initiative.

The challenges faced by SIDS, such as resource constraints and the prioritization of critical issues, were emphasized. It was suggested that digital and internet governance issues need to be linked with these critical issues to garner more attention and resources. The importance of understanding the notion of internet governance, including the confusion that arose in the 2000s, was highlighted.

The discussions also touched on the need for stakeholder engagement and the opportunities provided by the IGF to interact with various stakeholders. It was noted that all stakeholders are not always present locally, and the IGF offers a unique opportunity to connect with a diverse range of stakeholders. The importance of translating IGF discussions into local solutions was emphasized.

The potential barriers to digital transformation in small island developing states, such as economic barriers and the lack of trust in digital transactions, were discussed. The absence of national IGFs to guide initiatives on the ground and the need for recommendations and guidelines from the IGF to reach policymakers and decision-makers were highlighted as challenges.

The impact of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) on the digital governance landscape and addressing global inequalities was considered. Contributions towards the GDC from various countries were mentioned, and it was seen as a potential tool to address inequality. The importance of engagement with the School of Internet Governance in contributing to the GDC was noted.

The overwhelming amount of information and processes within digital governance was acknowledged, and it was suggested to focus only on what is relevant to one’s work and interests. The potential of the GDC to have a positive impact on digital governance and global inequalities facing SIDS was emphasized. The need for active participants and meaningful suggestions from small island developing states was highlighted.

The discussions also raised questions about the impact of the GDC on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process and potential improvements that the GDC could bring. The need for a clearer focus on implementation and the ‘who’ and ‘how’ aspect of digital transformation were emphasized. The importance of preserving the uniqueness of the IGF was also noted.

Overall, the discussions underscored the challenges and opportunities in internet governance, particularly for small island developing states. The need for capacity building, stakeholder engagement, and the linkage between internet governance and critical issues were emphasized. The potential of the Global Digital Compact and the importance of active participation and representation were highlighted. The discussions also highlighted the need for clearer guidance, resource coordination, and an inclusive and collaborative approach to address global digital challenges.

Speakers