Process coordination: GDC, WSIS+20, IGF, and beyond

Enhancing collaboration in digital governance: A multi-stakeholder dialogue

The session titled “Process Coordination, GDZ, WSIS Plus 20, IGF, and beyond,” moderated by Renata Jabali, Thomas Schneider, and Anriette Esterhuysen, brought together a diverse group of participants to discuss the enhancement of collaboration and coordination in digital governance. The panel included representatives from various governance spheres, such as Thomas Schneider (Swiss government), Esther Huyssen (APC), Piers O’Donoghue (European Commission), Taufik Jelassi (UNESCO), Chengetai Masango (United Nations Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum), and others.

A key focus of the discussion was the multi-stakeholder approach, which was recognized as essential for effective digital governance. Speakers reflected on how this approach is currently being used within their organizations and explored how the NetMundial principles could be leveraged to improve inclusivity and ensure that all voices are heard. Although the approach was valued, its implementation was acknowledged as challenging, with a need for more effective and timely processes.

The session also addressed the challenges faced by various stakeholders, including those from developing countries, civil society, and small and medium enterprises (SMEs), in participating in digital governance processes. There was a call for increased support and funding for underrepresented groups to promote open dialogue and develop effective and inclusive frameworks.

Participants discussed the issue of duplicative efforts in digital governance, noting that fragmented initiatives often lead to policy development complexities and increased costs, making it difficult for stakeholders, particularly those from the Global South, to engage in different forums. The upcoming Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the WSIS Plus 20 review were identified as opportunities to apply the NetMundial principles, which emphasize transparency, inclusivity, and accountability.

The session concluded with a consensus on the importance of the multi-stakeholder model and the need for better governance rules to ensure inclusivity in digital governance processes. There was optimism about the potential and future of multi-stakeholder processes, with a call for continuous revision to maintain relevance and effectiveness.

Notable observations included the recognition of asymmetries within stakeholder groups, the necessity for better coordination among existing processes, and the importance of integrating principles such as human rights, gender, and sustainability into areas of action and commitment. The session highlighted the evolving nature of digital governance and the ongoing efforts to adapt to new challenges and realities.

Renata Jabali:
Well, ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. We hope you enjoyed lunch. We hope you enjoyed the first part of our event. And now let’s go for the second part, okay? Before we start, I would like to give you two pieces of advice. If you have any lost item, you can search for them at the luggage store, okay? It’s located on the second floor. And we’ll have, just like yesterday, our programming is not going to stop. However, from 4.30 to 5.00 p.m., we’ll have food and beverage outside the room. Feel free to go outside and then come back to continue participating here with us, okay? I still, again, invite you to participate. I really… Actually, I don’t need because you’re great. You are participating. But let’s join this next conversation. And now I have here on stage, well, the next session is Process Coordination, GDZ, WSIS Plus 20, IGF, and beyond. It will reflect upon spaces and opportunities for collaboration and coordination across the different digital governance arenas, counting on a diverse set of participants from multiple governance spheres. And I have here on stage Thomas Schneider, back home, Swiss government. I’m here at Esther Huyssen from APC, Piers O’Donoghue from the European Commission, IG Connect, Taufik Jelassi, Assistant Director General for Communication and Information from UNESCO, Paris, Chengetai Masango from the United Nations Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum, Anna Nevis, Commission on Science and Technology for Development, UNCTAD, United Nations Organization. Amandeep Gill, UN Tech Envoy, which is going to join us remotely. Pablo Hinojosa from APNIC. Paula Martins, APC and Gender and GDC Coalition. Peter Malur, AI for Good, ITU. Sergio Garcia Alves, ALAE. Marianne Franklin from the University of Groningen, which is going to be remotely joining us too. Some of them are not here with us, they are getting to the hotel and as soon as they arrive they are going to join all the other speakers. So now I give the floor to Mrs. Henriette and Mr. Thomas who are going to moderate the session. Feel free to start please.

Thomas Schneider:
Hello everyone. I’m Thomas from the Swiss government and I’m very happy to be here. Thanks to our Brazilian friends for organizing this. This session is slightly different in the sense that it’s not directly related or it’s not working on the text or the outcome document directly. In fact, people are working hard at this very moment on the document. But the purpose of this session is to reflect upon spaces and opportunities for collaboration and coordination across different digital governance arenas, institutions, processes, counting on a diverse set of participants from multiple governance spheres. And as we know, numerous initiatives and processes have… have emerged to address the broad diversity of issues raised by the digital resolution. And there’s some duplication, there’s still some silos, still some work in parallel, and there’s a general sense that more coordination or cooperation, coordination is of course always difficult because everyone wants to coordinate and nobody wants to be coordinated, that, yeah, there should be more coherence in the system. And many of the discussions that we’re currently having on the GDC and the institution, the Tech Envoy Office actually goes back to the IGF 2017 that was held in Geneva where the theme in Geneva was how to find a new way of digital cooperation, how to develop digital cooperation. Out of this discussion emerged the high-level panel on digital cooperation that was set up by the UN Secretary General. Out of this emerged the roadmap on digital cooperation, out of which then one of the results is the Office of the Tech Envoy and is the discussion that we continue to have, including the one on the GDC and then of course on the bigger framework on the WSIS Plus 20. So this is, we’re trying to sense a little bit and how can we cooperate better, to put it simply. And now I hand over to my dear friend, Henriette, to give you a little bit of info about the format that we are supposed to.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thank you, Ambassador Schneider. He wasn’t an ambassador when I first met him.

Thomas Schneider:
Continue to call me, otherwise I’m embarrassed.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
So I enjoy saying Ambassador Schneider. The format of the session will be that we have these two panels. The first panel is made up of representatives from those international organizations that you’ve heard of a lot, the IGF, the Office of the Envoy of Technology, Commission for Science Technology for Development. the International Telecommunications Union. So, and we’ll ask them some questions about their mandate, how they see their mandate, and going forward, how they see themselves benefiting from the outcomes of NetModul plus 10. We’ll then have a segment in the middle for participation from you, from the audience, and from the online participants. And then we go to a second panel, which is made up of representatives from organizations from the different stakeholder groups. And we look forward to them actually also asking some challenging questions, reflecting on what the international organizations said. We’ll start with you, UNESCO. Sorry, I forgot to mention you, TARFIG. And then hopefully we can finish the session with a round of final reflections from those organizations. Keep in mind that some of our panelists will have to leave. They won’t be able to stay for the entire session. So, Thomas, can you start us off with what the first two questions will be that we’re asking our international organization participants?

Thomas Schneider:
Thank you, Henrietta. We try to keep it simple and formulate just two very simple questions that should be very easy for everyone to answer. The first one is, and they have three minutes to answer the question. So they have to speak extremely fast because they have a lot to say, of course, as we all know. So the first one is based on your mandate. How do you see your organization’s role in coordinating or better facilitating collaboration among institutions, processes, and stakeholders? And the second one is building on that. How are you currently using in your institution with your mandate the multi-stakeholder approach and how could the NetMundial principles that will come out of this meeting help you to create a level playing field for all voices to be heard? This is the question that we would like you to share your experience with and we would start with the Assistant Director General for Communication and Information of UNESCO, Tawfiq, please go ahead.

Tawfik Jelassi:
Thank you, Thomas. Very pleased to join you for this panel. To answer your question regarding the mandate of UNESCO and how we go about coordinating collaboration among stakeholders, let me remind maybe some attendees about the mission of UNESCO, which was set out 80 years ago, 1945, which is to build peace in the minds of men and women, to build peace in the minds of men and women. People say, how do you do that? Well, we do that through education, sciences, culture, information, and communication. Because we believe that, among others, cultural and educational programs contribute to building peace in the minds of men and women. More specifically, as far as our topic is concerned, our mission is to foster the sharing of information and ideas, to promote the free flow of information and ideas by word and image. This goes eight years ago. At that time, it was word and image. Word in reference to the printed press, image in reference to audio-visual. Today, it’s through electronic digital means, as we know. So, what you have been seeing is happening on digital platforms is an exponential increase in mis-information, hate speech online, cyber bullying, online harassment, etc. Let me give you just one statistic from a recent study of ours. 73% of women journalists have been subject to online harassment, and 20% of them ended up being physically attacked. This does not contribute to promoting the free flow of information. So, obviously, we felt we need to do something about tackling the disinformation issue, which, as you know, is at least ranked by the Davos World Economic Forum this past January as the number one global risk ahead of climate change. Why is it ahead of climate change? Because climate disinformation is part of disinformation at large. Elections, the impact of disinformation on election outcomes, the influencing undecided voters, derailing the integrity of electoral processes. So, we see this information as a global risk, and we felt we need to do something about that. Now, part of the question is, what process have you used? We used a multi-stakeholder approach and not an intergovernmental process. Most United Nations organizations follow strictly an intergovernmental process with our 194 member states. We felt to tackle this issue, of course, we needed to approach and engage the platform companies, because it is the tech companies that operate the digital platforms. And without them on board, whatever we come up with will remain just a declaration or a recommendation. And, of course, we need to engage the civil society, which has a say as far as freedom of expression, freedom of the press. Academia, research institutes, the technical communities. So, we followed an inclusive multi-stakeholder approach. This project took two years, culminated last November with the publication of the UNESCO guidelines for the governance of digital platforms. I say it’s a guidelines, it’s a guidance. It’s not a convention, it’s not a recommendation, it’s not legally binding. But this is meant to help member states from the Global South, who may not have national regulation for digital platforms. They can use this blueprint to jumpstart their national process. And those who do have such regulation, they may want to revisit that and update it because this outcome has benefited from 10,000 inputs suggested by the different stakeholders coming from 130 countries. Now we have moved to the pilot implementation of these guidelines, and again, through a multi-stakeholder approach, engaging regulators, and we set up a global network of regulators, also engaging civil society, in particular think tanks, research institutions. That’s our second meta-network, called Internet for Trust Knowledge Network. And this is the process we have been using. So I was told I have only three minutes. Maybe I used them, especially talking to Thomas, who is Swiss, so let me stop here.

Thomas Schneider:
Thank you very much, Tafik, and representing Switzerland in a number of UNESCO processes, I can confirm that you have a very long tradition of integrating stakeholders’ experience into your work. Now we have confirmation that we do have Amandeep connected to us online, so let me not lose time and go to Amandeep and ask him how, with the mandate of the tech envoy in its office, how you use this mandate to bring people to cooperate, to work together across institutions, across silos, and how you are using the multi-stakeholder approach, and how the NetMundial principles could be useful for strengthening your work in this regard. Amandeep, over to you.

Amandeep Gill:
Thank you, Thomas. It’s a pleasure to see you and other colleagues, Anriyate and Tawfiq and Chengitai and familiar faces, friendly faces. To answer your question, I think very much in the vein of what Tawfiq has said, you see a new dynamism across the UN, because I will not speak about a specific entity. I’ll speak about the UN system. You see a new desire to be more multi-stakeholder by design in consultations, in policy discussions, even in negotiations. So the UN system is pushing the paradigm on bringing different stakeholders together. Just to give you a few examples across the UN system, you see the preparations for the Global Digital Compact. So very much multi-stakeholder by design. The negotiations have got going. Stakeholders have an opportunity to participate, to influence the process and the outcome itself. The Secretary General has made it clear that he would like it to be available for endorsement by different stakeholders. The private sector, because it has some of these equities and some of the responsibilities that have not been so sharply defined so far. Civil society, because it keeps us honest and accountable. The tech community, academia. And then if you see some of the current emerging ongoing processes around AI governance, again you see the multi-stakeholder paradigm very much in operation. The advisory body of the Secretary General on AI, the consultations around that. So this is lesson learned and I think we are building on 20 years of experience going back to the WSIS outcome. and the setting up of the Internet Governance Forum to refine how multi-stakeholder approaches are actually implemented. I see now a huge opportunity to take the paradigm to the next level, to strengthen the IGF, strengthen the follow-up to the WSIS outcomes, which remain a key guiding light for all of us and this is with the Global Digital Compact. I think if you look at, in a sense, the IGF, the WSIS and the GDC, I see alignment in terms of principles, in terms of approaches. I also see opportunities to strengthen the role of the IGF with regard to some of the objectives that are there in the co-facilitators zero draft of the GDC. I see opportunities to strengthen other multi-stakeholder follow-up to WSIS. And then I see the opportunity to underline in New York, in some of those kind of intergovernmental forums where the multi-stakeholder paradigm is not so established to underline that this paradigm has value in terms of the current concerns. So the GA’s role, the General Assembly, UN General Assembly’s role, which has often been mostly intergovernmental and some consultative capacity or opportunity for multi-stakeholder participants that combined with these existing and strengthening multi-stakeholder forums could lead to this new paradigm, which we might see emerge in 2025, the WSIS plus 20 review. So this meeting, NetMundial is a very timely reflection as we move in the direction of a global digital compact and as we prepare. for the WSIS Plus 20 review. Thanks.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
And thank you, Amamdeep. And in fact, there’s already been contributions thus far in this process that people believe these guidelines are of value, not just for multi-stakeholder processes, but also for multilateral. Next, we have Shagathai Masango, head of the UN Internet Governance Forum, the secretariat of the IGF. I’ll put on your slide. Shagathai, let’s hear from you. And maybe you can make it sound a little bit less real, a little bit more real and more difficult than Taufik and Amamdeep made it sound. Well, I suspect it lost a little bit over some of the more difficult aspects of the multi-stakeholder process. So let’s hear from you.

Chengetai Masango:
I don’t know. Well, I only have three minutes, so I’ll try. And thank you very much, Henriette, and thank you very much, Ambassador Schneider. Sorry, Tauf. Well, first of all, I’d like to express my congratulations to the NetMundial Organizing Committee and CGI-BR for this incredible meeting and also for inviting me. We feel that the IGF can play a significant role in facilitating, can and does actually play a significant role in facilitating collaboration amongst institution, processes, and stakeholders. The IGF is by design a bottom-up multi-stakeholder process whose mandate is based on paragraph 72 to 80 of the Tunis Agenda. The most often quoted part of the IGF, just the first slide, is of course 72A, which is the IGF is to discuss public policy issues related to key elements of internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability, and development of the internet. But. The mandate does actually go deeper and calls upon the IGF to facilitate discourse between different bodies and cross-cutting international public policy regarding the Internet. So that’s B. I think it’s the first slide, sorry. And also to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices to make full use of the expertise from all sectors. So as we can see that collaboration and facilitation is heavily in the mandate of the IGF. And we do all this through our annual meetings and also the intersessional activities. WSIS values and the SDGs also guide our vision for good Internet or digital governance. And we will also continue to support their application and implementation. One of our primary aims is also to respond to the growing demand of communities from the developing countries to call for more capacity development in Internet governance. And this is one of the ways we do this is through our network of more than 170 national and regional IGFs as you all know as well. And for the GDC and WSIS plus 20 and CSTD as well as today’s NetMundial, these are all excellent opportunities for us to advance digital inclusion and embrace the multi-stakeholder model. And quickly to the second question, as I said, the multi-stakeholder approach is the modus operandi of the IGF. It is built into our DNA. And since its inception, the forum has been facilitating the application of the multi-stakeholder model and its endorsement across all mechanisms. And we’re glad to see that we are actually infecting the system. with multi-stakeholder, this multi-stakeholder element, and I would say that we were one of the first to do this. And all our structures are multi-stakeholder, as you know, and I’ll just go to the bottom since I am, since I have become a little bit Swiss, I have to keep to the time. And we’ve worked with our sister organizations, UNESCO, ITU, of course, and also outside the Commission, ICANN, et cetera. So we work with these, we facilitate collaboration amongst these organizations at our meetings, at the national and the regional level as well, and we will continue to do so. And we also look forward to what comes after the WSIS Plus 20 and also after the GDC, and we will continue to help with this facilitation. Thank you. Oh, I can continue? No.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
I was about to say that Swiss good timing is fake news.

Thomas Schneider:
We are not in control. We don’t come out. We just recommend. Thank you, Chengetai. And, of course, the IGF is a forum for dialogue with all stakeholders on eco-level. Obviously, you have multi-stakeholderism in your genes, and the ITU is also an institution that has a long tradition of including so-called sector members, but rather in the silos of its work. So I’m going to hand it over to you. How are you using the multi-stakeholder approach in the ITU, and how could the NetMondial principles maybe help you to further strengthen the inclusion of all voices in your work? Thank you.

Preetam Maloor:
Thank you, Ambassador Schneider. So you had two questions, so I’m going to respond to both. And I don’t know how the clock works. So I’m going to ignore it There’s only one clock for two questions. So we will have to be very creative Very quickly. Let me start by saying, you know, the business process Obviously has served as a platform for us for over two decades of digital cooperation IGF is this forum but also platforms such as unjust, you know the UN coordination platform for digital matters, which ITU currently co-chairs with UNDP, but it’s a rotating chairmanship and We believe that ITU as the specialized UN agency for ICTs has a broad role to play in helping achieving universal connectivity and Sustainable digital transformation, you know, this is forum. I’ve already mentioned that, you know, that’s structured around Helping stakeholders come together in coordinating on action lines On AI since 2017, we’ve been hosting the AI for good global summit You know with more than 40 UN agencies, which is the largest multi-stakeholder platform for conversations around AI The UN interagency working group on AI co-chaired by ITU and UNESCO, you know has the entire UN system as members So where we bring the system together to make sure there’s programmatic coherence Policy coherence when we help member states, you know as a standards development organization. We have a long history, but we also Co-chair the World Standards Coordination with ISO and IEC With active involvement of other bodies. So there are many such examples, you know, I can go into cyber Digital inclusion many others, but the key point here is, you know much if not all of ITU’s mandate And the coordination mechanisms that I just told you about, you know We derive it from the WSIS outcome documents including the action line facilitators role because we believe it’s a robust Framework and that continues to be relevant in all these emerging technologies and You know with the review process that is coming up with the GDC We hope you know that helps us put it in the context of other new and technologies emerging technologies of today Now, to the second part of multi-stakeholderism, where I will be very quick. As Ambassador Schneider mentioned, ITU’s membership has not only 193 member states, but more than a thousand private sector entities, academic organizations, SMEs, civil society members. We firmly believe in the multi-stakeholder model. There is a large community of stakeholders out there, working hard to make this digital ecosystem what it is. And we believe we are an important stakeholder in this ecosystem, and an active voice in this community. And we provide many opportunities for stakeholders to come together to discuss the challenges that the digital sector faces. I mentioned the Business Forum, the AI for Good. We also hold many public consultations. So this is just a snapshot. But let me make one key point. As many of you are internet governance old-timers. I was also here at NetMondial 2014. So I also count myself as an old-timer. If you remember the days of 2008, 2012, 2013, WCIT and all that, ITU was regularly called out as being non-inclusive, closed. And having spent these 15 years at the ITU, I can see a complete evolution in the… Thank you very much. One more minute. I have seen a complete evolution in the organization, now embracing this multi-stakeholder ethos in our processes, in our platforms, in our partnerships. And with the current Secretary General, I can say this commitment is bulletproof. Credit for this goes to frameworks such as WSIS, such as NetMondial, such as the multi-stakeholder community that constantly keeps challenging us. So this is a testament to the fact that you don’t need to invent new mechanisms when you can have existing ones that can evolve to meet new challenges and new realities. So, that’s it for me. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Anna, let’s move on to you. I think, Pritam, thanks also for reminding on looking back. And I think maybe later when we go to the open segment, it would be good to hear from participants. Because I think the one thing when I hear you say that, look, we’ve come so far, I think sometimes there’s a tendency to be a little bit too glib. And say we’ve opened our processes, we’ve made them multi-stakeholder, but are they really effectively multi-stakeholder? And I think that’s where the Net Mundial principles and guidelines come to play. So, I’m not saying this to be critical. I think this is equally difficult for all stakeholders. Being meaningfully inclusive is never simple. But, Anna, let’s hear from you. And I think in your capacity as CSTD, you manage a multilateral, intergovernmental piece of the puzzle that fits into this bigger piece. So, let’s hear from you and what the challenges are.

Ana Neves:
Thank you very much, Henriette. As you said, CSTD is a piece of the puzzle, of the multilateral puzzle. I don’t know who from you know CSTD. CSTD is a functional body of the ECOSOC, the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, which adopts resolutions to be further adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. So, the Commission on Science and Technology for Development works to the ECOSOC in procedural terms. ECOSOC then goes to UNGA. CSTD, Commission on Science and Technology for Development, was mandated to assess on a yearly basis, so every year, to assess the way is the implementation of the WSIS. And the WSIS both 2003 Geneva Principles and Action Lines and 2005 IGF. So if you go through the resolution of this year, for instance, you can perceive how much we were able to assess what has been done since the last year. At the same time, we are doing review of for WSIS plus 20. So we are working on that. And in doing that, a questionnaire was open until the end of March, which set several questions for the all communities to have a say in what they think would be for the best of the WSIS plus 20 review. And CSTD can have a major role here because one thing that people that are not doing yet, they are not using CSTD to cross the science and technology component with this assessment of the WSIS because a lot of the technology has impact, of course, on the WSIS. And so we are not using the mandate very well and hopefully, we will be able to reach something that would improve CSTD or will improve CSTD. This morning, I think it was this morning, Jimson Olofui. if I’m spelling that correct, from the private sector from Africa, it calls for a CSTD 2.0. I found that very interesting because I think it’s a new layer or a new step for the CSTD. And as it was once being part of the working group on improvements to the IGF and then on the working group on enhanced cooperation, he had the chance to see how the multistakeholder really works under the CSTD. So it is a very interesting forum. So it’s multilateral, but it can work more and more through multistakeholder approaches and with all the intelligence for the different stakeholders. Thank you very much.

Thomas Schneider:
Thank you, Anna. Just for the scribes, the CSD is the Commission on Sustainable Development. What we are talking about here is the CSTD, which is the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Just to make that clear in case not everybody is familiar with these terms. Thank you, Anna. So we’ve heard the term multistakeholder by design, which is of course an impressive formulation. And as Anette has said, the theory is one thing, the reality may sometimes deviate slightly from the theory. And now we have like 15 minutes or so of time to get your comments from the floor here, but also online to hear reactions from the audience about what you’ve heard. And then we’ll go to the second panel, which is also stakeholder reactions to what we’ve heard. I think we do alternating, if that’s okay. One from the room, one from the… There’s no one online yet. Oh, there’s no one online yet, but they may come. Okay, we have a civil society. Sébastien, please go ahead.

Audience:
Thank you. In French we say, tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise. Thank you for those words. You are saying, yeah, I can walk in each of every of your meetings to give the voice of end-user. Please. If we are here, it’s because it’s not working well. What you are doing, what the government and intergovernmental organizations are doing regarding the place of the civil society, other stakeholders and end-users. Therefore, you can tell us a story, but please, we are here to tell the truth, not to hear a good story. Therefore, I hope that the document we will have settled together in this meeting, you will apply in your organization, and you will use it to help us, civil society, end-users, and other stakeholders to participate in the different issues you are tackling. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider:
Thank you. Don’t be so shy. Make your voices heard. This is one of the moments where you can make your voices heard. Do we have somebody online? Okay. Thank you, Bertrand. Thank you. We love you.

Audience:
Let’s get the usual suspect. Okay. I want to be very… I’m very positive here because there has been evolution and at the same time there are things that are still stuck. I mentioned in a previous session the amazing comment by the UK delegate about one of the ITU working groups. And I reminded people that in 2006 the problem of the opening up of this group was already there and that it is still a problem today. And here I want to give credit to a lot of the people in the Secretariat of International Organization because from the 20 years that I spent in this environment I know that internally they are sometimes frustrated by the lack of willingness of government to really work together. And there is a capacity, because of the decision-making rules, to block. And we see this vetocracy functioning not only in the Security Council but at each council in each intergovernmental organization. And I find it striking that indeed if I take the ITU, and God knows that there has been battles between ICANN and the ITU, there is a real stark difference between a lot of the initiatives. It can be the AI for Good, it can be the WSIS Forum, it can be a lot of things where you’re trying to open things. And on a very concrete case like the one that was mentioned, this still is blocking internally. And there are governments for whom the very term multi-stakeholder is unacceptable, and I want only mention that it apparently is the case of the next post of the IGF.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Any other comments? Thank you very much. coordination between processes. And maybe just to throw a question, and if not just to the floor, to the panelists as well, does using the multi-stakeholder approach make that coordination between different processes easier or does it make it more difficult? If any of the panelists want to respond, or there’s a, you have an online question, please go ahead.

Online moderator:
Thank you. We have an online question from Timo Charles. He’s from the technical community. What he’s asking is, given the involving nature of digital transformation, how can internet governance frameworks ensure that humanitarian ICTs will maintain absolute priority? And what mechanisms are needed to protect these applications from competing uses? And what responsibilities do the stakeholders you represent have in upholding this focus?

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks for that question. I see we have, you want to respond to that, Shengetai? I’ll go to your first question instead of the one before. Go ahead.

Chengetai Masango:
I want to, I just wanted to respond to your question about does it make collaboration easier? Well, I don’t think, it’s not the ease of it as such, but it’s the results that, does it make the results of it better, more impactful? And I think it does. Does it make it easier? Well, yeah.

Thomas Schneider:
Thank you, Shengetai, for this honest answer. Tafiq, please.

Tawfik Jelassi:
Thank you, Thomas. I will continue with an honest answer. The multi-stakeholder approach is definitely harder than following a purely intergovernmental process. in an intergovernmental organization like the one I represent. Why? My personal guess, because these international, intergovernmental organizations have been used in most of the cases to follow strictly intergovernmental process. Matters have to be debated among member states. Votes take place among member states. So the minute you open up and you say this is multi-stakeholder, you have a seat. You, the member states, but others have equal seats for equal participation. Or they have seats for participation. To speak up and to speak out. It’s not the dominant process. And therefore, sometimes you see some pushback. And you have to persevere. This is based on my personal experience. So does it make it easier? It does not. Does it make the result better? Definitely yes. Because you have different voices. You take into account different needs of all relevant stakeholders. And that’s where you hope to achieve some impact on the ground at the end of the day.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks very much, Tawfiq. Amandeep, just hang on, we’ll come back to you and pre-time to you as well. We have a few more people in the room. Let’s hear from them. Can we start over there, please? Technical community. Sorry, private sector.

Audience:
Thank you, Mark Gettysgauld. I have been stating my stakeholder as internet governance consultants. But let me be clear on that. I consult for small and medium enterprises. And to answer your question more broadly and bring back a question to you. When we say including the private sector, what that’s often meant is that a few big companies are in the room and they’re stating their piece. Usually two governments. So it is a bilateral. conflict in which governments say A, and they say B, and the rest of us, I would say the other millions of companies in the world, we kind of have to struggle to see where do we fit, right? So, the problem with the definitions of multi-stakeholder as they are, is that it is fair to say the private sector is being represented, but how, by whom, right? Getting any of my stakeholders to participate in one of these forums is already a big struggle. To them, it’s a budget commitment that’s way beyond their means, but let’s say I have managed to get a few of them into ICANN, but then to convince them to go to other processes and be included in them, it’s simply out of the question. So, I find that to be the tricky part about multi-stakeholderism, and to answer this question, is this understood by the members of the panel, right? That when you’re dialoguing with the private sector, usually you’re dialoguing to the same few people from the same few companies, and the other ones kind of struggle to get even a word into that. So, we often talk about inclusivity and all of that, but I feel that this is never the topic. The SMEs are never part of the subject. We’re never part of the inclusivity, so is there any prospect of trying to include these actors? This may be an open-ended question, or you may have an answer. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider:
Thank you, and I think the point that you make is very valid, there’s not only an asymmetry in resources and access between different stakeholder groups but also within each stakeholder groups, that also goes for civil society and academia. Some have the resources to make their voices heard, others don’t, but if you look at the NetMundial principles and guidelines, you actually find on an abstract level, the first steps to maybe help. creating some better governance rules for these processes to increase accountability and transparency and access. We take one more and then we give back to the, for a short answer to the panelists. No, we take two more, three more, okay. And then we, so let’s follow the order. Government, please, thank you.

Audience:
Thanks, Tiago from the Brazilian Data Protection Authority. I want to quickly react to Henriette’s provocation. And yeah, I do agree and corroborate what Chang et al and Taufik has said. It’s not about being easier, but it’s about the legitimacy it brings. And I can bring some experience of the Brazilian DPA because we have a multi-stakeholder national council, which of course brings a lot of challenge to coordinate and understand all the different agenda that this council tries to bring to the agenda of the regulator. But with, of course, all its challenge and of course, need for bigger maturity, what I see is that in the end, we also have very positive outcomes when we have this dialogue after of what we are bringing as norms and resolutions and people give us back like a positive feedback on all the work that they’ve seen, that we are doing to guarantee that we consider these different perspectives. And maybe also quickly reacting to the second question here in the board. Of course, I cannot say for the authority in the sense is more personal level, but this is definitely something that I’ll come back to it after the guideline is done, because I believe we have opportunity here to see these principles and guidelines and see how we can embed in frameworks that we already had have. So for example, maybe the guidelines could be a point of reflection of how the NPD council, multi-stakeholder council could. better and more positively engaged. So, I mean, I’m really happy for this opportunity of this discussion, insightful discussion here.

Thomas Schneider:
Thank you, I think we should go to the online participants, if that’s okay.

Online moderator:
Okay, and Amarita should hurry, it’s now online section. Please, Amarita, could you?

Audience:
Yes, thank you so much, and thank you to all the speakers for articulating what your respective stakeholder entities are doing to make processes more inclusive, and I understand it’s a continuous process. So, I have a question and a comment. The question is for Mr. Singh. So, with the states discussing the zero draft text, how do you think the inputs from the Net Mundial declaration, which we expect would come, will feed into the zero draft? And the comment to all the speakers is, there has been a lot of discussion yesterday and today on challenges of participation in processes, especially from developing countries, civil society, and like the other speaker said, for small and medium private entities. How do you plan to implement the concerns which comes in terms of inclusivity and participation in your own respective processes and organizations? Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, Amarita, and we need to close the list. So, if we can have the two civil society speakers make your interventions quickly, and the academia, and try and cut it to a minute, and then we’ll go to give Amandeep and Pritam time to respond if they want to.

Audience:
Okay, so that’s me. So, building on the previous session and on Sebastien’s intervention, we have here the question on how you are currently using the most okay, the most stakeholder approach, and how could the Net Mundial principles and guideline help you to create a level playing field? I would like to hear from the participants building on the previous question as well. How do you think that the outcome document can inform, genuinely look to the current processes that each organization that is participating in this discussion? In terms of what we are doing, we are discussing here in terms of diverse participation, inclusive participation, not only the ability to follow the process transparently and speak, but also to have the important stakeholders in the room to listen to and build together solutions, also funding and capacity building abilities and so on. So we’ve been talking about the challenges of making what is the outcome document a reality after it ends. And this is also part of each stakeholder here bringing a commitment and endorsing these principles as part of their activities and their action. So it would be interesting to hear how each of you think that, what are the review process or concrete steps that you could do in this sense?

Anriette Esterhuysen:
And thanks for Rodiona. Academia.

Audience:
Hello, thank you. My question is for the panel, for whoever wants to tackle it. I have a curiosity indeed. If we can imagine a world where we can’t, we don’t have, we can’t use the words open consultation. We can’t use this kind of process, okay? They are excluded, okay? So in your experience, if this is our scenario here, what kind of other tools does the multi-stakeholderism offer for your kind of work? What else it can happen in this policymaking process in terms of multi-stakeholderism and in your own experience as intergovernmental institutions? And building upon that, I could, if someone can please. give us an idea of how have things changed over the last years? Do you feel that your institutions are strengthened, they are weakened, there are many demands from governments, and these kinds of, I’d like to hear more on those two questions, please. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, that’s a lot. Quickly, from you, Carolina.

Audience:
So, Carolina from the DNS Research Federation. In connection to the work of your organizations, I think there have been two sort of agreements emerging from the discussions over the last day and a half. One is to avoid duplicative processes, and the fact that participation in multilateral processes should be improved. So if I turn those two into questions to your organizations, how do you see your organizations can improve participation of the broader multistakeholder community? And what coordination is required among yourselves and with us, the multistakeholder community, to reduce duplication of processes that we’ve been talking about these last couple of days? Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
And our final speaker from online.

Online moderator:
Okay, we have Avery Doria from the technical community. Avery?

Audience:
Hi, thank you. Thank you very much for recognizing me. I actually wanted to go back and give an answer to Henriette’s question. And I was sort of surprised at the sort of negative view on it. I am incredibly excited and enthusiastic about the ability of multistakeholder models and the multistakeholder approach to affect the work that goes on in the multilateral system. I’m incredibly optimistic about the fact that it gives us the ability to communicate. We know each other because we’ve sat beside each other in multistakeholder events, not because we’ve sat together in multilateral events. In addition, the multi-stakeholder methods are constantly developing new ways of doing things, new modalities. It is not a monolithic system that does things repeatedly in the same way year after year, practice after practice, but is constantly developing new ways to do things. And those new ways of doing things, the practice alone is enough to start having people think differently, to see that they’ve achieved something by doing things in a different way and such. So I think that I’m glad I got to speak because I am incredibly enthusiastic about the fact that, yes, it does help us communicate. Yes, it does. Just think back to where we were 10, 20 years ago when we tried to interact, when we tried to interact at those WSIS meetings. We’ve moved so much further and it is because of the multi-stakeholder methodologies, the models, the approach and the mindset. Thanks for letting me say something.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, Avri. We could actually just close the session now, but thanks very much for your enthusiasm. Amandeep, did you want to give some reflections? Is Amandeep not online right now? Pritam, do you want to go ahead and while they’re bringing him back?

Amandeep Gill:
I can go after Pritam. I couldn’t unmute myself. That’s the reason.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
That’s fine. Go ahead, please, Amandeep.

Amandeep Gill:
Thank you, Anritha. I want to stay with the very positive, optimistic, the very positive, optimistic intervention we just had. I mean, the multi-stakeholder model is strong today because it has evolved. It has been created, the community has been created. If we stay stuck, then we stop evolving, and we don’t meet the needs of the moment. And today, what are the needs of the moment? You just want to focus on some of those critical needs. And one or two interventions from the floor have underlined those. One, we need to be more mindful of the diversity of actors around the world. We need to reinforce diversity. No offense meant, but we often see the same voices, same people in some of these discussions. Can we reflect the incredible diversity to what’s happening at the national and the regional level in the entire digital ecosystem in some of these processes? So this is a question that I even addressed to us in the UN system. Can we, for instance, make sure that not only Big Tech, but also SMEs and startups participate? I was in the Silicon Valley last week, and the startups there, really appreciated that someone from the UN has come down to listen to them and understand what their perspective on AI, for instance, is. Can we keep developing new tools, new methodologies for multi-stakeholder participation, and not look at multilateral processes, not look at the role of governments as a kind of enemy to battle with, but is there a way in which we can find better interfaces in a very real sense, in a very practical sense? So those are kind of some of the contemporary challenges that we need to kind of look at so that this beautiful paradigm, this amazing community, continues to innovate, continues to evolve. So just wanted to throw those thoughts out. I think you will hear as the negotiation, there was a specific question put to me about how do the co-facilitators, Sweden and Zambia, who are steering the process on the GDC, take into account the Netmundial principles, very powerful. I would say this is just the right time because we’re just about to go into the first reading of the draft. There are some good things there in the draft, you know, across the board I’ve talked to many countries and it’s a good starting point. Of course, things can be improved. So, it’s a good starting point for this to come in and I do hope that we can all work together. Sometimes it’s a question of comfort zones, you know, we get comfortable and we see, you know, the world is moving on. I mean, Thomas, AI in the Council of Europe, AI in EU, AI in all these summits. So, there is kind of new forums, new processes, existing mechanisms coming up with new tracks coming out there. Is there a way in which we can handle this dynamic of what’s existing, what is useful, and what is the newness that we need in terms of our approaches, in terms of our mechanisms? There’s leveraging involved of existing forums and institutions. There’s strengthening involved. There’s some tweaking of mandates involved. But I think overall, there’s wisdom involved in striking the right balance between relying on the old and the familiar and bringing in some freshness and some contemporariness to our discussions, both multilateral and multistakeholder. Thanks.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, Amandeep. And thanks for that. I just do have to say that as a non-state actor, I found it very disappointing that whenever with the GEDC consultation, the non-state actors were given the opportunity, which we’re very grateful to have been given, but there was never a member state in the room listening to us, other than the co-facilitators. And that felt… Quite disappointing. And Pritam, did you want to add quickly, but I have to ask you to be just one minute so we can go to the second panel.

Preetam Maloor:
Sure, sure. Very quickly, you know, I heard some scepticism towards the NGOs moving towards multi-stakeholderism and that’s a valid reaction, but I’ll also thank Avri for bringing some optimism here. Honestly, no one can say we are fully multi-stakeholder, we are done. You know, it’s an evolution when it comes to stakeholder balance, stakeholder engagements, you know, we’re all trying, including the IGOs. And so, you know, can I walk into any meeting in the ITU or UNESCO or UNCTAD? Probably not. Not all doors are open, but most doors are actually open now. And we as secretariat of organizations have to probably do a much better job in promoting those opportunities. The working group on internet as an example, you know, we’ve been, of course, there is a component that is closed and member states have been trying to open it for years. But we are also holding year-long reach-outs, you know, online at the IGF, you know, we’re going to hold consultations every year at the WSIS Forum. So, we are opening up opportunities to, you know, provide inputs to the group and we are trying, you know. So, is multi-stakeholderism more difficult than multilateral? You know, that’s always true, as ADG Jalasi also said, you know, the negotiations are more difficult. But honestly, when the results come out, those are better, have better buy-in and there is a certain momentum when it comes to implementation that doesn’t exist when you have just a multilateral output. So, these were just my key points, yeah.

Thomas Schneider:
Thank you very much, Preetam. We would now definitely go to the last bit, which we’ll be taking back on the panel. And sorry for you to have had to wait so long, but the advantage is you can react to whatever has been said before. So, again, there’s no rose without a thorn, but everything has pros and cons. So, the question that… We would like to ask you, given that you were chosen as being one representative of a stakeholder group, from the perspective of your stakeholder group, of your constituency, what has been working well so far in the present in cooperation and collaboration among different institutions and stakeholders, and where are the gaps, what are the most urgent gaps, and again, how can the NetMundial outcome help filling these gaps? And we would begin with Pablo Hinojosa from APC.

Pablo Hinojosa:
Good afternoon, everyone. I’m Pablo. I work for APNIC, the Regional Internet Registry for Asia-Pacific. The question for this panel is about gaps in process coordination. Amandeep, the tech envoy, was talking about new paradigms at the UN within multistakeholderism, and this triggers me to talk about how to prevent a generational gap in these processes. In APNIC, we have been an active part of the technical community for over 30 years. As an organization, we proudly think of ourselves as part of the WSIS generation, and we’re not shy in celebrating the values and opportunities that WSIS has brought to us. The World Summit of the Information Society, or WSIS for short, helped many organizations like APNIC to define ourselves more clearly, in our case as an internet governance practitioner, and as part of a decentralized and ever-evolving ecosystem which now forms the institutional backbone of the internet. NetMundial has worked very well as sort of a pit stop every 10 years to reflect on the importance of this formidable WSIS discovery, which is the multistakeholder internet governance model. As the UN is heading towards celebrating the 20th anniversary of WSIS, it is very timely to discuss about how we’re doing in terms of implementing those principles. that were cataloged in this decalogue in NetMundial in 2014, and how to ensure that they can transcend to the next generation. So I would like to say three things very quickly. First, the UN Global Digital Compact and the Summit of the Future might or might not represent an attempt for a generational change after WSIS. Amandie spoke again about new paradigms and while it will be very hard to replicate or substitute WSIS, it would be a mistake to leave WSIS behind without fully embracing its legacy, knowledge and lessons learned. If I can just take one minute out of the Swiss precision, I think WSIS is very much alive in the form of Internet Governance Forum. The IGF is the repository of historical knowledge and it’s anchored and chained to the WSIS generation. So my second point is the IGF should continue and become better and stronger. And finally about coordination. Coordination is expensive, Mark talked about it. It demands substantial investment both in terms of time and resources. If there is something at the core of WSIS, it is inclusivity, also it’s orientation towards development. So before we create new processes or complexities, we need to factor in the cost of coordination and the cost of participation also in the national and regional initiatives. So in summary, let’s be certain that we work towards compacting and not expanding.

Thomas Schneider:
Thank you, I like the last bit very good. That makes a lot of sense. Now, Piers, as a representative, an experienced representative from a supranational government, what is your view on what we’ve heard in this session? Thank you, Piers.

Pearse O’Donohue:
Thank you very much, but also what we’ve heard over the last day and a half. So starting with the substance. Obviously, we have the ability to address challenging tech and policy issues from a multi‑stakeholder perspective, which means a multi‑perspective, seeing all sides of the problem and different views and approaches. And some very meaningful advice, but also simply work has been done in the past on that. On the process also, and we see this in Net1DL and we see it in IGF, is the actual ability to be self‑critical and the willingness and ability to actually improve on weaknesses in order to make the process relevant. And the third point, speaking from a government perspective, is of course the fact that the way it is structured allows governments as a stakeholder to understand and actually benefit from the expertise and inputs. But on the gaps, the first is really, it’s the flip side of what I’ve just said. It is the inability in some cases of international organizations, multilateral bodies and even government sometimes, to actually benefit from, to receive that input from the multi‑stakeholder process. And that’s been a key issue that we’ve been addressing in the day and a half here so far and hopefully will be reflected strongly in the outcome document. The second point, let’s be very frank, it’s the time it takes. It’s literally the ability in what is a rapidly moving technology world to have the input on time to impact on perhaps regulatory decisions. And then lastly, the gap is the tendency to create a new forum. It’s to see a gap when there isn’t one. In other words, oh, we have this new technology, we have to create another forum, another body, another mechanism. So those are issues which we need to address. I see that. How do we do it? First of all, we continue this process. We make the multi‑stakeholder mechanism relevant. We update it regularly. And we insist that the findings, for example, the outcome from NetMondial is fed into the GDC and into other multilateral processes. That net mondial input, the GDC input, is critical for the setting of the future. We should also specifically address and see how we can work towards improving the multi-stakeholder involvement in the WSIS process, including the CSTD. And then lastly, a government perspective again, it is not a small issue, is that of funding. We have a responsibility to ensure the funding, and this morning we were reminded in discussion of the text about the need to support, promote, and listen to local, national, and regional IGFs, and the processes to support the youth IGF, to support the involvement of underrepresented groups, and that should be written into the UN Charter as far as I’m concerned, but certainly we can write it into our own rules and procedure, so that we will have that issue addressed. For example, the problem of SME representativeness that was also addressed, where we should have structures to improve on that. But I would say we need to be positive, as one of the speakers said, and thank you for the opportunity to express those opinions.

Thomas Schneider:
Thank you, Piers, for these insights. The next participant is online. That’s Marianne Franklin from the University of Groningen, whatever you call it in the Netherlands. Happy to see you again, at least virtually, Marianne. The floor is yours.

Marianne Franklin:
Thank you very much, everyone. I’m here in two capacities. I’m an academic, internet governance, and all these terms we’ve been talking about has been one of my research domains for over two decades, which is scary, but I also have an affiliation to the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition, who are the home base for the Child Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet, which many of you know, and I have up behind me the Brazilian version of our charter booklet. So we’re always encouraged as a dynamic coalition which is based at the Internet Governance Forum to see the work continuing. But I’m here as an academic, so academics hold many hats and we cross many stakeholder paths. So the thing to realise is that Internet Governance, multi-stakeholderism, you name it, is now an object of research, an object of critical research, an object of quantitative research, qualitative research, but the gap is that most of our students, the so-called Generation Z, know nothing about what we’re talking about today. They experience and access online content, they understand some of the hazards, but they are completely disconnected from some of these processes that need to be done at what is actually quite a high level. 8.1 billion people inhabit planet Earth, which we are destroying incredibly quickly. Internet use is possibly one of the key causes of environmental degradation. 70% are now online. So in a sense, this meeting, NetMundial, IGF, the Global Digital Compact, EuroDIG, as incredibly important they are in shaping a digital archive and a public archive of aspirations, which for academics and researchers is important, is a very, very select community, a very entitled community and one that is more inclusive than it used to be. But I would like to just put that to the floor, that is a very select group that is gathered here today online and offline. So that’s my first point. My second point is, we ask what’s going well. Of course, what’s going well is that this stuff is accessible. I spent last week in Bremen with eight universities, students learning for the first time about the Global Digital Compact, hearing for the first time that they could actually sign up and go to these meetings. That’s an enormous That’s a development in how these high-level discussions actually work and the potential for getting younger voices and more diverse voices on board. I know it’s an aspiration all the time. Thirdly, I would look for an embracing of diversity in its fullest meaning of the term, an embracing of scope in its fullest meaning of the term, and an embracing of depth in its fullest meaning of the term. I remember once when human rights law and norms were seen as far too ambitious. The Charter is just one of 300 and counting charters, calls for human rights online to be respected and operationalised, yet the disconnect is growing, and researchers can actually empirically point to this as well, the disconnect is growing between our aspiration for human rights by design and what is actually going on in the world right now, and that’s the biggest problem I see both as an engaged researcher and as a human rights advocate within the internet governance communities. I don’t have to work very hard for my students and the students of my colleagues to tell us this already. They take for granted the fact that access should be enshrined in human rights law whilst it’s more an aspiration and we take it as read. They take it as read indeed that their privacy should be respected, and all these things that we’ve talked about, yet I see the term human rights now becoming a sort of black box signifier. I see it once in this very impressive and ambitious document for the NetMundial Plus 10, and I also really had to look hard in the Global Digital Compact with all due respect to that incredible project. So I kind of agree with what everybody is saying, but I’m looking around the room myself and thinking we are a very, very small, self-identifying, multi-stakeholder, multi-lateral community.

Thomas Schneider:
I don’t know what the university is talking about, but I would like to ask you to come to an end. Okay, thank you very much, Marion. We move to the next one. We have a civil society and a private sector voice left. So Paula Martins from the Association of Progressive Communications.

Paula Martins:
Thank you. Hello, thank you. I’m Paula Martins with APC. It’s an organization that works as part of a network whose members and partners have been trying to get involved in a number of processes that have been mentioned by the panel. And based on that experience, I’d like to share a number of reactions and answers to the questions that have been asked to us in this last part of the panel. What I’m talking here is going to try to identify a number of positive elements reacting to the first question about what has been working in terms of some recent processes. Then I’m going to try to share with you some of my key concerns about some of these processes and wrap up with some concrete suggestions. So to start with positive issues, what we’ve identified as being positive is a formal recognition, which is what we’ve heard here in the first panel, about the multi-stakeholder approach in the most traditional spaces of Internet governance, which is something which has a strength despite the challenges of the real implementation. Because we know in some other forums, including those that are discussing digital policies or where they discuss cybersecurity and cybercrime, we know that still in this forum, the participation has been a constant struggle. A second positive point is the use of public consultations for written submissions and oral submissions, which is something essential which has been adopted in a number of processes as we’ve heard here today, including the GDC. We can also see, as a pro, that some states have been inviting the civil society to take a stance and make comments about negotiated documents. And also, some multi-state initiatives, such Midden Freedom Coalition, Global Partnership, to enter online harassment, all of them have been created multi-stakeholder initiatives as part of the structure. The use of online hybrid participation also has a huge potential to expand and enhance participation, even though it’s necessary still to work a lot to deal with limited access, limited connection, access to language, working hours, and also time zone, et cetera. In some spaces, there has been a small increase of participation of these organizations, despite all the huge challenges related, for example, with visa to travel, increased costs, et cetera. So these are the positive points. And now I’m going to go into the negative sides of that. And I’m going to give the example of the negotiation process with GDC. I’m going to make a comment about what we have experienced in the GDC to just give you a very recent perspective on that. We haven’t made very much advance in the multi-stakeholder process. Just a few contributions here and there, a few inputs, with no impact on the multi-stakeholder governance. We don’t get information ahead of time so that participants can really understand the different steps. And it really impacts the different coordination. No processes have been made reference to previous processes, ongoing processes. but there is no real connection, no formal connection among them. They are simple references. And new processes do not make appropriate analysis of previous efforts. They do not identify gaps or the reasons why new proposals are being made. Therefore, it leads to lack of coordination and a problem related with contradictions in appropriate allocation of resources and legal uncertainty. The duplication of mechanisms is happening, as we can see with zero draft to DDC, which brings the preliminary proposition to seven mechanisms to be created. If they are not new, they should be better coordinated in the text related with existing efforts. Just one more minute to wrap up my comments. I’d like to make some more examples. The zero draft doesn’t give attention to the impact of technology in marginalized groups, and it has been a constant in many processes. We should organize a specific opportunity to collect their experiences. It shows the need to rethink our understanding of multi-stakeholder so that we can move towards involving the whole society, especially leading to autonomy and self-determination of groups which are in marginalized situations. So I’m looking forward to the last one. So very important principles entered the DDC as stand-alone principles, such as human rights, gender, sustainability, environmental, and multi-stakeholder process. But these principles have not been reflected in the continuation of the text in the areas where they talk about actions and commitment. So lack of integration is also a representation of what we see in many of the international processes. Thank you very much.

Thomas Schneider:
Thank you. And last but not least, the private sector voice, Sergio Garcia Alves from ALAI, the Latin American Internet Association, which is an industry association. Thank you very much.

Sergio Garcia Alves:
Thank you, moderator. So on behalf of ALAI and the private sector, I would like to congratulate the organizers of NetMundial Plus 10 and thank this forum for the opportunity to emphasize the strategic importance of integrating multistakeholder principles into the evolution of digital governance processes. Addressing the first question, private sector acknowledges the significant progress made in fostering collaboration between different processes, institutions and stakeholders. Platforms like the IGF have provided valuable opportunities for dialogue and exchange, and that is why it shall continue to improve. We still need to promote, though, more balanced representation and provide the IGF with resources to facilitate meaningful participation, particularly for smaller enterprises and marginalized communities in order to fulfill its mandate. Mark, we’re hearing you. Fragmented initiatives often result in duplicated efforts and policy development complexities, which ultimately raise costs for everyone involved. Soon it makes the participation in different forums more difficult, especially for stakeholders from the global south. As per the second question, we shall prioritize actions to improve our processes without unnecessary duplication, nor adding complexity or creating new mechanisms. That is why strengthening and supporting existing frameworks like the IGF is essential. By strengthening its mandate, providing increasing funds, and leveraging the principles outlined by NetMundial Plus 10, by NetMundial guidelines, we can enhance the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder collaboration in digital governance. These guidelines offer valuable principles to guide our efforts, emphasize transparency, inclusivity and accountability. Hence, it’s imperative for the Global Digital Compact to incorporate these guidelines and acknowledge the importance of a multi-stakeholder model in addressing both current and future challenges. By adhering to these principles, we believe we can foster trust among stakeholders, promote open dialogue and develop effective and inclusive frameworks. In conclusion, the private sector has been a great supporter of IGF and all processes related since its inception. It shows its commitment to continue supporting our environment. Thank you so much for this opportunity.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thank you so much, and thank you for giving us that leadership of the private sector keeping to time. If there’s one thing you can learn from the private sector, it usually is that. So thanks very much. And Thomas, do you want to – I’m sorry that we’re running out of time. Some closing remarks from Ambassador Schneider.

Thomas Schneider:
Mr. IGF and witnesses, thank you very much. I try to be brief. So my first way is the world has become very complicated. In old times, we knew that the ITU was responsible for infrastructure, UNESCO was responsible for things like content and media, and now we have things like AI and data that basically make the whole logic explode of the 20th century world. And then the governments do, in addition, have to talk and listen to other stakeholders, which actually makes it even more complicated. But it seems that we all agree that it’s worth the hassle of listening to each other because we think that the results in the end Get better and also it may be easier to implement it if the results are actually shared and supported by all stakeholders We’ve also heard that many people think there are improvements compared to What how things were 20 years ago and so on and so forth although there is still Much room for improvement and maybe not everything is as shiny glossy as some people tend to see it of course Because it is complex. I think it also in the end it comes down to personal Convictions of people working in secretariats are working for governments or other stakeholders There are some people that really try hard to go as far as they can And then let’s say held back by others who may have interests in Not letting them go too far So it’s not so black or white that one institution is necessarily better than another one or one government is better or worse than another One it is complex and you need to look very closely into every case and there are Asymmetries as we’ve heard and to be honest as somebody that is normally representing and maybe not poor but a fairly small country There are also asymmetries among governments because if a big country takes the floor Everybody’s listening because it could be important just of the sheer size and power if you take the floor for a small country They only listen to you if you really have a point to make that others don’t so also there are realities that we may not be able to change but the more Good governance tools we have in all processes be they multilateral be they mixed be they multi-stakeholder and this is what I want to conclude with I think The outcome of this is not perfect. But as my colleague Jorge said it’s a start to help to make multi-stakeholder processes more transparent, more accountable, less asymmetric. And also, that may be also an incentive, and we can apply actually, and this is the discussion on the outcome, but it’s also in your hands, don’t leave it up to somebody else. You can pick this issue up, bring it into the IGF, add it to other discussions, or just mirror existing multilateral and mixed and multi-stakeholder processes to what extent they live up to these principles of being transparent, having means to maybe alleviate the asymmetries that there are in all sectors, about the culture of listening to each other, and then also about the culture of somehow leaving traces to what extent input makes it actually in final documents. Because this is also something, of course, that listening is nice, but if listening means forgetting 10 minutes later, it’s maybe not sustainable. So I think this is a contribution that we all can use in our own circles to say, this is what was looked at at NETMundial, to what extent is my process, is your process, living up to these principles, I think this is in all our hands, to make this a living document that actually creates incentives for people to stick to good or better governance rules. Having said this, let’s go back to Ms. Henriette. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
I think you’ve said it all. I think there is this convergence, actually, at the moment of we have NETMundial plus 10, we have the Summit of the Future and the Global Digital Compact, which gives us a grander vision in terms of collaboration and principles, and we have the WSIS plus 10 in 2025, where hopefully these processes, these experiences, can be galvanized into an agenda which brings together both progress and change, as well as retaining. and building on what we’ve achieved. I want to thank all the panelists. I want to thank Marianne, it’s very late for her. Amandeep, thank you very much for being with us remotely and our other remote online participants and the team that has supported us. And particularly our other panelists here as well. I know you’re all exhausted and we were a little bit lax with time, which meant we had to put pressure on you, but thanks for bearing of that. And then lastly, thank you to Valeria Betancourt and Sandena from CGI for organizing the session for us. Thanks very much.