NETmundial+10 follow-up and the implementation of outcomes

NetMundial Plus 10 session highlights the need for actionable internet governance framework

During the NetMundial Plus 10 event, a crucial session was held to discuss the follow-up and implementation of the outcomes from the NetMundial Plus 10 initiative. The session, moderated by Veridiana Alimonti of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Guilherme Canella from UNESCO, aimed to collect insights on how the NetMundial Plus 10 outcomes would be sustained and actualised within relevant forums.

Participants stressed the need for concrete strategies to ensure the effective implementation of the principles and guidelines discussed. Concerns were raised that without a well-defined action plan, the outcomes might not lead to tangible improvements in internet governance. The importance of multi-stakeholder participation was reiterated, with calls for more inclusive and participatory processes that reflect diverse views, including those from the Global South.

The absence of key stakeholders, notably members of the ICANN and IETF communities, was noted as a significant gap. Participants suggested proactive outreach to these and other crucial groups to ensure their input is included in the process. Moreover, there was a call for mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the outcomes, with suggestions for regular reports and measurable indicators to track progress.

Participants discussed how the NetMundial outcomes could be connected with other international processes, such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Review, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), to avoid duplication and ensure coherence. The discussion also touched on the adequacy of current institutions for digital governance and the need to consider whether new structures are required to address transnational issues effectively.

Cultural diversity and public interest were highlighted as central to internet governance processes, with suggestions that these should be reflected in the outcome document. The right for individuals to choose not to be online and to have offline alternatives for civic services was mentioned as an important aspect of digital governance.

The session concluded with a call for all participants to leave with a clear understanding of their commitments and the actions they will take to implement the NetMundial outcomes. The moderators summarised the discussion, emphasising the need for actionable guidelines, stakeholder engagement, and regular follow-up. They also highlighted the importance of the outcome document influencing both global and national processes.

Additional noteworthy observations from the session included the recognition of the need for safe passage for IGF participants, addressing the lack of communication between IGF organisers and national immigration departments, and the importance of establishing solid communication between IGF, National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs), and countries’ international relations departments.

In conclusion, the session at the NetMundial Plus 10 event underscored the collective desire for a more robust and actionable framework for internet governance that is inclusive, transparent, and reflective of the diverse needs and rights of stakeholders globally. The discussions set the stage for a more concerted effort towards the implementation of the NetMundial outcomes, with a focus on creating a sustainable and participatory digital governance landscape.

Renata Jabali:
And I also remind you that we have Wi-Fi during all the event and the instructions are at the back of your badges, okay? And I also remind you not to forget to return the headsets for translation at the end of our agenda, all right? Okay, so now let’s move on to the last session before lunch. Our session is NetMundial Plus 10 Follow-up and the Implementation of Outcomes. In this session, we aim to gather views from the audience with regards to how NetMundial Plus 10 outcomes will be carried on by the community and how they will be implemented in relevant forum. It will be moderated by Veridiana Alimonte from the Electric Frontier Foundation and Guilherme Canella from UNESCO. Please welcome them on stage. So you can start.

Guilherme Canela:
Good afternoon, even though I’m Brazilian, as you all know, I’ve agreed with Veridiana that I would be making my remarks in English so that there would be diversity. And then she’s going to carry on in Portuguese. As the master of ceremony has said, my name is Guilherme Canella and I’m the head of the Freedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists section at UNESCO. headquarters in Paris, a pleasure to be here with you in this very important discussion. Sometimes, and I’m speaking from the experience of the international multilateral organizations, we spent a lot of effort in discussing our documents, our principles, our guidances, and we don’t spend the same amount of time in discussing implementation, which at the end of the day is what we all desire, how we improve the quality of implementation of the decisions and the different instruments that we collectively discuss, luckily, in this forum in a multi-stakeholder manner. So this session, it’s not to discuss the content of the NetMundial Plus 10 document in itself. It’s precisely to discuss the strategies of implementation of the outcomes that are being drafted and negotiated while we are here pre-lunch to have this discussion. So very briefly, as I was saying, when we assess the lessons learned regarding the implementation of different strategies, for instance, in the multilateral system, evaluators quite often tell us that one of the most recurrent problems in getting better results and the impacts of the things we discuss is the deficits in the implementation strategy of the different policies that we craft in different areas. And that’s unfortunate because sometimes we, as I was saying before, we invest a lot of time in producing these important policies and then we see several issues in the implementation phase. So we hope, Viridiana and myself, but I will pass the ball to her now. that this particular discussion now, pre-lunch, will offer some insights on how we can improve the implementation of the outcomes of this NET Mundial Plus step. Viridiana, over to you.

Veridiana Alimonti:
Thank you, Guilherme. Good afternoon, everyone. So, in the name of inclusive participation and considering we are in Brazil and have many Brazilian participants, I will switch into Portuguese for these initial remarks. Good afternoon, I am Viridiana Limonte. I am with Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is an organization with national action for human rights and technology. And as Guilherme was saying, also from the perspective of civil society, we have had a number of experiences of building principles, recommendations, and usually followed by challenges of implementation. I, FF, and others, civil organizations, we have already been involved in these initiatives to try to implement and enforce principles of rights, of proportionality in the surveillance of communication, and also in the principles of Santa Clara for count and moderation. And here we are discussing how can we move on to internet governance or digital governance that is effectively diverse, inclusive, participative, democratic, in which all stakeholders are with a seat at the table, having the opportunity to have their voices heard. And for the past day and a half, we’ve been discussing extensively, and now we have the next challenge. How are we going to move on from now on? How are we going to take forward the conclusions and the outcomes of the final document? How each sector is going to do it? What are the relevant forums where we can do it? And what are the important mechanisms within each of these forums for us to implement that? And as we are here at NetMundial Plus 10, we have had a very relevant discussion 10 years ago exactly at the same venue. A lot has happened since then. But I can tell you that, yes, the fact that we are here 10 years later is, to some extent, also representing a gap from what we have achieved since the first document. So I think it is on us to create now the path towards effective implementation and appropriate follow-up of what’s going to be approved today when we get to the end. Now I’m going to switch to English. Procedures for the session. We will follow the same procedures. So we have an open mic for each stakeholder. And for each one, we will ask remote online moderation if we have participants that want also to make an intervention online. And I really hope to have your engagement, because since we’ve been discussing these two days how we would like to see the final document, what is the language that we want to see reflected there, we also now need to talk about how we are going to implement it. So I see we have someone in the civil society line is starting it. So please, go ahead.

Audience:
Thank you very much, Sébastien Bachelet, Internet Society France and European Regional Art Organization. My name is French Sébastien, not Spanish Sébastien Bachelet. B-A-C-H-O-L-E-T, please. Thank you. Whatever. I wanted to talk about… I was there 10 years ago in NetMundial, and I am happy to be back 10 years after, but I hope that the next time we will talk about or use the output of NetMundial Plus10 will not be in 10 years. I will be happy to be back in 10 years, and I am sure that we are very thankful to the CGBR to organize this meeting, but we can’t wait for them to reorganize that in 10 years and not talk about what is happening here and the output of NetMundial 10 years ago and NetMundial now. And therefore, I would like that we eat our own food. We say in the paragraph just before that there needs to be a place where we discuss the output of different groups, and we put a long list and we were discussing about this list. I would like to add NetMundial on this list because it could be a good way to have some follow-up and not to wait just for the Brazilian to show up in 10 years. And IGF is a good place for that, and maybe there will be some dynamic coalition when existing or maybe to create one specific on that or any other way to discuss that at the IGF could be a good way. the future. Thank you very much.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank You Sebastian. I see that we don’t have other colleagues in the other queues of the other groups but I don’t know if online before I get civil society from Henriette if we have other stakeholder groups online. No, so Henriette, please.

Audience:
Thanks, I’m Henriette Esterhuisen, Association for Progressive Communications. Thank You Sebastian. Just building on Sebastian’s remarks, I think I would like to make concrete suggestion that CGI.br and the high-level executive committee convenes an open forum at the 2024 IGF to share the very specific experience and outcomes of NetMundial plus 10. And I also want to recommend as Sebastian suggested the formation of a dynamic coalition and on implementation of the NetMundial principles and guidelines. And I can share that with the UNESCO Internet Universality Indicators. There is a dynamic coalition which has been very useful in taking forward the application. And I also think it’s worth noting that the UNESCO Internet Universality Indicators includes a sexual and multi-stakeholder that can be referenced. And then finally, I think it would be good if the NetMundial plus 10 outcome document can call on existing and emerging internet and digital governance processes to apply the guidelines and principles and share the experience of doing so through this IGF dynamic coalition. And I think that remark should include a specific mention that the guidelines and processes are of value for multi-stakeholder processes as well as for multilateral processes.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you, Henriette. And online, please.

Moderator:
We have a remote participant from the academic sector. William J. Drake, you may join us.

Audience:
Hello. Further to Henriette’s point, I would just say, one of the biggest problems we face is the lack of institutionalized dialogue and coordination across stakeholder groups during WSIS and in the years after, we had some processes that facilitated that, but they’ve all eroded. And so it’s now only on an ad hoc basis that such cooperation seems to arise. For example, most recently in the negotiations in the UN Cybercrime Treaty, there was a lot of coordination among different stakeholder groups taking a common kind of position vis-à-vis what some governments were doing. I think since we’re all here together, why not use this event to try to catalyze and reanimate coordination among stakeholder groups so we can push a common agenda where we agree, or at least have dialogue in cases where our agendas differ. And so if the Secretariat, for example, could establish an open platform and mail lists or other kinds of vehicles so that we could have a starting point for people to begin to communicate, and that would also probably help within the stakeholder groups to foster coherence. You know, people tend to rise to the situation. When there was WSIS or something happening, people began to coordinate. So if you create a space, people may begin to coordinate within groups and across groups more effectively than they do now. Thanks.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you. We have another online, please.

Moderator:
We have a comment from Olivier Alize from the government. He’s a program coordinator at ITU. Technical standards help technologies work together. They help make them safer, more accessible, more affordable, and more sustainable. Moreover, governments have obligations to protect human rights set out under international human rights law, including the digital context. To build trust, stakeholders should work together with the ITU and OHCHR to translate human rights into technical terms and embed human rights into technical standards. Thank you for your comment.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you. We have a few more online. I don’t see other people in the queues, but look, we really want to stimulate you to come forward. Oh, sorry. Please go ahead. I’m glad someone, technical community, please.

Audience:
Greetings, everyone. My name is Julia. I am from Brazil. I represent the gender standing group from the Internet Society, and I’m glad that I was able to be here at this moment right now, because for actions, for implementations, I think there has been a lacking of safe passage between all the IGFs, local or international, and all the NRIs to establish a solid communication with the international relations departments of countries, because sadly, last year, we had a, I wouldn’t dare to say a mass denial of entry from participants, but something that was worryingly surprising to all of us since we had not only a CEO of one of the most important civil society entities in Brazil denied passage because of irregularity with his passport, but also a lot of Middle Eastern and especially Pakistani participants being denied entry because they were deemed with a chance of trying to emigrate to Japan, which is something that I know that the government of Japan didn’t do in bad faith, but it represents a really strong lack of communication between the departments that allow entry of the participants and the country saying that it is ready to receive everyone and every idea. So a pressing matter for actions for safe passage, safe conduct to participants of all the NRIs.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you for your contribution here now, civil society.

Audience:
Thank you. I must say that it is becoming a very nice text but unfortunately mostly declarative with no actionable outcome incorporated by design. It is all again about what we want and nothing will happen over the course of the next 10 years if we do not take any action following this meeting to clarify exactly who and how will be implementing these aspirational statements. In case of IGF at least it is happening on annual basis and we can expect some continuation of discussions. Same for WSIS and same expected for GDC, but NetMundial is the event which is happening once in a decade. The key question we should be asking ourselves is who will be making sure that everything which is reflected in this outcome document will be turned into action. We should move from discussions about the principles we all like to committing to actions and taking practical steps which is much more painful and effort intensive but only this way we can make sure that any real change happens and that we have something more tangible to be proud of and to discuss when we meet after the 10 years or hopefully even sooner. Connecting the processes and avoiding duplication is not only about sending a wish list to these processes but we also should have a very clear action plan which is added to this visionary paper that we currently have. So I believe it would be very helpful if all stakeholders who are present here in the room today would be actually leaving this room with having a clear understanding of what is that commitment that they are taking back with them and what is it that they can be doing once they are back to their daily routine. And also it would be good to have some kind of follow-up section incorporated directly in this outcome document which would be reflecting on how are we planning to connect with all those processes, especially the ones which are mentioned in this long 4.4 subsection. Thank you.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you very much. Academia? Okay. Okay, thank you very much.

Audience:
My name is Umo Pajaro, University of Malmo. The outcomes on the mundial should be addressed and guided not only as a result of one event but for the good and the benefit of internet governance should be articulated as a relation of the transitions or call to actions in an easy language that allows interoperability in terms of policy and effectively enhance the multistakeholder model in the current internet governance processes where it’s used and allows to be used where it isn’t. The where it isn’t in this model, not only for recommendation of follow the current and evolving digital ecosystem but mainly for decision-making processes by consensus related to internet and digital spaces. Thank you.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you. Government and NGOs?

Audience:
Thank you. Ros Kenny-Burge, UK Government. It is right that the NetMundial outcome document strongly reaffirms the need for meaningful multistakeholder engagement. We’ve talked about the importance of multistakeholder participation in processes. such as the GDC and the WSIS Review. But we should, as others have said today, recognize the need for organizations to do more to fulfill the NetMundial principles. For example, we warmly welcome the development at the IETF of a dialogue on public policy issues, and we should build more on this to include governments, civil society, and other stakeholders. At ICANN, we have seen progress in addressing policy issues such as DNS abuse, but the ICANN community needs to do more to fully address public policy interests in a timely way. It also needs to step up efforts to reach out to stakeholders from around the world. The IETU has great multi-stakeholder initiatives such as Partner2Connect, but its Council Working Group on Internet Issues is still closed to non-governmental stakeholders, and we believe that needs to change. These are just some examples, and none of this is intended to criticize particular organizations. Governments also have a lot more to do. The point is that we all have responsibilities to make these changes happen in reality and ensure that the NetMundial principles are not just abstract theory. We hope this meeting in Sao Paulo and the document that we will produce will give us a renewed termination and energy to make it happen in reality. Thank you.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you, UK. So now we’re on a remote, and then back to the lines.

Moderator:
We have a remote participant from civil society, Christophe Gauthier. Please, you may join us.

Audience:
Hello, everyone. My name is Christophe Gauthier. I’m speaking out of Paris, even though our organization, I4T Knowledge, is global. I wanted to mention four elements. The first one is we are a global network providing knowledge to implement regulation of digital platforms based on UNESCO Internet Fortress Guidelines. So we are very in favor of having well-defined stakeholder groups contributing in this NetMundial document and outcome. The second one is we recognize that collective deliberation is a complex process and that we would favor using already existing mechanisms and tools like poll.is or quadratic voting that are new mechanisms that have shown their power in terms of empowerment for different stakeholders and making it more efficient for collective intelligence. The third element is about hybrid tools. We keep thinking hybrid is in-person versus remote but hybrid is evolving into a new world which is a combination of human production and synthetic production from generative AI. And we have new generative AI agents that are helping for deliberative processes. And we would like to see these tools being developed by a technical community and supported by multilateral organizations. And that’s the fourth point, which is in order to do this we probably would need to have some kind of digital public infrastructures that are strong enough for all the multi-stakeholder communities to be able to contribute. So we would favor to have some elements related to this in the outcome document.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you, Christophe, and now we go to private sector.

Audience:
Thank you. Mark Derisgao, Internet Governance Consultant. I’m a big supporter of NetMundial plus 10. I’ve been for a long time. I even published articles about this when it was just an idea. But I can’t help but notice that we have a very significant absence of members of the ICANN community and the IETF community and similar policy-making bodies related to technical infrastructure of the Internet. So at some point, this must mean that we failed to reach out to them. We failed to include them in the process or offer the correct framing for their participation. So whatever result we arrive at, we’ll be missing in many of those voices. And this is something that is not being stressed enough. So can we retroactively correct that? Would it be possible for us to maybe expose this document to these communities seeking input? Maybe they don’t want to give input, but it would be valuable to know if they do, because their lack of presence is significant and it’s not something we can just brush over. So looking towards the delivery of this document and the next steps that follow NetMundial plus 10, this is something that we definitely needed to make into a priority so that this document does reflect what we want it to reflect and that it does include all the voices we want to be heard. So thank you very much.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you. So let’s take technical community, civil society and academia.

Audience:
So hello again, everyone. I’m Dina Santana from Internet Society and I would like to mention regarding, as I already said, is necessary policy integration with national and regional policies and also… with multilateral forums, and I’d like to suggest also establish metrics to define measurable indicators to track progress in implementing the outcomes, and also regular reports to publish on the status of implementation, challenges faced and lessons learned. Thank you.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you. Bertrand, s’il vous plaît.

Audience:
I’m Bertrand de La Chapelle, speaking in a personal capacity. I could not help but smile listening to one of the previous comments from the UK, and no disregard, but the simple mention of the Working Group on Internet Issues at the ITU being closed brings me back almost 20 years ago when, as a French representative, I was participating in a negotiation of the resolution that was supposed to open this group in 2006 at the plenipotentiary. And if I could find, I don’t think I could find a better illustration of the fact that in the last 20 years, the entire system has been stuck in this endless discussion about multilateral versus multistakeholder. I think the main message that I would like everybody here to get from this stocktaking of NetMondial plus 10 is that the period between now and the end of 2025, this year between now and the end of 2025, the WSIS plus 20 process review, is the moment where we really have to collectively address the question of do we have the right institutions for the governance of the digital world? Do we have those institutions? The answer clearly today is no. Because we are dealing with transnational issues and the international system is based on international questions. We have to finish all the components in the IGF with all the different building blocks that it has to do the transition into a fully functional architecture. And we need to make 25 the moment when we re-engineer the IGF to give it its full potential.

Guilherme Canela:
Merci, thank you, Academia.

Audience:
Good morning, I am Messias Bandeira from Federal University of Bahia, here in Brazil. I believe that NetMundial Plus 10, as well as the final document of this meeting, should be more assertive about two aspects that I think are central to the many Internet governance process. First, I believe that the public interest should be the horizon of all global Internet governance process and that this term should be included as a universal value. Secondly, respect for and encouragement of cultural diversity should be included in the document as a fundamental parameter of governance process. The term cultural diversity does not appear in the document and I have the feeling that this is a gap because Internet governance should consider not only multistakeholder dimension but also cultural diversity as we experienced during these two days of NetMundial Plus 10. Thank you.

Guilherme Canela:

Audience:
Thank you. I would like to encourage lines of funding that so that the research can be done independently. So also I thought about best practices considering this governance model that’s being discussed here, obviously focusing in the global south, always also considering or enabling the equality of human rights and also democratic values. And I understand that this is a very sensitive issue. But it’s important that we also act on this issue. So funding of research is very important for achieving that. Thank you very much.

Guilherme Canela:
David, go ahead.

Electronic Frontier Foundation/EFF:
Yes, David Green from EFF on behalf of civil society. Just adding on to Henriette’s previous statement, not only would it be productive to have other multi-stakeholder processes employ the principles that come out of this, but actually to call on them to affirmatively endorse the principles ahead of time and pledge to employ them. I think that could be an action item that this body could take would be to reach out and to call for positive endorsements from other multi-stakeholder processes to employ these principles.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you, David. And now another from academia, please.

Audience:
Good afternoon. Alexander Gonzalez is with the Institute. Good afternoon, Alexander Gonzalez from the University of Brasilia. I’ll speak in Portuguese. Well, I’d like to insist on an issue. It’s important that the final document refers to the global internet governance. Today, we see a symmetry and inequality of power because this is now on the hands of some companies and some organizations. To me, this is just as important as the statements by NetMundial plus 10 that talked about arbitrary surveillance by some stakeholders within the governance structure. And that’s threatened the integrity and also the build of trust. So if the current statement does not portray such reality, I’m talking about the concentration of power and also of decision-making processes. So it will also not make that much sense.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you.

Audience:
Paloma Lara Castro representing Derechos Digitales. Just to follow up on David’s point, we would like to suggest to encourage the establishment of working groups that analyze how to implement the NetMundial principles on multi-stakeholder approach to ongoing and future processes at the global, regional, and local levels. Thank you.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you, technical community.

Audience:
Thank you very much. I am going now to speak on behalf of the technical committee, but the Brazilian and the Global South technical community, and this is why I’m going to speak Portuguese, I would like to emphasize the need to talk about the right to be disconnected, the right that people have of not necessarily being integrated as part of the digitalization of the world, and also the right of not being part of internet, so creating networks that are affecting our culture, for example, and the constant use of internet. Let me give you an example. Rather than having someone not having access of internet, maybe the person should have the right of not being forced only to use digital means, for example, to have only digital documents, it’s the only way is to have a digital life. My country has been through an internet digital transformation, now we have more than 80% of connections in Brazil, and this is a change that is going to be part of most of the countries in the Global South. So I think that we have to look ahead towards the future. We have to create networks, platforms, and connections, and government that would also allow users to be. disconnected should they want to be disconnected. And this is also a right of internet users.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you.

Audience:
Good afternoon. I’ll speak in Portuguese. My name is Flora. And I’m here representing the giants in Brazil. And I would like to make a point just echoing what we’ve just heard. Multi-stakeholder model has also to be applied. And sometimes I have to say obvious things. But the multi-stakeholder model has to be also applied to local and national forum in what concerns internet governance in all different countries. We know the importance of having international forum. And we are all part of that. And NetMundial plus 10 is extremely important towards that. But a multi-stakeholder model should not be limited to IGF or to the large international forums for internet governance. It’s important to have a multi-stakeholder process also applicable at the local level and regional level, really attracting the attention to the large players, the large actors operating all over, such as big techs, for example. They also have to make a commitment to follow the principles of NetMundial plus 10 and the multi-stakeholder process of applying transparency, of sharing information as part of all the processes at local and national level, especially the global south.

Guilherme Canela:
Do we have remote? So please go ahead.

Moderator:
We have a remote participant from the academic sector, Diana Montenegro, you may join us.

Audience:
Good morning, Diana Montenegro, Academia, Bogota, Colombia. The implementation is about to encourage critical thinking about novel regulation of this novel digital organization that we are seeing. The global south must be the dissensus of a new economic order about inequality, about the lack of recognition of human workers in the global south. We need to start improving this critical thinking in the universities. We are starting to teach, for instance, a digital regulation in seminaries and in classes. It is important to encourage the autonomy of the regulations in this novel digital organization. Thank you.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you, gracias. So Academia again, please.

Audience:
Hello, thank you. Jaqueline Pigatto from Sao Paulo State University. I would like to build upon the civil society comments from Bertrand and others before me that we have a transnational governance for internet and digital issues with an international system. And a point that unfortunately we have very few participants from government here today. My question in general is regarding what are the incentives to bring all stakeholders to the dialogue? especially governments and the big techs from private sector. Therefore, I would like to that the NetMundial Plus 10 documents recommends the implementation of these guidelines, especially to international institutions where we have member states seeking to address something, but at the same time they have an opportunity to build multi-stakeholder processes following these guidelines discussed here. Thank you.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you. I don’t see any more people, but we still have online. Please go ahead.

Moderator:
We have a comment from Kiki Fong-Lam from Civil Society. Having strong offline experiences for public and civic services accesses, banking, health, etc. benefits people who wish not to be online and increases resilience and recovery in cyber incidents, attacks, or natural disaster. It’s a win-win. Thank you.

Guilherme Canela:
Thank you. Anyone else here on our online? So if not, we were also requested as moderators to do a very unfair task that is trying to summarize a rich discussion. So, of course, we have no intention, Viridiana and myself, to do a report. This will be done later on. But maybe just a few remarks from our perception. I will start and then Viridiana will complement. So one thing, we had different comments with different sorts of structures in terms of what can be done to improve implementation of the outcomes. Some of the comments were related to a sort of an enabling environment that is needed for this implementation. Some people talked about about how asymmetries of power can impact this implementation process. Others mentioned how the governance system that currently exists still lacks concrete elements for a new governance of the system. Other people are mentioning that still there are several challenges with the multi-stakeholder model, particularly in local implementations. All those things are related to an enabling environment to guarantee a better implementation process. Then other comments were more on the pragmatic elements of these implementations. So some people mentioned action plans, other that the implementation will be better if we have different tools and including procedures for inclusion. Other mentioned the specific tasks for specific actors and so on. And then thirdly, there were specific comments that are more related to monitoring and evaluation and follow-ups. So how we don’t need to wait another 10 years, what are the midterm reviews, which different processes can be used to keep monitoring and seeing how the outcomes that are being negotiated here will be implemented in the next months and years. And finally, on my notes, and then I pass the ball to you, Viridiana, also some calls for engagement of these implementation process with other initiatives that are going on in the international environment. Viridiana?

Veridiana Alimonti:
Okay, so following on the challenging task of making notes and then reporting on the discussion, we had, so starting with highlighting the importance for us to have concrete steps and guidelines on how we’ll follow up this process. And also the fact that NetMundial is not as other processes that happened regularly or annually. So, the importance also not for us to wait more 10 years to, or the Brazilian government to reconvene MET Mundial in 10 years more, to be able to follow up on the guidelines and the document and the outcome document. So in this sense we had concrete, we had concrete recommendations and suggestions on that. For example, to have a call on the CGI.br and the high-level committee to convene an open forum at the 2024 IGF, to share the experience and outcomes of the document, and also to have a dynamic coalition to follow up an implementation of MET Mundial principles and guidelines. We also had the comments on the idea of creating working groups to analyze how to implement MET Mundial principles on multistakeholder approach to ongoing and future processes at the global, regional, and local levels. We also had the idea of not only having spaces or bringing the principles and guidelines to the processes that exist, but also having an action for these mechanisms that exist to endorse MET Mundial principles and an outcome document, as also to appropriate these principles as part of their procedure. We also had the important discussion on what is, as part of the discussion that we are having here, what are the institutions that we have, that we want to have at the end of 2025 for us to be able to have a transactional infrastructure or fully functional architecture that deals with the transnational nature of Internet, and also the challenge to creating spaces that, where we So, I would like to start by saying that we do have the stakeholders that make decisions in the room, so government, and also a concern with the asymmetries of power and the role that big tech corporations play also in governing our Internet today, so both the outcome document reflecting this concern, but also how do we build guidelines, that can foster these players’ engagement in most stakeholder processes. There is also the concern that these guidelines and the outcome document are not only a reference for global processes, but also national processes, both within governments and how big tech platforms deal with the way that they organize their platforms. And let’s see, what else do I have here? So, I think that’s it, what I could gather as part of the discussion, and we also for sure have the rapporteurs working on the session to be able to complement what we probably missed.

Guilherme Canela:
So, thank you. Thank you, Viridiana. Pleasure to co-moderate with you this session. Thank you for all those who contributed here in São Paulo or online. So, I guess we have lunch now, right? So, merci, thank you, gracias, obrigado, and bon appétit.

Renata Jabali:
Thank you very much to the speakers. Yes, we’re going now for lunch, which will happen at Complex 17, the same place as yesterday. I kindly ask you to keep your belongings with you all the time, okay? If you, for instance, find the cases that were delivered in the entrance, please return them to the reception, okay? And all right, I guess that’s it. Lunch will be served at 1.30 p.m. and we’ll be back here at 3 p.m., okay? We ask you to be sharp so that we can keep your agenda on time. Thank you very much.