The road to the WSIS+20 Review: Driving technical community engagement
29 May 2024 11:00h - 11:45h
Table of contents
Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed.
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Technical Community Discusses Engagement and Collaboration in Internet Governance Processes
During a panel discussion moderated by Konstantinos Komaitis, key figures from the technical community, including Jodi Anderson, Veni Markovski, Sabrina Wilkinson, and Vinicius Santos, convened to discuss the engagement of Country Code Top-Level Domains (CCTLDs) and the broader technical community in internet governance processes. The conversation focused on the formation of the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM), an informal group aimed at fostering collaboration among technical operators to influence governance processes effectively.
Jodi Anderson highlighted the importance of collaboration in navigating complex and sometimes opaque governance processes, such as those by the UN, GDC, and WSIS Plus 20. She detailed TCCM’s early efforts in sharing information, coordinating engagement opportunities, and developing shared views on issues and texts.
Veni Markovski discussed ICANN’s role in internet governance and its collaboration with governments through the GAC. He emphasized ICANN’s commitment to the technical foundations of the internet and its efforts to inform and engage the community on governance processes. Markovski also addressed the need for the technical community to be recognized as a distinct stakeholder group, separate from civil society, to ensure its unique contributions are acknowledged in governance discussions.
Sabrina Wilkinson spoke about the challenges faced by smaller CCTLDs in engaging with governance processes, particularly in finding the right contacts within government. She stressed the need to educate key government contacts about the technical community’s work and the importance of timely intervention in negotiations.
Vinicius Santos reflected on the lessons from NetMundial and the significance of the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance. He highlighted the event’s success in engaging stakeholders and producing a final declaration with guidelines for advancing multi-stakeholder practices. Santos also pointed out the need to promote the declaration and bring its messages to the forefront of global discussions.
The panellists identified challenges such as staying informed about complex processes, determining positions on issues, and having an impact within multilateral discussions where governments are the primary negotiators. They also discussed the importance of the technical community being recognized as a distinct stakeholder group in internet governance processes, as their expertise is crucial for maintaining the technical foundations of the internet.
Audience questions addressed issues such as raising awareness within the technical community, supporting smaller entities in their engagement, leveraging the NetMundial document, and the potential for a collective statement from the technical community to influence the GDC process. One audience member suggested that the technical community could issue a statement similar to the 2014 Montevideo Statement to strengthen its voice in the GDC negotiations.
In conclusion, the panel agreed on the need for the effective participation and collaboration of the technical community in global internet governance processes to ensure the stability, security, and resilience of the internet. They acknowledged the need to support smaller entities and to keep the community informed and engaged. The discussion highlighted the critical role of the technical community in shaping the future of internet governance and the necessity of its recognition as a key stakeholder in these processes.
Session transcript
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
CCTLDs, Country Code of Level Domain Names, have come together and have created a community coalition for multi-stakeholderism. Can you talk to us a little bit about this? Thanks.
Jodi Anderson:
Thanks, Konstantinos, and good morning, everybody. Yeah, I’d like to use this first introductory statement to just talk a little bit about the importance of collaboration, which is what Konstantinos has asked about. In the context of these processes that Konstantinos is talking about, the UN, the GDC, and the WSIS Plus 20, these are quite complex, they’re somewhat confusing, they’re not necessarily set up particularly well for multi-stakeholder input. It’s important for those in the technical community who want to engage to find friends, to find people to coordinate with and collaborate with, to share information, share the opportunities that there are to engage, to share views and positions on the relevant issues and on the relevant texts, to support the development of their views, share ideas for strategy to make sure that we’re having the most impact. As Konstantinos has mentioned, there’s a few of us in the technical community who have pulled together an informal coalition. We’re calling it a Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism, a little bit of a mouthful, TCCM for short. It’s, as I said, an informal coalition of some technical operators in the technical community, and we’re doing those things. It’s very early days, but we’re getting together to share information about, hey, look, the GDC Zero Draft has come out. We’re getting together to share opportunities. You know, there’s opportunity to input in the UN in the stakeholder session. We’re getting together to share views on the issues and on the texts. We got together recently to talk about the GDC Revision 1, to support ourselves to share into government. And we’re also developing shared views on stuff, and we input onto both of those processes with shared views. And I’ll stop there if I run out of time. Thanks, Konstantinos.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thanks. No, thank you very much, Jodi. Veni, ICANN has been an organization that is part of the Internet Governance Ecosystem since 1998, and very early on also, its structure opened up to invite governments, and over the years, the Governmental Advisory Committee has really expanded. And right now, it actually pretty much includes all governments around the world. ICANN has been collaborating closely with governments. Can you tell us a little bit about the ICANN-led engagements, activities, that you have been engaging in over the past few years?
Veni Markovski:
Well, thanks. I would assume that people here know what ICANN is, so I’m not going to spend time talking about what we are. But just for the record, it’s another abbreviation, which means Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. And if we use here some abbreviations and you don’t know what it is, please raise your hand, because otherwise we’ll continue to use them without telling you, and it’s good to know what we are talking about. And especially also, this is being web-streamed, I think. So we are engaging, Konstantinos, in many ways with, you are right, the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN, which has 182 members, I think, and about 38 international intergovernmental organizations as observers, is part of the ICANN community. But we also have every stakeholder that is involved in one way or the other with maintaining the single interoperable Internet and managing the domain name system and the IP addresses and protocol parameters. We are also very much interested in the UN processes. I’m based in New York, and I’m also responsible for the relations with the UN. And we have teams in Brussels and in Geneva and in Singapore. And we are covering the international processes that touch on ICANN’s mission. So we are not allowed by our bylaws to go beyond that. So for example, issues related to content and other stuff like that is not what we do. We are part of the technical community, and like InternetNZ or CIRA and the Regional Internet Registries and the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Architecture Board and others, we are part of the technical community. We also announced earlier this year the establishment of a WSIS Plus 20 Outreach Network. And there is a mailing list, and people can sign up if you go to the ICANN.org website and go to the government engagement page. There is a whole section dedicated to the WSIS Plus 20 Outreach Network. Please join the mailing list. We organize also webinars around the publication of the Global Digital Compact Zero Draft and then the Revision One. And we’ll be working also when the next revision comes out, you know, to inform the audience and the public. And we try to engage everybody from our community, but also beyond. And one of the goals for this mailing list is to provide a space for everyone to participate and be able to ask questions. And we have some very good experts there who can answer those questions.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thank you, Benny. I’ll turn to you, Sabrina, right now. You are a CCDLD registry for .ca, which is for Canada, and inevitably you’re engaging a lot, I suspect, with Canada and the government. Can you tell us a little bit about how your engagement with the national government is and what you have learned from that engagement?
Sabrina Wilkinson:
Yeah, absolutely. Happy to do that. Thank you. So exactly as you say, CIRA’s been working hard to engage with the government of Canada on the GDC and related processes. So perhaps what I’ll do is just provide maybe three key pieces of advice for technical community members who might be looking to do the same from our own experiences at CIRA. The first key piece of advice would be to, and it sounds quite straightforward, but find the right people in government. As we know, there are many folks across respective industry departments, foreign affairs departments, who are working on these issues or who might be in these negotiating rooms. So it’s crucial to find the right contacts to share your messages, share your views, and that’s a key way to get involved in these dialogues. It’s also crucial to orient those key contacts about the work that you do in the technical community. Of course, industry departments in particular have strong expertise around internet governance issues and certainly that expertise is held in or flows through state departments or foreign affairs departments as well. But foreign affairs departments in particular are focused on the art of diplomacy, negotiating tactics, et cetera. So in particular, it’s key to connect with those right folks and orient them to what you do in the technical community, the role of your community in the day-to-day operation of the internet, and your views on key issues. And finally, I’d say it’s crucial to intervene at key moments. So ahead of respective negotiations, directly after certain revisions are published, connect with those contacts and leverage the schedule to your advantage. So I’ll pause there, but thank you.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thank you so much, Sabrina. I think that one of the key things that comes across from what you have been saying is that governments also need the help of the technical community in order to understand some of those complex issues, right? Because there are very complex issues and especially, we’ve seen it in the GDC, there are some technical considerations that need to be taken on board and people to really understand how the internet works and why it is important that some aspects, especially the architecture of the internet, remains the way it was designed, originally designed. Vinicius, I will turn to you right now. A couple of months ago, Brazil hosted the second NetMundial, Plus10. You also organized the original NetMundial in 2014 and that was a pivotal moment for the multi-stakeholder community. I want to remind people that during the 2014 NetMundial, of course, we had what started and became the IANA transition process, which was a major, major moment for the global multi-stakeholder community and the model itself. Can you tell us a little bit about what sort of, you know, what were the lessons you’ve learned from NetMundial Plus10? Also, let’s talk a little bit about the outcomes document and why it is important that we always go back and refer to it in the sense that we keep in mind some of those things that the multi-stakeholder community decided.
Vinicius Santos:
Thank you, thank you very much, Constantinos. It’s a pleasure to be here and to have some time to talk briefly about these very interesting processes that we had in Brazil with NetMundial and the global community that got involved in this process as well. We have a lot to talk about that, but I will try to be very brief here with some comments about this process so far. Well, first of all, it’s important to remember that it was a very huge effort with a very short time frame, because it was the most difficult part we had. It was very challenging to organize it in a very, very, very short time frame. But it was successful and it was very good to see it happening in this way. But even with these hard conditions, we were able to engage a relevant group of skilled stakeholders that were very committed to contribute to all these debates that we are having in the global ecosystem. Right now, as most of you have already mentioned, all of the processes we are running at this time. Well, in terms of the messages you were asking me about, the statement of NetMundial as well, so we had the final statement of the final declaration of the event, as we had in 2014. We have there very important messages that we had built collectively before and during the event until we reached the final declaration. And I think that, I believe the event was really able to deliver a very much concrete outcome with clear guidelines for what we aimed for that was furthering the multistakeholder practices, methodologies, mechanisms to different relevant spaces throughout Internet governance and digital policy processes. So also to use the language that we had in the NetMundial statement, that was also something very challenging to reach in the final ending. The final statement also goes a bit further, as it gives clear messages to other relevant processes such as the Global Digital Compact, the Internet Governance Forum, the WSIS 20 review process and so on. So one of the important things, of course, the strong mention to the IGF, to the Internet Governance Forum, the explicit mention of the Internet Governance Forum as a preferred space for coordinating governance efforts and discussions, and also to be a place of monitoring results from all of these processes that we are having right now in the global ecosystem. So there are many, many other details there that we could have a whole session just to go each by each, but of course those I think would be some good highlights to mention here as we are in the WSIS Forum and talking about the WSIS 20 review and the related process. Thank you.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thank you so much Vinicius. So thank you so much for your interventions, I mean, great. They were very insightful, but I would like to talk now a little bit about challenges, right, because I’m sure that when it comes to the participation of the technical community and the way the technical community in some spaces is also received, there have been some challenges. Jordi, can you talk to us a little bit about what sort of challenges you have identified through your work?
Jodi Anderson:
Thanks Konstantinos. I think there are three main challenges, and I don’t think these are unique to the technical community. I think these affect other stakeholder groups as well, but the first one is the challenge of just being across the processes. I think if you’re not quite close to these processes or using the vast majority of your day trying to stay across these processes, it’s quite hard to do that. They’re pretty opaque. It’s hard to know where to get the information about what’s happening. And even if you do know what’s happening, the processes themselves are quite challenging. Very recently there was an opportunity to feed directly in to the co-facilitators at the UN for stakeholders, but there was, I think, a two working day or, you know, four day or two working day notice period, and even those who did turn up, there were some issues with the process. You know, if you didn’t turn your video on, you didn’t get to talk or something like that. I mean, they’re just, the processes are difficult to deal with. So that’s the first challenge. I think the second challenge is trying to figure out what your position is on some of the issues and on some of the text, especially for those in the technical community who might be relatively new to the space or who might be working alone. I’ve heard from some people in the technical community that they just need to know where to start in terms of thinking about what their positions on the issues or the text might be. They’re interested in knowing, you know, what the sort of the historic position of the technical community is, or what other positions of people in the technical community are as a sort of a place to start to figure out what their positions should be, and a sort of a really related challenge to that is the fact that in this internet governance space, there’s a few issues which have really deep history to them and are not obvious. And so there’s challenges with just figuring out whether your position sort of brings that into account. And I have one more challenge. I know I’m probably over time by now. The third one, I think, is figuring out how to have impact in these processes, figuring out whether you should be focusing on directly feeding into the UN process or feeding into your government, who’s actually the negotiator in these processes. And as Sabrina said, if you’re feeding into your government, there’s challenges around who’s the right person. You know, a lot of technical community have relationships with their communications agency but not necessarily with their foreign affairs agency. How do you establish that relationship in a way that means that they’re going to listen to your input if they don’t have an open consultation process? And how do you figure out how to work with others to have a little bit of impact with joining your voices together and making sure that you’re singing from the same song sheet and making sure that you’re all saying the same thing so that those themes start coming through and are being heard and are having an impact in the processes? Thanks, Konstantinos.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thanks, Jodi. Perhaps I’ll turn – Sabrina, do you have anything to add to that? Because you have been talking about some of the engagement that you have had with the national government. Do you see any challenges additional to what Jodi identified perhaps?
Sabrina Wilkinson:
Yeah. I think an additional challenge I might identify in this in particular would impact, let’s say, smaller ccTLDs than CIRA, but is the challenge of finding the resources and time to dedicate to an entirely new policy apparatus, right? Many of us are familiar with engagement in ICANN, and we have done that for a long time. But in particular for smaller ccTLDs, it can be quite challenging to figure out how to engage in a UN system that is multilateral and very distinct. And that’s, we hope, a key part of how the coalition that Jodi mentioned can help support different groups to engage. So that’s what I’d add on that front.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thanks, Sabrina. And I know that you want to say something, Veni, but if I can tie your answer to a question that I have also for you, that would be great. I know that ICANN, when the Global Digital Compact process started, the technical community was not explicitly mentioned or identified as a stakeholder group. And I know that ICANN had very strong feelings about this, and you also sent a letter stating the fact that we have been a unique stakeholder in these processes, and we would like also to be recognized. Why is it so very important for the technical community to have that specific and identifiable role within these processes?
Veni Markovski:
First of all, I’ll address two more challenges, which I think my colleagues kind of, they talked about others from their points of view, but I think regulatory and policy environment at the international and national and regional level is a challenge, which is very important for the technical community, because sometimes those discussions are taken outside of the IGF or other multi-stakeholder environments, and the trend towards multilateral governance approaches could be problematic for the Internet and the multi-stakeholder model, but also for the global interoperable Internet. And then the second challenge stems from the lack of understanding of the Internet’s technical foundations. So many governments and intergovernmental organizations and big bodies like the European Union and others are thinking of regulating content, but they’re actually touching on the, or trying to touch on the technical underpinnings of the Internet. So that’s a big challenge, because, and I have a colleague here, Elena Plexida, who is in the audience there, so you can wave so people can see and ask you after that. But I think that she’s covering the global legislation, regulatory issues that may touch on ICANN’s mission, which again is very tiny. Now on the question of the GDC and what you mentioned, ICANN actually didn’t send a letter, but we saw a couple of statements by the tech envoy, and in the policy brief of the technical, I mean of the Secretary General, and also in his statement at the Kyoto meeting, his video message, where they talked about the Global Digital Compact, and they were saying it’s a three-part system, businesses, civil society, and governments. And so the technical community, the tech envoy said, is part of the civil society. Naturally this caused some disturbance within the civil society too. So ICANN initiated a letter, which was signed also by APNIC and ARIN, not a letter, sorry, a publication, in which we made a case why it was signed by the CEOs of the three organizations, why the technical community is actually a separate group. And it’s important to note that in the Global Digital Compact, in the Zero Draft and now in the REV1, the technical community is actually mentioned as a separate stakeholder. And the point of that is because the WSIS, Tunis Agenda, and then the WSIS Outcome Document established the roles of each stakeholder. So civil society and technical community don’t have the same role. And we have to maintain that because, as the same way, you know, governments and parliaments have different roles. You don’t mix them, you don’t confuse them. We should make sure that the UN and other UN agencies don’t confuse the technical community with civil society. So that was the message. And also, it’s important to also point out that in the Secretary General Policy Brief, which was published last year, there were a lot of proposals for the Global Digital Compact, which did not make the text. For example, there was a proposal to establish a digital cooperation forum, a multilateral body.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
But, sorry to insist on that, but why you must participate? What is it that you’re bringing to the table in this conversation?
Veni Markovski:
Well, first of all, when you say must participate, we know that the technical community, the civil society, anybody within the UN General Assembly Rules of Procedure, we don’t participate in the negotiations. It’s only for member states. What we are trying to say to the governments, we do regular briefings both in Geneva and in New York with the permanent missions, is that we can provide technical, neutral information about how the Internet functions, so that when they discuss behind closed doors, there is enough knowledge, so that they don’t unintentionally draft a resolution or make a proposal which can impact the technical foundations of the Internet. So it’s really more of a, we work together with the governments and with the intergovernmental organizations to make sure the Internet continues to be single, interoperable. And again, we look at the Internet not as the applications and the communications tools and everything that uses the Internet.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thanks Feni. Vinicius, a little bit on this question, because NIC.br, right, is a multi-stakeholder body and technical community is extremely important in that setting. Can you tell us a little bit about that experience and why it was so critical for you to include the technical community within setting up this body in Brazil?
Vinicius Santos:
Sure. Thank you for the question. Yes, NIC.br is the CCTLD responsible for managing the .br domain name in Brazil. And we also have, side by side with NIC.br, CGI.br, which is the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, which is the multi-stakeholder body responsible for establishing recommendations and guidelines for the evolution and development of the Internet in Brazil. So the constitution of CGI.br in Brazil dates back from 1995, and it was always multi-stakeholder since the beginning, since its inception. So we always had all the stakeholder groups involved within the management of the Internet back there, because we called it management back there, and now we are talking about governance. Because of this, in Portuguese we have the word management of the Internet for Brazilian Internet Steering Committee as gestor, management. And we had all the stakeholder groups since its inception. It was very important because the Internet in Brazil, as seen in many other countries, began with many researchers and technical community experts involved in establishing the first connections and setting the way forward for the evolution of the Internet in the country, and so on. And then we had a long history about that with the involvement of all of the other stakeholder groups, including civil society, throughout different specific moments of the history in Brazil. And this went together into this sort of group of stakeholders committed to the evolution of the Internet in Brazil, doing a multi-stakeholder body, doing a multi-stakeholder model, working in this sense.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thank you. Sabrina, over to you. Can I ask you, what do you think is the greatest impact that, you know, the technical… How better yet can the technical community have the greatest impact in these conversations?
Sabrina Wilkinson:
Thank you. So as we know, these are multilateral processes, so, you know, in my view, the highest impact activity is engaging with your national government. And I forgot to mention this earlier, much appreciation to the Canadian government members who are in the room, who we’ve been engaging with on this issue, and we very much appreciate it. The second impact activity I would identify is engaging in the elements of the processes that are multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder inputs into this multilateral process. As Jody noted, some of these inputs have been challenging, and it is not always clear how the inputs into these processes are used, but it is nonetheless my view that it’s, you know, where possible, key to engage in these processes as one additional input. The third impact activity I would identify is public engagement. Konstantinos, you write publicly on these issues, and I certainly see that as another form of impact, and really value your contributions in this space as well. So I’d identify, you know, public writing, engagement through the ICANN WSIS Outreach Network, other forms of information sharing, and, yeah, public engagement as another form of influence as well. Thank you.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thanks. Would anyone like to add anything to that? Jody?
Jodi Anderson:
I just think in terms of having impact, in all three of those spaces, you tend to get impact when you start to hear the same threads or the same themes from different people. So it’s really useful, and it’s part of why, you know, collaboration is so important and cooperation is so important, to sort of agree those sort of main things that you really want to get in there. And then, you know, if governments are sitting there and they’re hearing the same thing from a whole heap of different people, or the COFAQs are sitting there, or the member states in those stakeholder sessions are sitting there, and you can hear the themes coming through again and again and again, and also in the, you know, in the public arena with the writing, if you start hearing those come through again and again, that’s when I think you, people start to pick those up and actually feed them into the process, you know, the people with the power, I guess. So I think that’s another way to ensure impact, is to make sure you collaborate on those messages and make sure different voices are feeding the same messages into those spaces.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thanks. Manny, briefly, please.
Veni Markovski:
I just realized that one of the things that we didn’t touch is that it’s actually good that the governments are coming sometimes with strange ideas, you know, that can even break the Internet, because that actually makes some noise and it brings the headlines, you know, into the attention of the general public. Most of the people don’t know what our organizations are doing, because, you know, the Internet is working, so why bother? But when there is some proposal coming from a member state, you know, like dramatically change the Internet or the model of governance of the Internet, it’s good because it raises the attention and it raises the dialogue and it brings new voices. Because when we talk about the Internet from the technical perspective, you know, the technical underpinnings of the Internet, it’s boring, people don’t pay attention, they’re saying, well, you know, it’s working, so why bother? But when there is a proposal that challenges this, we then come with lots of information and that’s good for the, I think, for the health of the Internet. Thanks.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
We have one last question and then I will turn to you for questions, so please prepare yourselves. Vinicius, what sort of advice would you give to any technical entity, technical operator that wants to engage in this space, but has literally 20 years of a lot of history and a lot of complicated processes? So what’s the best advice that you would give them, especially from your experience participating and building up a multi-stakeholder body in Brazil?
Vinicius Santos:
Well, thanks for the question. It’s a very good question if we look to all of the stakeholder groups and all of the specificities we have within all the stakeholder groups. I think most of the interventions here already touched a little bit on it in terms of building collaboration, building collaboration and be within collaboration networks. So I think Jody mentioned that and also Vini and Sabrina also mentioned things related to that as well. So this question for me is a matter of building bonds and be in collaboration networks. So if you are to just start following something, It can be really painful depending on what you have in terms of structure and what you need in terms of monitoring for policy and governance and so on. For instance, let me take advantage of Veni here. If you start to following ICON, for example, for the first time, you can just be crazy with all the acronyms and groups and so on. But if you just touch base on the e-learning tools that are available, the groups that are available, the mailing lists, the collaboration networks that are available, like the CTLDs network that was already mentioned here, you can just be integrated in some groups that are already working and are able to give guidance, orientation, and also help and support for you to be able to start, but also to be able to contribute meaningfully in some sense.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thank you, Vinicius. And I think that one of the common things that has emerged through this first part of the session is this idea of collaboration, right? And I think that this is very important to remember that the story of the internet is not the story of one person or one entity or even one application. It is the story of way too many people coming together and putting their heads together and trying to figure out how to create this decentralized network of networks that allows this global communication. So questions? Oh my god. OK. I will take two, three questions, and then we’ll go back to our panelists. Mind you, we have 10 minutes. So thank you.
Audience:
Got lucky. So I have a lot of questions. Carolina from the DNS Research Federation. So the first congratulations to all four organizations for the collaboration that you’re engaging in. I was wondering what your organizations are doing to raise awareness about these ongoing internet governance processes and sort of the challenges that they pose with the communities that you represent. I was very impressed by a presentation by the ARIN CEO at the NANOG meeting on this issue. So I was wondering beyond collaborating among yourselves whether you were speaking to your own communities. Then the other point I wanted to make, you’re all, I think, mid to large or very large players. So I was wondering if you have any plans to support smaller players, say, smaller CCTLDs with even less resources than CIRA or the CCTLD for New Zealand or the CCTLD for Brazil in engaging and understanding these processes. And last very quick question. The NetMundial document is out. It’s great. How do we leverage it? I don’t see it referenced in the latest version of the GDC draft. So your thoughts on that would be welcome as well.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thanks, Carolina. Nigel?
Audience:
Yes, thank you very much. I’m one of these awful governments that are in the room, I do apologize. But it was open, so we thought we’d just come along. I hope that’s OK. Nigel Hickson from the UK. Really what I was thinking, I mean, having been part of the technical community, I think the technical community makes an invaluable input into these discussions and always has. But I just wondered, for something as important as NetMundial, as we go through the negotiation phase, and I think there’s negotiations next week, whether perhaps the technical community could come together and issue a statement like they did years and years ago on the Montevideo statement, for instance, and really try and pin down some key issues in the GDC that the technical community finds important, particularly on the next steps and the follow-up process. Because otherwise, I think individual voices are very important, and you’ve had a very important input into the process, but collectively together, I think you could be stronger. Thank you.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thanks, Nigel. There is someone there, and then Jordan, and then I’ll close to answer. And if we have more time, we’ll go back. Thanks.
Audience:
Thank you. My name is Elisa Yver. I work for the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, and I’m the Dutch GAC representative. And what I’ve seen over the past few years, indeed, is that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Netherlands has become much more active on internet governance, which I highly applaud, so no bad words on that or anything. But what I’ve also seen is, so you also mentioned find the right person in government, but also combine the two persons in government. Because I’ve seen along the ministries of, well, let’s say economic affairs or communications, finding the person sometimes in foreign affairs is also a challenge, or finding the person in the mission in Geneva can also be a challenge. So please ensure that also those two lines come together. We’re a big government often, and we don’t know what happens in other ministries, and you don’t want a GAC representative not knowing what has been discussed with foreign affairs elsewhere, whilst it’s about ICANN. So yeah, please take that point with you.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thanks, and because it is a comment, I will just say absolutely, and it is very important for governments to know what the right hand is doing, what the left and the right hands are doing in order to work together. So yes, please, make sure that this happens. Jordan.
Audience:
Thanks, Contestinas. Jordan Carter here from the .au domain administration. One of the challenges in engaging here is that we all have narrow mandates in the work we do, and sometimes we have bylaws, like Veni referenced, that really keep our organizations targeted. But actually, whatever is in our bylaws, we all have a responsibility to be stewards for the overall system of the internet and governance. And sometimes that requires us to do something that’s a bit scary, which is step beyond the direct focus of those bylaws. Not to contravene them, but to work beyond them to keep the system working. So the question for the panelists is, how do we build community support with our stakeholders to allow us to do this kind of work, which is very important, but sometimes hard to explain, and sometimes quite remote from the day to day work we have to do at ICANN and the IETF and so on? How do we generate that shift of perspective so this is seen as important and valid work?
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thanks, Jordan. So I will just try to batch these questions. I’m not going to do a very good job at it, so please bear with me. I think that Carolina and Jordan are both asking how the technical community is able, A, to be able and step a little bit occasionally outside of its comfort zone and advocate for something that is much broader than its mandate. And in doing so, also facilitate smaller entities, technical entities, in this case, CCTLDs, or assemble a community around them that will be able to strengthen the voice that they’re having. Who wants to take this? Veni?
Veni Markovski:
That’s an easy question. That’s why I decided to take it. The more difficult ones will be for the other guys. I think, first of all, there is no small CCTLD. There may be CCTLDs which don’t have resources and others, but every CCTLD is big for their territory. It’s important for their territory. And they actually are the ones that have the interaction with the governments outside of the GAC. Maybe also with the GAC, but in some cases, without necessarily through the GAC. So they’re the natural partners in dealing with the foreign ministries, with the policies that are being drafted in the parliaments, et cetera. And secondly, with regards to the question about the mandate and the narrow, we care about the single, interoperable, secure, stable, and resilient internet. If somewhere, something is touching on that, obviously we will intervene, because it’s within our mission. So the mission is maybe narrow, but when we are talking about the security, stability, and resiliency of the internet, unique identifier systems, then everything can be touched. I’ll give you a quick example. The European Union created one high level and one expert group on tackling disinformation. And in the reports that this group published, there is a line which says, whatever measures government take to fight disinformation and misinformation, it should not impact the technical availability of the internet and break its interoperability. So that’s an important example of how we can actually contribute to these processes.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thanks. Anyone else would like to add anything? Please, Vinicius.
Vinicius Santos:
Thank you, Konstantinos. Well, thank you for all the questions, very, very interesting questions and many, many comments to make. But let’s try to be brief. First of all, related to NetMundial, I think there is, of course, this is a very good question, how to leverage it. So I think it’s already happening in many senses. So many of the people that I’m seeing, many people here that were there in NetMundial, many here, here, there, there. And people are already putting it forward in many of their dialogues with other organizations within other processes and so on. So this is already happening in this sense. But of course, we need more. So the important thing now is to put it forward, to spread the word about the declaration. There are many, many very useful aspects there. We didn’t touch in everything here, like the things related to the Mood Stakeholder Principle, the Sao Paulo Guidelines specific to how to implement principles and things like this. So there are a set of things that are very, very useful in this sense. And a second point, I will not comment everything, but just a second point related to local realities and how to support the local reality stakeholders and also other stakeholders within the same stakeholder groups and so on. From our side, for example, I think we can say that it’s very important to look at the national regional initiatives within the IGF context, for example. In our case, we have a Brazilian National Internet Forum, which is our local NRI. And this is a very, very big initiative in Brazil, and through which we can connect many, many people of all the stakeholder groups in Brazil. And this forum has been very important for all the organizations to get involved in the debates related to internet governance and digital governance, digital policy process, and so on, including the global ones. Because within the forum, we have also tried to bring more of these discussions related to the global digital compact, digital cooperation with S++20. We have been putting that in the program of the events and trying to bring it to our activities in many senses. So just these two brief comments. Thank you.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thanks, Vinicius. And you sort of jumped. I was about to follow up on the NetMundial, and thanks for doing that. So I guess the last question, because we’re really running out of time and we’re in between lunch and people. Nigel suggested, well, what happened in 2014? The technical community came together and they released the infamous, by now, Montevideo Statement, where they showed their determination to support the multi-stakeholder model. And of course, they called for the IANA transition, and it was, again, this very critical moment where the technical community showed its ability to collaborate and make something that was very strong and impactful. Do you think, and Nigel, if you allow me, I might rephrase a little bit the question, but do you think something similar could be helpful in the process that we’re going right now, which is the global digital compact? I know that Vinny is shaking his head, but we heard from Jenny, Sabrina, would you like to? And I know that you were not, in 2014, most probably, you were still at university or school. But yeah, what do you think? Would that be impactful, you think?
Sabrina Wilkinson:
On the value of a shared statement from the technical community? Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Vinny will have to chat afterwards. But I think there’s value in a shared intervention from the technical community. Absolutely, the coalition that CIRA, and InternetNZ, and others have been working towards have engaged, for instance, in the various UN consultations on the GDC with joint statements, with 12 to 13 technical operators signing on, and we’re looking to grow that group. So yes, certainly I see there being value in this space, and an opportunity to work towards something to that effect.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
A very brief word.
Veni Markovski:
I know we’re out of time. Sorry, I’m just now out because she mentioned me. When we say about technical community, we have to be aware there is no de-technical community. There are many technical communities, and that’s why it’s good what the CCTODs are doing. We are really happy that they have this formal coalition, and they’re going to do something and publish. But back then in 2014, and the IANA transition was a completely different thing compared to the GDC. So there is no such a big thing where technical community comes naturally together to say, yeah, this is an important thing to transition. I think the GDC is pretty big. No, wait until next year, and the rest is plus 20.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Joni, last word.
Jodi Anderson:
Yes, I can see the timer is now counting up. I just wanted to pick up on a couple of questions in there in terms of the small CCTODs. I feel like we’re a small CCTOD, and the coalition that I mentioned, one of the main objectives of that coalition is to support people who can’t necessarily engage to the extent that some of us do engage. So we’ll be talking about that at the next ICANN in the CCTOD news session, and I encourage all CCs to listen into that presentation. And the other question you asked was how we engage with our communities back home. The national IGFs, but also I recently went to the NZ NOG. I mean, I’m basically trying to go out, find the technical community, and tell them about internet governance, because they don’t tend to necessarily understand the international internet governance space and why it’s important. So I think that’s part of it as well. Thank you.
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis:
Thank you so very much, all of you. I would like to thank Sera for putting this panel together, and Sabrina in particular. Thank you, all of you, for being here, and have a great lunch.
Speakers
A
Audience
Speech speed
182 words per minute
Speech length
814 words
Speech time
268 secs
Arguments
Collaboration is crucial in the development and governance of the internet.
Supporting facts:
- The internet is a product of many individuals and organizations working together.
- The session highlighted the importance of collective effort for internet progress.
Topics: Internet Governance, Collaboration, Decentralization
Raising awareness about internet governance processes is necessary within communities represented by organizations.
Supporting facts:
- The commendation of ARIN’s CEO presentation at the NANOG meeting indicates the importance of these discussions.
Topics: Internet Governance, Awareness Raising, Community Engagement
Support for smaller players, such as smaller CCTLDs, is important in internet governance.
Supporting facts:
- Smaller CCTLDs may have fewer resources to engage in governance processes.
- There is a need for assistance to these smaller entities.
Topics: Support for Small Entities, Internet Governance, CCTLD
Leveraging influential documents like the NetMundial document is crucial for internet governance.
Supporting facts:
- The mention of the NetMundial document’s absence in the latest GDC draft signifies its perceived value.
Topics: NetMundial Document, Internet Governance, Policy Influence
Technical community’s collective voice could be stronger in negotiations like NetMundial
Supporting facts:
- The technical community has made valuable contributions to discussions in the past.
- A unified statement, similar to the Montevideo statement, can pin down key issues effectively.
Topics: Technical Community Involvement, NetMundial, Internet Governance
Organizations must expand their roles to support the overall internet governance system
Supporting facts:
- Organizations have a stewardship role beyond their bylaws
- Engaging in wider internet governance is seen as necessary but challenging
Topics: Internet Governance, Organizational Responsibility
Report
The extensive discussion on internet governance underscores the integral role of collaboration and collective effort in the development and oversight of the internet. There is a predominantly positive sentiment towards the theme of cooperation, highlighted by sessions that present the internet as a collective achievement and stress the importance of this approach for ongoing advancements.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and in particular SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, are frequently referenced, demonstrating the acknowledgement of international partnerships in advancing the wider aims of internet governance. The importance of educating and raising awareness amongst communities about internet governance processes has been emphasised as a vital role for organisations.
The favourable response to presentations from the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) CEO at North American Network Operators’ Group (NANOG) meetings illustrates the potential impact of such community engagement initiatives. Such endeavours are suggested to empower communities and ensure representation of diverse voices in governance discussions.
A concern has been highlighted regarding smaller country code Top-Level Domains (CCTLDs), which often lack the resources to effectively engage in governance processes. Advocacy for a supporting framework, wherein large, resource-rich players assist the smaller CCTLDs, has been identified as a means to foster a balanced and inclusive model of governance, aligning with the inclusive partnership focus of SDG 17.
Criticisms have been levelled at the latest Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council’s Draft on Internet Governance Procedures (GDC) for omitting references to the NetMundial document, deemed significant in policy dialogues. The absence is viewed negatively, with calls for the incorporation of influential documents to ensure robust governance frameworks.
Additionally, the role of the technical community is recognised positively, with an emphasis on the value of past contributions to discussions. It is proposed that whilst individual input is important, a collective voice, as exemplified by the Montevideo Statement, might be more forceful.
The sentiment is that a unified statement could enhance the technical community’s influence in significant negotiations such as NetMundial. It is argued that organisations involved in internet governance need to extend their responsibilities beyond the parameters set by their bylaws.
Engaging more broadly in internet governance efforts is considered necessary and in line with stewardship roles, though it is acknowledged as a complex endeavour. This reflects a wider perspective of organisational roles in sustaining and shaping internet governance, in accord with the principles of SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.
In summary, the discourse suggests that internet governance is a multifaceted challenge that benefits immensely from partnership and joint action. Despite the barriers to participation and difficulties in harmonising governance documents, there is a manifest call for collective responsibility among organisations and entities towards a more inclusive, efficient, and representative internet governance ecosystem.
JA
Jodi Anderson
Speech speed
181 words per minute
Speech length
1322 words
Speech time
439 secs
Arguments
Repeating key themes across stakeholders amplifies impact
Supporting facts:
- Impact is achieved when different people express similar themes
- Collaboration ensures main objectives are communicated effectively
Topics: Collaboration, Stakeholder Engagement
Government and organizations are influenced by recurring themes from diverse voices
Supporting facts:
- Consistent messaging across various stakeholders catches the attention of those in power
- Reiteration of themes in public discussions can feed into decision-making processes
Topics: Policy Making, Influence and Advocacy
Coalition focuses on supporting CCTODs with limited engagement capacity
Supporting facts:
- The coalition’s main objective is to support people who cannot engage extensively.
Topics: CCTODs, Internet governance
Outreach to technical community for Internet governance awareness
Supporting facts:
- Engagement in events like the NZ NOG to educate about international internet governance.
Topics: Internet governance, Technical community outreach
Report
The expanded analysis articulates the influence of cohesive collaboration and persistent advocacy in shaping policy and engaging stakeholders effectively. Emphasising the principles of Sustainable Development Goal 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), the analysis identifies the potency of consistent, shared messaging among a broad spectrum of stakeholders as a key strategy in garnering the attention of the influential.
The iteration of core themes is depicted as crucial to amplifying advocacy efforts and impacting decision-making. The analysis posits that impactful change materialises when diverse groups express concurrent objectives, reinforcing the integral message. This harmonisation ensures the main aims are communicated effectively, thereby increasing the resonances across various sectors.
The overarching positive sentiment advocates the concept that governments and organisations are more inclined to respond when they observe a consistent narrative presented by disparate voices. Hence, recurring themes in public discourse can significantly influence policy formulation and implementation. Collaboration is underscored as indispensable for effective advocacy, laying the groundwork for establishing shared objectives and synchronising different voices to magnify the collective message.
This coherence is believed to elevate the chances of piercing through the noise and commanding the attention of concerned parties. The analysis further discusses the efforts of coalitions and individuals in fostering collective action and awareness in specific areas like Internet governance and CCTODs (Concerned Citizens Taking on Debt).
One coalition, in particular, is noted for their support of stakeholders with constrained engagement opportunities, ensuring participation from underrepresented entities. The issue of Internet governance is highlighted through targeted education and outreach to the technical community. Forums such as the New Zealand Network Operators Group (NZ NOG) are mentioned as instrumental in disseminating knowledge and sparking discussions concerning international Internet governance challenges.
The advocacy work of Jodi Anderson is spotlighted, showcasing an individual’s dedication to augmenting comprehension and active participation in the field of Internet governance. Her engagement with national Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) and NZ NOG exemplifies a pragmatic approach to community involvement in governance dialogues.
In summation, the analysis unequivocally underscores the effect of uniform advocacy and unified collaboration as influential channels for instigating change and steering policy direction. The analysis maintains a positive tone, lauding the role of consistent messaging and the formation of coalitions in advancing Internet governance, stakeholder engagement, and the pursuit of shared goals.
This reflective summary incorporates relevant long-tail keywords, such as “sustainable development goal 17 partnerships”, “effective stakeholder engagement”, and “internet governance challenges”, while adhering to UK spelling and grammar, thus mirroring the core content of the main analysis text closely and providing a comprehensive overview of the presented insights.
M-
Moderator – Konstantinos Komaitis
Speech speed
185 words per minute
Speech length
1579 words
Speech time
513 secs
Arguments
NetMundial event in Brazil successfully engaged various stakeholders in a short time frame
Supporting facts:
- Vinicius Santos highlighted the effort to organize NetMundial in a short time frame
- The event was considered successful and managed to deliver concrete outcomes
Topics: NetMundial, Multistakeholder Engagement, Internet Governance
NetMundial resulted in important messages and clear guidelines for the future of Internet governance
Supporting facts:
- The final statement of NetMundial provided clear messages for furthering multistakeholder practices
- The event addressed various processes including the Global Digital Compact and Internet Governance Forum
Topics: NetMundial Statement, Digital Policy, Multistakeholder Practices
The Internet Governance Forum is recognized as a key space for discussions and monitoring Internet governance processes
Supporting facts:
- NetMundial explicitly mentioned the Internet Governance Forum as a preferred space for governance discussions
- The Forum is also envisaged as a monitoring hub for results of global Internet governance processes
Topics: Internet Governance Forum, WSIS Forum, Multistakeholder Models
Challenges exist regarding the participation and reception of the technical community in governance spaces
Topics: Technical Community, Internet Governance, Multistakeholder Challenges
Recognition of the technical community in global processes is crucial
Supporting facts:
- ICANN expressed strong feelings about not being initially recognized as a stakeholder in the Global Digital Compact process.
- ICANN sent a letter advocating for the recognition of the technical community as a unique stakeholder.
Topics: Technical Community Engagement, Global Digital Compact, ICANN
Governments should ensure inter-ministerial coordination and knowledge-sharing in the context of internet governance.
Supporting facts:
- The need to align the efforts of various ministries, such as economic affairs, foreign affairs, and communications, has been emphasized.
- The issue of GAC representatives potentially lacking information on discussions held by other government parts has been raised.
Topics: Internet Governance, Inter-ministerial Communication
Acknowledgement of past successes of multi-stakeholder models in internet governance
Supporting facts:
- Reference to the impactful Montevideo Statement by the technical community
- Discussion on leveraging NetMundial outcomes
Topics: Internet Governance, NetMundial, Multi-Stakeholder Model
Time pressure and urgency of discussion
Supporting facts:
- Mention of running out of time
- Positioning discussion in the context of a busy schedule
Topics: Internet Governance, IGF, Global Digital Compact
Report
The NetMundial event in Brazil was commended for its proficient convening of various stakeholders around the crucial subject of internet governance, executing this feat within an impressively tight timeframe. The event was praised, with Vinicius Santos notably recognising the significant efforts required to organise NetMundial rapidly.
It was not only admired for its organisational prowess but also for producing concrete outcomes, as the positive sentiment and the consequential NetMundial Statement indicated. This key document provided clear, action-oriented guidance that is expected to promote the development and refinement of multistakeholder practices in digital policy.
The Statement addressed important frameworks, including the Global Digital Compact, and highlighted the IGF’s role as a primary forum for governance discussions and a monitoring centre for global internet governance outcomes. Amidst the commendations, the challenges faced by the technical community in governance spaces were brought to light.
Konstantinos Komaitis’s inquisitive approach put the difficulties encountered by this community into focus, igniting discussions about their participation in such platforms. Moreover, ICANN’s forceful stance for the technical community’s acknowledgment within initiatives like the Global Digital Compact showcased its alignment with the aims of SDG 17, fostering partnerships to achieve broader goals.
The deliberations also underscored the necessity for explicitly delineating and enhancing the role of the technical community within multilateral discussions, echoing the principles of SDG 16 that aspire to establish peace, justice, and strong institutions. Furthermore, the conversations underscored the requirement for heightened inter-ministerial cooperation, and the criticality of coherent action and informed knowledge-sharing among various governmental departments was emphasised.
The positive sentiments voiced by moderators and participants suggested concerted action would culminate in more impactful governance contributions and policies. Reflecting on previous successes, the significance of the multi-stakeholder model, including the influential Montevideo Statement by the technical community and NetMundial’s impacts, was acknowledged.
Despite acknowledging these milestones, there was a candid recognition of the urgency and time constraints influencing the current governance discussions, albeit without negative connotations. The dialogue concluded with a speculative viewpoint regarding the potential impact of a new collaborative venture by the technical community, mirroring the spirit of initiatives such as the 2014 collective action in confronting contemporary global digital challenges, in tandem with the principles of SDGs 9 and 17 related to innovation, infrastructure, and partnerships.
In conclusion, the extensive analysis fostered an optimistic perspective on the evolution of internet governance, identifying past achievements and areas necessitating greater stakeholder inclusion and cooperation to advance the effectiveness and equity of the multi-stakeholder governance model. The summary was reviewed for UK spelling and grammar with no discrepancies found, ensuring the accuracy of the expanded summary’s reflection of the primary analysis.
SW
Sabrina Wilkinson
Speech speed
155 words per minute
Speech length
762 words
Speech time
295 secs
Report
The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) has been instrumental in consulting with the Canadian government regarding the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and related forums, offering crucial advice to the technical community seeking to shape internet governance through governmental channels. Their expertise is distilled into three fundamental engagement strategies.
Firstly, CIRA underscores the importance of identifying and cultivating relationships with key government figures with insight into internet governance. Targeting influencers across multiple departments, such as industry and foreign affairs, is imperative to effectively navigate the complex networks of policy-making.
Secondly, they advocate for educating these government contacts on the technical community’s essential role in sustaining the internet and its position on critical issues. It’s crucial to provide a clear narrative to diplomatic departments that may have different priorities and practices, facilitating the integration of the community’s perspectives into government strategies.
Thirdly, CIRA proposes strategic intervention during pivotal policy stages. Engaging with officials before and after policy discussions can markedly improve the likelihood of the technical community’s views being considered. Timing is key to influencing outcomes. Acknowledging the challenges, especially for smaller ccTLD operators in engaging with the GDC’s new policy framework within the UN system, CIRA recognises that unlike established practices within ICANN, this requires a transition to a multilateral approach, demanding extra resources.
Jodi refers to a coalition as a valuable support mechanism that helps various groups, including smaller entities, to participate in these processes. Direct engagement with national governments is highlighted as the most significant form of influence in internet governance. Secondarily, contributing to multi-stakeholder aspects, despite the unclear reflection of these inputs in final outcomes, remains important.
Public engagement, such as contributing to debates, writing, and networking via platforms like ICANN and WSIS, is key for spreading knowledge and awareness. The ultimate point focuses on the collective power of the technical community when presenting unified statements to the UN.
Coalitions, including members like CIRA and InternetNZ, can present aligned views, thus bolstering their potential influence on global internet governance strategies. In summary, forging personal relationships, engaging in strategic communication, advocating publicly, and building coalitions are all critical to more impactful interactions with governmental entities in the complex field of global internet governance.
VM
Veni Markovski
Speech speed
181 words per minute
Speech length
1793 words
Speech time
595 secs
Arguments
Technical experts provide neutral, essential information for informed decision-making
Supporting facts:
- Technical community briefs governments in Geneva and New York
- Aim is to prevent resolutions that negatively affect the Internet
Topics: Internet Governance, Technical Community Engagement
Non-governmental actors are excluded from direct negotiation in the UN General Assembly
Supporting facts:
- Only member states participate in negotiations
- Technical community seeks to influence indirectly
Topics: United Nations Procedures, Civil Society Involvement
Maintaining a single, interoperable Internet is a priority
Supporting facts:
- Efforts aim to keep the Internet unified
- Focus on the technical foundations of the Internet
Topics: Internet Unity, Technical Stability
Report
In recent times, technical and civil society experts have been intensively engaging with governments to facilitate informed and effective decision-making related to Internet governance. This engagement is crucial in maintaining the Internet’s unity and technical stability—a matter of significant importance for global connectivity and communication.
By holding briefings in international hubs such as Geneva and New York, these technical communities have shown a proactive approach in providing neutral and essential information, thereby working towards averting any potential resolutions that could jeopardise the integrity and interoperability of the Internet.
Such actions resonate with the ambitions of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17, which calls for revitalising global partnerships for sustainable development. By fostering this collaborative ethos, technical experts are aligning with the goal’s objective to facilitate partnerships that leverage and share expertise, technology, and resources.
Additionally, their efforts contribute to SDG 9, which focuses on building resilient infrastructure, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and fostering innovation—key aspects underpinning a unified and robust Internet. One noteworthy aspect of this cross-sector collaboration is the exclusion of non-governmental actors from direct negotiations within the decision-making mechanisms of the United Nations, specifically within the General Assembly where only member states participate.
Despite this, the technical communities do not remain passive; they instead endeavour to exert an indirect influence, articulating the importance of the multisectoral input for the Internet’s governance. The collective stance is undeniably positive, as these groups accentuate the necessity for technical and civil society representatives to collaborate closely with governments to secure the Internet’s continuity.
Through the regular provision of technical briefings, they are equipping permanent missions with the knowledge and understanding required to navigate complex Internet governance issues effectively. This educational approach enables governments to make nuanced decisions that consider the broader implications for the Internet’s global infrastructure.
In conclusion, the analysed data demonstrates a strong, concerted effort by various stakeholders to promote a cooperative framework for Internet governance. The engagement is evidently constructive, with technical experts intent on maintaining an Internet that remains open, accessible, and governed by a collaborative, multisector model.
Advocating for a stance that aligns with international development goals, these efforts showcase a dynamic interplay between civil society, technical communities, and governmental bodies, all striving to preserve an Internet that continues to serve as a cornerstone for innovation and unity across the globe.
This ongoing work serves as a commendable example of partnership and resilience, aspiring to meet future challenges in Internet governance with a united and informed approach.
VS
Vinicius Santos
Speech speed
155 words per minute
Speech length
1462 words
Speech time
566 secs
Report
The speaker delivered an exhaustive analysis of the NetMundial initiative, highlighting its exceptional achievement in uniting diverse stakeholder groups for an Internet governance dialogue within a limited timeframe. The successful orchestration of this large-scale engagement in Brazil, despite the demanding environment, underscores the dedication of the participants and the efficacy of the organising body.
The initiative’s principal accomplishment was a consensus document encompassing vital declarations and explicit guidance, intended to refine multistakeholder processes. This NetMundial output not only embodies the cooperative spirit that characterised the initiative but also addresses broader initiatives such as the Global Digital Compact, the role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) +20 review.
The guidelines represent a concerted effort to influence the global Internet governance and digital policy terrain, with the IGF’s endorsement reinforcing its central position in supervising the convergence of these interconnected endeavors. Turning to Brazil’s specific Internet governance framework, the speaker discussed the roles of NIC.br and CGI.br.
While NIC.br administers the .br country-code top-level domain (ccTLD), CGI.br has played a crucial part in formulating the trajectory of the Internet within Brazil since its inception in 1995. This early adoption of a multistakeholder configuration exemplifies Brazil’s progressive approach to Internet oversight, an approach that continues to guide digital policy advancement.
The historical engagement of various groups in Brazil’s Internet story serves to underline the efficacy of its multistakeholder model and its impact on the digital evolution of the nation. Addressing the theme of collaboration, the speaker touched on the complexities and challenges of engaging with the multifaceted entities like ICANN that make up the Internet governance ecosystem.
In this context, the importance of e-learning resources, mailing lists, and established collaboration frameworks was stressed as crucial for newcomers to integrate and contribute effectively. As the discourse drew to a close, the speaker reiterated the imperative to build on NetMundial’s legacy, observing its ongoing influence across various organisations and processes.
A call was made for proactive promotion of the NetMundial declaration and for leveraging the multistakeholder principles and guidelines articulated therein. The speaker also addressed the task of harmonising global initiatives with the nuances of local realities, advocating for the engagement with stakeholders grounded in these local contexts.
Brazil’s National Internet Forum was cited as a prime example of how national and regional dialogues can significantly contribute to and resonate with wider Internet governance frameworks like the IGF, thereby fostering cohesive international discussions that incorporate local and global perspectives.
In conclusion, the speaker’s insights revealed the intricacies and indispensability of global Internet governance, punctuating the importance of multistakeholder participation in devising policies that steer the global Internet’s development and management. The analysis underscored a clear need for ongoing commitment to engagement, collaboration, and dialogue within this space, ensuring the advancement of effective governance models.
Related event
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)+20 Forum High-Level Event
27 May 2024 - 31 May 2024
Geneva, Switzerland and online