Unlocking Multistakeholder Cooperation within the UN System: Global Partnerships for Open Internet

EU Workshop Explores Enhancing Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation for an Open Internet

An extensive workshop hosted by the European Union delved into the multi-faceted topic of enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within the UN system, with a particular emphasis on fostering global partnerships for an open internet. The session featured a diverse panel of speakers from influential organizations such as the European Commission, the UN Development Programme, the Digital Impact Alliance, the UN Human Rights Office, the Internet Society Foundation, and the ITU Secretary General’s Executive Office. Contributions also came from members of the high-level executive committee at NetMundial Plus Plus 10.

The workshop’s primary objective was to critically examine the importance of the multi-stakeholder model and to identify ways to improve it. A significant concern was the current imbalance in stakeholder representation, highlighted by data from the Global IGF 2023, which showed a disproportionate presence of the private sector and an underrepresentation from technical communities, as well as from regions such as Africa and Latin America.

The discussion also focused on the upcoming Global Digital Compact (GDC), emphasizing the challenge of ensuring meaningful stakeholder involvement and the need for a process that can adapt to the evolving digital landscape. The importance of capacity building was underscored, with an emphasis on enabling stakeholders to maintain ownership of the capacities and lessons learned through development activities.

Speakers from the UN Development Programme reflected on the critical moment for digital cooperation at the UN, stressing the need for collective effort and multi-stakeholder collaboration to ensure that global discussions are inclusive and lead to durable and relevant outcomes. The session also featured examples of successful multi-stakeholder processes, such as the principles for digital development, national digital development policy, and the Charter for Digital Public Goods, which showcased the benefits of inclusive and participatory approaches.

The role of the private sector in these processes was discussed, particularly in the context of responsible business conduct and human rights in the technology sector. The UN Human Rights Office’s Business, Technology and Human Rights (BTEC) project was highlighted as an initiative that works with states, civil society, companies, investors, and academics to advance the uptake of human rights within the tech sector.

A significant portion of the workshop was dedicated to the Sao Paulo guidelines adopted by NetMundial Plus Plus 10, which outlined principles and process steps for effective multi-stakeholder collaboration and decision-making. These guidelines emphasized the need for processes that are mindful of power asymmetries, involve informed and deliberative discussion, and are governed by the rule of law and respect for human rights principles.

Challenges associated with multi-stakeholder processes were acknowledged, including the difficulty of ensuring diverse and timely input, the risk of reduced legitimacy, and the potential for state-centric policies. Solutions proposed included reinforcing existing forums like the Internet Governance Forum and supporting communities to ensure their voices are heard.

The workshop concluded with a call for a tripartite approach incorporating capacity building, incentives creation, and impact assessment to improve multi-stakeholder engagement and operational effectiveness in digital policy and internet governance. The session underscored the need for informed, equitable, and effective multi-stakeholder processes that respect diversity and aim for practical outcomes.

Noteworthy observations from the discussion included the recognition of the UN’s challenges in adapting its structures to facilitate effective multi-stakeholder collaboration and the importance of public reasoning and authority as foundational to multi-stakeholderism. The session also highlighted the need for economic justice considerations in relation to digital technologies and the importance of accommodating dissenting voices for a democratic future grounded in human rights, dignity, equity, and global justice.

Raquel Jorge Ricart:
everyone. Thank you for coming to this workshop organized by the European Union on the title on unlocking multi-stakeholder cooperation within the UN system, global partnerships for open internet. Today’s session will be made up of an excellent lineup of speakers from the European Commission, from the UN Development Programme, from the Digital Impact Alliance, from the UN Human Rights Office, Internal Society Foundation, and from the ITU Secretary General’s Executive Office. And we also have contributions from members from the high-level executive committee at NetMundial Plus Plus 10. The main goal of this session was actually to reflect on why the multi-stakeholder matters, but mostly and foremost, how we can improve that multi-stakeholder model, because it is, there is no doubt that the multi-stakeholder model does already exist. The issue is how we can improve it to make it feasible and to make actually that the demands from all types of stakeholders, either the private sector, technical communities in plural, civil society, and also governments from different countries and different socio-economic realities can be represented in a meaningful in a meaningful way in different international fora that can be intergovernmental or also a multi-stakeholder. For example, if you look at the data from the Global IGF 2023 statistics, what we see is that the private sector represented 37% of the total of participants, while the technical communities only represented 14%. When we go to the, when we analyse it on the basis of regions, the geographical origin, we see that only 8% of participants came from the African continent and 7% from the Latin American continent. So that’s why we wanted to create this workshop, held again by the European Union, because it is considered, because the inclusion of different stakeholders is considered important. on how we can improve it through specific use cases and specific examples in multi-stakeholder models. Just to give you some thoughts, we can see that the Global Digital Compact, the zero draft document aims to create a new compact implementation plan to monitor the actual implementation of the commitments that the GDC will raise in September this year. But here, the main challenge will be how you can make the stakeholders feel that they are involved. How can we make sure that there is agility, that we can equip these different types of stakeholders that even within their own sector have different capacities, human resources, knowledge about the existence of these processes, how can we equip them? How can we make sure that there are different capacity building and development activities? How can we make sure that every time there is a new activity to build capacity in these sectors, once this project is done, how these people can make sure that still they have the ownership over the capacities, the lessons that have been brought to the table. So with this, I will get started with the participation from a UNDP concretely with Mrs. Yu-Ping Cheng, which is the Head of Digital Partnerships and Engagement.

Yu Ping Chan:
Thank you. Thank you so much for having me here today. I have to start by apologizing for coming in just a few minutes ago, and also on behalf of my Chief Digital Officer, Robert Ong, who unfortunately was not able to be here today. I think reflecting on the fact that really, we’re here today at a critical moment of digital cooperation at the United Nations. So as colleagues would know, we’re really at this moment, but there are a lot of intersecting forces at the United Nations, and I think it’s really important for us to be here and to be part of the intersecting forces at the United Nations that really require a collective effort, a multi-stakeholder collaboration, and making sure that all parts of the ecosystem are really part of these conversations that are occurring at the global stage as well. So as colleagues have mentioned, this issue of the summit of the future, where Digital Compact will be adopted in September. The fact that next year we’re also on the cusp of the WSIS Plus 20 review process, where today, and these discussions will be critical in feeding into that kind of conversation as well, making sure that we ensure the durability, the continued relevance and importance of the WSIS Action Guide, the processes, and at the very heart, the multi-stakeholder community that’s developed around the WSIS process are duly reflected in what happens this year in New York and then beyond will be critically important. And then of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the fact that the Internet Governance Forum that was created out of the outcome of WSIS really needs to stand out as a hallmark of that type of multi-stakeholder collaboration and engagement that has to inform the review, the follow-up, and implementation of the GDC process as well. So I think this is really where, as a stakeholder community, a multi-stakeholder community, we are all engaged in these types of discussions and making sure that what is reflected in the Global Digital Compact reflect that level of engagement that has existed since the two years of Geneva outcomes and should really be the hallmark of the continued work of the United Nations and the international system going forward. If I can actually offer a few reflections from the United Nations Development Program, what we think we should actually be doing is really looking at three areas of work. What we think is that like in, for instance, the WSIS outcomes, there is a very strong emphasis on capacity development and what we can really do is really lifting up that global conversation and making sure that that is part of whatever conversation we subsequently have in terms of the Global Digital Compact and which section line is going forward. So that fundamental principle of capacity building, which is there already from the WSIS outcome documents, should also be considered and really upgraded when we look at the conversations in New York and next year as well. We think that the issue of environmental sustainability is also another one that could do with a little bit more of an uplift, but also recognizing the fact that this is a current issue that is globally important, as well as the issues of, for instance, gender, where in the WSIS outcome document and the action lines, it was not as important then, but it’s certainly at the forefront and a priority today. So these are areas where I think collectively as a multi-stakeholder community, we should continue to lift and that we also think that the issues of gender and gender equality should also be looked at. of human rights, for instance. Perhaps a new focus on digital public infrastructure and digital public goods will be important to be part of the multi-stakeholder communication discussions going forward. But at the very heart of it, I think the ultimate approach of multi-stakeholder collaboration, where multi-stakeholder engagement has been part of the hallmark of international discussions on internet governance and digital cooperation, really needs to continue. And this is where the United Nations Development Program also remains committed to work with all stakeholders and engaging with all of you in making sure that this takes place. Thank you so much.

Raquel Jorge Ricart:
Thank you, Yu Ping. I think it’s very interesting what you have said in terms of informing the review, because sometimes we could think about engaging the multi-stakeholder model in specific consultations or throughout the process, which brings to the table a completely different approach. Now we have Mrs. Fabrizia Benini, which is the head of the Next Generation Internet Union, a unit that needs to connect at the European Commission. Thank you.

Fabrizia Benini:
Thank you very much, and good afternoon to everybody. I’d like to go back to first principles. Why multi-stakeholder approach? I mean, if we consider the internet as a common shared resource that needs to be governed for the public good on the basis of international law, let’s go back to first principles. It needs to be shaped by the voices of its multiple users. And that is the legitimacy and the foundation for the multi-stakeholder approach. Which is something that the European Union and some of the states have held for many, many years. And it is something that, as we go forward, and our previous speakers said, in the complexity and the convulsion of the discussions that this year and the next will be very tight and very important, can be, I would say, forgotten, but let’s say not forgotten. I would say forgotten, but let’s say not valued as much as it should be. Why so? Well, because it is difficult. It is difficult for multi-stakeholder, for the tech community, for the… social society and civil society to provide input in a complex process. It is difficult because there is a 20-year history that makes it an entry barrier for new voices that will be focusing on specific new areas. It is difficult because there is no time to provide that input because the consultation processes give very short windows. It is difficult because some of that social and civil society, some of that tech community are individual companies, small companies. They don’t have the initiative capacity to make sure that they form a voice, a voice that is joined with others and a voice that will be heard because it is relevant. So I’m saying this because I believe that we need to pay attention to this. We need to remind ourselves of the difficulty of the input and make sure that the process going forward takes this into account. Now, if we don’t do this, what happens? It happens that there is less legitimacy. It happens that there is a greater perhaps space for national policies that are more state-centric. Perhaps there’s a greater space for national security concerns that restrict the flow of information and basically a shared resource becomes less legitimate, less inclusive and that is not something that we would propose to see happen. Now, how is it that we can do this? As the previous speaker mentioned, and I’m very happy she did so, we need to make sure that the power of convenience of the Internet Governance Forum is reinforced, that it can actually be really a place where you have access, multi-stakeholders, different communities have access to the to be convened, to be explained, and then perhaps we can go on to the specific actions that we can do to support those communities to see that they go forward. From the European Union side, we’ve got a set of principles that we have adhered to and committed to in every legislative act or regulatory or support action that we do, and some of these principles are reflected in the Declaration for the Future of the Internet that we share with other 70 countries, and there the support for and the promotion of the multistakeholder approach is a governing principle, and a governing principle that goes together with the inclusivity of the development of the Internet and of course upholding human rights. And I’ll stop here.

Raquel Jorge Ricart:
Thank you, Minister Benini. I think the topic that you have raised is highly interesting because the Declaration for the Future of the Internet has five pillars, and in order to sometimes even monitor the actual implementation of these five pillars, we need data, and this is where the Digital Impact Alliance accomplishes a great endeavour in terms of monitoring the data for the actual implementation of some of the SDGs commitments, and why not the future commitments of the Global Digital Compact.

Chrissy Marin Meier:
Great, thank you so much, and thank you to the speakers I’ve already kicked off. I, again, am from the Digital Impact Alliance, or DIAL, I work on our policy team, and I thought I’d take a little bit of a different tact and reflect on three different multistakeholder processes that we’ve helped to convene to see if some of the processes and outcomes inform any of the discussion here. So I wanted to start with the principles for digital development, which are a set of principles that have been around for 10 years, for a decade now, and while they had been used extensively by owners and implementers within the development space to inform their digital development activities and improve them. We had noticed that they felt a little out of date, right? It had been a decade. We know a lot more now, particularly around the risk of digital. And we wanted to make sure that we could refresh them to keep the spirit of the original nine, but make sure that they’re relevant for the next decade. And so we ran a multi-stakeholder process through which we consulted mostly virtually, not totally virtually, at least 300 individuals. So through different rounds of in-person consultations, virtual consultations, and then after the initial drafting of public comment period to get as many people, as many different types of voices as we could into the refreshed draft. And what we got was a new set of principles that really emphasizes the need for radical inclusion, a word that was actually missing from the first set, and the need to anticipate and mitigate harms, and the need to elevate issues of data within the digital space. And so I think we really got a lot of the key issues that have been left out of the first one by elevating all of these different voices. The second example that I’ll give is from Sierra Leone, where in partnership with the government of Sierra Leone and Smart Africa, Dial helped to convene a wide multi-stakeholder process over 18 months. So we actually had 15 different meetings during that 18 month period with 37 government units, 20 private sector organizations, academic institutions, we had donor country missions, we had NGOs and civil society, and we brought in some legal firms as well. And through these 15 different meetings with all of these different stakeholders, we were able to get everyone aligned around national digital development policy and a data protection and privacy law. These two documents were adopted by the cabinet, and then this has really set the stage for the next phase of digital transformation in the country, including a $50 million. through the World Bank to support that. And then finally, I’ll mention work that we did last year that we spoke here at WSIS about on the Charter for Digital Public Goods. And this effort was convened by several different donor countries to align actors around a framework for making digital public goods a more viable option for digital public infrastructure. And so here, what we were trying to do was say we see the power of digital public goods at open source software and standards that are committed to do no harm. We see the power of that for digital public infrastructure, but we also know that there’s not a huge market to support these products. And so people in governments can be sometimes concerned to use them. And so by creating this multi-stakeholder framework, we showed everyone where they could actually input to create this market and the support necessary for these products to be a viable option. And I will finish there. Thank you.

Raquel Jorge Ricart:
Thank you. Now that we have seen the voice from civil society, it will be interesting to hear from Carl Gahnberg, which is the Director of Policy Development and Research at the Internal Society, which will present the technical communities.

Carl Gahnberg:
Thank you very much. And thank you very much for the invitation to this session. I wanted to kind of pick up where Fabrizia kicked us off with, namely the why of the multi-stakeholder model. Because I think when we think about how to improve it, it’s also useful to go back and think about why is it really important to have multi-stakeholder processes and involve stakeholders. And one way to think about that is to illustrate it with a very concrete case that we have been working on at the Internet Society, namely community networks. So for those of you who aren’t familiar with community networks, but might have heard the term here, hopefully, these last days, what it is about is basically where there isn’t a sort of market solution to connecting people. There are community solutions to connecting people, namely that the local community build the capacity themselves, build the infrastructure themselves, in order to connect their community to the internet. So they don’t have to wait for the market to be ready to connect them, but they can do this themselves. And that is a pretty good case to think through how multi-stakeholder processes are actually quite important, if you look at it from sort of a cycle of a policy effort, where you start with an agenda setting, for instance. You go to policy formulation. You go to implementation. And then you go to monitoring. And in all of those steps, it’s really important to have a multi-stakeholder participation, because it increases the efficiency of each of the steps. So for instance, in the agenda setting phase, and this is part of the work that we’re doing at the international level, is to bring this to the attention of the international level, put it on the agenda that we cannot wait for the market to resolve all of these issues. We also need to have these complementary access solutions that allow people to connect themselves to the internet and be part of the digital future. So we work together with other partners, as civil society organizations like APC, with governments, with development agencies, to bring this to the attention and have that kind of information sharing at the international level. If we go to the kind of policy formulation step of it, and this again is sort of an exchange between the international level and the national level of what are the important considerations when you create that enabling environment to actually make sure that these community networks can be built and that they can thrive. And again, this is important to have the multi-stakeholder input, because we realize when we work with our partners out in the field that are doing this work that they can discover that a thing like, for instance, a licensing permit for an organizational form is a barrier to actually setting up one of these community networks. And for us to be able to have that insight, we can share that with similar efforts in other parts of the world that are experiencing similar problems. And through those lessons, we can bring that advice up to the international level and to ITU, for instance, in terms of the guidance for enabling policies for other parts of the world. Same thing when we go to the implementation phase. It’s also critically important to have a collaboration between different stakeholders there, both the local community that is seeking to be connected. They usually need to negotiate with another operator to get connected to what’s known as the backhaul, the sort of link that brings you out to the wider internet. And the government can usually play an important role there in sort of encouraging that dialogue, encouraging that negotiation to be involved in the process. And finally, the sort of last phase of monitoring and sort of updating the cycle as you learn more things. So, in all of these steps, the participation of different stakeholders is critically important to make sure that it runs efficiently, that you actually improve over time. And I think the insights from that is when we’re designing how we do multi-stakeholder processes at the international level, for instance, is to make sure that it can actually accommodate those steps and accommodate those beneficiaries that the multi-stakeholder approach can give you. Thank you.

Raquel Jorge Ricart:
Thank you, Carl. So far, we have talked about the need to foster the capacities, also the existence of human resources, and also the importance of involving different stakeholders into not only policy consultations, but also the very policy design of the processes. And now, I think we are missing the perspective from the private sector, because the private sector, as we saw, for example, at Global IGF last year, it was the most represented stakeholder sector at Global IGF. And the reality is that sometimes it is as well important to give the right incentives for the private sector to plug into these processes. And that is why we have Isabel Ebert, which is the advisor at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the BTEC project, which focuses on the framework of business and human rights in the technology sector. So, Isabel, up to you.

Isabel Ebert:
Many thanks, Raquel, and many thanks to the organizers for the invitation. I think we have already heard plenty of examples of what other institutions are doing in this space. Just to connect also the dots between some of the standard-setting organizations and the UN Human Rights Office, as many of you might be aware, we had a report on technical standard-setting and human rights, where we also worked with the institution of the gentleman sitting next to me, really trying to make these interlinkages across the United Nations human rights work and the work of many of the other agencies of the UN. The project I’ll be speaking about is a relatively specific one. It’s focusing on responsible business conduct in the technology sector. It’s called BTEC. It’s been launched in 2019, so we’re still a relatively young initiative. We have at the core of our project a multi-stakeholder approach, meaning we work with states, we work with civil society, we work directly with individual companies, but also investors and academics to advance the uptake of human rights in the technology sector more broadly. And I should say we also replicate this model to more regional approaches. We have a sister project in BTEC Africa in the Sub-Saharan region, and we have a sister project in India called BTEC India specifically for India. Our project works in a relatively dynamic and interactive process. We host workshops, events, we write foundational papers, sort of breaking down the human guiding principles on business and human rights, which as such are cross-sectoral standard. We break them down specifically to the tech sector. We also have a specific thematic deep dive, so currently we’re doing a lot of work on generative AI. We launched a round of foundational papers last November, and it will be a thematic focus for the work globally this year, as well as in regions to also make the differentiations between how rights holders can be impacted in different regions, as the harm on people can really differ in the actual context. So the focus in working with all of these stakeholders is really identifying the best management systems inside companies for identifying the risk to people, mitigate them, and also prevent them on the long term. So really learning from some of the mistakes that have been happening in terms of risk to people in the technology sector. In order to do so, we have a company community of practice where we on a regular basis convene some of the biggest tech companies in the world, and we talk to them. them about their risk management processes for human rights, how they can improve them, how they can provide remedy to victims. You can imagine it’s often a difficult conversation, but I hope so at least making some progress and we see that since the launch of the project various of the companies that work with us have been adopting policy commitments on human rights, have been adopting also more specific policies and practices. Yeah so just to say and also reinforce some of the statements from earlier speakers, we also believe that it’s very important to strengthen the existing forum. We have been regularly engaging of course with IGF but also Rightscom. These are very important for it for the multi-stakeholder community to meet and in order to enhance capacities further we are also engaging in additional public infrastructure work of the tech envoy together with UNGDP. We’re active in some of the working groups on digital public infrastructure and trying to bring in human rights work there. So as you can imagine the work of UN Human Rights is much larger in that space than just the BTEC project, but I’ve been focusing on this here because it’s a really important project for fostering responsible business conduct and also bringing the private sector accountability into the follow-up process of WSIS.

Raquel Jorge Ricart:
Thank you very much for this detailed information and now we have Alex Wong which is Senior Advisor on Strategic Engagement and Initiatives at the ITU Secretary General’s Executive Office.

Alex Wong:
All right thank you. I mean the theme of this session is about multi-stakeholder approach in general and sort of talking and preaching to the converted because you’re all here because of WSIS which is the sort of ultimate example of a multi-stakeholder platform. So I thought what I could share is maybe from the ITU perspective where we also live and breathe and believe that the multi-stakeholder approach is the only approach. Maybe also talk about the partner to connect example which some of you have heard about but I can maybe talk about how we use the multi-stakeholder approach to create that. I mean first of all Well, for multi stakeholder approach in general, that’s the only way you can ensure that you have inclusivity, diversity, legitimacy, and ultimately that results in scale and impact. If you don’t have a multi stakeholder coordination approach, then you’re going to eliminate or exclude certain stakeholders. So right there, you’re missing voices, you’re missing ideas, you’re missing part of the legitimacy of the process. And to make then a multi stakeholder collaboration work, I was jotting down some, you know, what are the key principles? If I take the partner to connect example, when we launched that 3 years ago, it begins always with leadership. You need to, you need someone to actually, who actually believes that partnership and multi stakeholder approach is the right approach. A lot of people will say that, but they don’t actually live and breathe that. So, at the ITU, we have a leadership team right now, where this is a very key element that is right now driving how the ITU progresses. I think the second principle is that when you want to start something, and in our case, I’ll use partner to connect, you have to start with, therefore, putting in a leadership group that reflects multi stakeholders. So, how the partner to connect program began was we first gathered, in the end, 19 leaders, 19 different leaders from private sector, from government, civil society, youth, we had youth representatives, and international organizations, both the DFIs, the development finance institutions, and the UN organizations. And we used that group to convene a series of calls that we opened up to anyone to join, that over the course of about 6 months resulted eventually into what we call the action framework. So, for anyone who’s in the audience who may have made a PTC pledge, the instructions to make a pledge, which is all online, anyone can do it, takes you through an action framework, which says that your pledge can be in one of four categories, access, adoption, value creation, or accelerating investments. And the type of pledge you make can be either programmatic, financial, or non-profit. efficacy or policy. All that framework was created through a multi-stakeholder process. So it’s a legitimate process. And so anyone that now gets involved is actually taking part into a process that was created through a multi-stakeholder approach. And by doing all those things, you know, by doing that action framework, so you’re from one of the stakeholder groups and you’re going to make a pledge and you see this framework and you don’t really have trust in how it was created, you might just detach yourself from the process. So, you know, walking the talk and creating the process and the frameworks along the way that live and breathe the approach is really important for the legitimacy. So by the time you as a civil society leader or as a business leader make the pledge, you’re sort of feeling confident that you’re entering or you’re using a very transparent, you’re taking part in a very transparent process that was created, you know, legitimately with no secret ambitions, I guess, or if I can use that term. And so that sort of approach is how we’ve gotten the partner to connect so far now to just over 50 billion in value of pledges. Around 500 organizations have made a pledge. We have almost a thousand pledges made. I hope some of you will make a pledge. But that example of P2C, you know, is a great example, I think, of the UN really taking advantage of it. Our comparative advantage at the UN is the impartiality and the neutrality, right? You come here to a UN event, you expect that it’s an open agenda, that all stakeholders will be there from all countries, and that what will be in a discussion is a legitimate open process. So I thought the partner to connect example would be a great way to illustrate some of the principles that are needed if we’re going to continue with the development of some of these key upcoming processes within the UN system. Thanks.

Raquel Jorge Ricart:
Thank you, Mr. Wang. So here we have seen that there are different approaches to make different stakeholders be involved in UN processes, but also the way around, how the multi-stakeholder community has created for a long time its own processes. For example, we could have here several contributions from members from the high-level executive committee from NetMundial. Maybe we can get started with Ana Neves on a few reflections on NetMundial, on the Sao Paulo guidelines.

Ana Neves:
Thank you very much, and thank you for having having the opportunity to talk about the guidelines, the Sao Paulo guidelines that were adopted by NetMundial plus 10 on the 30th of April. I have here Vinicius and Jordan that were very high workers on these guidelines. So it was really a multi-stakeholder collaboration that allowed us to these Sao Paulo guidelines. But I think that nobody of you read the Sao Paulo guidelines so I’m going to read them for you because I think it’s important to understand when we are talking about Sao Paulo guidelines what they mean. So the Sao Paulo guidelines were adopted in NetMundial plus 10 in a way to show the world and to everyone that is negotiating digital processes because they have to be multi-stakeholder because they embrace and they influence all the stakeholders. But we need some organization because if the stakeholders are not organized they are not so powerful. And that makes me remember a cartoon when we have a shark trying to eat lots of small fishes and then these fishes organize themselves and then it’s a huge balloon of small fishes and eating the shark. So I think it’s the way that we see this multi-stakeholder approach that organizational issue is one of the main components. But now, oh, my computer, sorry. Sorry, sorry because I need my computer to read you the guidelines of Sao Paulo. Sorry. So the guidelines are 13. So, it’s about guidelines and process steps, guidelines for multi-stakeholder collaboration, consensus building, and decision making. So, multi-stakeholder processes should be mindful of power asymmetries between diverse stakeholders. The second one, multi-stakeholder processes should involve informed and deliberative discussion among stakeholders. Informal dialogue is a conflict-preventing mechanism throughout all steps of the process. Multi-stakeholder processes should strive to treat all stakeholders fairly and equitably considering their respective needs, capacities, realities, and vulnerabilities. Stakeholders should work on equal footing and treat one another with mutual respect. Number four, multi-stakeholder processes should be governed by the rule of law and respect of human rights principles, international human rights principles, including economic, social, cultural, civic, and political rights. The fifth, these processes should respect and value the linguistic diversity of participants. Number six, all stakeholders should share responsibility, uphold accountability, and transparency in their respective roles for the outcomes of the multi-stakeholder process. Number seven, internet governance and digital policy processes should be agile and adaptable to changing circumstances, evolving technologies, emerging issues, and changing geopolitical dynamics. So these processes should be agile. Number eight, mechanisms for resolving conflicts amongst stakeholders with collaborative multi-stakeholder processes should be in place to enable decision-making. A global multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance and digital policy processes should recognize the need for collaborative action across national borders. Number 10, decisions should consider the long-term implications of the multi-stakeholder process. and sustainability of outcomes for human rights. Number 11, capacity development efforts that enhance understanding and skills of stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries. Number 12, cooperation and dialogue should actively be served with other governance forum and processes in order to avoid duplication of efforts and to share outcomes, best practices, lessons learned. And the last one, collaboration processes should be oriented towards practical, actionable outcomes that lead to tangible results and positive change for internet governance and digital policy processes. Then we have the process steps. To have the scope defined very well, the scope of the issue, identify stakeholders, engage stakeholders, share information, ensure equitable participation, facilitate dialogue, prepare draft outcomes, factoring feedback from wider community, open decision-making, submit final outcomes to the consideration of the wider community, a parenthesis here from the Global Digital Compact. I think that the main weakness that we saw there was nobody understood what the outcome of their contributions was. Number 11, implementing intercontinuity in decision-making and the last process step is monitor, adapt. So of course, well, you don’t remind the first one I read or even the second, but you have to read, to reflect on this because if we do it through these steps and with these guidelines, it takes a lot of time, but it will oblige us to work towards an objective. And we have here everything. We have here the principles, the way to do things together and to achieve a better outcome that serves better the humanity. Thank you.

Raquel Jorge Ricart:
Thank you, Ana. I don’t know if Anita, which was as well part of it, can give us. a very brief statement, and then we can open up a discussion on specific methods to study how we bring this truly multi-stakeholder community.

Anita Gurumurthy:
Yeah, thank you very much. My name is Anita, and I was also part of the HLEC, and thank you very much. So thank you, Anne and Christina, for laying out those 13 elusive principles for ideal state democracy. I think, as you pointed out, the way these are structured through institutional mechanisms is where the rubber meets the road, as they say. Of course, throughout the history of humanity, we’ve had many models of democratic participation, and the takeaway from all these lessons, and I come from a post-colonial society where battles were waged just to seize back democracy. So at some level, I think the institutional framework should be fit for purpose. And why I say this is in the context of the UN, as the digital permeates everything, how multi-stakeholderism will unfold for climate justice or food sovereignty or right to health, as the digital intersects with all of these, we’ll need to adapt these principles and ground them in a historical way. We can’t suddenly declare that the right to health is something different because there’s digital health. So that, I think, is a very significant challenge. And also, these traditional arenas intersect with certain issues that are very, very core to economic power, and we can’t forget them, trade, intellectual property, and other significant issues. From the perspective of civil society, I think there’s one meta-principle for democratic multi-stakeholderism, and that is the whole principle that came out of the decolonization, which is public reasoning. That there has to be in the room something that’s bigger than us, which is in the form of public reasoning, and that’s a very significant idea, because the legitimacy that that many of us spoke about today comes from people’s authority or public authority. So these are very abstract, but the minute we challenge those, then the entire edifice crumbles. So we should invest our faith in public reasoning and public authority. And so finally, I just wanted to say a few things, that when we walk through this process, it’s really not easy. Inside that room was, I think, an entire day. And prior to that, of a lot of hard work for consensus building, that’s a euphemism. We were working through conflict. And one of the beautiful phrases of the Netmunday-Elplastin document is, things have to be informed, participatory, and transparent. Every single person or every stakeholder is saying there has to be informed. And I think that is the responsibility of that larger institutional structure. Asymmetries will exist. They’re not going to go away. The room is full of power. It can never go away. Thirdly, stakeholders must know how to keep the integrity of who they represent. So if I’m representing civil society, I must remember that outside the room, many people place their expectations on me within that space. So I cannot afford to forget that. And the last two points, which I reflect upon in the context of UN spaces, is the challenge for multilateralism today and the models that are being cultivated for democratic multistakeholderism. We need to really look at stakes and interests as ever-moving, because there are always people that we have not really remembered to consider. So we must accommodate dissenting voices by design. And that is really the secret sauce. That’s the recipe. How can we broaden and deepen the debate? And we know this in the context of the AI debates and the indigenous people who are staking claim to their data and AI. So this is a very interesting, I think, democratic point at which we stand. And finally, I just want to end by saying that economic justice considerations in relation to the digital are vital. So the question is how do we structure the present of governance for a democratic future grounded in human rights, but not alone human rights, dignity, equity and global justice. Thank you very much.

Raquel Jorge Ricart:
Thank you Anita. I have been informed by the fantastic WSIS secretariat that we only have four minutes left, so I will refer to each of our speakers to give a very brief statement on practical examples on how we can bring this multi-stakeholder community into practical implementations and practical operational a lens of work. Maybe we can start with UNDP.

Yu Ping Chan:
Very quickly I think that a key point that has come out from this conversation is that the UN structures are really not best suited for multi-stakeholder collaboration and though you’ve actually understood this for 20 years where multi-stakeholder was part of the WSIS discussion, it’s only recently that the UN, particularly in New York, has had to innovate these new structures of engagement and to be very frank I mean I’m not sure they were doing the best job at it. So what I would say is I think it’s important for the multi-stakeholder community to continue to organize. I think this point was made by the speakers and to raise that voice and expectation what you want to see out of the UN processes as well. And I want to return to this point I think was just made that it’s about legitimacy right. If the United Nations claims to leave no one behind and to really be speaking for the people of the world then it really has to do to bear its responsibility making sure that there is that space for everyone to be part of that conversation. I think we’ve heard some examples from colleagues around the table as to how we’ve been trying our best in certain places such as for instance the engagement with the business community around tech by the OHCHR and the political collaboration and even in UNDP where through our presence in 170 countries we’re really trying to work with communities and look at focusing on local ecosystems and making sure that in conversation with government stakeholders are part of the conversation as well. But as a formalized structure of the United Nations where the focus is primarily on member states we need to really do better. to do that work of including everyone that we claim to represent. So I do think it’s important that we continue this fight, and I really look forward to hearing all of your views privately, publicly, and as you continue to engage with the United Nations on the processes this year.

Raquel Jorge Ricart:
Thank you. Maybe we can go with Mrs. Benini, then we will…

Fabrizia Benini:
Thank you very much. We have spoken, colleagues have spoken very well about processes, and I couldn’t agree more, so I won’t touch that. But I was very taken by the figures you presented. Only 8% of Africans were represented, and 7% from Latin America. And in this regard, I would like to draw your attention to a 4 million project we are launching now, exactly to scale up civil society. It will be presented on Friday in greater detail by the new ambassador. And it’s called Added Civil Society for Digital Empowerment. And what we want to do there, first of all, is to create a space where that conversation can grow, so to coalesce different voices, to make sure that there is an exchange that is both technical, whether the expertise is given, where the processes are explained, and where the voices can actually translate to an effective and timely submission. I stop here because we are running late. Thank you.

Raquel Jorge Ricart:
Thank you. Does anyone of you want to raise any comment? Otherwise, we have 15 minutes here before the next session to discuss in private. So unless anyone of you wants to make some comment. Yes, Anna, very briefly.

Ana Neves:
Only five seconds. We need informed multi-stakeholders, but we need to, so we have to work a lot on capacity building, but not only of people, but on institutions as well. That is fundamental to have capacity building in institutions. as well. Thank you.

Raquel Jorge Ricart:
Thank you. So even if this has been a long discussion about different issues, I am just wrapping up with three elements. First, bring capacity. Second, create incentives. And third, assess the actual impact of these commitments. So thanks again for your time to come here and still we will have some time to discuss in private. Thank you.