The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Welcome everyone.
This is day two. Still have day zero. I can hear myself breaking again. I hope it's me and not for everyone. I hope people can hear us all. Can you hear us in the room? Hopefully it's working. No? It's going to be one of those sessions. Hopefully, that's going to work.
Welcome everyone to the IGF open forum which is WSIS to WSIS+20 and Enduring Principle of Internet Governance.
I think you should be able to hear in channel 3. Maybe you need a new device. Now you can hear. I can hear myself. Hers is not working, she may need another one.
We have some good speakers. Brendon Dowling from Australia. Curtis Lundquist, vice president and CEO. Eric Gauto, head of legal. And Nick, MVP for ISO Brazil and chair of the ICANN board.
We're going to explore the evolution of internet governance since WSIS in 2003 and 2005. What are the achievements and challenges and what are the key principle and actions for the transformative digital future.
We have people participating here live and we have a Zoom room where people can ask questions. We have an online moderator who can ping us when there is a question. And we will be sharing our perspectives on all of these achievements and challenges of the WSIS.
I understand, Ambassador, that you have to leave after a certain amount of time, but you have somebody else who will step in. Yes. Ian, the vice chair of the GAC, Governmental Advisory Committee. Thank you for taking that role as well.
And with that, we have three parts. We're going to start with some questions. Please try to answer within like three minutes so we can get as many of the answers as possible and also, we have some online as well.
Curtis to you, what do you think is the most significant WSIS achievements and contributions in the past 20 years and how do you think they achieved the internet we have today. Three minutes.
>> CURTIS LUNDQUIST: Panel by myself. WSIS was created 20 years, 19 years ago this year as a platform for, we need to bring together the different parts of the multistakeholder model in no particular order, government, technical community, Civil Society, business, and to foster a dialogue around what that means and how do we evolve internet as such in all of these arenas and building on all the experiences and mandates these groups bring to.
Go back to 2005, we had 16% of the global population on the internet. Over 67% of the world population on the internet. So the internet has a remarkable journey in this time. Obviously part of that is fostered by the environment, by the outcomes of multistakeholder model that was very much supported by the IGF since then and the outcomes and opportunities and the Tunis agenda from WSIS years ago.
And very much of the multistakeholder model has been to actually foster this inclusivity across all of these areas, way beyond the perhaps more limited scope led to the WSIS discussions 20 years ago, we cover multilingual domain names, IDM's, multiple script brought into the internet.
We see a lot of work, 151 internationalized domain names in 37 languages and 23 scripts that wasn't there 20 years ago, and we have supported all of this.
Beyond that, the basis or the multistakeholder model has been embodied through the IGF and WSIS the WSIS process has gone from supporting exchange points build around the world in areas that didn't have exchange points before, championed a lot of collaboration in many of these areas and coalition for digital Africa that have supported these initiatives in Africa, for example, we also see this many the other regions around the world.
It's been actually very successful. It's delivered a lot of value from the multistakeholder model. That's a mouthful. And the IGF has really been an embodiment of this coming together once a year to enable all of these stakeholder groups to have these discussions in a really open forum, transparent forum, to exchange ideas and share the vision from that.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Ambassador, the second question to you. How do the achievements of the WSIS shape the global environment across political, economic, and social dimension. Again, another big question.
>> AMBASSADOR: I think it's an incredible success story. The number of users that are connected to the internet globally, how the internet has become the most important piece of global infrastructure, possibly in human history.
It has expanded along with the governance arrangement. You've seen WSIS grow from, I think what we're seeing is a niche technical discussion to a process now which is incredibly expansive, incredibly inclusive.
WSIS has found new ways to engage new stakeholders, new countries. We've seen 190 regional and national initiatives buy into the process. So I think as connective as expanded, so has the processes for internet governance expanded.
When you look at how that has evolved, you don't have the internet as we know it today functioning as we know it today without that inclusive process. If you set out to design the internet from scratch with a state‑led process with a multilateral process, there is no way it works. There is no way it gets us to where we are today.
I think next year is an incredible opportunity to review the arrangements, to look at how they're working, what needs to adjust and evolve for the next 10 years, how we ensure there is that inclusive approach, how we ensure Civil Society, the technical community, small countries, which who are still on their digital connectivity journey.
We need to evolve to make sure that they have a voice, that we are inclusive, but I do think we should take time to reflect on the incredible success of how the model has brought us something that is so crucial to all aspects of human life today.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: If I may follow up. Australia has been actively involved, obviously, but since the beginning, if I remember correctly, what is your stance about the WSIS+20, what ways stayed same?
>> I think our most important priority is two‑fold. One is to preserve the preeminence of the multistakeholder model to ensure there is equal footing for the range of stakeholders through the conversations next year. As I said, it only works when all stakeholders have a voice.
I think WSIS is in some ways a unique arrangement where we bring range of stakeholders on equal footing with equal voice into those rooms. For us, that is a crucial priority.
Our second priority is inclusivity. We are doing a lot of work with countries in our region, particularly Southeast Asia and the Pacific to say as connectivity spreads and we're strong supporters of the digital connectivity in the region through our work on subsea cables and telecommunications access, we want to make sure they're part of the process. We want to ensure that the smallest Pacific Island states are represented, are able to share their perspective.
Our second priority preserve is as we preserve that multistakeholder process next year to ensure there is a broad range of voices that are represented, I think we're well on the way to achieving that.
I think we do a lot of work in the region. A number of other people who are represented each day, including ICANN, are really active in ensuring those places have a voice. To me, that's a huge priority for next year.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Thank you. That's really important to have the smaller countries that usually don't go to these events to be present.
Again, another big question for the three minutes, but what have been the most challenging moments in the last two decades since the WSIS started? Well, it started more than two decades ago. And what do you think are the key lessons that IGF community should take away from this experience?
>> Thank you for the question. I would say many significant events and challenges, some that I would classify as achievements and some challenges that have occurred recently that we must overcome.
Among these challenges, the key one that has been percolating in the last several years has been the risk of internet fragmentation at the technical level. So the calls for replacing the multistakeholder model of internet governance as we are currently witnessing with a new one, multilateral‑oriented, highlight the critical need for the technical community, including ICANN, forced to come together to deliver on our mission.
Another event that I would like to highlight is INS stewardship transition which I believe is an achievement. It was a pivotal moment that required trust and compromise and capital management.
This process proved and underscored the value of collaborative governance and provided a model for addressing some very complex transitions.
In other areas in terms of what I would consider challenges and threats, cybersecurity threats and misinformation, and just the misuse of data and the value of data, data been presented to us in the last many years, and this value has taken on all kinds of key attributes such as privacy has become critical, and then the weaponization of data, so this can potentially erode public trust on the internet.
Another very key thing is that no one, I think, every imagined the speed with which information could move and actually impact and influence another part of the world. So balancing security with openness has proven to be difficult yet essential underscoring the need for very robust security measures and greater transparency.
At the same time, persistent digital divide leaving close to a third of the global population unconnected highlights the need for innovative approaches to expand access particularly in those regions that are not connected.
So the key takeaway for the IGF community is ensuring that the multistakeholder collaboration and this model prevails. It involves governments, academia, Civil Society, the technical community, IGOs, businesses coming together. We have shown the resilience and adaptability enabling all these different voices to come together and tackle problems together.
For example, I think the transition proves as a model for us being able to come together and establish that internet intergovernmental cooperation, multistakeholder cooperation works and very effective.
Looking ahead, the IGF community must continue to strengthen this model while advancing digital inclusivity and fostering trust and transparency to safeguard the internet's future.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Thank you. You mentioned the IANA transition during the WSIS+10 review process was in 2015 and this is when the IANA transition was happening, internet transition was happening. I won't forget how the representative of China to the UN took the floor and actually supported the IANA transition, which was a very good sign of a major country supporting it.
Raquel, last question is to you and then we'll open if there are any questions on line or in the rooms for a couple of minutes.
What key factor has helped us overcome some of the challenges in the last 20 years, some of those mentioned, and how might that knowledge guide the development of more inclusive secure and resilient digital future, and how do you think the IGF has contributed to this outcome?
>> Thank you very much, Veni, and thank you very much for the invitation for this rich panel. I think we're going to have a lot of discussion on WSIS and this is another opportunity to do so.
I would like to recall a little bit what was the breakthrough into the two rounds, the first two rounds of the WSIS process 2003 and 2005. I think a good point has been made on the recognition of technical community role and internet governance mechanisms, but also, a couple of months ago, I was invited by LACNIC, one of the regional internet registries location, to make a talk for the tech guys on why it's important to participate into those discussions.
I think the point that I want to make is not only the mechanisms, the decision‑making mechanisms for the WSIS needs to be inclusive and open, but also, once they are, you need to have the stakeholders engaged.
This is pretty much one of the fatigue problems that you have when there are so many multiple discussions to see the relevance and importance of participating.
So allow me to just, I will try to be short, I know I have two minutes now, to make it an example on another level.
When we think about the breakthrough between the paradigm that you had into the two rounds, first two rounds, which was the multilateral model, for the most stakeholder model, what is the difference there?
If you think about, if you go to a restaurant, let me go to a pre-lunch session to use food as an example. If you go to a restaurant and you have a fixed menu, of course, you are going to be fed, but then you have just this, you know, kind of choices that you can make. Imagine, if you could go to the kitchen and everyone can go there and use your family recipe or if you don't know how to cook, you can contribute by doing the dishwashing, everyone has a role there in the kitchen. Then when you are served, you have this diverse place and experiences and exchanges that can be made.
Yes, it took more effort, probably more time, but then once you are at the table, you have this richer experience that can be shared among all the participants.
So I know examples are tricky. This is not 100% a good example, but I think it shows the difference between a fixed menu when you have multilateral model and you have this rich kitchen experience that IGF can provide when everyone is at the room, everyone can participate, and then the outcomes are much more richer and solid. And I think we're going to be talking about results later. Thank you.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Thank you. Are any questions in the room? Over there. If somebody can bring a microphone. If there is no microphone, you may have to use one of those.
>> Thank you, Veni. Great panel. I've been involved in the WSIS project through the CSD working group, IGF improvement, and enhanced cooperation, member of MAG, active in business organization ICANN, followed the IANA transition, and throughout, I've seen that ICANN has a unique product. You need more tech approach.
It played out during the call for the admission of the Alleyoop and the community said no. That is a brilliant model how we propagated this further, how we strengthen it, because internet shutdown other places, and there other international data place, can we project this model so that when it comes to shutting down, we can have it up to discuss. Thank you.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Who wants to take that question? If not, I have some experience with that because it's related to how much governments are willing to take the experience of the last 20 years into building their legislation, regulation, et cetera. I come from Bulgaria so I always give Bulgaria as an example because nobody can get upset about it.
Bulgaria has, years ago now, 25 years ago, decided that there will be no regulation of any kind on internet addresses and internet names. Internet numbers, however, were regulated. And the result was that with 6‑and‑a‑half million population, at the peak of that boom, there were 2,000 internet service providers in the country, which I live in New York City with 10 million people. There are two internet service providers, not much of a choice.
I think one of the ways is what can be adapted from this model and how it can contribute to the governmental and intergovernmental process.
>> Could I just add one thing? I want to come back to what we said about the back in 2003 and 2004, this was not a given. There were other alternatives that you could have come down with. Look at the discussions, look around us here today, you asked the question, how can we broaden it? We have broadened it. A lot of other topics have come here exactly because they're seeking what this model offers. They want to have the broad participation, the broad multistakeholder model. That's really a testament to the strength of what we have achieved. That was far from certain back in 2003. Maybe more certain 2005. That was the outcome.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Thank you. I'm going to move to the second question and I'll ask the ambassador because you have to leave, I know, so a little bit change in the order.
There has been, and it comes into the question, there has a lot of talking multilateral venues about strengthening multilateralism in the multipolar world. Given the global internet is a network of many networks, is a multilateral approach the answer to deal with some of those complex and transitional challenges and is there room to preserve the multistakeholder approach in this increasing geopoliticized world?
>> I think that's the question that is really critical for 2025. Let's be real. If the multilateral world 20 years ago was tasked with constructing, developing, spreading the internet, there would be no internet. That is the starkness of the choice. The multi‑lateral world is not equipped on its own to develop a network of networks in the way that have that.
Let's imagine that. Let's imagine a multilateral driven internet. Firstly, I don't think it has spread in the way that we know it today. Digital trade, I think, is subject to far more national barriers and borders. We don't have the globally connected world that we have today.
That is the starkness of the choice that we face. The multistakeholder model has worked. It is brought us all the benefits and upsides in a way that a multi‑lateral world would never be capable of organizing.
We need to preserve what works with the multistakeholder model. We need to remember that multistakeholder means governments are in the room. Governments are a key part of the process. Governments have a strong role in shaping the future of the internet. This is not a one‑or‑the‑other proposition. The multistakeholder model gives everyone a voice, everyone the ability to shape the future. Multilateral institutions are all part of that. They are part of the process. They are part of the discussion.
Yes, we need to use next year and the WSIS processes as a way to evolve, to look at what the future arrangements should be, but let's be no doubt if we try to replace the multistakeholder model with a pure multilateral state‑governed model, good‑bye to the internet. That would be a catastrophe for us all. It would be a catastrophe for global development. It would be a catastrophe for meeting the sustainable development goals.
We're all invested in preserving the multistakeholder model and governments are a key part of that.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Thank you. I guess you have to leave. They will ask follow‑up questions because I'm sure there will be.
Ian, you can exchange seats. Curtis, I'm going to go to you. Sorry for the change in order, but I wanted ambassador to answer this question.
So there are a lot of challenges that we hear here talking about misinformation, disinformation, cybersecurity, regulatory pressures. How do you see the role of the technical community addressing those challenges?
>> Without a doubt, there is an issue of misinformation and cybersecurity risks is quite a wide topic ranging through security risks through resilience. There's many topics under the umbrella.
These are leading to increased regulatory pressure and I think we need to, from the technical community, we need sure we have the frameworks and technologies to counter the risks. That will also take some pressure off the regulatory need because if we can safeguard this through technology, we might have less need for regulation.
There has been a lot of, throughout the last few years, last 20 years maybe even, this risk has increased. And there are all kind of actors and drivers trying to exploit these weaknesses. The technical community very much tried to address these. We had from the DNS sites the domain names, some have the DNS set, which is the technology or framework ensuring trust in the identified resolution of main space by the ITF
[Audio difficulties]
>> Very much active in trying to get this deployed as far as possible, as wide as possible, by all actors in the name resolution chain by building capacity and furthering this, and the same goes for number space the IP address space, to ensure validity through RPKI and modern other initiatives where we can validate authenticity and trust in the system that is maintained, and that is what we are doing as technical community to counter some of these threats.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Thank you. Continue from Curtis. Governments have been paying close attention to those challenges as well, and so, in your view, in your observations, how does the geopolitical environment affect the technical underpinnings of the internet and the challenges that Curtis was talking about?
>> I couldn't agree more with what Curtis has just said. Geopolitical and political movements do impact the technical underpinning of the internet and, particularly, the areas of regulatory complexities and cybersecurity events and risks and misinformation, the propagation of misinformation.
And fragmentation risks have grown as some nations push for state‑driven governance and infrastructure including DNS resolvers.
These measures challenge the internet's unified and interoperable nature creating barriers that could interrupt this global functionality.
We need to recognize is that as we're promoting multistakeholder model, this interconnected world, I think the value that comes from such an interconnected world needs to be understood.
So as the question that was asked earlier about countries turning off internet access, they only hurt themselves because we are such an interconnected world, that transactions will simply start to fail.
I think many of us many entities of world don't understand how things happen in the world today, whether it be economic transitions and communication transactions. It's really a situation of cutting your nose to spite your face.
Coming to cybersecurity threats, compound the challenges. As geopolitical tensions escalate, state‑sponsored cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, and misuse of digital platforms increasingly undermine the trust on the internet.
This erosion of trust highlights the urgent need for collaborative measures to strengthen the internet security and stability.
The multistakeholder models continues to remain critical in addressing these challenges, brings together all the different constituents, different stakeholders, governments, private sector, civil society, technical community. So that we can produce, craft a balanced solution and inclusive solution.
ICANN's ongoing commitment to this model, particularly through its work in promoting UA, universal acceptance, and IDNs, international domain names, help bridge this linguistic divide and create a multi‑lingual internet, which is essentially speaking to inclusivity.
And so to safeguard the global internet's integrity, the stakeholders must collaborate on all regulatory frameworks that address security and content‑related concerns without fragmenting the internet.
Through dialogue, cooperation, the IGF community can help maintain unified, secure and resilient internet in this increasingly polarized world.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Thank you. Looking at my watch, we have one more question, then we open for Raquel and for some questions, and there is an online question, which we'll also address.
So Raquel, some critics argue that the multistakeholder model is struggling to balance diverse interests and achieve concrete results. How would you respond to those critics and what changes or improvements, if any, might be needed?
>> Thank you very much. The burden of being the last one in the session is that you can subscribe to other ones, then you have a challenge to bring something new.
Short answer into two points. One is regarding the processes and the second more of the substance of the discussion.
Regarding the process, it's important to remember you can bring this multistakeholder approach also to the local level. It's not only a global discussion. And I come from IBR, which has the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, which also had the stakeholder committee from 1995, so even before WSIS was done, even before ICANN.
And it was really a natural decision when you realize that to take on the big task of thinking the internet evolution and recommendations for the internet use at local the level, one actor, one stakeholder, is not going to bring the solution, so everyone come together to the table and make those recommendations. So that is the, let's say inception of the multistakeholder at the local level.
It's not about only keeping the internet open, of course, and safe, but also resilient. And regarding the question on the shutdowns, of course, you need to keep it on, but you cannot avoid some of the decisions, but you can make sure that you are bringing back faster as you can. So this resilience is also very important. Not only on the infrastructure level, but also on the political level. I'm going to talk a little bit about that.
Also, at the global level, when I'm still in the processes part, CGI has undertook together, with lots of the partners, a huge effort on net neutral, on making this global discussions realizing that you have those challenges. So back in 2014, when you had these model revelations on massive and pervasive vigilance, you had this moment where internet governance principles, internet governance and fragmentation of internet itself, was at risk.
Bringing that Mundial global discussion into multistakeholder fashion was really important to reinforce our way ahead. We were back to this moment this year, so the beginning of this year, there was that Mundial plus 10, also took the realization that we had new uses and new challenges for the internet and we needed to be back together as a community to reinforce our principles, but also to look ahead how those processes can be improved in order to bring the solutions that we need and that don't break the internet. That's one of the points.
Very shortly, in terms of the substance, our biggest challenge right now is to make the understanding what the internet is in different levels. It's not only for the governments, for the judiciary, for the Congress, it's really hard not to bring what is more visible in terms of social media and the big techs and the platforms and make sure they understand that the internet is not only social media. Make sure that AI is great breakthrough in terms of new technology. Internet still holds it together as a foundation. That is what I think it's the cross‑cutting substance that we need to bring into this processes. Thank you very much.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Thank you. We have a couple minutes for questions after this session, this part after the session. Anyone in the room? Either everything is crystal clear or nothing is clear. Yes?
>> Maybe the 1uestion will be a little bit related to the previous part.
I came from a country where we actually really want to be exactly multilateral, not multistakeholder. In some cases, including our country, keeping multistakeholder relations and also technical relations like independent, government independent, is kind of a violation of law.
We are slowly moving from light discussions, not decision‑making, activities, to activities which might be slightly legal or, in some cases, illegal. So this issue is not addressed anyhow. So ambassador from a free country, I say good words, I can work and President can say good words, but how easy of lack of multistakeholder possibilities in non‑free countries might be at risk from technical community and other stakeholders? Thank you.
>> It's a complicated question. I'm going to, for observation, so if the ambassador said multilateral model were to decide, the internet never happen. I'm a technologist from beginning. I've been around for a very long time and a bit of a nerd.
Those who have been around long enough will remember that, actually, multilateralism tried to develop the internet, and in its place, we got the current internet. That was a successful model the multilateral model outcompeted the multilateral, competing technologies.
It's not exactly an answer, but I think the reality is that you need, at the end of the day, you need to have a work solution for it to catch on. If you break it, it becomes unusable, the market forces in any country will act. I think that's the best the technical community can do is prove that we have something they have something that works.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Thank you. There was a couple of online questions. One of them actually relate to the UN policies, which is not really our expertise, but the other one was asking whether I can deprive a country, I assume it can be expanded not only ICANN, but the technical organizations, like allies, I can take off a domain name, country domain name, or country addresses off the internet.
I think was addressed actually almost three years ago now. It was a request coming from Ukraine to ICANN, write the European Internet Registry about taking down the addresses given.
Response came from both organizations was that we cannot do that. That's not in our powers. So that's the situation there.
Alexander, this answers your question? Is there another question? Yes, please.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much. Wallace from Globethics Foundation. Question about the content of internet. I understand you touched upon many open, free, and multilateral framework. Seems that particularly in the driven age, you can ensure that the information integrity, use that term, used in global digital compact, how this governance framework, how the multistakeholders can ensure the integrity information on the internet. Thank you.
>> So this goes back to the topic of data governance. This is a big a topic right now with the preparation of A.I. and the capabilities coming with A.I.
So A.I. to be successful, there are essentially three pillars to A.I., which is data that is fed into the engines, the algorithms that compute, outcomes, and of course, the back‑end infrastructure. So if the data is bad, if the data that goes into it is bad, the output is bad.
It's very critical that as A.I. governance models are being discussed, data is appropriately tagged and labeled and fed into its repositories before its used before.
So there needs to be a data validation process ensuring the veracity of the data and the ethical tagging of the data. So this is, in my opinion, a very steep hill to climb, but it's a hill that we must climb if we want to be successful and be useful in all of these emerging technologies that will be so impactful in our future.
Hope that answers your question to a certain extent.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI. Thank you. We're going to change the order now. You complained that you are the last. No, I'm joking, you did you not complain, but now, you're going to be first and we're going to put the diplomat to answer first.
The question to you is, how do you see role of the IGF in transforming the digital future? What changes or resolution do you think is necessary to make the IGF more impactful, and what have we learned in the past 20 years and maybe there will be another WSIS in another 20 years. Who knows?
>> Thank you very much, Veni, for changing the order. I'm sure the diplomat is much more skilled to be the last one.
I'm going to use those as it's a very complex question for a one‑minute answer. I think, first, IGF has proven to be a successful experience, but it is not one solution, right, and it's not one IGF we are talking about.
The first point I want to make is the IGF not only event, but it's the process that you do all year round that then matters.
And I used to say that the IGF has, at least for now, three waves that were pretty much important. The first wave till 2013‑2014 for those revelations that I was mentioning, the IGF really consolidated into this global dialogue space, into a bottom‑up process, into an equal footing and into changing and breaking this paradigm of the multilateral that was known so far.
It's not only for the internet. All other collective goods and rights, like the environment, are also taking on this model because it's really important to consolidate that it can be done and it achieve results even though they are not the results we are used to. So that's the first wave for the IGF.
The second wave for the IGF has been precisely to bring more in the intangible results and how it's changed intercessional work and to make sure to bring all the thematic relevance needed, but also to integrate into the other mechanisms. So looking for, let's say, 20 ITU and all the, even ICANN processes, how can we make this coordination and cooperation really something that is tangible at the end, looking for the best practices.
And now, it's the third wave. It has reached kind of highest level at the UN. And in order to be continued, right, and to think about the next 10 years, 20 years, or IGF forever as it was called into one of the high‑level sessions, I will bring some of the points also that are in the Mundiapolis segment.
The IGF really needs to have more of this financial support right now at the UN streams and how the fund works. It's really uncertain how it can keep going and to do all that's done, it's really a miracle that is happening right now and it needs to have more of this resource level commitment.
But also, to make sure that it keeps going being more inclusive and more open, fosters more of the national and regional discussions and you have a retrofit from those, we have different challenges in each of our countries, even in some countries, you have localities with different challenges and so on, but make sure that this rises to the global discussions and make sure the global discussions have local reactions. I think because of the time, I'm going to keep it short. Thank you very much. I hope that IGF is renewed for those that have the decision powers. Thank you.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Thank you. By the way, you never know, might still ask you the last question.
Curtis, what about your vision for digital future beyond 2025 and what the technical community do to continue building the trust and maintaining the global internet amidst an increasing geopolitical polarized world?
>> CURTIS LUNDQUIST: I think the second part, there's a few things. The Unifund Global Internet we have today that interoperable, seamless, is really the foundation of all the value creation the internet has enabled, the fundamental aspect of the internet.
As you say, there is a question of trust in this model going forward that we need to ensure that that trust remains. And by doing it, we need to address some of the challenges that we talked about on the panel now from security to verification also enabling that openness because that's very much part of that value creation.
I think the technical community, like the ITF who set the standards, also works with this Civil Society, ICANN constituents have in names and numbering, and all the other ICANN groups, GAC, et cetera, really need to identify and understand these concerns and what could possibly erode the trust and how do we create a technical framework that meets that.
Going forward, some of this work is done. As I said, we have manners for routing for DNS, as I said before. There's all manners of programs, monitor programs for bringing RPKI and broadening security to the world peace and certify and have a standardized way for doing it. Kind DNS for DNS is similar, it's a building of this framework, ensure that gets globally deployed.
The other things, you might have the technologies, but we need to deploy them as well. We need to have them actually validated in the world so we can actually provide that trust. One thing is to have the tools, one is ensure the trust exists, to provide the trust.
To continue building this, really have this trusted system, trusted ecosystem, and collaborate around all of these efforts with all of these stakeholders, both in identifying the challenges but also delivering the solutions to them.
Again, I think that's the multi‑stakeholder approach. That's how we work. We work together and the technical community's role in this is to ensure that the technical aspects to provide resilience and security and trust of the network, that we won't ‑‑ and the other part we haven't talked about so much here, another aspect of trust is, of course, the inclusivity. Trust is technical trust, but also feeling included. Provides that trust.
That includes international domain name script, et cetera, that we work on so that people can use this and make sure we have the capacity‑building as well, like the programs I talked about so you feel included in that sense because that's really where we start seeing value. People don't feel can actually trust beyond the technical trust, but also trust in the system, trust in participation, trust in use.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Thank you. Second to the last question.
>> What actions can the technical community including ICANN and other key stakeholders take to ensure that the outcomes of the WSIS+20 review preserves and strengthens the multistakeholder governance model?
>> Thank you. There's a lot that can be done. To ensure the WSIS+20 review strengthens this model, this multistakeholder governance model, technical community including ICANN, of course, and other key shareholders, we must act with a shared vision and come together in collaboration and be determined to maintain this model.
It's been said over and over again this morning as we've talked, this model works and let's not break it. It's been central to the internet's success.
The ambassador mentioned it. Curtis highlighted it. We're all highlighting it. This is fostered inclusivity, transparency, collaboration and innovation.
Let's not forget, this was build upon open environment. When you look at the early days of the internet, vibrant minds came together and said let's do something exciting. Why on Earth would you want to break that and take it away? Let's learn from our successful past and preserve the good of the past.
And the technical community, we must advocate for the multistakeholder model, showcasing how effective we've been by addressing the challenges and the current prevailing challenges of security, inclusion, and all the other challenges that are coming with A.I.
A.I. is introducing many challenges. we've got to have been standards. We've got to have ensure that the data fed into engines is good and that that is not, in turn, used in the wrong way. We've got to come together as a community, as a technical community, and be part of the solution.
That's something that I would say is critical. Technical expertise must inform diplomats who will be negotiating the WSIS+20, so organizations like ours, ICANN, must share our technical expertise to ensure that people who negotiate WSIS+20 understand how the internet works and what the role is of each stakeholder because it's not clear that there is a common understanding of the different layers of internet and how things operate.
Can you hear me? I'm cutting in and out myself.
I think I've lost ‑‑ you can hear me? Okay.
So examples, some other examples of how we come together and inform diplomats is universal acceptance and IDNs, which are these key elements of the future services speak to inclusivity and preserving and making multilingual internet.
One thing that I would like to mention is that I'm particularly tied or married to multilingual internet because the language of science and technology has become English, which has helped us all come together and create new technologies. However, there's some collateral damage that comes with it, which is we potentially are going to forget our languages and forget our culture because we have started to speak this common language, which is great. It's producing some positive outcomes, but let's not forget our rich cultural heritage and we've got to preserve that. So for that reason alone, it's very important that we make the internet multilingual.
The other thing that's very important is engaging policymakers. That's equally important. Active participation in the UN, consultations and global forums helped to shape these discussions, the build understandings.
Can you hear me? Interesting because I'm cutting out. I can't hear myself.
It's all right. I'm almost done. So this includes advocating for the continuation and strengthening of the Internet Governance Forum as this critical platform for dialogue and capacity building. So it's a pivotal moment for all the stakeholders to renew our commitment to the WSIS principles. We've got to prioritize trust, security and inclusivity, and the technical community effectively contribute to an internet governance framework that supports innovation, fosters resilience and promotes inclusivity in this digital world. So thank you.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Sorry for the technical difficulties. It was breaking, but I realized it was only our two devices that were breaking.
The last question for your Ambassador. You only have ‑‑ no, just kidding.
From a government's point of view, what do you think the government stakeholders or the governments can do to preserve the past while building upon the success of the digital transformation we've witnessed in the last 20 years?
>> Thanks for the question and thanks for letting me sub in for my cyber ambassador.
Quite simply, governments should allow ourselves to continue to benefit from the multistakeholder process. Multistakeholder means we're in this together. The internet only flourishes if the community as a whole works together. This requires trust.
Trust requires two things, transparency, transparency and accountability, and for that to be a two‑way street. This means that governments and all other parts of the multistakeholder community must ensure clear communication between each groups and we all need to be accountable for each other's roles that we play in the internet's successes.
So the internet's success don't work if only governments are committed to upholding the WSIS. Similarly, it doesn't work if government feels WSIS doesn't address their needs or if the multistakeholder approach is no longer at its core.
Australia's approach to WSIS+20 preparations is a great example of this in action. We're committed to taking a multistakeholder approach to our preparations, not simply and not just based on principle, but because we genuinely believe it produces good outcomes and outcomes that we can take with us into the negotiating room.
So our approach is guided a by number of four principles, which key to building trust with the multistakeholder community. It means being multistakeholder, openness and transparency, listening to and building on the perspectives and voices of all, taking a holistic evidence‑based approach to outcomes, and achieving longterm agreement.
So certainly, if you are interested in learning about the approach we're taking to WSIS, come by our booth, grab a Tim Tam, grab a koala, and we'd love to continue leveraging the deep expertise that the multistakeholder community has to offer as we approach the WSIS+20 negotiations.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Thank you. We also were able to take pictures yesterday. I think there was.
>> Yes. Dave the koala will be back today at 2:00? 1:00. 1:00 p.m. Come by. Take your camera. Grab a Tim Tam and a selfie and we'd love to Chat.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: We are wrapping up the discussion, so I think one of the references that I could give also is the government engagement team, we have a dedicated web page. You can go to ICANN engagement. (no audio)
Can you hear me? We created a network, about 540 members right now, some 85 countries now. We exchange information which people find useful, and we organize webinars every once in a while. Very active during the Global Digital Compact negotiations, discussing every draft that was published. We'll continue doing that in the WSIS process, so please sign up. Read our papers that we are producing.
Any last comments or words from you guys? Or else I'll turn to Raquel.
>> Thank you very much. I just want to say I appreciate the work you are doing. Really helps us even at the local level. Those materials we can spread, and I think that is also the message here. Preach the importance of the IGF. For those in the room, it's easy. It's much harder when you go back home or back to your constituencies and you need to convince those of the importance. Having this background materials are really important. Thank you Veni and Curt and everyone for the work.
>> VENI MARKOVSKI: Thanks a lot. Any last comments? No? Thanks a lot. We finished three minutes to end of time, which the local host will be very thankful. Giving them time to rearrange the stage. Thank you.