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.
***
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Hello, everyone. I think we are sorting out our audio. Thank you for joining us for this session on evolving the IGF. This session is starting on the assumption that multistakeholder opportunities for discussion on equal basis are a good thing and a very positive thing to have and to continue. I see our speakers are just getting themselves organized.
So, we have a bit of a discussion today on how we can evolve the IGF. We recognize that a decision will be made next year as to the -- you know, the further mandate of the IGF, but I think in discussions so far at this year's IGF, there seems to be the overwhelming view that multistakeholder discussions are a good thing. And I just wanted to note in the DNS research federation did a report on the impact of the IGF and there was a quote to the effect of, if the IGF didn't exist, we would have to invent it.
So, I think, you know, regardless of what is decided next year, there is a need for this international multistakeholder discussions to take place, and we hope that the IGF continue long into the future.
Our discussion today is just seeking some thoughts about how we can evolve the IGF from where it is today so that it can continue to meet the challenges of a digital world.
We have four speakers with us today, and we have an online moderator as well who will keep an eye on the online participation and will let us know if anybody has comments to contribute. My colleague, Everton, will read them into the meeting for us.
So, I will let our speakers introduce themselves. But and perhaps you can just do that briefly as you speak. But just briefly we have Chris Buckridge, who wears multiple Internet Governance hats.
We have Renata Mielli from dot-BR. We have another CCLD represented, we have Plantina from dot Z AI. We have civil society represented with Amrita. And our online moderator is Everton, also from dot-BR.
So, we are going to ask speakers to reflect on a few questions and then we will -- I am hoping there will be an opportunity for speakers to interact with each other, respond to each other's thoughts or build on each other's thoughts.
But we will start with Amrita, I think. You will all have an opportunity to expand to the same question. But Amrita, if you would briefly introduce yourself, and then, perhaps, share your thoughts on how the IGF should evolve to meet the challenges of a modern digital world.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Thank you for having me here. I am Amrita from India. I work for a civil society organization called CCAOI. I am involved in the Asia Pacific regional IGF, apart from other things.
And to respond to your question on how the IGF should -- will evolve to meet the modern digital world, I think it needs to be more focused, it needs -- it needs to be more empowered, in fact. The working group strategy where Chris, me, Jorge and many others in this room who are involved, we did create a vision document where there have been certain concrete measures being drafted on how the IGF could evolve to meet most of the requirements, which is being portrayed as gap areas.
For example, it could be the place where everyone can come and it could be a test bed for people. It could be a place where the GDC's implementations could be tracked. It could also be a place where even governments come and, you know, test out what they want to do, et cetera, apart from other things.
So, IGF has it in them, has it in itself, but it needs to be more empowered in terms of people, in terms of money, primarily so that it can do what it has been doing, but not formally being given the mandate. I will stop at that.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Amrita.
And just before I go much further, in my enthusiasm to begin the conversation today, I neglected to introduce myself. So my apologies to everybody for that.
My name is Annaliese Williams. I work for the dot AU Domain Administration. I'm part of the technical community, and I am also very involved in Australia's National IGF, and I have been the chair of the IGF for the last two years. So my apologies for being so hasty.
Chris, perhaps we might go to you. How does the IGF -- how should it evolve? And I do want to come back to the point Amrita made. But if any of the other speakers want to chime in on the points about empowerment in terms of people and money, how the IGF is going to be funded is a live question.
But, Chris, would you like to share your thoughts?
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: My name is Chris Buckridge. I'm currently a MAG member, for the next two days at least, and then we see what comes in 2025.
Yeah, I have a few other hats that I wear. But for the purposes of this, I am long time IGF gadfly who has happy to throw comments in as to how things might evolve.
I think the important thing is the IGF is and has always been a work in progress. It's never been static in terms of what it is. It probably feels a little we come back every year and see a lot of the same people and that's always good and fun. But there has been evolution and well full disclosure I was one of the co-authors of that DNS research federation paper. But, yeah, part of what we found there was, you know, digging back through how it's evolved, what's happened, what the results of those processes have been was fascinating and turned up very interesting examples, both practical examples how it helped to foster an IXP development in Africa and other Global South countries how it fostered in our eye national regional initiative ecosystem and how important that has proved to be in terms of developing Internet Governance discussions but also things like in talking to different people, hearing different perspectives on the impact that the IGF had. Some people, sort of, saying when we talk maybe about the INA transition it was a forcible discussion and ideas coming together. Other people saying no, it was a bit separate to that.
So I think there's lots of perspectives, it has changed and grown over time. And, I mean, the intersessional activities are an area where we have been very clear that there has been growth, there has been change in the last two decades, and they have evolved into something probably of the almost most value in this IGF space. And that's the Best Practice Forums which we have had a cybersecurity Best Practice Forum in operation for a good number of years now and has produced some really important and insightful work. We have had a policy network on fragmentation, which is also been I think know in its third year and done some insightful study on a very key issue right now in Internet Governance.
We have also had one on artificial intelligence which perhaps got a bit subsumed by some of the larger scale UN discussions. But if you read the report, it actually predicted, I guess, what some of the, say, the Secretary General's AI panel said in its report about things like regulatory interoperability. So, those ideas are percolating really in a very early stage in the IGF, and the IGF is helping to get them to that next level.
I think that evolution needs to continue. I think where it will really fascinating point going into next year where we will have a quite different context. We will have a much shorter time frame to prepare. We will have a different kind of MAG. We may see that there's a need to, sort of, consolidate a little, to, sort of, bring it into a bit more tight focus in how it works. There's, obviously, going to be an eye to the WSIS+20 review, which will happen a few months after the IGF next year. So, I think we want the IGF next year to be at its best. And there's a little pressure can force the change that you want and create a diamond. So, I hope that's what we are going to see in the coming six months in terms of evolution.
I, obviously, (?) is a perennial issue. I do think there is -- it's important to be thinking that we maintain the broad base of funding for the IGF. Any multistakeholder model, you know, captured by a certain stakeholder group or demographic is a concern. And that applies as much to, you know, the UN and member states as it does to any other group. I think part of the strength is having funding comes from lots of different sources so that the decisions about how the idea evolves, decisions about where it goes have to be taken in a multistakeholder way, rather than the person who is outlaid the most cash gets to steer the ship.
So, I will stop there. Thanks.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Chris. Yeah, important observations on a number of fronts there.
I would agree with you about the need for broad-based funding. I think at the Australian government booth out there, they had a little -- a survey of asking people to indicate whether they have thought their stakeholder group should contribute to funding. So, be interested to see what the results of all those surveys were.
And just your point on the policy networks and Best Practice Forums, I think that Dynamic Coalitions, that is also a really important point the IGF has also demonstrated that it can evolve to meet changing needs and, you know, it has demonstrated that it can do this successfully and I'm sure it will continue to do so into the future.
I might go to you next, Renata, and then in time, Tina.
>> RENATA MIELLI: Hello. Thank you, Annaliese, thank you for inviting me for this interesting, important session about how to involve IGF.
I will agree with Chris because I agree the IGF is a work in progress. So I want to emphasize that that, the IGF's work is a work in progress, and it has been important platform for the discussions about the Internet, its applications and the impact of the new models and services for users and also sites. And maybe some governments and other decision organizations had more involved with IGF. Some of the things we are saying now, they are knowing previously, because we discussed this a lot.
So, I think we are doing a good work, syncing best practice, the new fora. I think all of this is important. But in my point of view, it isn't enough. And we are at the moment where we cannot forward in getting deep discussions on critical global issues without taking a step forward ask using the debates to develop a set of consolidation proposals and recommendations to present to multilateral organizations. It's necessary to improve mechanisms for building consensus and producing guidelines and recommendations in such a way that community voices have an impact on multilateral and other decision-making processes, so that these effective solutions to challenges we face can be found and implemented.
We need to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between strengthening both stakeholder spaces and processes and the role of multilateral spaces. We are in this crazy moment that we are something against another, and we have to stop this and work together in a complementary way.
So, in my opinion, that's why evolving the IGF is a core discussion for us. And we need to have the courage to look to what we have achieved till now together and together we need to build new ideas. We need to step out of our comfort zone and think about how to make the IGF a space that is seen as relevant for shaping outlines in digital policies.
This is our challenge, my point of view, to transformative the IGF in such a space, we need to deepen transparency and strengthen multistakeholder participation mechanisms. And we already have a good start point. And this point is São Paulo Mundial guidelines. We are beginning the process of review WSIS+20 and in 2025 we will have the IGF in June some weeks before the high-level meeting in Geneva.
So, I would like to bring a challenge, nothing new because Chris said point this point, how we are going to organize the next IGF in June. Like we did till now, or maybe trying to look to this opportunity to think differently and try something new by applying the São Paulo guidelines to build to the next IGF. That's my initial proposal. I believe in the update proposed by NetMundial which challenge multiple sectors to think of solutions for the current Internet challenges and maybe we can build experiment with the next IGF and maybe this be important to the WSIS process in this regards. Thank you.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Renata. I think it's definitely a time to be creative right now and what you are saying about the (audio fading in and out) setting against one other, I was in one of the sessions yesterday and somebody said multistakeholder and multilateral are two sides of the same coin. And that was something that resonated with me. I think we certainly need both. It's not an either/or.
And, you know, each process, these multistakeholder discussions are very much enriched by having government participation on an equal level. And, you know, there is a lot that -- a lot of expertise that from a technical community and from others, civil society that can be very useful for multilateral processes.
We will go to Plantina. And we have had Jorge join us as well since we have started.
But I will go to Plantina, and if you want to offer initial observations, or we can wait until the next round, if you want to.
>> PLANTINA MOKONE: My name is Plantina Mokone. I am the Internet Governance Coordinator for the ZA Domain Name Authority. I also serve as a Secretariat for the South Africa Internet Governance Forum, for the South Africa stakeholder capacity, amongst other things that I do in my personal capacity.
I think we can agree with Chris in the sense that the IGF is a work in progress. I think a lot has been achieved from the time that I have been here and just witnessed, you know, just the level even of participation. Think a lot more still needs to be done, just agreeing with my colleague.
There's a lot more that needs to be done. We need funding. However, one of the biggest things I think that remains an issue is that what happens to the discussions and the -- that we have at IGF, you know, what does our document, what does the IGF document turn out do. We talk about, I appreciate the fact that the Multistakeholder Forum, multistakeholder model that's followed in IGF is a bottom-up approach. We solicit inputs from different stakeholders, but what happens to those inputs? What do they lead to? What actionable items or actionable documents do they -- do they lead to, because really if they lead no nothing, all this is a talk show. We need more funding for continuous talk show, and I think, yes, multistakeholderism does emphasize that all parties within the multistakeholder model are equal, about us in reality, you know, government is a decision maker. We are not equal. Government makes decisions. So we need to bring them into a discussion, negotiate with them, I think maybe that's another element that we need to bring into IGF is to negotiate. Because the Internet as it's evolving affects all of us, individual and our business capacities.
So, I think my -- how the IGF can evolve is turn the discussions that we have within the IGF space into actionable items, at international, regional and country level and see how that works itself out. But really just I think one of the things that does bother me with how we have been moving for the past couple of years is that we talk and how does that translate into actionable items in individual countries so maybe have that as one of the action points moving into next year in the WSIS+20 review. Thank you.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, and I hope we will get into a bit of discussion, and we may not come out with any solutions today, but I'm hoping we can put forward some ideas and perhaps discuss these again or come up with a proposal for the Norway IGF and have some further discussion.
Jorge, did you want to offer any reflections on how the IGF could evolve or do the processes need to change? Did you want to respond to anything that any of the other speakers have said? We have had some comments about governments make the decisions. I think that is, while it's true nationally, they make laws and internationally they make treaties. But a lot of the infrastructure is owned and operated by parties that aren't government -- government entities. So, any thoughts you would like to throw into the mix, Jorge? And please introduce yourself as you do.
>> JORGE CONCHA: thank you so much, Annaliese. Jorge Concha with Swiss government. Happy to be here. Happy for the invite to share some thoughts.
Maybe a thought this is important is that sometimes we love so much our IGF baby that we just look at the IGF baby and how it has to walk and talk and start to run and everything and we forget that it's a larger family. And this WSIS family has more members each and every one has his or her and really the WSIS architecture is not some letter document of 2023 and 2025 where some older people like myself participated negotiating. No, it's really a system that is working, that is delivering for the last 20 years where we as the global community and not just member states, but also private stakeholders, civil society, academia, the technical community have invested millions of hours of work, millions of dollars of any other currency in making the vision of WSIS a reality, more connectivity, e-health, E whatever that was, the old terminology, everything had an E or also on human rights, many issues were already considered then.
So, we have to see the IGF in that context, in the wider context where we have the action lines from WSIS, giving guidance to the UN agencies and to many other actors to do stuff on the ground, changing the reality, really delivering on the SDGs for the people, we have the WSIS forum where we get together each other to hear what has been done to action lens. We have the CSTD where we discuss, okay, what was the progress and what do we feed up into the UN System, and there we have the different roles. Then it gets very intergovernmental, it goes through ECOSOC and if somebody doesn't know what ECOSOC is, it's the economic and social committee. It's like the non-war, nonpeace brother, twin brother of the Security Council. And from there, it goes up to the UNGA, to the UN General Assembly.
Those are all parts of this WSIS family, of this WSIS architecture. And the IGF is like the more innovative kid. It's the kid where we talk about new things. We invent new things, policy networks, emerging topics. But we still have to deliver, as Plantina was saying before, we have to deliver and there are things we have on our mandate for almost 20 years, like delivering recommendations. But it was a problem because, okay, it's nice to have that in the mandate, but we didn't know how, how do we do this, and there was also fears. So if somebody pops up with a recommendation, how was it that that recommendation was developed, et cetera.
So, I think these were the relevance, for instance, of the São Paulo multistakeholder guidelines kick in because they tell us okay there are multistakeholders not anything that is labeled as multistakeholder. It's really something that complies with certain guidelines and those guidelines are, for instance, inclusivity, not just inclusivity with an open door where only the well-resourced pass the door. No, it's inclusivity in a material, substantive sense. That's in guideline 1 of the São Paulo (?) guidance. And it's also a process steps. It's really getting everybody who is relevant together, it's consulting with the community, and it's a really explaining what has been done with the inputs from the community, avoiding this black box problem we have seen in other processes. It's really giving the community also a role in being able to adapt the outputs, et cetera, et cetera. It's a lot of guidance that our Dynamic Coalitions, our BPFs, our policy networks could get inspiration from and start delivering, start delivering those recommendations we have in our mandate.
So, so looking back, if we look at the IGF as part of this wider family, maybe, for instance, those recommendations could each and every year be addressed then by the UN agencies when they are updating the working plans in the action lens.
And then, Plantina, if I may address you. Then we would know, okay, we have made a recommendation on data governance and that data governance recommendations goes to action lines XYZ, and then later on they can report at the WSIS form on what they did and addressing reflecting on the IGF recommendations. If we think it, the IGF is part of a system, it makes much more sense, and then it is no longer in the perception because for me it's not a talk show. It's much more than that.
But also in the perception of everybody it would become much more effective, much more impactful if it's really part of a working WSIS structure. And I talk too much. Sorry.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks for that, Jorge. I just wanted to sort of touch on a couple of things that you said, you know, firstly about the -- well, the thinking about the IGF admiring our baby. I think that is sometimes the conversations do get around, you know, focusing on the IGF and, sort of, of only the IGF and not the broader system. I think for me personally anyway, it's not so much the IGF, but it's the principle of multistakeholder sharing, exchanging of views and doing that globally, hearing from parts of the world that are far away from where you might live or where you might work, and the IGF is a good platform for hearing about the concerns, might be different from your own.
And also, I thought it was -- I think we do need to, sort of, really focus on the -- that connection to the SDGs and the WSIS process was, you know, all about development and I think it's, you know, important that we all -- you know, the Internet is recognized and the digital technologies are recognized as an enabler of sustainable development, but I think it was Doreen on the first day, a third of the world's population still aren't connected. We can have one set of conversations, you know, in one place, but in other parts of the world, they are having very different conversations, people aren't connected. I was in a session yesterday where there were talking about not having electricity all of the time. So even if they had the Internet, they don't have enough power for data centres or can't access the Internet all of the time. So I think that is making sure that the conversations and making sure that the space to have consideration of the issues from everybody's point of view and make sure that it's -- that the needs in those in less connected parts of the world aren't left out of the conversation.
I did want to ask for views. I will ask a volunteer, I guess. The need for governments and for technical experts, private sector, civil society, the need for meaningful conversations to take place, you know, there is a real need, but there is, perhaps, not always the stakeholder balance here at IGF conversations -- at IGF meetings to have those sort of conversations.
I wonder if anybody has any ideas or any suggestions for how the IGF could better facilitate conversations between governments and other experts. Does anyone want to address that first?
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: I think what Chris mentioned that the focus, for example, for IGF may be much more sharper. You have the parliamentary track but are you actually discussing things which the parliamentarians want to hear? There could be certain things where they may want to discuss but they may -- but in a public forum may be shy to ask or understand. Are we having those kind of -- you know, I would say innovative approaches to bring them so that they see value in coming here and discussing things or also clarifying their dates, as well as sharing their experiences. I think an innovative approach would be good. It's not a one-size-fits-all kind of a situation. And perhaps showing value to people coming as in I am sure the MAG always has been trying to get the right kind of speakers to come from different stakeholder groups to speak. But sometimes traveling is a challenge. You can't fund travelers. Not everyone has deep pockets. Many private companies also may not come to speak because they are afraid of, you know, what they will say and how it will be interpreted.
So, I think there are multiple issues which would have to be addressed. But I think more focused approach, innovative ways of having discussions, lesser ones, because, unfortunately, nearly two thirds of the sessions which happens at the IGF is not in the MAG's hand. If the MAG was to design it, perhaps it may have been done differently. And others can respond to it.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Amrita. Does anybody else? Go ahead, Chris.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Sorry. I said that without really thinking ahead of what I was going to say. Look, I mean, I think we have good speakers. I think in a lot of sessions, and we are trying to be innovative in how we plan sessions and I think that extends to remote speakers and better integrating them. And I think we need to really focus on the IGF as a hybrid event. This needs to be a space where you don't need to be there in person to have a meaningful role and taking a meaningful part.
But that said, obviously which know people being there in person is a different experience. It provides not just the opportunity to look around at your fellow speakers at the table and respond in a more organic way, but also to have conversations in the corridor to meet people in bilateral means to -- there's a richness there. We need to still focus on bringing people to the venue and making it an appealing and attractive event to have people at.
I think that's, you know, increasingly a challenge, partly because we do have this proliferation of venues. Next year only serves to highlight that where we have the WSIS form one week, two weeks after the IGF, two weeks before the IGF we have an ICANN meeting which will have a lot of similar stakeholders there.
Next year is probably unusual, but maybe not that unusual given the trend and the way we see this developing. If we look at the last five years, the pace of, you know, regulation, of new bodies, of new initiatives at the UN level, at the regional level, at the national level is remarkable. It really has -- I don't know if anyone has done a line chart, but it would be almost exponential I'm sure in the increase.
So, we need for the IGF to find, to carve its own space there where it's actually competing for attention against all these other spaces. And that, I think leads just back to the first question of how do we evolve it to better meet the needs and wants of people and there is a hunger for some more link to decisional developments, not that the IGF can take through all of government, not that it can, sort of, step in and it could fail if it tried, I think. But it does need to be producing much more effective interfaces to the governmental processes, to the regulators, to legislators, so, yeah, having a parliamentarian track is a very fundamental element of that and I think a recognition of the need to build that interface, whether it's perfect or not yet, I don't know. Probably, you know, like everything, a work in progress.
But that sort of evolution needs to continue, I think. So, yeah, stop there.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Chris. And I see Renata wanted to add on to that. And I will, after Renata has spoken. But if anyone wants to think about how do we make it more appealing and more attractive, particularly to those governments who, you know, might come once and --
>> RENATA MIELLI: First of all, I apologize. I didn't present myself in the first round. So, I am doing now. I'm Renata Mielli, the Chair of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGI.br, and have a Master's of Science, Technology and Innovation.
I think this question is connected to the previous one, because what is -- why our government or deputy, a parliament come to IGF? What can we offer to them to make it interesting and important to be here discussing with us and for me, we do marvelous debates. We do interesting workshops. We have maybe the best minds that are thinking about Internet, their applications, their impacts on social and economic levels and everybody and everything else.
But why governments come here to talk with us? And for me, they will feel the needs to be here if you can deliver something concrete that have some more impact in terms of discussions. We are not going to be ourselves, the decision making process. But they need to see us, in IGF, in the community, a lackos, a space relevant enough to inform and collaborate with recommendations and concrete outcomes that can impact in decision-making process.
So, if we don't do this, they are not going to come. Because there are a lot of spaces to go and more heaven for them.
So I think this -- I don't have the precisely magical answer to this question. But I think the starting point is that how to make IGF more relevant to the people who has the role to make -- to make decisions. So, for me, this is the start point.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Renata. Plantina, did you want to add something?
>> PLANTINA MOKONE: Yes, I did. I don't know, I think too highly of the Internet Governance Forum. Let me start off by saying that. I think all the discussions that have been in while I have been here in the Internet Governance space are relevant. They are well informed and they inform government they have parliament practice, we exchange knowledge and ideas on how to implement certain things or how to structure certain guidelines. So I think much of the discussions we are having on Internet governance are relevant to them. They make policies that affect our well-being on -- with regards to the evolution of the Internet, which I think Chris said it. Everybody that's at ICANN at ITU is also here and all in a multistakeholder model, following a multistakeholder model.
So, I don't know if there is anything we can do beyond this to make it more attractive and appealing to them, because really we are discussing things that affect them, that affect how they regulate us, that affect socioeconomic -- they have socioeconomic development implications. So, there's -- I think, me, what I was going to say, is that the discussions that we have at our annual IGF meetings need to go on beyond MAG structures. We have multiple communities and sessions and they need to go on. And maybe then that sits on us as in our eyes or, you know, national initiatives to take back reports back to them and say, we discussed this.
But there's really not much we can do to make, because everything we are discussing is relevant to them. It affects them. It affects their ability to make decisions. I don't know if you want to address it like a Christmas tree next time so that it's more appealing. There's no way we can do that.
I think highly of the discussions that we have here. I make notes, I have four books full of notes just from each session that I have been in where there have been bilateral meetings. There's a lot of things. It allows for a lot of things. If you want to have bilaterals, there's a parliamentary tracker. Ministries are here, there are opportunities. I don't know how we need to address IGF like a Christmas tree to make it more appealing.
I think the discussions we have are very relevant to them. I think there's maybe a need to induct them more into IGF. Maybe it's a lack of awareness of IGF and the importance of it? To maybe -- we just heard most countries have just gone through the election so there's a new government or a new minister so there's a need to maybe induct them into IGF and, I mean, assuming that the ministry hasn't yet done that already, but having the stakeholders that are relevant to IGF speak to them about IGF, stakeholders that are involved in IGF processes, speak to them about IGF processes.
You know, I think that's the best we can do at this point.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Plantina.
>> PLANTINA: Chris wants to jump in.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: I will let Chris jump in. I want to flag, you said something about the national and regional IGFs and so part of this discussion was do the IGF processes need to change somehow. So, does there need to be some sort of mechanism through which national IGFs and the global IGFs, sort of, of feet into each other and --
>> PLANTINA MOKONE: This is my understanding of the NRIs, right, and as somebody that coordinates from a South African level. We have our national IGF ahead of the regional IGF and the Africa IGF and the global IGF. We write a report that we submit to the three structures, right? So, it feeds the processes that it needs to go up through our minister's office.
I don't think that should change, because the reality is that each region has its own unique challenges and that speak to that. So, we need to also speak to regional issues and then take those regional issues up to global. So, that structure should not change, because static issues and Europe issues or Africa issues are totally different.
But when we get to global, there's best practice platforms where we exchange on a continental level, on a regional level of how things could potentially be better or how things could work.
And maybe I'm thinking of it from how practical it is for me in coordinating IGF and what I think I feed into, you know, the bigger global picture.
But that can change because I also speak to our regional issues, I also speak to our continental issues. My report submitted supports those dialogues that they have that address our issues and then that report goes up into a global report, yeah.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Plantina. Chris, go ahead.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Sorry. I know I'm jumping back into the queue here. I want to say, Plantina, that's a real important side on the side. The important sending a report is wonderful. We on this side need to do something with that report. What does that get -- how does that get translated? And I think at the moment the IGF does not have a good, sort of, idea of how to do that.
The other thing, the Christmas tree idea, dressing up as a Christmas tree. The thing that has frustrated me for many years about the IGF and I think the more we talk about it, the more value. There is such a wealth of information in the archives of 20 years of IGF. We have videos, we have -- there's so much there. Most of it's on YouTube. But it's not in any usable form. And we have tools, we have methods that we could pull out data, pull out summaries, pull out, sort of, this is how many discussions there were at GDPR, these were some of the key themes that were talked about in relation to data governance. If there are people with deep pockets out there listening, hello, I mean that would be my Christmas wish for the IGF, would be to someone to really step -- and it has been tried before. There was a friend of the IGF project which worked for a while and I think then kind of floundered and it was a very good step in the right direction.
I would love to see that. Because it is so much information and it would be so valuable in selling the IGF, in bringing people into understanding what the IGF does, in giving them an insight into the different views of stakeholders. There is so much there. And we are not using it and that's my concern and my hope.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Chris. Jorge, I will come to you in a minute, but Everton has indicated that there is a comment in the online.
>> EVERTON RODRIGUES: Not online exactly but I would like to take this opportunity just to invite as Chris was saying, was talking about the hybrid IGF. To take it as -- to take this opportunity to talk about the hybrid IGF. I would like to talk that we have an audience over there watching us and so they are invited to present us with comments. But we have one comment, one raised hand in the room but through Zoom, which is Jordan.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: I will go to Jordan and then I will come to you, too. So --
>> JORGE CONCHA: Jorge Concha, Swiss Government. It was a very short two fingers. I understand that it's very difficult to navigate all that IGF information if we take the position of the 2015 technology but nowadays couldn't we train an IGF bot and you ask what's the IGF idea's information on this, it isn't that difficult.
In another life I'm also a civil society activist in my country, and we have done that with no money, with no means and it works perfectly. You can train. Why don't we do that?
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Sorry. Everton, perhaps we can pass the microphone to Jordan and then.
>> JORDAN CARTER: And then what? Thanks. That's weird. Thanks. My name is Jordan Carter. I'm a colleague at the Australia Domain Administration. This is a personal view. Rather than a Christmas tree, I think there is room for some session types that we don't necessarily have at the moment. One that keeps coming up in my mind is be able to engage people on a draft piece of legislation or something almost like a legislative or a regulatory workshop, it doesn't have to be a Best Practice Forum, it could simply be a workshop proposal or some legislative testing category of session we don't have yet.
Just give someone, it might be a country, a group of activists a way to bring a legislative possibility to the IGF community for input and then to take on board all the input they get here and then to share it out afterwards.
So, I think some session type innovation.
Another might be, you know, how many of us have sat in IGF sessions and really hoped there would be an argument and there wasn't because everyone agreed on everything, or there's the start of a really interesting argument that only emerges in the last 10 minutes of a two-hour panel because the people on the panel didn't spend enough time prepping to know that they disagreed with each other.
So, I think even within the current framework, there's the chance for more effort and more organizing to be done. To do that, one of the IGF reforms that needs to happen is this insane process where no one is charge of the programme needs to finish. I have done one year on the MAG, I have had my thank you and goodbye letter. What knows what's happening next time. But the MAG does about a third of the programme. And so two-thirds is by either national government or by the Secretariat. There are multiple sessions on the same topic with almost the same angles and 400 sessions. What if there was 100 sessions covering pretty much the same topics but with four times the amount of brainpower that was going into them to actually generate something savvy and interesting.
And then the third point I would make is echoing the point about resources. This is governments say the premiere space for multistakeholder engagement and dialogue. And then governments provide enough resources for five staff members. It doesn't add up.
Like, with a bit more resource to do analysis and communicate the resources that are generated through the IGF process there could be so much more value arising from the community effort that comes here.
And governments are primarily responsible for the overall digital policy architecture. It would be nice if they put a tiny little bit more money where their mouths were on that front. Hopefully no one was too offended by any of that.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: I don't know they were. I would just ask, should it only be governments that contribute to the funding of the IGF? That's something to think about.
We will go -- so here and then back there.
>> PARTICIPANT: Thank you. My name is Wooten Adris. I'm a consultant in the Netherlands, but also representing the Dynamic Coalition Internet standards security safety here in Riyadh.
I think part of what I want to say was just covered by Jordan, so thank you, Jordan I hear a lot of things being said right now in the past half hour and the only thing I can point to that in 2017 and 18 I brought two reports that were presented to the MAG where all sorts of recommendations how the IGF could be strengthened.
And we are talking six, seven years later about the same ideas. Read the reports, it's on the IGF website, and see what you can do with it.
One of the examples is exactly we are 10 sessions of AI on human rights and women rights. All these billion people sit in individual sessions. Why not put them together in a room for a day and say, but you are going to come out with recommendations, toolkit and guidelines. And you are going to present them a day later. Instead of having 10 sessions with perhaps five times the same people talking on the same topic. We have brilliant people.
Two, what Jorge said on the Dynamic Coalitions and outputs. As an IGF, we do need to start organizing around that output. Starting to sound like a broken record, I know. But this output is there. If you were at the main session this morning, you heard what these Dynamic Coalitions are doing. We are delivering the outputs. But we are not doing anything, I could not even present my report on the IGF website because it was broken, they said.
So, where do you go with working for whole year, A, not being able to present it because you don't get the time and B not be able to put it on the website. So what are we doing this effort for? And that's where things are broken and that needs to be changed. And the funding thing that a lot of governments should start stepping up, I have been saying that for years as well. I think I'm going to pass it on to that side so is there anything?
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Here and then on this side.
>> Desiree, I will be very brief. And agreeing with some innovative ways of making the IGF works more inclusively with the national IGFs and regional IGFs. I don't think we have seen a collective output of what they need and they have been able to transfer that even to the MAG, let alone the Secretariat. Whether it's commitment to work on the IGF for the next 10 years or some kind of joint output.
But also in terms of this innovative ways, governments do get a lot of benefit, I believe, out of the IGF. They might have separate governmental track, but also have a lot of bilateral meetings that we, other stakeholders are not part of. But I think there's a lot of value in gathering.
Lastly, something that's been mentioned is this discussion of legislative proposals from region. What I witness here is the Arab region has worked really in sync to look at the issues in their region. So maybe wherever the IGF takes place, this regional community should come together and have this focus maybe workshops, like Woot was saying, working in a less workshoppy way but for longer hours. I will stop here for the sank of time.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Desiree, we will go here and here and turn the conversation around to the Mundial guidelines. You may go ahead.
>> PARTICIPANT: (?) from IGF Japan. I like to explain some of the experiences we had in the last year. You remember that we had IGF Kyoto, which was very popular, and we have many crowds there. And prime minister spoke and three ministers came and talked about their policy on Digital Society.
Very interestingly, major newspapers like Nikkei newspaper had annual report on prime minister attended the international AI conference or something like that. I am not specifically criticizing any particular press also. That was a general, you know, impression of the people or this means that the IGF is not very well known to the public. This is very important. You know, people here knows what IGF is and we are talking about an improvement of IGF.
But the other angle to look at the people who do not know this and do not know the real value and we have to be very, you know, active on getting more interest, you know, from those people.
One other example, and I found this very interesting, I met with AI expert in Japan who came to Kyoto conference and asked him why. He said his counterpart in UK or Europe invited him. So that means there are vast majority of experts who do not know the IGF, but who are having international collaborations, meetings and they say, oh, IGF is not a place to make any decisions. They don't know how to deal with this, you know, very special issues they are working with. That's not the case.
Bring them in some somewhere, and one suggestion is, like Desiree said, focus more on the NRI and NRI within Japan, we started to invite more experts having periodical meetings, discussing on specific issues. If we invite government in such kinds of places, we can probably get them interest more and they may even think, well, let's see what's going on in the world, you know, going on in IGF meeting. And that, the only way I think we can get more interest from other people. Thank you.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
>> Thanks, my name is Preda May from (?) South Africa. And I organize women in IGF summit every year for the past three years. I want to talk about the experience, because I listened that to comments prior. And maybe my experience will clarify why some things to get a different term.
I was invited by the Secretary General of the -- in 2019. There was a group of us, I think there was five women who were invited across the world. And that was because prior to that, women had been saying there's no women's voice in IGF. There seasonal meaningful contribution of women's voices. Their workshops are being declined and they do not know how to fill in forms and the UN had to do something, hence, we were brought in. And that was in Germany. Thanks to the Germans government because they made sure we are there.
And after that, I had learned so much about policies and how to contribute to the space and I never stopped them coming. I started knowing how to write workshops. And that has become the main thing that we discuss on the African NRI. So, if you say there's 400 sessions with lots of voices saying the same thing, it's purely because they are facing a challenge of who to decline and if they decline and they say according to them, these are good sessions as the MAG, then they might find if they decline lots of Africans, lots of women and for diversity and equity, they need to find out how to balance it and how to get the right perspective, maybe your suggestion of saying put all of them in one room and come up with a proper solution, might be the best solution.
But to reduce the number of sessions, it's going to take the IGF backwards. We are going to lose what the IGF has worked so hard to bring interest this space, which is youth and women.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Sorry I'm writing that down to I don't forget.
So, I have heard, you know, several times that, you know, focusing or deeper focus on the issue rather than multiple, sort of, surface-level discussions might be useful and, you know, we had the observation that under the current, sort of, programme design, there isn't a single source in charge, so that, perhaps, that's something that we do need to think about how we design the programmes in the future and how we do have the space for, you know, actual solving problems or at least, you know, coming to a genuine understanding of where all the differences of opinion are, instead of, you know, just, sort of, talking about the issues at a surface level.
And in terms of, you know, outputs of multistakeholder meetings, Renata, did you earlier this year we had the NetMundial which did come up with, you know, a multistakeholder output, where in the guidelines that could be useful for other processes.
So, I wondered if we could perhaps start where you about whether or how those -- the NetMundial guidelines could be applied in the IGF context or other contexts as well.
>> RENATA MIELLI: Thanks, Annaliese. Just before I answer your question, I think this -- we have a good discussion. This is a very good debate about the programme. Because at this -- yes, reduce the number of the sessions maybe has an impact on diversity. But in another way, it's so frustrating and exhausting try to follow for all the panels that are -- we got very crazy, to be very honest.
So, this is a very good point. I think MAG has -- the new MAG, because we are going to be the new MAG, maybe needs to go deeper in this discussion about how to improve programming, maybe build some consultations for the community. I don't know. I don't have the answer, I don't -- but I have the question.
About guidelines in NetMundial+10 guidelines, I think we have, I think we need to start on these guidelines, but we need to -- not to just look at the guidelines and try to fit all the points to IGF and the regional IGFs, but I think we need to start to discuss how and what guidelines we need to start because there are a lot of good ideas and propositions in that guidelines regarding how we can guarantee more diversity and participation of all the stakeholders and how to do this, because we put the idea, but we don't say how. And how to do this.
And I think there are a lot of things we have to think about it, for example, a very simple one, to be, to stay, to come to IGF, we need to speak English because there is another language to talk, to participate. And this is, for a lot of countries, this is a very, very, very restrict point. In Brazil, we don't have a lot of people who speak English in civil society, in -- even in academia, even private sector. There is no natural. So, that's one point. We say Internet needs to be multilingual, needs to have language diversity. How can we do this on IGF? It's something that occurs to me now. Because to guarantee diversity, we have to think about what we need to -- what gap you need to fill. This is one, for example.
The problem with fundings and the cost for traveling and staying, it's another. Maybe the hybrid format is an answer. But it's a part of an answer. It's not the totally.
I think we need to do some work, understand what kind of outcome the IGF can deliver. Because we say, we need to have something. But what is this something? We don't do this job on NetMundial+10, for example. We say we need an outcome, we need something more concrete. But what is this thing some more concrete on the IGF to be produced as our outcome that have some impact? We are going to choose issue to each IGF, maybe, I don't know. Let's talk about artificial intelligence to put something outcome or let's talk about, I don't know, data governance. I don't know. How can we build that? We are going to make previously consultations for the community about some kind of ideas. I don't know.
So, I think to apply the NetMundial guidelines to the IGF, I think we need to do some homework, and this is new challenge for all of us. That's my previously -- that's what I see.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, thanks Renata. And just sort of listening -- just, yeah, listening to you speak about the language challenges and thinking about the programming issues, perhaps, there is something there to better coordinate the programme of the global IGF with the national and regional, so at least on some issues, everybody can be having the same conversation in their region, in their language and maybe there is something about putting forward a view for a global -- for global discussion, the positions on that issue from the thoughts from those regions on a particular issue to be discussed here.
I think we had a question or a comment at the back.
>> PARTICIPANT: In response to Renata -- Anriette Esterhuysen from APC. Very quickly, we had a similar session earlier today that looked at also NetMundial, Global Digital Compact, and IGF, and someone from the Swiss government, who is not called Jorge, made a very good suggestion about applying the NetMundial guidelines, about how you scope an issue and then you identify who is affected by that issue, who are the stakeholders. But there are other guidelines as well within the NetMundial. But she suggested that we look at the IGF messages and how the IGF messages are produced and then distributed, using relevant bits of the NetMundial guidelines. And I thought that was such a good, practical, concrete suggestion.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Anriette. I think we had another comment online or somebody else wanted to speak. Go ahead.
>> PARTICIPANT: Hello. Thank you. My name is Galvania Burk, civil society. I also do have a practical suggestion. As an attendee, the experience using digital tools is quite difficult. I believe you could focus on the hybrid format, because many people cannot afford to travel provide them a great experience.
Creating an account is difficult. Browsing the schedule is difficult. Finding the speakers are difficult. Finding the Zoom link is difficult. So, we did an event a couple of weeks ago on Zoom events, [email protected]. It was extremely user friendly maybe using that platform as a test could prove useful. And you might have, like, many more people joining because the IGF is an incredible and unique forum. The first time I came in, I was like I didn't believe my eyes. It was so good.
But also now, I feel frustrated because, you know, finding content, like the resources is extremely difficult.
And maybe you do not have the money to do what you want. But you have got a tremendous wealth of knowledge of people and of resources. So leverage your community. See what you do have in terms of people and what they can do and maybe we can create a platform all together and apply the principles that we see are good for the future of the Internet. Thank you.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Chris, did you want to?
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: It was very brief comment, I think. Kind of joining on what Anriette said and what Jordan said involving and innovating in, sort of, formats we have an IGF which usually has several subthemes. It could be that we look at each of those subthemes in a sense as a difference distinct conference with its own modality. So if you had, for instance, a data governance subtheme in a year where there was a need or a desire to produce some sort of output like the equivalent of a São Paulo guidelines that could be the focus of that theme. Whereas another theme like AI or whatever could be more traditional IGF a bit free form.
Yeah, I think there are possibilities there that if we, sort of, think in terms of different formats.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Chris.
And just in terms of the language issue, Amrita, do you have any views? You are very involved in the Asia Pacific IGF. Anything you would like to share?
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Language is an issue as Renata mentioned. It is at a regional level. In Asia Pacific, it's not complicated because you have so many languages. It's just not one to even in a country you might have 22 languages for that matter.
So, it's difficult. Again resources is a challenge when we have, you know, documents which are produced and then even getting it translated. But I think with technology improving, the translations may be cheaper. If not absolute accurate, but at least you can get the essence and some people can look at it. So, I think those can help. I think that's important.
Another thing, Chris, while I do get your point about one topic, I also draw on it what topic may be of importance to many parts of the world may not be for some people. So, obviously, a nice balance would be good enough out there.
The other thing about the -- I wanted to point, because we were speaking about the NRIs, and that's a huge achievement for the IGF. We tend to forget it. We go to the countries which were not -- you know, least developed countries having, you know, NRI initiatives, and I'm talking from Pacific, Asia Pacific, we have the Pacifics doing, you have the small countries like Nepal doing, landlocked countries. You also have Afghanistan where you cannot have it. They are having in hybrid mode.
They recently had the Afghan IGF Inog. It gives empowerment like plays in Afghanistan you can do things where an IGF is held, we sometimes lose that, that what is triggering, they are talking about the SDGs, they are talking about their national goals, which we forget.
Obviously, they feed onto the IGF and whatever here -- they hear, they take it down.
So, I think, again, getting back to how we can improve, we can prove our hybrid meetings. Sorry to say, this is not a hybrid meeting we are having at this point of time as in we need to be better in our hybrid modes. Because, see, if you are seeing it in hybrid, now it is many times the text you can get -- you can also translate it into your at least major languages those also help and Ukrainian. May not be (?) tech but they help in innovation. Thank you.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Amrita. Jorge, did you want to --
>> JORGE CONCHA: Jorge Concha, Swiss Government again. Two short points. On the languages and as we are talking about the São Paulo or multistakeholder guidelines, I don't think you have mentioned it or Everton has neither mentioned it, but it's important to mention that they are available in about 10 languages, nine languages. Surely, 10 will be forthcoming amongst other in the UN, in the official UN languages. So Arabic, Russian, Chinese, English, French, Spanish. We have it also in Portuguese, in German, in Italian, Japanese. And there's also talk of translating into some languages in Nigeria.
So, that's very useful, I think. And we -- but my Brazilian friends are too modest to say it loudly, but we should, because that's very useful to apply them also at the local level, because they are also useful, at the local, at the regional, at many levels.
And in fact, the IGF could invite the NRIs to consider them, to see where they can be applied or where inspiration can be drawn from them. And of course it could be a bit weird to invite others but not walk the talk ourselves. I think many BPFs, policy networks, Dynamic Coalitions, they already are producing outputs. So, they are already striving for developing recommendations or best practice examples. So, maybe I am very naive. But I think it would be easy to take a look at what they are doing, how they are doing it, and compare with the São Paulo multistakeholder guidelines. Perhaps they can improve one point or two or maybe they already do everything perfectly, that's possible. But I think we are going to have a conversation in some also national and regional NRIs, how we can look into that and whether we, for instance, call for issues in a way that is consistent. Thank you.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Jorge.
Renata, you wanted to respond and then I think we are close to --
>> RENATA MIELLI: Just to share another experience initiative that we are -- we have. We start in CGI the organization of the (?) Internet is often okay in English? Portuguese speaking. Okay. (?) Portuguese speaking of Internet, governance much Internet. I don't know how to say that. But it's interesting because we are bringing together all the countries that speak Portuguese to this governance of Internet. We made the first edition in São Paulo in 2023 and this year in Cabo Verde in August, September, I don't know and we are going to have the next one in Mozambique, and this is another and this is another Regional Forum and there is no regional approach, but there is a linguistic approach where it's because how to improve the language in Portuguese on Internet so that's another thing, how to -- this is a work in progress, too, because we are inventing new things. And this is important in -- to achieve this goal that we need to have more people together on the governance space debating these things. So let's be creative.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Renata. Everton, was there a comment online?
>> EVERTON RODRIGUES: . Yes, thank you, Annaliese we have three comments, Mike Nelson at IGF USA they have organized some exciting and lively debates over the year, thank you, Mike. One from Jordan Carter that nonstate stakeholders do sometimes fund the IGF trust fund and maybe more can be done. And one -- another one from Avri Doria, that the suggestion to decrease the number of sessions has been made almost every year of the IGF, if she recalls correctly.
Many, however, feed the many sessions a rich resource that can be used long after the four-day meeting is over. It needs to stop thinking of the IGF as once-a-year event. We have some intersessional work but the notion of ongoing works is still Foreign. So the MAG is still a programme committee for once-a-year conference. And there is also one more comment here. That improving hybrid would be a really cool idea. And one comment by Pedro Lana and a comment about a guide to hybrid events by Kiki.
>> EVERTON RODRIGUES: Those are the comments.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: There is a guide to hybrid events we will take note of that. We are almost out of time, but I wanted to quickly ask all of our speakers in 30 seconds or so, having heard the discussion today and having your own ideas if there was, sort of, one thing that you could do for the next IGF for four IGFs, one concrete idea what would it be? What would -- what do you think needs to happen in any volunteers? Should we start with you, Jorge and go around the table or should we start this way? We will go with Amrita first.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Next year is important, more strategically focused IGF.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: More strategically focused programme or --
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Programme and IGF to achieve the end results that we want to achieve in WSIS+20.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Yeah. Plantina?
>> PLANTINA MOKONE: After the discussion we had on language and hybrid, I think improve that to make it more inclusive of our attendees that are unable -- and participants that are unable to attend in person.
>> RENATA MIELLI: So difficult to choose one. But I choose maybe, because I agree with Richard, this is a very strategic IGF, maybe we can start earlier with some kind of consultations regarding what we want to achieve with WSIS+20. Let's put something on the net and listen to the community before the IGF started. Maybe to be something interesting to put some guidelines on the São Paulo NetMundial guidelines. And I don't know.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: I think the one thing I would love to see is a focus cataloging and making usable and useful the rich dataset that is of the IGF archives that we have.
>> JORGE CONCHA: I vote for a bot that makes that accessible. And apart from the bot, I think we need an IGF in Oslo that is relevant, that shows that this community delivers on the WSIS vision and also that we are ready to update it to make it fit for purpose.
>> ANNALIESE WILLIAMS: Thanks, Jorge.
So, that brings us to the end. I think we do have some good ideas to be thinking about, and if there are any -- I know that I don't know yet, but if there are any people in the room who find themselves on the next MAG, perhaps they can take some of these ideas about the strategic focus for next time into consideration.
But please thank all of the speakers and thank you, everyone, for being part of this conversation. And thanks everybody online.