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.
***
>> MODERATOR: Channel 5, everyone. Also to tell you we will do the session a little bit differently. I will shortly be asking you all to take your headset and stand up. But before we do, that I just want to introduce the -- I'm going to take this off for now. I hear an echo. You know what it is. It's my Zoom. I need to switch my speaker on.
Thank you, everyone and thanks for joining us. We have heard a lot about WSIS and the global digital come back in the last few days. Is there anyone in the room who doesn't know what WSIS stands for? I dare you. No, I'm serious. Is there anyone who doesn't know what WSIS stands for? Well that's good. GDC (?) in this session we want to embolden many previous discussions. Because there's been many of them, and we are paving this way toward a better understanding of how these processes relate to one another. But specifically how we can harmonise strategies for coordinated implementation. And that's what we are going to talk about today.
We have a fantastic panel. I'm going to give your names later on. And I they can say a little bit more about themselves. We have Anita Gurumurthy, a member of Civil Society. And Amrita Choudhury as well. And online Jason Pielemeier from a multistakeholder global network, a membership organization and David Fairchild from the Government of Canada in the genie a mission very closely involved in all of this. And online we have Anita Gurumurthy from I.T. for change in India but also something called the Global Digital Justice Forum.
I want to introduce my colleague my online moderator, Valerie Betancourt, who leads the global work. And the interpreter, Bruna Santos. And from the ITU, also known as Ms. WSIS. I'm going it use that because someone -- and -- so really enjoy that level.
So before we start, I'm going to ask everyone now to get up. Put your bags down. Put your cell phones down. Most importantly, put your cell phones down or put them in your pock but take this with you.
I want you go into that open space at the back. Just stand around.
And I'm going to make you think work and talk. And walk. And we are going to do a spectogram exercise. Has anyone ever done a spectogram before. Remember with the IGF, you are here as individuals, are you not here as delegations even though you might think you are.
So you can just have a gut reaction. If you agree with that staple I want to you stand over there. If you disagree, violently over there, if you are uncertain just position yourself somewhere along an imaginary line.
I haven't said anything yet.
Okay. Here's the first statement the global digital exact provides exactly the agenda which the IGF need to become more focused and effective? If you agreeing over, there if you disagree, over there. If you think there's a little bit of both, somewhere in the middle.
Okay. Okay. Let me ask someone -- sorry to do this to you, Justin. But you are kind of just, I would say just offcenter left.
>> Yes.
>> MODERATOR: Why do you stand here? What is your view? Sort of the idea is as you listen to people -- I will ask other people can you put your hands up if you want to contribute.
If you feel that the response is making you shift your position a little bit, then move your body to shift, either you disagree even more or you actually fin yourself moving a little bit.
>> It's the GDC is a good outcome. I think it has a good plan, norms, principals, some of the commitments all of that is good. Some of the way forward. But if you -- it's still in a negotiated document and there was a lot of compromise from different folks in it. So ultimately I don't think it's perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I would still say if I'm in the center left camp here.
That it's fairly good and it's something than can be bill on going forward. On the IGF I think there's a lot for IGF. Some of this was commit it's through the IGF but some is how the IGF respond toes that much it's not what member states tells the IGF to do.
But there's work there and I think now does the IGF community agree there's work relevant for the community to take forward.
>> MODERATOR: If I was standing over there I think I would have moved a little bit. I think these agendas are what we make of them. Anyone on that side who disagrees that the GDC gives the IGF what it need, that want to share their view? No one here wants to speak. Flavio? No. Anyone else who wants to comment on this? Do you want to say anything?
>> Yeah, sorry. Swiss government. So my question would be where's the money for the IGF? For instance, so I think the GDC is a reasonable outcome for the negotiation it was. So it would have been much worse if we will look at the initial draft, for instance. But it leaves many things open. And now, similarly to what Justin said, the ball is in the air. We have to kick it into the right direction and the IGF community has a very important role to play there.
But I think on the substance, there are many interesting reasonable things we have to address. I'm completely in agreement with that. But on the architecture, I think there are some dangers there.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks, and Valerie, is there dominion line. If you were in the room, where would you stand? GDC gives IGF exactly the agenda it needs? Or you don't think so? Yes, Christine and then Anita.
>> ANITA GURUMURTHY: I would be leaning toward the right of the room but I might take a few steps. There's some truth to. That just not completely. So...
>> MODERATOR: And Christine just introduce yourself.
>> I'm Christine with the government of Egypt.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks, Christine. Anita.
>> ANITA GURUMURTHY: Thank you. I just want to say I would stand in the middle and agree with Jorge and Justin, because I think we must also -- for the object of the GDC was not to improve the direction of improving the IGF or make it effective. That was not stated objective. And I think of course where is the money is a very, very important question.
On the other hand, I do think that the GDC broadens the issues at stake for the inclusive informative society which the IGF and must take up.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks, knee tax I will ask Justin to introduce himself because I forgot to do that.
>> Sorry, Justin, the U.S. State Department.
>> MODERATOR: Now, the next statement is the concept of an inn exclusive people centered information society that came out of the WSIS is obsolete? Agree? On this side. Disagree on that side. I think people are right when they say IGF lacks diversity.
Okay. Anyone want to say why they are standing where they are standing?
There are quite a few people in the middle.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: My name is Amrita. While they talk about information society, I think it's still important, because many people -- many of the visions in the WSIS have not been met. We have not been connected. But the WSIS talks about the internet and how it is used so even if you are talking about digital technologies or any emerging technologies they come on the overview of how the internet is used. So you may use it different ways but the basic essence of WSIS still runs true. I would not call it obsolete. You may want to add a bit to it like information and digital societies like when they tried to do it. That's my take.
>> MODERATOR: Any of you -- I will come to you -- but are people still using the content of information in society as well or their own disciplines other their works or the concept of knowledge society?
>> In fact, we work very closely with UN agencies so we have expanded it into information and knowledge societies at the ITU, the council group on WSIS calls it information and knowledge societies to include UNESCO's work and -- so it's even more than that.
>> MODERATOR: In fact, I heard of IDG of UNESCO, they are linking data to data and information and how they relate to one another into transforming into knowledge. So they still have that concept there. Justin, yes, you actually are exactly the sail spot you were before. Diplomats?
>> I sit here because -- I somewhat agree. If you look back at the original WSIS documents, a lot of the norms and principals we have seen in evolution of those from -- you know through the years, including through WSIS plus ten and even more recently and GDC where that was updated and that was one of the key updates of WSIS. A lot F development plan has evolved over the years including with the SDGs on top of it which seems to have changed a lot of of the development.
And one key thing WSIS did was provide some framework on how different UN agency or stakeholders can develop. And how they cooperate and all of that has changed over the years. So I think in that way those that are purist and look back to the original, it seems to have way changed from early 2000ss on that.
But I agree, that just means it's an evolving process. And not to get too rigid in these Compaq outcomes from many years ago, because I think there is a lot that has been evolved since then. Updates, developments and new process, things of that nature. Which have kind of breathed new life into that. So the question going forward is how to do. That how to take a framework that has matured over the years, has changed and evolved, is still everything, but only if we can continue to strengthen and evolve it.
>> MODERATOR: Sorry you want us to move? People please come inside. We are nearly finished so I think it's fine. So anyone else who was standing on this more -- sort of this information society is an obsolete concept that wanted to add anything? Then I'm going to go to my last statement, which was -- none of them turned out to be as provocative as I hope they had woman but this one might.
The multistakeholder approach to digital cooperation entrenches existing dynamics of power and influence. The multistakeholder approach entrenches the status quo, existing dynamics of power and nuns in internet governance. If you agree over here. Somewhere in the middle, over there. If you disagree that the mull stakeholder approach entrenchers the power of dynamics and influence, over there. Are you willing to speak? Just introduce yourself.
>> Hi, I'm Nik from Vietnam. I think some people -- we talk more and more about this concept today, you now multistakeholders but from my background and in the region as well I feel it's still eccentric. So when we talk about that it poses a challenge to the existing system.
>> MODERATOR: Yeah, I this you there were a lot of people in civil society during WSIS who supported the stakeholder approach believing it would give them more power and influence, and I'm not sure they always feel they really got. That but anyone there who feels that the multistakeholder approach has created more inclusion, democratization, anyone who want to offer a view? Introduce yourself please.
>> Nigel from the Caribbean (?) union. If you look at the difference between the WSIS document and the GDC you see a lot more commitment in the the multistakeholder. So I think it just takes time, right. What the multistakeholder is trying to do is introduce the multilateral framework. You are seeing, I would say, influence, certainly. It's not something that will happen overnight. So I don't think it entrenches. I think it is working. But slowly to gain influence in the multilateral states.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks, Nigel. And I must say I follow your work quite closely and I what I see in the Caribbean is demonstration of how partnership and collaboration just deepens over time.
Anyone else who wants to respond to this statement? No? Anyone who supports the multistakeholder approach and want to add? Anita, please go head, and we will give it to one more person and you can all sit down.
>> ANITA GURUMURTHY: Okay. I agree with my colleague from Vietnam that there is always in the world -- you know power. And you know we are not starting on a fresh slate each day. So just like the power of the state, there is also the power of the market, and the power of big business. And power of business is not always the same. And one very important thing I would like to point toon interesting idea of multistakeholderism which was enunciated by (?) in 2014, not the 2021 one but the 2014 one that says Internet Governance should be sharing the meaningful park of all stakeholders the responsible and rules of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the flexible issue of discussion.
And therefore what I think is it's important that remember that multistakeholder is not one thing. Because for instance we can't change a monopoly intervention with stakeholder enter Vecks you need regulation. So the role of the state and regulation. For instance you condition run a community network with interference from the state. So you need communities.
So I really think it's extremely important to situate the idea of multistakeholderism in context and without context multistakeholderism is just an empty signifier.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks, Anita. I would just add one other thing, that I think it's important -- and I think the Paulo guidelines also point this out. Stakeholder groups are not monogenous. There is so much stakeholder groups within society in private society, the private sector is also very diverse. That is one thing we also need to keep in mind. Any last reflections on this topic? No. So you can sit down. I think a little moving around would be good but we didn't have much space. Thank you, everyone for participating in this exercise.
So everyone while you take your seats, I hope everyone can hear me. I like us to think and unpack in a little bit more detail and more concretely what about we mean by coordinated implementation followup and review, and ways of approaching this that takes us from WSIS to GDC and maybe back to WSIS again. Put however you see that.
The first question that I'm going to ask. Not a specific panelist. The panelists can decide who wants to respond. But the first question is -- where is this first question -- at the IGF -- this is part of the IGF process at the moment -- how do you see the IGF? But concretely, supporting these important processes that took place in 2024? We have the net plus 10 which produced these guidelines on how to deepen and strengthen multistakeholder processes within multilateral Internet Governance process and the pact of the future and part of the pact of the future is obviously the global digital compact which gave us these quite high level objectives and commitments and highlights some of the new and emerging areas that we are facing in digital governance.
So yes, anyone want to respond specifically how you see the IGF. I think there's probably a lot of consensus in this room that we want the IGF to be a key part of GDC followup and implementation but some concrete suggestions on how that can be done.
Any one of our speakers I don't know loon or in the room -- Amrita, please go ahead and take the first step and I invite the other panelists to respond.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Thank you, I'm taking a strap on strategy and many of you are part of that group. So this group has been trying to work a bit on it, and as a community we created a working -- -a-vision document for IGF. It's also there on the website. I'm not too sure where the link is. So there has been discussions on how the IGF can contribute not only to the GDC but also align with the business -- you know discussions and the others. So that in the coordinate coordinated way the IGF can work.
There are various steps which have been proposed in terms of action. For example to formalize IGF's evolution, try to make the IGF mold more strategic, and to also have, for example, a track where the implementation of GDC could be discussed in an open multistakeholder platform. Because even the GDC document recognizes the IGF, the national regional IGF and its entire ecosystem. So that's one. Even the south guidelines talk about -- the net one ten talks about the IGF being custodian to have more discussions on the I men takes of many of these -- how the multistakeholder process can be enhanced by others who want to actually improve upon the process, et cetera.
Similarly as I mentioned followup track of the GDC is something which has been spoken about. And how complimentary relationships with the other WSIS partner institutions could be developed and strengthened. I would urge all of to you look at the vision document. I think the communities come up with fairly a good one which is a bit more actionable. You are welcome to give more comments and I will leave it at that for now.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Amrita. And maybe just to take a step backwards and ask the panelists -- and actually if as many of you can respond to this as possible. When we talk about Jason wants to speak. We talk about the harmonising of strategies for implementation and followup for WSIS and the GDC, what is it actually that we are talking about? When we say there needs to be coordination. That we need to avoid duplication.
What is it that we feel should be coordinated? There's so many different elements of this process. There's participating, there's implementation and planning, followup, collaboration, partnerships. There's also gathering evidence and research and identifying problems.
So what do you think are the key processes where we need to facilitate a more harmized approach? Jason, do you want to start off with that? I know are you speaking from a multistakeholder organization's perspective. Do you want to respond to the IGF question? You are welcome to respond to the IGF question.
>> JASON PIELEMEIER: Thanks. That's what I had mentioned in the chat when I asked for comments on that. So I will touch on that and maybe it helps they did a good job at identifying it at a stage earlier before the GDC had been concluded. I think a lot of what people had in mind at that moment was the GDC.
And the GDC went through a number of rounds of evolution and negotiation, including opportunity for public comment, and thankfully end up in a place with what many in the community saw as a potential duplication was ironed out and we ended up avoiding creating new forums in spaces, which is particularly important as the (?) principals and outcome document indicate because of the challenges that stakeholders in particular -- stakeholders from global majority, stakeholders coming from civil society have a lot of challenges from a resource perspective in tracking, engaging, travelling to and participating in multiple processes simultaneously.
So I'm pleased we were able to avoid some of that duplication at the end. But I think there are still many open questions about the extend to which the GDC and its followup will be coordinated with WSIS. And I think as the (?) principals noted, the IGF is probably one of the best ways in which to ensure that coordination. Not just the annual IGF, but of course the regional and national IGFs which create a continuing existing well known set of spaces where a diverse range of stakeholders have proven to be able to come together to address a pretty wide range of important digital issues.
So to me the role of the IGF an ongoing mechanism of engagement. The IGF doesn't have a narrow mandate by any means so the substance and focus of what stakeholders engage in with the IGF is questionable. And the question going forward and this lead to your question, what and can we specifically be focusing on, what are the tracks whether using existing dynamic coalitions or thinking about new process, division document is clearly an important piece of this puzzle. What are the specific thing that we as part of the IGF community can now do to ensure that not own WSIS and the principals and objectives behind that prose is but also the GDC, continue to move forward in a coordinated and as participatory as possible manner.
So you know that all start I think with the need to renew the mandate for the IGF which is critical. We shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. That still needs to happen and in the context of the WSIS review. And the importance of resources. The IGF has done an incredible amount in terms of the number of people its brought together and the number of coverings conversations and the topic its addressed with a fairly shoestring budget. So if we are going to ask the IGF to bolster its role as this (?) tissue-in these projects it needs to be resourced firstly and effectively.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks a lot for that, Jason. Anita, I see you watch to respond to my question but what it is, particularly from a civil society perspective that you feel should be coordinated.
>> ANITA GURUMURTHY: Thanks. I think the question has two parts. What should be coordinated and Y. and I think you put it extremely succinctly. It's extremely complex and therefore how to get to it should be guided by what is the imperative. So imperative here is -- in our view, if I could -- I would dare on behalf of some civil organizations. The business does remain, in some ways I think the modern framework.
And I do think there is an abiding vision in WSIS. And maybe I'm a hopeless romantic but when I say the information society I think we have a long way to go. But the very fact that the global community could commit to it, today the what of coordination and harmonization is just grown exponentially. So we really need to look at the data and the revolution and that is why the GDC took a timely approach to flag the what. And I would say that updating the WSIS action lines, for instance, through ideas of standards for digital public goods.
What are the common standards? What are the ethical standards? And also looking at platform services and addressing the fragmentation of network standards and looking at democratic integrity and expressing hate speech and look at the agenda and saying what are the rule based arrangements for data sharing at a global, regional, national and sub national levels to achieve the SDGs. These are some whats. But I think more important than the what for harmonization and coordinatization are two very important issues with the why.
The first is without coordination and without harmonization we would not be able tole realize the vision of quality and inclusion. So therefore coordination is very, very important to address the inequity that the GDC roidses is characterized -- characteristic of the information society. And we do need, I think, to pay attention to this kind of inequity.
And the second reason why is the conclusion and participation and the rightful agency civil society requests a renewed commitment at this conjuncture and I think there, if I might say, the GDC falls short a little bit. It hasn't been very vocal in its commitment, or to renew its commitment to the park of civil society.
And here we need 21st century imagination. And that's why we think of the WSIS and cherish the memories of 2003 and '05. Because the Civil Society says the document will not do so we need a transparent government of GDC at all levels and this is one of the whys for justifying increased coordination and harmonization I will leave it at that.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks a lot, Anita. And I think it's fine to be a hopeless romantic about businesssy. I know of at least three WSIS relationships that are still going on and two WSIS baby as we used to refer to them. And they are now young adults. And Jorge you wanted to respond and David too. So let's hear what you think about focusing on harmonising and coordinating in this process from a government perspective and from a Jorge perspective.
>> JORGE CANCIO: Thank you, so Jorge Cancio from the Western European Group. We are talking about babies. The GDC is a baby of WSIS. So when it did start in 2017 in go Nivas we had a discussion about updating the digital corporation and we had a high level panel on digital cooperation and the GDC after some years, the pandemic and everything.
As Anita said, the GDC gives some impulses on the what we have to do. So data governance, meaningful connectivity nowadays. Human rights, Artificial Intelligence, governance, so many things.
And what is the role of the IGF in that game? So that was also the question. I would Zoom out and say -- the IGF -- you condition just talk about the IGF. Because the IGF is part of the Swiss army knife that is composed by the WSIS architecture. And the WSIS architecture are parts that are about mandates of organizations like the ITU, who have been under WSIS investigating hundreds of millions into connectivity and into capacity building and into outreaching to many countries. It is the action lines and there is also UNESCO, all the UN organizations. You have the USTC which is the followup where memberships meet but also stakeholders meeting to and give a feedback to the UN system.
In New York we have the WSIS forum where we looking everywhere where the action lines stand, where we can update things. And then we have the IGF. And the IGF you have to see it in the context of that Swiss army knife. And it is there to have an open discussion on equal footing to identify emerging topics that have completely valid today, I think.
And what is especially needed is to avoid a proliferation of processes. So if you have a Swiss army knife and something doesn't work you try to improve it. You try to get the blade again, that it cuts properly, whatever. But you don't take another Swiss army knife. And then you don't know which one to use. And you spend your time in that.
So I think it's time to use this impulse to update WSIS but not only the IGF, the whole of the architecture and there I think the (?) guidelines can give us inspiration. Because it's not only about multistakeholder processes like the IGF or ICAN. It's more about more traditional multistakeholder processes where we can learn the test betting of IGF and other forums have been doing for 20 years. Thank you.
>> DAVID FAIRCHILD: Can you hear me? Great. Dave Fairchild. I'm first is being at our mission in Geneva. One of -- probably half dozen or more diplomats who cover horizontally digital issues. So I have a privilege of covering a number of UN and multilateral process. I will try to be succinct so we can move on to other questions. I have asked this question before, what is the difference between CSIS 2005, 2015 and 2025. If you answer that yourself, you ask answer yet GDC exists you can draw whatever answers away from.
It but the GDC reflected the needs of some member states who felt that the WSIS or the architecture was missing the boat on certain areas.
So the negotiations of the GDC really reflecting unfortunately, yes, a multilateral process. I think we all have a chin wag offline about how multistakeholder it wasp but nevertheless we were all at the table as member states and signed on to what is the GDC. So we can't go back in history and change it whether we want to or not. But what I think is critical to understand is there were member states who were actively undermining the IGF, actively mining ICAN and actively undermining the governance model that existed to. You won't see that in the news you won't see that in the final document.
But I think if you talk to member states and they are willing to he will you a little bit more, what you didn't see was probably more important than what you saw as the final product. Because what you did see of the negotiations was a clear differentiation of an ideological view of the future of the internet and how it should be governed. How the digital space needs to exist going forward.
And I think that's kind of bringing me -- I think that's one of the most critical things that people need to understand. It is not all rose coloured glasses and status quo anti and we move along and renew and thing will carry on as they. I think the second point here is -- as a like-minded five eyes G7 chair country, Canada, needs to recognize that there are valid needs that have been identified through the GDC that we need to take care of.
And I think that's where the impetus to take a real serious look at the WSIS process -- not necessarily talking about updating the act lines but I think we need to see whether they are still fit for purpose and how they need to reflect some of the demands that have been coming forward.
And the IGF, frankly was under and remains under attack. I don't want to diminish the point. Amplify it too high. If you go and look at the UN general assembly, '799ICT development resolution that was just passed. There was a very minor voted change to diminish the language that was greed in the GDC six weeks ago on how we refer to the IGF. The G77 put forward a vote to diminish -- to take out the word the IGF as the primary multistakeholder forum. They boat voted to have the primary removed so these are small data points. But on an aggregation level seem to suggest that for whatever reason there are certain countries and certain blocks who have a different view of what the IGF is or isn't and where it should go in the future.
We tried to negotiation for the IGF to be permanentized but we were not successful. So how do we necessitate our negotiations but how do we carry this forward for 2025.
I'm trying to give you something new to play with. So we don't just hear the same-old, same-old we heard from multiple workshops over the previous days. So I think the other part we need to really pay attention to is how does the WSIS review and GDC implementation play into the long game which is the 2030 is the SCG review. And there are 340 references to development as a word search. Which is to suggest what is it that we are trying to address. And I think what we are looking at is a convergence of a different time, digital ran on its own track and there was the analog development world on another track and they ran in parallel and we had the WSIS action lines and -- well the millennium development goal business became the strainable development goals. We are seeing a converge Ann we are living in a digitized 21st century. And we need to take a step back and look at the architecture. And yes, Canada does not believe we need to duplicate.
We are looking for efficiency. And I think the system as exists is more than cape Alberta and the IGF is a 20-year established and trusted, but there are membered states who say well it only discusses Internet Governance. They seem to forget the half of the same programme would its agenda which says the IGF is responsible for considering digital public policy issues.
Every new issue can find a home in the IGF as well as we are willing to consume the existing language. I will stop there.
>> MODERATOR: I am out of the Zoom. Just tell me, my Zoom disconnected. Does Jason want to react? Jason want to react. Jason do you want to react directly to David? Because I think he want to give his perspective but go ahead, Jason. Let's hear from you first.
>> JASON PIELEMEIER: I just put a comment. I will read it out one but plus 1 to David's point that I think should really help us focus on the WSIS plus 20. I this I there's perhaps a tenancy with GDC and other thing to sort of take our eye off of the ball here.
The WSIS plus 20 should be an opportunity not only to expand the mandate of the IGF but to strengthen that mandate and strengthen the institution of the IGF. But that's not guaranteed, right. That is going to depend on the conversations and the negotiations that happen this year. And you know I think we need to redouble our focus on that.
Because if we don't, there is a chance -- as David eluded to, there are some who I think would push for the IGF to be weakened. And I think that would take us in the wrong direction. So I just wanted to foot stomp on that point quickly and hand it back to you.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks, Jason. But I think I also heard David say -- and maybe I didn't hear correctly. But this is not -- when we talk about the what to use Anita's framing, the what is not just the the IGF. There's a bigger what. And a longer term what out there as well. And it also sound to he mushing David, from what you are saying that a big part of the what is building the kind of commonality and collaboration that WSIS did manage to achieve between north and south and between the developed and the developing world.
And it does -- and I think it's wise of you to have reminded us that things are more fragmented in some ways. And you work in the IGF and in the process and in the UN itself. From your perspective it is most important what and why?
>> Thank you. You know what WSIS for us has really on about the UN in action in terms of the cooperation. The beautiful framework of the WSIS action lines that we implement based on our mandates are like WHO has (?) and UNESCO has the societies one.
So it's a beautiful framework that all UN agencies are working together to implement. So to strengthen Anita's point we should really build the -- bill on this framework and the strength that we have. And it's really not true that the action lines are very outdated. Because if you look at the WSIS forum page you will see that the WSIS action lines are being updated in terms of -- like the emerges trends, the opportunities and challenges every year by the UN agencies involved. So you can see very, very beautiful presentations on the evolution of the context of each act line. And what are the emerging trend. So you can have a look at it online.
Also in terms of the existing mechanisms and we have been saying that a couple of times. WSIS forum and IGF are the successes of the WSIS where multistakeholders have the platform to voice their opinions and to be a part of the UN process. So really the businesses is review gives us an opportunity to look at it.
And from the UN perspective, as the agency Americanism of the UN called it, the United Nations group information society, that is really an effective mechanism and that should be bit on and used by the UN system.
So we have rotational chairmanship at the same time along with the reasonable commission and more than 35 members of the chief executive board. So the frameworks and the systems are all in place. And we should definitely utilize them.
The other thing that brought back memories in the previous session is -- again what you and Anita have been talking British Columbia you know, that we have bill this community -- you know to this point that now we are talking about things like emerging technologies like AI, but where did we start? In 2006, 2007? We really have to remember that effort, especially by a Civil Society the open source movement and the indigenous languages and the cultural aspects that UNESCO has been doing. You know with the IDRC we actually set up these telecentres in India, in the villages in India where we were look at how post offices could be converted into telecentres where they could provide E-government services. Distance learning was a revolution in so many countries where young girls could actually study because of distance education you know.
So we really need to also think of what we have achieved on the ground. All of us who have been working together. So hard for all of these years. And of course we have evolved from aural of those technologies to now we are talking about AI, meta, new emerging technologies. But we really need to think about those challenges that we pace faced and overcame as well. Community radio stations, Anita will know about them. That we built in villages that provided information to thevillages you know. So we have come a long way and we must commend the community for that s a well.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks a lot for that, and I think the sad thing is we have come a long way but also when it comes to digital inclusion we have not come nearly far enough.
And many of those challenges still remain. We now have less than 10 minutes left. I'm going to take two inputs from the audience very briefly. And then I'm going to ask the panel to share their closing comments with them. So I see a hand. Anyone else who wants to comment from the audience? No. Nigel. So you have to be very brief. Because we have got less than 5 minutes left so a bite sides comment.
>> QUESTION: Yes, I don't want to repeat many thing that have been said so I will concentrated if we want to coordinate, go back to there. We need to focus that each process should focus in their unique characteristic. The WSIS forum should focus in the unique characteristic. The IGF should focus in its unique characteristic.
I'm not going into that now. Because we don't have time. But -- in order to be efficient with what -- from WSIS, the framework from WSIS we have to make it efficient and each one to what it has. Including the Intergovernmental process and the study. If each one focused in their own characteristic without duplicating then we would need to create the communicating Lynx between all of them in order to be efficient.
>> MODERATOR: Nigel?
>> Yes, thank you. Can you hear me? I'm Nigel from the CTU again. I'm just wondering if the IGF could be the primary multistakeholder or just mural stakeholder gathering or whatever, could be the multistakeholder place where we develop targets for the implementation of the GDC. The GDC is kind of high level stuff. And maybe in this multistakeholder space we could identify what are some of the specific thing we want to see done under the GDC by a particular time. So we develop some performance.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks a lot, Nigel. It feels to me that we needed much more time for this session but many sessions feel like that.
But just to close this and maybe pave the way for further work I want to ask each of the panelists to -- firstly do you think that the IGF should change its name to the Digital Cooperation Forum, and just a yes or no response and what I want you to close with are what are your fears and your hopes for this process of harmonising GDC and WSIS implementation? I want to you start with your fear.
Can you still hear me? Good. Start with your fear and end with a hope. So let's start with our online speakers, Jason why don't you go first. Change the name or not. Yes or no. And your fear and your hope.
>> JASON PIELEMEIER: No. And my fear is the IGF as we talked about -- you know it depends on its strength is drawn from the broadened range of stakeholders who are able to participate in it across the issue IGF even but the national and regional ones and all the intersessional work so hosting IGF in countries where women and LGBTQIA+ people are discriminated against or harassed. That works directly counter to that strength.
It weakens the IGF. And it is -- I don't think unintentional by any means.
So that is a fear that I have, that the IGF will cooperative and diluted and acknowledge that that is happening and there are countries working again the IGF, its renewal and efforts to strengthen it.
My hope is we are the mum stakeholder community that support the IGF can resist that, can push back on that, and I think that's going to take a lot of work. But I'm encouraged by the process and encouraged by sessions like this one. Encouraged by all the incredible work that people in this room virtually and in person do. And I hope we can continue to work together even if we don't always agree on every topic to support and strengthen the IGF going forward.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks, Jason. Anita.
>> ANITA GURUMURTHY: Thank you. My answer is -- I don't know. I mean I'm -- what's in a name but I want to answer the question what is in fear and hope by what is understanding from our contributor from the government of Canada. I think for a civil society, we are caught at a moment politically in -- at this point in tile between very, very scary geo politics and greedy GEO economics.
It's really frightening, I think. And therefore somebody said we are not in an epoch of libbism as so many new movements so get caught in the E lib risk. We have the worst of both. E-liberal politics and the greed of corporations.
So in my view I would like a better understanding among stationed states a better understanding around peoples but like Jorge said, regardless of whether it's good practices in multistakeholderism or good practices in others like the bi bi-diversity connection which has benefits sharing mechanisms with communities and indigenous peoples. We really need to look at international solidarity as a unifying principal. And I'm not first one to speak about it.
And I really, really think we should go beyond that blocks and -- you know I'm quite happy to question the G77 in my own government for the healthy politics you know.
At some level I think we they'd to understand why people are doing what they are doing and what they are trying to protect, right. And an AI economy where most people are left behind. So we reject bad politics and we reject very poor economics. What we really want is a solidarity vision of interdepend R dependences and mutual reciprocity.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks, Anita. Amrita?
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: I agree to what Anita mentioned and what Jason mentioned. And there are gaps not necessarily new structures and we need to look back and see the reach we have currently. If you look at the IGF and its structure it's huge. If you are saying the IGF is not working on new thing, look at what, for example the policy network on EI or internet fragmentation is doing. We challenge the days when the reports come out, who is viewing it? Is it going to the necessary governments to see that they also reflect.
PNEI are work on developing nations, labour which are critical for the developing countries. Are the messages going? There are many things, many of them meetings to strengthen the IGF. But have they really implemented. Obviously the leadership panel have come in and multi- year but how much more has it been used by the member states am I think that's also important. There are programmes, but you can use these platforms, so I would say use existing resource, and I will leave it at that.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks a lot.
>> DAVID FAIRCHILD: I will be very quick.
>> MODERATOR: You have about 3 minutes. You can relax.
>> DAVID FAIRCHILD: I'm not particular to the name. I think it's what colour the cat is in what catches the statement. My fear is we are witnessing a centralization and a New York fiction which in some parts is justified for the multilateral system but is being done at the detriment of the existing system. And I will leave it there.
Because I think what we are suffering from is from a collective proximity bias. It's like what have you done for me lately, oppose posed to what has WSIS done over 20 years. And my hope I will leave with that we wake up in time to sort of realized that IGF actually does serve the entire community but -- and in that -- in fact one of our positions is by stabilizing the funding and stabilizing the IGF we can actually bring it to where the voices need to be heard. This is a very homogenous community at the IGF, and we struggle every year to bring the different voices and different opinions around the table because you can't make a pearl without sand.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks, David.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Amrita. I feel the hope on the digital agency we stand by providing support not only to membered state but we have sector membership, act deem york so we are there to support and to ensure that there is the process going forward is multistakeholder and -- you know that in the vision of WSIS beyond 2025 we do see some of these strengths and foundations of WSIS.
>> JORGE CANCIO: Thank you. So to the brand for many years it's been the digital governance forum. If the rebranding is good for branding purposes, let's be open about it.Ed my fear the entire WSIS system or the UN system doesn't deliver on the promises on really having a digital presence where nobody is left out. And one fear there is that this proliferation of processes therefore make the inclusivity and the work more difficult.
And the hope is really the creativity of this and many other communities in being able to find solutions together. And I think that what what creativity that we have witnessed many times here in the the IGF, we are able to update the global architecture, which is just a means to deliver on the goals we want to have to have a digital fair present and future.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Jorge. And I'm really sorry that we ran a bit over time. And I think -- if there's one key takeaway here is that there's a lot more to be said about the what. And I think also about the how. But I think the one key takeaway for me from your inputs in this session -- and I lost my Zoom connection, so I want to apologize to online comments that we have not included.
But I think the lesson here is even after 20 years, more if we add Geneva, of WSIS implementation we are still grappling with issues of power, inclusion and with delivery and implementation. We recognize the strengths of the mural stakeholder approach. We recognize its weakness. And I think we do see the IGF as a place where we can address that. And we have seen (?) as one of the tools we can use. So for me any new process that is trying to set up and enter this arena of digital cooperation really needs to keep in mind the complexity. And and can we really afford to start new processes which after 20 years will be at this moment of learning and realization and solidarity and lack of solidarity that we are at now. We really can do better, I think.
So let's continue the discussion and let's use our WSIS and our IGF processes to do that. So thank you very much, everyone for your participation and thanks to everyone in the room. And thanks to our tech peoplele. I apologies and thanks to Jason and Anita and all the online participants.
>> JASON PIELEMEIER: Thank you for having me.