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.
>> ANTHONY WONG: Hi, Shamika.
>> SHAMIKA SIRIMANNE: Hi, Anthony. How are you?
>> ANTHONY WONG: (?) I think it's the feedback coming from the microphone in the room.
>> SHAMIKA SIRIMANNE: Ah, okay. Now it seems to be okay.
>> ANTHONY WONG: Yeah. It stopped.
>> That was me.
>> EDWARD SANTOW: That was me. I became the co‑host and I just muted IGF5. People in the room can't participate.
>> ANTHONY WONG: Sorry. Did you say you mute the room?
>> EDWARD SANTOW: Yeah. I just muted IGF5 room, which is where that sound was coming from, which means that we don't have (?). But those people won't be able to participate now.
>> ANTHONY WONG: Okay. Let's wait for the tech support to see what other solutions they have. They must have counted this problem because it is already day 2 of the conference. (loud buzzing sound) it must not be you then, Ed.
>> EDWARD SANTOW: I think they unmuted themselves.
>> ANTHONY WONG: Okay.
>> ANTHONY WONG: Ton you can hear us clearly? Okay. That's great. So I'll hang up. So Ed and Shamika, (?) mentioned all is clear to commence.
>> SHAMIKA SIRIMANNE: Yeah.
>> ANTHONY WONG: Thank you, Sofera. Thank you. So welcome, everybody, for our next session, apologize for the technical divvies ‑‑ difficulties. Ply name is Anthony Wong and I'm dialing in from Sydney. Today we have Ed Santow who is the Australian human rights Commissioner and he's also joining us from Sydney. And joining us from Geneva is Shamika who heads the U.S. secretariat for signs and technology and also director untag. So welcome to our panelists and speakers. My apologies again for the late start. We look at issues from the ‑‑ from the northern to the south to the east and west. And, ah, to celebrate our anniversary. ‑‑ the AI learnings from all his works over the years. We looked at the rembrandt project with the master art looking to create new work from Rembrandt. AI‑DA gives evidence. You will see a participating of the late queen that was painted by IA‑DA robot herself. This particular inquiry to the house of Lords created controversy. It shows you the shaping of where we're going with the technology.
So my presentation is really collective of a series of things that I have done over the last few years in writing a column on the Australian on AI for a number of years. And this talk short session that I'm giving is really a compilation of the lectures given in the Australian employment and in other parts of Asia, Geneva and (inaudible) and Brazil and Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe and also you can get more details of my talk on the two publication from springer, which I have listed on this page.
A as I mentioned, I spoke in Cambodia recently in AI and employment. I know Shamika will be speaking on the perspective of the developing countries shortly. And this particular issues with employment in developing countries were mentioned in the recent report by untack on technology innovation 2021 and I noticed there was a huge coverage on labor and labor skills and robots and AI replacing labor in developing countries. So just like to highlight when I get this talking Cambodia. We look at how robots and Artificial Intelligence might displace workers working in the field in the Aussie region.
And recently, I spoke on IP and AI at the Asia conference in Sydney, which was also briefly touched on by untack's report on technology and innovation particularly in terms of the diffusion and the sharing of intellectual property from the north to the south. My paper was published and we look at this particular study by felt. We're looking at study where they look at 36 principles across the board of and you can see on the slide how one particular area is much more mentioned than others. It is particularly a discrimination 100%f those principles that were locked at and privacy at 97%. But what about ethics? In one of my talks ‑‑gave a talk of ethics and that was a perspective for me because I had to share my technology and legal perspective on AI to a group of Buddhists learning ethics in the area of their faith. And that really struck me in terms of the diversity about ethics ‑‑ you look at four different values unsiated in that Declaration alone ‑‑ declaration alone. There is peacefulness and InterConnected society and risk for human rights and dignity.
Ethics from UNESCO declaration covers ten principles. They are pretty broad and they have extended past the what I have shown you in the previous principles across the board. Here we look at number 10 particularly which is perhaps new from the principle perspective look will at really multi‑stakeholder engagement in the formulation of the principle and the governance and collaboration.
In terms of the policy areas covered by the UNESCO declaration also covering 11 areas of policy very much broader than what's in the typical frameworks that we have seen in the past. And particularly recently, we have just last month alone, the U.S. White House's release a blue print for AI Bill of rights. This is a voluntary framework and it covers broad areas of principles in the area of AI particularly from the White House.
So where we have ethics framework and in terms of where we're moving on to next. I think the biggest challenge is look at how we translate and embrace those values into action and I think Ed will be talking more about that when he speaks at the next session. I think the debate that we have seen since 2017 on ethics and frameworks have matured significantly. We look at principles to cover a lot of human rights issues, issues to do with inclusiveness, sharing of technology and innovation, but then the challenge still remains how do we actually operate and implement this in terms of actually putting into effect and how we actually when we look at designing, developing AI systems. So with this new trend, we see now a trend particularly to legal and law development around the AI area moving from the ethical practice to a more rule base compliance area.
So looking at the wider system over the last year particularly 2022 and 2021, we have seen more than 60 countries have developed policies on AI in this area. We have seen laws starting to be proposed and I will go to one of two of those to illustrate where we're at. And we see numerous AI standards being developed and assessment framework and also many professional societies such as IFIP and the ACM are starting to look at current representatives for professional practice. But in particular, I like to suspend some time looking at this regulatory developments. The UNESCO recommendation it said in one of their declaration statements about this principles that this ‑‑ they're hoping that their framework of values and principles that we have just seen and the action policy areas will be used by member states over 193 countries in the member states to when they come to do with developing and drafting their legislation in this area.
So also just quite recently this year, we have seen Canada proposing a new law Artificial Intelligence and data and also the U.S. also announced a revision of their previously proposed law on accountability act.
But perhaps significantly in the legal space in 2021, the EU after many years of debate had moved to proposed dropped legislation in this AI area and that has lots of debates going on in the EU Parliament and Council particularly to this complex area of law. We have regulated other intelligence in the European union. So recently, I look at the new version that's been proposed by the check presidency of the EU. They have looked at some significant changes. We have seen potentially some delays in getting this particular legislation through the EU currently the dates proposed to be late next year or the early year after.
So particularly a challenge is the definition of Artificial Intelligence which has gone through many iterations and with the latest iteration from November 2022, we have seen the revised draft changes potentially from what was previously drafted to include areas like (?). So the question is what are elements of autonomy required for the legislation in EU to be bigger and cover Artificial Intelligence. So I think this area in terms of definition will be hugely bigger for many years to come. And UNESCA from the IT perspective, I would say that's a wise decision. But speaking also as a lawyer, it would be very difficult to regulate AI if you don't have a robust definition of Artificial Intelligence moving forward.
In the U.S. alone, there's no federal legislation in the area apart from the one that I just mentioned which has been proposed. The U.S. accountability act 2022 mentioned previously that's been proposed in 2019. This is a new version of this particular draft. The U.S. states themselves have many laws now to do with AI from recruitment to facial recognition laws from biometrics to self‑driving cars to ultimate decision making authorities. So these are some snap shots of what's happening in the regulatory space. So some what concluding remarks around this area. I believe they have important roles in the creation policies and regulatory frameworks, but what we have seen countries are now at different levels of AI ecosystem. The area of regulation is still very much in its infancy. It is fragmented and changing and that's likely going to go forward for many years to come. Some difficulties that I have mentioned different AI as now have been created across many walks of life and it covers many fields. The post (?) benefits and they create different issues. So compounding that with the different emerging technologies, not just AI from mull‑diverse metaverse to IoT block in that and many others we have seen that it's just not going to be easy to regulate something that's just moving as fast as we can draft legislation.
So it's a complex area. Many countries are still not looking at the areas of liability. I think this is still very new. We know about expandability and transparency because it's been covered by a lot of those ethical frameworks moving fast. But I can see my concluding remarks because of the complex modeling and machine algorithms that we have and the learning from data that's going to create a big complexity moving forward to regular AI. But whether the case I think we have to see lightly going to be more of those laws coming in the future.
So my last slides on my three last concluding remarks. This AI matter is causing a major paradigm shift. There will be substantive change in the relation to the principles of what our laws are based on when we have machines and tools which are starting to learn from data adapt and make decisions which I think learning from experience which I will put in quotations because we have not really to this date have been sent in this stage or in the near future. The pace of technology, my second point that I mentioned because it is moving so fast that telling be challenging to regulate something moving as fast as we can put pen to paper. But then, the challenge is people are negatively impacted by decisions and obviously we had laws that would be difficult for them to challenge because of the complexity and technical around AI and emerging technologies.
So in that regard, I will finish my introduction statement and I would like now to pass over to Ed, the former human rights Commissioner of Australia. Ed, I am sharing my screen. Happy for you to take over to talk about the human rights and the technology discourses that you worked on over the last few years.
>> EDWARD SANTOW: Thank you very much, Anthony, for that warm introduction. It's a great pleasure to join you. I'm speaking from Australia but this event has been hosted physically in Ethiopia and I have received a number of representations from the members of the community expressing concern about this holding and giving the ongoing conflict. I will speak briefly on indulgence about that. I know that in September of this year, the UN human rights Council received a report from the international commission of human rights commission which found reasonable grounds to believe more crimes against humanity had been committed especially in the (?) region. I certainly don't claim any special knowledge about those matters beyond what's been publicly reported, but I do respectfully acknowledge the representations and deep concern that I have received.
With that, I will return to the focus of my observations about Artificial Intelligence.
So in my former role as human rights Commissioner for Australia, I led a major project on the human rights and border social implications of AI. Over the three years beyond the Taub, what I understand to be the most extensive public consultation anywhere in the world on what the rise of AI meant for us as a community here in Australia, but perhaps more broadly as well.
I want to start with a few key insights from that consultation. The first, which I found fascinating was the people told us they felt they were living in two different worlds at the same time. And those were Utopian and distonian worlds. On one hand, they can see how AI and are the technologies can make their lives better. Examples communication and almost endless list. Take for example people who are or have a vision impairment. You have a Smartphone. You can hold your Smartphone up and almost literally, you can see the world around you. You can have it described to you. People who are blind reported to us that was almost revolutionary change for the better. And that is hugely exciting because Artificial Intelligence that makes that possible is becoming more widely available.
On the of the hand, people are increasingly becoming aware and reported to us their risks associated with artificial intelligence. Perhaps the greatest concern or the most common concern that was raised with us in lay terms is we heard this many, many times. People saying to us I am just starting to realize that my personal information can be used against me. It's quite a profound concern because one it speaks to the idea that how personal data is indeed, what is fueling the rise of AI. And alrhythmic bias can be unlawful discrimination. That can involve decisions that are deeply unfair and sometimes unlawful based on things you can't control. Particular attributes refer to inadequate 26 political rights such as your age or gender or your race or skin color. There was concern that availability and especially the benefits of AI were not evenly distributed across the community. Shamika will explore that phenomena. So I don't want to steal her thunder, but even in a weathery world like Australia, socioeconomic status was important in experience in AI and other new technology. A number of people have observed with every industrial revolution there is a disspiriting phenomena and that is the new technology tends to be Beta tested on the most vulnerable people in our community. And in many ways, that's indeed, been the case. Here in Australia, we have a number of examples of debt collection, initiatives done by federal and state governments that have vulnerable people. There's been an enormous amount of literature especially in North America and Europe identifying several problems. That is something we need to be focused on.
In terms of chatting away forward, there was skepticism. Sometimes quite deep skepticism in the community about the discourse on AI and ethics. The notion that companies and governments should look primarily to their own ethical principles to address legitimate concerns to a quality, privacy and other human rights and too many people like an excuse for an action. Indeed, there have been over 500 frameworks or ethics principles developed over the last five years. Are per so with that back drop and the last thing I will say in my prepared remarks, the Australian human rights commission published a report and we worked with other human rights institutions around the world in this regard. Just pull out three key recommendations and findings. The first is that the primary duty of states and the international community with compliance with each national human rights law and development and use of AI. So the proper role of AI ethics is provide guidance whether silent or unclear. Secondly, we challenged the idea that we are right now living in a digital wild west which is another way of saying there are no laws that apply to AIhad and other e merging technology. Our view on the contrary was international and domestic human rights law is applicable and can be well adapted to the development and use of AI. The main problem, however, has been a failure to apply or enforce the laws rigorously, effectively and consistently. We certainly did not oppose the development and use of Artificial Intelligence, but he did say that governments and companies needed to pay greater heed to their legal and especially the human rights obligations when it comes to the development and use of AI. And that essentially it boils town to applying three key principles. The development use of AI, it must be fair, must always be accurate and it must always be accountable. So with that, I'm going to end my prepared remarks and hand it back.
>> ANTHONY WONG: Thank you. Before I pass this back to the questions, I would like to introduce Shamika. We'll be sharing perspective from the developing countries. Shamika, over to you.
>> SHAMIKA SIRIMANNE: Thank you. Thank you, Anthony. Just let me start saying I think what you both say is a time of rapid technology and Ed, you even said it can be the wild west kind of scenario. So in this challenging time, the question that should be in everyone's hind, those in governments, Private Sector and academia is how to be competitive in this ever changing world of technology and at the same time, contribute to ethical, exclusive that is so badly needed in our world.
Just to give you an understanding of a picture of how fast these technologies are moving, according to estimates, technologies such as AI, robotics, AIT, blockchain and other technologies sorted with this so‑called (?) represented 350 billion U.S. market in 2020. And? Suggests, we have some estimates to say it could grow to over 3.2 trillion dollars by 2025. So within five years from 3 billion market dollar to a 3.2 trillion dollar market. So this is how fast they go.
So this new technology wave will enhance it task base ever present technology and enable interaction with technology coupled on human and machine partnerships augmenting potential. Ed, you mentioned many areas well where there can be amazing technologies AI can bring. You both said that our grave concerns about ethical application of AI. We know very well biases within assistance has risen in several ways either because they're employed by algorithms or use bias data for training. That's the reality.
So there is this one study found that being signed into a Google account as a woman reduced the likelihood of seeing advertisements for higher paying positions. Take me I'm a woman and I have a very strange name and I go on Google and I'm dark and I go on Google and I look for a job. I will not be, you know, not be shown this high point positions. So I would then like to make two points for consideration for all of you and propose two questions around these issues. First, AI algorithms are being developed on data set s and con text that mostly leave out the people. The Google example. The economies and the cultures of developing countries. In the current state of affairs, AI tools can crate more power symmetries. In international relations, this is something we're handling. For example, if they are used to support multi‑lateral negotiations. So my first question is the following. Given that AI does not currently reflect most of the world, is it ethical to allow it to have an increasing role in managing global systems? So this is a question I would like to pose to you. You know, we all know that it is critical to establish critical frameworks and regulations for these technologies. Anthony, you told us what's being done and, you know, where the progress is. So for two years ago, we kind of painstakingly gathered ethical frameworks and guidelines for AI. This forced our technology and innovation report. Anthony, you mentioned that 2021. We found 167 ethical frameworks and they're done by Private Sector forms and some academics and we also found inconsistencies and contradictions and it was very clear that there is a need for a more comprehensive and coherent framework. So based on that finding, my second point for consideration for all of you is that in the absence of an effective international nomattic framework, most developing countries are left without real alternatives for AI integration. The open option is for them to add frameworks developed by others that you mentioned in the U.S. and Canada and these are not totally oust context for low‑income countries or self‑regulation by the platforms that control the data used to feed algorithm and that's not an option either.
Perhaps I think, Anthony, we started having this discussion. Maybe we need to explore more. Adapt an open innovation approach for AI, in which inputs matters and results of innovation are shared with the teams and then the teams can use their further innovation and also serve as additional pair of eyes to ensure ethical AI. So this is big like open source of development. If you bring teams and the teams define teams from across the world, they're defined a question they want to raise and then they work together and develop AI systems and this is transparent and it is openly shared. And I think there will be a lot more ethical AI will be born in this kind of process.
So my second question do you is can an approach for AI offer an alternative model which is more amenable to ethical imperatives that matter for developing countries and this is something I can do but this is something that I feel can perhaps take into consideration and try to see what work can be done in this area.
>> ANTHONY WONG: Thank you, Shamika for that area on developing countries perspective and that question I would like to get Ed to go first to answer that question and I'll be happy to go next. Ed, Shamika talked about open innovation approach for AI.
>> EDWARD SANTOW: Yeah. I think that's a very important way of framing a move towards equality. I think open innovation looks clearly at what are the barriers to the technical capability when it comes to developing and using AI and tries to break down those barriers. At that point, I am in complete agreement with Shamika. I want to pick up another point which Shamika made which is worth exploring a little bit further. The observation that Shamika made is there's no informative framework for Artificial Intelligence. That is absolutely true. In another sense, perhaps it's ‑‑ there is something hiding. What I mean by that is Artificial Intelligence on the whole, 99% use cases for AI essentially things that we have always done, but we're doing then in new ways. That's why I said before that existing law including international human rights law is well adapted to the situation and the rise of AI. So I would say the informative framework for AI is our informative framework for human rights because, you know, to take an illustration for hundreds of years, we have made decisions about giving loans to people, you know? Maybe thousands of years and previously we did that. Now banks are doing that using some of the most sophisticated forms of Artificial Intelligence. But the ultimate decision itself is the same. It is to have proride isd someone alone or not alone. And the legal requirements, the informative framework things like, you know, you shouldn't deny someone a home loan on the BASIS of their gender or skin color or whatever it is. That should be a informative framework because it is already there. It is agreed and it's really a matter of more rigorously applying those rules.
>> ANTHONY WONG: Thank you for that response. Shamika, happy to give a perspective and also from my legal perspective on the innovation framework approach. We do have many working groups working across the world looking from both the academic and technical and practice issues from different backgrounds and different cultures so that is something I can offer the UN and the world to further that collaboration using that vehicle for innovative approaches, look at new ways of diffusing technology innovation to developing countries. As you have already said in my opening statement, the mission statement of iPhone since its creation is about the responsible deployment of ICT and IC is one of our goals to do with the open innovation approach, sharing technology, sharing discussion, sharing knowledge and encouraging skills and education development. Not just develop countries, but in developing countries around the world and that we have done for many years without technical community on education. We have many other technical committees working on many issues that we have just discussed from AI to blockchain and IoT and and now quantum computing. From my personal perspective as ICT practitioner, I think we now need to look at Shamika from your perspective as head of secretariat to the UN commission of science technology for development. We now need to look with white clock to see what is created by Artificial Intelligence? Who is going to be (?) AI creations? Who do they belong to? We're talks about IP both used to regularly manage and provide feedback to people who make those creations and innovations. We need to balance that with your perspective from your report about how do we diffuse that technology to developing countries because they do need that for inclusiveness, diversity to further develop otherwise they would be left out in this huge digital divide. So I think it will be the discussion at this international level and I think we need to put that in one of the action coming out of this session today that wide discussion. Right now from the last week thing I did at the low on IP and AI, right now nor can AI be altered with creations with an art or FFT or so forth. No one can get a creation ‑‑ no one in the U.S. No one in Australia. No one in many parts of the world. There is still time to adjust what the new rights are going to be? Is this going to be a generous right things created by AI and maybe there's a component we need to say it should be licensed at equitable levels to developpings countries and make sure that we even out this digital divide. So I think there's huge conversations coming out. That conversation was to start and I think a good place to start is with your permission, Shamika. If you can put that work with you and put that in a report, but I think it is essential to work with WIPO because those things are regulated by intellectual property laws. So we need to be mindful about the balance. So definitely AI is creating a disruption in this yea. So it's good we have an open discussion of how we move forward so this new technology including metaverse and quantum computing in the near future could be ‑‑ they could be shared with other developing countries, if not for free, at least with some sort ofix quite page at the level that the developing countries can afford. So this is my willing IP perspective.
>> SHAMIKA SIRIMANNE: Okay. Thank you, Anthony. Let me offer you as you said, I think this ‑‑ we began today about innovation approach for AI. Let's take it to the commission on science and technology for developing because that's the UN's focal point for having this sort of conversation and it is meeting at the ‑‑ in the last week of March. Soy we will organize the event ‑‑ so we'll organize the event. Other agencies need to be there because they have a lot of issues to figure out. So let's start this journey. Start from today and then we continue in Geneva at the end of March and see how key can ‑‑ developing countries can also benefit from this amazing technologies.
>> ANTHONY WONG: Excellent. Very happy to be supportive from the IP perspective and I'm sure many people will be watching to join that conversation as well. Perhaps I would like to draw another one before we go to the next question. Shamika and getting questions from the floor, which Simon and Sophia I know we're running out of time, but I would like to say when I give the talk of employment in Cambodia a few years ago, it just struck me that with the robots and AI coming on, a lot of these people doing garments and law manufacturing jobs will be displaced. I noticed that in your technology and innovation report I think we need to work with the ILR to upgrade their report because this technology is going to displace and we need do look at how to use this technology to help them move forward rather than move backwards. So that's a brief comment on that.
Now I would like to move to the next question which has been proposed by Ed. Ed, would you like to propose your question so that Shamika and I can talk. On to the question, please.
>> EDWARD SANTOW: So the question I posed is really gettings into this AI and ethics. I think the discussion on Artificial Intelligence has helped vision the AI. I am focusing on important principles like GNS. That challenge is to move from principal to practice. So if we accept what I said before which is on the whole AI, they have valvannized us, but ‑‑ galvanized. What are the practical steps we need to take to ensure heightical commitments drive real change.
>> ANTHONY WONG: Maybe I will ask Shamika to go first and then I'll go next. Shamica?
>> SHAMIKA SIRIMANNE: Let me tell you. I don't really know the EIcs of AI, but I think what you mentioned the human rights start is there, it's out in the open. It's hidden in the only. I think that's the BASIS. I totally fully agree. But how do we begin? At the moment, people are not going to the human rights. It is there and it is basically what the AI ethics is all about. You know? But I don't think people are especially the Private Sector companies who are in the forefront of creating these technologies don't know the human rights exist. So you build awareness and bring them back to the charter because charter is our answer.
>> ANTHONY WONG: From my perspective, Ed, if you see the principling from the north and U.S. and UK and the private industry, hardly some of them did mention societal impacts and environment, but very few talks about human rights issues. So that's an interesting perspective. I think the whole evidence is bolted. Now that we have many countries now starting the dialogue on regulation, passing goals, yeah? I think it's in conjunction with laws and ethics when the law does have a gap, but I think the time has passed that we rely onth cam frameworks because those are proven not to work well because you lack the enforcement mechanism to give remedies to people who have been disadvantaged. We will see that more coming through in the near future. This thing is not going to end. So I think the legislative in the world will react to those chaos and issues coming up and they're going to regulate. Even as a lawyer, I always say we need to be careful how we regulate and if you look at the EU scenario, it has taken them many years to get to that stage. It's a very complex areas and presentation. Do you have a role to play where there's a gap, but I think regulatory things are on the horhaven't an. Thank you. Any last ‑‑ question before move to Simon for questions from the floor?
>> EDWARD SANTOW: You go ahead, Ed.
>> Simon, do you have questions for the floor in the room? I'm seeing people in the room do you have questions whether it's (inaudible) or people attending in the room? Solvear, can you see any questions ‑‑ sofar, can you see any questions?
>> SOFERA AMANUEL: Can you hear me? Maybe there is a question online. Simon Nol can you post your question to us about online
>> Okay. Colleagues, do you hear me?
>> ANTHONY WONG: Yes. We hear you. Zoo it's various presentations, but obviously it's ‑‑ drivers because they experienced so many different colleagues. Depending on country by country and work by region, but does it ‑‑ is it possible to apply somehow this innovation approach because from my bent of vow, a lady owns the house in legislation. For example, legislation for some community of identity. It is very similar issue for the Aticks approach and Aticks comments. I am pulling for other countries. a big difference. How can we move alive? It's really issues, that's rile. I ask maybe what do you that's an innovative approach. Thank you.
>> As you said, this governance and regulatory approaches are done by, you know, different national governments and mostly in the west because this is an issue for them and this has not come into lawyer countries. But the revolution is going to change not just people in the, you know, few countries that have ethics and regulations, but it will affect all our lives. They need to be at the global level. To have mobile conversation and are there's only one inclusive place. Upon ‑‑ maybe say 190 plus countries getting together and getting something done is not easy. But that's the plane where everybody has a voice.S inclusive government developing countries are not in the front tier but they're going to be affected by them. So at the tables where the ‑‑ the countries need to have a seat there in the community d nations.
>> There are lots of people where all the countries can participate. So definitely I fight and shall make it to that conversation.
So ladies and gentlemen, I think there was another group to use the room now. But, ah, we can carry on for a couple of days just on that conversation. But I'm sure when Shamika gets to organize the session, people can log on from many points of the world and listen to the considered on that note, I'm sorry we don't have time to have another question. But love to have another in another period. Thank you for participating. It's been a most interesting session and I think there are a lot morph discussion as we move forward. So ladies and gentlemen, good luck from Sydney Australia and Shamika good night and afternoon to you and afternoon to those persons at the.
>> SHAMIKA SIRIMANNE: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
>> ANTHONY WONG: And we'll catch up soon. Thank you.
>> SHAMIKA SIRIMANNE: Bye‑bye.
>> Okay. Thank you, everyone, for joining us. I think fully we can start our session ‑‑ I think actually we can start our session. So yeah. I would like to thank you very much for coming especially seeing so many youth people here.
So just as a word of introduction, I would like to quickly explain the idea of this session. So we have did something similar last year in Poland at IGF forum there. And we also gave a spot to the different youth initiatives to present their current successes and they have plans for the future and also to encourage newcomers and other young people to join their work.
So this year, we wanted to do something similar. So hence the idea of this session we are having right now and today with us, we are having a very experience the young people who are already successful leaders who are very active in the Internet governance forum and in general in the field of new technologies, different aspects of new technologies for a long time.
So firstly, I would like to give the floor to Nicolas who is a computer and junior graduated from the University of the Republic of Uruguay and currently studying computer sciences. He is also a cofounder of IGF Uruguay and I saw a chapter member and also a member of youth coalition of Internet governance and he will share some words about it.
>> Hello, everyone. Welcome to our session. I am the board member of the Latin American youth governance. If you don't know what it circumstance it's the natural spaces of Dynamic Coalition and it's a natural space for all the young people to participate at the Internet governance forum. They bring their voices to the internet forum and bring participation in a meaningful way. Some of the successes we have had this year we have a very good group in the university coalition this year because we have people from all of the regions around the world. Any of the participants or the board members of the university coalition are Youth IGF coordinators. It was a good pleasure to have this year all the people in the group.ee we also have capacity building exercise with the IGF this year and the global impact. We try to be a preparatory exercise are it young people coming to the IGF this year. Very glad to be here with you. I think we have a lot of discussions about what the future challenges for the youth and what are the previous successes, right, with a lot of very good expert panelists.
>> Thank you. I would like to encourage you to get interested in its work especially the next year, there will be an opportunity to become the next steering committee members. With that, I would like to give the floor to someone else. And who is the Ph.D. candidate from the University of Venice and currently works at the European Commission. She's member of the 2022 youth organizing committee, the Youth IGF Italy and also the internet society Internet chapter. So Veronica, the floor is yours.
>> Veronica: Hello, everyone. I would like to quickly outline some of our activities super the activities of the youth sending groups. Also explaining what we do because I feel that sometimes there is a lot of confusion with the acronyms that are written to use, you know, YCAG, it's a bit confusing, you know. So youth standing group is the youth, the Internet Society. Youth standing group is the group of young people within the Internet Society and as such, our goals combined with those of the Internet Society means to safeguard the robust and safe and secure internet that is also made accessible to everyone. Additionally, the youth standing group is ‑‑ has objectives that are set by people that are usually between 18 and 35 years old. We also have members that have more holder than 35 years old, but we accept it. So membership from older people provided they also tend to have some time meet our objective and that means that they have to be particularly proactive and encourage young people, young people participation and also, you know, facilitate their participation and engagement in Internet governance issues.
There is also some confusion. We undertook a transition this year because the story of the youth sending groups is a bit complex. If you allow me, Emilia, I would like to quickly outline the youth story group and also explain one of our projects that we have ongoing. The origins of the youth standing group date back to 2015. When an informal organization called youth observe Teri was founded in Brazil originally was formed mostly by young people age 18, 15, 25 years old from different countries in Latin America and Caribbean. It was group born in Latin America and the Caribbean for young people from their region. The youth observatory was an initiative in the context of the youth at IGF in 2015 thanks to a corporation between partnership between the internet society and c GI.BR to, you know, force the participation of young people in the outer discussion of Internet governance in Latin America and the Caribbean. It was attended by 120 young people from that region. After 2016, the youth observatory received the approval of the Internet Society to become a special interest group. From that moment, it earned all the usually internet society chapter has fundings, advise and logistical support to achieve this goal. And in 2022 and during this time from 2016 to 2021, usually the logo used SIG was always combined with the logo of the youth observatory because despite having a common board, they refer two different organizations. Since from 2022, we at the Internet Society board of trustees passed a resolution which welcomed the standing group of the youths granting a more permanent start to then a special interest groups. And today, the YSG brings together around 2,000 members from every corner of the globe regardless of their age.
We have undertook close collaboration with the YCAG, whose members are present on site. Nicolas and Emilia and we have achieved so many things this year. We have understood together, you know, the working preparations of the working groups for ‑‑ to come up with a session for this IGF. We are carrying out together the mentorship phase of the IGF youth Ambassador program of the internet society. We are collaborating on the news letters as well. And so this is a very important for us to find this common fear with other organizations that in order, you know, to make the most out of this friendships and network that we carried out over time.
One of the problems that we are doing, we are working on is called youth atlas. So after the first experience of 2019 when the youth observatory mapped the participation of young people, ah, took the first step in the Internet governance worldwide. The youth standing groups also further the efforts. We want to understand what is the Legacy that is left by this first out of young people who are now young professionals and in which direction the interest is moving. What keeps the young people interested in the internet governance. We want to sum up the impact of those young people who in the past two years have paved a way to new young voices and, you know, to understand where young people want to go to you may know Joel is our Vice President there is currently in charge of carrying out interviews. And I know that he is very happy to hear this. So I'd like to invite all of you who want to be featured in the youth atlasto reach out to him and get interviews because we want to know your voices. What your voices, what we will do with your voices is to, ah, to compact, to summarize all the interviews that we get into paper‑base booklet or magazine that we will distribute next year during the IGF in Japan. So we will create this magazine with pictures and interviews and impact and opinion by young people and then, you know, collect all of them and then, you know, distribute this booklet into next year IGF. We will divide the booklet into two parts. The first is destined to what I call youth veterans who are young people who have been active in internet governance based for longer than two years. They have ‑‑ they are the first nucleus of young people who paved the way for us. I can give you some names. Nicolas is one of them who you may have known. Elizabeth she was the very person who promoted the first youth summit in Berlin. Jenna was the second part for newcomers. We want to hear new voices of people that are actually interested and want to be part of the Internet governance and to hear their voices what they think, what direction they want to, you know, to follow. So get your interviews. I think it's also a fun activity to for those who are on site while for those who are online. I will share our contact in the chat and if you wish to be featured in the use atlas, you can reach out to us. You can either volunteer to be the journalist to carry out the interview and/or to be interviewed. I hope that some of you are interested in this project and you will help us out on this.
>> EMILIE SERRUGA-CAU: Thank you very much, Veronica. Joel is next to me so this is the person you can reach out to.
And now, I would like to introduce our next speaker Athena who is currently finalizing her master studies of digital transformation of organizations at AGC Montreal. She also has her own podcast which is called Teaching Time. Athena, the floor is yours.
>> Athena: I hope you can all hear me well. So I'll start by introducing you to generation Connect. So generation Connect is IT U's youth strategy and for the ones who don't know about the ITU, it's the International Telecommunication Union agency, hence ITU. And there are five different regional groups part of this youth strategy. Namely one for the African continent, the Americas and common wealth of independent states, the Arab group and Europe group that I'm part of and that I will be talking about. All of this group aimed to engage global youth as equal partners along the side of leaders today of digital change and helping young people to advance their vision of a connected future. But what does that mean concretely? What do we do in the group? Firstly, it is important to say that while ITU is the oldest UN agency, generation Connect is only two years old. So it's a work in progress. In the first year, the 1d which established the regional priorities for Europe towards 2025. I will share it in the chat afterwards if someone is interested. In the second year which is a year I joined, I worked on generation Connect European where we did youd topics like capacity development, policy, cybersecurity and I would like to say that this is how I met Veronica. But a big milestone was generation Connect global youth summit in Uranda last June. We concluded on our call to action, which was a 2‑year consultation which aims to enhance youth engagement building in what we like to call an inclusive and sustainable digital future through the participation within the participation of youth in government and wider UN system. We aim to include this call and the results of the world development conference. But this is also an example of the limitation that we faced as young initiative, which is really trying to push for young people to be part of the decision making process. And this is also something we'd like to address going past the state of generating meaningful content, but making sure that we can implement it and be part of the decision making processes. We're currently restructuring the group because basically generation Connect is for the Europe group at least is up to 25‑year‑olds. So if you are below or 25, I really encourage you to sign up or reach out to me or to actually other youths present. Hello, Max. And feel free to talk to them. You'll get much more insights. In this call for new members that will open January or February, I encourage people to join, but not only because it would look good under CV, but they're trying to bring a meaningful contribution to the table. Maybe you have an interesting expertise. Our group is very diverse. We have people with a very strong technical background and people who have a less strong technical background who are just as relevant around the table. And but as long as you come with a meaningful contribution, you have a vision for what you think this could be. Please come and share it with us. The restructuring we're doing is organized around three pillars. So policy promotion and partnerships. They're all a bit interlinked at thed of the day and we have regional priorities which are capacity development, policy and regulation, cybersecurity, environment and digital inclusion.
So if any of what I said sounds like it could interest you, please don't hesitate to reach out to me whether on LinkedIn or online, whenever you find me or other generational Connect where present is. Thank you very much.
>> EMILIE SERRUGA-CAU: Thank you, Athena. I think that generation Connect program is something very good for newcomers to get more involved into the Internet governance as presenting a lot of activities and also I will keep pointing to people. You can find Max here. He's in the green t‑shirt smiling right now who can tell you more. You can also ask Athena in the chat if you are interested in joining the generation Connect group.
And now I would like to introduce the next speaker who is my colleague from NASK. Focusing on strategic analyzes of cybersecurity. He's also a Ph.D. candidate in LAO concerning cyber crime and cybersecurity at the University of Worseile. Piotr, the floor is yours.
>> Piotr: I represent the national association institute. When it ams to Poland, NASK plays a vital and important role for programs in IG and cybersecurity. We have an experience in cyber policy land protection, cyber hygiene, cyber trainings and that is why we were able to promote the the new programs well and we were able to promote the best, I think, the most active organization. Somebody can confirm it. The youth IGF Poland that started in 2020 and has been acted in the field of Internet governance. At some point, it evolved into a vital Bart of now. Polish cybersecurity system when it comes to youth engagement. And as the most representative action for me, maybe for most of you here, it could have been observed during the last IGF in Poland. A lot of sessions were organized. I don't want to go into detail because Emilia would correctly on this one. I would certainly mistake all the numbers, but the sessions were an enormous success. I can vouch for that. And the fall, which most of you is a success that this main call of Poland was achieved. So to create an Open Forum of exchange of experience and ideas between the youth and experts from different regions and backgrounds. I think it was achieved during Poland's IGF. I am in this privileged position that angles, my colleague, she works on my team. How being gifted and being a hardworking person and also participant in this case of polish and international youth oriented programs can pay off and transcend into professional cybersecurity career. She's the best example of that. I'm really proud to work with her and I was really glad to know of all the various initiatives worldwide. Because of her, I have the pleasure to know all the initiatives around the world from Africa, from South America, from North America and this feeling that the initiatives are being a part of global network is on both international and national level can have immense impact from my perspective. This can shape the areas of IG and cybersecurity and create the platforms to cooperate between the experts and the youth, which is also very important in my point of view. From the perspective of NASK as an institution, it creates chances enables us to ‑‑ to support, help or just ‑‑ well, maybe look like we're guiding them or getting them through. We're supporting young people in transition to professional careers. So we're offering trainings. We're offering employments then, but we wanted to also include them as much as possible and provide them with resources to really turn their passion, their ‑‑ channel their passion and ideas into a meaningful real initiatives such as IGF in Poland. And I think this is the most important thing when it comes to youth oriented programs in which institutions such as NASK so the nation wide institution can help and support youth in various countries. Thank you very much.
>> Amelia: Thank you a lot, Piotr. And also I think Piotr is modest about himself because he's the best example how ‑‑
[ Laughter ]
He's the best example of how somebody so young could be so already experienced expert in cyber security like he's really a great colleague to have on the team and he's always eager to share his experience with the younger team mates like me.
So with that, I would like to get to our next speaker. Who will call bachelor of sciences in sociology and from the university of Ethiopia and who is also the founder and Executive Director of model African youth‑led initiative. He will tell us more about soon. With the agenda in 2,03, it will empower young people. He's also ‑‑ he's a fellowship of the African platform. You for human rights international advocate African leaders, Aliiance champion and delegation youth sounding board and a lot of many other outstanding accomplishments. So malako, the floor is yours.
>> Thank you very much, everyone. This is malako from underneath opennia. I would like to welcome all of you for coming here because I want to share that you have a lot of time that you invest when you come here, time and knowledge. So I would like to share on behalf of our government and youths, I think no one has done this one, but I would like to appreciate. It's a good opportunity to have you all. When you come to me, I'm Melaku. The technical team will show videos, a 1‑minute video and what I'm working on it so that we can discuss. I think it's going to be learning from each other. Thank you very much.
>> We'll be focusing on the following areas. Sustainable and growth that reduces poverty and leads to increased income levels. Equality and decent jobs. Value addition in agricultural products and growth of business and industries. Human capital development. Skills revolution in science, technology and innovation. Gender development, youth, empowerment and employment generation for youth and women. Social security and protection for all people and infrastructural development. Good governance supported by capable institutions. Manufacturing base industrialization. Promotion of culture, arts and sports. Peace and security. Let us unite to build the Africa we want. Visit WWW.AU.INT to learn more about agenda 2063. (no audio)
>> Melaku: You heard from the videos, D.C.ement work and creating a job for the youths and cybersecurity as well as security counselor, the African unit has also some departments related to cybersecurity and also the African governance. So this is mainly focusing running to the Internet governance and also controlling the cyber issues of the continent. So that's why I Kim to speak on behalf of this ‑‑ that's why I came to speak on behalf of this agenda. We dommesticate SDG and related to our objectives and the organization of the model unit. The SDG shots if we're not working as a partnership, we're not to be like ‑‑ because this the agenda is aligned with the SEBG. If we're implementing through the SGGDs, that's why we try to speak. In related to when you come in our model, so our model is the second in the continent. So the African unit is the one on behatch of the Africa unit we launch. On behalf of youth division, this is called restructure the commission, the name is called women and gender and youths directory. So this department is the one who ‑‑ to go forward. We work entirely through the African youths. It is the six regions for those who are loved Ethiopia, loved to the African and also African cultures and heritage. So you are also the sixth regions of this African unit. So it means like when I say regions, it's like as you all know, we have east African region and north, West African and but the one who is creating the more and the one who has the finance and knowledge and experience and to share with us. If we're regulating this group, so Africa is not to be achieved on the agenda as well. So the youths are the ones responsible to implement the agenda. We're trying to work on age of 15 to 35 and related to the African unit, when we come to dividing to the edge groups, the UN is already started to 29 and but the African unit also when it is mentioned or the age group 18 to ‑‑ I mean, 15 to 35. So whatever it is, we are the youths group. If we negate this age group, Africa cannot (?) on agendas thes is EG. When we mention, let's see related to our work. So, you know, when we ‑‑ it is called African Union using it. The first African unit using it. It was appointed by his excellency the commission of the African unit. It was power pillars. This has four pillars. The first is like four years. It's called education, engagement, entthship and employment. We model African Union working on those areas because when we do the models, we raise a lot of committees of the African unit. So when we related to the conference, we focus previously. We host the simulation conference related to climate change. So the outcomes was mainly use to have more ideas related to climate and digital work. We are ‑‑ the current priority issues in the world is climate. So the youths come up climate to fight this ‑‑ climate and technology how it is related to be solve it. So that's why youths are coming on behalf of this one. We would like to thank EC as well as my colleagues and partners from the UN Ethiopia. We would like to thank simulation conference engaging with the youths. This is the first one not the last, but the entirely it was recent project that we do. So related to the engagement, so the youths to have more and maybe when we have peace and security Council with the Africanune, they talk about and simulate each country as well as the UN and (inaudible) for example. If we simulate to the African unit peace and security Council. So it has its own simulation procedures. Youths have a voice because most of the time, our leaders ‑‑ more Egypt Africas. It might be inclusivity to world leaders and give opportunities for the youths. So due to that, we create this model. They used to have their own space and they keep their own talks and how to come up with a resolution. So that's why the model is working on it. So sorry. When I connected with SDG, I told you our model is not just ‑‑ it's not ‑‑ it's, ah, it's a use base initiative. Youth base and cultural heritage and also it's, ah ‑‑ sorry. So I would like to Connect our model that we dommesticated agenda SEDGs. So with three pillars. They are the three pillars social, economic and climate. So we're mainly focusing in our model. We're mainly focusing the social and environment. So when we see the social practice, there are ICBG. So, ah ‑‑ yeah. This is the economy 1. So you see ACDG1. Poverty and 0 and also sustainable community and also economic growth and industry and innovation and infrastructure. When we talk about these things, these are economical aspects of what we do. So when we do to ‑‑ so the social aspect, this is the main agenda of our model is workings focusing on this one. So we are living in digital era. We should have science and technology to create to fight. For example, as you all know, this is the one who is affecting our continent and also in Ethiopia. Most of the people have communicated with businesses. So to prevent this issue, they used to California up with a digital ‑‑ come up with a digital instrument and measuring parameters and hyper tension and other things. The administration of innovation and they are creating a platform since the charts are to have two parts in different innovation. Education is the most part as you all know. When we are in the world and we are also in a city, but most of the people saw living in rural areas, if you came into an example of Ethiopia, previously fen years ago, it is 50%. 1 in 5%. People are living (?). The rural people saw the one who affected with education. They don't have the knowledge. To avoid these challenges, these users who are learning here in CTs and different regions they can go the village where they bought. They go and they teach their ancestors or families. And that's why mainly we focus on education and equalities. As I told you, peace and security is the big issue. So this is ‑‑ that's why we are here and we are talking about the Internet. So it is related to that. Justice and also a lot of things will be affected. So as I ‑‑ why we focus the reduction and gender equality. As I told you, agenda 2063 and aspiration 6 is focusing mainly women and the youth. This is why we said women and youths are implementing this agenda. They're to make the women's ‑‑ the youths to show off the inclusivity for implementation. That's all about for social inclusion.
The last but not the least we're living in a big world and the globe is coming to us. We need what? Partnership and inclusivity and working together as a group or as a team. So if malaw cue is working in those areas, if anyone is interested, we're not mostly local and we're regional and we are also national and global. So that's why we ‑‑ most of the youths don't have a clue about the agenda 2063 as well as the SEGs. If you want to go, you can ask someone around here those who are not coming from outside. So ask someone, a youth and how many are they and also tell us like two or three. So that's why we are trying to engage in the youths and to be educated and to have national and global aspects of the agendas. Thank you. If you have a question, you are welcome.
>> Thank you, Melaku. We could hear insight from somebody and to learn more about the current situation here and also I think there was a lot of useful information and facts. Thank you for sharing them. There will be time for questions in a few minutes. I want to ask if we have Yoichi Iida here with us in the room. Okay. Still not. So right now, we'll proceed to the questions part.
So if you have any questions, please raise your hand or online, please write them in the chat. I will quickly ask Jenna, our online moderator if there are any questions already in the chat. Gee we currently do not have. Any thank you for making me co‑host. We don't have any questions. Please feel free to drop your question in the chat. We'll keep it in the cue. If we have enough time, we may ask you to ‑‑ we'll bring it to the discussion. Thank you.
>> Athena: Do have any questions here? Would you like to share something about your initiative? Please go ahead.
>> Audience member: Hello. Can you hear me? I'm from Nepal. My initiative name is learn IG Internet governance. With the learning Internet governance, we have developed toolkits for, you know, ICANN. We have developed toolkits for ICANN and APRGF as well as, you know, other things, stuff like that. So I strongly believe that, you know, the whole youth engagement part is very ‑‑ it's very dynamic as well as very difficult. This topic ‑‑ I'm very passionate about youth leadership. Why? Because, you know, when I started in 2007, you know, we ‑‑ I used to stand up and I used to be looked at as if I was a nobody. So from then and there, I realized we need to work on our skills. We need to work on making people especially from Asia. We have to work on their level of, you know, skills. So then and there, you know, I started engaging with the diploand then ISOC and I was involved with all these organizations. And what these days what I realized is, you know, with youth engagement, where are we going? I mean to say, you know, youth is such in a vulnerable state right now. We have to focus our energy in values. You know? That is very important. If youth are given the right values, they can stand right. They can do things right. They will be leaders. Right? And that's what we believe in and we support in. And even in Nepal, we have been, you know, we do reach out to colleges and schools and it is so that, you know, I'll show you my experience that, you know, I went to a college. There were like 70 students and I did a session. There were like 30 left. And it was a one‑hour session and within the half an hour, 13 were gone and 13 left. And out of the that time when they left, we had 10 or 15 people. Out of those 70 youth, one girl wrote a blog about it. So that is the level of engagement we get. That is a reality and we have to accept that. And it is ‑‑ it is more like, you know, we have to further work on the value system transparency, accountability and these are more, you know, issues that we have to focus on so that when they come out as leaders, they will be standing with a standard form of, you know, collaborating with the communities because a lot of the times what I have seen is, you know, I have seen IGF that are being run just for the sake of it. So I strongly believe that, you know, youth values and youth engagement and youth initiative have to be focused on the whole engagement part. This today's world is the world of opportunity, right? Have a look. You have mobile phone. You have Internet. Just go on and share that information. It is so easy. You say was it possible back then? Right? You have the knowledge. Go and talk with students and talk with your friends. That is what real engagement is. It doesn't take money. It doesn't take you to be different. It just takes you to be passionate and that passion comes from the values. Those are the values that we have, those are values where we have to work on. And then that is like, you know, to some extent, even as we focus on that, I have a (?) in IGF village. A lot of the leaders came in and we talked. And I felt very passionate with people that they share their stories and they want to be themselves. And at the time, it's just ‑‑ this, you know, far away, the ice has to be broken. You know? You just have to click and then, you know, today I encountered a lot of people that came in in our booth. And, you know, a lot of people got motivated and I even got motivated when there were students they shared that we are trying to do this. We're trying to run in. We're trying to collaborate. It's so interestings and I think this is the platform where we have to collaborate. It's not about Africa but how we're going to bring in learning from all these leaders and learning from our skills is very important that we collaborate. That's the key and thank you.
>> Athena: Thank you. I think it was excellent input to the discussion. Do any of our speakerses like to comment?
>> Veronica: I totally agree. I don't remember the name. I just know from Nepal.
>> Schreid IP.
>> Veronica: So what we have noticed in the university standing group is sometimes when the words gets harder, we start losing people. It happens when we carried out the working groups to develop proposal session proposal for the IGF. When at the beginning we had a lot of people coming into the working groups and starting to ‑‑ they wanted to be part of the sessions per se, but then in the was writing the proposal. So, ah, we in the end,al the beginning, we had a lot of people willing to participate. In the end, we just had people who amd to be moderators who wanted to be speakers without actually contributing to the substance of the content of this session. That is very important to keep the focus of the people on the substance of the team and not just the appearance. You know, the YCIG and the youth group brought a lot of session in this IGF. It's been a lot of work to manage all those people, all those proposals and Nicolas and Emilia knows that very well and Joel is there as well. And we at work deliver our proposal and we know that many young people that want to, you know, to do the dirty job to stay late at night and it is very difficult to find people that are really motivated to stay in this ecosystem and to work hard on that. So you can only see the appearance, the results, the discussions, the engagement, but behind that, there's been a lot of work. And we keep doing a lot of things without nobody seeing what we do. So it's very important that we also as young people we keep consideration. We are also students. We are young workers. We are finding our way into the market jobs or things like that. And, you know, some people they do this only to put this in their curriculum. But they do not actually contribute to the activities or the organization. So I agree with you that we need to foster to push our engagement, our commitment but sometimes it requires people that are motivated to do that. It is very difficult to find that.
>> Yes. Thank you. You couldn't have resonated more with me with what you said. I wanted to say that it is advice maybe. Maybe it's not my position to give advice, but I would say that the discussion should be as inclusive as possible. What I understand is the inclusive and subject. I would say that regardless of our status, I mean, whether we're here, we should be allowed to and not afraid to openly and fully discuss projects, ideas, initiatives interest to ‑‑ once more, I would say that we should bible to question authorities, question the knowledge of an expert because they are not (?). They don't know everything. We should be able to do that. Of course, it's not a call for being arrogant, but let us just be ambitious, confident, courageous, bold and let us not agree. Let's disagree in some cases. Me saying that I agree with you is quite funny, but let's disagree in some cases. Let's discuss the cases and discuss the ideas initiatives. Let us do that.
>> I would like to add something. The thing that you said is completely right. You know, the whole thing is IGF is in English. The whole proposal thing is in English. Weva the barriers here. How many of us can speak proper English? That is the thing we have to lobby. We have to make it clear that we come from different communities. You know, it is ‑‑ it has to be inclusive in such a way that youth has to be given the chance to speak their rights. Only people becoming leaders, youth leaders are leaders of today. Not tomorrow. We are leaders of today because we have the challenges. We have the problems. Having said that, it is ‑‑ I completely agree with you. It's a voluntary job. You don't get ‑‑ always get the good point on doing all the work saying people do criticize you all the time. It's the passion. It's a change. That is what is meaningful. I see all of you standing looking at me with that glaze in your eyes and that is what is important. If we don't step in, if we don't put in our effort, things are not going to change. Right? Things are not going to change. We have to do it whether they want it or whether they don't want it, we have to push it so that things for tomorrow will be a best system. There will be a better ‑‑ it is our fight. My fight. I am across 35, but I'm with you. I realize I want the leaders to come in. I wanted leaders to come in and talk about issues. IGF is such a beautiful place that you can come. You can talk about your issues. I tell that to all. I have been a mentor for a lot of the organizations, ICANN, APRIGF. I have been a mentor for IP6. So I always say be smart. Be visible. Come prepared and talk because if you voice your issues, then you get noticed. If you don't, if you treat this as your travel event, you know, we have to, we have to motivate those people. And there's a good difference in between motivation and being inspired. You know? You can just inspire a person once, but motivation is very hard. You have to constantly motivate people. All the organizations are there and instead of hearing me, let's create that resources. Let's create free Zoom account for people to hold the programs. Let's, you know, let's do it. That is what we are lacking. Let's Connect you and me Connect. Let's do a program in Poland. You call me and I'll be there. You call me in Africa, I'll be there. You call me in Uganda, I'll be there. It's that easy, that simple. But why report we doing it and breaking the ice? That is the way we change society. That is how we are going to be somewhere. We are going to be leaders because it is just like till this day, we are following people. We are following issues and that is limited us. Please, sorry.
>> Okay. Thank you. That was a very bold input. Okay. And I'm seeing a hand up. Please go ahead.
>> Hello, everyone. I'm ASHA from Maldives. This is a very, very interesting session. I'm not a write item, but I'm sure I'll be carrying these opportunities you shared with the youth because I worked with the youth community and part of the Women in Tech which is a non‑profit ocean, they focus on women and girls. There are challenges in engaging youth in especially policy making. Little bit highlighted about the kind of work that we do and then I will go straight to the question. So we actually work on developpings capacity building for youth on quoting things like digital literacy. So one of the key challenges that we face is when it comes to youth, gender studio type still exist in Maldives. Before we reach to the youth, we have to train the paramedic and the community. That is one step we have taken. Even though we are focusing on girls and women, especially areas like cybersecurity, they include capacity building for voices as well. And we have been doing this for quite a long time. It's been like four years. And what we have observed is it's very hard to engage to convince the policymakers that youth matters. Their ideas matter whether they are from a very far remote, very small population. There are things that can do in their island, small, small islands talking about size of two kilometers in an island that can be a hundred or in some cases thousands. How do you formalize plans or how do you ensure that youth voices are heard during decision making process at the national level? Thank you.
>> Thanks so much for organizing another interesting session. I will keep it short. Just coming back to you, I think there are so many passionate and motivated young leaders. I want to point that we have the resources. I still think we're lacking the resources. There are so many young leaders who are motivated and not there for (?) but for the topic. So many of you couldn't join us here. I think we should rally our own delegations and members from the countries where we're from. When I look around and there's room, it is fantastic to sit here with so many young inspiring young people, we're lacking the generation except for some, we're lacking the federation that is in charge of the resources especially when it comes to money. So I think we should try to engage them even more. While it is superb we have this discussion, I think we should not forget it is voluntary work for most of us. It's not the main interest for many to have on the CD. It is also important to end up getting a job that pays afterwards. Thank you.
>> Emilia: Thank you for the inputs. And now we will give speakers the opportunity to address them or one of them and then we will get also the other questions because I see some other hands.
>> Well, I have something to say about the resources. We don't have resources in Uruguay and we use some of the (?) we have for other organizations. We found a place in a university. There is a free room. So you put some posters and do Facebook, and adver dicement, but not the pay one. You can also collaborate with the other youths around the world to be a speaker at your session. So people will be motivated to see different faces. Those are some examples. Sorry about that. I also hear about funding and lack of funding, but it is about passion. As you say, if you have the person resources, the university facilities, you can do it. I think yes. Resources is a good thing for having booklets, more demination to become a strong thing. That is not something that blocks you to go to action.
>> Can I say something? So no. Just some quick remarks about the last intervention. I wasn't talking ‑‑ I didn't mean that young people are lazy or, you know, there is widespread problems. The fact that most of them are ‑‑ they are doing this for volunteering as a volunteer start activities and none of them, you know, tend to engage and commit their time on that. I'd like just to say that we are all ear and we are here with a great motivation to do what we do. I'm the Chair of the youth standing group. I'm the first woman to be carrying the youth standing group ‑‑ to be chairing the youth standing group. It's a job. This is a job. A spend at least 6 hours a day doing things for my organization even if this is a volunteering activity.
What I'd like to say is that youth standing groups is hoping to collaboration. As I said before, the group of young people of the Internet Society, the internet society is a number of organizations based in America in the United States and Geneva. We have funding to carry out some activities. We are open to partnership with the other youths organization and non‑youth organization in Internet governance. So I'm not there to leave you my contacts b Joe is the Vice President and, you know, you can reach out to him and we and, you know, start a partnership. I'm very open to that.
>> Thank you for your feedback. From Nepal, right? Yeah. So you said everything is okay. I mean, it's from all of us and also in Ethiopia and in Africa also the global citizen. I failed those things as well. Users in different continents are facing the same things. There might be someone in Poland and eastern Europe the same thing. So I would like to just comment on what I like to say. I was volunteering for the last 8 years. When I started I was in high school. So it was challenging like when you have been a volunteer. You should have your paying transportation to go somewhere for the concert IDs. You have people that are daily foots or whatsoever. So you maybe have something to read. So it's a lot of things. Being passionate it doesn't make you who you are. It doesn't mean that you are good. So when you have anything, like I said, passion is there, but I was committed that it was challenged. And a lot of things that are done and volunteering, I did not waste my teem time of one of my sort of my age live. So I wasted different activities. That makes me passionate. I didn't know when I go and the first convince that aye been hearing is agenda 2029. Everyone is saying agenda 26. And I read a lot of things and I have responsibilities. The leaders they give you a decision. They adjust a decision. Who would be implemented? We have to have a passion, but we had have an action on commitment. So a passion without commitment doesn't give us it. So those passions and commitment and we can be a global citizen. Thats my advice. Thank you.
>> Thank you a lot and I saw a rise of the hand on this side. Please go ahead.
>> Thank you. I am part of the Brazilian youth organization. I come from Brazil from (?). I would like to point out something related to what you mentioned. I think we have a big challenge of being heard by national policymakers. I think the fact that we're here discussing and meeting each of the is already a progress, but it's still a big challenge. But there are many factors involved includings luck, including who is the policymaker you're going to talk to and so on. But most importantly in all that, I think we cannot treat the lack of financial resources and the funding in a naive way. We need to speak what is necessary for like. We need funding and it's not only about motivation because it's easy to say that we only need motivation when we have time. We have food. Do we have family and a nice place to go to sleep, but that's not the majority of the youth and maybe this is why we cannology see many engaged university. We need to talk about the problems and, of course, it's a complex issue, but it worries me that when we start talking more about motivation and about commitment unless ‑‑ the financial means and resources that requires for us all to be here. Right? We are in Ethiopia. It was not easy for us to come here. So I wanted to point out and then completing what MALE said. I say passion, commitment, engagement, but also resources we need to keep fashion ‑‑ global bodies to keep funding youth initiatives and also Civil Society organizations that could enable youth people to participate in Internet gov innerrance. Thank you.
>> Emilia: Thank you a lot. I see two of our speakers have had their hands up. Maybe we'll take one more comment or question and I will pass the floor to our speakers.
>> Thank you. I am from Nigeria IGF. She actually said almost ‑‑ I want to speak on youth from countries. I wanted to see this stage being a youth is a very, very sensitive part of life. A huge form. Countries such as mine where I'm sorry to say, but even the internet was a big priority. So when we talk about. We have issues before we can get improve the youth engagement. I would say I'm from Nigeria. I don't think I have seen any other youth. Whip wa up know this is extremely volunteering, it is extremely hard for something that we cannot really take care of themselves to volunteer for something that is the first priority in this country. Even when you are strict like that. They're trying to bring the youth in to IGF. It is quite evident. I am the program Manager and I'm a young person. So it is good that they're trying to do this. I like tomake originallations and I would like to also discourse it. We create a pool that the youths can benefit. I mean assuming they create a poll that only the youth can benefit from when itS to Internet governance. This pool will also enable more jobs internationally and improve resources from youth form on the sad areas and ultimately improve the youth engagement. Thank you very much.
>> Emilia: Thank you a lot. Now I will pass it to Achina who has her hand up. I think we should also reflect on our way we organize ourselves. I think this is also a big challenge the way we decide to organize yourses and the way we decide to operate. The danger of replicatings conductures and are clearly feelings. I think we have a restaurant as youth as being more and very having access to technologies that will allow us to Connect. How we organize yourselves can we avoid to duplicate structures and how we can build structures with ‑‑ even having shared this opinion with other connect members, I know it is something that's not clear yet. There's not one way of achieving youth engagement and we're all pivoting and trying to make our voice heard. As we said, there are a lot of barriers, but I think sometimes the way we can organize it can be the main barriers. I hope we can share a lot of Brad practices of how we can go furler together. Thank you. Now I am passing it to Veronica who has a her hand up. We're heading to the end of the session. Please be brief.
>> Yes. Thank you. The comment was very spot on. It doesn't apply to a country like Brazil or underdeveloped country.
In terms of funding, we all have issues. I wasn't able to travel to Ethiopia because of job commitment, but also because I didn't get any travel support. Ironically, I'm not eligible to get job for report because I come from a developed country. So my question, my cost would be do we ‑‑ do we also have to consider that even young people that come from developed countries have issues. Also talking about, you know, the possibility to engage in this kind of discussions at policy level because we are at a UN event, higher level, but we need to make an impact. For me, ironically it's much more easy to be involved at this level than a national level because in Italy, they made this Council, youth ament and in Europe, you have the European Parliament, but as an Italian delegates, they always choose middle class people from ‑‑ who have studied in private schools and approval universities. Isn't that fair? Do we have the same chances to actually contribute that policy level. Do we need, you know, do we have to have the same possibilities also funding but to also ‑‑ the 80 to have access to this pressure or to those events. I think the response is yes. And that's something that we need regardless of our geeeegraphical Providence. The country we were born and raised in.
>> Thank you, Veronica. I think these are really good questions which would know very hard to answer actually. We are heading to the end of our session. So unfortunately, we'll have time for just one comment and we'll have our online generator. Jenna had her hand up. Please have your brief comment.
>> Sure. I would like to highlight that this is really a filled discussion from pointing motivations and to alling the factors that you ‑‑ you're in the process of encouraging more youth participation for Internet Governance discourse. I would like to add a few comments from the dynamic coalition that I had prior to the sun. I think it's a very important message that we identify with other dineomic coalitions. In terms of the common goals and common person that we can do with other stakeholders in the iteming years. Two things that we highlight was tangible outcomes are very important. And in terms of tangible output, I believe there is lots of things that we still need to work on. Veronica mentioned about the booklet. It is leading to appoint where we are kind of catching up to other of to certain respects, you need some type of formality in order to get recognized. We have so much compared to the youth meetings three ears ago in Berlin. We have more initiative in terms of having more capacity most of us are members of the current coalition of Internet governance and I believe it's a really good platform for people like us who want to stay engaged in incurring youth engagement as well as working on the goals in achieving the area focus that we stated in IGF plus and digital compact. I highly encourage all of us to stay connected in that platform because we have that DC here don't waste it. That's it from me and thank you so much for all the other speakers as well as all the participant for your contributions. I may now pass the time back to Emilia. Thank you.
>> Emilia: I would like to close the session with saying a big thank you to all the panelists to our online moderator gena. And to the audience for being so active and for bringing so many insights on the table. I think we can have a longer discussion. There is always not enough time during the sessions of this kind. I'm really glad that we could all meet here today and have this debate. And I would also like to mention that if any of you is not in our youth group, we are sharing opportunities. Please go to Joel again. He will tell you how to be added. Thank you.
>> Are you ready? In the interest of time. Okay. So good afternoon, everyone. I hope that our online participants can see us and they can hear us. I want to welcome you to this session on the declaration for the future of the Internet. The acronym is DFI. What is it about? What does it do? So this session as a way of introduction, the IGF 2021 messages particularly those on the topics of economic and social inclusion and human rights have some influence on this session. Universal easy is and meaningful Connectivity, trust, security and stability and inclusive Internet governance ecosystems and digital corporation. The goal is to start a multi‑stakeholder conversation about how to promote digital inclusion accomplish sustainable development and maintain an open global interoperable and secure Internet. Additionally, this calls for ensuring that everyone has meaningful and ongoing access to the Internet and preserving its openness to support democracy and human rights. In keeping with this, this session hopes to cover open Internet policies and initiatives that's a crucial to promoting reliability, stability and interoperability of the Internet including a human centric strategy. One of these cannot be accomplished without taking into account the resilience of the Internet governance Intersystem which has consolidation among various stakeholders to support eye promising future for the internet specifically in this session, we are going to be answering how do we ensure the interin the remains open, global and interoperable in line with universal values and fundamental rights. And two, how can governments private entities, Civil Society and the Technical Community translate the principles of the declaration for the future of Internet into concrete policies and actions and work together to promote this vision ‑‑ and executive director I see it listed as executive director. I know you're not executive. I know you are (?) of the association for progressive communications APC. And are you still the manage Chair? Former MAG Chair. To join us virtually, we have Mr. Tim Wong who is a special assistant to the President for technology and competition policy, national economic Council at the White House. And then we have Ms. Marity who is the international policy director of disable policy center at the institute for human centered official intelligence at Stanford University. Thank you very much, everyone. We hope to have a very exciting and useful conversation. We have our online moderator also and that's Ms. Sonia Toro who will be guiding us on questions that are coming online. So straight away, I would like to go into the question and the first question I'm fielding to you, Mr. Donahue. Now, the declaration for the future of Internet reclaims the promise of the Internet vis‑a‑vis going global opportunities and challenges and lays out input and standards for achieving a free open and human rights protecting Internet. Now, how can governments, the Private Sector, Civil Society and Technical Community translate this principles of the declaration of the future of Internet into concrete policies and actions and work together to promote this vision globally and you have try and speak maybe 7 minutes.
>> Thank you. Good afternoon or whatever time it is for those of you online. My name Pearse Donahue, but it is not that this is one of the riches of the internet that we all get to learn about how we spell names. I'm sure that will be one of the last things that any algorithm will be able to do is to replace that particular skill. So in relation to your question, it's those kind of human elements that reinforce the principles and the strategies in the European union with like‑minded partners across the world that we in recognizing the power of the Internet as a tool have to recognize the challenges. And as a great fault leader who is back to the forefront of our work here, they have commented several times when the Internet was designed, it was assumed that everybody who was participating really wanted it to work and really wanted it to be an open communications platform. And, of course, we moved on to the situation where it might no longer be the case. Our governments have to take account of that. We will reflect challenges as well as reinforcing our objective in bringing the Internet to everybody and to ensuring it is a safe and importantly open environment for personal cultural and economic development. We have to work together to make this happen. So in that content to make the internet a trustworthy place, some of the questions that you asked me, Grace, are things that the IGF community will say we have already done that work. It is true that in the declaration for the future of the internet, I hope that there is nothing there that the multi‑stakeholder community will not recognize. The point we have seen, for example, when in a few years ago we were talking about some of the operational weaknesses of the IGF is we saw a lack of commitment by certain communities. We had governments who came and made speeches and left and we had a waning of involvement or interest from business and the commercial community. And the declaration was an attempt to address the principles, which are already common currency of the multi‑stakeholder community here in a way that would allow governments who also have a role to play to sign up to those principles. In some cases stating there are things they will not do as opposed to things they will do to ensure the Internet is and remains an open, interoperable trusted space which respects the individual including their integrity, physical and online, their personal data as well as their identity. And also then that we in having those principles manifesting themselves in an operational way, we can allow and ensure that access is available to everyone. All citizens as well as businesses can trust they are safe online, their data is secure and that their transaction is privileged. So that will give rise to that trusted environment will give rise to further innovation. It means that the data economy can thrive and it can be something to which individuals can place their trust. So that's the background of the declaration for the future of the internet.
Already we have nearly 70 partner countries who have stood behind this affirmative agenda for the internet and following its launch in April, we're now focusing on bridging the gap with other countries. Trying to ensure that the principles and their concrete implementation of seemless and transparent and now and some of you will say maybe it's a bit late, but to ensure that the multi‑stakeholder community have a crucial and leading role in doing this. That is why as well as the consultations on the principles and declaration, we organize amont ago and Prague and the Czech Republic, a conference and have four specific workshops for other multi‑stakeholder community. In order to instruct and inform the target signatures about how important this is, addressing growing threats such as threats of Internet shut downs, and, of course, looking at how we build cybersecurity and trust. And how do we build skills so that all internet users have the ability to navigate it to its full. These are issues that the governments could address or solve alone. Again, many of the paths that have been identified have been identified here. So we have to ensure that we can in an operational way bring governments into that discussion to show them all the work that the community has gone, but also bring that work to where the discussions currently are forming, for example, in relation to the digital compact so that the input of this community, these communities will play a central role with regard to the shaping of the future Internet governance environment not least, of course, a digital compact itself, but then worked on wishes, et cetera. We are aware of certain criticism with regard to the relationship between the DFI and the IGF. For us, there is no contradiction simply because our commitment is first and foremost to the IGF and the principles. We see it as a very necessary and useful manifestation or expression of the principles to which the IGF has spent its entire 20 years constructing. And also have shown and have the ability to adapt itself to address the questions of the day in order to ensure that in the future, not only is the multi‑stakeholder community, but the Internet governance forum which you have all invested so much in will continue to play and an increasing central role with regard to the governance of the internet. Thank you so much.
>> Thanks so much for that introduction into the principles. Mr. Tim Wong, are you there? Can you hear us? I was told he was having challenges.
>> TIM: You have to unmute me. It looks like you have.
>> Grace: This is for protection and strengthening of a multi‑stakeholder system of internet governance. How is the declaration for the future, um, in line with multi‑stakeholder internet governance model, which is driven by organizations and forums such as IGF. And, ah, how can the DFI signatories work on taking further the principle of multi‑stakeholders and you have, um, with the 7 minutes. Thank you.
>> TIM: I appreciate that and I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Thank you very much. A I said in the introduction, I think being in close collaboration with a multi‑stakeholder process is very important to every goal that the United States has and also the goals of the declaration of the future of the Internet.
So let me give a sense of some of the thinking behind this. As I think people in this room know, the reason that the declaration of the future of the Internet came to me conceived of and signed as a response to alarming and concerning patterns of state behavior. And it's general goal is to set basic norms, restate basic principles which many people have long thought taken for granted as to how a nation states should compart themselves with respect to the internet. What could be considered in some respects constitutional type of norms for state behavior. And one of those and I think a very important one was to have respect for the multi‑stakeholder governance processes. The internet it's original and founding strengths was that it wasn't, you know, in any sense controlled by a single country. It wasn't subject to the whims of every single sovereign, but rather was driven and managed by the Internet community and that's been a system which has worked extraordinarily well when you think of many decades that have passed. Among the concerns that drafters had was that nation states become ‑‑ seek to increase their power or increase their leverage at the expense of the multi‑stakeholder governance process and particularly technical sides of it. So in some sense, there's an effort here by the states, nation states coming together to sign the declaration to say there needs to be respect for multi‑stakeholder processes and particularly multi‑state or technical governance. It's funny. It might seem to some people why would states have to say that, but I think it is because states are the ones who are binding these and saying we're not going to interfere with the processes. So as I said, I think that goes back to the purpose of this declaration and why now some people have said don't we have the norms in place? I think one of the most important objects of the declaration is to address what over the years had become something of a gap. There have always been very strong norms surrounding the Internet. Just take an example that the norms that, um, the infrastructure providers should faithfully carry content is a long‑standing one. It's part of the success of the Internet. Very a very long time, there was no sort of legal obligation. The internet had norms surrounding commerce and so forth. But there have not been in a tradition norms that were binding on states. I just wanted to point out that this is why I think some people say why is the declaration only states members and why is it so state focused? I think the idea is to address a gap and what had appeared to the drafters as a growing problem as I said before the problem with state behavior. I think hopefully I made this point clear. The purpose and the goal of the declaration with respect to mull‑stakeholder governance processes is to bind states to help them and not to interfere. Thank you very much.
>> Grace: Thank you so much, Tim. You have listened to teams very well and articulated points and especially the last point about why the declaration is important in light of what the governments must commit to. So as you respond to that, there is also the question of, you know, that the declaration points out to technology issues that need to be addressed especially when we look at Ukraine, what has been happening in Ukraine and equally to different to needs that require this generation to step forward and act collectively to protect human rights on the Internet. How can we ensure the Internet remains open, global in line with universal values and fundamental rights. And Rick?
>> Thanks, Grace. I'm not sure everyone knows, but Tim participated on a session in the declaration at the between the 2021 IGF. Firstly, I think we need to recognize and I think you will find this if the text that the internet might be interoperable, but it is not open and it's not global. There are many people who still do not have access to it or do have access and that are constrained or that is constrained by among other things state behaviors such as Internet shutdowns or limitations on freedom of information and expression. So I think having this as a goal and striving on open and inclusive internet is absolute important. I think I really value that the declaration emphasizes that and it has very strong content. Particularly like the concept in the declaration of reclaiming the potential of the Internet because I think for me, I find it very meaningful because I think we in a sense lost touch with that potential. That potential of the internet as a public good to use a controversial term. I'm not saying that's in the declaration. I think what concerns me is I think if we use our aspiration for bolding and inclusive rights respecting open Internet and utilizing the potential for economic and social development, we need to do that inclusively. And I think there's a concept in the declaration of like‑minded actors or like‑minded states. I feel the moment that we start using these very positive pro‑rights principles to create ultimatums or criteria or dividers for being are you with us and if you're not with us, does that mean you're against us? I think then we are straying from the path of inclusive dialogue and I think the only way in which we can enhance and strengthen the global and open internet and based on human rights and fundamental values of social justice and inclusion, whatever is meaningful to you whether in an international treaty or something that's valued at a slightly different cultural level, if we don't do that inclusively, we're not going to achieve that feel. If we make the internet a political football in terms of global geo political tension and conflict, we then harm the Internet and we're reducing the Internet's potential as a platform for bolding peace. I would like to see the declaration be a starting point rather than an end point. I think it's a strong document. I believe I agree with them. I think there is a gap in asking states to commit to certain informative behavior. But you have to bold that bottom‑up. I think it's no accident. I think there are two African states that have signed on to the declaration. There might be more. I think for many states in the global solve. It concerns them that doing universities are prepared by others and then they are asked to come to the table after the fact and sign on. That is not the kind of process that we need. It might be much harder to bold a declaration and a common ‑‑ it might take much more time. But if we don't do that, we are not actually going to change the status quo, which is where the global open rights respecting Internet is something that has potential that we want to aspire to, but we don't yet have it.
>> Grace: Thanks. Very well articulated. I don't know if our fourth speaker is online. Is Marietje online? The declaration acknowledging the surge in cyber attacks, which brings some risks to the current internet architecture. What is the role of multi‑stakeholder community in addressing this challenge in order to avoid the fragmentation. Marietje, you have about 7 minutes. Thank you.
>> Marietje: Hi, everyone. I know you can probably hear me but maybe not see me. I don't have moderator authority to unmute my camera. I'm waving at you virtually. Do you hear me?
>> Grace: Yes. We can hear you. And I'm being told that you can actually ‑‑ you can actually use your camera.
>> Marietje: Yes. Wonderful. Hi, everyone. I wish I could be there with you. It would be nice to have all the discussions and information sessions live. Without that opportunity, I'm happy to join you virtually.
I wanted to say a few things about the declaration about the multi‑stakeholder model and end with some thoughts on the very specific topic of security, but I think it is impossible to see anything related in a silo. Bleed into economic matters and we find ourselves at a particularly vulnerable geo political moment in time. So I think it's important to see the connections between those different aspects that are all very important. Now, a few words on the declaration for the future of the Internet. I want to compliment Tim for the work he's done in the U.S. and all the partners including the European union and the many other governments that have signed up. And I understand those that wonder why do we need another declaration. At the same time, I think it's important to acknowledge the significance of the return to first principles at this moment in time because so much has changed in how the Internet is not only understood by governments, for example, but also the role that the Internet has taken as a growing vital critical infrastructure for our economies, our societies, our education. Just think about where we would have been during the pandemic without the Internet. But also the way in which the Internet is increasingly considered an instrument of power by both governments that have sought to shut it down in Ethiopia, for example, but also in other countries and the way in which it is being instrumentallized for economic benefits, but also as said for political power. Plays think about all the disinformation campaigns that have gone on over the Internet and the temptation to go deeper and deeper into protocols of the Internet to a wage power battles. So I think we find yourself in a moment in time where if we would love for that to be true. The defactor is no longer truly global or truly open in practice. And certainly the trend is going in the direction of more national control, more top down control and more instrumentallizing towards political power towards silencing critics and towards making it difficult to uphold the promise of an open Internet. So that's why it's important to realize how much we assumed the Internet would bring positive change and inclusive debates empowerment of individuals, a voice for the voiceless and opportunity to document and share human rights abuses. Really for the internet to be an Emanslaughter paer toy force. There were signs and movements in time and I think it is important to state the principles that we cherish and to see buy in from governments and that's why I think the declaration can add value.
As with many multi‑stakeholder processees and many declarations of principle, it is important that it doesn't become too much of a distraction. So in a good case, yes. A multi‑stakeholder process and declaration like this refocuses the attention, make sure there are different people at the table particularly Civil Society organizations and particularly those from the majority world or the global south that is an optimistic way in which the multi‑stakeholder process can facilitate change. Additionally when there is a commitment by Democratic governments and allies to make sure principles are implemented and translated into policies, new collaborations across borders, coalitions as well as accountability processees. Then I think the multi‑stakeholder model can work well. But in its worse case, it allows parties, governments, but also companies, for example, to be non‑committal to sign up to declarations, stay principles once more, but not to truly change their actions. And in the worst case, it can be distraction from the needed regulations. For example, by Democratic governments that are happy to support declarations with statements, but perhaps not as keen to do their own homework. And when I read the declaration, I can imagine a long wish list of steps to be taken by a number of governments, but I think the U.S. government is one important one. For example, is to reign in corporate power and the harm they're causing ecsixive power in the hands of private companies to the Internet as one example.
Then a couple more thoughts on the growing role of privacy companies. I believe there's a task for all of us particularly those of you who are at the IGF and who have worked in multi‑stakeholder processees for a long time. I hope there can be a next version of the multi‑stakeholder model as well because there's a risk that those stakeholders at the table are not necessarily proportionately represented, that relatively small voices, minor organizations are up against huge, wintery billion dollar companies under the big umbrella of a multistakeholder model. With power comes big responsibility and I think it is important to give more depth to show how different stakeholders each play their goal and should be held to account that role. Yes, a multi‑stakeholder every process and I think it can be very valuable. I believe democracy is a multistakeholder process. When we're not explicit about the values upon which a governance model is then built, a multi‑stakeholder model can take us to different directions and confusion about whether we truly share the values that we are seeking governance to be based on and whether or not those should be made a little bit more explicit. And then ultimately and I think it's been said by Pearse as well, when there is a lack of clarity, there can also be a lack of account am, a lack of results and a lack of holding up the standards that have been decided.
Now, taking all of this together, the need for anchoring in those first principles and to take the next step with the multi‑stakeholder model, I think we can learn similar lessons with regard to cybersecurity in particular because, um, there are a couple of trends that I think are worrying and then I'll stop. One is the fact that we seek companies increasingly on the front line of could be battle fields in war, could be during Peacetime, but still dealing with attacks and conflict. Questions of who is responsible and who gets to see who is responsible for those attacks are often in the hands of private companies. And that is a huge shift. I cannot underline enough how much of a shift that is from where we came from when there was notice digitization, kinetic attacks, but not cyber attacks as we see today and as we see blending in with any modern day conflict and intensiveication of competition sometimes as well. It is important that there is clarity on which role, which stakeholder plays. The fact that actually there should be a mandate to use force, for example, and there should be oversight checks and balances over the use of force as well as accountability for what has been done in the name of citizens. And I do believe that when we see too much of a privatization without the said accountant and oversight, we have a slippery slope away from principles that are enshrined in international law and we can see ‑‑
>> Grace: Marietje, I will ask you to summarize because of time.
>> Marietje: It is important that different stakeholders are held to account for the role they play and we do not in the name of inclusive process of everyone at the table let different stakeholders get away with an outsized use of power without checks on that power. I'll leave it there.
>> Grace: Okay. Thank you so much. At this point, I want to bring it back to the floor for questions, for interventions. And I will ask you to introduce yourself and then raise your question. So I'm going to take five questions and then ‑‑ and then we can ‑‑ we can bring it back to the panelists to respond. Then we have online participation. So I'll expect for those who want to participate to ask questions online and you're following us from Zoom. Please raise your hand so you can be our online moderator can raise attention on who wants to ask. So we'll start this way. Number 2. My sight (?) from there.
Number 3. Anyone else? Okay. All right. So we'll do those three and then we'll see if we have others online and we'll bring it back to the panelists. Wolfgang, over to you.
>> Thank you very much. My name is Wolfgang. If I would have to evaluate the declaration, I would say substance A+, but procedure Bminus. So this absence is really wonderful and I can only agree with Tim and Pearse while declaration. There's an urgent need to reiterate what we have achieved the last 20 or 30 years. The dreams of the founding process of the Internet freedom, cyber democracy under big pleasure and has to be safe in the future of the future. This is a great document and although specifically of the principles is extremely useful. Bminus and see why the hell the U.S. government always supported a buttoned up policy development approach, private sector leadership and stakeholder came as a government leddish the initiative and excluded stakeholders from the making of declarations. I think Marietje has made a point. So you cannot expect that if you negotiate a document in an isolated way, say I exclude it from the making of the document. So this is a missed opportunity and I fully agree with Pearse that we have to look forward now. So far it is very good if the European Commission supports or started now of a serious mighty stakeholder workshops to include them. But the first thing was also transparent was also top down. There was no call or a discussion about this similar in the IGF environment. So I have two proposals. One is established mighty stakeholder broke for the committee or the implementation of the declaration and where they select seems as probably projects and you can use all the national and regional IGFs next opportunity is to (?) in tune next year. I think this would be a process. The issues which are risked in the declaration. The second is open the door for signature of non‑state actors. Pearse has said we have a lack of commitment of governments, but we have also a lack of commitment for corporations. They have opened the door for signatures by non‑state actors and it would be extremely useful if big private companies would commit themselves to the principles of the declaration. So far, there is no procedure in place. Civil Society organizations you have no way how to sign the document. So repair this procedural weaknesses. Thank you.
>> I'm from (?). We have taken some of the questions, but probably still on participation. Multistakeholders is the only way to develop documents. Is multistakeholder for those that want to run as print probably some people want to run very fast and others want to run a marathon. We run the same races and the people run underneath us and the people are running marathons are two different races. (?) go ahead and develop the declaration and then look for allies. If you develop a document and are able to bring allies to support it, is that still accepted? And probably I would want to look at this question because you had to touch on it and then to Pearse. Has any of the principles been challenged? And can there be a process to add part of the document? And probably go back and bring more stakeholders on board as they're trying to suggest in the suggestions. And if you have criticism that you explain, but you are talking about people have raised, if you explain this criticism to governments, for example, add this signing to the document if the criticism makes sense to them. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. I'm working with Internet Governance Forum. Basically one year ago, the declaration for the use of the Internet and we're still waiting for a plan of action. Of course, DFI has created lots of reactions negative and positive. Now this moment, we are discussing the declaration for the use of the Internet in the 17th IGF after all without any plan of action. Therefore, we'd like to know why in the plan of action we announce. Thank you.
>> Grace: Thank you. We have three online questions. Can Andrew be unmuted to ask the question?
>> Hopefully you can hear me okay.
>> Grace: Yes, we can hear you.
>> Fantastic. Yes. Thank you for the discussions so far. I think the declaration on the future of the internet is a really important document not least because it provides the BASIS from alternative vision for the future of the internet to that often the proown ends of new IP. So it was much needed to provide that alternative vision. In my view though with some of the other people that have commented, it really now needs ‑‑ now it has momentum. It needs to be adopted both by opening up to non‑governmental signatures as others have mentioned and by other parts of the multisting holder community such as ICANN, the ITF and maybe the ITU, et cetera, taking the key principles into their respective processes and then finally on the back of that, the mechanism for subsequently updating it through a consensus process would then be beneficial. I would like to see if other panel members would agree with that. Thank you.
>> Grace: Thank you, Andrew. Can the microphone be unmuted now Moccha Barry.
>> Hello? Can you hear me?
>> Grace: Yes, we can hear you.
>> Thank you very much for giving me the floor. First of all, I should thank you for organizing this timely session. My question is to Mr. Tim. What is the relation between the (?) presented? What is the relation between the village presented in the declaration for fast of Internet and the vision presented in the sensory court of CFR, Council of foreign relation entitled confronting reality in cyberspace. Foreign policy for fragmentd is the report concluded that the error is over. It seems that two visions are somehow contradictory. Could you explain, could you please explain more about its impact and the potential contribution of declaration for future of the Internet on facilitation of Internet fragmentation and political level and it could be a policy of excluding other countries. They lead to (inaudible) quality of life. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to write my concert. Thank you very much.
>> Grace: Your point is noted. The last question is from Zan Kann.
>> Hi, everyone. Can you hear me?
>> Grace: Yes. Loud and clear.
>> IZAAN I appreciate the discussion that we had from the panel so far. One of the questions that I had more often an observation that pertains to the declaration. We don't see members of very important geo critical centers such as bricks as signatories of the declaration. More importantly, the ones that do exist, the Democratic nations and are the nations considered to be the digital deciders have been implemented from those types of countries that we would consider them to be extra territorial requirements to take down content or surveillance laws that exist. These countries that we usually want to try to bring towards the side of internet freedom and digital rights would basically ‑‑ you would end up with a situation of the pot calling the kettle black essentially. What would you brink in light of these observations? Thank you.
>> Grace: Thank you so much for the questions. I think there are some questions that directly address to certain speakers. I know there are some addressed to Pearse especially the one from Wolfgang on the process scoring a Cor is it a Bminus and the need to establish a multistakeholder implementation. These are questions for Henri it. You know the multistakeholders to develop Internet documents. There's also another oneha the process been engaged. There's one for team on internet fragmentation and the relationship with other players. And finally, the other two questions that can be picked by any of the speakers and that's on the important sig Natter toys missing in the declaration as well as what is the plan of action. I think we'll start this time. Let's start with you, Henri it and then we'll come to Pearse and then go to the online panelists. Thank you.
>> Thanks very much, Grace and thanks, everyone, for the questions. I want to quickly comment on Wolfgang's proposal. It's great to get more conversation. The idea of using the Internet Governance Forum and in our eyes to discuss and talk about the declaration. But I also think we need to use the international system. I think we already saw with the netmund yapual we generated a powerful, underneathful simple document in 2014 but it just never quite went into the multi‑lateral space. Therefore, it never went any further. This is the challenge of us in thinking and Marietje pointed it out. And I think one of the mechanisms that we need to bolt into this multistakeholder approach is better articulatation with the multi‑lateral system. Particularly when it comes to issues of peace and security, we need a strong, trusted united nation system. And if we don't use it, and if we don't challenge it, we'll fall short and we're going give to have it. The multi‑stakeholder approach is not the only approach. I think we also need to ‑‑ I'm not sure if we still really understand what we mean when we say the multi‑stakeholder approach. I think Marietje elaborates on that. I think she did flag that. It's an approach that needs to be critiqued, adapted, developed. It's applied differently in different context. But as for your question, can we no longer generate documents and ask others to sign on to them? My response would be yes, if you just am them to express general agreement, that's fine. But if you want them to comply with it and to live it and hold others accountable for complying with it, no. Then you can't. They actually have to feel ownership of it. They have to understand what implications offer them as a state and what implications are in terms of holding other actors accountable. I'd like to see the U.S. use the declaration as a framework for holding U.S. corporations accountable. That to me would demonstrate how seriously the U.S. has thought about the contents of this declaration. I think and hope that is the intention.
So then on the general point about bricks, I think it's on a very important point. I think you can see when you look at will signatories at the moment, it does not contain those countries. And I think that is significant and I think that if we'll want to have impact, we have to multi‑stakeholder processes are messy as fiiona Alexandre said in the chat. The transition process took a long time. But if we don't work through those disagreements ‑‑ (no audio)
>> I wanted to start by way of doing so and responding to a point that ania made in her first comments, which is quite a Stark point with regard to the needs to do this process inclusively and the risk that if somehow we said you either agree with us or you don't. That's mot inclusive. Certainly that risk existed, but what I want to go back to is just to recall that, of course, what we have is a set of principles and what we are saying is you are like mind country with your sign. But can you as a government agree to these principles and will you publicly commit to implementing them? And so we were faced with so much of a dilemma that if we went into detailed and inclusive process such as we are used to in the multi‑stakeholder environment, then we had the risk of it being watered‑down or becoming a political foot policy in that process and we would have ended up with a document of less value. It's a dilemma. It's not a perfect solution which I have to say. That hospital me then to answer the questions that were put with regard to Wolfgang on the process. We'll take that hit, the process was not. I think by definition could not have been perfect, but in ‑‑ now working when I mentioned before workshops, it is our ambition there will be many more. I hear what you're saying and thank you. It's a very good point as to how we should build on that to make it even more important. I would just like to recall to everybody in what is a short document. It is not a coincidence that the last paragraph of this document, which is the conclusion in the way forward points explicitly without any ambiguity to the multi‑staying holder process to the role plays and to the commitment of every single declaration we work with and form partnerships and that is the going forward part. The other point I would make and Ien I'm not sounds like I'm make excuses, we wanted thetect to be light. So the last thing we want to do is create new structures because they would have been seen as being in opposition and in competition or cutting a across the focus and energies you so by being light on process, we, of course, ran into the obvious criticism about the weaknesses in the process. Where we can learn and the last point I would make is yes. We have nearly 70 signatories. It is interesting sometimes as common, but we are still in contract with a number of countries and hoping that an increasing number of signatories would engage in the discussions to see if we can bring on many more. But then that brings me to what was said by Wolfgang and Andrew. The fact this there is a critical role that is already there for the multi‑stakeholder community for Civil Society, for the noncrystal limbs of the make stakeholder community. That is simply go country that signs up must be agreeing also to expose itself, if you like, but agreeing to wire review particularly led by the multistakeholder community. So if a government signs up to maintaining and promoting human rights, then that immediately puts them into the spotlight of the multistakeholder community who can say actually, that is not the case. Now I would say that, of course, we do in that some cases we wanted to have countries that sign up who have an aspiration who may not ‑‑ that's why the role is critical. It is to monitor all within the software and also then give input again on the BASIS of multi‑stakeholder consensus building as to how those principles must be driven effective in practice. So the fact that one or other community is not asking to be a dignatory had not be seen in any way under values or pushing away communities and processes for which you control from the actual effective operation of this declaration. Thank you.
>> Grace: Thank you, Pearse. I think now we come to Tim and I hope you can make your interventions as brief. Tim?
>> TIM: Yes. Although, there's been a lot said. Really pushing these questions. Very thoughtful questions. It is a good reminder of the importance of governments. In being close to the process and understanding and hearing as much as we can. Some of the points have been addressed. Last I wanted to get ‑‑ people have asked for the United States. I think, um, one of the goals of this is to not just talk the talk, but walk the walk. We think it is extremely important just speaking for the United States that we continue to adhere to these principles. We are find thing ourselves in a way that I think is very important. I think all as I said before, I think one of the real challenges of the Internet underestimated either in the early days, certainly in the '80s and the '90s is the influence of state and development of state power. There is instrument of safe power, and it is obviously something that's become increasingly pressing and it's not something to be taken ‑‑ no one take its lightly. I won't say that. But the United States is committed I'll say (?) committed to these principles or interested that we're living these principallies as well just to take one example some of you know President Biden back in October signed a new executive order for enLansing signals intelligence activities which is a range of new protections, civil. This has to do with data privacy framework. It's important because it is onsuring the U.S. government engages intelligence activities around the world in a way that is protecting citizens and the value. I think that is important of an example we're doing to try to be adhering with the declaration. Domestically, the President has repeatedly said that he feels we need to do more in the government control the power of some of the largest tech firms and, um, take a look at the immunes. This is consistent with some of the claims or concerns. There is two little ‑‑ the administration is very concerned. I can also say we're consistent with the idea that governments should be trying to Connect citizens without spending billions of dollars building a broad man in the United States, an important passion of mine. Also I think we need to encourage other countries and the efforts to findests to Connect the world. So that's some of what we're doing on our side. I think engaging in diplomacy and USAID and the organization ‑‑ I mean, agency in fulfilling these goals overseas and engaging in the diplomacy. I want to talk for a moment about this question of fragmentation. One of the ‑‑ someone asked how is this consistent. The Council foreign relations and I want to make sure this is a very important point that we wrote the declaration believed that fragmentation was an increasingly serious problem. This declaration is a response to that some people say, you know, it's going to create us and them or ‑‑ you're a like mindd countee or you're not. What I have been trying to do here and I want to say we had success. We had new countries sign up this fall. We're close to getting 65 countries right now and growing. We want our commitment to a non‑fragmented Internet. You know, just say well, this is going to fragment. In a sense, we're dealing with a problem of the internet that's fragmented. We're dealing with countries that everyone must acknowledge ‑‑ shutting down the internet and certain instances and craving their own silos. We don't want the whole world to become like that. I don't think anyone here does. That is why is the time to have countries reaffirm they believe in the basic principles that countries should enterconnect and the internet should be (?) and so forth. I think that's an important thing to understand. React with ongoing fragmentation. It's not like we're in the 90s and ‑‑ we need to take action before it gets worse. I want to close. I appreciate, you know, am hearing that we ‑‑ that members of multi‑stakeholder society want to be more engaged, which they had been involved. I would say we had multiple sessions. It sounds defensive, but we meet ‑‑ but I do think we can always do more have multistakeholders involved. The reason I think it is previewed that we centered this document on states. What you're dealing with is a state package. They don't have a problem ‑‑ they're not (?) or spying on people. We don't need to ‑‑ it's good you agree. But we're ‑‑ you're serving not our target audience in terms of what we want you to agree to. In some sense, I think most ‑‑ but with that said, I think that one of the Ron going challenges is exactly how we harness the power.
>> Grace: Tim, I have to interrupt you. Kindly summarize because of time.
>> TIM: As we go forward and go forward with our dichromeacy, I think it is very important that ‑‑ I thought ‑‑ the countries that are members of the declaration right now and I think in general have to make the case without just lecturing or trying to tell other countries what to do as to why it is so important for those of us who still believe that there is merits and still believe. But we need to make the case. We need to make an economic case and we need to do all we can. The burden is on the fact all of us to keep the internet strong. We can't have it something that becomes an example of rich countries lex lecturing the rest of the world. Thank you very much. Sorry for going over time.
>> Grace: Marietje, are you there? I will ask you to very, very brief and because of time, I will also give you, you know, you'll be the first one to speak because we need to find up because of time. So you make entersections and then you will give us one key action and that's not like a presentation. We just want you to give us that key action and a twist. That is aread. So if you ask, which one key action is required to insure the over to you and then I will come to you, Pearse, and Tim, you'll be the last one and please it's just ‑‑ Pearse and Henri. We need to finish.
>> Should I go now?
>> Grace: On my calendar I chose 6:15. Okay. So we have time. All right. In that case, please just make your response to the questions that were raised.
>> Marietje: Feel free to come back to me later. I'll be very brief and it's nice to see familiar faces like Wolfgang. I don't think it's complete without his presence. So it's great to see him asking the question. So, I want to maybe invite you to look at it a certain way. The fact that nobody was at the table during the drafting process, by the way, I had nothing to do with drafting the declaration for the future of the internet. I don't own this, but I am try will to invite you to see the following way. Just because not everybody was at the table, it doesn't mean you're allowed to be ‑‑ I think it's important to appreciate the challenge and killing on board of all governments that have signed up. I'm not sure that it would have happened as others have mentioned with a long multistakeholder process. It is fair to say governments who have decided to sign up have not done enough themselves to protect and open and global internet and to avoid fragmentation so far. It is as Tim said important they look themselves in the mirror and step up where they may have failed in the past.
And I think it's important in general to avoid the following trap where there is a disqualification of the price ‑‑ I think it's logical in some ways that there is a number of countries that have signed up and there are a number of countries that will probably never sign up because there are there's one thing I would urge you all to focus on is be ecpolice it about the values and principles is that are supposed is to guide results that we would like to see. That is going to exclude some people. The silver lining is that most countries that have committed to the declaration do respect the space for Civil Society. In fact, therefore, or hopefully opens other stakeholder ares like free mess, voces from the around the world and so on. I think it is important to so and then the one call I would have for this opportunity and I think the way to be involved in the most effective way is hold the governments into account. Let them act upon the commitments that they have now signed up to in principal. That's when we really see results, but by investmenting ‑‑ there's a lot of work and Adon't to should. I hope you will take on the task.
>> Grace: Thanks. So I understand that there are there are quos, comments online. And I'm going to call on Sonia to give us those comments. Sonia?
>> Sonia: Yes. There is one question here from you'rey Council. The question is very simple and it says how do initiators visit the relation between the DFI and the global digital compact?
>> Grace: Okay. Do you want to respond to that? Okay. Thanks, Sonia.
>> If I may give a brief answer from the perspective of the European Commission. Just as a said, we're not building institutionser processes that we'll ‑‑ the global digital comment pact and the way we hope would be framed and drafted, lands on the table of 170 plus countries in the UN, that areure ‑‑ it would ‑‑ respecting human rights and improving digital literacy. These are issues which we hope will be central to the GDC. We know IGF should play a role into that. We hope smooths the path to these ‑‑
>> Grace: Okay. I think we have an opportunity to ask one more question, one final question, if at all it is there. Anyone with it? Okay. So I don't see any questions. In that case, I'm going then to give it back to my panelists and, um, ask each panelists to respond to this. If you are asked to identify one key action that is required to ensure that enternet remains accessible, open and recommend centric, who would this Hbe and why? So this time I wanted to start on with our remote panelists and I think the first opportunity I want to give to Tim. Tim, are you there?
>> TIM: I'm right here. Yeah. Thank you very much for that question. Again, thank you are if this opportunity. This is ‑‑ appreciate that ‑‑ I will say what's ‑‑ the United States needs to live up to the principles that we declared in this thing. No country has been perfect and we're aware of that, including ourselves. We just think that's important that we establish our credibility on the world stage. We have taken a great effort over the course of this administration to do some things that I talked about earlier in terms of trying to protect off the new privacy protections with trying to constrain E sesses of ‑‑ excessive corporate power. We think in fact it is key and this is again I return to this thing. In the earlier days through many of the more ‑‑ idealistic right, in some ways, it was almost irrelevant and seeing that hasn't worked out. So I think it is appropriate for multistakeholders. It is already there for us to focus on him and around the worth. I want to crate a ‑‑ I don't think it is seen by anybody in that way. People take for granted something great here. For those of us that still believe some of the challenges that there is ‑‑ the internet has much to offer and it can become anding I be a human source of iron development and we need to make the to show that we're living as I said by the principles and show the rest of the world they should want to abide by the principles and not just assume that all this is taken for agreementd. So that's the kind of thinking that was behind a launch. The original vision of why we need to have this. There is time to bring back some of that ideals but in a sense a greater sense there is risks and dangers and reality of state power and action. Thank you very much for this opportunity to be here and, um, everybody (?).
>> Grace: Okay. Marietje, are you there? One key action.
>> My one key action ‑‑ yes. Hello. My one key action would be to appreciate the power of regulation and the need to see regulation to ensure that we move from principles. There will be a selection of those who agree and who will side with enshrining principles into law. That will be a telling parting of ways. Right? It will become very clear who is willing to actually commit not only with signatures but with laws and unfortunately, it will not be a global coalition, but a majority of countries that will keeps door open but then also not wait to take necessary actions and ensure the lacking actionability that we see at the moment. Thank you so much.
>> Grace: Thank you so much. Andrea?
>> This is reclaiming the internet and to approach that from the point of view of principles. I think my key action would be in doing so that remember it's not thend net. It's the about ‑‑ this process has to trickle down to more than just another statement that sounds good. And says important things. We have to implement that. And it's not at the level of regulating the Internet as a whole because that comes with a whole new set of risks that we want to avoid.
>> Grace: Thank you. Finally Pearse.
>> Pearse: Thank you so much. In highlighting what I would consider to be my one key action, I'm going to tease because in fact, there's eye pre‑cursor to it that we have to focus on. With that, I'm very minded of what ania had said in the opening remarks. First of all, we have to have physical access to the internet for the world's population. So all of our developing nations need to coordinate and maximize the output and partnering with countries so that the internet infrastructure is built according to their needs and local practices. So with that work going on, my one key action would then be to ensure that Civil Society and the non‑governmental multi‑stakeholder community is empowered and able to comment on without fear of attack to possibly advise governments to give implementation of the principles which are set in the declaration. Thank you.
>> Grace: I think you will all agree that the conversations ‑‑ the conversation we had here has been very healthy, has been very stimulating. People have been honest. We have raised issues that we think are critical to the success of the declaration and these issues are very important because if we don't raise them, such issues and the mind are good process. They undermind good documents. They undermine good intentions. So I'm not going to both are to summarize because there are too many points that came up. I know everyone has taken something with them out of this conversation. And so at this point, I just wanted to thank Pearse. I want to thank Anriette, team and for your very well articulated perspectives on the declaration. Your perspectives have actually enlightened more people how broken down the declaration is all about and now we're more informed than we were when we came here. I think we have been able to raise concerns. So we're grateful to you. We've also very grateful to all of you who have come and listen and raise questions. We're grateful to the online participants and so on. Anca and they have been organising this and put this together. Thank you ever have much and please allow me to feel the power of using this. So this session stands adjourned.