IGF 2022 Second Open Consultations and MAG Meeting - Day 1 - Afternoon

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  We're about to start our session.  It's two minutes past 3:00 at the moment.  If we can all take our seats, thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Good afternoon.  I hope you all had a good lunch.  Are you ready to get back to work?

 So we're going to start off the afternoon session here with a discussion of how to advance cooperation between the IGF and 152 NRIs.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Excuse me.  We've started the meeting.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  I was going to get my opening sentence before I went "bang."

 Anyways, so I will say that again.  Our initial topic -- we've got about 30 minutes for it -- is to talk about advancing cooperation between IGF and the 152 NRIs, which is a large number of separate organizational opportunities, for want of a better word.  So I'm going to ask Anja to give a little overview, and then we'll dive in to see what you all think.

 And the meeting is in progress.

 >>ANJA GENGO:  Thank you very much, Chair.  Yes, as you said, we have 152 national, regional, subregional, and youth IGFs recognized by the IGF secretariat.

 Just for the record, the secretariat recognizes the NRIs on the basis of their respect in the implementation of the entire process, including the annual meeting of the IGF principles.  In other words, we ensure together with the NRIs that they are multistakeholder in their formation and also in the way they convene their process including the annual event; that they are bottom-up, open, inclusive, transparent, and noncommercial.  

 The soon-to-be recognized NRIs, just for your information will probably be the Estonia IGF, which will hopefully make us the 153rd very soon.  In terms of the overall ecosystem, we can say from the side of the secretariat that our cooperation is becoming more and more intensive with the NRIs.  It started, indeed, with this core, trusted initiative that we recognize the NRIs and as such list them on the IGF website.  But it has been growing ever seen, and we also have very good cooperation with the NRIs.  We facilitate the collective work of the NRIs on the objectives that they set at the beginning of each IGF cycle as a priority.

 For this year, the NRIs set as objectives again to organize a couple of sessions to be finally implemented at the IGF in Addis.  So the main session topic has been decided.  There are five collaborative or workshop-like sessions which are organized by NRIs coming from different regions with the aim to bring local specificities to the IGF community as a whole.

 In addition to that, several other objectives have been achieved so far.  For example, the NRIs' work done ensuring there is cooperation with parliaments within their communities.  So in that sense, there's been a brochure that's been developed at the end of last year translated now to ten languages, different languages, by the NRI communities.

 They are working with my colleague Sorina as a focus point to also understand how the parliamentary track could be developed at the NRI levels, of course, respecting fully their modalities and upon demand; to understand how the engagement of parliamentarians can be strengthened, long-term speaking.

 Every month at least once all the NRIs are meeting, and the agenda is obviously focused on different objectives.  For now the priorities relate to finalize the planning sessions in a bottom-up manner across the globe.  And hopefully that should be done very soon.  Around September I think all the sessions will be complete.

 As I said before lunch break, that we also are supporting the NRIs financially.  16 grants have been allocated to eligible NRIs.  That means that the NRIs' whose work scope extends to developing country's communities receive this type of support.  But, of course, we are open in terms of the support in other ways.  

 And, for example, we worked with EuroDIG on hosting a couple of capacity-development sessions.  For the African IGF coming up in Malawi in July, 19 through 21, we will be working on implementing the parliamentarian track.  A couple of capacity-development workshops from our side will be there organized, including the youth track, which will include a couple of sessions.

 We are looking forward to working with other NRIs in the coming months.  So certainly our presentation will be at the Asia-Pacific IGF, which will be in September in Singapore.  Hoping also for the LAC IGF to foster cooperation in that sense.  

 And I think that would be the overview for now.  But happy to respond to any of the questions you may have.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  So I will open the floor to questions and comments on the topic of coordination with the NRIs.  Anyone have a question, a comment, a concern?  Something you want to propose?

 Maybe I could then just ask Anja a question more directly.  If you could have anything to support your work with the NRIs, what would it be?

 >>ANJA GENGO:  That's a very good question, yes.  From the side of the secretariat, we are keen to expand on our cooperation with the NRIs.  But that obviously needs resources, and we are limited in that sense.  There are 152 NRIs.  It seems that it will start to grow.  And there are four of us.

 What I would like to see more is certainly cooperation between the MAG and the NRIs.  Many of the MAG members are, indeed, affiliated with the NRIs but many are not.  And I think it will be excellent if we could foster that cooperation or integration of MAG members, also the alumni network of MAG members into the NRI meetings, as active contributors and maybe drivers of the process.

 It would also be good to hear proposals from the community on what is needed.  For example, we did hear that this cooperation on -- engage with the parliamentarians is something that's needed.  That's why we are looking into examples how to bring good practices to the NRI levels but also to learn from the NRIs levels and apply good practices on us.

 And then another point that was also asked by the community, especially at the Expert Group Meeting that was hosted (no audio) -- IGFs.  

 And in terms of the youth IGFs, there is a lot of diversity, but I think essentially everything comes to one point:  that those are young people, the next generations of our experts and leaders that need our attention and our investment, substantively speaking, now in terms of their skills, in terms of their networking opportunities to be ready to tomorrow take the positions of decision-makers and decision-shapers.  And so concrete ideas on how we could do that would be something, certainly, that is welcomed.

 And finally, I think funding is always a problem, and that has been elevated by the NRIs for years now on the global agenda.  I want to recognize that we saw a change in the past couple of years in terms of the international community.  That means that there are some international big players who basically have concrete opportunities, open channels for the NRIs to actually apply for funding to justify, through their application, why certain investment is needed.

 So in that sense, the IGF Support Association has funding channel for the NRIs, the Internet Society and now their foundation as well, so there is an open call.  But many others do not.  And I think it would be good as the NRIs' focal point that maybe the international community think about a way to open those channels for the NRIs to apply for funding more transparently than maybe it has been done so far.

 There always, I think, also prompts the NRIs on their side to maybe rethink the ways they apply for funding, because it's a competitive process.  So I think you're just building on what you have so far, and I think it can only result in good things.

 The IGF Secretariat I think can confirm that.  For the past three, four years, you have been giving financial grants, and we have seen a change.  When you work more closely with the NRIs but very carefully respecting their modalities, then I think that helps to enhance the cooperation, but you also see the increase in the quality of the NRI process.  And I'm hoping that we can have more discussion about these ideas.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Great.  Yes.

 >> CHRISTINE ARIDA:  Thank you, this is Christine Arida from Egypt for the record.  

 So thank you, Anja.  Anja has been a great supporter to the NRI process over many, many years, and the work that she has dedicated to that, one has to say, has actually moved the whole network of NRIs from one place to another place.  So thank you for that.

 Just to throw a couple of more ideas to what Anja was just mentioning.  Of course funding is an issue.  That has always been the case, and a more transparent vehicle to do that, even if it's through the different donors, multistakeholder -- in multistakeholder way would be very helpful for the NRIs.  And I speak about the region where I come from.  I come from the African Arab region.  We have many NRIs in our region.  It is a continuous struggle to actually -- to actually make funding available in a -- in a healthy manner.  Let me just put it that way, okay?  And so that's one thing.

 The other thing is maybe the MAG would consider looking at novel modalities, how to integrate the work of the NRIs considering it as an intersessional work.  So the NRIs have been working -- we can consider them working intersessionally because they usually build up towards the IGF with their annual meetings and with their report that they usually submit at some point in time to the secretariat, but maybe if we can think about modality where we integrate that with other components of the IGF.  Like, for example, the workshops.  Like if, for example, we can say that workshops that have been discussed in -- the themes of workshops that were discussed in NRIs around the year could get a higher grade, for example, when they come to the -- when they come to the global IGF.  Meaning that if I'm a workshop organizer that wants to get my session into the global IGF, I would try to go and tackle the different NRI networks and maybe do a session here and there, and then come and report back on that.  And that would enrich the discussion both in the NRIs and eventually at the global IGF.  So that's one idea.

 Another idea maybe to consider is to have a vehicle where NRIs can like twin with each other.  Like we can have one NRI twin with another one, one that is more successful, maybe more lucky with funding could actually, you know, exchange speakers, exchange work programs with another NRI that is less developed and just help the community in that area to move on.  And that would be an organic way of NRIs to cooperate together.

 So those are just for consideration.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you.  Going down from this end.  Let's hear -- You're up.  No, you're up.

 Okay.  You go first.

 >> Thanks so much, Chair.  Thank you, Anja.

 I wanted to find out more about youth IGFs.  For example, if you want to start a national youth IGF, what would be the process?  Other national, country -- like within countries or are these global youth IGFs?  If possible.

 >>ANJA GENGO:   Yes, thank you very much.  That is a very good question because the landscape of the youth IGF is a little bit complex.  We manage to organize consultations across the NRIs to understand what is there outside in the ecosystem because everything with the NRIs emerged organically.  So nobody called for it in a structured or organized way.  So we tried to bring in some order.

 So we managed to identify four models.  One is where we have existing NRIs who create their integrated youth IGF programs.  They have to be also multistakeholder open and closed and transparent and bottom-up, of course, and very importantly because they are obviously for youth and usually by youth, they have to be focused primarily on the youth communities.  But there's advice from the NRIs' network that youth should not be siloed.  So creating synergies between the current generations of experts and leaders or senior stakeholders is something that is also very important.

 Another model are the independently organized youth IGFs.  That means that basically as the national/regional IGF, there is a group of stakeholders which are willing to organize an IGF process within a country or within a region, and they have to adhere to the same set of principles and procedures as any national or regional IGF.  They can be on a national level or on a subregional or regional level, but the essence is that they have a multistakeholder organizing committee.  The committee can be composed of mix of young people and senior stakeholders.  In some cases there are only young people by the definition of the youth, which is independently coined by that process.  But we look at how the committee is of a multistakeholder nature can be challenging when you have all the, let's say, students because they don't belong to specific stakeholder group.  But then we look at their backgrounds.

 And so we are always asking for diversity within the committee.  In other words, you don't have just students from one faculty or one branch in the committee but they come, you know, from -- with different backgrounds, which later results in formal stakeholder groups once they start professionally engaging in work activities later.

 And then there are those forums which we call basically the capacity development forums, and they can be organized at local, national, regional, or global level.  One of the example is the youth IGF movement or the youth Ambassadors.  That is a program facilitated by several international organizations.  And technically those are the capacity development projects that are focused on engaging youth in Internet governance processes, respecting the principles of the IGF, which means, again, that they are multistakeholder, bottom-up, open, inclusive, and transparent in their work.

 And so that would be -- Those would be the models.  And then we look at case-by-case basis once we receive the request, how the recognition is done.

 But really important, there we discourage any duplication of efforts.  If there are there is already an existing national or regional IGF, then we certainly will encourage cooperation between, let's say, an independently organized youth IGF or we encourage organization of an integrated youth IGF.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.

 >>BRAM FUDZULANI:  Thank you, Mitchell.  Bram again coming in.  

 I wanted to also echo the point that, I think, Anja raised in terms of the secretariat support towards the coordination of the national and regional NRIs, specifically on the need for MAG members to come in and help the NRIs.

 In my thinking, I think as one of the coordinators of the local NRI, the support goes beyond the aspect of looking for funding.  Just you thinking about how do we put together a national IGF next year, for example, and thinking of putting together all the stakeholders and making sure they understand because you must understand most of the NRIs are still in the infancy stage and, therefore, they can have their face-to-face meeting this year with a lot of support.  But next year how do we make sure that they are sustaining momentum, make sure they are engaging with the stakeholders?  So I'm not sure whether it is now the mandate of the MAG members to reach out to NRIs and offer their support or the coordinators to be able to come at the forum and say, Look, we want to prepare for next year's national IGF but we want support from any available pool from the MAG members.  And maybe then from the MAG members can offer and say, okay, we can support you with capacity-building, we can support you with raising resources.  

 I remember in Poland, there was a mission of coming up with sort of a catalog that sort of gives guidance to the coordinators in terms of how do you -- what are the resources available if you want to put together a national IGF.  So more go through a catalog, if you want to raise resources, if you want to get support from the secretariat.  I think that is still work in progress.

 But I feel like this has to come out clear.  Is it the coordinators that need to reach out or the MAG members just offer themselves directly to the coordinators?  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL: Thank you.  


 >>WIM DEGEZELLE:  Thank you, Chair.  I do realize I didn't properly introduce myself earlier on, so let me start with that.  

 I'm Wim Degezelle.  I'm a consultant with the secretariat, supporting the work of the best practice forum cybersecurity and the policy network on Internet fragmentation.

 And linked with regard to NRIs, I was like to add here that for also the previous years, but this year again, the intersessional activities, the BPFs, and also the policy networks are really interested in looking into ways how they can collaborate, sorry, with NRIs or at least link discussions that are happening at the local level with discussions -- with what they are discussing in their intersessional activities.

 There have been some prize in previous years with, for example, specific separate survey that went to NRIs, directly reaching out to people.  None of them really have been successful, partially because -- I mean, they work on completely different time schedule and time line.

 But I would really welcome any suggestions on how this could be done better this year of how this could be organized.

 I do know that Anja sent out earlier, probably a couple of weeks ago, an email to the NRI list to invite organizations -- sorry, to invite NRIs interested in one of the intersessional activities of the policy networks to identify a focal point.  And I really think that could be a very first step.  If an NRIs is interested in any of the intersessional activities, that at least we know that you get in touch with Anja and that we know who to reach out to.  But overall, I think all activities are really interested in working closer together with the NRIs.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  And now Jorge.

 >>JORGE CANCIO:  Thank you.  Thank you, Paul.  Jorge Cancio, Swiss government for the record.

 Yeah, on the question how we can help NRIs, what can be done to improve the work that is done at that level, I think an idea very similar to what Christine from Egypt mentioned crossed my mind in the sense that, at least at regional level, for instance, thinking about EuroDIG in Europe, there are many informal interactions between people from national IGFs and then you learn how they go about things, how they organize things, how they, for instance, organize the calls for issues, or how they build the messages of their meetings.  That's very informal.  And, of course, in the European region after some years, you get to know each other.  But maybe there's low-hanging fruit there.  Apologies if that's already covered by your work, that we could extend that informal exchange of knowledge, of experiences to the global level so that maybe you could have a list and say, Okay, the Swiss IGF, first you talk.  You have people that talk French, English, German, Italian, and maybe some other languages and that they are at the disposal of other NRI colleagues to talk about this and this and this and that, for instance, about messages or about whatever issues.  

 So it's not a, let's say, hierarchical mentorship scheme but it's more a database or a list of people that are at your disposal.  And those people sometimes don't appear at the global level.  So they don't go to global IGFs because they stay at the national level; and at most, they go to the regional level.  And it's a resource that doesn't cost any money really.  It costs some time; but it's a question of knowing the people and, of course, the secretariat, Anja, and the wealth of knowledge she has about the different NRIs are evolving.  Could be a good connection point, a good connection note, between all these NRIs so that they can help each other to improve.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  Next we have Donny.

 >>DONNY UTOYO:  Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity.  I am here representing the Indonesian MCIT, the Indonesian Minister of Communication and Information Technology, as well as the Indonesian Internet Governance Forum, IGF.

 Please allow me to deliver a note from my colleagues in Indonesia.  We are very happy and passionate about the development of IGF globally, especially for the NRI.  

 We from the IIGF believe that in order for the national and regional IGFs to develop apart from requiring action from local and regional multistakeholder, they also need continued support from the IGF global authority.  This support includes, among others, of course, resources to ensure a meaningful and sustainable process of peer learning between NRIs.

 Another form of support also is the continuous effort for convincing the local and regional NRIs multistakeholder about the role and position of the IGF as an important medium in finding solutions and mutual agreements; to face the challenge and endemic of Internet governance.  

 This effort is for example by having an official onsite bilateral meeting between the global IGF authority or well-known expert with multistakeholders in certain countries or key region.  

 Of course, fulfilling the IGF spirit and committed especially to the respective government and parliament member.  This could be a significant effort between each and all global IGF events.

 Meanwhile, at the IGF, Internet Governance Forum, assisted by Chengetai and Anja recently successfully initiated the third SEA IGF which was conducted in Bali on September 2021.  

 We hope this can be a good example for our NRIs friends to get initiatives, nevertheless.  Until now, we have not received any commitment yet from our neighbors to carry out the initiative as the next host country, for us probably because they still have to do with the COVID-19 pandemic or maybe a stronger and persistent effort is still needed to increase the sense of the importance of the developing region as well.

 As for the youth at the IGF, we are interested in strengthening the regional discussion, especially to prepare for the IGF youth track.  

 (indiscernible) status of workshops on the agenda in the preparation of the Asia-Pacific Youth IGF in Singapore.  Regarding the regional Internet governance activity, a number of Indonesian multistakeholders are also warmly welcome the next upcoming Asia-Pacific -- APrIGF in mid September 2022.  

 And based on our knowledge, a number of stakeholders in Indonesia, for example, civil society organization (indiscernible) in ICT have made proposals.  And optimistically we will attend onsite.  

 It is hope that the IGF and other NRI stakeholders can conduct bilateral and multilateral dialogues during the event, to exercise ideas, and strengthen collaborative activities.  

 Of course, thank you very much to Ethiopia for hosting IGF this year.  And personally we hope to attend onsite.  I believe Addis is a nice, beautiful, and safe city to visit.  

 By the way, the Ethiopian visa application is a simple online forum.  

 Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you.  Is there anyone else who would like to come in on this particular topic?  Okay.  Then we'll switch topics at this point.

 I will turn the agenda back over to Chengetai and we'll start with some discussion of the Global Digital Compact, which some of us were discussing over lunch.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Chair.

 Now we've come to the agenda item of IGFs contribution to the Global Digital Compact, GDC.  We've got also on the line, I think it's, Jason and Yu Ping from the Tech Envoy's Office whom I will call upon just now just to give an explanation of what the time line, ways to contribute.  And we also had this conversation this morning about the format of the contribution and how we can format our contributions to best flow into this.  So, hopefully, those give us some guidance or shed some more light on that.  And for those of you who are not too familiar with it, as most of you know, for IGF 2022, we have shaped our agenda around inputs into the Global Digital Compact.  And the United Nations Secretary-General did publish Our Common Agenda last year.  And the Our Common Agenda report looks ahead to the next 25 years and represents the Secretary-General's vision for the future of global cooperation and reinvigorating inclusive network and effective multilateralism.

 The Secretary-General presented his report to the General Assembly in September of 2021, and this was before the end of the 75th session of the General Assembly.

 The IGF is mentioned, and in paragraph 93 -- I'm just reading from the blurb on the website there -- that it is time to protect the online space and strengthen its governance.  I would urge the Internet Governance Forum to adapt, innovate, and reform to support effective governance of the digital comments and keep pace with the rapid, real-world developments.

 And then in the same paragraph, he does mention, "Furthermore, building on the recommendations of the Roadmap of Digital Cooperation, the United Nations' governments, the private sector, civil society should come together as a multistakeholder digital technology track in preparation for the Summit for the Future to agree on a Global Digital Compact.  This would outline shared principles for an open, free, secure digital future for all.

 So before I give the floor to Jason, just to explain a little bit more, or Yu Ping, about what is envisioned by the Tech Envoy's Office because they're the lead secretariat or lead office in this, first of all, we do have a video message from our Under-Secretary-General of DESA, Mr. Liu.  If we could play that, please.

 >>MR. LIU ZHENMIN:  Distinguished delegates, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, as you start your discussions on the Global Digital Compact, allow me to share a few thoughts of how the IGF community can contribute to this process.  The Internet and the digital tools and services are continuously and rapidly evolving, offering new opportunities and (indiscernible) new challenges and the risks.

 Our policies and norms are continuously put to the test, requiring us to rethink our traditional approaches.  To ensure the Internet as global digital public goods, we need to be guided by a set of shared values for open, free, safe, and secure digital future for all.

 And this is precisely what the IGF has been recognizing as deliberative outputs for years and what the Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres set as a clear objective in his report and Our Common Agenda.

 I'm pleased that members of the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group recognize that the IGF will be a key contributor to the Global Digital Compact by aligning the 2022 program with the themes envisioned within the compact.  The IGF has much to offer.

 For years, it has been the global hub for stakeholders from all regions to exchange views and ideas on most pressing digital policy issues and on policy options and the solutions.

 You hear the report on Our Common Agenda.  The Secretary-General Antonio Guterres especially highlighted the IGF's role in supporting collective -- in supporting effective governance of digital commons.

 The IGF is uniquely positioned to provide valuable inputs into the consultations for the Global Digital Compact.  The IGF messages from annual meetings as well as outputs of the various streams of the intersessional activities can and should be among the sources used to build the compact.

 As the IGF continues to serve as a global platform for open and inclusive dialogue on Internet governance, I trust it will contribute on its own and through inputs from the Global Digital Compact to shaping an inclusive, fair, and sustainable digital future for all, which is anchored in respect for the U.N. charter, international law, human rights, and fundamental freedoms.  I thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Okay.  Thank you very much.  And now I would like to call upon Tech Envoy's office.  It's -- I'm not too sure whether it's going to be Jason or Yu Ping.

 >>YU PING CHAN:   Thanks so much, Chengetai.  Jason and I are going to split it so I'll start off and will then pass it over to him.

 It's nice to see everybody, at least virtually.  I'm not going to go into too much repetition, I think, because Chengetai has actually has already briefed on the broad outlines of the Global Digital Compact.  USG view has very eloquently laid out the vision of the Secretary-General with what the U.N. hopes the Compact can be, and I think many of you actually have been very involved with our office in sort of planning for the Digital Compact and reflecting a lot of your concerns, views and suggestions.  And I think a lot of you, in fact, are really quite up-to-date on what is going on.

 So I think we'll keep it quite short, and then we'll open it up to questions because I mentioned that that is perhaps the way that is more interesting for a lot of you.

 Just to say that, again, and I referred this specifically to Amir who made a suggestion in the chat for what our office should consider.  The main thing I think it's important to keep in mind we are not the ones that will guide on the Global Digital Compact.  We are not the ones that will negotiate it, and by "we" I mean our office, but it's really actually up more for the member states and the international community to decide on the content of the Global Digital Compact.

 The process itself is not clear, because it's wrapped into the whole implementation of the Common Agenda which the member states here in New York are still discussing and actually have not settled on a way forward.

 So what we've done as the Office of the Tech Envoy and the U.N. secretariat is to lay in place the foundations for the process towards the Global Digital Compact in a way that mirrors a lot of the approach that has been taken towards digital cooperation, which is to be as open, inclusive, transparent as possible, allowing as many stakeholders as possible to really input into the process, and to present that to the member states as the basis for the Global Digital Compact.  But I just really want to emphasize that ultimately, the decision on the modalities for the process of negotiation itself will be up to the member states.  And it is our fervent hope that it will be truly an inclusive multistakeholder process, but that is for something that we, as a multistakeholder community, need to put emphasis on and to convince the member states that will be the ones that ultimately negotiate on the modalities of the process itself to decide.

 So I just want to emphasize that fact, that when there are questions to us that say what is the timeline, what do you envision in the Compact, what is the scope of the Compact, how long is it going to be, to be very frank, we are not the ones to have the answers because it actually has not been answered yet.  And what we're trying to do is gather as much fertile ground and inputs so that we can inform that discussion as to what the scope, content, you know, substance of it should be.

 So I'll stop there and sort of say that on the Office of the Tech Envoy's website you may have seen the various materials we put out there to really precisely engage the stakeholder community and everybody and give everyone an opportunity to input be it by holding your own consultations via various processes, your events, your networks, and then feeding in those inputs via our platform where you will see that there is a survey but also an opportunity to submit a report that's a little bit longer.  You'll also see that all the inputs that we've got in are then displayed in a dynamic data dashboard where people can interact with the inputs that are submitted to see what is the breakdown by type of organization, by country of origin, and really sort of see what other people are suggesting should be part of the Global Digital Compact.

 And there have been, I think, quite a number of inputs, including from regional IGFs, such as, if I'm not wrong, the Swiss IGF as well as the Gambia national IGF.  

 And, really, I think linked to the previous conversation around NRIs, it would be amazing if we could have NRIs actually  contribute to what the thinking is around the Global Digital Compact and have that as a basis in addition to the IGF itself in Addis later this year.

 So I'll stop there.  I'll turn it over to Jason, and then maybe we can have questions and answers.

 >>JASON MUNYAN:   Thank you, Yu Ping.  And really, really not much really to add.  Just as you've seen, the Common Agenda suggested some themes that could be addressed by the Global Digital Compact.  The Compact isn't limited, necessarily, to those themes.  We could consider other themes, and we also don't have to include all of those themes.

 But that said, it is encouraging that the global IGF has aligned in the program with those themes that are listed in the Common Agenda.  So those five main themes of the IGF obviously provide a natural way for the IGF to contribute inputs to the Compact for consideration.

 And so as has been mentioned, on our website you can find the platform to provide inputs.  Those can be provided in an individual or organizational capacity.  And in addition to that, even though the deadline for providing inputs is September 30th, obviously the global IGF takes place after that, and so we will still allow the outcomes from the IGF to inform the negotiations of the Compact.

 So on our website, you can see the page to submit them.  We also have a link to be able to view the submissions that have already been received, and so -- including the Swiss IGF and Gambian IGF, and to encourage other national IGFs to follow that example and also provide inputs onto the platform.

 And so we've -- in addition to having IGF itself organized along those thematic areas, we've also been in touch with the different IGF working groups.  So the Working Group on Strategy and Strengthening of the IGF, also the Working Group on Communications to see how we can have greater synergies and how we can ensure this process is really inclusive and that everybody has the ability to provide input on the Compact.

 So those really are the main things that we have at this stage.

 Now, we do understand the 30th of September deadline is tight.  Obviously that's in part because, you know, the summit will take place next September.  That doesn't really much time to be able to receive all these inputs and synthesize them and in advance negotiations.  We really don't have much wiggle room there.  But we do anticipate there might be some flexibility, you know, shortly after that if it is required.  And obviously taking into account the fact that the global IGF will take place in November.  But we really do not see much margin going beyond -- spilling into next year because we really need to be able to have time to be able to synthesize all these inputs and be able to present them to the international community, and particularly those who will be negotiating the text for the Compact.

 So those are really the updates we have at this stage.  Happy to take any questions.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much, Jason and Yu Ping.

 So the floor is now open.  Does anybody, either here or online, have any questions that they would want to pose about the Global Digital Compact, any other issues with the Tech Envoy's office?

 There's been a lot of questions before, so (laughing)...

 I -- Oh, yes, please.

 Oh, I can't -- oh, yes.  Jorge, sorry.  I can't see you.  My angle is blocked.

 >>JORGE CANCIO:   Thank you, Chengetai.  Jorge Cancio, Swiss government for the record.

 Yes.  Thanks very much to Yu Ping and to Jason for this information.  I think it's, to a certain extent, on our shoulders, both governments but also other stakeholders, to do our utmost to have this process as multistakeholder as possible.  So I know some stakeholders, some countries are already working in that direction, but as Yu Ping and Jason mentioned, it's still not decided how the process will exactly look like.  So whenever a decision has not been taken, there's opportunity to influence that decision.  And just for those, if it hasn't been mentioned, who don't know, important part of this decision will lay on the shoulders of the incoming president of the General Assembly and his designation of -- to call facilitators for this Global Digital Compact process.

 So there's a chance there to have that intergovernmental part of the process as multistakeholder as possible, and that depends on ourselves, to a certain extent, and of course on member states in New York.  And what is also key, at least to our mind, is that all the input coming from the multistakeholder community and this process led by the Tech Envoy office is really used afterwards in the more intergovernmental part.  And this means probably also that there are good ideas on how to feed those inputs into the intergovernmental process.  One traditional idea is that the secretariat of the process is mandated with summing up all the input from the process as a report or even preparing a zero draft based on those inputs from the multistakeholder consultation.

 So those are ideas I'm floating here.  Maybe you'll find them useful.  You want to exchange with your corresponding governments and see how this is best done.

 And of course also to ourselves for the Swiss government, the input coming from the global U.N. IGF is paramount, is absolutely key for this multistakeholder part.  And we hope that the format of the messages coming out from Addis Ababa are as concise and to the point as possible at the principles level so that they can feed in very neatly into this process.

 Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you, Jorge.

 Any response?  Or I just go to the next one, right?  Yu Ping and Jason?  Correct?  Okay.  So --

 >>YU PING CHAN:   (Indiscernible).


 So we'll have Talent, and then Mark, then Karim.  And Chris comes later.

 >> TALENT SULTANOV:  Thank you, Chengetai.  Talant Sultanov.

 When reading in the news, I think the United Nations and General Secretary is making a lot of priority on digital transformation innovations.  

 For me, like more outside observer, I would like to understand better what's the coordination between these efforts.  So for example, it's good today that we are meeting with the U.N. Secretary-General's Envoy on Technology.  We have the IGF.  I think there is some kind of digital panel under the General Secretary.

 So if there could be in broad strokes kind of a presentation on how -- what are the moving parts and how they are cooperating with each other, and are there any ways to avoid duplication.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Okay.  Thank you.

 And Mark?  Sorry.  Mark.  Mark was next.  Mark.

 >> MARK CARVELL:  Yes, thank you, Chengetai.  Mark Carvell (indiscernible).  

 Actually, pretty much on that same topic of duplication, because we are very mindful of other billboard initiatives which are highly relevant in this space of the Global Digital Compact, and this was a point that came up in the youth, the session on the Declaration for Future of the Internet which has 60 governments signing up to it, on these key principles for digital, since you opened this, and freedom of expression, human rights and security, and so on.

 So my question really is whether Yu Ping or Jason have any thoughts on their expectations about how the Global Digital Compact can intersect in a constructive way with initiatives like the declaration, and also with the WSIS+25 process which we're all heading towards, which is going to come up pretty quickly, and really the process is starting now in terms of preparing the General Assembly's review of the WSIS and, indeed, the mandate of the IGF.

 So it's getting crowded, you know.  The global space is getting pretty crowded.  Stakeholders need to engage.  And then it will be helpful to know how all these pieces of incredibly important and critical activity are going to intersect in a constructive way.  For example, it was suggested in Trieste at EuroDIG that the Declaration for the Future of the Internet could contribute to the Global Digital Compact.

 So anyway, I leave all that to the potential possibility for you to reflect on.

 Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much, Mark.


 >>BRAM FUDZULANI:   Thank you, Chengetai.  Bram for the record, yes.

 Yes, but I wanted to just, I think just add the voice to the issue of the sub itself, particularly on the coordination with the regional and national NRIs.  I think those are mentioned whether there's direct interface with your office.  And I ask strongly because, I mean, we will be holding our Africa IGF this month, and I don't know whether there's an involvement, you know, through your office to also, you know, try to drum up the collection of the data and information through those kind of regional engagements.  I think that would also be very, very critical to collecting the information.

 So maybe just to highlight in terms of how your office is coordinating through the secretariat itself, is coordinating and working with regional and subregional engagement forums.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much, Bram.

 Jason and Yu Ping, shall I get the next two?  And then you can start answering?

 >>YU PING CHAN:   Sure.  I mean, I'm happy to answer now, just in case what I answer might affect what people are then asking?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Okay, yeah.  Go ahead, then, please.

 >>YU PING CHAN:   Let me start out with what Mark had asked about the Declaration of the Future of the Internet, and how this is actually -- the space is very crowded, we know.  And that's why, in part, the whole point of having a public call for inputs is so that we can find some way that the Global Digital Compact will add value to what is already a very crowded space.  

 And to be very frank, I personally, this is not the official secretariat view but this is my personal view, see it as sort of a high-level, overarching document with political principles that does not duplicate some of the details that go into very specific ongoing processes.

 So for instance when we talk about WSIS+25, I think there are elements that are much more technical that don't necessarily rise to the level of the summit, head of state, and that type of principle level, and that can be sort of the relationship between the Digital Compact and then all these very specific strengths that come out.

 So in some ways the Compact lays the foundation for that then to be very specific talk, what are (indiscernible) to the WSIS+25 or other tracks in other areas. 

 And in some ways, the Declaration of the Future of the Internet, Mark, is precisely sort of that type of foundational principle approach to the Internet that needs to be discussed and then perhaps either adopted by the broader U.N. community, not just the 16 member states that signed the Declaration of the Future of the Internet or refined further or adopt it as it is.  And I actually, to be very frank with you, have said this to the Americans in the State Department as well, that we think that the Declaration of the Future of the Internet and the principles that it espouses is actually quite aligned with what the Secretary-General has said about open, free and secure Internet.  So if we are to have a discussion about global principles that should underpin our digital future and the member states that signed onto the Declaration of the Future of the Internet believe in the declaration and these types of principles, then it would be very good if the DFI could, indeed, be a contribution to the Global Digital Compact and a means for us to all discuss these principles that underline the declaration itself.  

 So, Mark, I agree with EuroDIG that hopefully the member states that have signed on to the DFI can really see this as a basis for their discussions and their contribution to the Global Digital Compact.  Because if we are really talking about global values for an open, free, secure digital future that is interoperable, then we need to have these discussions in a global forum, and there is no global forum like the United Nations.  

 And, also, because we have this possibility of having multistakeholder input and engagement through, for instance, the IGF and all this community as well, there is also the opportunity to make sure this vision is not just member states, those 16 member states, but broader and also multistakeholder in nature.

 In terms of coordination, we are working with various parts of the U.N. system so we work very closely with the IGF Secretariat, for instance, but we are also very in touch -- there are other parts of the U.N. offices delving into these issues so the processes they are coordinating and meeting can be fed into the Global Digital Compact.  For instance, the ITU's entire effort around Partner to Connect.  The WTDC in Kigali recently really saw as a very important means to actually build into the Global Digital Compact.  We held a consultation on the Global Digital Compact in Kigali, for instance, to see whether we could get inputs from the WTDC community, the ITU community.  We've also used Partner to Connect and actually discussed with Partner to Connect how their commitments and their action framework can be a key foundation for the element of the Global Digital Compact that is on connect everyone to the Internet, including schools, in the same way we are working with UNESCO for instance to see how their ethics, their AI ethics declaration can be a key building block for the AI element in the Global Digital Compact.

 So there is very strong coordination between the U.N. system that's led informally by our office but really is leveraging the various processes and frameworks that the U.N. system brings to bear.

 I will also say that on this question, Karim, of regional and national NRIs, we agree completely that the NRIs in the IGF structure should be the means to build in this particular type of multistakeholder, bottom-up in the Global Digital Compact.  So for instance I think of the West Africa IGF in a prep call, my colleague Jason was actually in a discussion as to how we can build that.  There were also colleagues that held a consultation of the Global Digital Compact at the West Africa IGF, and we welcome doing that in partnership with NRIs as well, with other regional IGFs or IGFs that might want to reach out to our office.  

 So we are very small in terms of being an office, but whatever we can do to support, we'd be happy to try to explore to collaborate with you.

 I think those are my key points.  I'll turn it over to Jason if there's anything else to add to these questions.

 >>JASON MUNYAN:   Actually, Yu Ping, just to build off of what you said.  Indeed, I think the work of the Compact did --

 [ Echoing ]

 Of what has been done on the future of the Internet --

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   I'm sorry, Jason.  There's an echo there somehow when you speak.

 >>JASON MUNYAN:   I think it's gone now.  Yeah, it was another colleague with a microphone.

 Yeah, so, yes.  So just basically, I think the Global Digital Compact can complement and build off of other initiatives like Declaration of the Future of the Internet.  I think that shows that there's already been substantial thinking and discussions about what some of these principles could be.  

 And we also have the U.N. (indiscernible) 5 Declaration where there was that paragraph on improving digital cooperation.  And so I think these are some initial building blocks that can be looked at, and then just see where there is agreement at the international level, and so that can inform those negotiations.

 So I think this really complements and builds off of these other initiatives.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Jason.  And yes, I also want to underline that there is this One U.N. policy and we do not work in a vacuum.  We do cooperate.  And Jason and Yu Ping, I mean, we talk together on a quite regular basis, so there is that cooperation, and also with other colleagues from UNESCO as well.  And she can attest to that as well.

 So next on my list we have Chris, Justin, Timea, and then Nazar.  

 So, Chris, please.

 >>CHRIS BUCKRIDGE:  Thanks, Chengetai.  Chris Buckridge, MAG member, so speaking very briefly.

 Well, I want to thank the Office of the Tech Envoy staff for their candor about the process and obviously recognizing that this is going to be member states sort of taking the lead here.

 One thing I wanted to highlight.  It made me think of the very good links and relationships we saw with, for instance, the UAE and Germany when the Roadmap was being developed.  And we saw a lot of those representatives in IGF events and NRIs as well.

 So I hope that we're able to -- I think building on this One U.N. idea, as those member states are identified with coordination responsibilities or leadership responsibilities in relation to the Global Digital Compact, that we're able to bring them into our IGF circles, to make those links with the IGF really strong, to have them attend meetings, whether remote or in person.

 So, yeah, to really drive home that opportunity to have the multistakeholder perspective in the drafting process.  Thanks.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Chris.  


 >>JUSTIN FAIR:  Good morning.  Justin Fair, State Department, MAG member, so I will also try to be brief.  

 First of all, just would like to thank Yu Ping, Jason, and Chengetai for this briefing session.  There is clearly a lot of interest in the Global Digital Compact.  No fault to you all, not always a lot of information because I know some of the process is still being developed.  It's still very unclear.  It's helpful to hear this information.

 I think that -- I was glad Jason covered the IGF input -- outputs that we're talking about that would be inputs to the Global Digital Compact still will have validity after the September 30th deadline.  That was just kind of a wrinkle in the time line that I was interested in.  But I think it also goes to a broader point that the IGF and the IGF community needs to be kind of engaged on is what does come after the September 30th deadline as far as stakeholder participation.

 I think inputs are great into this process, but already there's a conversation about intergovernmental or the member states.  And I think when we start talking about a digital future for everyone, that has to be a process that is inclusive.  And anyone who has been watching particularly New York-based discussions around similar issues, whether it's in the OEWG or within the cybercrime treaty negotiations knows that there's a group that will buck stakeholder participation or try to limit it to a great degree.

 And for some of those other processes, it took months to kind of get through the modalities discussions towards even the basic -- a basic access for stakeholders to be in the room, even if participation, it would be lacking and not, I would say, meaningful but at least in the room.

 And so I think when we talk about the Global Digital Compact, we really need to push on this issue to ensure that the process is inclusive, is transparent.  We constantly face those challenges in New York and similar things, and we probably will here as well.

 I'd also like to plug just the Global Digital Compact I think is the key deliverable on tech.  But within some of Our Common Agenda, there are other tech or cyber-related issues in some of the other deliverables, whether it be the security agenda, whether it be the human rights discussions.  And so it's worth kind of looking at some of the other deliverables as well and ensure that whatever the tech, Internet governance, cyber-related aspects there also are being addressed appropriately.

 But I had one, I think, related but a little bit different question for Yu Ping and Jason.  I was just wondering, from -- before the Our Common Agenda, there was a Roadmap and there was a lot of work created for the Tech Envoy's Office that I think has overlapped with issues that the IGF is covering, whether it be in the working groups.

 My question was just:  Is that work still continuing?  And how does potentially that proceed in parallel to this work on the Global Digital Compact and/or how is that work envisioned to be feeding into Our Common Agenda?  So kind of connecting the dots between the work that was done around the Roadmap and the work that is now being done around Our Common Agenda and the Global Digital Compact would be helpful.  Thanks.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Jason -- Justin, sorry.

 Yu Ping, do you want to answer that question quickly, the direct question quickly, or should we make some more first?

 >>YU PING CHAN:  I can answer.  Basically, I think a lot of would know that the Secretary-General has just appointed a Tech Envoy.  And so I think we will need his guidance as to how the roundtables continue to proceed.  

 My personal sense again, this is not having discussed this with Amandeep yet, is that the work has done through those roundtables will be instrumental in sort of laying a bit of the technical foundation for what comes in the Global Digital Compact.

 So, for instance, in the global connectivity roundtable where our office and the ITU had issued universal, meaningful target -- universal meaningful connectivity targets, those will be sort of the reference point by which the Global Digital Compact can then say we commit to achieve universal, meaningful connectivity by 2030, see definition.  This entails dot dot dot, the specific sort of steps that are either in the work that has been done by the roundtable or that has been done by the Partner2Connect coalition.  

 So there have been sort of these strands of work, very technical pieces of work, that can find its landing spot in the Digital Compact.  And without that sort of initial discussion around, for instance, what elements of digital inclusion could be part of it, there is also some burgeoning work around digital capacity-building that hopefully will sort of see its way into the Global Digital Compact.  

 And then some of you might also be involved in the discussion around digital public goods, which is a big part of the Roadmap.  And there are discussions about very specific commitments and pledges as well as -- some people might be aware of this -- a digital public goods charter that is being developed by some of the key champions and participants in the digital public goods roundtable that will have again this link directly to the Global Digital Compact.  

 So the technical sort of elements of the roundtables and how they will run, I think we probably need to come back to you with some more information on that.  But there are a lot of very specific work streams that have been done in the roundtables and will continue through some of the work of the agencies and so forth that we think will land in the Digital Compact, or could be a foundation on which the compact builds on.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Yu Ping.

 Next I have Timea.

 >>TIMEA SUTO:  Thank you, Chengetai.  

 Good afternoon, everyone.  This is Timea Suto from the International Chamber of Commerce for the record.

 Thank you to Jason, Yu Ping, and Chengetai for the opportunity to discuss this.  Thank you for all of your openness and participation and readiness to answer questions.  I know it's not the first time.  It is probably not the last time we discuss this, so thank you for being here.

 Just listening to the room here and the conversations around how the IGF's inputs will be considered for the Global Digital Compact, the concern that I hear in the room about multistakeholder participation in the development of the Global Digital Compact, the role of the IGF in all of this, and how we contribute to the various deadlines that might -- that are here now with the 30th of September and might occur later on.

 My personal reflections on this, I think there are two ways to contribute to this consultation.  One is with substantive principles, recommendations, comments on the issues that were already highlighted by the Secretary-General or on other issues.  As was mentioned, it was open for other issues as well.

 But I also see another level contributing to this that are perhaps one layer up or a bit -- at a metalevel of Internet governance.  And I hear a lot of concerns around how will multistakeholderism be referred to in this Global Digital Compact.  How will the IGF be noted, if at all?

 And I feel that even already before the 30th of September deadline, if the IGF wants to make one solid contribution to this, is to highlight the importance of member states' commitment in this Global Digital Compact, or a reiteration of their commitment to the multistakeholder model, to the multistakeholder approach and to the IGF as the embodiment of this multistakeholder approach.

 I don't think anything is stopping us from before we even have the IGF this year to make this case and make this very strongly, on one hand.

 Even to present the IGF as the space to have further conversations on these issues that we all see that are going to be important in the Global Digital Compact, I think our best shot is, of course, to provide existing principles, recommendations, even language on how we'd like to see the Global Digital Compact be written.  

 But I think I agree with Yu Ping, it's probably going to be a shorter document, a high-level document with general principles, reiterating commitments of member states.  But it will not solve everything, and it probably won't push or show forward the road on how we work on these issues that we all agree are important around the Internet.

 And there's nothing stopping us as the main promoters of the IGF to put the IGF forward as a path to resolve some of these issues that are going to be concerned in the compact.

 So if there's something we can definitely do before the 30th of September deadline is this, to urge member states to recognize the multistakeholder model, their commitment to it, and their commitment to the IGF and the Global Digital Compact.  That's just my two cents on this conversation.

 And, of course, then we can -- and I'm looking at Yu Ping and Jason here.  I hope that we have other opportunities once the IGF is concluded to provide more substantive comments on the issue-based, topics-based areas to which we already aligned the program of the IGF this year.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Timea.

 Next we will have Marielza.

 >>MARIELZA OLIVEIRA:  Thank you, Chengetai.  And thanks to the Tech Envoy and to the IGF secretariat.  We have certainly worked very closely together with both agencies and with all the stakeholders here present.  

 I just wanted to go back to the point that Mark Carvell had made on the issue of other principles in place.  And we do have the ROAM principles that have been endorsed by the 195 at-the-time member states of UNESCO on Internet -- what we call the Internet universality principles, which are the human rights based, open, accessible, and multistakeholder principles.

 And, of course, we have been liaising very closely with the Tech Envoy's Office on that basis of that as well, in addition to the ethics recommendation.

 I just want to say that also it's important that we as the IGF look at what comes after a Digital Compact, you know, because implementing it and carrying out a Digital Compact is not an easy thing.

 Our experience with these global principles framework is that we actually need an evidence-based framework behind it.  So we have indicators for that, to track how we're progressing on those.  We have a monitoring, but in a voluntary assessment -- a national assessment by member states in terms of how they are progressing.  

 So I will be happy to share a link with you of national reports and the entire framework itself and the national reports that come out of it.  Currently, we have 45 member states engaged in this process.  And it starts by difficulties in terms of even tracking data.  Not all of them have capacities to actually even collect data to see if they are, in fact -- where do they stand in terms of these principles.  So there's quite a lot to be done.  And we offer that experience.

 Not only we offer that experience but this is an IGF experience as well that can inform our response to the Global Digital Compact since the ROAM, the Internet universality is one of our dynamic coalitions under the IGF.  So maybe we could see it and distill some of the experiences together to inform the process that comes not only to the conclusion of a Global Digital Compact, to the endorsement of certain principles, but then what next.  Because otherwise, we end up with an empty frame.  And this is not what we are looking at and what we need to happen.  

 So just that, please.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much for that intervention.  Thank you.  I see Adam.

 >>ADAM PEAKE:  There it is.

 Hi, thank you, Chengetai.  Adam Peake speaking.  And hi, Jason.  Hi, Yu Ping.  Thanks for joining us.

 Two sort of questions really.  Jason, you mentioned that the IGF outcomes kind of inform the negotiation of the compact and "inform a negotiation" is sort of a broad concept really.  It could mean that a document is left at the front of the room for the delegates to read, if they wanted to pick it up.  Or it could mean that the document becomes part of the official documentation for the consultation as a whole, meaning that delegates can reference it.  It can be called upon and so on and so forth.  So given that the IGF is the only multistakeholder process within the U.N. system and family, it would be a shame if the outcomes are not recognized as reference documents of the consultation.  So I hope they will be fully recognized, and I wonder if you could talk to that a little bit.  It would be a shame if they were just left at the front in a random sort of way.  

 So if you could go to that a little bit, it would be very helpful.

 And then about -- yeah, second question is really about the Summit for the Future, which we've heard about and I think is scheduled for sometime next September.  Is it going ahead?  Do you have any news about it?  Can you say how it might be organized, modalities for participation?  Is there a broad agenda or a concept for what the agenda might look like?  I suppose really, is it something we should be preparing for, and what is it that we might be preparing for?  And will we be participating?  And how will we be participating?  So thank you.  Thanks very much.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Adam.  Yu Ping?

 >>YU PING CHAN:  So very quickly, I'll start from the back one.  

 This question of Summit for the Future, actually the negotiations on the modalities for Summit of the Future are happening right now in New York.  Oman and New Zealand are the co-facilitators for this process.  And insofar as the secretariat is aware, basically the understanding is that the start of the negotiations will be the proposal that the Secretary-General put out in Our Common Agenda report, which is September of next year, which the key tracks being -- I think it's laid out in the Our Common Agenda report.  So the technology track is one of it.  Then I think there's a peace track.  And I think there's -- I can't really remember.  Don't quote me.  I don't remember.  I think there is also an outer space track.  It is in the Our Common Agenda report.  But, again, it's for the member states in New York to discuss exactly how they want to bring this about.

 And so that question about stakeholder participation, the modalities for participation is supposed to be decided in that member state process on the modalities of the Summit for the Future.  So we actually have no real say in that because we are secretariat.

 But I just want to sort of emphasize this because there are -- we've repeatedly heard this concern about multistakeholderism.  It is not for the secretariat to decide this.  That's why I think what Jorge had said and what Justin had said is particularly important.  The member states who are for the multistakeholder approach really need to push this hard in New York, precisely given the difficulties that have been faced already in other processes.  And so stakeholders need to convince member states, and member states themselves also really need to step up.  And what we can do as the secretariat is as far as possible, we will also keep saying the same things.  That's part of why we developed the platform the way we did, where the emphasis really is on anyone, anywhere can contribute.

 And to that next question about how all these contributions, be it through the platform and then all the IGF itself will be taken to the negotiations, that is, again, a little bit of a member-state discussion.  

 But our hope is that there can be, again, as suggested by some of the other colleagues, some kind of more formal way where the documents and the inputs can be recognized.

 And here perhaps I leave it open and maybe the DESA colleagues can suggest this, as perhaps the DESA colleagues could attempt to circulate the outcomes from the IGF as an official document of the General Assembly or see whether there is scope to present those documents from the IGF in Addis as some kind of official report of the General Assembly, which then will mean that it is part of the official documentation that is before the member states.

 So there are things that can be done.  I think it requires a little bit of thinking among the secretariat itself, both outside as well as DESA.  But there might be some opportunity to do that.

 But again, we need a little bit more of a stakeholder agitation for that as well as a member-state support for that because I will give you a concrete example.  The Secretary-General's Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, it is issued as a Secretary-General's report with an official General Assembly document number.  And because of that, we got quite heavy pushback from certain delegations that said, You weren't mandated to write this report.  Why is it an official document of the U.N.?  And technically because it really wasn't and so there are things that those member states can criticize of the secretariat doing.  And so in order to sort of cover everybody and make sure that we can do it, we do really need that kind of support from the member states.

 The last thing I would say is we are very committed to this, and so we really do need that support to push it forward and suggestions and so forth to how we can do this, bearing in mind the political implications.  Need to make sure that the member states in New York might not be as familiar as a lot of the colleagues in Geneva are around multistakeholder engagement are part of it.

 An example I have suggested -- at least I have witnessed before that I thought was very interesting was how ITU does a lot of the negotiations around their resolutions and documents where stakeholders are in the room as well live during negotiations and can offer technical advice or supporting documentation or supplementary information.  But at the very end, it's the member states that vote on the resolution.  

 So we need to look at models of negotiations on various types of ICT or technology-related processes that could be examples for member states and co-facilitators can consider when it comes to the Global Digital Compact.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you, Yu Ping.

 Next on my list I have got Joyce and Wout.

 >>JOYCE CHEN:  Chengetai, if you can hear mere, I think Wout had his hand up before me and would like to go first.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Wout, you have been given the floor.

 >>WOUT DE NATRIS:  Yes.  Thank you, Joyce.  I wasn't aware who was first or not.  But thank you.

 Hello, Jason.  Hello, Yu Ping.  Nice to see you.  And Chengetai for bringing this topic up.

 Listening to the comments I've heard and the suggestions that were made, my suggestion would be that the MAG discusses in the coming two days whether we should start a special working group on this so that the road towards 30th September and then to the IGF is well-prepared and that all stakeholders concerned can actually bring in their actions or their ideas or their points of view so that they're known before the IGF.  And that would mean that we can bring in a far more comprehensive and urgent response than it would be sort of off-the-cuff when we discuss it for a few hours at the IGF.

 And I think that seeing how important this topic is seen by most people that are speaking up to now, it would be a very good suggestion to take this into account and see if we can synthesize our work in a much more comprehensive way than we've been discussing so far.  So this is just as a suggestion, as a potential way forward.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you, Wout.


 >>JOYCE CHEN:   Thanks very much, Chengetai.  And as I am taking the mic for the first time, just introduce myself.  I am (indiscernible).  I'm happy to see everyone, although virtually.  (Indiscernible) Geneva, but I'm glad to see that the room looks very packed.  It's nighttime for me so I have my video off.  I apologize.

 I did have a question for Yu Ping, just a follow-up question.  I had a similar question to Adam about meeting the Summit of the Future, and because it seems to -- there's an expectation it's going to be in September next year.  Just looking at the timeline, it looks like most likely the summit would happen before the IGF typically takes place.  And I don't know if that is intentional for it to be two separate things.  Is it possible even for perhaps the summit to be back to back with the IGF, something like that?

 I'm sure that the higher powers that be would have been thinking about and talking about these things, but I think it would be good to have some clarity around, you know, the (indiscernible) role of the IGF, the summit, and all those things and how we could best participate.

 That's not the question.  The question actually is you mentioned that there were some things that would be coming up in New York for the member states to discuss and negotiate in the work for Global Digital Compact and then leading up to the summit.  I wondered if there was somewhere on your website that mentioned when those meetings would take place so that the relevant stakeholders that need to speak with government stakeholders could then have that conversation.  Those conversations are already happening, but I think it would be helpful, if it's not confidential, to publish when members' meetings are, and then we can time when we can approach our government stakeholders and member states that we -- So I'm just asking if that's possible on that.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much, Joyce.  And you were the last person on the list, so I'd ask Yu Ping and Jason to respond to any of those questions and also say any final words that they would want, since we're -- oh, one more.  Okay.  So Chris just sneaked in.

 So Chris, go ahead first before I give the floor to Jason and Yu Ping.

 >>CHRIS BUCKRIDGE:   Sorry.  Thank you, Chengetai.  And I will be very brief.

 I just wanted to respond quickly to Wout's comment about setting up a working group, MAG working group, to look at this.  Just to note there is the MAG working group on Strategy and Strengthening of the IGF, and it has had a lot of focus on Global Digital Compact.  We have very good and strong ties with Jason and Yu Ping from the Office of the Tech Envoy.  If there is mood in the MAG or more broadly for some working group level on this issue, I think it -- the Working Group on Strategy -- Strategy and Strengthening is available, and I think that could be a useful tool rather than spinning up a separate working group.


 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much, Chris.

 Yu Ping and Jason?

 >>YU PING CHAN:   Just very quickly on Joyce's questions.  The Summit of the Future is really much broader than just digital, so that's why it's not tied to the IGF.  There are a lot of other issues that are involved, and that's also partly why, by way of explanation, we are ourselves no the really following the modalities of the Summit of the Future, because it's really quite an all-encompassing, very broad type thing.

 I put a link to where the President of the General Assembly, who is in charge of this entire process of modalities for all the various tracks of the Common Agenda, summit (indiscernible) and so forth, usually puts out information about the processes.  My understanding is that right now they're sort of in the listening to everybody informally stage.  And that's why I encourage again member states as well as stakeholders to reach out via your delegations in New York because my understanding is that that's how it's happening.  I actually have not seen a formal open meeting that has talked about the modalities so much as the facilitators themselves reaching out bilaterally or having small, informal gatherings.  And we ourselves are not involved in those.

 So again -- this is again where it's not really a secretariat-led process.  It is a member state-led process when it comes to the entire OCA type Summit of the Future discussions.  And what we can do is try to find you the right people, so for instance, Oman in New Zealand, but also your respective delegations in New York I think would actually have to play a key role in steering it that way.

 In terms of timing, I agree with you it is very tight, but this is what has been proposed.  And I think one of the discussions around the modalities right now precisely this question about timing and whether what needs to happen can happen in time for that.  So this is to be decided and it's just not there.  I think it's for the ongoing discussions of modalities right now.

 And just in summary, just to say we're doing the best we can on the resources that this office has.  We will also have to take some guidance and steer from (saying name) as to how he sees the Compact and the processes going forward.  So I also think if you have an opportunity to engage with him and hear his vision, then there will be the opportunity to sort of see how this gets shaped in the future.  But insofar as we've had this platform that we have on the website and we've had all these outreach conversations with all of you, we really hope that this kind of collaboration can continue.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much, Yu Ping.

 Jason, do you have any final words?

 >>JASON MUNYAN: (Indiscernible).  Thanks.


 Thank you very much, Yu Ping and Jason.  Thank you.  That was very informative, and it was very good to interact with you.  And we will, of course, continue to do so.  And thank you for taking the time.  I know it's a very busy period for all of you.  And thank you to the guests as well.

 So with that, we'll end off this section.  And I'm sure there's going to be more discussions during the MAG meetings of tomorrow and the next day on how we really are going to consolidate our input to the Global Digital Compact and our contributions.

 Our next is me as well, it seems (laughing).  Now we're going to have the briefings from international Internet governance processes and initiatives.  So this is our standard segment where we invite sister and also allied organizations just to give us and to inform our stakeholders on what they have been doing in line with our common goals and aims.

 I'll just read it from the top and call people from time to time.  I know sometimes since this is a -- some of the people are virtual, we may not have them, but we'll just skip to the next, and then we'll come round back to them if they're not in a position to respond at this moment.

 So the -- And please, we have allocated three minutes each.  So if you could kindly try and keep into that time frame.  I know it's a bit difficult, but if you could, it would be very much appreciated.

 So the first person on my list is from the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Giacomo Persi Paoli.  Please, yes.  You have the floor, please.

 I think you have to come up.  Yeah.

 >> GIACOMO PERSI PAOLI:  Can you hear me?  Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving us the floor.  It is a pleasure to be here.  My name is Giacomo Persi Paoli.  I'm the head of UNIDIR, Security and Technology Programme.  And I'm just going to give you a quick update on the work that we've been conducting in the context of cybersecurity, particularly in relation to our work in support of the advancing cybersecurity and cyber crisis prevention.

 Over the course of the last six months, we have organized a series of regional engagements really trying to understand how different regional organizations are prepared and ready to deal with potential cyber incidents that may trigger crisis or political tensions.  The approach that we've had was really to try to understand what kind of policy tools exist at the regional level in order to be able to deal with transnational cyber incidents.  We've run this first workshop.  We did a series of three, and we had the last one actually last week.  So we did it in Europe, we did it with the African Union, we did it with the ASIM (phonetic) group and with OAS.  So this was quite a successful series of workshops that we're going to summarize in a short report that will be made publicly available.

 And the plan for the rest of the year is to take this to the next step and go back it regions; ideally, in person if the pandemic allows, and build on the findings of these initial consultations to run proper table-top exercises, with the purpose of these table-top exercises to be able to understand how well different regions are equipped and prepared to manage international cyber crisis from a policy perspective.  So we're not necessarily running exercises to test technical response or national coordination of different actors.  We're really focusing more on how do states engage with each other within the region, what kind of support they are hoping to receive from the U.N. in the context of an international cyber incident.

 And that will be the update from us.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much.

 Next on the list is from Council of Europe.

 >> RODICA CIOCHINA:  Yes.  Good afternoon.  Can you hear me?


 Yes, we can.

 >> RODICA CIOCHINA:  Yes, thank you, Chair.  So I'll try to give it up to three minutes to give this brief update on the Council of Europe's work relevant to the discussion, but it might be a little bit longer.

 The Internet governance is a (indiscernible) involved with by various entities and departments, but it is the Intergovernmental Committee for Media and Information Society that is given the particular task of steering Council of Europe's work on digital governance; and, therefore, the committee engages with a variety of in-house counterparts as well as external partners to discharge its duty.

 The three subcommittees of this intergovernmental committee are currently working on some deliverables to be elaborated by 2023.  Guidance are being -- or guidelines are being developed in three very topical areas of freedom of expression and media freedom; one text dealing with online disinformation, looking at fact checking and platform design solutions countering the spread of the phenomenon; another one is dealing with the development and use of AI in journalism and especially how to integrate journalistic and editorial values and vast technologies.  And the third committee is looking into a (indiscernible) phenomenon of strategical (indiscernible) against public participation, (indiscernible) and developing measures to counter the proliferation of such losses.

 Also part of our regional governance work goes -- it goes to close cooperation with business partners.  The partnership aims at promoting the adoption of best human rights standards by private Internet and telecommunication companies but not only.  It currently includes 27 major companies and their association with two that joined recently.

 A combination, for example, of this digital partnership and the committee work whose mission consists also of exploring new developments and emerging challenges in media, communication, and digital technologies was our -- were our recent exchanges with Meta who is also a member of the digital partnership on the metaverse specifically.  A reflection on this new development has started within the organization, and this exchange was meant to enable us to receive more information on the metaverse from the main source and to communicate also to Meta our human rights and rule of law-led concerns in that regard.

 I'll try to -- Yeah, the Council of Europe digital agenda 2022-2025 has been also adopted on 4 May, and it is now fully operational.  It provides an overview on planned activities relating to digital governance areas and will guide the organization's work in the coming years.

 The committee on artificial intelligence started also to work in April this year on an instrument introducing a legal framework for AI.  The work of the committee is based on the elements for such a framework prepared by the predecessor committee, CAI.  And upon the recommendation of this committee on 30 June 2022, the CM confirmed that the CAI should elaborate a binding instrument in the form of a convention or a framework convention.  The next plenary meeting of the CAI at which the negotiations on the zero draft of these instruments will commence is scheduled in September.  And the committee is expected to complete the negotiations by November 2023.

 In terms of data protection, the main priorities fostering verification of the amending protocol for modernization of the Convention 108.  That currently counts 70 ratification and leads 38 more to partially enter into (indiscernible).

 On cybercrime, just to mention there is a recent opening for signature of the second edition of protocol to the Cybercrime Convention on enhanced cooperation and disclosure of electronic evidence.  The newest (indiscernible) complements the Budapest Convention with provisions for a more effective mutual legal assistance, direct  cooperation between service providers in other jurisdictions, and a clearer framework and stronger safeguards for existing practices of transport or access to data.

 I think I will stop here, yeah.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much, Rodica.  I mean, those were quite extensive activities, and thank you very much for making your presentation very succinct but also very interesting.

 Next, UNESCO.

 Marielza, please.


 >> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA:  Thank you very much.  Just, you know, quite a few of the points that I wanted to make, I had already made, but I just wanted to reiterate the work that we've been doing on -- in regards to the principles for a global -- you know, in our contributions to the Global Digital Compact.  They have to do with a wrong framework that I mentioned to you and with the fact that we are also in the process of now of implementation, of starting the implementation, the design of the assessment mechanisms for the readiness impact assessment of the ethical framework that we have for artificial intelligence.  Those are elements that we have been working quite a lot to contribute to the Common Agenda, but we also have been contributing to other aspect of it, which have to do with, for example, the issues of the Internet shutdown and working with a series of elements that have to do with education and so on, so forth.  Those elements all intersect, and one of the things that I think it would be important for us to think about is how -- when they intersect, what is this intersection point is going to look like.  How the Global Digital Compact will actually talk to the other elements of the Common Agenda and how we can actually reconcile these various processes that we've been engaging on.

 Ins last week, I mentioned it in the beginning, we held the pre- -- the preparatory meeting with 150 education ministers coming to UNESCO, many of whom are also ministers of communication and information of ICT and so on.  And the one thing we heard from them loud and clear:  We need to make, you know, sure that whatever way we govern, you know, our digital space, that we make sure that it's actually enabling the provision of key public services that are actually human rights.  So those are elements that they put front and center.  That talks about -- you know, that talks to our interest, for example, in working on the global digital goods, you know, and I think this is something that we're going to be working quite a lot on and hope to count on the IGF for.

 So I'll stop here since we -- I had mentioned already the ROAM and other things that we had to do together.  

 Thank you very much.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you.

 APC, Valeria.  Sorry, my tongue is getting stuck now.

 >>VALERIA BETANCOURT:  Can you hear me?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, yes, we can.

 >>VALERIA BETANCOURT:  Thank you, Chengetai.  Thank you very much for the opportunity to share these updates with you in relation to our work around our priorities, the ones that we have established related to our common objectives -- objectives, sorry, which are part of the IGF agenda.  

 Our priorities have to do with gender, meaningful access and environmental sustainability, the global digital cooperation and the strengthening of the IGF.  

 In relation to gender, we have been collaborating with the U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of expression in the follow-up of her reports on disinformation and gender justice.  We have been also documenting cases of gender disinformation, mapping and shaping community-based responses, in the Global South particularly, and convening conversations and consultations in different regions, oriented to frame the concept and the relationship between gender disinformation, technology-based violence, misogyny, and hate speech.

 Our work has been also oriented to develop a toolkit on gender and cybersecurity to engage with policymakers at national levels to introduce gender recommendations to national security strategies.

 We have also continued to link with international discussions on this matter, particularly around the open-ended working group.  And in that way, we continue our commitment to contribute to the IGF intersessional work, particularly around the BPFs on gender and cybersecurity.  

 On the environmental sustainability front, we are engaged with a new dynamic coalition and we hope that more stakeholders will join.  The dynamic coalition in our view has a road to play to follow up on the policy network report recommendations and also look at the intersections with other dynamic coalitions and anchor the outcomes of the work of the IGF last year within the Global Digital Compact process, oriented to catalyze a digital planet for sustainability and look at the impact of technology live on earth.

 On our side, we have continued to conduct research and also facilitate discussions around environmental justice dimensions of the Internet and digital technologies in framing also (indiscernible) principles for and (indiscernible) Internet and looking at effective ways to conduct environmental and human rights transparency and impact assessments.  

 On connectivity and meaningful access, we keep committed and active in the policy network.  And look forward to its reactivation, particularly in the perspective of nurturing the relevant roundtables of the Global Digital Compact process.  We have been focusing on framing the concept of meaningful connectivity from community perspectives.  And we see the IGF as a space to expand the conversation around it in a way that also contributes to respond to specific realities.  

 In that sense, we believe that the annual IGF should focus on the need to expand meaningful access in Africa, for instance.

 We have been also active in ITU processes, including the Partners2Connect coalition.  We have made pledges on its framework, and we feel that the IGF can certainly play a role in discussing ways to operationalize the commitments made in the Partners2Connect coalition.

 We have also been participating actively in the WTDC with a focus on the resolutions and working groups around bridging the digital divide and complementary connectivity solutions.

 In relation to digital cooperation, very briefly, we have continued to create spaces for the discussion on the digital future that we want.  In that sense, we are actively engaged in the preparation of the Global Digital Compact.  We have co-organized so far two global and (indiscernible) consultations to gather inputs and identify priorities in a way that contribute to the Global Digital Compact process, in collaboration with the Office of the U.N. Tech Envoy' and also in collaboration with civil society organizations.

 We expect to continue gathering inputs along the year and bring them for the discussions at the global IGF.  It is also part of our plan for the second part of the year to launch a series of research components that dig into the implications of the Internet as public good and as a commons as part of our project to imagine the future of Internet governance and to identify the characteristics that it should have to contribute to social gender and environmental justice.

 In relationship to strengthening the IGF, we look forward to engage with the follow-up mechanisms around the outcomes and recommendations of the IGF retreat held earlier this year and also to look at the introductions with the leadership panel.

 For APC, using the IGF to look at the situation of human rights online and the interaction with the offline enjoyment of rights has been always a priority.  

 And I don't want to finish this update without indicating that it is part of our priorities to facilitate and inform conversation about the situation in Ethiopia, not just with regard to the world but also with regard to freedom of the media and protection of human rights.  And we believe that the commitment of the IGF community is instrumental to ensure that local voices speak and share their views.

 So I will stop here and would be happy to continue conversations around the several aspects related to the preparations for the global IGF.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much for very interesting update.  Thank you.  

 APNIC, Joyce.

 >>JOYCE CHEN:  Thank you very much, Chengetai.  I hope you can hear me, so I will proceed.  I'm Joyce, second-year MAG member.  But then I am now speaking as a representative from APNIC and as well later on a little bit as chair of the Program Committee for APrIGF.

 I think you heard a bit earlier on today from Don from Indonesia, from Anja, something about the APrIGF that's happening.  And I'm happy to announce that APNIC has stepped up to co-host this year's Asia-Pacific Regional IGF.  And as you've heard, it's happening in Singapore.  And we are holding it in conjunction with the APNIC 54 conference, also in Singapore.  So the idea really was to have everything being held in the same week.  And so it would be 12th to 14th September for the APrIGF and then 13 to 15, so we do have overlapping dates, for the APNIC 54 conference.  

 It's all going to be in the same venue, in the same hotel.  And so the idea was really just to make it very easy for people to hop between sessions and both conferences.

 So apart from APrIGF, APNIC has also decided that we would host the Asia-Pacific School of Internet Governance.  So APSIG this year as well in Singapore in the lead up to APrIGF, and the plan is really to have that whole two weeks going from in APSIG into APrIGF and the APNIC conference.  

 Of course, I'm sure some of you would have the dates in your mind already and might be planning to attend the ICANN conference that's happening the following week in Malaysia.  As you know, Singapore is a hop and skip from Malaysia.  It's very easy to do all two weeks or all three weeks of those meetings.  So if you are planning to go for any one of these conferences, it's really very easy to hop over to the rest of them.  

 So we do encourage you to join us in Singapore.  And we do have some sessions that will be joint sessions between APrIGF and the APNIC program.  And so we have some to do with, for example, inclusion, diversity in tech, something on cooperation, et cetera.  

 The program for APrIGF is not out yet, but we have finalized sessions and have reached out to some of the organizers to finalize the whole list.  So that should be announced in due course.

 So now I'm putting on my hat as Program Committee chair, and that is to say that we have, in fact, reserved some time in the APrIGF program for IGF to engage with the APrIGF community, be it on the Global Digital Compact that we discussed earlier or anything that came out from the IGF Expert Groups Meeting, EGM outcomes.

 We heard that there was some thinking around having the NRIs engaged on some of these issues.  And so the APrIGF Program Committee have gone ahead to reserve this time.  So whether it's to work with the IGF secretariat or to work with the U.N. Tech Envoy's Office, I'm not very sure which one we should be working with exactly.  If you could let me know, that would be fantastic.

 And I think it would be a very, very good engagement opportunity that's going to happen just before the IGF.

 Now, going back to APNIC update, so APrIGF is not the only Internet governance activity that we support strongly.  We also support the local IGFs that have been happening.  Not so many unfortunately in the past two, three years because of the pandemic.  And I think things are slowly, slowly getting back to normal.  

 We've heard that, for example, ID IGF is happening in October.  And so we are very happy to support where we can.

 We also have been involved in NetThing, which is the Australian version of IGF -- of the local IGF, sorry.  And we also support youth IGFs as well, whether financially or in kind.

 So we have Bangladesh, we have Myanmar, and whichever ones that comes, like APrIGF, YIGF as well, and the fellowships.

 And, of course -- so not just the local IGFs and the YIGFs, we also provide a lot of support for the schools of Internet governance.  And I'm happy to hear the update from the IGF secretariat that does work around building that curriculum for the SIGs.  So APNIC is also very active in that space.

 We supported inSIG.  That's the India School of Internet governance.  Of course I mentioned APSIG, as well as another one, Asia-Pacific Internet Governance Academy, which is APIGA.

 And then as and when the SIGs do come up for the rest of the year, we will also be supporting those.

 So this is our very strong commitment to all the numerous Internet governance activities that are happening in the Asia-Pacific region.  And so I would just like to close by saying if you join us in Singapore for APrIGF, that would be absolutely fantastic.  And then also take the opportunity while you're there to sit in for one of the APNIC conference sessions as well.  Thanks very much.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Joyce.  And we'll get back to you on that question that you asked.

 And next on my list, we have DiploFoundation and the Geneva Internet Platform, Marco.

 >>MARCO LOTTI:  Thank you very much.  Can you confirm you can hear me well?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Loud and clear.

 >>MARCO LOTTI: Excellent.  Thank you very much.  Thank you for giving the GIP and the DiploFoundation the possibility to speak about our contributions to the digital policy discussions and more broadly to the IGF.

 I will try to keep my intervention brief.  And among all the initiatives I will mention, I will tell you about, I start with reporting, which is probably the most important one.  We report from the main digital policy-related events happening in Geneva and worldwide, where we have capacity, of course.

 In April, for example, we have reported from the UNCTAD eCommerce Week.  And in June, we have reported from the European Dialogue on Digital Policy, the EuroDIG conference.

 We usually call this initiative just-in-time reporting as we publish these reports online within two hours after the session took place.

 And this is exactly what we did last year for the IGF in Poland, where we covered about 90% of the sessions and published the reports on our Digital Watch Observatory website that you can visit at dig.watch.

 Aside also from the session reports, we issued daily summaries, what some of you may know as IGF Dailies.  And at the end of the Forum, we also put together a final report.  So it was really for us a three-step process:  Sessional reports, daily summaries, and end-of-the-conference analysis document to be performed.  And we are also planning to carry out this year during the IGF in Addis.

 And in the meantime this year, in preparation for Addis, we will continue our analysis throughout the year on the Digital Watch website and we will also report on the main events that are related to digital policy.

 A few examples when it comes to research initiatives, more precisely will be a couple of reports that I'm going to mention.  

 In Geneva, we are publishing the second edition of our Geneva Digital Atlas, which offers a comprehensive overview of who does what when it comes to digital policy in Geneva.

 A new element to highlight is that in addition to the updated content from the previous edition, this year we will also include more quantitative data so we can determine how the coverage of digital issues has increased for each organization over the past ten years.  So stay tuned for this publication coming up in September.  

 I mentioned in Geneva because we are also doing research activities outside Geneva.  And this is the case of our upcoming report Louder Digital Voices from Africa, Building African Digital Foreign Policy and Diplomacy.  This report, which we are automating now, provides a mapping of elements of digital foreign policy in South Saharan African countries by firstly drawing on African countries' digital agendas and policy documents.  This report will be launched also in September alongside the U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York.

 To keep my intervention short, I would just mention that GIP and Diplo will, of course, continue with their capacity-building programs which, by the way, as of last year we are also available in French thanks to the cooperation of the organization Agence Intergouvernementale De La Francophonie as well as carrying out our usual thematic events.  

 And just to mention a couple of them, on the one side, on the one hand, Diplo is contributing to the Digital Policy Symposium for Parliamentarians to be held in the context of the African IGF, more specifically to the session on digital and geopolitics, navigating the era of digital interdependence.

 In addition to this, we will also continue with our monthly briefings, which I'm sure most of you, if not all of you, are already familiar with which take place every last Tuesday of each month.  

 These briefings compile the main digital developments of the privous 30 days and they are condensed into our monthly newsletter, which out of coincidence the July issue was published today.

 I will stop here for the moment.  And thank you very much.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you, Marco.  Next is DotAsia, Jennifer.

 >>JENNIFER CHUNG:  Thank you, Chengetai.  I just wanted to check you can see me and hear me.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, we can.

 >>JENNIFER CHUNG:  Okay, perfect.  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to update on all the DotAsia works.  

 My name is Jennifer Chung.  I was a past MAG member and now currently speaking, I guess, on behalf of DotAsia organization.

 We are a not-for-profit, community-based organization headquartered in Hong Kong and one of our core missions is to re-invest the surpluses that we get from the registry operator, logistics, and sales back into the relevant Internet governance initiatives relevant to our region in the Asia-Pacific community.

 So there are three main updates I wanted to give.  Thank you to Joyce for giving really a lot of detail to the second update so I can probably save some time with that update.

 The first one I would like to talk about is our Eco Internet Index.  So beginning in 2020, we partnered with APNIC Foundation to explore ways to advocate for multistakeholder discussion about the matter of the Internet's impact on climate change within the Internet governance dialogue and also beyond.  And last year, 2021, with funding from Heinrich Boll Stiftung in Hong Kong, this research project began with a pilot study of six jurisdictions on the carbon footprint of the Internet and its impact on the environment.

 So we have developed a methodology that provides a useful indicator when we try to compare the eco-friendliness of the Internet across different jurisdictions.  Our EII index and framework is built and designed around three axis:  Economy, energy, and efficiency.

 And so each of these axis -- I'm not going to show this on the screen.  I will give you the website at the end for more information.

 But this highlights the relevant relationship between the positive aspects of the growth of the Internet along with the negative impacts on the Internet's carbon footprint and reflects the issue, of course, of climate change.

 In their second phase this year, we will be expanding to 15 to 20 jurisdictions in the Asia-Pacific region.  We are hoping to conduct further analyses on the methodology based on the larger data set and consider potential refinements.  And then, finally, to invite and engage government stakeholders and business sectors to discuss this matter and discuss it at Internet Governance Forums, public forums, where they can share their visions of Internet developments in the environmental aspect as well as discuss policy recommendations, obstacles to implementation, and coming up with concrete plans on improving the eco-friendliness of local Internet infrastructure.  So that's our first key project.  

 The second one I wanted to give an update on is a series of our three Internet governance key eProjects that we have that Joyce already mentioned.  The first is APIGA, which is the Asia-Pacific Internet Governance Academy.  This is a capacity-building program focused on youth leaders in the APAC region and co-hosted by ICANN and KISA, which is the Korea Internet and Security Agency, and organized with regional partners such as APNIC, DotAsia, ISOC, and also APTLD.

 For this one-week intensive, these youth leaders get a solid foundation in IG fundamentals.  They get an immersive hands-on session with dedicated mentoring by regional industry experts as well as a really strong network of peers, the APIGA alumni, as well as guided kind of mixed steps on how to participate or continue to participate in APAC Internet organizations.

 There is a -- We've done some data, and it's shown that one in four of our APIGA alumni do continue to participate in Internet governance forums locally, regionally, and globally, and some have also become past MAG members as well.  So we're quite proud of the APIGA program.

 A mini update on initiatives is APrIGF.  Joyce has already mentioned.  Thank you very much to APNIC for stepping up to be our co-host.  We are co-locating with APNIC, APSIG in Singapore and online, and it is quite a special edition of  APrIGF because this year our Fellows pool will be shared amongst APrIGF and APC.  And we're hoping that this class of Fellows benefits greatly from the intensive capacity-building course right before, and then they can jump straight into active participation in Internet governance discussions at APrIGF.  And she's also mentioned that is held right before ICANN75 in Kuala Lumpur, so we're hoping to also leverage this opportunity to further engage government stakeholders and GAC members in our IG discussions.  Fellowship announcements and programming are being finalized and will be published soon at APrIGF Asia.

 One more important key project that we have is the YIGF, the Youth IGF in Asia Pacific.  One of the highlights and innovations that they are trying to do this year is have a regional youth summit.  So they are collaborating within themselves to have over ten youth initiatives to talk, and in a roundtable within the region at YIGF.  We're going to be looking at further linkages and participation from the YIG participants into the APrIGF main conference.  And we are intensifying the mentorship scheme between the two programs so we can, you know, further let the youth participants express their concerns and their learnings from their own -- from their own conference into the main conference.  So we would also like to have some kind of cross-pollination and idea sharing with them.

 And my final update is about .KIDS.  I'm very happy to announce that .ASIA is fully supportive of .KIDS Foundation, which will be the registry operator for the new .KIDS top-level domain.  This extension has been successfully delegated to the Internet root zone back in April, and we are set to launch on World's Children's Day, November 20th of this year.  .KIDS adopts the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of the Child as it's guiding principles for operations which is why we picked the World's Children's Day to be the launch of general availability.  And it has been over ten years of working very closely with child rights organizations, experts, child advocacy networks, and now with the DC on Children's Rights in Digital Environments.  

 We welcome all stakeholders to join us in creating and supporting a specialized Internet space for all things kids with the best interest of kids at heart.

 There will be a session at APrIGF where we will be discussing issues of child online safety and how to leverage current systems and create a sustainable and effective multistakeholder framework on abuse reporting.  And hopefully there will be similar opportunities to have this discussion at the global IGF as well.

 Thank you so much for your time.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much, Jennifer, for the overview of that very interesting and important work.

 May I just remind people we stay at about three minutes, and we've got some people -- still some presentation to go through. 

 So the next person is Timea from ICC/BASIS.

 >>TIMEA SUTO:   Thank you very much, Chengetai.  This is Timea Suto from the International Chamber of Commerce for the record again.

 Thank you for the three minutes to present our work on digital and Internet governance-related issues.  I'll try to keep to my allocated time.

 First of all, for those who don't know who we are, the International Chamber of Commerce is the institutional representative of more than 45 million companies in over a hundred countries with the mission to make business work for everyone, every day, everywhere.  We do this through a unique mix of advocacy, solutions, and standard setting.  We promote international trade, responsible business conduct, and a global approach to regulation in addition to provide dispute resolution services.  

 Our members include many of the world's leading companies, SMEs, business associations, and local chambers of commerce.

 In terms of our work with Internet governance and digital policy issues, IGF holds a special place for ICC as our Business Action to Support the Information Society initiative or shortly, BASIS.  As we call it the sister of the IGF because ICC was the business focal point during the WSIS process that started the IGF that mandated the first IGF.  And since then, ICC/BASIS is sort of the de facto business interlocutor and mobilizer for this work.

 And here we engage in the hope for more successful, more inclusive Internet governance mechanisms that, in our view, relies on the incremental formation of consensus across all stakeholder groups together with constructive dialogue on issues that are not yet ripe for consensus, all while remaining the security, stability, resilience, and openness of the Internet.

 ICC and the BASIS initiative advocates private sector views on Internet governance policy issues.  We promote local business priorities and the full range of Internet governance, ICC and digital technology issues that contribute to economic and social development.  We believe that these goals are best achieved through a multistakeholder approach to developing policy, legal and regulatory frameworks that benefit from input and cooperation of all stakeholders, including governments, businesses, the technical community, and civil society, we feel that offer the most promising path to the benefits of connectivity and empowerment to technology and sustainable development.

 Just in case those of you who are new to the IGF space don't know who we are and what we represent.

 Now, in more concrete terms, on our work since I gave the last update on ICC's work at the last meeting of the IGF, I wanted to share with you three documents, three policy projects that ICC has launched in the past couple of months, since the beginning of this year, on three focus areas.  One on connectivity, one on cybersecurity, and one on data governance.

 Our work on connectivity has the objective to identify dedicated and effective actions on both the supply and demand side of connectivity to bridge the digital divides, to foster an interoperable seamless ICT ecosystem mechanisms to help populations reap the benefits of ICTs, and to connect the unconnected, which is not just about access to mobile Internet and new technologies but requires also access to services, applications, relevant content available in relevant local languages as well as skills and capability to transform information into actionable knowledge.

 So recently ICC launched a paper, actually, at the end of May on the issues of connectivity that has a couple of key recommendations.  This paper also formed the basis of ICC's pledge to the ITU development sector Partners to Connect initiative that happened in Kagali a couple of weeks ago.  And I'm going to share the link to this paper in the chat right now, and I hope to be able to discuss the paper and its recommendations with you.  We'll be bringing it to the IGF, and we are looking forward to receive your input on the recommendations and to working with everybody who is interested on the implementation of those recommendations with them.

 On the issue of cybersecurity, our goal is to guarantee the timely and global implementation of the existing norms and rules for responsible state behavior in cyberspace and ensure the development of effective international provisions to help curb cybercrime and encourage international cooperation.  

 As the only business organization that has observer status with the United Nations General Assembly, we follow closely the U.N. processes on cybersecurity, including the Open-Ended Working Group under the UNGA first committee and the negotiations on new cybercrime community in the UNGA third committee, and we do that in close consultation with ICC's membership and the companies that they represent.

 If you are interested in finding out more about our work on cybersecurity, I invite you to consult the policy primer on cybersecurity that they've launched last year and to issue briefs that they've launched earlier this year.  And I put the link in the chat here as well if you'd like to find out more about that.  And we do invite you to engage with us on any questions you might have about these issues.

 And last but not least, on data governance, and I do know that I'm exceeding my time here so I'll try to be very, very concise.  Our objective on data governance issues is to ensure all citizens and companies can realize the full potential of the Internet by promoting policies that facilitate the adoption of new technologies and the global movement of data that supports them, and to support open cross-border data flows while ensuring that users have adequate privacy, security, and IP protections.  And that these protections are implemented in a manner that is transparent, nondiscriminatory and not disguised as a restriction to trade.  So ICC's work on this commenced with a paper that looks at starting to provide a harmonized approach towards government access to personal data that is held by the private sector and how the effective approaches and inconsistencies to these issues might affect trust in the digital ecosystem and data flows.  So I'll put the link to that paper also in the chat.

 We have a series of recommendations on that issue in the paper that again we will be bring to go the IGF later this year and hope to discuss it with you all.

 So with apologies for the long intervention, thank you very much for listening to me.  And if you have any questions or would like more closely with the private sector or with ICC directly, please don't hesitate to get in touch.  Thank you.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much, Timea.

 Now we're going to have a three-minute presentation from AfriNIC.  Arthur, please, go ahead.

 >>ARTHUR CARINDAL:   Yeah, do you hear me?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Yes, we do.

 >>ARTHUR CARINDAL:   Thank you for giving me the floor.  Arthur Carindal from AfriNIC.  I'm based in Mauritius.

 So for a quick update from AfriNIC, I know that I have three minute, so I would like to say that AfriNIC has developed or launched six Internet development program which envisions a secure and accessible Internet for (indiscernible) group in Africa.

 Our objectives for this program is to increase investment in the Internet development (indiscernible) in AfriNIC service union for capacity building, research, and technical collaboration, and any related internet initiatives.

 Briefly, I will share with you four of those program.  We have the Fellowship programs which consist of offering opportunity to individuals from diverse backgrounds to participate and learn from AfriNIC meetings and take part in our policy discussion.  So the selected candidate become part of our crop of potential future leaders in the Internet ecosystem and in the country.

 We have also the technical community development programs.  So at AfriNIC, we believe that developing technical communities like network operator groups, called NOGs, is an integral part of developing the Internet on the continent.  This is why we have already partnered with regional and national NOGs for providing financial, technical, and in-kind resources to facilitate their growth.

 We also put in place -- one program's called Diversity in ICT programs.  This program aims to break the digital divide, okay?  And liberate the capability of people to access, use and develop Internet technologies, like women ICTs and people with dasability -- disability, I'm sorry.

 So AfriNIC is committed to supporting the regional diversity program by advocating for more diversity, providing sponsorship and building capacity of this category of Internet users.

 And lastly, we have the Internet governance and ICT initiative development programs.  These programs aims to liberate once again the skills and experiences of our stakeholders in Internet governance necessary to take an active part in global Internet governance discussion.

 So what we do so far, AfriNIC in last year, AfriNIC granted 12 sponsorship, okay, for a total of more than $2,000 to ICTs and IGF event on the continent for which we offer keynote speakers, capacity building, and structure to promote best practice in Internet numbers, resources, usage and management.

 So before ending my update I would like to inform this year AfriNIC has secured more than 1,000 -- $100,000 to support these programs.  We have already supported Internet governance, and School of Internet Governance on the continent, (saying name) Ghana School of Internet Governance with Africa IGF, (indiscernible) IGF, and yet we are about to take a second part in Africa IGF, Mauritius, and (saying name) School of Internet Governance and IGF, North Africa, Central Africa.

 So this is briefly an update from AfriNIC, and I would like to thank you for giving up the floor.

 Thank you, Chair.  That's all.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:   Thank you very much, Arthur.

 Next we have the ITU, Sadhvi.  Can you please give us your three-minute presentation.

 >>SADHVI SARAN:   Sure, thanks, Chengetai.  I'll keep it as brief as possible.

 So hello, everyone.  My name is Sadhvi.  I work with the International Telecommunication Union.  And our thanks once again to the IGF and MAG for giving us the opportunity to join you today and to contribute to this meeting.

 As in previous years, we look forward to continuing our active engagement and collaboration with the IGF this year as well.  Briefly, some key activities at ITU this year that might be of interest for this group and for the discussions over the next couple of days.

 As many of you may know, we've organized three major conferences this year at ITU, two of which have already taken place.  Some of you have talked about the WTDC, the World Telecom Development Teleconference that took place in Kagali in June, and the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly which was held in March and defined the next period of study for our telecom standardization sector.

 And in Bucharest in September this year is the ITU plenipotentiary conference, which as the ITU's highest policy-making body will set out the Union's general policies.  It will elect the senior management of the organization as well as the member states of council, our governing body, and members the Radio Regulations Board.

 In addition to that, we also recently concluded the WSIS Forum 2022 earlier this month.  This year the forum hosted more than 250 sessions with a cumulative attendance of over 1,000 participants in person and over 30,000 remote participants spanning about 150 countries.

 We have also launched in our AI for Good team the neural network, which is an AI-powered community networking and content platform aimed at accelerating innovation and collaboration to achieve the SDGs.  And of course we continue to also actively contribute to the various tracks of the U.N. SG's Our Common Agenda and conversations around the Global Digital Compact, including particularly the ones on connectivity. 

 So I will stop here for now, but of course I remain available for any questions or comments later.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:   Thank you very much, Sadhvi.

 CGI.br.  Everton.

 >>EVERTON RODRIGUEZ:   Thank you, Chengetai.  

 Hello, everyone.  It's my pleasure to be here.  I would like to thank the IGF Secretariat and the MAG for convening this meeting, for the invitation, and the opportunity to be here speaking about the Brazilian Internet steering group, CGI.br.

 My name is Everton, and on behalf of Professor Hartmut Glaser, the executive secretary of CGI.br, I'm glad to present some of the recent efforts undertaken since our last update made by my colleague during February's MAG meeting.

 In 2022, CGI.br will start its seventh electoral process for 11 representatives to the board:  Four from the civil society, four from the private sector, and three from the scientific and technological community.  An electoral commission will soon be announced, and the elections will take place based on the votes of an electoral college composed of entities representing the scientific and technological community, private sector and civil society.  The incoming board members will have a three-year term.  

 Our multistakeholder working groups have been keeping their work on several discussions ranging from internal aspects to broader policy discussions.  Aside from CGI.br's electoral process, Brazil will also have a -- have national elections in 2022, and CGI.br has been putting efforts on dialogues with authorities to combat misinformation and harmful content.

 We have recently released a set of new publications, compilation of articles on gender inequality in the ICT universe has been launched, structured in three sections -- gender and race in Internet technologies and governance, online violence against women, and education -- which addresses the impacts of gender inequality on the educational environment and academic research.

 A brand-new edition of the ICT household survey has also been released showing diverse changes in the national landscape, including the increasing Internet access from rural areas.  Other issues include digital transformation in health systems, technological change in and digital transformation in the (indiscernible), and discussions about the digital inclusion frontiers produced in coordination with external entities such as the Brazilian Telecommunications Agency, the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ECLAC, among others.  The technology study center, the web .br, has also launched the new publication with a set of articles addressing important issues related to the web such as open data, trust, accessibility, and so on.  And although the pandemic is definitely still not gone, vaccination efforts have improved health conditions in Brazil, so CGI.br has been gradually resuming in-person meetings and onsite events.  The board meetings are now taking place in hybrid mode as they used to be before.  

 And after two years of remote events, the 12th Brazilian IGF (indiscernible) 12 organized and promoted by CGI.br took place in Natal in the northeast of the country, joining more than 500 onsite attendees and 450 online people, becoming the largest Brazilian IGF edition so far.  

 27 workshops proposed by the community have been selected in 2022 to discuss several important themes such as data information and digital content, diversity and inclusion, infrastructure, access and connectivity, and other relevant topics.  

 Day zero activities organized by external entities and three main sessions completed the program.  And this edition of the Brazilian IGF counted on many lessons learned from the previous two remote-only editions such as the possibility of having in-person and remote speakers at the same session and also a significant improvement towards the participation of a remote audience.  

 This is the update on CGI.BR.  And I would like to thank, once again, the IGF secretariat and the MAG for the opportunity.  

 I hope to see you all in Addis Ababa.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  Thank you very much, Everton.

 Next is ISOC, Agustina.  I think you're online.

 >>AGUSTINA CALLEGARII:  Yes, can you hear me?

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes, we can.

 >>AGUSTINA CALLEGARII:  Hi, everyone.  Thank you very much for inviting us to this meeting.  My name is Agustina Callegari with The Internet Society.  And to keep my intervention brief, I would like to provide you an update on two different activities.  The first one is the IGF's Ambassador Programs 2022.  And the second one is the work related to splinternet.

 As you might remember, each year The Internet Society selects 30 young, passionate people to participate in our IGF Youth Ambassador program.  The program aim is to equip the next generation of Internet leaders to collaborate and innovate towards an open Internet.

 The call for 2022 applications closed at the end of June, and we are currently in the selection phase of the ambassadors.  The selection process is made up of three stages.  In stage one, applicants need an online application, out of which 150 are selected.

 In phase 2, candidates will take an online course on Internet governance.  

 And in the last phase, finally, from the online course will be required to write a paper on an existing or emerging area in Internet governance.  And then a selection committee will assess the papers.  And then the best submissions will be selected as the IGF Youth Ambassadors.

 The IGF Youth Ambassadors are to be publicly announced in September this year.  From September to the IGF in November, the selected participants will attend a Webinar series led by global Internet governance experts.

 During the series, they will learn deep knowledge, present burgeoning ideas, and get ready for the meeting in November.

 Throughout the process, we encourage youngsters to get involved in different IGF activities, including NRIs, youth sessions, BPF, and workshops.  

 As per my own experience as an IGF ambassador in 2015, I can say that engaging in these activities is what makes this experience more valuable.  So at this point, we have an ask for all of you.  We would like to identify opportunities for our ambassadors to engage in workshop sessions, either as rapporteurs, speakers, or any other role they can play.  Therefore, if you think of any other opportunity we can involve other young fellows after they are announced in September, please reach out to us so we can start the conversation.

 And secondly, we know that the topic of Internet fragmentation is one of the subthemes of this years' IGF.  So I would like to briefly share what both The Internet Society and our global community have been championing for.

 As you may know, there is an immediate race for the Internet to become splintered.  This is an Internet broken into many isolated networks controlled by individual governments or corporations.

 We have seen signs of a splinternet for several years; but this year, the war in Ukraine has recently sparked various political responses.  As a result, this could bring us closer to a less globally connected Internet.

 And in this context, The Internet Society and its community of chapters, 130 countries, a special interest group, and nearly 90,000 members worldwide, it's already taking actions to protect the Internet.  

 Many Internet Society chapters have been sending letters to decision makers asking them to protect the Internet and also our organizational members are also helping to raise awareness.

 As capacity-building efforts are key for shaping the future of the Internet and protect it as well, as part of our learning at ISOC, we have a course on the Internet way of networking which aims at helping people understand the unique foundation the Internet needs to exist and provide participants with practical tools to protect the Internet.

 Regarding the IGF, we -- and I will close with this.  We have some proposals to an open forum on this topic, protecting the Internet.  And hopefully, we will have you discussing this important issue at this session in December.

 I will stop here.  But please feel free to reach out if you would like to discuss any of these activities or any other project or initiatives that The Internet Society is currently conducting.  Thank you very much.

 And hope to see you all soon.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Agustina.

 Next we have the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.  Hansol.  Do we have Hansol Park online?  If not, that is fine, we can go to the European Commission, Velimira.


 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Yes.  Thank you.  Please carry on.  We can hear you.  Yeah.

 >>VELIMIRA NEMINGUENTCHEVA-GRAU:  Thank you.  So last time we provided an overview of the European Commission's initiatives.  So today I will zoom only in on the three main ones, which are the NIS2 directive, the Digital Services Act, and the Digital Markets Act.  Hopefully with this, I keep within the three minutes.

 So basically, I have chosen these three initiatives for the reason that they have reached political agreement since the first Open Consultation was held this year and are expected basically to be adopted and entered into force in the coming months.

 I will start with the NIS2 directive and briefly give the context for this directive.  So basically, the context is the one of digital transformation of society that was intensified by the COVID-19 crisis and expansion of the (indiscernible) landscape with a number and sophistication of cyber attacks that were on the rise.

 The NIS2 directive is aimed to set the baseline for cybersecurity risk management measures and reporting obligations across all the sectors that are covered by its scope.  And based on their criticality for the economy and society, I will name just a few like energy, transport, health, and digital infrastructure, but there are also others.

 And as the current NIS directive, the NIS2 is based on three main pillars.  The first one is to have appropriate capabilities at the level of member states to deal with cybersecurity incidents.  The second pillar is for companies to have a risk-management approach in place, providing a minimum list of basic security elements that have to be applied.  And the third pillar implies strength and cross-border cooperation and information exchange.

 NIS2 aims mainly to reinforce each of these three pillars, and also it includes a provision in relation to domain name registration data.  According to each, registration data would need to be among others accurate and complete.

 Now, I'll say a few words on the Digital Services Act package, which is composed of the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act.  The package aims to create a safer and more open digital space with the objective to project -- sorry, to protect European citizens from illegal and harmful content and conduct online and also to create a level playing business environment while assuring the contestability of the gatekeeper platforms.

 A few words of the Digital Services Act.  Basically, this act contains E.U.-wide due diligence obligations that will apply to all digital services that connect consumers to goods, services, or content.  And the DSA includes rules on the content moderation practices of online platforms, in particular the removal of illegal content and their interaction with the freedom of speech, with the objective of having a well-informed public debate.

 The obligations that the DSA foresees for the various online intermediary services depend namely on their role size and the impact on the online ecosystem.  And this is the reason why we consider that these obligations are proportionate.

 I just would like to mention the DSA recognizes the particular impact of very large online platforms on economy and society.  And it, therefore, sets a high standard of transparency and accountability on how such platforms should moderate and intermediate information while also keeping them accountable for the risks their services can pose to the society and the citizens.

 And, finally, the Digital Markets Act is the branch of the Digital Services Act which aims to ensure digital markets that are fair, open, and contestable.  And the DMA will apply mainly to gatekeepers.  So basically, these are companies which create bottlenecks in the link between the businesses and the consumers who benefit from the services of the businesses and companies which sometimes even control entire ecosystems that may be organized around different platform services such as online marketplaces, operating system cloud services, or online search general ins.

 The DMA includes a designation mechanism for the gatekeepers, and the letter will be subject to a number of clearly defined obligations and prohibitions in relation to nonfavoring to their own services, interoperability, or treatment of data.

 The DMA will be deployed through a robust supervisory architecture, under which the Commission will be the sole enforcer of the rules but in close cooperation with authorities of the different E.U. member states.

 And I will stop here, and we hope to have the opportunity to discuss these initiatives further with the IGF community at IGF 2022.  And we are very much looking forward to it.  

 And I would like just to take this opportunity to thank Ethiopia for the hosting work that they are already undertaking and the IGF secretariat for the opportunity given to international organizations to share perspectives with the MAG and the entire IGF community.

 Thank you, Chengetai.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, Velimira.

 Next, I just want to see if Hansol is online again, if she's -- Hansol Park?  No, okay.

 Okay.  That comes to the end.  I will now just have an open call, did we miss anybody who wants to say something?  Okay.

 >>MARIELZA OLIVEIRA:  Just wanted to add one more initiative that I didn't mention before because I had mentioned the conference that we are organizing next year.  So I will reiterate that invitation to everyone to participate.  

 And I mentioned the expansion of our ROAM framework to 45 countries now.  

 But there's one initiative that I think would be very relevant for all of you.  It's is the massive open online course that we just launched on artificial intelligence and the rule of law that is training about 4,400 judicial actors in 140 countries currently.  And we would like to extend also and explore the possibility of online partnerships and collaboration on that, to extend that -- the work to parliamentarians as well.  

 The idea is to actually raise the capacities to address the issues that artificial intelligence brings not only to the judiciary when they internalize the use of artificial intelligence in their own systems but also for them to be able to adjudicate fairly cases related to artificial intelligence.

 And this is an experience that has grown from our work on training judicial actors also on freedom of expression, which has already trained 23,000 judicial actors around the world.  And in addition, we are looking at building capacities of civil servants.  We are looking at a competency framework for civil servants in terms of artificial intelligence and digital transformation.  So what is it that they need to know in order to be effective in that space?  So I will be happy to share links on those two initiatives as well.

 The second initiative is in the scope of the U.N. Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development that we have in partnership with the ITU.  It's one of the working groups there.  And the report is expected to be published with the competency framework in September this year so that we can actually start support member states and stakeholders that are interested in internalizing this kind of competency as well.  

 But the MOOC on AI and the rule of law is open.  So please spread it out to your judicial systems, judicial actors, and member states here present, as well as for international organizations and other actors that have judicial actors that would be interested in this kind of knowledge.  Thanks.

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much.  And before I hand it over back to the Chair, does anybody have any questions for the group that -- for anybody that has presented?  No questions?  Okay.  Thank you very much.  Thank you all for participating.

 >>CHAIR MITCHELL:  It says here I'm supposed to recap everything we've done, which I'm not going to do.

 [ Laughter ]

 I'm going to encourage you -- I'm not even going to take three minutes.  I'm going to encourage you to reflect on what we did today and to come prepared tomorrow to dive into the workshop proposal evaluation work that we're going to be starting.  

 So have a good dinner.  Have a good night's rest, for those who of you who are still jet lagged.  That includes me.

 And we'll see you tomorrow.  Meeting is closed.

 [ Applause ]

 >>CHENGETAI MASANGO:  Thank you very much, everybody.