IGF 2023 – Day 0 – WSROOM 1 The Declaration for the Future of the Internet: Principles to Action – RAW

>> Is a very powerful tool.  Following its launch in April last year, we already have 70 partner signatories and no others might join.  This is a great achievement.  I am pleased to see this process carry on in Kyoto.

This event, co‑organised by Japan, Kenya and United States and the European union shows the declarations through global character and ambition.  But Ladies and Gentlemen, signing up to it is not enough.  Lies in you are ability to bring its principles into life when we legislate, when we innovate, when we partner up with one another.

This is not only a task for the signatory governments.  It is essential that the multi stakeholder community bring its perspectives and expertise for its success.  We appreciate your contribution as the Internet Governance Forum community to the declarations commitments.  Which also strengthens the multi stakeholder model of internet governance.  And we should use this opportunity to dive into each of the declarations promise.

For instance, at the internet forum '23, we are holding a dialogue around using technology to combat climate change.  A key commitment of the signatories which holds enormous promise as we bring it to life.  The EU will continue doing its part to implement and promote the declaration.  Today we announce the launch of a new 2 million euro initiative.  And my colleague Pearse O'Donohue will share more details with you about this initiative.  Where are you Pearse?

Here.  Yes.

I'm confident that with the commitment of all signatories and stakeholders represented here today, we can use the declaration to shape the internet we aspire and we need to have.  I thank you for listening to me.  And wish you a successful event this morning and fruitful Internet Governance Forum week ahead.  Thank you very much.

>> I would now like to welcome our co‑organisers to please come up to the stage.

We will go ahead and get started in the interest of time.  And first I would like to welcome remarks from Yoichi Iida, the assistant Vice Minister for international affairs from the ministry of Internal Affairs and communication of Japan.  Please Mr. Iida.

>> YOICHI IIDA: Good morning everyone.  And good morning excellency Vice President.  Let me talk while sitting.  And it is my great pleasure to have all of you joining us today.  To discuss the future of internet.  And I would like to extend my highest gratitude to the colleagues from U.S. government and European commission.  And reKenya for preparing for this wonderful session.  And I would like to spend special thanks to Ms. Jaisha Wray and ‑‑ who have been leading all process to now.

Japan has been one of the major members of from the launch of the collaboration on future of internet.  And we have been putting the highest importance on this initiative, which is protecting and promoting free, open and global internet.

We strongly believe and commit to the democratic value.  And we are strongly committed to promoting the internet at the basis and foundation for the democratic society and open and free economy.  And that is exactly the core value of U.N. Internet Governance Forum.  So this year, the host country of IGF, we have been trying to find what would be the best way, most effective way to promote the value of internet.

And we strongly believe this initiative is one with the most powerful instrument to promote internet as a global foundation.

As some may know Japan is also taking the group of G7 and hosted ministerial meeting among digital and technology ministers in April.  And there we also highlighted the importance of internet governance.  Along with other agenda items such as AI, and data flow, and the importance of regulatory infrastructure.

So the ministers agreed on the importance of internet governance.  And ministers found the importance of promoting this initiative of DFI as the very strong instrument of internet governance.  And they also agreed the importance of multi stakeholder approach and the collaboration with other partners beyond G7.  That is why we wanted to host this very important session in IGF.

And this is exactly what we have been dreaming over the last year or so.  And we discussed among MAG and the leadership panel members what would be the theme for this year's Internet Governance Forum.  And we agreed "internet we wants:  Empowering all people" would be the good message to the world.

So this means internet is foundation for society and economy for everybody in the world.  And to realise that the discussion and the efforts among all stakeholders in multistakeholder approach is necessary.  And Japan is so many committed to multistakeholder approach.  And strongly committed to this very important concept and initiative in the discussion of global digital compact, which is coming up very soon.

And also, we're supporting the promoting and protecting multistakeholder approach in the discussion of upcoming WSIS+ 20 in next few years.

So I strongly expect this session is beginning of this year's annual IGF annual conference, which is promoting the importance of multistakeholder approach and facilitating the collaboration between different communities from different countries.  So that the DFI will make further progress across the global partners and will be supporting the discussion at Global Digital Compact and make a good collaboration towards that discussion at WSIS+ 20 in two years.

So thank you very much.  And I look very much forward to the productivity discussion today.

>> JAISHA WRAY: Thank you Mr. Iida.  Next up Alan Davidson, assistant secretary for commerce for from the U.S. department of commerce.  And my boss.  Thank you.

>> ALAN DAVIDSON: Thank you.  And thank you Vice Minister Iida for hosting us and for those very important and thoughtful remarkses.

But really, thank you all for joining us today.  I am delighted to be here, to talk about how together we can advance the declaration for the future of the internet.  Most importantly we are here to engage with this community.  This broad set of stakeholders, to discuss how together we can work to realise the core principles of the declaration.

As you all know, last year the United States joined other 60 global partners in launching the declaration to affirm our commitments to a single global internet that is truly open, free, interoperable, reliable and secure.

That commitment was so important because we continue to find ourselves in a global debate about what kind of internet we are going to have.  Will it continue to be a tool for individual empowerment, economic opportunity, and innovation as it has been and as we hope it will be?

What what is the internet we want?  The U.S. government believes in building a better‑connected world.  One that fosters open communication, enables access to information.  Promotes competition.  Protects privacy and safety.  And uses technology to enable more people to exercise their human rights.

The DFI is a strong statement of values.  By like‑minded countries.  Intent on supporting that positive vision of a better global Internet.

The DFI started as a governmental document.  That introduced what I think of as "known bug."  Right?  It lacked sufficient involvement at the time from the multistakeholder community.  There was a reason for that.  Governments saw value in a strong statement developed and delivered fairly quickly by governments.

But if the DFI is going to be strong going forward, we need the multistakeholder community to be behind it, to be part of it.  So to move the DFI from principles to action, I would offer three key points for your consideration and discussion today.  The first is that we are keenly aware that work towards implementation on the DFI principles cannot be achieved by governments alone.  We need to work alongside civil society, industry, and the technical community, the user community, to achieve the collective goals of the DFI.

And all stakeholders, but particularly civil society, should hold governments and industry to account.  Hold us to account.  Through the principles agreed to in the DFI.

The U.S. government welcome this is challenge from its own stakeholder community.

A second point is that the IGF community is critical to realising the positive vision of the DFI.  We're delighted to be here.  We've been talking about coming here for probably the full year that this event's been planned.  We will discuss today.  We need your input.  What are your priorities?  What can governments do to facilitate open transparent discussions on realising these principles?

What obstacles stand in our collective way?  We hope that everyone here is ready to participate in today's breakout sessions.  Which we'll hear about shortly.  We'll discuss how to prioritise work on the DFI, how we can work with the multistakeholder community and how we should measure success.

The last thing is we would like to take this opportunity to share a document, which I think has been distributed, containing a set of best practises for consultations around the DFI.  These were developed within the U.S. with extensive input from U.S. stakeholders.  It is our hope that they are a useful tool or a starting point for many to have these discussions.

To close I'll just say that the DFI, we see the DFI as a vital tool to promote our common vision of a free, open, reliable, safe, trusted and accessible Internet for all.

As vice president Jourova said.  We'll only realise this promise if we bring these principles to life together.  Launching was so important.  But it was only the first step.  Now with your help we need to strengthen support for the DFI to fully realise its vision.

Thank you.

>> JAISHA WRAY: Thank you assistant Secretariry Davidson.  Next Pearse O'Donohue, director for the future networks from the European commission.

>> PEARSE O'DONOHUE: Thank you.  Thank you, good morning.

Just a few moments ago we heard European commission vice president Jourova, so you don't need to hear too much from me.  But it is a sign of how important the IGF is for the European commission o and the European Union.  And even this session that we have a Vice President of the commission here us.  Vice President Jourova's words highlight the urgency of our mission.  Build on her insights, I'm really honored to work together with the partners.  Because as the Vice President emphasised, the declaration for the future of the Internet, it is not just a declaration.  It is an open call to coordinated action.

As she said, it is not enough just to sign.  Signature is democrat enough.  The DFI addresses challenges made on and lays out commitments for action.  And making those actions and the commitments specific will be a decentralized process.  A bottom out process and as Mr. Davidson said, one that crucially involves all of the stakeholders.  All of the partners in this multistakeholder process.

So it engages not only the signatories but of course the multistakeholder communities around the world, starting here in the IGF.

Now, I'm actually convinced that all of the stakeholders will play their part in making the DFI a truly living movement.  As was just said, it started as a declaration signed by government, by administrations.  But it only takes flesh and takes life with all of the part fully involved.

As Vice President said, as our contribution I'm happy to talk a little bit more about the EU led long term initiative that we are putting in place in order to make the principles of the European declaration Of Digital Rights and Principles and the DFI, which are entirely compatible, concrete and practical.  We call it the global initiative on the future of the Internet, which has three objectives.

First of all, we want to raise awareness about the DFI globally.  Making sure people everywhere understand the significance.  Because the declaration is open to all.  We aim to strengthen support for the declaration and to broaden participation.  Not only to new countries that firmly decide to abide by the commitments in the DFI.  But also to stakeholders around the world.

Secondly, we actively support the implementation of DFI principles in the countries that have endorsed it.  Obviously that starts with our work at home to ensure that we are practising what we preach, that we are putting in place the protections that are necessary.  So it is from government.  But with the help of civil society, to make these principles a reality.

Finally, we will integrate the promotion and implementation of the DFI principles into our other external actions.  Again, to ensure consistency and a cohesive approach.

But what makes this project truly special is its commitment to multistakeholder and rights‑based approach.  We believe as do our partners that the Internet's future should be shaped collectively, with input from all corners of the globe and from all parts of society.

As Vice Minister Iida said we must ensure using the DFI, we work together as like‑minded partners, to influence the GDC and subsequently the WSIS+ 20 process.

That is why today's event is so important.  We led on a series of workshops held in Prague last year.  We're now working with partners to continue that work, which is part of the commitment written into the DFI.  Not only to work with, but to draw from the input and include the stakeholder community.

We'll be using that feedback from previous events and this event.  Including today.  So that I assure you in now, the breakout sessions, and working for, we'll be listening carefully to your input from how we can together move the DFI further.  Thank you very much.

>> JAISHA WRAY: Thank you so much Mr. O'Donohue.

So we will now be moving into the breakout session portion of this event.

Each breakout group will have a moderator and rapper tour.  We're very pleased to have rapporteurs from youth IGF and who will be reporting on each breakout session.

So provide a little more information about the expectations and what happened during these breakout groups.  I'd like to introduce Dr. Eileen Donahoe.  She is the U.S. state department special envoy and coordinator for digital freedom in the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy.  Dr. Donahoe, please come on up.

>> EILEEN DONAHOE: But I have been deeply involved in the global multistakeholder Internet governance conversation.  I'd say for the last 15‑plus years.  I've been part of civil society.  I've been part of academia.  So I'm like many of you, sort of a strange multistakeholder animal.  And I've worked with many people in this room and many different settings.  And it is really fun to see everyone.  I just have to call out the one person who is sitting right here in front of me.  Wolfgang, who I think of as probably one of the best conceptual minds thinking about Internet governance from the very beginning.  Is and it is very fun to see old friends.

I also want to note that I happen to have been deeply involved in the DFI negotiations, but as a member of civil society and academia, really focused on the human rights part of the declaration.

Now it is very interesting for me to be in a different role as part of the government, as a representative of the U.S. Government.  And my job is somewhat to help elevate the potential and realise the potential of multistakeholder process in all of these global Internet governance conversations and make it more real and results‑oriented.

So this is the most important segment of this whole programme.  We are moving into the breakout groups where all of you get to engage with each other in your on groups.

The request is that you attempt to cover each of the themes that have been laid out.  And I am hoping the moderators and rapporteurs have this in writing that they can share with their respective stakeholder groups.  The first is really to focus on the substantive priorities that are most ripe for multistakeholder progress.

The second of which is thinking about modalities for cooperation that can be more effective going forward.

And the third, maybe the hardest one, which is thinking about how to define and measure success.

I just want to reiterate.  The governments that are involved in the DFI want to underscore and demonstrate their commitment to these high‑level principles.  And they also want to demonstrate commitment to this community and engagement with the multistakeholder expertise in the room.

But the real purpose of this event is to get your help.  We really need the expertise in this room to help us figure out what are the best next step for DFI.  How can we turn the commitments to principle into policy and practise?  And most importantly, we need help in implementing through concrete actions all of the principles in the declaration.

So you are now off to do the most important part of this programme for about 90 minutes.  And then we will come back and have a full, full, readout from each of the stakeholder groups.  And we'd like the bring them up to the stage here.  Thank you very much.

>> JAISHA WRAY: All right.  So now we will cover some of the logistics and the next steps to move into your breakout groups.

So we have decided to divide up by each of the communities.  And so the idea here is that we want to hear from each of the communities and then come back together.  It will be very interesting, we think, to hear where the communities align and diverge.  And that will help guide our next steps.

And so for those representing civil society?  You will be joining your moderator, Grace Gitaiga in Workshop Room 8.

For those within the private sector, please join your moderator, Timea suto.  In workshop group 10.

For those in the technical community.  You will be joining your moderator, Aknori, the chief policy officer of JP Nick in Workshop Room 9.

And finally for those representing government, you will stay in this room.  Your moderator will begin the session shortly.

So the way to make sure that we're going to get to the rooms is we are going to have you meet in a specific section of this room.  So you can walk together.  So we don't lose anyone.

So civil society will be meeting in the front.

Then the technical community will be meeting in the middle towards the wall.  And the private sector will meet in the back of the room.

Now, I'll also note, as I said up front, the goal is to listen to the stakeholder community.  And so the government representatives are welcome to stay in this room and have that discussion.  But we would also encourage the government representatives to move around to the other rooms, if you would like to hear what the stakeholders are saying.

Momentarily we will move to the portions of the room.  And then following those sessions, we will meet back in this room at 11:30.  And that is when we'll hear the feedback and conclude the discussion.  And then we'll take a group photo.

So please, join your moderators in the sessions of the room and we'll kick of you.  Thank you so much everyone.

  "declaration for the future of the internet."

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: If you are staying for the government breakout session, we are sitting in the corner over there.  It is a small therapy group set up.  So please join.

>> So everybody here is for the government session.

There are some seats here as well.

Okay.  Let me start by explaining why we're moving here and why I'm using the microphone and this is an important piece of information for you.

This session is going to be streamed online.  So keep that in mind when we are engaging in our discussion as well.  Changes format a bit.  And that is the only session that is going to be also streamed online.  So it is important to engage.  There will not be any comments on or interventions from the audience online though.  So we will be just communicating one way.

Let me.  I'm trying to place myself a bit strategically so that you all can see me.  But maybe I should actually sit down somewhere.  If you don't mind, I'll squeeze in here.

My name is Patryk Pawlak.  I work for Carnegie Europe.

We have three other session with the stakeholder groups discussing how they can work better with governments and how government Kansas engage better with communities.

What we're trying to do in this session is maybe do a bit reverse exercise.

So how do you think you can engage better with those different group of stakeholders?  What are your expectations towards them?

We have three sort of blocks of questions and issues I would like to address.  But before we get there, let me also maybe introduce the format very briefly so we also have a rapporteur for the session.  And he is there, yes.  Bibik, IGF representative based in Kathmandu.  One of the founding members of IGF in Nepal and will be supporting our work.

And we are going to sort of collect these thoughts in semi structured format in a document online.  That is also to support our colleagues afterwards in preparing a collective report for all of you to see what a difference sessions have actually led to.

  The session is going to be live streamed.  So welcome who whoever is watching us online.

I'd like to start by clarifying objectives.  And I see some people looking at watches.  It might be difficult probably for some time zones to follow us.  So I do not expect many people online but it will be still recorded for everybody else to watch afterwards.

Yes, clarifying the objectives of the session.  We are expected to generate substantive feedback to share with all other stakeholders in the planner group.  So we will look bad as the government stakeholder group if we do not have any concrete to deliver.  Keep that in mind.  At the owned of the discussion I'd like at least five bullet points we can present in the plenary.

We will structure this around two big blocks but three different teams.  Block 1 will focus on what do we want to achieve together.  Which are the principles that should be prioritised for multistakeholder cooperation?

I assume you all remember those five principles.  But if not let me quickly recall them.  The first one focuses on protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.  The second one on promoting global Internet that advances freeflow of information.  The third one, advancing inclusive and affordable connectivity.  Number 4, promoting trust in the global digital ecosystem.  Including the protection of privacy.  And the fifth one is about protecting and strengthening multistakeholder cooperation.

So in this block I really would like us to discuss what it is that you think as governments that should be prioritised?  Which of those principles is ripe enough for cooperation with the broader multistakeholder community?

And the second big block focuses on how do we achieve those priorities?  So what are some of the modes of cooperation that we can engage in or through with the broader multistakeholder community?  We have already heard reference to digital compact.  WSIS+ 20 processes.  Are these with avenues that we think could be interesting to explore for cooperation for the multistakeholder formats?

And of course we're hat the IGF is that the platform that should be used.

And then in the same block, once we define what is it that we want to chief, how we want to achieve it, I would like us to discuss a bit "how do we define the success?"  In other words, how do we know what you have set up as the governments who have supported the declaration last year is actually on track?

Are we achieving the results?  Are the commitments being measured?  And there we of course can is a discussion a bit about the transparency of the implementation of those principles and so on.

So we have about 90 minutes.  We're going to move in this block for different sections.  I'll see how the conversation flows.  And some of them we may spend more or less time.  And if I could ask you to keep your interventions brief, so that we also have opportunity for dialogue, that would be great.

Of course, you are all the signatories for the declaration.  But if there is some sort of a slight disagreement on tension about how this could be implemented, that would also be interesting maybe for people watching online, but also for you as well.  To have a debate.

So lets kick off with the first theme which is the priorities.  And the question I would like to ask you is, which of those DFI principles do you think is a top priority and most ripe for action by a multistakeholder community?

I would maybe supplement this as well with a question, "where do you think the involvement of multistakeholder communities most desirable and why?

What do you maybe think the expectation from the multistakeholder community is as well towards the governments?  I'm sure you are engaging on those principles with interlocutors at home and then depending on how we of course move on with the discussion, I might add some additional questions.

So what would like to break the ice and kick us off?

Yes.  Great. actually, oh I think there is another microphone.

>> Thank you.  I mean all of these five are important.  But the one that I would like to Price prioritise the most is promote global Internet that advances the free flow of information.  There are other principles directly on Orr indirectly connected to this.  And when we read about different laws that are enacted in different countries, certainly there are concerns raised.  For example, I mean in democratic setups, people look at laws when they are enacted laws, they prioritise things differently.

In other setups it is different.  But when we talk the Internet, we are talking about a global regime.  A free flow of information, it should be everywhere.

So recently, I mean, one law that has been enacted in the United States is the Restrict Act.  And there are concerns that you know how it is going to effect different aspects of the Internet.  And digital sovereignty.  And talks about fragmentation and how information is going to flow.  There are restrict laws and cross‑data flows.  All of those things we need to to look at and come up with a approach so these concerns are readdressed.

Free flow of information and open Internet how it was originally emphasised and designed in such a way that it is open and it gives equal opportunities to everybody.  And information is democratized.

So I think that is quite an important aspect for me.  In my opinion.  And we can certainly have a discussion on it and listen to what everybody else has to say.  Thank you.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Do you also mind introducing yourself briefly.

>> My name is Alib ‑‑.  Managing director of a government organisation that is mandated to digitally transform the province of in Pakistan.  We are involved in policy making regarding how the digital transformation should look like.  And we are also involved in regulating access and all of those aspects to the Internet.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Great.  Thank you very much.  So free flow of information.  One of the principles that we already have the table.

Any other takers?

Okay.  Perfect.  So let me.

>> Thank you.  My name is Seena, in Lebanon.  Actually the priorities here regarding the principles depend on the situation of each country.

For example, from where I come from, we have a huge problem in connectivity.  And it is related mainly to the situation, the economic and the financial situation in Lebanon.  In addition to other crises like to power.  Because sometimes in Lebanon the Internet is not cut because the government wants to trust to disconnect the people because we don't have power to run the network.

That's why with these problems, the priority for us is the network.  Is to have the ‑‑ to give the access to the people.  And all the principles are very important.  But this is the main major issue in Lebanon.  And this is our priority.  So the connectivity and the access.  Thank you.

>> Thank you so much.  Ambassador of Austria.

Interesting again I had to look at principles, which can be put ahead of the others?  And it is very difficult.

Also statements that were made so far.  All five of them are extremely important.  And maybe we also need to differentiate.  If we look at country level, it really depends on the specific situation.

But even there, some principles, they are interconnected.  For free Internet you need to multistakeholder involvement.  One ‑‑ above the other.  But I do agree probably what at country level, what needs to done with involvement of multistakeholders, what are the key priorities, if you have some sort of priority setting among the five.

And then you can say look at regional level.  And then you go above.  If you look at the global level, I wouldn't want to put one ahead of the other.  For instance, when we talk later how we implement principles of the DFI, for instance, at your level in the Global Digital Compact, we need all five important and equally important.  So maybe that is type of differentiation we need to make.  Otherwise it would be quite difficult somehow.  And I think country level is particularly important.

Thank you.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Thank you.  So I think you are already pointing out to ‑‑ two conditions that play important role when we talk about implementation.  Or putting the principles and commitments into action.

On one hand, what you have is the this idea of potential impact of external regulation, for instance, and different trends in other parts of the world that are not necessarily under the control of our own government that might impact how these principles are being enacted.

But at the same time I think you also pinpointed out the to a very important aspect that it is not just about the willingness to implement those principles but the capacities to implement them.  And I think there we need to van important conversation as well.  You know when we looked, for instance, at how the government's commitments are translated into specific policies and actions, that sometimes the fact that something doesn't happen, doesn't mean that the governments are not really committed.  But they seem to may not have the capacity.

And there was a second point to that.  That it is actually not always about digital.  Sometimes it is very much linked to the infrastructure.  Connection to the energy networks.  Reliability of the energy in the first place.

So I think these are all important aspects that maybe we have to keep and add as a layer to the conversation about the principles in the DFI.  So thank you for these interventions.

Yes?

>> Thank you.  Patryk.  Also for kicking us off in that way.  I'm the German cyber Ambassador.  I would like to counter your argument a little bit.  Because governments, we are not advocacy groups for a specific purpose or for a specific principle.  So in general we have to take all five principles as equally important.  And we cannot afford, you know, to choose one of them or two of them just because this, kind of, you know, fills our ‑‑ meets our needs for public support, for example.

So this is really a challenge.  But I think we have to look at it on the global level, of course, like he said.  But also on the national level we have to see how we can implement all five of them.

If I had to pick one to commend a little bit more in detail on, it would be the digital trust principle.  Because here we see that for governments, the challenge for governments lies also in conflicting targets.  If you look at for example at combating cyber crime, which is a prerequisite to creating digital trust and can be done only by governments.

But here you have of course the conflicting targets of, on one hand, safeguards for innocent, and safeguards for those who, for example, politically dissenting from government's opinion.  And on the other hand the necessary competencies and tools for the security institutions.  So this might be conflicting target.  But the overall principle of digital trust has to be met somehow.

Another example is AI regulation.  Of course governments are looking for consumer protection and want to regulate AI applications for that purpose.  On the other hand they may cripple innovation by doing that.  So the principles are, you know, when you break it down to the concrete set of tools that is at hand of a government, like regulation, governance questions, also engaging in the public debate.  You have to meet these challenges of conflicting objectives.  And I wanted to flag this for our discussion.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Great.  Anybody else?

Yes.  Do you have a mic?  Yes.

>> Hi.  I'm Alan Davidson.  I spoke earlier from Department of Commerce in the U.S. Government.  And very interesting conversation.  I just had one thought.

They say ‑‑ there is a saying "it is very difficult to choose when your children."  And it is not usually recommended.  I think we are here and actually listening.  It shows that there is a lot of reasons to be looking at each of these principles.  It may be as we heard from our colleague, that it depends a lot on what is happening in a particular region and particular country.

I will say for example right now I'm spending a lot of my time in the U.S. focussed on this connectivity issue.  Because we have a lot of people left behind, believe it or not in the U.S., who are unconnected.  And we are thinking quite a bit how do we get to the next billion people online and the rest of the world.  And working with many of you on that.

But I think the conversation here today is a reminder that in different places at different moments each of these children will be very important to us.  And I think we just know, should know we're going to have to work on all of them.  As our view going forward together.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Agree.  But I think I'm going to start pushing you back.

>> Okay.

Let's hear it.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Maybe this is why it got hired to do this moderation.

I agree with you.  You know, that is why you have signed the declaration because all of those principles are important to you.

However you need to start somewhere.  Right?  You need to prioritise and I think this also goes in the direction of ‑‑ so I'm pushing back here.  The governments have limited resources.  You know, you have limited number of stuff.  You have limited budget.

In principle, yes, all are super important.  We want o have access.  We want to be cyber secure.  We want to cooperate are multistakeholder community.  But then when it comes to regulation, for instance, you know, you will not engage in regulating all at the same time.  You would probably prioritise one over the other.  Right?  Or when you do the hiring decisions, you would also probably put more resources towards one principle than the other.

This is how we could actually measure whether you love your children equally.  You know.

So I think there is certain hierarchy which is motivated by something.  And maybe teasing out what motivates it.  And I think we have heard here one of the arguments.  It is basically our capacity to implement.  It is our needs, which could be access to energy, for instance.  But also might be political considerations, for instance.  Some of the principles are very clearly linked to progressing digital authorityism and the idea of pushing back against those.  We see proliferation of technology that is potentially insecure and exposes our societies, which is also something the declaration aims to protect.

So do you see ‑‑ I'll go back to the question.  So after this, do you see thing that all of them are equally important?  Or from the U.S. perspective there are certain principles that you actually love more than the other children.

>> The wife would say I should not answer.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK:  ‑‑

>> I think the interesting thing for us, and I'll say this having followed this space for some time.  I think it is very right.  There will be moments when of opportunity or also of particular challenges where we need we need to step in on particular issues.

And it will vary depending on our place and our view of the world.  Domestically in the U.S. for example, we are doing a huge amount on connectivity.  That is an unusual thing for us.  Five years ago we would not have said that.  We have resources.  We're doing that.

Globally, I do think this question about new technology and this question of AI and others.  Also the question about authoritarianism, versus openness and freedom is very much on the table.  And so perhaps, you know, when we think about global situation right now really principles 1 and 2 are top of mind for us as well.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Great.  And now we have a debate.

So there is an intervention here, there.

>> Thank you.  Department of science information technology in UK government.

I agree with lot of other speakers have said.  But I think ‑‑ very uncomfortable saying one of these principles is more important that were the other.  And some of the things we haven't mentioned is human rights and multistakeholder participation.  And I think the reason why is not because that we don't care but because they are about how we're going to achieve all the other principles.  And I think we just can't see them all as equal.  And I would slightly disagree with the idea of children because that means we are looking at them in separation.  Where it comes really together is seeing how they all link together.

We agree in a developed country like the UK, connectivity is really important issue.  When you think about the voters, what they care about, ‑‑ department is going to bring them the best connectivity and reliable Internet access.  But as soon as you connect them all the other principles will come into play and you can't just say we're going to connect people first and then think about what they are going to doinl and Mr. They are going to be safe.

So we think it is not about this principle is more important than the other.  But they are, they are different ‑‑ have different nature.  And some are more about the "what," or what do we actually need?  We need freedom of information.  We need sort of access and connectivity.  And some are more about the "how" and that's where multistakeholder participation particular is utmost in important in UK in particular.  How are you going to do any of that if you are just igg snoring stakeholders, getting through the principles and at the very end thinking about what the stakeholder think about that?  Well you thought about it too late.

I think we need to think about how do they connect?  And might be priority in thatceps sense.  But we don't think you should deprioritise any of them in any sense.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: And maybe should have started by prioritising.  I think you are pointing a very important element which is sequencing and interconnecting different principles.  And let's not forget we talk about five but look at the bullet points under each, you have 23 very concrete actions that you have identified as actually the priority already.

And I agree with you.  That probably it is quite difficult to say, you know, focusing on cybersecurity is maybe more important than ensuring that we have free flow of information and that this is more important than the responsible behaviour in cyberspace.  Because all of those come together.

But some of them are almost enabling principles or commitments for the others.  And I think maybe this is how we could think of them.

Okay.  We have a gentlemen over there and then ‑‑.

>> Thank you.  Richard, from the department of infrastructure in Australia.

So I they'll gist want to sort of muddy the waters a little bit or make the world more complicated, but agree with some of the other government colleagues that have spoken.

In some respects I think for those of us that work inside governments T world is messy, ambiguous and constantly fuel of tradeoffs and we're constantly agreeing to lots of things that seem inconsistent or impossible to do simultaneously.

But, so, I mean I'm a little bit in the territory of you shouldn't have favourite children.  But on any given day you probably do have a favourite child.  It is probably just a different favourite child every day.  But I think some of the points you were talking about from the UK's perspective are really quite important.  This is a sequencing piece.  There is to point, you know, if you don't have connectivity.  There is not lot of point in sort of helping worry about how it is going to be used by people.  For example.

There is a set of sequencing piece.  But there is also an interrelationship piece, which goes to I think the first principle around fundamental freedoms in human rights.  Is possibly cialt to how you go about approaching any of the principles.

Another way thinking about it I suppose from my perspective as a government operator.  If you look at it through the lens of what can governments do on their own as it were.  There are some that jump out faster than others.  And if you look at things that can only be done with a broader multistakeholder community, it might be different.

So connectivity is something we're worried about in Australia as well.  So there are lots of governments that are investing.  It is a thing government has within its gift to resource and effect.  And so looked at through a government lens you might go we are throwing more resource at the connectivity piece.  Because in a sense it is a piece in the sort of capacity of governments to give if they decide that this is a public policy problem they wish to focus on.

So I think unfortunately there is no, depending on how you look at it, what is most important or what is most controlled by one stakeholder group, you come to a conclusion we're working harder on that principle over another.  But it is not to say it is more or less important.

So interrelationship A sequencing piece and also a set of choices based on where you come from in the system I suppose.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: So even though you don't want to prioritise, I think that we have a certain prioritization happening when you talk about what the government's attention is going.  And connectivity is definitely one of those principles.

And I think actually important because if you think, for instance, of how you potentially grow the community of countries that are supporting the declaration, connectivity is definitely one of these aspects that is relevant for much broader group than just the people sitting in this room.

I would also like to maybe ask all of you to reflect.  Since you do not really want to think about which a priority.  Where are we actually maybe not paying enough attention?  Because we already hear about where the actions are going, where the governments are focusing.  But where are we actually not looking?  Which of those principles you think that maybe is a bit of neglected.  I don't want to go into parental metaphor and continue and anyone say orphan if you want.  But it will be interesting to hear where do you think we could potentially maybe want to increase our efforts.

We have an intervention.

>> Thank you very much.  I'm Anna, Neff from Portugal.  Ministry responsible for digital affairs.  I'm here under the current chair of the C STD, commission on science and technology for development for United Nations.  And deals with the WSIS+ 20 process.  Nowadays it is one of our most particular themes in the.  CSTD.  And I'm not going to say anything about the prioritization of the five principles because I think they are all very important.

My main issue here is another one.  Is how we involve other governments and different governments on this declaration?  And whether the ongoing discussion of the digital cooperation.  Sorry, compact of the GDC l.

We have on one hand the Global Digital Compact.  On other hand is declaration.  How they complement themselves.  How governments they see these movements.  Because of course governments, they have different speeds on these different principles.

But what has to be agreed is if these principles are agreed by all governments in the world.  So we are under this discussion with the Global Digital Compact and then with the WSIS+ 20.

So I think that this is the basic.  So I really worry about going back to the basics.  And Pearse, from European commission.  Last week we had meeting and I was thinking about going back to the basics.  After the WSIS+ 20 and Global Digital Compact, I think it is time for everyone and the for the governments in the world to have the responsibility and to be accountable of what is going on in the Internet.  And what we want for the Internet of the future.

So this is more comments than anything else.  Thank you so much.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Great I, thank you.  So you are already pushing us a bit in the discussion about how indeed.  So there was also a hand raised on the priorities.  Gentlemen in the front.  And then right behind you.

>> Indeed.  So I'm Tom Fifield from national institute of security in Taiwan.  And back to Australian friend's comment earlier about sequencing.  I believe the reason that we invest in Internet infrastructure is to support the passions about 23 million free democratic citizens.  And that is the fundamental thing that we're looking to support.  That is the reason why we need to build a resilient Internet, why we're building 700 satellite ground stations to make sure everything is fine if the submarine fiber optic cables get cut.  It is the reason we're looking at AI safety.  The reason why we're working on disinformation in online platform when it comes to election system.

So we have that fundamental freedom piece that I think is the most important.  And everything else is done in support of that.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: (Indicating next speaker).

>> Thank you.  Good morning to all.  This is Kanesh.  I have a comment of Nepal.  Especially the prime minister office.  Regarding the principle to practise of that we are discussing, there are some of the key issues that is particularly related to developing countries.  And especially in Nepal.

The first thing is about the issue of accessibility.  Inclusive accessibility of the Internet infrastructure broadly related to electricity supply, infrastructure, broadband technology.

Talking about the inclusivity, we should not forget remote and rural areas.  And the next thing is the low income, although there is reasonable access to Internet.  But the cost of the Internet is a little more ‑‑ so high that we cannot afford.  The general public is rural remote and farmers cannot access those highly, high‑priced Internet infrastructure.

And the key issue of Nepal is infrastructure, especially cybersecurity, ecommerce law.  And governing electronic transaction, data protection.  Privacy, data privacy and information security.

So we need to focus on that.

And what is the purpose of Internet?  Of course it should be directed to enhance the quality of life or for economy.  If so, application of technology into business and commerce and economic activity is should be the key issues how the people can get their livelihood through the modern technology.  So we should have have some issue that should be access to all.  Especially the electronic digital is very important for developing country.  So my concern as relates to all of us is that we need to have some common area of cooperation to minimize the digital gap among.

I think targeted investment in ICD infrastructure, digital, and the supplement of the rise of digital platform and use of some of the common platform to promote the capacity of the sector is key right now.  Thank you very much.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Thank you.  So I have an intervention here.  Here and then here.

And I'll slowly start wrapping up the priorities part.  So if you still have something to add in this specific block, feel free to raise your hand.  Otherwise we'll slowly start moving to how do we actually ‑‑.

>> From Portugal as well.  I'm from the electronic regulator.

For me as we are working internally, connectivity plays an important part.  And I wanted to bring you a special case that we are working on in Portugal.  For us it is important at this moment.  And I think it is a practical example of how these principles can apply to reality.

So ‑‑ cable strategy.  It links obviously to connectivity.  But then one of our main concerns is how to protect such infrastructure.  In terms of physically.  And also in terms of the data that is flowing.

So links to connectivity and then to trust.  And also lead to data fills.  So we have several principles when we are laying down this strategy.  Several principles being applied.  And of course we are working several partners.  Links to multistakeholder partnerships.  O obviously we have all this concern about human rights and how to protect our citizens in several ways.  So this is a practical terms of how this principles can be applied.  And my take here would be actions and concrete examples aren't as important as principles.  I think the trick is, and you were asking about what we are missing, perhaps we are missing this bit which is coming to concrete things and turning into reality principles that we are working on.

Thank you very much.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: That is a great intervention.  And I think you are pointing us in a direction of something we have been discussing as a potential for follow up to this specific exercise, which would be exactly trying to collect different examples of where the principles have been used or sort of incorporated as a guidance for specific policy solutions and adopted by individual governments.

So expect some homework after the specific workshop.  Because we didn't necessarily want to end up with the exercise of "is your government reporting on how they implement the principles and what they do?  But we would like to end up at some point with potentially a list of what each of you is doing yo our respective countries with regard to those principles.  So stay tuned.

Pearse over to you and then gentlemen.

>> Thank you very much.  Pearse O'Donohue from European condition.  Interesting discussion so far.  I would say my prioritization.  Perhaps my experience of parenting isn't as positive as everyone else's.  But I often feel it is not so much which child you love.  But which child is the most problematic at the moment.  And that is where my focus goes.

So one of the real problems I have to tack at any one time.

Would that slightly not cynical view but world weary view, I think it is the case that of course we're not going to pick and choose.  But we do have to look at what is very challenging.  And I really like what's just been said.  And we look, for example, at the connectivity piece.  Because another way of looking at all of these principles is that they refer to the role of government.  As government their responsibilities in their country.  But also working together, what are our global responsibilities for each of these five principles?  Approximate connectivity.  Any government will naturally focus on connectivity at home.  But what is our responsibility, our role but also our possibilities or cooperation?

In the Europe we have the global gateway and soon announcing an initiative on the security of cable network.  Undersea cables.  That is for our own good.  And it is also for connectivity to others, if we are to support connectivity in partner third country, we need to have that.

And this brings me to a more fundamental point about how they are, as has been said.  And what I would like to lead the prioritization.  How the interplay is so important.

If we have no connectivity, or if we have very very restricted connectivity, then we are playing into the hands of those who would control the Internet.  And this is why we're also with partners looking so much about trusted vendors and making sure that the equipment, the services, the infrastructures are actually trusted and can be trusted.

Moreover, if we engage in promoting investment and deployment, what we are doing is we are removing one of the bottlenecks which becomes a point of control.  And we are seeking to remove controls from the Internet.  If access is a premium, then we are playing into the hands, or we are forcing the user who needs that access to accept whatever is the ‑‑ whatever are the protocols, whatever is the structure of what is provided.

And if worse again T access, equipment or networks is provided miraculously at a cost which dedefies any logical business case or cost structure.  Then we have to be VR worried.  So we have to put a massive focus on international connectivity and helping partner countries to actually roll out that connectivity and access.  Not just to the next billion.  But increasing its in volume.

So that is one perspective I have.  We can't talk about trust.  By can't talk about a global Internet, or even of course protecting human rights, unless we have that.  So I understand why it is fundamental.  But let's change the emphasis slightly.  And not just be inward looking but also outward looking.

And then a final point.  I'm sorry for speaking so for so long because we're here in the IGF.  The fifth principle is one that perhaps hasn't been on our minds ads much recently.  But as I have occasion to say already.  We're coming towards the GDC.  Our future summit and then the WSIS+ 20.  And I think we will need to look a lot more, give more priority to promoting the multistakeholder model.

And here there is a little warning.  Because we're being looked at and judged as well.  That we must ensure that we are tealing people that we are doing that not because we're creating a separate structure.  It cannot be seen to undermine or compete with the WSIS+ process.  It has to strengthen the role of government in protecting the fundamental human rights and in supporting all of the other pieces where governments do have a key role, including in particularly trust in order to allow the multistakeholder model to continue to be at the forefront of everything we do.

And of course unfortunately, as we move to a process which is dare I say it more New York‑centric for the next 18 months, that the multistakeholder model is core to that.  Thank you.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Great.  Thank you.  So these interventions have actually already brought to the conversation what we really want to explore a bit more.  Which is how the multistakeholder community fits into the equation.  And it is part of one of the principles multistakeholder cooperation and strengthening those ties.  But it is also the meth for implementation of some of the principles.

Again if we think about connectivity, which many of you have used.  All three other groups that are discussing those principles are actually quite relevant.  Whether it is a private sector or technical community or civil society.  They all have role to play.  One of the concrete maybe takeaway is would be to maybe think of how can we look at the specific principles and unpack them a bit from the perspective of where different communities make contributions.  So that in addition to, for instance, a very useful good practise document that the U.S. delegation has shared before when it comes to engagement with multistakeholder community.  We also have this growing body of evidence that actually multistakeholder cooperation worked outwards the implementation and achievement of principles.

>> Good morning everyone.  Presenting information and communication technology agency of Sri Lanka.

When I comes to my institution, we're in empowerment of citizen.  My business is empowerment, using digitisation.  So we consider Internet as enabler.  To on top build solutions to empower government and improve solution and business.

When it comes to local context, multiple challenges.  Undoubtedly these principles help us.  Doing our business better, to empower, you know, stakeholders.  But there are local challenges when it comes to connectivity.  Naturally being a developing country, as my colleague mentioned.  The trust element is not that strong.  The trust isn't great blocker when it comes to certain empowerment initiatives.

So Internet I believe must be an enabler.  To build trust.  Bauds the government needs to be trustworthy so that people can trust the government.  And so if Internet would be an enabler to build, improve trustworthiness of the government.  Enabler, so that we can as a global initiative.  If these principles ‑‑ I mean, up doubtedly as I indicated, the principles are quite relevant.  But how do we make these principles applicable to area, geographies?

When it comes to United States, I mean, when it comes to Sri Lanka, applying these principles may be slightly different.  So how we going to create an enabling environment so that these principles are applied equally?  Irrespective of local context.  So there could be ‑‑ I mean, we could help each other.  Improving or creating an environment where these principles can be applied irrespective of local challenges.

And there could be certain tools that we could make available so that the quantries could make use of these tools so these principles are applied irrespective of their local challenges.

So I hope this DFI will focus more on these concerns and come one right recommendation to deploy, apply, adopt these principles.  In multiple ‑‑ I mean the democracies, as well as multiple demographies, irrespective of their local challenges.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: A follow up.  What tool specifically would you have in mind that the DFI could provide that would serve ‑‑

>> Yeah.  When e comes to local context.  We have already implemented data protection act and in the process of drafting online safety bill at the moment.  It is being debated in the country.  Social media.  The country needs social media freedom.  So that people can express their views.

And on the other hand, government must have some sort of control over social media and the Internet.  There are good players, as well as bad players.  So how we are going to regulate it?

So how as a global community can help those countries?  To manage.  Because it is all about governance.  I mean, you need data.  You need good quality data.  It is all about governance.  Safety, security.  Procedure, practisees.  All of these things must be in place.

It is free but it is not free for sake of having freedom.  Government.  Must be controlled to certain extent but without affecting these fundamental principles.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: If I understand correctly we're also going tot in the direction of potentially regulatory capacity building.  Right?  That governments could sort of engage in and the assistance.  They could provide each other exactly to make sure the regulation that is been passed, sort of, matches the expectation that the DFI puts forward.  This regulatory dimension actually came up in couple of interventions as well.

So I understand that for countries on the way of adapting their legal systems exactly towards this new digital technologies.  How do navigate these different policy dilemmas and challenges is something important.  Sometimes there is maybe not a full understanding of what the policy implications might be.  So indeed DFI and the community can become an interesting, sort of, a vehicle, if you want for having these conversations and exchanging good practises, for instance.

Okay.  Let me move to the next big segment that I would like to discuss with you, which is the cooperation modalities.  I think here we're already entering a very practical question that our colleague from Portugal has already raised.  And Pearse and his intervention.

That on one hand we have this question mark.  How does DFI fit within the broader discussion of global compact.  WSIS+ 20 process.  Summit for the future.  And as Pierce said we do not want to give the impression that this is a competing process, that this is something on the top right.

So how the that ‑‑ and I am pretty sure that the discussion in the other three rooms is also going to go in that direction.  Where people will be asking, okay guys.  So you had this great idea.  DFI.  Now how does that fit within all other processes that are currently under way?  And then how multistakeholder community fits in?

And in some of those cases it will happen naturally.  You know, at the UN, there was engagement with the multistakeholder community.  But what else can be done, for instance?  What is your strategy in preparing for those different processes for the engagement with multistakeholder community locally or regionally?  And how you intend to take those voices on board?

Also please feel free to answer Portugal's question about, well, what do you guys make out of it?  How are you going to organise yourselves to talk about DFI, GDC, and prepare for all other processes coming up?  So if you feel like you would like to share your experiences as well, please go ahead.

But also, talk a bit about.  How your engagement with the multistakeholder community looks like around the principles we've been discussing.  Accessibility, for instance.  Regulatory adaptation, and so on.

Who would like to?  Okay.

>> If I, certain things happening in our country.  We're drafting a new strategy.  Strategy for 2030.  Digital transformation strategy.  So six areas.  One broadband connectivity about digital data and services infrastructure.  Digital idea and middle part between government and citizen.

And cybersecurity, the capacity development.  And national payment platforms and about building those systems digitally.  So all these trust areas still basically touch upon these fundamental principles of improving and having better selectivity, having trust between ‑‑.  Now it is about, you know, improving these fundamental principles.  What we have been discussing here.  To it is about strategic approach.  Having strategies in place and having multistakeholder involvement to implement those initiatives to address those concerns.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: So you have ‑‑ so you are thinking of multistakeholder engagement at the stage of implementation.

Are you involving other stakeholder groups as you develop the strategy as well?  And how do you actually do that?

What is the role in this process?  What kind of ‑‑ what other contributions.

>> Also feel like I add to what you said.  For example, development of the cybersecurity policy recently.  We had a strategy and now it led to policy adapted by the cabinet of ministers.  It went to wider stakeholder consultation now.  Basically focusing on the implementation in the public sector T government sector.  Which all the measures for physical, as well as online safety of the Internet, critical digital infrastructure is going to be defined.  So there is the custodianship of the government as he mentioned about the data.

Another interesting model of cooperation is the domain register of Sri Lanka.  It is a multistakeholder model.  Government engagement.  There is somewhat flexible arrangement of academic ‑‑ engagement of the government.

In the Internet context, I this e we have to bring in other players into the scene like ICANN.  So another track going on.  Digital acceptance for example, when it comes to the Internet.  It shouldn't not be Internet of one particular language.  Or to be multiple languages and compatibility issues and acceptance in certain technical terms.  So this is also going on.  I think there will be high level of government engagement.  That part is somewhat leaky from my end.  I was in GSC for certain period.  My term in the government ministry of digital infrastructure.  Did not continue well.  So as far as I know.

So there should be high level of participation of the government players in the somewhat technical standards in the Internet governance domain.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: So as we think about the, how the governments could arrange their cooperation with broader multistakeholder community around the principles.  I think one issue that I would maybe like you to talk about a bit is you know what model do we see for this cooperation?

For instance, does the group think that moving forward it would be interesting to think about some sort of a centralized government structure around the DFI's end engagement multistakeholder community?

So you know, whenever there is opportunity to have a sort of centrally‑driven, let's say, engagement.  Are we rather thinking about more distributed, fragmented, sort of a patchwork engagement with multistakeholder community around the different principles?  At the national level?  At regional level?  Or whenever there is an opportunity.

So in other words, using the DFI as sort of a hook for engagement in the existing forum, rather than maybe creating another big central structure that would sort of provide this layer of formality to the discussions about the DFI but maybe be not necessarily manageable and very resource intensive?

So if you have some thoughts on moving forward, that would be also great.  So I see one intervention here.

>> One thing I'm hoping to get out of this is very simple.  Is a phone list.  Sometimes trying to figure out who you are coordinating with, in New York in Geneva.  In.  It is hard to track people down.  If we can coordinate and find the right person before we go to these events.  Sometimes that is half the battle.  So hopefully that is an easy do‑out we can look for through this.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: And just to clarify.  When you say to find the right people.  Do you mean the governments or broader multistakeholder community?  Broader multistakeholder community I imagine?

>>  ‑‑

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Or both.

>> Thank you.  So I believe everybody ‑‑.  Everybody agrees all these principles are important.  And in the regional context one may prioritise one principle with another because the situation is different.  There are so many factors at play.  But while we are discussing these, I think we need to look at these ‑‑ we're looking at these in the global context.  That is why we're getting opinions from all the stakeholders.  So I believe, you know, mechanism has to be somewhat centralized to ensure that, you know, whatever happens in one country, it can impact maybe, you know, other countrys as well.

The kind of maybe the legal framework that is enacted.  Or maybe the kind of of, you know, other laws that are enacted in that country.  So it is just a matter of addressing the issue of your child you know not beating up the child of the neighbour.  That needs to be addressed.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK:  ‑‑ (Inaudible).

>> Okay, thank you.  So I think a centralized mechanism should work better if we have to look at everything in a global context.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Thank you.  Also, what I would be interested in is if any of you actually feel like you maybe do not have or get enough support from other stakeholders in your work.  And it might be the case.

You may not actually have the civil society that is developed in a specific policy area to support your implementation of the principle.  Which would be interesting to know.  Because they are exactly ‑‑ between different countries that might have specific expertise could be explored.  There are countries that do not necessarily have the ecosystem of organisations that are relevant.

So feel free to also share those.  I have a gentlemen next to me and ‑‑.

>> Good morning everyone.  This is from Nepal.  Communication and information technology there.

With previous, I'd like to add some few words.  Basically as we discussed here that every country have their own priorities.  In context of Nepal, I think there are two things that we should prioritise on here.  One is the free flow of Internet with connect with the accessibility and affordability part also.

Because as we have ‑‑.  So affordability and accessibility is key here.  And joining this, the digital trust in ecosystem is very critical part.  As we are moving to build some legal infrastructures.  Like protecting the cyber space and protecting data, personal data.

And also like the social media, not regulation, but some sort of control.  Good debate in our country.  And joining this with other principle also.  We have some issues like there is tradeoff when we talk about the ‑‑ crossed and human rights and freedom of Internet.  So how we can properly address the legal aspects and just make them in balance.  That we can make balance on protecting human rights, free flow of information.  And then develop of the control that these actions.  And.

How each is possible that these multistakeholder community can work together.  As said here.  The centralized approach.  I also agree with that.  If we could have some centralized mechanism that support countries like Nepal, to go and implement these sort of things and have some balance on these things.

Because it is very terrible that we ‑‑ if we go for regulatory mechanism, there are some human rights or freedom issues.  So that is the debate.  Yeah.

>>  ‑‑ (Inaudible).

>> PATRYK PAWLAK:  ‑‑

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Yes, on any of the points that you have presented.  Has your government engaged with private sector, technical community or civil society organisations to seek some help?

Or that has not happened for one or other reason?

>> No, we have different local sectors, yeah.  Some digital rights and digital freedom peoples.  We are also here for conference also.  They are working.  But for mode from international perspectives, we have to work a lot on this.  I know we have some people from the UK here also that when you go for data protection and privacy issues, it is a very important issues.  And implementing in the country and some critical issues that has been raised.

So that can be some guiding point for country like us.  Who we have just started develop there in our country.

>> Thank you.  On your cooperation modalities with multistakeholders on the DFI princes.  For me there is a bit of a question.  Namely, whether we should have sort of stand alone processes around the DFI.  Whether we can really ‑‑ we have the capacity to do so.

Both at national level and globally.  Or whether it is about integrating, sort of, the principles in our engagements that we're having.

I must say from our perspective, where resources are relatively limited and everyone is super busy.  We are a bit concerned about setting up separate tracks.  We already too many tracks almost.  I remember when the DFI was discussed originally.  The question was the relationship principles with the freedom online coalition.  Which has key structures of government and multistakeholder collaboration.

So we wouldn't want to see sort of another sort of track which would deviate attention.

So we see the lot rather of how we integrated in existing mechanisms.

Just to give an example.  Because on a different aspects we spoke, we have different at national level and also beyond different formats of collaboration.  Accounts of cybersecurity.  We have a very well‑established public/private partnership.  And all the private actors together and to workout together.  And of course can take DFI principles into account.

Same on artificial intelligence.  You have processes, et cetera.

We use things involving multistakeholders hold for the Global Digital Compact.  The main avenue was the national IGF and they drafted input to this process, and we want to continue to use that framework for that type of discussion.

Also when it comes now to the global level, I'm really wondering what is the best advice.  Because I have a feeling we are sometimes struggling that it is statements have been drafted and so many forum and you almost can't cope anymore.  And also among like minded.  Too much deviating or fragmenting our efforts.  Instead of the overall objective should be then come to this measurement success.  That for instance the processes we are now having the Global Digital Compact next year.  Et cetera.  Are reflecting the DFI principles.

And that they are fully reflected there.  And for us much more important than another event on DFI to put it very simplistic term.  Thank you.

>> Thank you so much.  Jorge Cassios with government.  Triggered by this mention we're to have this discussions.  And considering that the different needs that are varying depending on your national reality and your regional reality.

I think it is important to use really the network we already have of national and regional IGFs.  And I think it is ‑‑ this is the right way of doing it.  What you have done today is to have it here, to have this discussion here.  And of course at the global level.  The IGF offers also other let's say Taylor made avenues for cooperation.  You could think about dynamic coalition as practise forum.  Other means that are more stable.  More intersessional.  And you have that at the regional, international level.

And that would also be a way of showing the relevance of this forum of the IGF itself.  And especially considering the discussion we are having or we will be having on what happens after the Global Digital Compact.  Because there we will be having a very similar discussion.

Do we need something new to have the follow up and the periodic ‑‑ of the Global Digital Compact.  Or should we use this what we already have, perhaps with some adaptations?  So maybe that is a worthwhile thought for this initiative as well.  Thank you.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Good point.

So UK, then colleague over there.  And Portugal.

>> Thank you.  Clearly spark lot of thoughts here which is great to hear.  I want to agree with couple of the points made on the previous interventions.

We definitely agree from UK perspective, that there are already a lot of mechanisms and I think the reason why we come up constantly with new mechanisms.  Because we feel like the existing ones might not deliver to the fullest.  But from UK perspective we do think we need to look at what other things that are rnt working for particular stakeholder groups and how can we improve them and existing mechanisms rather than trying to do new ones.

And in that I'm thinking very basic challenges that are international organisations are really picking up on.  The fact that right now we're having this discussion in English only.  There's no translation and there is reasons why the IGF can't facilitate translation of all different sessions.  But language barriers are a real challenge internationally for participation.

Times different.  So lot of people may not be able to zone in.  Might be able to see what we're talk about.  Might not be able to engage in it.  And we're havings discussion amongst governments only.  I think we're put in favour of multistakeholder breakout groups but I can see the benefit of having a government‑only discussion of course as well.

For us it is really about how you make it easier for stakeholders to engage.  In the UK we're lucky we have a very engaged stakeholder community.  Do you lack civil society?  Al absolute.  No and the really established trust and relationships.  And that is probably an area where other countries might struggle in building that trust where you don't have, you might have the civil society community but might have ‑‑ because of various historic reasons and how do you build that trust.

That is something where we are trying to showcase what good practise likes.  We have multistakeholder delegations of the international telecommunications unit.  ITU.  And multistakeholder for Internet governance.  And very regular exchange we have.  This is why we can be confident in our policies we develop and then solutions.

But for implementing the DFI, I want to go back to a point Alan made earlier and ‑‑.  Looking a at empty chair there.  And a challenge fungus function.  And the ‑‑ how can we hold ourselves and others hold us accountable?  I don't think there is any mechanism that really provides this systematically.  And we are concerned observing some of the developments on the Global Digital Compact that was mentioned a lot on multistakeholder engagement.  And consultation.  But not multistakeholder participation.  And act a sort of eye to eye involvement in the process that I could well become a another governmental process where afterwards you are being told as a stakeholder this is what government have agreed.  It is no now going to happen.

And I think we really need to re‑think how that is done.  That is not how the Internet works. ‑‑.  I'll stop there but I think those are really important things for us to think about.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: I'd like a show of hands of people who still would like to intervene?  Because I have one, two, three.  I'll take those who have not spoken if you don't mind.

Also because we have 15 minutes left and we still need to wrap it up a bit.  I know that you guys don't want to talk about how do we measure the success.  But I will still make sure that we discuss this very briefly.  Clegg over a there.

>> Thank you.  My name is Alicia eve, dutch government.  Thank you first of all for this discussion with the signatory of the DFI already and maybe some new signatories here in the room as well.

And I am also I heard some people, senior some countries speaking about international or a cyber strategy and how it is being created.  Just wanted to point out the Netherlands recently published their cyber strategy.  And everyone can look it up.  And we have a full chapter about Internet governance and multistakeholder models.

So lot of you are thoughts have been portrayed in that chapter.

And in the DFI, well its already been mentioned the five principles.  And they are accompanied by 23 action points.  And some of these action points are formulated to refrain from certain things.  Such as undermining the technical infrastructure to the global ‑‑ the general availability and integrity of the Internet.  Or refrain from government‑‑imposed shutdowns.  And I think it is really important that we also, I just really want to stress these points.  Because that is something that we as a government can act upon but not acting upon.  So yes, it is something that we should adhere to.

What I do agree with some other colleagues is that it is still a bit fuzzy how the DFI fits into the broader discussion with the GDC.  Though I do agree with what others said, is that it would be nice if some of the principles mentioned in the DFI would be adopted or transposed to the GDC such as as I mentioned refraining if certain actions.  So that are my two cents.  Thanks.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Thank you.  We already have I think two points for the success factors.  Is I'm already noting those down.  One was indeed if the principles are taken over in other documents that are being discussed like Global Digital Compact.

But also, and that's relatively easy to monitor.  Is actually, you know, monitoring commitments where the governments have stated they would refrain from doing something.  That is also something that can be monitor and then have this government's potentially ‑‑ in the next meetings.

A colleague here and then intervention.

>> Yes.  Is it working?  Thank you.  Irina, from Germany as well.  Minister for digital.  And would really like to briefly echo what has been said that we should harness as much as we can what is there will are in term of dial up performance.  And in Germany we are reviving or revitalizing now something regular exchange that already exists with multistakeholders under the roof of the IGF Germany.  And we're going to do that on various issues.

So as we have discussed with them already, they are probably some things have come up all over again.  But then we also want to discuss things that are ‑‑ yeah, just very relevant at a certain moment when for example certain decisions are to be made.  So we also discuss Global Digital Compact and process and how we negotiate there when it comes to interstate negotiations.

So this is something we should definitely do.  We are also having a quite broad stakeholder involvement for the strategy for international digital policy that we are currently developing.  And we want to continue that even after the strategies in place.  And we implement it.

And so, I definitely think this is a good idea not to come up with too many forum, but to try to integrate into existing to ray that already work and work well.  And also with regard to the different policies mentioned.  And of course they are different in many by a was and leading to different decisions.  And in terms of substance many areas overlapping.  Many topics we've been discussing in the first part of the discussion are also relevant in many other processes.  So maybe we look a little more at what the substance and now so much how it is framed in the individual process.  And I think like that we can really develop a dialogue that is important for all of these processes and also try to bring them together and make them coherent in the end.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Great.  Thank you.  So we have about 8 minutes left.  If I could ask you to be brief in your interventions.  That would be great.

Yes.

>> I think it's working.  This is Nela working for think tank, affiliated with Pakistan.  Cooperation modalities that are already in place for countries around the world.  As for as Pakistan is concerned, my other colleagues have already mentioned that when it comes to, because the government approved national cybersecurity policy in 2021.  So I for a fact can say that there was a lot of consultation process going on with ‑‑ because I work under ministry of foreign affairs.  With the ministry of foreign affairs, IT and communication.  There was a lot of back and forth going on on the national cybersecurity policy, which was finally enacted by 2021.

So in that policy draft there is one whole section which identifies the multistakeholder consultation.  Not only at the local level, but also at the global level.  With the UN, non‑UN agencies that have these multistakeholder consultation is important in order to bring a framework which is important for the overall processes.

Thank you.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Great.  Thank you.

Yes.  So we'll go to you.  Yeah.  Go ahead.

>> So very quickly.  We have been talking about this process and all agree there are far too many processes.  And more you dig into it, the more you find processes.  Here, New York, Geneva, where else.  So perhaps practical proposal for this DFI issue, to work on enacting all these processes, we need several highs to keep track all this.  And about multistakeholder, yes, we are working in Portugal.  Portuguese IGF and can talk also about that.  And so we are trying to engage more multistakeholders into the process.  Thank you.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Thank you.  I see that our other groups are briefing on already.  So one intervention here and then.

>> Thank you.  Just recommendation.  That, okay, regarding some of the principles, I think some countries are going better than other countries.  And we can certainly learn from the best practises that have been adopted and the reasons why they are doing better.  So going forward, I think if we can have some sort of a score card.  And if we have a centralized, you know, entity for oversight and review of what is happening regionally in different countries.  And we can have a score card.  Then we can have a better assessment of the situation.  And how we can make things better.

This I think if you have to make an analogy is something similar is sustainable development goals by the UN.  Look at goals and in regional context again all goals are important.  But if you look at different region, the situation is different.  So there is mechanism for oversight and certain interventions are made in different countries so we are able to achieve those goals.

Similarly, since all of, everybody agrees all of these principles are important.  So if we can have some sort of score card.  And then there is the centralized entity which can, you know, do the oversight and review mechanism regarding the the laws, the processes, the digital transformation strategies in different countries.  And if there are certain issues pointed out or highlighted and a way forward is given by that committee, a centralized entity.  I think that would be really helpful in taking this cause forward.

Thank you.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Great.  Great suggestion.

Py think for some of those principles what we could also think of doing is look at the existing indices, for instance, and how those could be potentially referred to the principles without necessarily creating the new mechanisms.

But that is a great point.  Yes.

>> Thank you.  And just really briefly.  Just seems to me there are couple of different conversations we have going on and sometimes calculator helps.  And I think it is a little bit picking up what the UK said.  There is a difference between when we are ‑‑ it sort of comes down to what do we mean by "we" in these conversations.  Is it a case of we the governments doing things in our countries consulting broadly with the multistakeholder community in our country?  Which is very different from being equal partners with multiple stakeholders in a process.

And I think there is also perhaps a difference between what is ‑‑ what we all agree we are doing as governments inside our countries.  And what we all agree we want to do cooperatively as in between countries at the international context.

And perhaps that raises different question about whether we are doing things consulting with or sitting eye o eye with the various stakeholders?  They are kind of two different concepts.  And I think we use them a bit interchangeably.  And sometimes talking about we as national governments.  And other times we as the community more broadly.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Great.  Thank you.  So let's move very quickly for two minutes to the questions of how do we actually know that we are delivering?  And different ideas have been proposed.  The idea of a score card. that you have put on the table as well.

Potentially as well as an accountability.  But also, frankly, the capacity identification mechanism I would also argue.  So not only stick but also carrot when you lookout at implementation of the principles.

Is there anything else that you can think of that this community could use towards tracking the progress and implementation of the principles? .3.

>> For me we should play a facilitatation role.  Similar to index where we measure each process.  Strongly use government index to measure with where we stand.  Make use of some sort of balanced score card.  Measuring is the key here.  Certain parameters and you need to measure it.  Then you really know where you are and what needs to be done when it comes to local context to adapt principles.  So that approach will help all of us to understand where we are and take action to the move to the next step.

Thank you.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Great.  So we are win minute before.  If there are no urgent interventions that you would like to make, I also want to give you a 15‑minute break before we reconvene.

There are few points I'm really taking from this conversation.

I understand that when we talk about priorities, and maybe we should have really started by what we mean by prioritization exercise.  And I think some of those principles are definitely much more mature and implemented than the others.  But also maybe more ready for engagement with multistakeholder community.  And we have heard a few examples.

I take away the need for thinking about local context and I how those principles can be potentially adapted to the local context and that needs to be reflected in our thinking about them l.

We haven't really talked much Albert.  We talked about a Global Digital Compact and summit for the future l we didn't really talk about potentially the role of organisations as a vehicle for using the DFI principles as a sort of a guidance in the policies that are being made.

If we think about specific mechanisms, I think the capacity building came up on a few occasions.  Especially in the regulatory context as several countries are struggling in trying to figure out how to actually govern and regulate some of the issues that we've been talking about.

A few specific ideas on how do we measure the successes as well.  So do the principles that we talk about and the 70 signatories have signed up to are also being replicated in a broader international context.  Like Global Digital Compact.  Or in other international conversations.  That potentially can be taken on board as a sort of a impact factor, if you want for the DFI.

I'm pretty sure the other groups also came up with equally wonderful suggestion.  I'm hoping that they will have a lot of guidance for how the governments can engage with multistakeholder community.  And one final point I would like to make, having worked both with governments and different stakeholder groups over the past years.  What I've noticed ‑‑ and this is my plea as well.  Is that sometimes for organisations with international status, it is much easier to get access to governments.  In Sri Lanka, Argentina or Pakistan, then it is for the local civil society organisations.

So when we talk about opening the doors for multistakeholder community, please keep in mind it is not only those big names working internationally, but most importantly as well.  Those organisations that you have in your national and regional ecosystem that you should keep open communication channels with.

And with that, I'd like to thank you for all your contributions.  I'm hoping that this is not the last time we're reconvening to discuss the DFI and implementation.

I'm taking on board as well the idea of the score card and holding you accountable to how you implement and refrain from doing certain things.  So we will be back to this conversation.  Thank you very much.  And we will reconvene half past.

[ Human Captioner standing by ]

>> JAISHA WRAY: If folks could start making their way to their seats, we'll get started momentarily, thank you.

>> JAISHA WRAY: All right.  We're going to get started.  Please take your seats.

>> Okay.

We are back in plenary session together.  And this should hopefully be the richest part of the entire programme.  Because we're going to bring together the different strands of conversation that just took place.  And what we're going to do is hear from each of the breakout groups.  The moderators who served in the breakout groups individually for up to 10 minutes.  And then we ‑‑ if we have time, we'll open it up to comments and questions from anybody in the audience to clarify things.

And then we have a special closing guest who will be introduced.

So the first group we'll hear from based on preferences up here.  Is the government workshop.  And we'll hear from the moderator, Patryk Pawlak.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Great.  Thank you very much.  I also would like to clarify reason why I speak first is not because we think the government's breakout group was most important.  Not at all actually.  We took the least important first if you want because this is all about the multistakeholder cooperation.

Our session was also recorded and livestreamed, so you will all have a chance to watch it afterwards.

I will focus only on key, most important points, so that you also are interested in watching and reading the final report.

We discussed three blocks of questions.  One, about the prioritization of different principles under DFI.  Then we moved to potential opportunities and platforms for cooperation of multistakeholder community.  And then how do we define and measure the success?  Which I guess is something that all other groups were also discussing.

Now, I must admit that the governments were a bit reluctant to be very straightforward about which of the principles is the most important one and which one should be prioritised.  But that is also understanding.  They are the one who is came up with them and who have adopted them.  So as someone in the group said, of course it is important to love all your kids equally.

We have abandoned the children metaphor at some point because it was becoming weirder and weirder.  So we stopped that, watch the video.  You will see at some point it became a bit dangerous.

But we did have an interesting discussion though about the fact that even though we don't want too really identify them very clearly, some governments actually by where they focussed attention, which policies are becoming implemented as a matter of priority.  Focus on connectivity or trust of Internet were those principles that clearly stood out in the group as being implemented by several countries.

Few important takeaways, at least for me.  One as some of our participants have stressed.  Sometimes it is not about which of them is more important than the other, but how do we actually sequence the implementation of those principles.  Because some of them have this enabling or even a multiplying factor, if you want, when it comes to it.

So you really have to look at the interconnection between different principles as well.  And not look at them individually.  And I think this was quite important.

Another factor that was stressed was how do we actually make this global principles suitable for local context?  And how do we do this translation from global to local?

I would imagine that my colleagues in the other groups had a similar discussion about how do we make the principles that were defined for the governments relevant for other stakeholder groups and how this dialogue between different stakeholder groups comes together.

So I think that was an important takeaway.

And finally in the part on the prioritization, something that stood out again to me is the importance ‑‑ potential importance of capacity building.  Several governments, or colleagues, have flagged different regulation, for instance, that they are working on in different policy areas that address the principles that are part of the DFI.  But at the same time, they do not always have the capacity to either develop those policies or implement them later on.

And this was a very smooth way to transition to the discussion about the engagement of the multistakeholder community, where those actors very often play an important role.

What I've tried to get from the group as well was what kind of coordination mechanism, if you want, we should sort of think of when we pln the multistakeholder community.  Do we plan a new platform that centralizes and steers engagement between government and multistakeholder actor community or do we think of alternative arrangement?

And there was not much appetite for centrally coordinated mechanism.  There was a feeling that there is quite a lot already happening.  And that rather we should be harnessing the existing mechanisms.  So regional or national IGFs, for instance.

We did touch upon how DFI sort of connects and links to other discussions like global digital compact.  And I think the important takeaway from that discussion was that DFI should not be seen as an alternative.  Or sort of a process that runs in competition almost to those other initiatives but something that actually provides the foundation and complements them.

And finally, when we talk about the success of the DFI how do we define it and how do we potentially measure it.

One indicator, if you want, that was put on the table was the extent to which the DFI principles are taken up by in other conversations.  So, for instance, when we move to discussion about Global Digital Compact, to what extent will the document reflect the principles of the DFI?  How will we think about translating those principles into action?

One of the colleagues also stressed the importance of those, let's call them "prohibitive" principles or actions in the DFI.  Where the states should actually refrain from doing certain things.  And that actually potentially is a relatively easy thing to monitor.

And finally, there was an idea of what was called a "score card," about a mechanism similar to sustainable development goals.  Monitoring mechanisms that would sort of allow the community to track and then ensure certain transparency.  And down the road accountability in the conversation around the principles.

I'm sure there are many more points people in the group found interesting.  So I invite everybody later to join the discussion and maybe the read some of those points.

Thank you.

>> Really excellent.  And succinct.  I just want to underscore one thing.  Tremendous overlap in civil society this, group I was in.  But also, one theme I heard and what you said is a little bit attention between government sense of responsibility domestically and what they are doing at home.  Whether it is accountability for those and metrics.  Versus, or intention with a little bit the goal of making these principles substantial in the international realm.  And having to work on both parts.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: Yes.  Absolutely.  This did come up as well in our discussion.  However my impression is that there was really much more focus on localization and the discussion of how to those principles fit within what the governments were doing.  There are a few voices in the group that stressed yes, while we think about domestic level, we also have to think about what we as international community want to achieve with those principles and how they contribute to our common global effort and exactly ensuring open, safe secure, free, interoperable Internet, right?  And yes, I agree.  There is a certain friction.  I thinks it is also matter of prioritization and resources and where the governments focus their attention.  Primary responsibility is towards the citizens.  So I think this is what some of the colleagues maybe were driven by in their interventions.

But there was indeed the slight ‑‑ I don't want to say friction.  But there just maybe a idea of sequencing of where do we focus the attention first.

>> Really excellent.  Okay.  Next we'll hear from the civil society group.  And this is grace Githaiga.

>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Okay.  I'll be reporting on behalf of the civil society group.  We had very efficient rapporteur, Luke, who actually summarised our conversation into tweets before Elon Elon Musk.  Just a few characters.

Also like the first group, we had three key areas that we were looking at.  Or three key themes.  And the first one, we looked at the principles and in terms of prioritization.  And very interesting conversations came up.  The issue of access and inclusion kept coming up.

And we agreed that it can be considered top priority.

However, the issue of multistakeholderrism is key in entrenching and allowing for inclusion and for allowing access.  Or allowing for the achievement of the other priorities.  So that is how we framed it.  That even as we have identified those priorities, that the multistakeholderrism approach is critical in allowing for the achievement of the priorities identified.

In point number 2.  Cooperation modalities.  We agreed that this needs to implement the multistakeholder approach with a bottom‑up emphasis.  And this can support civil society, project, agitate, and stand for the global public interest with effectiveness and efficiency in Internet matters.

On the third theme, "how do you measure success."  You know, the summary is that success would be looked at the DFI is globally recognised across board and given legitimacy, solidarity and validity.  And especially where civil society concerns are, you know, matter.  So this, it should be able to support civil society while consultations with all stakeholders.  And in terms of, you know, minimizing the digital divide towards the betterment of Internet.

And the final takeaway, you know, "what do people know about the DFI?"  And how does success look?

It is when we work with other entities ‑‑ sorry, I came back.  I think I confused there.  The final takeaway about the DFI is that many people in the group said they had for the first time about the DFI last year in the IGF.  And there has not been, you know, a lot of mention about the framework.  Even as a point of framework of reference to mobilise governments.  Even by governments that have signed onto this framework.

So the IGF seems to be the only place this is mentioned.  So the recommendation is that we need to solidify the DFI.  It needs to be entrenched in global Internet conversations.  And the principles should become part and parcel of global conversations.

For example, right now there have been conversations about the Global Digital Compact, that the DFI framework should actually be an automatic point of reference when those conversations are happening.  So let's make the DFI the principle, you know, ‑‑ the principles work.  And let's raise awareness about them everywhere.  And they should not be seen as a competition into other processes, but rather as complementary to implement what we are all working on together.

Thank you.

>> Really great.  And again, what I'm hearing there is a bit of tension between what goes on domestically in many cases not even referenced enough.  And also this idea of not referenced across government agencies.  And when it comes to different types of responsibilities, whether it is national security, cybersecurity.  So it is a little bit pigeon holed in the domestic context.  And yet tremendous yearning for international validity.

That if civil society could have the DFI government really push to give stature to these principles, civil society would take it and run with them in a lot of different international settings.  And a desire to work on that together.

>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Correct.  I think there was also the issue of that we must stop looking at government in a monolithic way.  That government is broad.  The it is judiciary, it is parliament.  It is the executive.  So that if you are having this conversations, they need to happen across all the arms of government.  So that we are not just looking at one part of that.

>> Has not been socialized across government.  Yeah.

Okay.  Next we're going to hear from private sector.  And that's Timea Suto.

>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you so much.  And huge thanks first of all to the private sector group that really made my job very difficult.  Because you were very vocal and gave a lot of good input.  And thank you so Natalie for helping me make sense of that.

I'll try and summarise briefly as I can a very rich discussion that we've had.  Which just hearing from my colleagues here, I think we've struck a lot of the similar points.

On the priorities, it was very difficult to choose priorities.  But I think the sequencing idea was also something that came up in our conversations.  In a sense of the base of it all is getting people in line.  Getting all people everywhere aligned.  So that is where we start.

But once they are aligned, that is where the challenges start for all the different communities, for governments, protect their citizens and shield them from harm.  For businesses to protect their consumers.  For users to have a safe experience online.

So we shifted into discussions once people are online and connectivity, is how do we make that meaningful?  But how do we make that trustworthy?  How do we really ensure that trust is ‑‑ that we're working towards in our endeavours.

And the private sector conversation really pointed towards how the DFI is there to create some of that trust across different government, across different stakeholders, and across the Internet.

So from that premise then we went into the operationalisation question.  And there we had themes discussing, first of all, what are the challenges for making this trust happen.  Secondly, what is it that the private sector can do to help?  But also, what the private second needs from the rest of the stakeholder community and from the government.

So when we talked about challenges, we realised that there is a lack of information around not just the future of the Internet but the way we communicate about these issues with each other, within stakeholder groups and with every day persons.  Because even we've had those in the room say we're actually doing this.  But we never thought about this, that we're doing it in the context of principle number, goal number, blue point number, this or that.

So I think makings that connection, between sort of this mental level of policy principles and then the day‑to‑day challenges and substandard issues that we are always talking about and we've seen the news and in the media.  And how do we make sure that that conversation exists and that we speak the same language around some of these issues?

So from there, we went okay, how we can make sure that we spread this information?  That we bridge some of this lack of information and lack of awareness?  And what can the private sector do in that regard?

And that was where we came into the private sector networks.  And how they can act as multipliers for the messages of the DFI within their communities.  Nationally but across their networks with partners elsewhere.  Both in DFI signatory countries, and broader.  And how that can act as a multiplier for those communities that the private sector interacts with, themselves picking up some of the elements of the declaration.

And from there, really we talked about creating challenges for input for the private sector into policy conversations.  And we came up with this idea that it needs to be a proactive work from the private sector side to share "here are the models that we think would work.  Here is how the policy system works in our country.  This is the steps where we see that we could provide input.  And this is where we want to work with other stakeholders.  Not just with governments but with all stakeholders to share how we can be part of this process."  Because ultimately when it comes to ‑‑ they need to be there at the level when we start talking about policy making.  And they are best placed also to share here is the ways that you can include us.  So perhaps that is something that is necessary.

To make that happen, other things.  We need clear processes to include multistakeholders.

We need information share.  We need capacity building.  Across all of different stakeholder levels.  To be able to understand what multistakeholder collaboration is, understand some of the policy issues and how we can work with one another.

And also in the end we talked a little bit about I think Patryk you mentioned "score cards.  Also how this doesn't just remain a talk conversation but that we report and need safe spaces for conversation where also best practises and implementation can be shared.  Lessons learned can be shared.  But it doesn't become, you know," best in class "list or worst in class list but actually creating safe spaces where governments and stakeholders can learn from one another how to progress this.  So the multistakeholder conversation was something that was woven through all of this.

And then on the last bit, in talking about successes, we've heard from Vera Jourova at the beginning.  She said signing is not enough.  We need implementation.  And we transformed that into the number of signatories is not success.  The successful implementation is success.  And we can measure that success and how many successful partnerships we've managed to do.  The stakeholders themselves, how did we involve them.  Did we put specific projects in place?  With multistakeholders.  With the private second.  To progress some of these principles that we've signed onto.  And that is where we should measure the success.

And then we talked a little bit about how do we channel DFI into other processes.  And I've heard that all of you have mentioned the private sector group at least on the Global Digital Compact WSIS+ 20.  And how to be the channel into these processes.  Opening the conversation to make sure that DFI is the true multistakeholder initiative.  How can then this be a vehicle for multistakeholder input into some of these processes that we're looking forward to.

>> So things that strike me there, lot of similarities, strangely, with civil society.  In that emphasis on "lack of information."  General lack of awareness of the DFI principles.  Even though they would otherwise be embraced.  And perhaps are in some regards already being implemented by the private sector.  But there is not this general sense of stature and using it as a point of reference.

So that's shared.

And then the desire to have more genuine opportunity and channels for engagement into policy.  That same civil society would definitely seek that.  As it sounds like private sector would.

>> TIMEA SUTO: Correct.  And not just having a channel, but also building on what the private sector already has going on that can be used as ‑‑ so not just learning from the DFI into the private sector.  But the private sector being used a as multiplier.

If you can make those connections because they exist.  If you can name them, they can actually act as a multiply tore make this grow.

>> What they already know.

>> TIMEA SUTO: Exactly.

>> Yeah.  Okay last but certainly not least we're going to hear from the technical community, which is the most most experienced in multistakeholder process.  And Akinori Maemura.

>> AKINORI MAEMURA: Thank you very much.  The particular community discussion was, I suppose that this is the quite shared with the other stakeholders.  But this discussion was, you know, we have the five principles.  We ‑‑ Eileen kindly mentioned that the three discussion points.  And we tried to do that in a, you know ‑‑ to in recognition of five principles and the three themes.

But actually the discussion is back and forth and intertwined.  So just really hard to something with most important or something.  But I try.

So our discussion started with some discussion of priority.  And the priority, this is a technical community discussion.  And we are so committed to keep the Internet up and running.  And that is a principle number 3.  And then that was quite the focus in the discussion.

Another point of the particular focus was encryption.  This is DFI principle number 4 says trust.  And encryption is the one with the very critical tool for the increasing trust of communications.

And it is particularly emphasised as the important point.

So these are the priority from the DFI principles.

The other part of the discussion mainly goes for the collaborative facilitation, cooperation modalities.  Sorry about that.

And it is quite ‑‑ the DFI is the governmental declaration.  But it is quite, you know, lead like the technical committee communities, the principle which we have quite believed in and practised.

At the same time it is pointed out that quite importance of the collaboration between the technical community and the governments for DFI and even other companies who are, you know, has a concern on the Internet infrastructure.

Then one discussion was ‑‑ two or three things out of this.  One is that the existence of the leadership funnel of the IGF.  It is really good place to facilitate the discussion between the stakeholders, increasing the government and technical community.  And then discussion there is fruitful to share the understanding around the stakeholders.

Another point is there was pointed out that multiple statements done 10 years ago, 2013.  So it is remarkably, 10th anniversary of the statement, which appeared much more adherence for the Internet stability and movement for the stabilisation and the function.  And actually that was a starting point of the discussion and the transition.

So it was very good example of the technical community to put the unified voice clearly to that, to the other stakeholders.  And that was kind of the clarity would be preferred for that discussion.

Another point is the GDC, Global Digital Compact.  And actually we have some concern that the technical community is not really recognised as much as we want.  And one concern from the technical community.  And but without that kind of particular pointing out, that that is really, really important to the other stakeholders.  Especially the government.  Is quite a big interest.  And then recognition to the Internet infrastructure operations, which the technical community responsibly doing.

And another point, measurement of the success was discussed.  And it is little bit not really clear.  But we ‑‑ there were some points like accountability, broader involvement of various stakeholders, blah blah blah, but not really clear measurement was proposed there.

That is all from my end.  Thank you very much.

>> Again, I hear so much support for the principles and this idea that the technical communities is already operating in ways that are consistent with the principles.

Concern about the adequacy of inclusion, even of the technical community, going forward in multistakeholder process in place likes the Global Digital Compact.

And you know, looking at principle number 2 about protecting and promoting the global Internet.  I mean, the technical community is so important there.  And if that is lost, it is sort of the whole thing is lost.

So there is tremendous overlap and unanimity really between the stakeholder groups.  And I will even go so far as to say similar messages to the governments.  To the DFI member states.  Because these different stakeholder groups are all really yearning to genuinely take this multistakeholder process to the next level.  And the door is open, it sounds like, with all three stakeholder groups.

So, let me now...   we have ‑‑ oh, I guess we could turn it.  Does anybody in the audience want to have, say something?  Comment on anything you have heard?  Question anyone?  Raise an issue that wasn't put on the table?  Any of the above?

Even Constantinos?

Sorry, sorry about that.

>> PATRYK PAWLAK: So listening to you, I'm wondering, you know, this doesn't really come up that much in our group.  But I'm wondering whether when we talk about DFI we are going to see a similar split in how the governments perceive different stakeholder groups.  Thinking about processes when it comes to implementation.

So right now we all sit at the same table.  And there is implicit assumption that the civil society is important as techal community, as the private sector.  But we have seen in other process, especially the UN where actually the private ‑‑ there was a push for private sector to be considered as more important for the conversations than civil society organisations, for instance.

So I think that there is this risk that we have seen in other places that as we move forward there might be a push to let's say favour certain relationship oversight others.  And I'm not saying that that push was coming from the signaturing of the declaration.  Actually quite the opposite.

But I think as we are thinking about exactly how their principles can be internationalized for other conversations, we also have to make sure the principle five is also taken really very seriously.  And any attempt to try to let's say divide and ‑‑ multistakeholder community is really pushed against from the very beginning.

>> Question here.  Curious what people up here or the audience think about maybe pushing a little bit more on the idea that there are five stakeholder groups that should be part of the conversation in pretty much all settings.

So obviously government, private sector, technical community, civil society and academia.

That is one of the themes I've heard.  And I think in ‑‑ unintentionally at least in some settings, the differentiation between what those different kind of stakeholder groups can add to the conversation is being lost.

And that is one thing this group might be able to advocate for together.  Go ahead.

>> GRACE GITHAIGA: There was also the issue of trust.  That we cannot be talking ‑‑ especially governments that have signed onto the declaration.  There is the issue of trust that they have signed.  And yet they come one laws that counter or undermine the framework.

So that's, you know, we can't be talking of this framework, the issue of trust and then the challenge of coming up with new laws.  That is a message to the governments that they must not undermine the framework.

>> Governments themselves, yeah.

>> TIMEA SUTO: And on a private sector side.  We also had lot of conversations on this, how we actually operationalize multistakeholderism and there was one very interesting discussion I thought when we said we need to have a clear understanding, in government and on the stakeholder as well, on how technology, how the ecosystem works.  And what is the role of the different communities ‑‑ and not just the roles and the responsibilities.  But also the capabilities that we can attach to them in this ‑‑ we call it a "stack" of the Internet.  If we have clear unking, it is easier then to think about what kind of expectations we attach to them.  Lot of times when we think about passing laws, regulating these technology, the first instinct is, okay, who delivers them?  Okay.

So this is all going into the private sector.  We forget there are others in the stack.

If it thinks about okay, who is holding us accountability?  Okay, going to be civil society.

Of course first of all let's not pigeon hole stakeholder groups into these categories.  And secondly, think about what they can actually do.  So if you involve that understanding and throughout the entire process setting the policies there.  Then in the implementation phase you already have the buy‑in.  So it is very easy to start actioning.  And you don't have to started all over.  You come up with the action and think about who is going to do it.  So I think that was a clear message.

And the other one is let's let go of false dichotomies of whose interest is what in this.  This is all of our interests in making these principles actually work.  And we shouldn't think about okay.  So if we think about principle X, what is the technical community interest in this.  What is civil society interest in this.  Private sector.  What did government want to get out of this?  We need to my more holistic and multistakeholder way.  And.

None of the stakeholders are monoliths.  So we have to make sure we also act in our own stakeholder groups to bridge some of the differences and gaps we might have there.  And the diversity that is there.

>> Really excellent.  So for me what I heard there is we all have to get more sophisticated in thinking about what multistakeholder process should look like with respect to different kinds of issues, and what are best practises with those different kinds of issues.  And we tend to use very generic phrases to talk about multistakeholder process or engagement or dialogue.

But the reality is, if we're doing it well, we ‑‑ each of the types of conversations needs to become more multistakeholder and go deeper in what that really looks like as a best practise on those issues.

Somebody right here.  Yep.  I think there is a mic right behind you.

>> Thank you for the discussion.  Also thinking in the separate stakeholder groups is that you can really put in the foundations of what would bind us to that.  And from that, then have on a general level the discussion of so what binds us all.  Should be bound in those foundations that are institute by civil society, by business, by technical community.  And yes, I'd like academia as well because comes from different perspective.  And governments of course.

But if you understand that, that is fundamentals to build upon.  Otherwise you lose the rest.

>> One more comment in the back?  You want to come up to the mic?

>> Thank you very much.  This is Bibik.  In all these discussions one thing was missing with does focus on youths.  So I think youths are the catalyst which can have a multiplier effect on actually implementing the DFI reasons and principles.

So either as a stakeholder or within the stakeholders I think youths are need to given the seats and emphasise during the discussions.

And another point is regarding the strategic foresight.  For the DFI implementation principles, we are discussing issues that are right now in terms of connectivity.  But what about the issues that are coming in?

So this should be emphasis that what problems might come in the future and how we get prepared for it.

That is my comment.  Thank you.

>> Thank you very much.  Great point.

I think now I'm going to ask Jaisha to come up and she's got an idea about how to best close this programme.  With a guest speaker.

>> JAISHA WRAY: Thank you very much.  Very engaging discussion.

So we have a very special guest today here.  I'm very pleased to turn the floor to Ambassador Ndemo.  Kenyan Ambassador to the kingdom of Belgium.  And he was organiser of the 2011 IGF in Nairobi, which was the first ever IGF to have a day 0.  So here we are on day 0, thanks to this Ambassador.  So please over to you.  And you can come to the podium if you would like.

>> AMB. BITANGE NDEMO: First, I want to apologise that I took instructions correctly on how to come to Kyoto international conference centre.

So the whole night I practised, and then I went to the train station.  And the gentlemen told me you take this way.  And then go to number 2 and take it.

He should have said that once you get there to number, you climb up and take number two.  So I went to the wrong side of the city.  I'm sorry about that.

I am delighted to join you this morning.  And I want to give a personal testimony.  First, I wasn't the only one who was in day 0.  Ambassador Gross, I think is seated over there.  We started this in Nairobi when IGF was being held in Nairobi.  I want to summarise these five principles through my own experience.

I was then in policy making.  And the policy at the time, we were focusing on various issues.  And we ‑‑ I say "we."  Those in policy looked at civil society as noise makers.  One of them was Grace here.  We are very good friends now.  That because of policy involvement with Civil Society, we restored trust in building digital systems in Kenya.

It would not have happened that way.  I say this because we are very many countries.  Especially in the ‑‑ decide to shut down Internet when things are wrong.  Or when something has happened, they close it.  And Internet has become the most important thing.  And I think everybody of you learned from COVID‑19.  We went back to teach while covid was going on.  Very poor people who would do business on the streets got to do their business through WhatsApp, which was made to be one of the platforms that helped them to sell something.

So it has become the most consequential thing.  Especially now.

And besides being in policy and government as an Ambassador, I'm also involved in academia mostly.  Looking at the future of learning.  And just two months ago we had a conference in Switzerland.  Any government that does not invest in access to Internet, to broadband, will lose out.  And as we talk about capacity building, which doesn't necessarily have to include academia.  But also having awareness to virtually every citizen, it is very critical.

And if you hear from the five groups that met, there are overlaps like she was Eileen was talking about.  But the big question what Patryk was asking, how do we make this acceptable globally.  But some country still are not living up to this principles.  Some close down Internet, as I said.  Some don't trust the Civil Society.  And yet we must work through multistakeholder efforts to improve access to make sure that we protect the human rights of everybody.  We accept that people have different views on the networks.  To have the free flow of information.

And that is where the problem begins.

So by simply having sessions like this one and then moving on to our own countries, if I may say here honestly, and I think Grace can agree.  Sometimes the global Southies that some of these propositions are geopolitical.

I would attest here that this is not geopolitics.  This is simply making sure that we ensure inclusivity across the board.  This is the problem that we have.  That while this is a western thing or whether this concept is this way.

But if you look at these principles, they are very simple.  Everybody needs the rights to do what they want to do.

Then we need to make sure that we restore trust across, just like we did with Civil Society and other groups in Kenya.  And include everybody.

The gentlemen there said the youth who are the most users of this online things.  The technical, where we need to talk about interoperability of many of the systems that have been created.  So this is a very key meeting.  These are key declarations that we're looking at.

Hopefully we can get more countries to sign onto it.  That way we can begin local discussions on how to ensure that this happens.

I was the first time in all the Internet, for AI, and we try to work on connectivity across the world.  And still you could see the problems, especially with members of parliament.  The private sector has no problem getting through the government and changing things.

But ordinary people have the problem.  And that is where Civil Society comes in.  If we can use the world collaboration, all of us frameworks technical, private sector, Civil Society.  We can achieve the goals that we are discussing here today.  I don't want to emphasise this more.  This is what we need to do.  If some of us from the global south can now that this is the most consequential period of time that we need to have these things in place.

Education is going to change.  And if we don't have the infrastructure because of petty politics, we will lose it.  So it is mostly to those who have not signed on to this.  And living it.  As we said some sign up, and then they go making laws differently.

I used to have that problem where you develop the legislation.  Because members of parliament sometimes don't understand what you are writing about.  And they go down break it down.  What I used to do is that I would go sit in parliament and create friendship with some of them.  Explain differently using practical examples.

So lobbying is important.  For those of you who are stakeholder.  You have given these proposals to government.  But government is going to do do it.  It never happens.  You have been worked through and through to the end until the legislation is made.  There is not one single person who doesn't understand today that some of this technologies have led to new innovations that are critical to our lives.

We cannot put legislations ahead of innovation.  And I keep only insisting on this.  If we can look into this, we can see much more happen.

Thank you for allowing me.  And I hope you forgive me for coming late.  Thank you.

>> JAISHA WRAY: Thank you Ambassador Ndemo.

So on behalf of the co‑organisers.  Japan, the European commission, Kenya and the United States, I would really like to thank you all for participating today.

DFI remains a high priority for the signatories.  But we also recognize it is critical that we must hear from the multistakeholder community.

And so we are very grateful for your active engagement in today's event.  Please stay tuned on the next steps for the DFI.  But we are very committed to working with you all to digest today's discussions and ideas and to moving forward with all of you in collaboration.  So thank you again.

And please, we would like to invite everyone to the stage for a group photo to document our success today.

So please come on up.  We'll have one group in the front row, and various groups on the stage itself.

Thank you.