IGF 2024-Day 0-Workshop Room 5-Event #108 Fit-for-future A visioning exercise on digital cooperation-- RAW

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Okay, so, everyone... So, the moderator's opening remark is to say, you need to put on your headphones to participate in the session. 

So, good morning, everyone. This is very strange, but I think one good thing about this way of participating is that it creates a level playing field between those of us that are in the room and those of us that are not in the room.

My name is Anriette Esterhuysen. I am here on behalf of the Association for Progressive Communications. And I am really happy to welcome you all to this session. 

I'm going to plunge straight into what this session is about. I'm just reminding participants.

Firstly, can I check with my colleagues? I'm not logged into the Zoom yet. Are you logged into the Zoom? Perfect. So, welcome to all our online participants, as well, as well as our co‑organizers.

So, this session is a joint session between the Global Digital Justice Forum, APC ‑‑ Association for Press Communications ‑‑ and IT for Change, other partners and members of the Global Digital Justice Forum, and the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition, and also a network which you'll hear more about and can read more about, which is the Digital Constitutionalism Network, which is based in Europe but has participation from around the world.

What we want to do with this session is actually extremely important, and that is to really look at a future‑oriented visioning exercise for how digital cooperation can really work in a way that is empowering and powerful and impactful.

We have just come through the process for the last year of finalizing the Global Digital Compact. We are very much into the World Summit on the Information 20‑year review, and I think we have had many conversations about not duplicating, about not reinventing the wheel, and I think there is consensus on the need not to innovate or create structures and processes and institutions when some exist already. But perhaps we have not spent enough time actually looking at the gaps and looking at where we can cooperate more effectively. Where has the WSIS process not facilitated the kind of cooperation that we really need? How can WSIS and the Global Digital Compact process really not just collaborate and not duplicate, but actually become more than the sum of their parts and achieve more impact, and in that process, also create more North/South digital cooperation, more cooperation across stakeholder groups, probably, but also within countries.

So, to get us started on that, I just want to also share with you our framing. There are many different forms of cooperation ‑‑ public‑private partnership is a form of cooperation. But we are talking about much more than that. We're talking about cooperation that is oriented towards what we refer to as digital justice. I think this is maybe a term different people will define differently, but I think in ways that overlap, certainly for those of us ‑‑ and speaking as APC as well ‑‑ it's about cooperation that achieves more equal participation in the information society, in digitalization processes, participation that is empowering, that gives you not just access to the tools, but access to the tools in a way where you can improve your own lives but also those of your community.

It's also about more democratic participation. It's about not just having people from Civil Society or the Global South in meeting rooms, but actually setting the agenda. It's not just having a checklist for gender equality or having women in a panel; it's actually about transforming structures of power so that women who are involved in Internet development and governance can actually influence those processes. So, it really is about more social, more economic, and more political equality and democratization and in the Internet governance and Internet for development and digital for development space.

So, apologies. That introduction was perhaps a little bit too long. But now, to hone in specifically on the WSIS, the World Summit on Information Society. For those of you who don't know, it's a process that concluded in 2005, and through a second phase. There were two phases. But it was really a very significant UN summit where Member States, along with other stakeholders who participated, agreed on a vision for people‑centered, development‑oriented, human rights‑respecting information society. And it's going through its 20‑year review.

One of the agenda items is the IGF, which has to be renewed or not. The Global Digital Compact is an annex to another very significant agreement that UN Member States agreed to at the General Assembly in September this year in New York, and that sets out a vision and objectives for digital cooperation at a global level. And I won't go into it in more detail.

But starting with you, Isabel, and then we'll go on to Luca and then Bruna and then Chris. I want you each to introduce yourselves in one sentence when you start. But the question I want you to reflect on is, from this digital justice standpoint ‑‑ and you can define digital justice as you want to ‑‑ what do you think are the key elements to the missing ‑‑ what is missing? What are the missing dots? Where are the missing links in how we have approached cooperation to date? Through WSIS implementation, but also through the Global Digital Compact consultation, for example.

So, if we want to close these gaps, what do you think are the primary deficits that we should look at? What are the key links? You don't have to provide solutions yet. We're going to go into that into the next round of the session, and then we'll try and pull it all together. So, this first round is really not about connecting the dots; it's about identifying where those missing dots are. So, Isabel, starting with you. 

>> ISABEL DE SOLA CRIADO: Okay, I think, yeah. Good morning. I'm Isabel De Sola from the Office of the Tech Envoy based in Geneva. Thank you so much, Anriette and Valeria, for inviting us to be here. It's really such a timely question, and I might disappoint you, Anriette, because I might take one minute to talk about how far we've come before going into what's missing, or looking at gaps.

I was studying this topic on the way here to prepare my mind for this conversation, and I was thinking about how far we've come in the language around digital justice ‑‑ justice, equality, equity, access, empowerment. These words have become almost second nature to the WSIS community and to the IGF. But actually, if you go back 20 or 25 years, these were not words that were bandied about and confused with each other because they were quite new. So, I wanted to start my intervention by just remarking on how the WSIS laid the groundwork for this notion of digital access and inclusion. So, it was the WSIS that first articulated this so clearly and put it on the map in the digital space. In order to really get the most out of digital technologies, there needs to be inclusion for everyone.

And there has been tremendous progress made in that vein. Two‑thirds of the planet have some sort of access to the Internet. But in 2015, looking back, again, the introduction of the Sustainable Development Goals added to these concepts and said, it's not only about inclusion; we also want equality.

So, if you look at the SDGs, if you do a search of how many times is the word "equal" or "equality" in the SDGs, it's something like 52 different ways of driving equality with the SDGs agenda. I think it's actually 51 or something. So, that brings us another step forward.

And there was a mapping of the WSIS against the SDGs to lock in those concepts. So, it's about inclusion and it's about equality of opportunities, and we start to hear about empowerment well in the SDGs, about gender empowerment. So, now here we are, 2024. I'm about to be 46. So, it's starting to feel a little bit old. But in the GDC, we picked up equity. This is new.

So, ten years ago, with the publication of the book "Capitale" and the notion of economic inequality begins to develop as a concept in economic and sociology studies, in the GDC, we now have a principle that talks about equity in economic opportunities and equity in access. And of course, it's important to take stock of that, because when we say equality, we mean everybody gets the same thing, so everybody gets one apple. But when we talk about equity, what we mean is that those who need two apples or those who need three apples should have those, have a little bit more because of the difference in structural opportunities and conditions. So, these are words on paper, but they're also powerful ideas that lay a path for us as we, from the UN side, think about how we can support stakeholders to implement the GDC.

We now have extremely powerful ideas. We have inclusion, equality, but also equity and empowerment, upon which to build for a digital justice agenda. So, forgive me for taking so long to do this stock‑taking, because it helps to think about, you know, in Spanish, we say, tell me where you're coming from and I'll tell you where you're going. So, we're coming from a strong place, I think, from the perspective of the Tech Office.

We're looking forward to two things that the WSIS and the GDC could do together. The WSIS annunciated eCommerce. It said, let's apply digital technologies to the economy. And the GDC Objective 2 says, let's not only apply digital technologies to the economy, let's build an inclusive digital economy, an inclusive digital economy. And here are seven or eight ideas about how to do that. So, let's take what the WSIS began and what the GDC complements, and drive forward that agenda. It's about buying and selling services and goods online, but it's also about data governance, and that's a second objective or sort of interplay between the WSIS and the GDC that could be deepened.

The WSIS mentions data privacy and the importance of users having some control over their data. And the GDC takes it a step forward, two or three steps forward, says we want data for development, but we also want principles for data governance that do all of these things, that protect privacy, that respect human rights, that allow users to get the most out of their data.

And the digital economy is going to be built on those ‑‑ is already built on data, but on data chaos. And so, what we're looking at in the next few years is the possibility to have principles across the way data is used and that these principles could protect users and build a more, I think, just and fair digital economy.

So, let me stop there, Anriette, having pointed out, maybe not gaps, but opportunities, in a sense, for the two to be more than the sum of their parts. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I want to push you a little bit. I want you to identify at least one gap. 

>> ISABEL DE SOLA CRIADO: Sure, we're off the record, right? (Laughing).

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: It's the IGF. It's Chatham House rules with full transcriptions, which will be there for posterity. 

>> ISABEL DE SOLA CRIADO: All right. Let me say that from my personal point of view, taking off the hat of the tech envoy, I think that the two could do more for gender empowerment and for the environment.

I'm particularly interested to see these agendas do more for the environment, in that we could really, with only one or two lines in the entire GDC, still drive digital and sustainability for the environment agenda from here. Thanks. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much for that, Isabel. Chris, are you next, or is it Luca? I am balancing here my ‑‑ Luca, you are next. And please introduce yourself very briefly and then try and focus on missing dots. 

>> LUCA BELLI: Good morning to everyone. Luca Belli here, Professor at the FGV Law School. All right, I will go straight to what is missing in my perspective. And I think that just as an introduction, I think that the Global Digital Compact is a very good collection of aspirations and ideas on which pretty much no one would disagree. But what is really missing in the Global Digital Compact and in the vision that has been agreed upon, somehow, in September, in New York, is implementation. There is literally almost zero about implementation, which is at the end of the day what is the most relevant part of any kind of project or any kind of vision we can have, right?

So, in terms of operational structure, there is very ‑‑ although the Global Digital Compact acknowledges that it is essential to have multistakeholder cooperation, there is very little, if nothing, about how this multistakeholder cooperation would work in practice. So, there is paragraph 72 that I've noted here of the Global Digital Compact, calling for the expansion of the Office of the Tech Envoy of the Secretary‑General to provide systemwide coordination ‑‑ I'm quoting ‑‑ which is essential. I would say the very basic of the essential.

But why stakeholders, and even within the very same UN system, agencies and programmes, which frequently have radically different interests, not to mention all the stakeholders that compose the digital ecosystem which have radically different economic and political interests, why should they cooperate out of good faith if there is no driving force in the form of an institution and resources stimulating this cooperation? And this is completely missing from the Global Digital Compact. So, what we need at this point is a roadmap defining who is going to do what. Who is checking that people are going to do these specific things for which they are responsible and out of which resources we should do that, right?

If we have learned something from the past decades of Internet governance, it is that people are very willing to come to multistakeholder gathering to talk about things. But when it ends up to doing things, if there are no specific incentives to cooperate, people do not cooperate, and it's obvious.

And while we are discussing principles and aspirations, there are the largest tech corporations that are building the infrastructure that regulates what we do de facto. So, I see this with great frustration as a lawyer. We should recognize the limits of principles declaration and even of the law, because what regulates how we use digital technologies, how we build AI, is increasingly less and less the law and much more the infrastructure that defines what we can do, the behaviors of individuals, of corporations, of states.

So, I would disagree with what was said before that there is data chaos. There is not chaos at all. It is very well organized, the kind of data that are extracted and how they are utilized by private ordinary. So, it is chaos if we look at it from a legal perspective. Yes, there is a great fragmentation of policies and the way in which they could be implemented, is but it is very well structured if we look at it from a business perspective. And there are very few businesses that actually are raising this moment billions, almost trillions, to implement their plan. And those billions or trillions are what are missing in this vision of the Global Digital Compact.

And to conclude, my greatest frustration is that they are not missing, actually. I mean, we have the largest tech corporation that since the pandemic have realized enormous amount of benefits that have not been taxed. We have reports of the OECD telling us that every year Africa loses from 50 to 80 billions of tax elution of multinational corporations. There are very good reports from Action Aid, which is an NGO that monitors tax evasion and unfair tax practices that highlights that Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Nigeria alone, they miss $4 billion per year of taxes that are shifted through base erosion and profit‑shifting techniques that are very well mastered by the largest tech corporation. We can name and shame them, because everyone knows, Meta Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft.

Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Nigeria, alone, they miss $4 billion per year. So, again, if we want to do something, we need resources. The resources are there, but unfortunately, we have very few political will to tackle the problem concretely, and we are looking more at principles and declarations, rather than what could the factor allow us to implement. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Luca. And I think, in fact, one can probably even endorse the GDC and continue as a big tech corporation with some of those problematic practices, which is, I think, another gap.

But also, just for those of you that might not remember, the issue of not sufficient mechanisms for implementation was also an issue during the WSIS. It was one of the most contentious issues in 2005. And I think many people wanted something a bit more like the SDG process, which had more concrete targets and required country‑based reporting, and we did not get that at the end of the WSIS. We got lots of other good things, but we also didn't get enough about follow‑up and implementation. Thanks for that.

So, Bruna, over to you. And just introduce yourself. Also, I have to ‑‑ she will probably say it, but I will just say it on her behalf. Bruna and Chris, we have two members of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group who organized this event, so I wanted to recognize their hard work. So, Bruna, please introduce yourself and what do you see as the missing dots? 

>> BRUNA MARTINS: Yes, thank you. Joining this as the MAG but also with the multistakeholder advisory group. In terms of the gaps, I do think with the gender, it is a huge relevant avenue area, but I would maybe start by saying that I miss clearer connections between the GDC process and WSIS, per se.

Obviously, WSIS starts the whole thing; GDC continues, brings back some of the issues in general, especially the enhanced cooperation, digital cooperation conversation. But I do miss a lot of more connections in the policy areas between the two discussions.

Especially because when we look at the GDC as a mechanism or as a tool, it's a far more relevant in terms of the urgency of the themes it addresses than WSIS per se, because the GDC is talking about the thought topics, right? It's talking about AI, disinformation, regulation of speech, and a lot of things surrounding this. So, I do hope that there is a better ‑‑ I mean, at the end of the WSIS process, we have a clearer, an even clearer picture as to how the GDC implementation will be, but also how the interplay will be, as Isabel was saying, because I think that's the main question right now, right?

And looking back at the GDC process, I would say that there is a lot to improve in terms of participation and the methodologies for doing so, right? The GDC created, I believe totally and unintentionally, a lot of competition between the arenas, and to some extent, a lot of the spaces felt like, as their mission was being attacked or the mission was, you know, was going to be taken over at some point. And this happened from ICANN to the IGF and a lot more spaces. The ITU as well. So, I do hope that WSIS helps us tie some things together and helps us develop more the need for ‑‑ (off microphone) ‑‑ implementation of the coordination and debating spaces between the foras and so on. And this is one of the points that the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation addresses, right, the need for more coordination between the arenas, between the technical community. And we do see a lot of initiatives, like you know, rising from this space, such as the Technical Coordination efforts that are being taken back. All of the organizations going back to coordinating. And I do think that's kind of a sign of how the GDC could be improved in that sense.

But going back to WSIS, I would say that besides the need to develop more connections and the interplay not being clear, we do need to maybe cover the gaps and use the WSIS space to kind of make suggestions as to how the implementation of the GDC will follow on and will be done, especially in areas that we see as the more pressing and the more concerning ones.

And that brings me to the IGF, right? I'm not going to touch a lot on the IGF because I know another panelist is going to discuss that little bit it.  But just to say that, again, on the so‑called unintentional fragmentation of the debate, I do believe that the IGF was kind of put to the side in this discussion and the GDC could have been a great opportunity to improve the process, to improve what we see as, you know, an improvement of the IGF mission. And I hope WSIS touches on that, because it is also the mandate for you and part of that. So, I would like to see as one of the WSIS outcomes a more strong, much more strong and much more participatory IGF in that sense.

Last but not least, I would say that I think as a process, for both of them, it kind of remains an uphill battle, right? A lot of the difficulties we still see are in terms of, like, diversity, more attention towards ‑‑ I mean, trying to divide the attention between a multilateral process and also multistakeholder participation in the general sense. But I believe we do have some newer guidelines that can point good practices in that sense, and I would just bring the Sao Paulo guidelines as an outcome of the process as, to some extent, we try to achieve a remedy through the lack of inclusivity, transparent and accessibility to these broader processes.

And just to quote four areas, I would say that commitment from all stakeholders is relevant in this, capacity building and making sure we have the proper resources is also really relevant. Developing transparency and accountability mechanisms that go beyond just participation, but also daily updates on how the process is going to evolve is relevant, and also more space for ongoing advocacy and engagement, as well as inclusive dialogue. So, these would be kind of my suggestions for that.

And again, we can use and should use the Sao Paulo guidelines to look not just at the GDC, but the WSIS process in general. Thanks. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks a lot for that, Bruna. And I think the issue of commitment from all stakeholders I think a key component is that stakeholder groups are not homogenous. I think that's probably ‑‑ you know, the private sector is not just big tech. The business sector in the ICT Internet space is extremely diverse, and that applies to the technical community and to civil society and to governments as well. So, thanks for emphasizing that. Chris. 

>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Okay. Thank you. Yeah, my name's Chris Buckridge. I'm here with probably a few different hats this week. As Anriette noted, I'm a member of the Multi‑stakeholder Advisory Group. I'm here with the ICANN delegation as a member of their board. Also working with the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, and I think that's about it.

But speaking, I think the common thread there is, I'm a member of the technical community and have been working with institutions in the technical community. It's defined or understood in the WSIS context for a number of years now.

And I think as that technical community, when we come in with a concept like digital justice, I think that is a kind of term that the technical community is often a little wary of. It sort of falls, perhaps, or is seen as falling outside the idea of a technical community and a motivation of ensuring the internet works, ensuring the technology is prioritized.

But I think the way you framed it in the opening there, Anriette, is really important, that idea of being about participation and inclusivity. And so, I'm doing some work, actually, on a study at the moment which is funded by SIRA, which is the Canadian Internet registry. And part of that has been a survey of members of the technical community. And I think in that survey, they're asked to reflect on multistakeholder models. And two‑thirds of that group noted inclusivity as one of the really primary elements of a multistakeholder approach, of the technical community's preferred approach. So, that idea of inclusivity is very much baked in.

It's recognized as an area where we have a lot of work to do. I think whether we talk about the participation from Global South, whether we talk about gender balance, whether we talk about other sort of demographic groups that are, perhaps, underrepresented, there is a huge amount still to do, obviously, but it's also, I think, important there to note the important work that we have done.

I think if we look at 20 years of WSIS, look at 20 years of Internet governance processes, there has been a lot of work done, both to bring, you know, those groups into something like the IGF, but also in spaces like ICANN, like the Regional Internet Registries and their policy processes. There have been very active efforts to make those more inclusive.

Still work to do, absolutely, but also important to focus on that positive development.

Now, I think one thing I would say ‑‑ and this is, I know, touching a little bit on what Bruna was saying as well ‑‑ we're at a moment of remarkable or noteworthy dynamism when it comes to venues and discussions for governments. There has been obviously the Global Digital Compact. There has been multiple discussions on AI, which have spanned out into different areas. There is the WSIS, obviously, which everyone is focused on. But also, as part of that, there are lots of different areas where WSIS partners are doing different activities.

Now, I think we need to recognize that that kind of proliferation of venues is actually an inclusivity issue in its own right. It makes it more difficult for stakeholder communities to actually take a meaningful role, to follow the discussions, to understand all of the implications that those different discussions can have. And that's where, I think, WSIS really, sort of, it needs to be recognized, reclaimed, understood as its focus on cooperation for the information society, on bringing together, you know, the really multiple different threads of digital ‑‑ that contribute to digital policy, Internet governance, and making sure that they can be complementary to each other. And that's something that we've been focused on in relation to the IGF, but also looking to WSIS more broadly. So, how can the IGF also be working with WSIS partners and others in that space? 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Focus on the gaps. I know we're running out of time. Jimson asked to speak. I wanted to put you and Bruna on the spot maybe a little bit here.

You talk about ‑‑ I think you articulate how too many forums, in a way, creates a gap as well. It's a deficit because it becomes so hard to participate. But you also both talked about the IGF. What deficits are there in the IGF that you feel we need to address? So, what are the big gaps, if you want to just put that in one sentence? 

>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Well, I mean ‑‑ and this is probably to turn around the argument we often make ‑‑ I think the IGF itself needs to understand its place in this sort of broader ecosystem better. We need to have a really clear idea of what the IGF can bring to these other processes that are going on, because we know that it's a non‑decisional forum. We know that's sort of baked into its DNA, that that's actually an important point to retain because it allows us to have more discussions, more focus.

But the IGF itself has to take responsibility for looking at, okay, we have these non‑decisional spaces, we have important discussions, we have intersessional work that also goes on. How do we take that in a productive way to the spaces where decisions are made, to policymakers, whether it's in government or in technical community institutions?

We've talked about that. We've looked at that. But I don't think the IGF has necessarily cracked the code on how best to facilitate that transfer of information. So, that's what I'd say is a gap. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Chris. I think that gives the next round something very concrete to build on. Jimson, I don't think (?) is online, so I'm sorry we're running a little bit late. We're going to open up later for conversation. I see your hand over there. Jimson, the floor is yours. I'm very happy to have you here as my fellow African champion. Introduce yourself briefly and tell us what you think the gaps are. You've been active in this process for a long time. You are coming from a private sector perspective, which is not a big tech perspective, but a business perspective. So, what do you think are the main gaps? 

>> JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you very much, Anriette. And greetings, everybody. My name is Jimson Olufuye. I happen to be the Chair of the Advisory Council of the AfICTA Alliance, an alliance of ICT organizations in Africa. So, we're now in about 42 countries in Africa. (Audio difficulty)

On digitalization, the capacity, mobilization over private clouds, so it is well involved in the IGF process.

I was a member of the IGF Working Group on (?) IGF, and also on the public policy matter connected to the Internet. I'm also a member of (?) at any time. Also the members of those groups ‑‑ (audio difficulty) ‑‑ as some mentioned, and set back. But we have really made some progress, broadly speaking. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Gaps, gaps, gaps. 

>> JIMSON OLUFUYE: Yes, gaps. The lesson is that we need to continue to cooperate. We need to foster cooperation, engagement. This is the takeaway.

And also, we need to have some form of advisory council. So, this is a good milestone ‑‑ (audio breaking up)

From the other perspective, better way out ‑‑ result in mind. That result is global peace and prosperity. The decision of the SDG. We must always have that in mind. And when we have that in mind, then we will always see that prevent us from really working together.

IGF needs to continue, of course. WSIS, of course, review's coming up. We need to note that IGF has really bridged a lot of gaps. And then, let us have a framework to manage the DGC properly.

The Office of the Tech Envoy should include all of the stakeholders. We need to find a way to bring them in, maybe like the advisories. Because if just they are doing it and then we don't have other people that have a buy‑in, that would be a serious gap. People must buy into what is going on at any point in time. Thank you very much. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much. Thanks for that, Jimson. I think, yeah, buy‑in is ‑‑ how do you have that commitment, that participation, not just at the level of principles, but actually throughout the process, as the process evolves? But our time is up. Thank you very much to everyone for identifying gaps and for giving us the bigger picture as well.

I'm now handing over to my colleague, Valeria Betancourt, who is going to take us into the next round, which is "Connecting Lines" between these missing dots. Valeria, over to you. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Hello. Can you hear me? 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, perfect. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you. Thank you so much, Anriette, and everyone in the panel for the very insightful input. I think it is great to hear from all of you that there is still the need to have a clearer understanding of how the sin ‑‑ synergies will be built, particularly between the WSIS. They have laid the ground for inclusive democratic, transparent, people‑centered information societies. The GDC has obviously looked at the more urgent issues. So, now, what's needed, in order to establish precisely those connections, to connecting the lines, to address the gaps that both the WSIS and the GDC might have, how we can use the WSIS Action Lines to respond to the contemporary challenges and to the digital moment we are currently facing, in order to move towards a digital future that is secure, that is open, and that is meaningful for all. And I have the pleasure of having an excellent panel here. Can I check if we have Ambassador Kah online? Do we have the ambassador online? Let me just check. No, I don't think we have. One moment, please. I'm just checking. No. Okay, anyway. Anriette, if you can help me to find out if Ambassador Kah is online. Otherwise, we can start the conversation with jitan JAL  ‑‑ Gittan jali from ITU. And on the very important role that you play. How do you see these connections happening between the different processes? So, welcome. 

>> GITANJALI SAH: Thank you, Valeria. It is nice to see all the colleagues here again at IGF. That is the beauty of IGF. Annually, it gives us an opportunity to get together, to meet, to talk about crucial issues of Internet governance. So, it's really nice to be here.

So, of course, you know, WSIS, digital justice, inclusion has been at the core of the WSIS. The Action Lines have provided a very sound framework, and we must continue to, within the framework of the WSIS Action Lines that are implemented by the different UN agencies. It's really UN in action, you know? WHO implementing the Action Line on health, UNESCO leading so many of the ones, knowledge societies. ITU looking at ICT infrastructure, cybersecurity, enabling environment, capacity building. So, it's a beautiful framework of different UN agencies getting together based on their mandates to implement really crucial issues on digital, and digital for implementation and achievement of the 2030 Agenda.

So, these Action Lines, of course, as we have been discussing, they provide a sound framework, but they must also continue to address emerging trends, like AI cybersecurity, so digital sovereignty, involving digital rights, and so on and so forth.

So, we have been working. The good news is that every year at the WSIS Forum and at the IGF, the UN Action Line facilitators have been updating the Action Lines. So, if you go to the WSIS Forum page, you can always find emerging trends, opportunities, and challenges for each Action Line, which we kind of update very regularly.

Second point, of course, is to reinforce the multistakeholder engagement. Very, very important point. We must continue. We must continue to provide this venue for collaboration. Like was just mentioned, fostering inclusive multistakeholder engagement is extremely important. Getting together a gender‑inclusive, getting persons with disabilities, older persons into your conversations, very important for us to be able to work as the UN and, of course, for governments and everybody to create policies. So, reinforcing the multistakeholder engagement, especially through platforms likewisis Forum and IGF.

Then, capacity building and learning from each other has been extremely crucial. The WSIS stock‑taking platform, which has a database of more than 500,000 projects from all over the world, aligning them to the WSIS Action Lines and the 2030 Agenda. It's been a very important knowledge‑building tool, where we are able to kind of sort by local communities, the different SDGs, the different Action Lines, and know what's happening where around the world.

Another important aspect since 2015 has been to align the WSIS Action Lines with the SDGs, ensuring that the digital plays the crucial role it's supposed to be to advance the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

And another thing from a UN perspective. I'd like to highlight that, you know, it's really important to have this continued UN agency coordination, this really crucial one. Colleagues from UNESCO will emphasize on that as well. The role of ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, CSTD, UNCAD, crucial in implementing this moving forward.

So, WSIS has been a central pillar towards a more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable digital future. We need to ensure the continued relevance of the WSIS Action Lines, foster multistakeholder collaboration and ensure capacity building.

And of course, I'll take this opportunity to also mark your calendars for the high‑level event from the 7th to 11th of July in Geneva, the WSIS+20 high‑level event. Back to you, Valeria. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you very much, Gitanjali. You have also highlighted the role of the different UN agencies, which really allows me to welcome Cedric. I hope I'm pronouncing your Suriname okay, Wachholz, from UNESCO, who has been playing a very important role, not only in implementing a specific Action Lines, but also producing other type of frameworks that allow us to follow up and monitor how we are progressing in the achievement and development of inclusive information societies, including emerging areas, such as artificial intelligence and others.

So, Cedric, what's the view that UNESCO has in relation to how can, in practice, build those synergies that are needed, in order to respond to the challenges that persist in the WSIS and bring this reinvigorated agenda that the GDC has set up for us and how we can move forward, strengthening the WSIS process, building on the progress made so far? 

>> CEDRIC WACHHOLZ: (Off microphone) Hello? 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Yes. 

>> CEDRIC WACHHOLZ: Thank you so much for having us. No? Thank you so much for having us. You can't hear us? Madam Chair. Thank you so much for having us. We're delighted to be part of this conversation. And of course, UNESCO has been part, from the very beginning of the WSIS process. And we have been, actually, from the concept, trying to enlarge already, and at the WSIS time 2003, the concept of the information ‑‑ two words, knowledge society. I know some of you remember, today there is a very clear distinction and even more distinction, important distinction, between data information and knowledge. And for us, the use of information to something which can transform, in terms of understanding and operationalizing what has already been a crucial thing.

Just a small ‑‑ if you have the information on how to operate this, it doesn't mean you know how to do it. So, this transformation from data to knowledge is an ambitious vision which continues to motivate us and drive us forward.

Then, UNESCO has been, of course, facilitating six Action Lines. And I would like to say also that the WSIS is not only the Action Lines, even though we have many, and it is not only the IGF, even though it's even bigger, you know, in some ways, than the extraordinary WSIS Action Lines. But the other mechanisms within this framework which partly addresses the gaps Anriette encouraged us to discuss.

So, Isabel highlighted, for example, gender and the environment. And we have in the United Nations Group on the Information Society this year set three priorities for coordination. And that comes back to your question, too, and that is about gender, environment, and also we've brought forward the capacity development of civil servants for digital transformation, which we see as a key cornerstone in that.

So, sometimes there are also mechanisms today which facilitate the multistakeholder getting together around certain themes. And the themes, I think they have evolved, and technologies have evolved. And I think that is some strength of the WSIS, too, that it didn't necessarily say mobile phones at the time when mobile phones were becoming bigger, you know, but gave us some vision and principles and action lines to translate that.

But if we're talking today about digital justice, I think we have spoken so far a lot about access and inclusion, which is, of course, key in participation. But the entire, what was data privacy, but becomes more also governance and ownership is an important part. Of course, today, the ethical and sustainable AI systems, without biases and so on, are important. Digital rights. And we spoke a little bit about empowerment.

UNESCO has an entire workstream. And I will not dive into too many details, not just ask for more, which has a network of 36,000 judges and prosecutors, where we have done training on digital rights, digital transformation on AI for 8,500 of them. So, equitable justice systems are an important part, beyond also those digital rights. And of course, somehow balancing digital communities with our work in online platforms and against disinformation and so on is an important part.

And so, we have seen how even current topics as these, which are part of the digital justice can and could be addressed with WSIS. And so, we are happy about the GDC framework, which updates also some technological dimensions and tried to marry both workstreams, and also without making it too bureaucratic and burdensome for everyone, so building on the existing, as the GDC says, because we don't want to waste too much time then in more coordination and more databases and so on with information.

So, we are closely working with the WSIS leads to see how to best bring our forces together to not duplicate but build, really, on the existing for the way forward.

And of course, you know, some of you have been part of the Rome work and the Rome X work, which is for us a way to look at the Internet, and not only to look at it, but to assess it and then also do recommendations and implement these recommendations. So, Rome X is, of course, the environment, as gender equality and many other dimensions there, too. And this has been our approach.

And just a little side thing. We will launch a renewed version of that here at the IGF after five years, and to carry that forward. And it combines for me the WSIS and GDC aspects. At one point, we even thought that these indicators, which are on the back of that, could be even measuring some of the GDC progress, so there is this dimension where some of the WSIS‑created things have been updated and covered actually some of the GDC part as well. So, I hope that was in response to your question. So, this afternoon ‑‑ Anriette was ‑‑ 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: No, I wasn't going to talk about that. I think this is not working right now. If you can ‑‑ is it? Oh, okay. Sorry. This is so confusing! I just wanted a quick follow‑up, maybe to both of you. And you don't have to answer it now. I just want to flag it. We asked you about the connecting possibilities. I don't think I heard anyone talk about the mapping exercise that's an outcome of the Global Digital Compact. You talked about what you all are already doing. You talked about what you all are already doing and what Angus is doing. Do you see this mapping exercise ‑‑ I can't remember the exact language ‑‑ but that's mandated by the Global Digital Compact ‑‑ do you see that as a possible connection? But you don't have to talk about it now. I'm going to give it back to Valeria. I just wanted to flag that. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: I don't know if you are connected to the Zoom, but if you can help me to follow up, I just got disconnected. I'm not following the conversation there. But yes, that would be very good if we can look at how the implementation map is going to be a piece to help us precisely bring not only issues but stakeholders together around implementation. So, if you can refer that in the next segment, in the conversation, that would be very useful.

But as you know, society has been consistent actor within the WSIS process and the GDC, and it has been crucial in terms of bringing different perspectives, also connecting with the realities on the ground, and that is why we want to close this segment by bringing precisely the perspective of two civil society voices, and how from those actors, from civil society, how do we see the connections happening.

So, we have Nandini Chami from IT for Change and Renata Avila from the Open Knowledge Foundation. So, do we have Nandini online? That's why I was concerned that I was kicked off. Renata's online? What about Nandini? I'm not connected to the Zoom. Okay. Okay.

Nandini, we can go ahead. Please, your input is very welcome, so go ahead, please. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Nandini cannot unmute herself. Can I just ask our tech support to please unmute IT for Change? IT for Change. If you can give them the right to speak. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: And Renata Avila as well, please. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: And Renata Avila. I don't think ‑‑ I'll go and ask them, Valeria. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Do we have them? Can, if Renata is online, perhaps we can start with Renata? But they have to be able to unmute themselves. It might be a connectivity issue, because I'm not managing to get into the Zoom.

But meanwhile, maybe we can refer to this ‑‑ maybe we can refer to ‑‑ Nandini, okay. Nandini, can you hear us? Please go ahead, then. 

>> NANDINI CHAMI: Yep. Video. 

Yeah, hi. I won't start my video because I don't have permissions, but I'm able to see all of you and hope you can hear me as well. Just getting my point. So, that is starting the issue of making the WSIS ‑‑ (no audio)

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: I'm sorry. This is very challenging. I'm not getting Nandini. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: She started speaking. We could hear her, and then... Good idea. 

>> This is on? This is Isabel De Sola Criado from the Tech Envoy. I'll speak about the GDC implementation, to come back to some of Luca's remarks in the first round.

So, the GDC map is currently under development, and it's been interesting for me as a relative newcomer to the UN to watch how over the last two months, a very exciting period after the GDC implementation, there was suddenly a slowdown in the pace with which we as UN agencies were getting ready to implement. We needed some time to think about, okay, how do we design this map? How do we develop it in a way so that it's open to all of the players outside of the UN, especially so that it's user friendly and it capitalizes on the momentum that the GDC built to encourage all the stakeholders to provide information about what they're doing to this mapping. The point of the mapping being to emerge and share information, essentially, on all of the many different things that are going on that relate to GDC implementation.

So, let's say that, for the moment, there's an outline of this GDC map. And I think that because of this slowdown, you know, we needed suddenly to take a moment and think about how we're going to do this. The progress report will be as planned at the CSTD session in April. That's where I think we'll be able to have a first cut.

In the meantime, the UN Group on the Information Society began a mapping, at least of what many of the UN agencies are doing in relation to GDC implementation, and that's been very helpful. That's something that we can build on.

And then, the more important dynamic is that, actually, the march of GDC implementation is happening anyways. Whether or not this mapping occurs, there's been some really exciting progress already. There has been an AI Standard Summit that took place under ITU, ISO, and IEEE leadership in Delhi, and that relates to paragraph, I think, 66 or something, that calls on standards to be developed for AI.

There's been a very quick turnaround for a working group on data governance in the CSTD already. There is an ICT Resolution that was approved in New York. And if you weren't following it, it's actually very important because it gives some marching orders to the WSIS review. It announces that the WSIS review will have modalities, which means that this WSIS review is unlike the previous one; it will have some real, I think, clear directions with the modalities, ideally.

And last but not least, we have AI co‑facilitators. So, the last paragraphs of the AI chapter of the GDC asks for certain proposals to be taken forward by co‑facilitators in the 79th session of the GA. And two weeks ago in New York, Costa Rica and Spain were nominated to lead that process. And that's just within our little universe.

I think to go to Luca's point about, you know, the economic players. So, end of November in the U.S., we saw an interesting challenge to Google's power on search engines, for example, by the courts in the U.S. system, which speaks to, I think, the question of economic equity in the digital economy.

And there's been some interesting movement in Australia on regulation of access for young children to social media platforms. So, in the last three months, we, from our team, OSET, are looking into the universe and seeing how all of these ‑‑ outside our small bubble, all of these interesting things are happening that relate to GDC implementation, and it's happening, whether or not we at the UN are calling for information. I think this is a time of great excitement and change and progress, actually. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you, Isabel. Can we check Nandini? Nandini, can you try again, please? No, it's not coming through, unfortunately. I am so sorry. We don't know how to sort it out. Try now? Try again, please, Nandini. Or Renata, are you there? Can you hear us? 

>> RENATA AVILA: Hello. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Yes, we can hear you, Renata. Please go ahead. 

>> RENATA AVILA: Finally! Finally. The host was muting me and muting me and muting me, but now I'm here. Hi, everybody! I wish I could be there. I couldn't be there because of different commitments. But I am delighted to be with you sharing my views. And you know, I don't share the excitement that was expressed by the previous speaker. I am actually very worried, because I mean, the Global Digital Compact is supposed to, like, deliver, among many wonderful things, things that fix the democratic deficit that we have in accessing documents, in accessing conversations, in being part of the decisions, the global decisions that will regulate our digital sphere.

But something that I have noticed in our work at the Open Knowledge Foundation, one of the necessary bridges to addressing these efforts of the mapping and the next steps for the implementation is, we are here with institution ‑‑ like, the main actors, actually, are less accountable than the actors of the first WSIS process. And I am here talking about the involvement of big financial institutions that will play a crucial role in shaping the future of the digital economy. And the other is big actors dealing with global trade.

So, I want to focus my interventions on my worries around the big push for countries to make considerable investments on infrastructure that is going to happen in parallel or as an excuse of the Global Digital Compact, and the little space of accountability that Civil Society will have in that process. I am speaking quickly of the global digital infrastructure push that we have seen. We have seen it as part of our work because we are involved somehow in some of the processes.

And something that I have noted that I am very worried about is the new involvement of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in those efforts. But when the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank get heavily involved in these processes, it is usually in a closed room with the ministers of finance, not the ministers dealing with technology, but the ministers of finance, in spaces that are like, you know, absolutely closed to the accountability of Civil Society. That's one of my primary worries. My primary worries is that while we are like doing all the groundwork for better policies, we know that some policies are completely incompatible with the technological decisions that are taken by countries. And it is not a real path across the UN system to democratize access to these decision processes, and we will lose. I mean, if a country, for example, decides implementing a digital ID that is completely incompatible with human rights standards, even if we are, like you know, advocating all fora, once the papers for the loan are signed, it is really hard to reverse.

And what we have found at the Open Knowledge Foundation, doing some ground research, is that the International Monetary Fund is putting conditionalities on countries to transfer funds of unrelated developmental issues to implement specific technologies, and that's extremely, extremely worrying, because it is, imagine first ‑‑ I remember in the past decades, like countries will have gone ahead to implement very aggressive IP policies with copyright enforcement. Now we have seen the same, that conditionalities are imposed on countries to adopt specific technologies, completely removing autonomy, completely removing sovereignty, and completely removing Civil Society, because Civil Society is usually the last to know.

The other issue that worries me is that openness is not necessarily like going across all the system, and we know that without openness, we lose interoperability and we lose access. It would be like in these efforts of implementation, in this inclusion, I think it would be, like, good to, you know, to have in a theoretical world to have the rules of the game from now on. And one of the rules of the game should be like the information about all these processes, easily accessible and not restricted to anyone seeking access for it.

We know that the UN system is super imperfect in that sense, that we don't have a system really to request information. There is so many levels of restricted information that we never get hold of. So, for this specific topic, it would be interesting to have access to the information so we can intervene accordingly.

And last but not least, I think that together with the investment and all the debt issues around implementation of the infrastructures that we want to see, the trade aspect is very important. We haven't seen the connection or commitment. I mean, at least it's not like ten years ago that digital trade issues were barely discussed at this fora. Now it's more discussed, it's being discussed more. But again, the World Trade Organization, all that, you know, regional and bilateral systems are not really opening up to connect, to really connect what someone says in the development of fora with what someone does in the trade arena, so that's my quick intervention.

An urgency to not only not forget about, but put at the center like the accountability of the financial decisions of countries and the global investment bodies, and a reminder of the openness, for example, ISO was mentioned. ISO is one of the most antidemocratic organizations that you actually have to pay a lot of money to even access the standards. Yes, the trade policy, that's usually super secretive, and with limited access to Civil Society should be addressed as well, as we go forward with the implementation. And I think that the WSIS is a great opportunity to push forward these issues as well, because we cannot talk about digital development and a new global economy that is green and digitally, like, you know, fair for citizens, for the planet, if we don't address that investment. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you, Renata, for bringing the challenges that Civil Society actually face to be part of the decision making at all levels. Can we just make a last try with Nandini? If not, we have our last speaker here with us. Nandini, can we try with you? 

>> NANDINI CHAMI: Hi, are you able to hear me? 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Yes. Sorry for all the difficulties. 

>> NANDINI CHAMI: Yeah, all right. So, just to continue on the thread that everyone is now reflecting on. It's very clear that we are at a very different point today from the WSIS 20 years ago, when it's increasingly becoming clear that the ICTs for development frame is no longer adequate, and what we need is a pragmatic response that focuses on reclaiming the digital transition for democratic integrating with economic social and ecological justice.

So, from this starting point, if we were to think about how to re‑invigorate WSIS implementation, I think that the following (?) tabled by the WSIS justice forum at the WSIS 20 high‑level event 2024, in terms of updating and adding to the Action Lines becomes very useful. And these are some of the issues that have emerged in the two decades after the WSIS with the increasing socialization of the Internet and the development of data and AI technologies.

So, the first issue is about digital public goods and developing common standards for this that emphasize democratic ownership and the accountable governance of digital public infrastructure.

Secondly, universal access to meaningful connectivity still remains a challenge, particularly considering that the world gardens of services have only strengthened and we need to address the growing fragmentation of network standards.

Thirdly, measures to protect media pluralism and diversity, tackling head on the risks to democratic integrity, especially hate speech, cyber violence, and misinformation, are an urgent imperative.

Fourthly, critical and transformative digital education and investment in human development for empowered participation of all in the global AI economy.

We also need to be discussing about how do we address the militarization and weaponization of cyber technologies and AI, and also look at integrated approach that recognizes the continuities between Internet‑related public Polis and  ‑‑ policy and data AI governance.

Next, a agenda that exposed appropriate and rule‑based data sharing at global, regional, and national levels to achieve the SDGs. Governance frameworks for generative AI development to protect knowledge sovereignty of indigenous communities and to ensure an open science and innovation culture that benefits all of humanity.

We also need to be talking about how do we think about human rights in digital space and safeguards for this and address corporate impunity. And not forget, we cannot be thinking about a new global digital constitutionalism without thinking about economic law reform that addresses the barriers in current trade and IP regimes and the gaps in development financing that prevent digital development in the Global South that will equally bring gains, instead of today's extractivist model.

To this set of issues raised by the Forum earlier this year, we would like to add one more agenda ‑‑ the necessity of introducing a dedicated Action Line in the WSIS on furthering progress towards gender equality. This is also the year of the Beijing +30, and there is overwhelming evidence that the digital evolution has not eliminated barriers to gender justice. Rather, it has exacerbated them, posing new impediments to the realization of women's equal participation and empowerment in all spheres of life.

Finally, the task of reintegrating the WSIS Action Lines cannot be complete without reflecting on implementation mechanisms that further them. Needless to add, after the adoption of the Global Digital Compact, we can see that the agenda of enhanced cooperation is now back on the table, particularly in relation to imagining future mechanisms for data and AI governance at the global level. There can be no one size fits all enhanced cooperation mechanism, no singularly perfect complement of multilateralism and multistakeholderism for any and every digital policy issue.

The 2014 statement recognizes that the respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should only be interpreted in a flexible manner, with reference to the issue under discussion. So, in the current conjecture, for future data and AI governance mechanisms that emerge as part of GDC implementation, the question of how to ensure effective and meaningful Civil Society voice and participation in them and prevent elite capture becomes very vital and urgent to address. Thank you. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you. Thank you very much, Nandini. Because we are running out of time, so I will welcome Jorge Cancio. Jorge, thank you for coming, running from one session to another. We have addressed both what are the missing dots, what are the missing dots in terms of the WSIS and the GDC that we should be addressing, as well as some ideas on how to precisely build bridges between the different processes to be able to address those gaps. And my colleagues from civil society have presented a perspective of how exacerbated the challenges are, as well as the emerging difficulties, in order to be part of decisions that impact on the way that we benefit from digital technologies. So, your view is welcome in relation to precisely, in this point of juncture, what is next in terms of building the bridges and addressing the gaps. 

>> JORGE MELIA: Can you hear me? Okay. I hear myself as well, so, I'll try to speak without hearing myself too much.

So, thanks very much. Thanks for having me. Jorge Cancio from the Swiss Government, dealing with digital cooperation stuff, and involved in many of these processes.

So, to be brief ‑‑ and I'm sorry that I missed much of the discussion, but we were having a bilat with USG from DESA, and we were precisely discussing, okay, WSIS+20, how should it look like? How do we integrate the GDC? How do we work out our path towards the WSIS+20 review?

For starters, I would say that the WSIS vision that was defined in 2003 and 2005 is still very much relevant at the highest level. I think there we can still agree on much of that substance.

Still, it's a no‑brainer that in the last 20 years, or in the last 10 years, since WSIS+10, there has been a lot of evolution in what we mean with connectivity, the role of data governance. So, ten years ago, almost nobody talked about data governance. There was already some discussion about platforms, about their role, but we would never have had imagined how important, how revolutionizing it would be nowadays. Of course, AI wasn't really on the map at that time, and it's connected very deeply with data governance. You cannot have AI governance without data governance, to a large extent.

And of course, the discourse about human rights online was perhaps not as sophisticated as we have it today. So, these are all matters that I think we will have to reflect on in the WSIS+20 review. We are doing it already. The GDC has been a relevant chapter in this book we've been writing for more than 25 years, with its title WSIS from 2003 on. And of course, we will have to update also the architecture, because it's nice to have ideas, it's nice to have goals, but how do we implement them?

We have been investing thousands of millions of dollars under the WSIS Action Lines with mandates of UNDP, of ITU, of UNESCO, of many other organizations during the last 20 years. We have to build on that.

And one basic principle for a small but well‑resourced country but still small country like Switzerland is the more layers of complexity you add, the less inclusive a process becomes. So, we have, really, in times of growing complexity, we have to strive for simplicity, and it's a very difficult task, but of course, you won't obtain simplicity and inclusiveness if you grow more on the bureaucracy side of things. So, it's important to avoid the proliferation of processes and to strengthen the processes we have.

None are perfect. WSIS is not perfect. And the IGF is not perfect. The WSIS Forum is not perfect. We have to improve them. We have to build on what we have, knowing what we have seen in the last 20 years. And there's lots of ideas and more ideas that are needed on the table to have a sensible discussion during WSIS+10 and 20. And at least our government, we are very ready to engage into that discussion to see how do we improve the CSTD? How do we improve the WSIS Forum? How do we improve the IGF? How do we improve how the Action Lines are managed, how they are governed, how the multistakeholder community participates in that?

And the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines we adopted in April, which were adopted by acclimation in April by the community assembled in Sao Paulo. Our guideline for that work. So, I think we should work on that and update the substance, update the architecture for a new fair deal in digital matters that works for everyone, because otherwise, we will only play into geopolitics and the different divisions. We have difference between stakeholders and countries. So, that's my point. Thank you. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you. Thank you so much. Now we will open the floor for interventions, because it is clear that we might have different priorities and perspectives, depending on the stakeholder group, but there are common ones. So, I just want to open the floor for reactions to what we have heard so far, but also share your views in relation to how to move forward around priorities. What do we push for as a priority in the context in which we have so many complex challenges to tackle.

>> Good morning to all. In order to save time, I will escape the presentations, I have been around for this process and even before WSIS. And I can tell ‑‑ (audio breaking up) ‑‑ also what Jorge said. The historical situation that gave rise to WSIS, you know, it's still very valued. Of course, things are new. But for the vast majority of humanity, developing countries, there's still a need to have ICT for development.

For many ‑‑ well, the digital divide still exists. I'm not going to delve into that because that could be a discussion for some other. I'm not going to the point of how we move from how we are appearing.

Luca mentioned that it is very difficult to participate in all these things. For developing countries, it's not an academic issue, and it's also not a matter of incentive. The incentives are there in the sense that the ICT is a step towards development, towards clean water, towards agriculture, toward many things. So, the incentives are there, but it's really impossible for developing countries. I'm not talking only governments. I'm talking about civil society or developing countries, of small companies in a developing country to follow all the processes that are going on. So, it's essential not to proliferate many processes and groups for all this.

As Anriette said, this was very much discussed during both phases of WSIS, how we're going to follow on, how we're going to implement. And it came out with a system that is not perfect, but it's the opinion, not only my personal opinion, the opinion of my government, it's the opinion of many developing countries, also it's an opinion that's been shared in the G77, that we should keep the processes that we came from WSIS and try to adopt it and perfect for all of the situations that we have now.

In what way? Now, of course, this is a topic that will need discussions, it will need agreement and all that. I will do very briefly some brushes on how it could go.

The IGF. I will begin with the IGF. I'm a government guy. I have to tell you very honestly that when the IGF was proposed and emerged, I said, well, maybe ‑‑ (audio difficulty) ‑‑ but as IGF itself has grown, it has grown on me, and in many government (?) because it's not only from developing countries that is near to the IGF, even in developed countries, but it has grown because the IGF now have initiatives in more than 100 countries; it has intersessional activities; and it has, in my view, one unique characteristic within all the UN system, that the topics that are discussed are proposed from the bottom up, in a very democratic way. Even the (?) of the global annual meetings like this one are discussed, but more than 200 workshops, the themes are discussed. So, it's the way in which the topics, for us, we see that the IGF is the port of entry of the concern of the grassroots, even civil society, even local enterprises. Because sometimes, maybe in a developed country, we're thinking, oh, no! We need 5G, 6G, but what are the concerns really, that really important people, even gender in some countries. The IGF is the way in which all this can come up, but we have to collate that. Collate. Collate it. I don't know if we have a word in English. And try to not leave it there, to move it through the process. I think that's what we're trying to do in the improvement of the IGF. So, that's the IGF.

It doesn't matter that we don't have negotiation and decision. No, no, no, the more important thing is that no issue is banned to be discussed in the IGF. I think that's the beauty of the IGF, and I have grown into that and many developing countries and governments has grown into that. That's a good thing at the IGF.

Now we have the WSIS Forum and the Action Lines. The Action Lines were discussed in depth during ‑‑ because it was proposed that there are going to be action lines during Geneva, but during (?) we have to discuss which ones. Which one? Because that's a problem. Because as he said, sometimes we agree in the concepts or on the principles. So, we discuss how many action lines there will be, and they selected the 11 ones we have now.

But what happened in WSIS Forum? Unfortunately, WSIS Forum has evolved in a way that it has gone away from the initial roots of discussing the actual action line and the accountability of the UN, of the UN things, agency, that are the moderators and facilitators of this action line. We have to recover that the WSIS Forum must concentrate and focus in action line.

But by the way, the Action Lines should be the place where converge the processes from United Nations, that ‑‑ I'm going to put an example. We have an Action Line on security, but that Action Line does not communicate with the open‑ened working group, the commission of the UN assembly. That is an intergovernmental. And they're discussing there a plan of implementation, that we have already a plan of interpretation as an action line! Why to create a new thing there? We have the action line. So, we have to create these channels of communication that the action line is the place where all processes in a topic is a transversal thing in which all processes of a specific topic can be there.

In a way, a new action line was proposed by Renata could be created for (?) for artificial intelligence. Why not? This does not mean this will not substitute any group of experts or create, but it will be a place where they will converge to discuss there in the action line. Another point that the government would be, I don't know, but we have to create this. It is not to somebody to propose.

Then we have the third leg of the process of WSIS. The third leg is the CSTD, because it's the intergovernmental place that we need. We need to have civil society, all the stakeholders in the IGF. We need WSIS with Action Lines that is implementation, but we need an intergovernmental place. CSTDs is the place, the intergovernmental place, where we are carrying out follow‑up of WSIS.

We should also discuss CSTD implementation of GDC. But not only that, we should discuss in CSTD the things that IGF sent to us, that it could be the creation of new Action Line. So, to keep those three things is what we really think is the way to go. Okay, we don't have time, but some other day. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you. There are interventions that are waiting also for the floor. So, please, you have the floor.

>> Hi, yes, I could have borrowed some minutes to him. Thank you for a very excellent conversation. I think I kind of agree more to Luca. He was saying about GDC. At ECA, for example, for the past one year we have been doing a consultation process for different stakeholder group. I think most of the discussion wasn't, like maybe the difference wasn't around the principle objective. In the Global South and the Global North, the objective and principle weren't much difference, but in the commitment and action where much of the difference came in. Even if you look at the draft zero, draft one, all the way, what we have at the end.

The issue of having a streamline between different intergovernmental process, be it WSIS or IGF in the Global Digital Compact was one of the main, main concerns that came from our consultation process. Knowing that Africa has limited resources to be in this kind of different processes, how do we make sure, because the whole objective of GDC is to bridge the governance process. And we know creating more fragmentation because the more layers of process that you are creating, where do we have the resource to make sure that we have the capacity to be involved?

I think the what part was, I think more or less, everybody agreed because the declaration or the aspiration of GDC was okay, but the how part is the big missing part. How do we move to the implementation part?

We've been discussing about cooperation for past 20 years. I don't think anybody disagrees, we need to cooperate, but how? Not only at the international level here, but at the national level. Multistakeholderism has been championed in different discussions, in IGF, for example. In Africa, there is a very strong one. We have the regional, sub regional, and national level. How do we make sure those institutions that has already existed, to use the GDC implementation?

So, at least in my personal opinion is, how do we make sure the existing structure that we have built for the past 20 years, to make sure that the GDC implementation are integrated? Now WSIS+20 is coming. The Action Lines are there. I agree with you in saying we are working with so many groups in the bilateral working group, but there is no communication between each other, so most of the work are in a silo, and there is redundancy of activities are going. And we are complaining we don't have enough resources to be there.

So, I think maybe the conversation, if we say how do we make the how part as effective as possible, we can move the conversation a bit further. Thank you. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you very much. Is there any other intervention from the floor or remotely? Let me just check. Otherwise, I would like to give the opportunity to the two panels, the speakers of the two sessions, to briefly, briefly react, very brief interventions, to what you have heard, if there is any reaction of any of you. Those are welcome.

And then, aneat Anita Gurumurthy will close the panel. Yes. 

>> ISABEL DE SOLA CRIADO: Thanks, Valeria. I am grateful to take the floor for a third time. That's a bit too much, but I did want to answer your question, the last question about how do we make the existing mechanisms more effective to work together?

So, it's important to understand that the GDC only creates two new tasks, more or less, for the existing architecture. The first is the GDC implementation map, that we should have some news on that in April. And it's a mapping that's meant to emerge information that makes it sort of easier for accountability and to find stakeholders and to connect dots. It shouldn't be a tremendous, enormous investment of time from the stakeholders from the system.

Second is a high‑level review in three years' time. And for that, I do imagine that there will be some more preparatory work, you know, some effort made into monitoring and evaluation to describe the progress that has been made. But that is it, more or less, in terms of burdening of the system. So, it's important to understand that the GDC itself doesn't task the system too much.

It's up to the WSIS review to define how the two things work together. The GDC is clear about that. The Member States wanted to be clear that they were going to decide how the WSIS and the GDC work together. And they asked the WSIS to consider ‑‑ the WSIS review ‑‑ forgive me ‑‑ to consider how it will build on GDC.

So, your question is the question to the Member States, and stakeholders should be consulted and contribute to asking that question, but we now expect a, in a sense, a formal discussion/negotiation process to happen between Geneva and New York and from around the world, to answer that question.

But I want you to take your focus away from the text of the GDC and turn it to the Member States now and work with them and say, here are my ideas.

So, I have one idea, but I'm not a member state, and I'm going to say this in my private capacity. I think that we should definitely take the WSIS stocktaking platform that Gitanjali mentioned before, that has this wealth of information about how WSIS has been implemented, and see in what way we could build on it to look at some of the actions that are happening in relation to GDC. And that might be one way to bring them together.

And so, this is an early idea that I'd love, first of all, Gitanjali's feedback on. She's heard me mention it before. But also from the stakeholders. Each year, they are asked to provide information on what they're doing. Maybe we can just combine those efforts and say, here is an existing platform. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you so much for bringing that up, Isabel, because that's precisely, I think, the interest of some of us in civil society, especially, to look at specific actions and activities that could contribute both to the reinvigoration of the WSIS and contribute to the GDC in tandem. So, I think that is a very good opportunity for the various stakeholders.

I think Gitanjali, then I have Bruna, then I have Luca. 

>> GITANJALI SAH: Thank you. I just wanted to provide an update on the gender, you know, action line. We had this discussion during the Summit of the Future. And we've been working with UN Women on developing an action plan, mapping the WSIS Action Lines, the 2030 Agenda, and the Beijing +30, to ensure that we bring about, like, a digital track as well at the Beijing +30, because currently, it does not have too much of digital. Exactly. So, we are trying to work with UN Women and, of course, all other stakeholders.

We also shared the draft plan with Anita from IT for Change, with Anriette, just to see how we can improve it and get something out of Beijing +30 in terms of digital.

And important conversations that UNESCO's having on ethics, AI ethics, and you know, gender biases and algorithms and things like that. So, it's very important to bring these discussions to Beijing +30 as well.

Secondly, on the mapping, the GDC mapping. You know, thanks, Isabel, for all the updates. Also, from how we look at it is that it's at multiple layers, you know. Like, there's so much going on everywhere. You know, there is a GDC, the Civil Society, the UN. I mean, there is a Geneva UN mapping also going on. Like, the ITU and other UN agencies in Geneva are also working on an action plan as to how Geneva should react to the GDC information. There is an UNGIS mapping that was talked about, where we are highlighting the existing frameworks and mechanisms. This is already online. If you go to UNGA's website, you can find the mapping there.

The gender mapping. So, it's multiple layers. ITU itself has been tasked by the Member States to come up in the next Council Working Group on WSIS and SDG, and present the mapping of what ITU will do to implement the GDC. So, there, it's at various levels and various layers, so it's happening. A lot of work is happening. The GDC momentum is quite strong, and UN agencies are taking it seriously. 

>> BRUNA MARTINS: Thank you. Just quickly, because I think Gitanjali reminded me of one of the other main issues, which is the fragmentation between New York and Geneva, and whatsoever between what was happening along like the two places. So, I think that moving forward, it is really important that we connect both places even further, and you know, don't leave Geneva for a second kind of place, because that's also where the action happens and so on.

Like, when we talk about digital justice, as well, a lot of my friends and colleagues ask things like why Brazil went with the G77 on the GDC process, but the problem is the timing of the process, right, the lack of resources for many of these delegations to empower themselves along the discussions and so on. So, maybe trying to revert these affiliations during the WSIS process is also really, really relevant and really urgent.

In that matter, the last point is about the ruptures created by the GDC. I understand from a GDC perspective, perhaps you don't see as you guys are creating more things, but when we look at spaces like the IGF and the very serious lack of investment this space is facing, the creation of new arenas and new topics is something that challenges the common state of things, and the spaces we already have, right? So, I do believe that on the connecting the dots, we could perhaps see these new structures connect to the IGF, how the IGF can improve these new structures, just so we make sure there is no longer fragmentation between the debates and, like, involvement of these two spaces. That's all. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you so much. That also relates to the new office is that at the moment taking shape, so, I think I add that point to what Bruna has mentioned.

>> Just quick considerations about what has been said. I think there is a little bit of discrepancy between the perception that colleagues that work in UN agencies and UN system have of the GDC and people that are out of it have it, because after this conversation, one would have the impression that we are jubilantly cheering the GDC as if it was something that was really going to change our ‑‑ as it should be ‑‑ our cooperation and our vision of digital. But most of the stakeholders that the very same GDC mentions are essential for the implementation of GDC, they might not even know the GDC exists, let alone how it will be implemented. And again, I'm sorry if I'm so frank, but being an academic, I have the privilege of speaking frankly.

It is very confused from an observer the way in which this will be implemented. And even the examples that were brought as examples of implementation ‑‑ the fact that in Australia, there is a Google tax, or that the fact that IEEE and ISO, who are doing an AI standard, those are not a consequence of the GDC. Those are examples of decision making or standardization processes that maybe took two, three, four years to be decided and organized, and now they are starting either to be implemented or to be concretely decided. 

But if GDC means let's try mapping everything in the world that can be associated with GDC and call this a consequence and implementation of GDC, okay, now I have a better understanding of what is a GDC. But if the GDC is, let's create something, cooperating and working together, based on the document that so many consultations should have been meant at shaping, that is ‑‑ I'm not ‑‑ I keep on not I'm saying it. So, I think one has to be honest whether if this, as the panel is called, is an exercise of digital cooperation, and we want to organize this, I keep on saying, there is very few incentives for stakeholders to operate on  this and I don't see how they can do this because I don't see an implementation map on the table.

If the GDC is put a nice list of all the aspirations we have and let's try to find around the world all the things that can be connected to this and let's call them GDC implementation, okay, now it's another story and I think that might be even feasible, but it is not what I supposed the GDC was aimed at. Thank you very much. And sorry if I am so pragmatic and not ‑‑ if I conclude with this injection of optimism. Thank you very much. 

>> JORGE MELIA: Yep, sorry, I'll go. I'll be very brief. I know we're running short on time. I really wanted to agree with Luca's point there. And I think, you know, we talked about the risk of proliferation in terms of inclusivity.

I think another thing that we see, and we absolutely see it happening now, it's a professionalization of this Internet governance space, and that's natural. That's going to happen. But we need to sort of look back to that multistakeholder idea that WSIS and the (?) sort of talked about. The point is to draw on different professional areas of expertise, whether it be in technical, whether it be in legislative, whether it be in civil society, and bring them together.

Now, if we create a separate, distinct professionalization that doesn't allow for that participation, that awareness, that's a problem. Now, I think it's just something that we need to be constantly aware of. It will be a tendency that we find, and I think we are already finding, but it's something we can push back on.

>> Yes, very briefly. Yes, thank you. Just to say, I agree, of course, with both of your points, and there was perhaps a misunderstanding on that, too. But also, with Isabel, I think there's more than the implementation map and high‑level review of the GDC. There is independent scientific panel on AI, the global dialogue on AI governance, a working group on data governance, UN Office of Digital Cooperation, which has been created or is in the process of being created, and all of the other things the Working Group on Digital cooperation, voluntary endorsement mechanisms. Those are ones I scribbled down just as a few points.

And I like Jorge Cancio's interventions on simplicity and building on this. It's helpful if an environment where we didn't have new resources added or clear implementation mechanisms, ad you highlighted before. Building on the existing and simplicity is really key for translating some of the new dimensions into reality. So, we are fully on that, but just to clarify our point. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you so much. And I'm glad that all these questions and points are emerging now and putting on the table, because there are going to be many WSIS+20‑related sessions along the week, so I hope we can continue the conversation.

But, in order to close, I will give the floor to Anita from IT for Change, that will just provide some final remarks. So, Anita, are you there? Can you hear us? 

>> ANITA GURUMURTHY: Yes, I am. Can you hear me? 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Yes, we can. Thank you. 

>> ANITA GURUMURTHY: Thank you very much. Much cannot be said at this point to contribute to the wisdom that exists in the group, because I think in a very short period of time, a lot of issues were flagged, both with respect to the gaps, as well as how to join the dots. It was a pleasure to listen to all of this, and I'm extremely grateful to all of you and the group, on behalf of the Global Digital Justice Forum.

We missed having Ambassador Kah, but I think we did make best use of the limited time.

Some thoughts to take away from me. I think geopolitics was mentioned. And I think that increasingly, in post the GDC and in the WSIS years, counting 20, we do also need to surface geoeconomics. And of course, the two are very, very closely tied, but nothing, I think, illustrates the relation between Joeeconomics and geopolitics as the AI paradigm. And I think it would all go well for all of us to remember that talking to the Member States, as Isabel gently told us ‑‑ which I think is very important from now to the WSIS+20 ‑‑ is very important, but at the same time, we do have to map very carefully the interests that drive different countries and different blocs.

So, I think the question, especially from a civil society perspective or a perspective of progressive politics, to put it, is how do we have progressive politics to meet the needs of economic democracy globally. And some of my colleagues have really hit at the belly of the beast. Renata, for instance, who spoke about, you know, the dark years of structural adjustment programmes returning. And the question is equally, how can political democracy get better to represent the interests of the excluded?

So, in my view, the idea of inclusion, equality, and empowerment is actually about challenging the interests of the excluded, where there is power, a naked power that is so involved.

I think some of the points that emerged very clearly, and whether it is through the updating of Action Lines or through elaborating what the principles from Geneva, which I completely agree with, stand as relevant today, include, I think, certain issues. One of is knowledge sovereignty. The second is of public innovation cultures. I think innovation has been privatized, and I think the history of innovation and intellectual property tell us innovation, if anything, is about public culture. So, public innovation cultures.

And I also hear Anriette, when she talks about the whole idea of financial autonomy of countries. And you know, we seem to be entering an EPO where many countries find themselves in the frying pan to the fire, because even as the discourses of infrastructural autonomy have come to the floor ‑‑ talking about data, talking AI, compute power, cloud, analytics, and such ‑‑ we are actually seeing now that all of this, of course, requires resources and finances. And in the absence of financial autonomy, there is no infrastructural autonomy. So, we are really talking about entering, you know, a new era where North/South divides can be really accentuated.

And I agree that this is back and we need to think about data and AI afresh. Not only because human rights are implicated in the sense of human freedoms, but the right to development is implicated when we think about AI. And the fact of the mat is ‑‑ matter is that we have maintained a multistakeholder sensibility to to it. We need to also understand AI. As far as jurisdictions are a reality, territory is a reality, there is no binding law today on data.

And some of the data chaos that Isabel referred to I think also means that cross‑border data flows today are definitely, definitely, even by statistics and studies, instrumental to how regimes exploit these in favor of northern countries. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: I'm sorry, but we need to finish quite succinctly. You have like five seconds to finish because the room is needed. 

>> ANITA GURUMURTHY: All right, all right. So, I think that my last comment is that digital justice and digital transformation should go together. And it's a good thing, I think, that it is ambiguous, and it is not easy for many of us to grasp it, because I think the process of grasping it neither decentralized, nor to technicalize these issues. Thank you very much. 

>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you very much, everyone, and let's continue the conversation in the week. I'm sure we will see each other in the many, many sessions that will keep building on these issues. So, thank you very much for everyone and the remote participants and, well, so much thanks.