The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> MODERATOR: Welcome, everyone. My name is Isra. I'm with the Internet Society.
Working on the Interview with the Efforts of Advocacy -- all the mics are open, by the way. Just for you to be aware. Channel 4. So we are going to start with this session. For those who are familiar with the WSIS interview, this is going to access the implementation of the outcomes of the world summit information society on the -- 20 years after the adoption of these outcomes. Par of the process, and you know the process will be led by two ambassadors, one from Kenya and one from Albania.
And the process shouldn't -- with a high level of declaration to develop it in the middle of December, in the high level meeting of the WSIS interview. Reaching that point the co-facilitators have released something called an Elements paper last Friday. That Elements paper contains the indication of the areas of focus, concern, attention of the WSIS post interview.
So we are here to discuss briefly our quick take on the Elements papers, some areas of interest for us. We are going to have also as a place for you to share your thoughts. There are a couple of mics on the side of the room. We are going to have some space for the audience to participate. And there's also a couple of QR codes where we are going to gather your input of the Elements paper.
And for that we have here Valeria bent court and George Cancio and Fiona Alexander and Roman from the IETF. So just to have everything on time we will start with a brief recap of the Elements paper. For those of how are not familiar with the process we are going to be sharing some links on the Elements paper, how to access that. In fact if you access the QR on the sides, there's a link to the activity. And you can access the Elements paper right from there.
So again, this is the earliest indication of the areas that we have.
It's a 9-page long document. And we will start analyzing this document in the context of our own interests. We are from different stakeholders, and from different regions. So we are hoping to have a diversity of perspectives and I will start with a guiding question about what seconds of the paper are most aligned with your vision. I believe from the internet setting it's positive that it operates the validity of the framework the introduction, and also in the introduction there are a couple of ducks to the community and the multistakeholder development of the corporations framework and the internet is a force for good in society reeled to the digital economy about social and social development. So it's positive to see some aspects but I would like to hear from Fiona first about the sections that are most aligned with your vision. I will have 2 minutes in here just to allow for all of us to participate. I feel with you first and then --
>> Sorry, this is a little bit weird. I will take it off when I talk. Hello, everyone. I can't see everyone in the audience but it's nice to be here and see people and getting to and talk about such an important topic that will layout where we go from here until December. When I took a look at the Elements paper it's really easy to look at the sub headings and focus on the one you care about. But my recommendation and observation is not to read a particular section in isolation but to read the entire paper. So you can get a flavour for all the thing that are happening. When I read the paper, I read the Chapeau section, and it was strong in the process and very strong in addressing some of the challenges we saw last year with the GDC process which I was pleased to see. And I was pleased to see so many references and acknowledgement of the importance of all stakeholders and much more of a process than last year.
But as I started to read the subsections, I definitely saw two distinctive approaches. I didn't write the paper. So it would be great to get more information from the staff that were involved in writing the paper. But of the 15 specific issues including the followup that went in the paper, there were two approaches. The first search issues were really, here's our issue. Here's what has happened in the 20 years since WSIS and we will receive your feedback to do X. And the next eight issues, here's an issue. And when I read these in particular. I'm time travelling back to it 2003. So a statement of what the issue was 20 years ago. And we will deal with the issue going forward.
From my perspective it was a little hard to figure out where we might go with some of the issues. In particular I was looking at Internet Governance which is an issue near and dear to my heard and way a little taken back to 2003. But when I look at that text and the up front section, it gives me a little more comfort because it talks about how multistakeholder is important. But then the governance is about multilateral and the need for enhanced cooperation.
So I think this week as we are all here together as we talk, and the commentators and facilitators, it will be great to understand a little bit more what is envisioned and what the process will look like in terms of making sure the final paper that gets agreed or the zero draft in the process going forward actually reflects what has happened in 20 years. Did I find the paper a little uneven if that the first button reflected the progress in 20 years. And the second I issue, a statement of a problem from 20 years ago. So it would be great to get that rectified as we are going forward so we can lead with that.
>> MODERATOR: Great we will hear from Benny and then from Roman, just for you to start preparing. Benny, please.
>> Thank you. And I agree with Fiona's assessment of the paper. We are doing our own assessment. The Elements paper was published Friday. Today is -- I'm not sure, Monday.
>> MODERATOR: Monday.
>> And we were travelling to the chair but we were thinking of using the WSIS network to organise a webinar, maybe next week after the IGF. Or we will see whether we will wait for the WSIS +20 high level even in Geneva the following week to publish this and discussion it in writing before. That but it's internet governance section. Clearly we have language that has not been used since -- as Fiona mentioned, maybe 2003. So we want to find out why the governance of the internet says it should be multinational sin every WSIS agenda and the global digital content on the section talks about multistakeholder and multilateral together, not separate. And clearly there is a lot of need to do that.
On the other hand the fact that this Elements paper is published in the communities. They are acting already. I have heard this with a lot of people in the hallways talking about. It it's an encouraging sign. Because it means people are paying attention and they now understand better how the UN process is actually working with regards to governments mete. And then they come with a paper that we only can discuss after that. So we encourage everyone, again, to reach out to their national governments and talk to them and see if they can get on to the national delegations or within the expert groups within their governments to talk about the multistakeholder level of the governance and the multicultural community which will also be discussed with the continuation of IGF. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Roman please, and I willed I can't --
>> Before I start I want to thank the internet society for this issue. Reacting first, first it was nice to see there was a recognition that the information society is very broad and there is targetted approaches to talking about what digital governance means across different dimensions it calls out internet and data and AI governance as distinct and as mentioned the styes were written up in different ways, but it talks about the differences between those, and it's not an attend to put them in a monolithic bunch and talk about a one size fits all approach which seemed to be pervasive across the paper.
Next it was really nice to see -- in a number of different places stressing the importance of capacity building across the different areas of technologies and recognizing that's the bedrock of closing the digital divide across all the Civil Society. Coming from the standard organisation of internet protocols as others have mentioned we are very much focused inclusion of a broad, broad he set of stakeholders to talk about Internet Governance, and it's a start, we are recognizing that there's tuning that needs to be done with the language as others have said. It's more historical language of so it would be interesting to talk about that.
>> MODERATOR: Great. Thank you. Then value I can't and Jen and Jorge.
>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you, from the point F view from the Civil Society organisations, mostly located in the global south, we see very positively the inclusion of issues that are relevant for the realities of the Global South such as social developments and impact for us to be involved, more in terms of conversations. For instance in terms of discussing fiscal justice and tax justice. Obviously the recommendation that human rights are central individualisation. So that's very positive. In that sense it's a positive reaction to the issues that are there.
There are very important gaps, however, in terms of the issues, for instance, the accountability of corporations in terms of the impact on human rights. But also how the broad definition of Internet Governance is going to be taken as a key preference for the evolution of the content that we have so far on the Elements paper. I would like to see much more emphasis on the financing mechanic anyone which is an issue that has been overlooked.
And mostly I think clarification on the status of the restrictive content is important. Because as we already mentioned so far the content doesn't seem to be reflect what has been discussed, not only through the framework of the conversations and the consultations as part of the +20 review, but also doesn't seem to encompass all the conversations and evolutions that are happening in relation to the issues in the past 20 years.
So I think some indication and clarification from the simulation to the status of the text and how ha will evolve will be very, very important. I think basically that. My initial reaction.
>> MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you. Jen, please.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Thanks, Isra. Thank you again for the invitation to react and speak to the WSIS paper. My name is Jennifer Chung with the DotAsia Organisation. But speaking from a technical point of view. I think the language is more developed. As a technical community we are happy to see it reflected there but not so much when we go down to the paragraphs, specifically Internet Governance. Specifically that is something we are focused on.
I don't know if everyone in this room has heard of a community for multinational stakeholders but we had an event with members to have an initial discussion on first reactions Elements paper. And I think it was a really good discussion. I think some of them called out that digital governance is a newer term that has been seen in GDC but not previous to this agenda in other language and a good reflection of that going forward.
Another thing -- now speaking with DotAsia, we were quite happy to see paragraph 33 is the issue with domain names and the internet. And I think that is also familiar to the ICAN community. That's a welcome language in there. And finally just a little bit more first rains. Look telling last part of the Elements paper we paper it's quite sparse on monitoring and especially followup. So I'm looking that co-facilitators are looking to have specific input. And for us as the internet governance community that's where we need to focus on. Whether or not it's from us or internet negotiations. I think that's something where we will see a lot of change and fluctuations.
>> MODERATOR: Great. It's important that you mentioned the different aspects where people can make advocacy. Jorge, please.
>> JORGE CANCIO: Hello, everyone. I hope you hear me okay. Jorge Cancio with the Swiss government. Thank you for the allocation. As to the Elements paper as you mentioned we saw it on Friday. So we are still digesting what is in there.
But we already have the information from co-fax and their themes that they wouldn't put anything controversial into the Elements paper. So it didn't come as a surprise to us that many things are missing. At least we see it as a skeleton, as an overview of topics. And we will have to fill it with a lot of substance, especially through the consultation that is going on until July 15th. So I invite everybody to put their thoughts into that with proposals as specific as possible, language proposals we will try to do the same. As empty you know, there's a paper floating around with some ideas that we have been developing with many stakeholders over the last many months.
So we will be building on that in our input to the consultation.
And yeah, of course, seeing this multilateral text there, brought me memories of when I was 20 years younger. But let's not get anxious, because this is just a skeleton, an overview.
I don't think that this is a signal or something that we should be scared of.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. And I think it's a good segue into the following question. Because I was about to ask you if you identify anything surprising in tone or content. And again we understand that it's maybe way too early to have a complete review. And that's why we are having this significant here. We are drafting as well our rapid response that we are hoping to inform after these interactions. Because of course for us we found even a more evolved text in the global compact and the nature of the internet because that mentioned stable and secure. And this Elements paper is only admitting to open (?) as we mentioned the multinational governance and some indications to the framework.
So I would like to start with Benny if there are anything surprising in tone or paper.
>> I don't know if we can call it surprising but the point 52 says it's subject to this review and proposals and the new will be presented in the draft. So I think it's a good thing that the draft will be talking about the renewal of the mandate. Because there were conversations going around at the UN whether we do need an IGF or whether it should be -- you may remember, some of you may remember that in the Global Digital Compact in negotiation it was to create a digital cooperation forum which would have replaced the need for having an IGF. As recognized last year in the GDC is the most important place for discussions.
We are hoping that the IGF will be extended, maybe even they will consider to not renew it just for another ten years but make it permanent. And that will give stability to the IGF and more stability with regards to searching for fund and finding resources that would support the work of the Secretariat. Who by the way we are here because of the work of the Secretariat and investor.
And this is one of the thing which I sympathy a very positive thing on the part of the Internet Governance. And as Jorge was saying once we have a more substantive view on this particular path, that is touching in many ways to a kind of mission. We will have more to share on the WSIS +20 network, I should mention, for those of you who are not subscribed go to the ICAN.org and there you can subscribe for the WSIS +20. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. I would like to go with Roman and then with Valeria. Roman, please.
>> ROMAN DANYLIW: Just as a surprise, the framing of the Internet Governance and points 57 and higher is just not consistent with how the internet has been successful for the last several decades through a broad multistakeholders level. There are the specific word swaps and the use of multilateral versus multistakeholders which is really is subordinating the roles outside of the national government and its inconsistent with how things were written up in the last WSIS review.
I think some of the other words are the renumeration in a different way and consistently again with the past of those nongovernmental party.
We lost the word technical community and Academia. And it begs fundamental questions about who's inputs can be considered and who's input is valued and what is the process by which that will be putting to and evaluated because now it's the word's full involvement. So there's a lot that need to be unpacked and we need to look at what has been working for the last couple of decades and make sure that gets folded into the language. I was surprised we haven't learned that from the last economies that have been transformed and so many economies have brought so much advancement around stainability and things like healthcare services and education.
>> MODERATOR: Great. Thank you. Valeria?
>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you. In order not to repeat what has been said, which I agree as well. Despite the fact that the issues are broad and it's good it see the issues on the table and even the issue of emerging issues such as the art fish intelligence and data governance that are key Elements of the Elements of the GDC, it is surprising to see there is no reference to precisely the integration of the GDC within the WSIS architecture. So even though those aspects of the GDC implementation are highlighted the Elements paper does not give insight in terms of how the processes will be integrated. I would have hoped that there were some indications in that regard. So hopefully that will be developed.
>> MODERATOR: Awesome. Thank you so much. And I will keep on that side of the table. Jen, please.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Thanks, Isra. I wish I could be like Valeria and not repeat it. But I think it's important to hone in and highlight the language on paragraph 59 -- sorry it's 59 and 60. Obviously it does come from the language but the fact it comes out quite glaringly. It does come from what Fiona says, a step back there.
And also the way it's framed, maybe it's an unintended consequence. Maybe I something that stakeholders could actually highlight even more. The dichotomy between 59 and 60 is quite stark. And maybe the contents are we limiting the governance to this specific thing and you can talk about IGF. Siloing IGF into this defanged talk shop. Even though it's meant to be a policy shaping place. Not that it's just talk and we go away and do nothing.
Another thing that comes up again is enhanced corporation. Again how we looking to this conversation will be quite critical. I know there will be a lot of back and forth in negotiations about this -- you know 63, 64. And then it would be also interesting to hear from other stakeholders how we are going to look at this as well. Because there is a lot of baggage around this phase, enhanced corporation. And already we hear rumblings around how different states are thinking about this.
So I think it would be quite interesting to see how we would be able to apply this. It's really important.
>> MODERATOR: Great I will go with Jorge.
>> JORGE CANCIO: Without a warning --
No, basically the positive surprises, if it's a surprise, that document is quite comprehensive. So it's -- as I said before, an overview full of place holders. But there's space to put -- or to include our inputs for during this public consultation that is ongoing until the 15th of July, which I repeat, please. And make your voice heard. And make your inputs. What surprised me a little bit specifically, apart from all the other things that mentioned as the point by Valeria. Because after all we heard a lot of common ground on the need of avoiding duplication, of integrating GDC implementation into WSIS, that is coming from many, many places.
So I wouldn't have thought that this was controversial. So it has to wait for the draft to be included. So maybe that's the negative point.
And where I would have expected a bit more of courage from the co-facilitators and the Secretariat.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks. Fiona.
>> I think on this specific question. So I have one thing that I was really pleasantly surprised by, which I don't usually get to say. But I do think that all the recognition of all the work on international on the domain Flames, that is there a positive. I do remember that IGMs were -- and reference to ICAN. I saw many years where people who not see reference to ICAN so the fact it's in the document is a great point and a great point of evolution. And agreeing with Internet Governance I found challenging.
But the one sentence, that last one about enhanced cooperation I'm a little per flecked by. Because it says there will be proposals on how to improve and enhance coop raying by TUNES. I'm unclear what that means and I was in TUNES. I don't know what that means we have had two working groups in the system. We had a system involved in enhanced conversation. And ICAN. So that's evolved, so I'm not sure what we will be talking about. So I thought paragraph 62 and that last second assumed a certain things. And I'm a little per flexed as to what the assumption is. And listening to the web conversation it was great. We had it on T have I didn't hear countries called for enhanced cooperation. So I'm a little per flexed by. That that's the one I fin most surprising.
>> Just so add something I unfortunately have to -- I was not surprised, because you asked what I was surprised for because it's multilingualism and connecting the unconnected. ICAN has done a lot of work in a technical standard that most people don't really know enough about. Is good because we are doing it quietly and involving all the interested parties to help open the domain name spaced for scripts different than Latin and with the new digital programme which is starting next year we are hoping to include most F countries and this has been a theme in all conversations since the beginning of the IGF in different settings.
So I think this is one of the reasons why -- you know when you ask the way you framed the question really is what is surprising. About between now and the zero draft is between now and July 15th to send comments on the Elements paper. We should all do that as much as we can, you know, in the areas we are interested in.
We have met the co-facilitators. I think will he will thereon what we submit. The more information the better. And we have seen how they inform people in advance and how they are speaking and the order. We didn't see that with the GDC so a very big progress on that time. So we hope our participation and contribution will be meaningful. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Absolutely. Thank you. And we have 28 minutes left. Questions remaining. Because we want to hear also from you and from the people in the remote participation. My colleague Mona is talking to people who would like to take the floor. Because after these questions are going to ask you if you could flag one idea that needs the most attention or refinement, what would it be? For that we will have mics at the side of the room and we will have the remote participation enabled. So for you start thinking about what would be that answer. And as of now I would like to ask speakers. And I will start with Valeria, are there important issues that were left out? I know you mentioned something in the previous round but what other issues would you consider?
>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Yes. I think obviously it is very important to see explicit reference to the human rights conciliatory solution that acknowledges that the same civil rights law, that is a gap that is completely missing. And also linkages -- not linkages but with the disability of rights and the recognition that not only civilian and political rights are important but economic and social and cultural rights. We mentioned about the important of that.
I think that is also a gap in that regard. And as I mentioned, the innovation of capability, particularly in relation to the impact on human rights is absent and references to the broad definition of Internet Governance, that's what I want to highlight. Because several have explained here in this panel why that is important. Not only in terms of acknowledging the conversation but also because of this scope of governance at all levels.
And other ones I highlighted -- I'm just quoting those ones.
>> MODERATOR: Perfect. And I will go with Roman and then with Fiona, just so no surprises. Roman.
>> ROMAN DANYLIW: To move a little bit away from Internet Governance to revisit the part of the paper around AI. The paper highlights the change across all different sectors and talks about the risks associated with it and ensuring how AI does in groove the digital divide. So framing that as a problem in Elements 61 to 63, the response is the solution when you look at almost point 73 to 76, it's a multilateral approach to internet governance. So dealing with rapid changes around the world. Risks understand. Really why given all that change that is happening do you not want to benefit from the broad feedback of stakeholders there.
So the discussion when it talks about AI it has no affordance for Civil Society or a.m. deem I can't or the technical community when you talk about AI governance. And back to the notion of internet governance, if you think about the 20, 30 years ago we also had a technology that was rapidly changing and innovating and changing the world over the last couple of decades called the internet and that multistakeholder process kind of worked.
I think when we think about what is left out it's further discussion on inclusion of broader stakeholders and AI.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. Jen and after that Jorge -- when I think about followup. It would be great to see how any followup would link thing together as to having the work streams there's the Artificial Intelligence section about linking up the GDC but I didn't see it across others. I didn't remember reading anything about the WSIS forum, which I found surprising so at the end of WSIS review process set up and review it every five or ten years. But also this WSIS forum was created for the UN leader toes getting to in Geneva and import the action lines and now WSIS has grown and developed. But the WSIS forum was away. Was it a way for the task to report. So I for it a little weird that there wasn't anything on WSIS forum in the paper.
>> MODERATOR: That's right, in fact, that was hours ago, Valeria mentioned that surprise.
>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Just relation to what Fiona brought up, I think another gap in the document is precisely how the focus of the areas within the GDC feel also the gaps within the action lines. I think that aspect -- that links to the integration of the processes.
>> MODERATOR: Great. Thank you very much. Yes, please, Jorge.
>> JORGE CANCIO: It's my turn. Yeah, basically what I mentioned before. What is missing is the how. And the how is very important. We have lots of language on the substance and -- Well, basically we negotiated the substance less than one year ago with the GDC. So I don't think there will be big changes to the substance or where we can agree at the UN level. But on the how, that is really an open question. It's an open integrate to other structures and how we avoid duplication and proliferation of processes that kill inclusion, that are very difficult for smaller stakeholders which mean spending money on duplicating thing. So that's a lot of questions. And there have been also many proposals, how to improve the UN group on the information society. How we can include newer agencies.
Also the office on digital and emerging technologies into that work. How we can improve the work of the CSTD. By the way the CSTD agreed in April -- yeah, in April, I think, on a couple of things on how to do this integration. And I don't see also in the text of those resolutions in the proposal of the Elements paper.
And of course it's also the question how we strengthen the IGF, so the IGF really fulfills to the largest extent possible its mandate.
And there I'm looking forward also to very novel ideas and I see at the mic, it's really for the community to come forward. We membered state, we of course make our proposals you can talk to us or check them if you have them. But it's really the community who has to be really bold and innovative. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. We will go with -- and go to participating from the floor. It's -- probably we have some people in the Zoom session. So just start thinking about your answer, idea or element that needs the most attention. Just to close this round. Please.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: , thanks, I will be brief because we want to hear from all of you again. Again the mention of the technical community called out by itself, and the recognizing of that. Especially in the Internet Governance paragraphs. Valeria mentioned the missing part of the GDC imp member taking. We see echos of the GDC in. It but there's no tie-in of that implementation that has been missing as well. There's a callout for funding mechanisms or the innovative -- I can never say that word, innovative funding mechanisms but it's quite silent with the IGF or the Internet Governance paragraphs. And finally I counted through, it only mentions inclusion three times. And digital only once. And have you have to look at it in an inclusive manner. And the dividing part. It doesn't seem like those two seconds talk to each other. So there's a big missing gap.
And finally holders for multistakeholderism. (?) is leading the draft on the input we are trying to do for part of the internet technical community to respond to the Elements paper by July 15th I see him in the room so I'm not going to really do that but I will put him on the spot to see if he can say a little bit more.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks. So we can go with our colleagues here in the floor. But also in this conversation, if you are interested in changing the conversation with you do so in the chat or by raising your hand. Please, your name and population.
>> Thank you? From the issue society of the global chapter. I thank you very much. And I would like to issue that the mechanism for comments is working. We have seen some comments I mope you received them. I say we share -- maybe not the same goal, maybe not the same surprise. But for sure the same interest with corporations and also in the multistakeholder members. We will continue to work in the working group. So let's continue the discussion. Thank you so much.
>> MODERATOR: Awesome. Thank you so much. So you were the first responder to the QR code. So thank you for that.
Do we have any participating online.
>> Good afternoon. I'm from the Internet Policy Network. I will focus on one point which is basically the item 62 that deals with a mandate of the IGF. And I think what is missing is to have a discussion that goes beyond just the question of the renewal. We are discussing almost exclusively whether there should be a renewal, whether it should be ten years or permanent I personally, of course, support the idea of having it permanent. But I think it's more important to discuss what is the ambition we have for the IGF. A lot of us here really believe in what this organisation can be. I take it as a positive element that some of the sessions that I attended this morning are reiterating -- and thanks to Jen, by the way, for having said that, the notion that the IGF is a decision shaping appear agenda setting, framing things.
And the session on the WEOG for whose who were able to attend highlight the role of the importance of a Secretariat. All the work we are doing here needs to be documented it, even if it's not a consensus. Even if it is a reputation of all the decisions. So the key question is what is the IGF that we hope to see? Can we have a discussion that will not be finalised definitely by December. But can we have something in the documents that will come in December that says we need to have a serious discussion, not only on the renewal of the mandate but on the evolution of the mandate and an expression that has been used also in the last few sessions, the institutional organisation of this. Which he is moment, it is a little ad hoc, starting with the again dark it has been built in a certain way.
But it is time at 20 years old to become a full fledged structure.
So I think we need to think about what we want or at least to think about where we should and when we should discuss the mandate evolution and the structure.
>> MODERATOR: Great. Thank you. And also for the colleagues here in the room or in the virtual session, if you want also to share spaces or opportunity for people to engage in this process, if you are drafting a contribution or you are planning to endorse or to open any other partial space, you can also use this opportunity to share it. Jordan, please.
>> Thank you. My name is Jordan Collar, we work with the Coalition Organization -- and we are working for the organisation that Jennifer mentioned. I'm not here to talk about that so much. If you want to talk about TCCM with us, please feel free to do with any of the 40 or so members around the world.
But I wanted to reflect on the question you asked, Isra, which I think is the most important thing, and I think broadly speak, it is to make sure when the zero draft comes out it is to reflect the internet governance that has come out in the past 20 years. We have noted statements from 2003. We need build through the journey, the GDC and TCCM, this media is multistakeholders and should be recognized as such. It design good enough for them to arraigning something it multilateral and never has been and never will be and never can be.
So I think we should be quite strong on that and in quite a warm way. Because the system has acknowledged it through all the other discussions. So I think that's the underlying privilege of the IGF mandate. And another thing about telling the story of all the small E, small C enhanced cooperation that has been done through the enhanced system and all the IGF systems so I think that's another thing we need to do in our inputs.
>> MODERATOR: Our colleagues in the first row.
>> Hi, my name is Hana -- I'm from a local to human right organisation working on human speech and related rights. We also are part of the global rights coil livings or WSIS which bringing to Civil Society working on the WSIS process.
A lot has been said, spacing lip on internet governance. So I'm not going to go to that. And also on all the other pairs that have been mentioned I wanted to mention something that Valeria mentioned that I wanted to.
A if I. One simple something. Human rights.
So paragraph 43 start remain really promising because it says human rights is central to the vision. If you ask me, after that this section goes downhill. What we are miss sag clear reference, a clear grounding in international human rights law, and issue humanitarian law and international refugee law. I'm not seeing that. And I feel in all the thing I heard in connotations that was given as input. So it's a bit of a shame to not see this reflected in an issues paper, an Elements paper. And it should be reflected.
The second thing that is really missing. You mentioned inclusion. It does speak about certain group, women and girls, children. It is missing a whole host of groups. Unserved communities, out of reach. However you want to describe them, inclusion is absolutely critical to realising the WSIS vision. This is not in this text.
So that's something we need to think about. How to bring that element of inclusivity.
And because I work for myself, Article 19. Paragraph 48 is incorrect. It says that international rights agreements permit permits on expression, et cetera, et cetera. This is not what the international rights agreements say. So I will definitely make a proposal as part of my submission to make sure that at least this reflects the correct 3-part test that is known in international human rights about a accepted by pretty much everyone in the world. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Do we have any remote participation? No. Next steps -- what is going to happen next. Before that I will give the floor to (?) but if you are planning to share anything for next steps feel free to share. It I will share next steps. Flavio.
>> Thank you, Flavi from (?) And Brazil. Many of the panelists already mentioned this, about the future of the IGF. And we see that there are three different seconds in the Elements paper. One, which is titled Internet Governance. And within this section we see references to the IGF. And the renewal of its mandate.
There are different seconds. Hanging AI and data governance. They are separate. Yeah. And there is no reference to the IGF on the sections on AI and internet governance. It seems that -- coming back 20 years, yeah, that the IGF is only for Internet Governance. While we would love to see the IGF as a kind of focal point for discussing all thing about digital governance in general.
And taking Sol of the good ideas off the known paper as was suggested to us, there was discussion whether we should rebrand the IGF and call it digital governance forum or something like that, but it makes clear that is not only about internet. It's about digital corporation in general and digital transformation processes is in general. So the structure of the Elements paper seems to give the IGF the mandate to only discuss internet and nothing about AI or data governance.
And there is even reference in paragraph 6, there reference on the CSD work group with Internet Governance. So a different space and in paragraph 5 with second AI there's the reference to the advisory board for AI. So a different AI. The structure already separate things.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Last call for the remote. Going once and going tries. And information is not in the Elements paper. So next steps what will happen next? Jorge mentioned that. There's a window to submit contributions until July 15th. The facilitators have an online forum for the internet community. If you follow that QR code on the side of the room, that is a link not only to the forum but for the co-facilitators for you to see the questions they are asking. They are inviting support specific section of the Elements paper but they are asking specific questions in that online forum. If you want to create the written contribution you can do. So can you inform your thinking. There is the known paper shared by the Swiss government.
Also a known paper by the government. And internet society we released our paper last week, a conversation opener for you to gather some ideas and some thoughts.
We are going to use the interactions we got here in this session, and during this IGF week to publish a reference to the paper, something brief.
A quick reaction. But we are also going to construct our written contribution based on the community seen.
That's why we have the QR code in there. If you don't have the time or the if ability to share your own consideration we will share your thoughts and we will take into consideration your ideas for our own.
We will open the contribution for endorsement by our chapters and members. But if you would like to create your own written contribution and you have had questions, we have a community working group, if you are a member, I free to join. A community working group can you do so from your membership page.
There is also a list hosted by the youth reach network. We have seen many emails going in that network. So you know, there are many opportunities to contribute. So the invitation here is just to keep talking to each other. Ask questions. It's totally valid at this point, of course the Internet Governance Elements paper was released on Friday. We will have more ideas coming in the coming years. So keep the ideas going and the conversation going. Because if we have more views, more thoughts in that consultation, this year it's going to be stronger.
So the important part in here is if we don't share our thoughts. If we don't share our input. That is going to be built based on whatever stakeholders participating in are going to say. And we want our views in there.
That's why our indication to create and submit the contributions and to reach out to others ors who are doing
So I want to thank my colleagues who joined me today in this session. And we will keep facing each other here in the IGF 2025. We will see what next year. We will have another year for what is going to happen.
So thank you very much. And we will see you in the halls. Thanks.
(Applause)
