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.
***
>> YOICHI IIDA: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for joining us in this open forum session on the Enhancing the role of the IGF through GDC follow‑up and WSIS.
My name is Yoichi Iida, and we have five excellent speakers on my side, four next to me and one online.
So thank you very much to all the panellists for joining me in this session.
Let me introduce quickly the five speakers.
First, we have Ms. Maarit Palovirta, Deputy Director General, Connect Europe, if I pronounced that correctly.
And, second, we have Mr. Murillo Salvador, Swiss Youth, IGF.
Thank you very much.
And, next, we have Mr. William Lee, Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, Australia.
You have a lot of work.
(Laughter)
>> YOICHI IIDA: And then we have the government of Germany, Mr. Phillipp Schulte, Ministry for Digital Transformation and Government Modernisation, Germany.
Very welcome.
And last, but of course not least, we have Ms. Gitanjali Sah, Strategy and Policy Coordinator, ITU. She is online.
Okay. So let me quickly jump into the content of the session. As many of you recognise, we have a very impactful discussion on Internet governance over the last few years. We saw a Global Digital Compact, agreed last September, in the line of the UN General Assembly, and now we are in the middle of the follow‑up process.
Many of you saw and remember the articulation of the importance of IGF in the Global Compact.
Just like me, I hope many of you are more or less satisfied with the articulation, but we still have a lot to do during the process to come in the next month.
We will have the WSIS+20 review process quickly, and we had the first preparatory meeting at the end of May, in New York, and only last week we had the element paper coming up on the website.
We are now in the process of analysing the element. We will have zero draft in August and preparatory meeting in October.
Then the UN provides information that we'll have the first draft outcome document in November, which needs to be negotiated to reach the final consensus in high‑level meeting on the sideline of the General Assembly in the middle of this year.
Today, I wanted to discuss how we can make our IGF even stronger and more robust throughout this negotiation, and what would be the point. What would be the priorities for us? In particular, have the viewpoint of the different stakeholders.
And then, how can we achieve those priorities? That is the major point of this session.
So without further ado, I would like to ask questions to the individual panellists.
So the first question: Having looked at the progresses over the last one or two years, what are your priorities or targets in the coming WSIS+20 review and Global Digital Compact process?
I would like to first invite Mr. William Lee. Your government issued a non‑paper and what are the major points in the paper, and what do you think the Australian government wants to achieve?
>> WILLIAM LEE: Thank you. Thank you very much for having me. My name is William Lee. I'm the WSIS+20 policy lead for the Office of Communications and many other things.
As you mentioned, Australia only recently published a non‑paper on the WSIS+20 process, which sets out the some of our ideas that may be worthy of consideration and conversation. What I will say is we have put this out as a conversation starter. It's not necessarily what we think the final outcome will be or not necessarily the final outcome that our government will support.
But what we have tried to do is understand what different parts of the global community see as important, and, taken through the evidence that exists, what are some of the ideas that can come forward?
I think it's probably prudent to start on the Internet Governance Forum, given that we are here in Norway at the moment.
I think one of the key things for us is to secure the long‑term future of the IGF, both in terms of its function, its mandate, and also the resourcing that it needs to deliver.
One of the key things that we hear time and time again is the question of inclusivity. And how do we bring the tens of thousands of people, the hundreds of thousands of people that are interested in digital issues together?
It's obviously not practical that everyone comes to the global IGF, but what we have seen over the process over the last 20 years is really, really strong national and regional initiatives emerge, youth initiatives emerge, other practices emerge.
I would like to see about how we start a cycle of conversation between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives so that all voices can be heard at all levels of the conversation and nothing is lost in those processes.
We would love to see as many people as possible at the global IGF, from as many different regions and stakeholders as possible.
And while we have some ideas about how we may be able to raise money to better support those that need it to be able to participate in some of these conversations, we also recognise that there is a need to connect those conversations together so that no matter the resources and capability of each stakeholder, we made sure that those voices are not lost in the process.
I think other elements that are really important for us, cultural and linguistic diversity are, I think, really valuable.
I think dealing with the online environment that we now face, really challenging but, I think, really important. How do we provide a safe online environment? How do we address the questions around digital platforms? How do we strengthen information integrity online?
I think the question of youth empowerment and engagement is really central. I think youth is the future of this digital world, and they are delivering things that we never would have thought possible. But how do we connect their voice at every stage of that conversation? How do we innovate and encourage entrepreneurs? How do we support small and medium businesses, engage with their online world?
Of course, meaningful connectivity is really, really important. There's still a third of the world offline. That is mostly a usage gap rather than a coverage gap, and it's a question of how do we connect some of those ideas?
And we've explored some of the ways to do that.
And then, finally, how do we really monitor and evaluate the work that we're putting in? I don't think it's any secret to say that the UN system and the global environment and government ourselves are facing increasing budgetary and other challenges.
So every dollar and cent that goes into supporting our digital environment, whether that's from the private sector, the technical community, civil society groups, academia, governments, how do we ensure those initiatives are driving towards outcomes we want to achieve?
Finally, one of the things that I will say, in the non‑paper that we have presented, is this idea of communities of practice. And the focus is how do we focus the energy and effort from all parts of the community into problems that we know exist, challenges that we know are being articulated and digital gaps, divides, that need to be closed and bridged. One of the ways we think we can do that is by bringing together stakeholders around particular topics and issues for a time‑limited period to focus on issues and drive outcomes forward.
And the IGF, as an institution, is a really valuable way to bring all of those conversations together.
I will pause there. Thank you very much.
>> YOICHI IIDA: Thank you very much, William, for the very much comprehensive comment and also the stress on the inclusivity and diversity, which are two of the most important elements at the IGF, is realising this formulation.
So thank you very much for the comment.
Now I would like to turn to Mr. Phillipp Schulte to talk about the viewpoint from probably European perspective.
We have the informal multistakeholder sounding board, and maybe that concept is also very important in your comment.
>> PHILLIPP SCHULTE: Congratulations to Australia for this non‑paper. People are already bringing it to me. That's indication of success. Congratulations.
Other member states, thinking about the process way ahead before the elements paper which was published last Friday came to us.
That's a whole, a block, and the UN system was ‑‑ yeah, finding common positions already in the last month. It was also trying to, yeah, come up with a positive approach and bringing some ideas in it.
And, indeed, the sounding board was provided by member states, and we are really pleased to see that the cofacility that took up the idea ‑‑ it's not one‑to‑one translated, but it's not only a discussion piece from us, but pleased to see it took up the idea.
The current MAG and the leadership panel, I think 10 members of the current MAG and the leadership panel, yeah, will be in the sounding board. It's completely informal. It's not institutionalised, so it's not a heavy bureaucracy, but it's meaningful for the cofacilitators to test some ideas and change views.
Since being a cofacilitator can be a heavy burden and it's a lot for the delegation in New York, so it could be a helpful tool to support around the cofacilitators.
Then, on the original question and priorities, I mean, I totally agree with what William said. A lot of priorities of the German government and the European Union. The key priority that doesn't come as a surprise to you will be the Internet governance for meaningful stakeholder participation at the Internet Governance Forum but also through other Internet governance processes.
One way, indeed, is ‑‑ well, one idea on how to implement that is the sounding board.
But speaking about the IGF, it's a renewal that would be awesome, but maybe we can even, yeah, dream a little bit more and not only have room for five years but maybe a long‑term renewal.
Of course, that's always the topic when we talk about the IGF, a financial foundation. We had good efforts. The leadership panel raised funds, and I think we can build on that.
I think the volunteering funding is a good ‑‑ I think it's actually an asset of the IGF. We see that in the current budget crisis that is actually an event of the IGF that's volunteering funding. I think we should keep volunteering funding, but we may discuss if part of it can be integrated in the UN budget. We are, at least, open‑minded to have this discussion. And we're happy to receive ideas on this.
Then, I mean, it's not only about money. It's about people and ideas. Here, one thing, which is an internal analysis about the IGF and the multistakeholders, we would like to have a stronger voice of the IGF and other multilateral and also multistakeholder forums, and we think one idea of the EU to promote is to strengthen the IGF and, in particular, through our appointment of a director position. This existed in the past but was then kind of forgotten because of budgetary constraints. But we feel it can strengthen the idea.
We think question strengthen the world since human rights issues and human‑centric design of technologies will become more and more important with new topics rising up, and you will definitely advocate for this. It's not only about the content but about the process itself.
And we have the sounding board now, but we also advocate for strong and meaningful multistakeholder participation throughout the whole process to the very end, and I think that will be also a priority for us.
>> YOICHI IIDA: Okay. Thank you very much for those very insightful comments.
And, actually, the common position of EU, it's always making a lot of impact on the negotiation, in particular between the groups or countries, and I think the strategy will be very important for other like‑minded partners.
So now we have heard from two governments, and now I would like to invite Gitanjali online to ask about international organisations.
Gitanjali, it's yours.
>> GITANJALI SAH: Can you hear me?
>> YOICHI IIDA: Yes, I can hear you loud and clear.
>> GITANJALI SAH: Good afternoon. Apologies for not being there in person. I will be joining on the 25th. We have our council going here, so we've been quite busy here.
Of course, like we heard before from Phillipp and William, it's about action. We currently work with more than 50 entities. If you would like a UN perspective, it's really UN in action looking at corporate issues.
Each of us, based on our respective mandates implement different action lines. For example, ITU leads the facilitation of infrastructure, cybersecurity, capacity‑building, and enabling environment.
Similarly, IEEE for employment. And you will see the beauty of the framework in the WSIS+20 action line assessments that the facilitators have made, and it's available online on the forum page as well as the WSIS+20 review page.
This is a powerful piece of document because it highlights the emerging trend challenges from the perspective of the UN agencies.
So we have, of course, taken this very seriously, especially the key agencies involved. We launched a preparatory process in September 2022, actually, where we started designing a roadmap.
So ITU's Secretary‑General has a roadmap that we present the our membership. UNESCO has their roadmap that they will present to the governing body.
Same with the CST.
This preparatory process, of course, we had the annual session of the UN CSTD where the draft resolution was approved by member states. We had the UNESCO conference, and we will soon have the ITU or other agencies forum and, of course, IGF will break now.
So we saw the commitment of the ITU's membership during the council that's going on now. We presented the WSIS documents where they actually showed the commitment towards not only what we achieved but also the future of the WSIS process.
William, congratulations for the Australian paper.
New Zealand also has a non‑paper on WSIS+20.
And the WSIS co‑facilitators came up with a paper. Of course, we'll be providing the feedback also in the sense that important multistakeholder platform like WSIS forum is missing from the paper. So we'll be providing our feedback on it as well.
So in terms of the priorities, we will look at digital inclusivity, bridging the divide. It's unacceptable that 30% of the African population has access. There's 190 million men online than women globally.
Rural populations have caused this as well.
Capacity building and skills training, with the evolution of technology, we really have to ensure that digital skills and capacity‑building to the knowledge in place for people.
Of course, for our priorities, the multistakeholder framework, it remains one of the key successes where we have been working together to address the complexities of the digital world.
As part of the review, it's also essential to highlight and strengthen the role of the Internet Governance Forum for global digital governance services forum for grass roots development. Both have been essential in creating dialogue and developing concrete outcomes.
The WSIS database has more than 2 million subscribers and 15,000 entries. It really remains a wide tool for capturing real digital impact. And these are the WSIS regional and national initiatives which have been inputted by the stakeholders on their own.
Every year, we have a call for action to update the projects.
And the WSIS, we had to record the number of submissions, 972, with an increased global engagement of 2.2 million votes.
So this really shows the real enthusiasm and commitment that the stakeholders have toward all of these processes.
Of course, we would like to say that the WSIS book has evolved with the evolution of technology because the action lines have provided a great framework. With respect to the GDC, we look at it as a boost to the WSIS process, and the United Nations group came up with a matrix that maps the GDC objectives with the WSIS action lines and the WSIS process in general.
And it really shows that we are already implementing the objectives of GDC, and we stand ready as the CSTD resolution mentioned, that the WSIS architecture stands ready to implement the GDC objectives.
I'll end by saying that business has focused on building adaptive government processes and can keep pace with rapid evolution of technology, and we need to ensure that we have a very dynamic process so that we can evolve and meet the challenges and opportunities presented by new technologies.
Back to you, Yoichi.
>> YOICHI IIDA: Thank you for the insight to comment and also for the UN negotiation and the discussion process. It's always complicated, even for us government officials.
Your formulation and organisation of the different elements and existing resources is quite useful for us.
So thank you very much.
We are already to the point made by Gitanjali and Phillipp, the inclusivity and the meaningful participation of stakeholders is critically important, in particular when we look back at the process of GDC negotiation last year.
So now I would like to invite Ms. Maarit Palovirta for your priorities from the business perspective.
>> MAARIT PALOVIRTA: Thank you very much. For those who don't know us, we're a Brussels ‑‑ the total investment represents about 70% of the European telecommunications market.
We published a position paper to explain what does this mean to a private sector but also, specifically, to telecom operators.
So you might ask: What is the benefit of the multistakeholder model for us specifically and, also, of the IGF?
So to give you an answer, first of all, our members really try the digital transformation, not only in the European continent but beyond.
Some of the largest members are present in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and, of course, providing connectivity services.
Connectivity services are, today, running on open and global IP protocols, and the whole technical foundation that is still very solid and firm is still very important for operators to be able to provide these interoperable and ‑‑ services. And the process is backed up by the multistakeholder model. It has been for quite some time.
That's a very clear benefit for us.
The second is in the area of policy and, specifically, the IGF.
So we believe that the IGF and, in general, the Internet governance sphere is very important for aligning common principles for different policy issues.
For us, this is really more about policy shaping than about policy‑making. Laws are made in Europe, but this allows us to engage with different stakeholders and understand and learn what is going on in the world.
In many ways, one of the benefits of the IGF is that it's so inclusive and open that for a private sector representative like ourselves, we come here much easier than going to the formalised meetings at the ITU, et cetera.
We are a member of the ITU as well and part of OIC.
In terms of resources, the IGF seems to be more reasonable for us to engage.
On the WSIS+20, this is, of course, something that governs our hands‑on negotiating. We're calling for the continuation of the IGF mandate very much for the reasons that I just mentioned.
We believe this is truly invaluable to promote the multistakeholder engagement and to discuss the different policy issues.
Then, in which shape or form, we know it's shared with budgeting and the stability or the exact form and shape is still under discussion.
So we are exchanging on these and liaising with the policymakers and hoping to have our voices heard in the discussions, which we cannot, of course, really attend. Due to resourcing issues, it is challenging.
On the GDC priority, it is very important for us that the implementation will be, of course, a success, and we will be supportive of including the multistakeholder approach or different stakeholders in the implementation phase.
I think, for example, our sector, we have meaningful connectivity as part of the GDC framing. And, of course, it is very important for us to understand, then, how will this be measured, and what are we expected to do? Because the implementation will have as a partnership between governments and private sector and also because of the nonprofit, in some cases.
So, again, the multistakeholder aspect is very important.
I would also agree that I think it was William who mentioned that when we talk about the implementation, it's not just about the courage. It's about the usage. What is meaningful connectivity and taking an ecosystemic point of view.
In Europe, we say very well that today we have coverage than we actually have uptake of the services.
So maybe those are my introductory remarks on this important topic.
Thank you.
>> YOICHI IIDA: Thank you very much, Maarit, for the comment. I cannot agree more to the point that IGF is so unique a place where different stakeholders meet each other on equal basis.
Actually, this is very, very important for the government to learn how we can work in multistakeholder approach to get with other stakeholders.
So thank you very much for the comment.
Now I would like to invite the youth representative, Mr. Murillo Salvador.
>> MURILLO SALVADOR: Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, I'm Murillo. I'm representing the Swiss Youth IGF, which is a network of the Youth IGFs in more than 40 countries. We, of course, have organised national/regional events and developed capacity programmes and policy consultations to represent, as you said, a youth that's extremely important because youth brings fresh perspective. The youth are digital natives, so they have this know‑how that we want to make explicit and inform policymaking and give equity to the different voices, and that includes the different perspectives, in terms of backgrounds and countries, of course.
The youth inclusion at IGF is not just optional. It's essential. If we focus on the future role of the IGF, from our experience, we can propose four priorities which are not just principles for us but should be, ideally, targets, measurable targets toward youth‑led initiatives.
Our first principle has been mentioned, digital inclusion. It is crucial to ensure we have affordable, reliable access to Internet for all, especially underserved regions. Here, we can cross this notion with the global majority and youth in global majority.
Digital skills and literacy is the first principle.
The second is we highlight the meaningful engagement, having the capacity to meaningful engage in the economy, to understand from a critical point of view. It's to develop the digital citizenship, which is essential looking forward into the future.
Safety and mental health, a huge issue now, of course, increasingly important now.
So addressing the harms that are caused by mental health, addressing it online. This is crucial for an organisation like IGF.
The fourth principle I want to put Forward here is the participation in the governance. It's the final step.
So ensuring that these formal mechanisms to cocreate the policies. Being here myself is part of that, but it's much broader than that. And that's our fourth priority.
Thank you.
>> YOICHI IIDA: Okay. Thank you very much to all five speakers for your very, very insightful and also the forward‑looking comment and also the strategic priority.
Having heard from all of you about your priorities and the targets in the process coming which is review and GDC follow‑up, how do you think the priorities and the targets can be achieved? What is your strategy? What would you recommend to government who works in the negotiations, and, also, what do you recommend to do on how to ensure the meaningful participation in the process?
First, on this question, let me invite Gitanjali, online, for your opinions on the proposals/recommendations, on how to achieve those priorities.
>> GITANJALI SAH: Thank you, Yoichi. So, of course, from our side, from the UN perspective, the follow‑up will require coordinated, inclusive, and action‑oriented strategy.
Really, what we hear from all stakeholders is we should have a lot of ambition to ensure that all of those priorities can be achieved. So approaches occurred in the legacy, which puts people at the centre of the digital transformation. It promotes multistakeholder corporation and builds a governance for the future. We know we have to be able to evolve with the changing technologies.
So we will deepen our coordination through the societies and ensuring there's no duplication and that we are working in sync based on each other's mandates and priorities to ensure that we have a UN system‑wide digital ‑‑ and all these actions are aligned and complementary. We do know there are a lot of restrictions and, of course, resources right now. So we have to be sure that we don't duplicate. Then we complement each other.
Of course, from our side, as UN agencies, we rarely feel that we need to continue to build on the platforms of the Internet governance forum and the WSIS forum, to ensure that we are able to provide wider consultation. So we have these open consultation processes that we're able to gather views and input of all stakeholders so we can build the programmes, the agendas, and really to shape policy as one of the speakers mentioned before me as well.
And, also, representation of the grass roots and unrepresented stakeholders ‑‑ or underrepresented stakeholders, no? So, really, the ability to provide input from different communities.
Digital transformation must work for everyone. To prioritise the digital skills and capacity‑building, we need to highlight the action line on capacity‑building.
So the UNIDIR was leading, but now, especially with UNESCO, et cetera.
Also, promoting local ownership. There's local solutions. It's really important for the success of any process like this as well.
Some of you did mention for us it's really important to have measurable impact. Currently, the WSIS action lines do not have any targets and indicators. So it's really difficult for us action line facilitators to be able to give quantitative figures for what we would see in the action likes.
So we can, of course, use quantitative indicators.
The document will show how many schools are connected, how many hospitals are connected. It's really not concrete on how the action lines can be measured.
We will leverage the WSIS+20 review to look at approaches that are flexible and adaptive, also actually in the face of AI and big data and technologies. Of course, ethyl frameworks remain very important to UN agencies.
And I did mention before but a complementary framework for WSIS and the GDC. Avoid duplication and maximising synergies.
The UN bodies involved in the WSIS implementation are already working on it. We think we'll be able to offer tested and inclusive model to deliver on the GDC commitment.
So, in summary, build on the 20 years of this is a success. Strengthen the multistakeholder partnerships and collaborations. Mobilise digital cooperation cross all levels. Of course, regional commissions, we work closely with that.
Look at the international goals.
Back to you, Yoichi.
>> YOICHI IIDA: Thank you for the proposals and the comment, a strategy viewpoint.
In particular, the cooperation inside the UN will be very important. That is one of the stressed points in the GDC negotiation last year. And, also, measurable indicators would be very important. It's something before us to do in the coming month.
So having listened to these points and also the representation would be very important, in particular, from the communities in a little less of a strong position.
From that point of view, I like to invite Murillo. In your opinion, how do you think your priorities can be achieved? What do you think the major roles of youth, community, and how do you think you can materialise your priorities? How can other communities help?
>> MURILLO SALVADOR: Thank you for the great question. I will try to be precise.
A lot of this we're already doing this. Goes in the spirit of the GDC that refers to the foundation on which to build. It's being built.
We have several points. One is working on youth capacity. The second is working on youth voice and decision‑making.
Just to elaborate, youth community roles are important. So youth IGF in each national chapter. We are already mobilising and educating the youth, already co‑developing this and bringing them here and translating the outcomes to the local peers.
So this is the work we are already doing and are asking our constituents to support as we think about the future.
The second point, of course, thinking about youth voice and enabling that voice, everything goes back to funding.
So funding the youth, funding us, being here, of course, being able to speak here and also more broadly, we think about moving from guaranteeing access to enabling money from participation, as we have already mentioned.
Final ambition of having a co‑ownership for youth in this global arena.
The third point, the generational collaboration is essential. Here, mentor ship, of course, providing the mentorship opportunities is something we call for.
As I mentioned, we have this financing.
Then thinking about not just including us but also being our allies and not just speaking for us but opening the doors for us and letting us speak for ourselves.
As I said, we're already doing this work of gathering from recommendations.
So that's all.
Thank you.
>> YOICHI IIDA: Okay. Thank you very much. Very future‑looking comment. Also, these are very important roles of the youth community. We're discussing for the future of the Internet and the future of the Internet will be owned by the youth generation. It's very important.
They talked some support from communities and also co‑ownership.
So having listened to these points, what is your view, Maarit, from a business perspective? How do you think you can achieve your result and help other communities?
So thank you very much. On the goals of WSIS, I think I very much agreed with what Gitanjali just said about not duplicating and being simple.
So when we think about our participation, I'm also thinking about other communities, non‑governmental communities. I think simplicity is key. It's key in terms of the alignment of the different global policy processes.
We have the WSIS plus 20. We have GDC. It's overlapping and perhaps complementary. If you want to encourage participation from the private sector, it would be good these roles and implementation processes would be, in one way or another, aligned.
So simplicity is key. You think this goes for different government processes. There's been a discussion, for example, about AI governance. So there's a lot of expert bodies. We have the same in Europe at the regional level as well. So, again, it becomes very complex for shareholders like ourselves to dedicate time and resources to meaningfully contribute.
I also like the point ‑‑ I think Phillipp made it ‑‑ on reinforcing the link between the regional initiatives and the global ones.
We very much work with the EuroDIG. For many communities that have less resources than ourselves, they can use this regional event as a first base to go on and discuss an exchange.
If there's a way to bring the messages to the global forum, that could be effective from our point of view.
Lastly ‑‑ and it was already mentioned and I mentioned it myself ‑‑ I think most ability at the IGF level, that would remove a lot of distractions. So every five years, we're discussing the process a lot because there's a renewal of the mandate.
I think some level of permanence and funding would allow us to focus on the key issues at hand and focus on the substance and these important issues that we all need to exchange.
So I think that would be my three messages.
Thank you.
>> YOICHI IIDA: Thank you very much. Simplicity or streamlining the discussion is where we're at. So many emerging topics and policy items which we have to tackle for the policy in the future.
So having listened to those views from different communities, I would like to ask for a government perspective from two speakers.
First, I would like to invite probably Phillipp on your priorities and understanding on how to achieve those.
>> PHILLIPP SCHULTE: Just to react to some of the points mentioned, first of all, I actually think one of the main benefits is the engagement at the IGF. I would say it's even for the government to engage at the IGF level. I think that's a huge benefit. That's also why we come here and present our strategies and our priorities because here we actually get the input to make them better and make them fit for the system and for the stakeholders.
Then, on the second point, when we talk about the IGF, we always think we need more funding, et cetera. Actually, that's all true, yeah, but, actually, it works out pretty well. The Secretary is doing an amazing job. We had an amazing conference in Kyoto.
It was successful. People come there and have a good time. I think we should value that and communicate that even better. So this is really a conference if you want to discuss digital policy on an international, a global, level.
You have to come here to discuss and meet the people. I think that's a great, great value. Maybe we should be a bit better and communicated.
Coming back to our priorities, I mentioned there's always the money question. Are we supporting IGF and then other organisations. It's not just about money. It's about people and ideas.
What we did in Germany is, okay, what can we do, something that's low‑key and easy to do to support the community where we established a fellowship, there's a programme for young adults, 18 to 30 years. We support them to come to the various conferences. The AI Action Summit and others. We have people really eager to learn about the community. We help them to get engaged in the community. We introduce them to people they might want to talk to. We pay the travel costs, but, also, we explain what is the IGF and why to be engaged.
That's a little money with huge impact, compared to other programmes. It can hurt the community because they know how it's going to go. Know how the idea was established, how the IGF works, what the community things.
Even though it's inclusive, it's difficult to approach the people who work in it for 20 years.
Even when I started my position, I was a bit shy and didn't know all the ideas before.
So I think that's really helpful and can help not only the National IGF but the regional IGF and the global IGF in the end.
I will stop here because we have four minutes left.
>> YOICHI IIDA: Okay. Thank you very much. We learned a lot.
Sorry for the management of time, but last question. What is your strategy to achieve your priorities?
>> WILLIAM LEE: Thanks very much. I think what we are doing is building a bridge to cross those digital divides. Firstly, digital is complex. There are many, many different issues at the moment. And there are many, many experts who are really across different portions of the landscape.
Second, I think, as governments, we need practical solutions. We are looking at all of these problems together and looking toward the global community to tell us how to solve them.
So if you have a practical idea, something that you would like to global community to consider, then that is something that we, as government, want to hear.
Thirdly, I think it's really important to be bold and positive in what we're thinking.
The IGF is a testament to the positivity over the last 20 years.
Its enduring nature of what's happening outside of this conference venue, it's the success. I think for it to continue to be a success, we need to continue looking at bold and positive ideas for the future.
And then, finally, we often talk about stakeholder groups in isolation.
We talk about technical community, business community, academia, youth ‑‑ I actually think the IGF's enduring value is the ability to bring all of those groups together and have conversations like this that cut across the stakeholder groups.
So I would encourage those conversations to continue for the next six months to continue to show the value that the IGF will bring.
I said at the beginning that we're building a bridge. The hardest part about building a bridge is the moment before you connect the two parts, where the two parts are teetering on the edge, and a storm comes and knocks them out. Once you join them, it's really strong, enduring structure. I would like to ask people about joining those processes together over the next coming years.
Thank you very much.
>> YOICHI IIDA: Thank you very much for the story. I understood the review is coming and our work to making the breach has to be done. In the end, the IGF will be even stronger.
And the important thing is to continue our work without stopping and also learning each other.
So I think time is running out, but I just want to take one question from the floor, if one of you have any questions.
Do you have any questions?
Are there any questions online?
Okay. I think the discussion was so clear that nobody has questions anymore. That makes us very happy.
And thank you very much for the active discussion.
I learned quite a lot from the discussion, the speakers. The one with the most important running here is continue our work here altogether. Keep learning from each other until not the end but bridge is complete. Then we will have even more robust IGF joining regularly.
So thank you very much for the discussion. Thank you very much for joining us.
To everybody on site and online, I hope this will be some help for learning for everybody. One of the things we learned here is let's keep in contact and working together and go beyond.
Thank you very much. And the session is concluded.
(Applause)
