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: Are we ready? Yes. I think so. So welcome. Welcome, everybody. It's a bit strange to be with the headphones and listening to yourself. Like this? Okay. So welcome to the session. Revamping Decision Making in Digital Governance. We have a number of speakers today here with some changes on the programme we had initially. First, well, first of all, I'm Jorge Cancio from the Swiss government. I'm moderating this session which will last until 10:15. I have my colleague from our office who will be our online moderator, and will help me with the timing. We also have Renata Mielli from CGI, as well. We have Jordan Carter from WEOG. We have online Timea Suto. I hope she's connected. If you can check if Timea is connected, that would be great! And then we have, also, Jennifer Chung joining us. So it's a multi‑stakeholder panel. And we're going to discuss different questions about the WSIS process, as well, about the substance of what WSIS does. And the ways that WSIS does its work. And, finally, also, the role of the IGF in a future setting.
We are going to go in different rounds of two‑minute interventions of the panelists. Of course, I say two minutes, and I will be enforcing the timing whenever they go beyond two and a half minutes. Give a little bit of wiggle room there.
Then we'll have, also, the opportunity later on after we discuss the different policy questions to go for interventions from the audience. And there's a lot of space here at the front table. If you want to come and join, it's open to everyone. You don't have to sit in the back. And, also, it's a little bit hard with these lights to really see you very well. But in any case, later on we will open up the floor for interventions. Then if you sit at the front table, you can use one of these automatic mics. Or if you are sitting in the back, you can use one of the standing mics over there.
So without further ado, I would be starting with the different policy questions we have today. The first question is: How do we update the WSIS Action Lines? So the World Summit on the information society action lines, which is the substance of what the U.N. system does to accomplish the WSIS goals to better reflect emerging and pressing issues. So, yeah, data governance, what connectivity today, human rights online. And how do we update them, also, to better integrate them with the Sustainable Development Goals? The SDGs.
So each of our panelists has now two minutes. And I will call on you, starting with Jordan. Then we'll go Renata Mielli. Jordan, the floor is yours.
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you. Good morning everyone. My name is Jordan Carter. I am part of the Secretariat group for a Technical Community college in multi stakeholderrism. My comments are my own. I'm not explicitly representing a standard.
Fortunately, this is brief intervention. Obviously, the internet is a foundational technology, which is ever more important for the realization of the ambition of the SDGs and the development framework. But when I've reviewed the Action Lines, they've presented a pretty good set of things to focus on in building an inclusive information society.
So there are no concrete ambitions on my part or the groups I've been a part of so for changes. We sort of make the point in looking at these. So we don't advocate for the Action Lines to be reopened. We assume that probably they will be. Because that's how the negotiations seems likely to play out. And if they are, one of our roles is monitor, be engaged in the conversation to make sure that there aren't slippages away from various multi stakeholder processes in the way the language is expressed or the other references that may happen with them.
And our job in the internet Technical Communities is keep doing the coordination and collaboration work we do to make sure that the internet remains a resource at the development of societies around the world. I'll save you some time, Jorge, and back to you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much for being so quick and brief and to the point.
So we go with Renata Mielli, you have a little bit more time. Also, we have to be mindful that non‑native speakers, we need more time to formulate our thoughts. Thank you.
>> RENATA MIELLI: Thank you, Jorge. It's a pleasure to be here before you guys.
Jorge, Jennifer, Timea, Jordan. In our perspective, the Action Lines were designed in such an impressive manner. From multi stakeholder perspective that I believe revising our five Action Lines should not be our primary objective. On the other hand, I believe it's necessary to evaluate with each action line what can be changed or added in line with the current reality. Seeking to identify issues that were not addressed because were not so dominant or important 20 years ago. Such as AI and its impacts. Algorithm rhythmic transparency, data governance, information integrity, disinformation, environmental impact of ICTs, DBIs, human rights online, hate speech, freedom of speech, gender, children's rights.
So it will also be important within a vision of greater coordination and synergy between the different process related to digital issues to identify how the WSIS Action Lines cannot ‑‑ the issues raised in the Global Digital Compact impact. The same would need to be done with the SDGs. As I said, nowadays it's essential for all social and economic development. The SDGs should be explicitly addressed in the WSIS Action Lines. In the other direction, the WSIS Action Lines should be considered when the SDGs are revising.
The strengthening the alignment in the Action Lines and SDGs should be across driven by the growing recognition of the digital environmental importance we think the SDG framework. But in my opinion, pinpointing the issues, there's no need to create new Action Lines on the WSIS‑specific topics. As the Action Lines are broad and adaptive to accommodate such issues. That's my first contribution. Thank you very much for the extra time.
>> MODERATOR: You are doing great and on time! Thank you so much. And now let's try to see if Timea. Are you with us? If you can take the floor.
>> SUTO TIMEA: If you can hear me. I don't know if you can see me.
>> MODERATOR: We hear you. And we see you!
>> SUTO TIMEA: Hi, everyone. Big face on the screen! Always strange to be online in such a big room. Very happy to be with you this morning.
Good morning from Milan. For those that don't know me, my name is Suto Timea from the International Chamber of Commerce and ICC is an organization that represented the private sector 20 years ago in the WSIS process. And ever since in any intergovernance and digital public policy discussions.
To answer your question and I'll try to be brief. I agree with what was said so far. I think the WSIS Action Lines have stood the test of time. If you look at this, and, of course, it was because those who were writing 20 years ago, and some of you are in the room, had been quite forward looking. But I think it was wise those who wrote the Action Lines to keep the technology agnostic, so to speak. That allowed us to recognise new technological developments. New ideas as the digital world was developing. In those 11 Action Lines. I started my career with WSIS 10 years ago at the WSIS+10. And then we were well into the age of social media. Everybody was talking about big data analytics, IOT, new developments. But we recognised those in the original Action Lines. I don't think we needed new ones. I think it's the same issue today. We've had a lot of conversations in the past year or two years on the development in the digital world. New issues. Sometimes new concerns, new developments, new technologies. But as we look to the 11 Action Lines, I think we need to put on our adaptive lens and look through those Action Lines to see if we can recognise artificial intelligence in data actions. Can we recognise data governance in the Action Lines? Can we see where we can improve gender equality, where we can improve human rights protection, and the number of issues that Renata mielli has shared. Can we see them in the 11 Action Lines? I'm convinced we can.
I don't think we need to change the very wise approach that the WSIS drafters had in keeping these Action Lines technology agnostic. But we need to put on our new lenses and see if we can integrate some of the developments into the existing framework.
I think we've had helpful interventions through the Global Digital Compact drafting process. I think there's issues that have been brought to the table that we need to look at. We mentioned those, as well. I think we should look into how we integrate the new issues, new concerns, new ideas into the existing framework. And I also agree that we should look at the SDGs and see how they align with the WSIS Action Lines. And we're not starting from scratch. The WSIS forum has been doing that for a number of years now. It's an interesting matrix that looks at the SDGs and the Action Lines. Here at the IGF we look at how that aligns with the SDGs. I think we're not starting from scratch. We can build on that. And I leave you with that. I hope I haven't exceeded my two minutes.
>> MODERATOR: A little bit. But let's be flexible, as you are online. Thank you so much, Timea. And I go to Jen.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Thank you, Jorge. I'll be quite brief. My name is Jennifer Chung. We are a registry operator for the top‑level domain Asia. With a mandate to promote internet developing and capacity building in Asia‑Pacific. I'm part of the TCCM. Not going to be speaking on that behalf, as well.
I feel like I'm not going to be rocking the boat so much here with my intervention, as well. Because I largely agree with all the previous speakers. There's been some talk, at least from a lot of, I guess, non papers and other ideas from the Internet Governance community about updating or sharpening the language that is in the Action Lines to accurately reflect our current realities or technological realities. But at the same time, I think I have more questions than answers. Because when you use different words like "sharpening, updating, focusing" it doesn't mean there's not some adjustment. I'm not the government doing the negotiations. But one thing as a nongovernmental stakeholder we're concerned with. When it happens, what is it we need to do? Is there a baseline we need to hold to?
I also agree very much both with Timea and others who mentioned that the WSIS Action Lines right now are drafted in a way that is broad enough to encompass all of these developments we've had in 20 years. Even if the language itself does not accurately, you know, sufficiently describe what it is that we have right now. Things like AI governance, things like other emerging tech, things like DPI. And a whole array of rights that are actually articulated in a more updated and descriptive manner, as we can see in the DGC final text.
I want to reiterate again, in closing, because the Action Lines right now are drafted in a way that is broad and that is technology neutral, I think behooves us to think about more than how we can look to integrating more of this without, I guess, jeopardizing what we have. Jeopardizing what it is that it actually quite accurately describes what we want to do in a pretty holistic and some of it quite multi stakeholder way. I'll pass it back to you, Jorge.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Jennifer. I think that brings that question to the point, how to update them without jeopardizing what we have. We have to be creative in those rooms in New York or wherever we discuss this and find the right balance.
As we are doing well in terms of time, I would shortly give the opportunity for one or two inputs. One minute inputs from the floor. This is your opportunity. Anything online? There will be other opportunities later on. Maybe you can reflect on what you say to question one or to any other questions.
Now we will go to the second question. Which is: What are the gaps within the WSIS framework. So here we are talking more about the architecture of the institutions and between its different parts, such as IGF or the WSIS Forum. And we mention the SDCG or the U.N. Group on Information Society or other parts of the WSIS architecture. What are the gaps to be up to date? And, thus, the governance structure follow an adequate multi stakeholder approach? As expressed in the Sao Palo multi stakeholder guidelines. Here I will change a little bit the order. I'll start with our online participant, Timea, if you're ready.
>> SUTO TIMEA: I am. I'll focus on the process gaps.
Jorge, you said we had the WSIS framework with the IGF and the WSIS Forum. I would add the Commission of Science and Technology of Development to that duo. I think we have a trio of institutions to consider when we talk about the WSIS framework. And if I want to be critical of the framework that we have today, I think the biggest gap is the three institutions sort of move forward without taking each other's ‑‑ not always taking each other's outputs and inputs in discussion. If we need to change something or improve something, perhaps besides the reporting obligations, we would need to do better in making sure that the WSIS forum of aware of being discussed at the IGF. The IGF is updated on what is being discussed at the WSIS forum. And take the findings into account when we gather in this forum.
I think that's one. The other element that we would, I think, be best placed to know at the WSIS plus 20. When we look at the Action Lines and who are implementing the Action Lines to consider the institutions we know collectively. And see how we can help enhance UNGAs that has an informal function to give it a bit more opportunity to look at what is being discussed in IGF, in WSIS process forum, and increase their coordination within the system. So it's not just about the forum being aware of one another, but these implementation leaders, so to speak, be aware of what is being discussed and what has been achieved in the discussions.
And lastly, also to give opportunity to share the communities that are being built through the voice. It's not always about "we have come up with the five big points and everybody should be aware." But, also, to have an opportunity to know there's a community behind the discussions and the community is there to give further input into whatever is being discussed in U.N. institutions. So I think if I can leave you with that.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, Timea. And let's go with Renata. Are you ready?
>> RENATA MIELLI: Thank you. In the same direction that Timea just said. I believe that in regard to this framework, we need ‑‑ we have much progress to be made in terms of developing more integrated spaces in processes. We have not been able to build more achieving integration between the IGF and the WSIS Forum. This is something we need to address. In my view, this is a huge discussion about the internet and digital governance. The WSIS Forum is a platform for following up the Action Lines. It is a space that is more restricted to governments. Representing the new ways responsible for each action line. And we have a little bit of augmentation in this discussion.
I think we're thinking the governance structure, in my view, is one of the main challenges we are facing now. Some measures could be considered. And we discussed some of these ideas at WSIS+10 such creating a multi stakeholder governance committee for WSIS framework and expanding the role of IGF in monitoring the Action Lines. And how to integrate the two spaces a little bit more. That's my idea. I completely agree with Timea just said, also. But I would like to invite to you this opportunity to invite everyone to guidelines. It will take place at 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the stage located at the IGF Village. So everyone here is invited! Thank you very much.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much for that small commercial. I also endorse that invitation. And I'll be a little bit late because of overlapping sessions. But looking forward to it! ‑‑ to that one.
Maybe a follow up question for you. You mentioned that you were having this idea of floating the idea of a multi stakeholder governance committee for the whole of the WSIS framework. And then you also mentioned an improvement to the IGF. Could you elaborate a little bit on the second part.
>> RENATA MIELLI: I think about the improvement of the IFG. We bring some ideas, and this is a ‑‑ this was an important debate we had. Regarding the strengthening of the IGF, improving the IGF, I believe that a point is maybe make the IGF mandate permanent. This is something that we need to understand not to ‑‑ make the IGF's mandate permanent does not mean that updates and discussions aimed at improving should not take place.
But we have to be ‑‑ we have to have more stability on the IGF. And to this end, it's the issue of funding. I think this is a very important point. Because it's necessary to ensure much more robust funding for the IGF combining a regular budget from the U.N. with donations from companies and organizations.
And better integration with WSIS Forum, with the NRIs so that contributions from local communities are better brought to the global IGF.
>> MODERATOR: Okay, Renata. I think we're already going into question three. I wanted to clarify what you meant with that. But we'll have question three to deep dive on the IGF itself. Thank you.
Now if I get this right, we should turn to Jennifer on question two.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: I was wondering if we were going to question three. There was some overlap there. I appreciate very much that Timea mentioned we should look at the process. It's interesting because IGF is a WSIS outcome. The WSIS Forum itself isn't exactly an outcome, but it is. I would call it a showcase, of course. And the update of how the WSIS Action Lines are being implemented by the different U.N. institutions.
I also like to point out a little bit more, because the IGF is one I'm most familiar with. WSIS Forum, I have been to and the WSIS High‑Level Events last year and this year. I'm planning to do so and go. But the difference, really, here is when we look at it the two different spaces, the two different forums, I guess one would still mention that they could be considered multi stakeholder. The multi stakeholder model is not a threat. There are different flavors, I like to call flavors. It's different flavors of MSM. And the way that it's adapted for the audience that goes, or the participation that goes, is actually quite interesting. And for IGF, it's, you know, it's a mixture of a community curated or community proposals and, also, some other cure ration from the host country and also, of course, a recommendation by the IGF Secretariat. The WSIS Forum, itself, I would like to understand more. That's why I do go a little more. But one thing that Timea did bring out, and I think others did mention, is that there's not a sufficient coordination. And I don't know, really, if coordination is needed. There is, certainly, overlap of some of the programming that could benefit from some coordination. So both the IGF and the WSIS Forum serve different purposes. There should be a little bit more of an interlink. A little bit more of, I guess, input/output for the two processes. I think after coming to Norway, a lot of us will be going to Geneva for the WSIS High‑Level Event. And we would notice looking at the programme, there are a lot of things similar. Would probably benefit from a little bit more of a cross‑pollination, as well. I'll stop here. I don't know if I used up the time, but I'll hand back over, Jorge.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Jen. We go to Jordan.
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thanks, Jorge. A fair amount of agreement. I'll try to riff off of what has been said, in part.
, you know, the question was whether this is adequately multi stakeholder for the SPMG from the multi stakeholder guidelines. And I think the IGF does it best in the WSIS framework. But everywhere could use improvement including the IGF. And the key point here, like the arrangements need to deliver the WSIS outcome. It isn't a system that exists for its own purposes or draw people to Geneva or other lovely cities. But it's to achieve this building of the information society that our citizens deserve. And I think one of the things that is obvious, it isn't really treated as a whole system. Except at the point of these reviews. To make a system work, you need to have someone in it, driving it, or strong organic coordination in it.
Government and multilateral systems like WSIS, it's probably important to be something driving. So there have been a few suggestions around whether a multi stakeholder group as part of an enhanced UNGAs could provide that. Maybe it could be an institutional part of gravity that could help draw the parts together.
I agree with the comments around the IGF and WSIS roles. When I first went, it felt like an U.N. IGF for the U.N. And I don't know the value of that, per se. But I understand the action points. Maybe a more distinctive process.
Given it's the most open and bottom‑up and multi stakeholder effect of the system. For the IGF need to do that, it needs to strengthen within the system and the NRIs having a more of a role setting the IGF agenda.
I want to make a couple of other quick points. We think that a general view that Global Digital Compact should be implemented through WSIS and probably the WSIS architecture is able to do that. Especially how hard it is for stakeholder to participate effectively. Multiplying new forums and streams is a bad idea.
I want to make one more point around the title of the session. Around digital governance. I think the thing people casually mean when they say "digital governance" what Internet Governance is. But we know what Internet Governance is. It's written down. Right. Digital governance is not defined. And we ‑‑ if we start using that as the framing for what this system is to do, we better write down what it means. Because otherwise there's a lot of confusion. I want to finish quickly by paying tribute to the Swiss government and the Australian government for their papers. I realize I can't talk about the content about that. But the ideas around revamped UNGAs. It's also argued for stronger IGF Secretariat and join the call for strengthened UNGAs. Lots of ideas there to explore the two papers. Sorry it was too long. Back to you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you, Jordan. And thank you for mentioning the papers. The Australian and the Swiss one. And we hope that people and stakeholders, countries take this as an inspiration to also develop their papers or their common ground positions. At least, in short, comment on the Swiss paper. It is really the result of many, many conversations. So it's not a Swiss national position, as is a normal, well, papers are no official national positions. But in this case, it's really the result of more than one year of talking to people all around the globe. And trying to find some common‑ground ideas.
Very good. I think we are quite on time to go over to the third question we had. And so this is more focused and Renata and Jordan mentioned. How would you strengthen the IGF to better respond to the challenges of an improved or updated WSIS framework and combined or taking into account the GDC implementation. And especially to avoid duplication of efforts and promote better coordination.
And I think nowadays, especially, if we look at what is happening all over the U.N. system with U.N. 80, WSIS Reform Programme, that is really responding to budgetary cuts. There's really a situation where the resources, the cost resources of the system and, also, of all the stakeholders around the system trying to participate in the system have to be treated very carefully.
So here I would start with Jennifer. So you have one start at the end of the session.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Thank you, Jorge.
This is, actually, I'm going to structure my response really in two ways. The first, the strengthening internally of IGF, or external or more of the coordination role.
Internally, I think, at least speaking on now as a 2025 member, we were tasked to, after the Norway meeting to look at our internal processes to see how we can improve and strengthen and, I guess, make more efficient the ways the MAG works internally as a whole, as well. That's one part of the strengthening that I think is absolutely needed. Because the MAG does rotate. This is a one‑year MAG. But typically the terms rotate and could have three terms all together. The institutional knowledge gets lost sometimes when you have such a big turnover of people who are trying to be the advisory, I guess, group. Looking at the agenda. I think a lot of speakers mentioned this with more resources.
And I want to point to the help desk suggestion in the no men paper, as well. Because the Secretariat itself is lean, the resourcing needed to support not only the curation of the annual programme, there's a whole host of intercessional programmes and work that, you know, goes on throughout the year. Things like the National Regional Initiatives they are organic, bottom‑up. They need resourcing at the global level. Things like the Dynamic Coalitions, Best Practice Forums, Policy Networks this has grown since the IGF started 20 years ago. A lot is now adding on a lean Secretariat. So they need more resourcing. They need coordination for outputs.
Externally, I guess, or more of a wider coordination role. We heard from Timea. That IGF, WSIS Forum, and even further into the U.N. institutions, I think there's not enough coordination and, perhaps, maybe there could be a role for a help desk. Could be another role to be able to better coordinate it within, I guess, U.N. multilateral system. But, also, outward‑facing to other multi stakeholder forums or places where these things might be spoken about. Not just the governance issues. But other related, I guess, places, for example, ICANN, you talk about policy development for a part of the critical infrastructure of the internet, and number allocation, as well. So I think I guess in closing there's the internal, the coordination, and the external. There's a lot of things we can tighten up. And improve on.
Finally, one more thing. I'll put a little bit of a view on this. It that avoiding duplication of efforts not only helps, you know, nongovernmental stakeholders. People with less resources, especially in APAC. Governments themselves, especially in Asia‑Pacific, they have small teams with a wide portfolio. And they're not able to be able to actually deep dive or follow every single process, if it's proliferated around. So, actually, it behooves all of us to think about, you know, how can we concentrate this in a way that we can actually cover and understand not only, you know, in the global north but definitely in the global south, as well. Back to you, Jorge.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Jen. Many important points. We'll go to Jordan now.
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you, Jorge.
Look, there's a lot of ideas floating around this. I joined the calls for the permanent mandate, and not because it's forever. But because it takes away the wondering. Whether this is going to be another year or two. And that means that you can invest in the IGF system more with more confidence. And I don't just mean money. I meantime and attention. I mean the building of NRIs. Because you know there will be some global stage upon which to show things.
The hard work of building the integration and linkages between the IGF system and the value that it creates. And, as I said, that has to include the capacity for the continuous improvement. And Les not get chapped into the idea that such improvement requires an intergovernmental negotiation of a WSIS review. It's very good to hear that the MAG will be thinking about how to improve the MAG's performance. But I'm always curious about who has the overarching responsibility to think about the IGF's performance. In the events, there's a funny split between the Secretariat and the MAG and the U.N. and the host country. But it would be lovely to see, perhaps, an expansion of the MAG's responsibility through a refreshed terms of reference for it. That gave it an overarching IGF systemic response. Maybe linking with the proposed multi stakeholder for the whole WSIS architecture. Those are personal views. Just, by the way.
And I've mentioned the strengthened agenda‑setting role for the IGF and how that could rely on stronger connections between the NRIs and the IGF. And one way to help build that connection might be to make it a bit of a criteria in selecting MAG members they're involved with the national or regional IGFs, if there is one where they are. And some areas don't have them. They need MAG representation. That could be a way to organically strengthen the work. I know a lot of us who have been on the MAG are involved nationally. Not all of us.
There needs to be more funding for the Secretariat to do the coordination and outreach that is required. Should be a mix of U.N. budget funding and donations. It needs to be significant. There needs to be more funding and resourcing and support for global south and other represented groups to be represented effectively here. And as part of that, also, I think to improve the IGF need to get more of the decision‑makers here. If the role is decision shaping, it's best if it's firsthand. It's best if people are exposed to "rough around the edges conversation." Just to get a bit of a favorably of reality from time to time in those verified executive heights.
I think I'll leave at that. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Not bad. That's a great list. What I wonder, sometimes, with the proposals is what do we need to have on the WSIS outcome in December. And what is better left to the community itself. But that's just an open ‑‑ just thinking a loud. Sometimes you get what you wish, and then it gets dangerous.
So I think it's always good to keep it what we have in the intergovernmental outcome documents at a very high level. But within us, flexibility for self‑improvement.
>> JORDAN CARTER: To the extent we want to improve the multi stakeholder nature of this stuff, those dialogues and consensus‑building should happen in multi stakeholder forums. I agree. Keep the intergovernmental negotiations high level and flexible.
>> MODERATOR: Absolutely. I think we agree there.
Okay. Let's go too, I think, we have still Timea. Are you there?
>> SUTO TIMEA: I am here! I think I have been working together for too long because I was trying to reframe my comments here. As you are putting up the question of what needs to be in WSIS and the IGF having listened to Jordan and Jennifer.
A couple of thoughts here on my end. I think we have a good opportunity at the WSIS+20 to recognise some of the evolution that has happened already at the IGF over the past 20 years. Yes IGF is a WSIS outcome. We were there to have the conversations at the IGF on these issues.
But what happened in the meantime, the IGF has built communities in the national and regional minds. It has built intercessional work. There's reports, Best Practice forums, the policy networks. I think it's a good opportunity to use the WSIS+20 use the recognition and this is how the IGF looks now. And approve what has been doing.
The other thing we should do is set IGF up for another 20 years or more. To be able to continue this evolution. Right. And I think it depends on, as others said, formalizing the IGF status, the mandate as a, perhaps, permanent, if possible, part of the U.N. structure.
Secondly, help formalize the funding. At least the support of the Secretariat needs to function from year‑to‑year should be part of the U.N. budget, perhaps. So that we have a stability, a baseline for the IGF to function. And then there are other voluntary contributions can be put to good use for issues like, as maybe Jordan mentioned, funding, developing‑country participation, or specific projects, or we can get creative with that.
I think that's what WSIS should do. Recognising the evolution happened and set the IGF up for future successes. It's not incumbent on the IGF and the community to make sure that the IGF actually responds to what it needs to do. And that it lives up to his full potential. And there I'm going to repeat something that we have talked about many, many times. And it is really making sure that the IGF's outputs conversations get to the right people. I think communication here, outreach, marketing, if you will of what the IGF does needs to happen better. It needs to happen, perhaps, differently. Yes. We need to report on everything that the IGF has done.
If we can't expect every audience to read the full report. We need it do better in making sure that we deliver the right message to the right audience from the IGF. And I think that is something that we need to still work on. So I leave you with that. If we have more time, then I'm happy to answer more questions.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, Timea. And we have, lastly, intervention on this round from Renata.
>> RENATA MIELLI: I agree regarding the points and reflections from Jennifer and Jordan. We have to strengthen the IGF. My contribution here, in fact, I want to come back to Jordan's question about what we think about digital governance. And the need to have a common vision on this. And it was a topic of much debate. If you remember that. I think in my point of view, we talk about how to avoid duplication of spaces and improve coordination.
But what you have seen is that every day a new space, a new forum, a new dramatic initiative appears. In fact, we are seeing the fragmentation of the debate. What makes more difficult to many sectors to participate in a way. Especially stakeholders from the global south. Governments and all the sectors have a lot of difficult to follow all the spaces. Or have AI high level, AI, a lot of AI, in fact. We have data governance, we have cybersecurity, we have internet forums. And I think when we talk about digital governance, the idea is to show that all these issues are interconnected. And need to have at least some coordination. And, of course, a multi stakeholder governance.
And my point is that the IGF should be the space to host this discussion. Or at least to be the space to coordinate with the WSIS Forum. We are already talking about.
So that's my 10‑cents about what digital governance is. But I completely agree that we need to have some common language to avoid any doubts about it. And that's my contribution. Back to you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, Renata. Maybe we're agreeing too much at the table here. That happens oftentimes, even if we try to have a multi stakeholder participation.
That's why it's a good moment, and we are running well in terms of time, to see if there are any comments. Any people asking for the floor. I'm seeing two people here at the front desk. Another person there. So if you would be so kind to go to the mic. And we start with you, perhaps. And then we go with the front desk. Please introduce yourself.
>> SPEAKER: Hi. Can you hear me?
>> MODERATOR: Yes.
>> SPEAKER: I'm with Data Press Brazil Civil Society. Nice panel. Nice discussions. I had a question that I think Jorge about the same thing we should put in the WSIS review and what we should leave for the IGF community. One of the things we're discussing for the review is integration of national and regional IGFs with the global IGF. And I have, actually, an honest question. I don't know if we need this in the WSIS resolution. Or if could be linked by the MAG or the IGF community as a whole. To bring a connection more clear of what are the realities of national and regional IGFs. What are the people are facing to connect this with the global governance Action Lines and the global governance directives that we are discussing here. That most of the times are so disconnected and we need the national policy makers here to do these connections.
My question is, if you think that we should put this in the WSIS resolution. We should fight for this? Or maybe better to leave for the IGF community. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much for that question.
Any reactions from our panel? Timea has a reaction, apparently.
>> SUTO TIMEA: Yes, she does.
>> MODERATOR: Great!
>> SUTO TIMEA: Thank you, Jorge.
Just briefly to respond. I think we need to separate the what from the how. When we come to this question. If we don't think about what needs to be in the WSIS+20 resolution, I think a recognition of the NRIs is important to be there. Not only because we want to say "oh, hey, look, there's 170 something, or even more, I'm not sure how many we have at this point, NRIs and look what the IGF has done and the national regional IGFs." Because it's a good demonstration that the multi stakeholder model is spreading. This is what the IGF was supposed to do. If you're look at the agenda. We wanted multi stakeholder conversations around the issues. The fact that the IGF was able to break it down to the grassroots level to the national IGFs, I think it's a huge achievement. I think that should be highlighted in the WSIS+20 review. What we don't need in the WSIS+20 review, how to make the work better, how to integrate better or less, the national and regionals with the IGF global. Actually, the sausage‑making process need not be in the WSIS+20 outcomes.
I think it's important that the actual sausage is seen there because it has been an achievement in the past 20 years.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you for that tasty metaphor at this time of the morning. But I see, Jen, you want to react, as well, to the question.
>> SPEAKER: Thanks, Jorge. I've avoided speaking about the national regional initiatives too much. One thing I want to make clear, I agree with Timea, the recognition is very important. We don't need anything prescriptive there. Because the beauty of the national regional, sub regional, and youth initiatives, it's organic. It's independent. Is that I think people miss this, as well, there is no hierarchy. It's not a reporting up or a reporting down. The national regional, sub regional, youth initiatives are quite organic. And the way it influences each other within the network, as well as the global network, it is not a pyramid, at all. That's the beauty of it. New one‑size‑fits‑all. I think we're at 177 plus. I think that was the last figure I heard. All of them are different stages. There are regional IGFs such as the APR that a little more developed because they've been around longer. But the beauty, also, there are newer IGFs like Ireland IGF that had the first meeting this year.
So to have something prescriptive and something like, you know, the WSIS outcomes, I think that would actually, you know, break the beauty of the tapestry. And one last thing I'd like to leave us with. As I said, I can talk forever on the NRIs. I don't want the NRIs to be seen as a talking point. They have been the talking point for many high‑level speeches. But I feel like there needs to be a real understanding of what the real value could be and is. Both for the NRIs outwardly, and those who participate deeply in the NRIs. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much for that passion on the NRIs.
Yes. Renata, please.
>> RENATA MIELLI: Just regarding what was said about how we bring more decision makers to the IGF. I think this is one thing that ‑‑ this is point about we need to amplify the integration between WSIS Forum and the IGF. Because decision makers participate more in WSIS Forum because WSIS has the mandate to do the follow up of the Action Lines.
An the other hand, I want to remember that we have parliamentary track in the IGF. This is an important thing to bring more decision makers to the IGF. But I think as a community, we need to do our homework to bring more deputies, more governments to this parliamentary track. And maybe organizing more spaces on the IGF to governments have the perception this is an important space to inform their process, their decision making in their countries. To make some network, also. So I think we have a job to be done.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Renata. Jordan, I think you have a remark.
>> JORDAN CARTER: I want to be a little bit controversial, of course. It's terrible Parliamentarians are looked away talking to Parliamentarians. It's great the IGF is creating a space where the Parliamentarians can talk to the Parliamentarians. How do we have those people engaging not just with each other but on the floor. I think that's something that can be picked up in the "how do we improve the workings of the IGF." Something that doesn't need to be in the WSIS Review. That's true with the others, the idea of a policy makers track you know, one track. All in the room. Genuine debate. And if there are side events and so on, that's one thing. But it's great the parliamentary track is open, as well. It's been a significant improvement and people have found lots of value in visiting. But how do we weave it together is the challenge.
>> MODERATOR: Uh‑huh. Absolutely. And we have our colleagues waiting at the front desk. Please go ahead and introduce yourself.
>> SPEAKER: Thank you very much. My name is Ann McCormack. I lead can Global Digital Policy. 80% of our people are under the age of 30. I want to offer new observations. As a relative newcomer to this forum. But not a newcomer to multi stakeholder and international efforts to integrate different stakeholder groups. I think listening to what Jordan said, in particular, there's a real need for concrete action for the credibility of these forum. Particularly at this point in time, in this geopolitical context. Where there are scarce resources, but, also, in light of the type of technologies that we're looking at. There's real urgency. It's great to look at the last 20 years and think about the next 20 years. We in our stakeholders, I don't just mean in the private sector
By the way, the private sector is small entrepreneurs. It's a lot of non‑tech companies. It's companies across sectors, in sectors that are deeply affected by tech transformation in a positive and negative way. So I just make a highlight on the richness of the private sector and the diversity. I think there's real urgency. We're thinking about horizons of 18 months. That's long. Two years. Maybe five. We need good definitions to the point Jordan made. Definitions that are recognised by other international authorities or other organizations.
We need real clarity on how IGF, WSIS, and other organizations within this network. How they are interacting concretely on the ground with issues that society, business, and government are dealing with. We're hearing ‑‑ and I'll say it both with respect and challenge, we're hearing amazing good words and thoughts in the parliamentary track I've been in. In the different discussions. We need this to be concrete. We need fewer ideas. But really specific impact and priorities for the next 18 months to two years. We do not have time. Because we can talk as much as we want about an internet society. We're having at the moment significant risks around technology exclusion, division, and all the, you know, political and social discord that goes with it. If it's not well managed.
I would say my second point has to do with what we can give. Turning the mirror to us. I think there's an opportunity to pilot and try out the initiatives. Pilot, learn, improve, learn, rollout. We need to move. Doesn't need to be perfect. We need to learn fast. We need to make the difference where it matters. Set examples of Best Practice. Not mandatory. Not rigid. But this works. See if you can improve it. Build on what we've got. Make it easy. And that goes with capacity building. That's essential, but, also, with focus. We could talk about this for a long time. I urge you to think short‑term with the long‑term perspective but short term. It's about credibility. I also think it's about respect for all the amazing people who participate here. Many have come from very far. It's difficult for them to come here. We need to turn this into action. Not more dialogue. Thank you very much.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much for those words. And I guess we can apply that to all of us. Because there's no you and us. We are all part of this community. But thank you so much.
I don't know if you want to intervene, as well. And then we take some reactions from the panel. Because we are closing up.
>> SPEAKER: I long to the Civil Society in African Group. I was looking forward to seeing Anriette Esterhuysen. We had WSIS+20 last year in October. So I was looking forward to listening, but Jennifer addressed it's not a pyramid. It's not an up or down. She addressed my reservations. So I would leave there. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you so much for emphasizing that point.
And now I would quickly open it to reactions to our colleagues' point. I see Jordan.
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you for that challenge. It gets down to the very deep discussion about the nature of the IGF and its place in the system.
The forum for discussion not for decision has a lot of scope around Best Practice, about sharing case studies, and so on. And having done one year on the MAG, it's a perpetual challenge to select sessions that deliver on that. It's a perpetual challenge to find the resources to make that relatively simple translation, but it has to be done well from a discussion to three bullet points that could be done, as opposed to three bullet points of what was said. I think the system doesn't invest in the analytic capability to deliver that, which is part of why we need to be working on ways to get more resources. I firmly convinced the value of the discussions here is hugely untapped compared to what it could offer with the extra layer of processing and promulgation, if you like.
That was a nicely put challenge. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Jordan. Any other reactions? Jen?
>> SPEAKER: Thank you. I also echo what Jordan has said. I think us being on the panel, we're kind of dancing around words that actually speak to this
when we speak to we need more resourcing for the IGF Secretariat. We mean taking the discussion shaping here and moving it to implementation in the different national arenas, sub regional arenas. All of that. That is not a clear role for IGF as a forum. So that is another gap that we see. Because, you know, right now taking the outputs. There's a lot of rich output that comes out of the annual meeting. That comes out of the intercessional work. But that doesn't land where people can then take it forward. So absolutely agree with you. That's where we need to go.
It is a constant and perennial criticism of the IGF. It's a beauty of the IGF but we need to take these outputs and promulgate it to the places where decisions can be taken. Where actions can actually have impact.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, Jen. Any other reaction?
>> MODERATOR: There's one reaction from the chat I would like to read to the audience. Which empathized just the importance of establishing cycles for forums especially for NRIs to plan and engage with their own communities. And to back up afterwards their messages.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. Renata, to chime in?
>> RENATA MIELLI: Just to add something regarding, we need to see the Internet Governance or digital governance as a whole system. And I think to transform some of the rich debates we have here into action. We need to have more national spaces to make the digital or Internet Governance in a multi stakeholder way.
So I'm putting this because I'm from Brazil. And in Brazil, we have Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. When we come here, our representatives, we try to come back to Brazil and transform some of the debating to action. Because the action is in the community. For the IGF, it's difficult to transform the debate. We are a forum to think about all the problems you bring to us. And I completely agree. But I think the ‑‑ this is another challenge. How to contribute to create more ‑‑ and there is no formula. I don't want to put my experience in Brazil as a model to be reproduced in other countries. But each countries, each region has to develop his ‑‑ its own experience in terms of Internet Governance or digital governance to transform all of this debate into action. I think this is another challenge.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, Renata. And I'm being advised we have five minutes. So I had take last intervention from the floor. Please introduce yourself. Make it very short and sweet, please!
>> SPEAKER: I'm the engineering lead for Internet Freedom at Google and to her point about going to implementation from the conversations, I just want to add that, like, what it is my first IGF. I'm an engineer. And I think what is missing here is where are the people that build stuff? Like? Where are the product people? Where are the engineers? I see a lot of policy people and companies only bring policy people, for the most part. So I think that, like, we need to put more effort to bring the people that are building, like, AI now. They should be here. Talking to all of us. Because otherwise, like, there's, like, this silo of builders and those that are doing policy. And we need to break those walls.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. I call that for more multidisciplinarity that is very much needed. I think we all endorse it. And I see a lot of nodding around the table.
So, unfortunately, we could go on for ages. In the end, the question Anne posed to the panel is what we're trying to answer. And in the end, if we look at the WSIS framework as a system, where we have U.N. agencies that are investing thousands of millions of dollars over the last 20 years in building connectivity and creating capacity building all over the world. Be it UNESCO, be it ITU. They work under this programme, which is called WSIS. Since more than 20 years. And, really, the key we have to find or the big question is how do we make the system work better? In a more interconnected fashion. So it that delivers on the promise of the Information Society. Manuel Castillos in the '90s and now the digital world we're living in. That's really the key question. And how do we make that make sure that the discussions from this forum, the IGF, really get across to the different national and regional levels. But also in the U.N. system. How do we make sure that the agencies really listen to the messages that we are delivering with these discussions. So they adapt their Action Lines. So how do we fit them together in a much more efficient manner. Instead of having these silos of parts of an architecture or part of a family. Where the members don't talk to each other, or at least not enough.
That's the key. I hope we had some progress on the question with some ideas on the table. Some of these ideas we will have to put forward and forthcoming WSIS+20 process. Other ideas are just to wake up, look into the mirror and say "okay, what can I do today for the IGF community? What can I do for my NRI? What can I do in the MAG? What can I do in this community?" There's a lot of things we can do ourselves, if we are ambitious enough and we have the right dialogue. And, also, we convince, of course, our able and small IGF Secretariat to let us do many of these things.
So I see the timing in red. This is the sign for me to close this session. Let's give a round of applause to all.
[ Applause ]
Thank you so much! And looking forward to further conversations.
