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.
***
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Before we first start, just noting that people up here on the panel, the mics are always on; so if you speak directly, you'll be heard. But if you want to have a side conversation, make sure you're away from the mic. Okay.
So without further ado, let me pass the floor to our Chair, Amrita Choudhury.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Good morning, everyone. I hope I'm audible. And thank you for coming in for the first session of IGF 2025 at 9:00 a.m. It is the IGF Support Association. We will give you a brief overview of what we do for people who do not know about IGFSA. And then we have a few questions on which we want to have an interactive session about.
Can we see the next slide, please?
So this is our agenda. We would be discussing what our mandate is and we have a few questions where our EC members will take turns to lead and want to interact with. And we would also want to have next steps.
Normally at the IGF we have our annual general meeting but since it's mid‑year we are not doing it. The AGM will be held at the end of the year.
For those who are coming into the room, you would have to use the headsets to hear what is happening, and the channel is 4.
Can we go to the next slide?
So IGFSA, this is some of our EC members here. And we were set up in 2014. The main aim was to support the Internet Governance Forum, and the goal was also to support the national and regional and sub‑regional and youth initiatives, especially of Global South.
The next slide.
And over the years these are the figures till 2024, December, the kind of supports which we have done. Our end goal is to support more with more funding but we also have to look for funding options. But this is what we have been doing, supporting the IGF as well as the national regional youth initiatives.
The next slide, please.
So with that, perhaps I would pass it on to Joyce Chen who will be leading this part of the discussion. And, Joyce, over to you.
>> JOYCE CHEN: Thanks, very much, Amrita. And welcome to everybody. Thank you for joining us for the first session of Day 0 at IGF early in the morning. And for those of you who are joining us from other places, good morning, good afternoon, good evening to you, as well.
We try and make this session more interactive, and so this isn't really for us to be speaking to you about the questions that you see on the screen. It is really meant for you to be responding to us, your thoughts and views about the question. So if you would like to move up to the stage, you are very welcome to join us. This isn't all just EC members. It's also anybody is free to join. It's also easier for us to see you as you're speaking. So feel free to join us. Don't be shy.
So the first question is: What is the impact of the WSIS+20 review IGF mandate renewal on the NRIs and of course the youth initiatives?
And the second question: If the funding mechanisms for the IGF changes substantially, will there be NOTCOM (phonetic) effects for the NRIs?
I think this is really coming from the point of view that the WSIS+20 process is happening this year in 2025, and it's going to be rounded up by the end of this year in December. And while the Member States have not made a decision on the IGF mandate, if there were changes to the nature or the status of the IGF, so, for example, there are some calls for the IGF to be made a permanent institution under the UN, that may or may not happen after this year. If that were the case ‑‑ sorry, yes? Sorry. I was receiving some signal, so I wasn't sure if I had to stop for something. Where was I? And so yes.
If there were changes to the mandate of the IGF and the institution itself, what would be the effect for the NRIs being able to receive funding and also for the IGF itself where would they get their sources of funding if it's going to be primarily Member State contributions?
So I think this is the context for where we are coming from in terms of these first two questions. I know these are deep and hard questions to ask first thing in the morning. But I will open the floor for any views. Please feel free to come up. I think there's a mic there. And also all the mics here are available for you to speak.
So Vint? Please go ahead.
>> VINT CERF: Good morning, everyone. It's 3:00 in the morning here in Washington, D.C., so I'm half awake and I have my mug. That helps.
With regard to this question, the first issue is whether IGF continues. Of course that's the thing that WSIS+20 will determine. On the presumption that it continues, I have been advocating that as Chair of the leadership panel that it continue on a permanent basis and that its funding come not exclusively but primarily out of the normal UN support structure.
That does not remove an opportunity for IGFSA to persist and also to approve additional voluntary funding, as the Secretariat would also do and has done since its creation.
I don't think there's any change there. Whether there would be funds made available to IGFSA as the result of such a shift is not clear to me. So I think that's something we need to investigate and discuss with UN representatives. DESA would be a good start there.
Just generally about the NRIs, the NRIs were created on their own. They were not created with specific support by the UN. And that's an important observation to make. They're there because people wanted to be engaged. They wanted to deal with the Internet Governance questions on a local basis. And I think that desire will persist.
And once again, since they don't get official funding either from the UN or other sources, they do get support from the Secretariat. And so that might not only continue but it might also help the NRIs perform their function.
Last point I'd like to make, and thank you for letting me go on a bit, is that I think the persistence of the IGF will in part depend on the ability of the NRIs to become useful to Member States.
So the question there is what can the NRIs do that would help the Member State either assess how well internet is being used in country or what steps might be needed for the internet to be more useful. And so producing something whether it's studies or measurements as in the UN Romex (phonetic) metrics, making the NRIs useful Member States will contribute, I think, to the idea that IGF does continue after WSIS+20.
So I'll stop there. I'm very interested to hear what other people have to say about these very important questions.
>> JOYCE CHEN: Thanks, very much, Vint, for kicking us off and giving us a little bit to chew on. I think there was a comment online from Kiki.
Kiki, do you want to take the mic and read our your comment and you can also elaborate a little bit more from that?
Do you want to read it out? I think Jennifer will read it out.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Just for those who are not in the Zoom room but are on audio, there was a comment in the Zoom room from Kiki Fong, and it reads: When I support the IGF mandate it is because of the NRIs and their function to scaffold local and regional knowledge‑sharing and regional knowledge‑sharing ‑‑ sorry ‑‑ and tangible outputs from the communities within national or regional.
>> JOYCE CHEN: Thanks, very much, Kiki. Do I have any other ‑‑ any responses to either Vint or Kiki or you might have your own view that you would like to share? I'm just looking around. It's quite a wide room so I have to do a lot of looking.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: For those who have come in right now, we are just discussing on these two questions which you can see on the screen. And please feel free to speak. You would have to come up to the mics at the end or the table is quite empty, you can come and sit here. We would like to hear your views on these questions.
We have three sets of questions but this is the first one. Vint shared his views and so did Kiki. But if anyone feels like speaking. And we would just like to have a discussion here. It would be really helpful. And perhaps, Markus, can I put you on spot to give your views until others forms some views on this? Sorry.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. Thank you. I had not been prepared. (Chuckles). It's an unfair attack, I think. (Laughter).
Well, the question is, yes, it comes from many quarters to make the IGF part of the regular UN budget. And the question is will there be NOTCOM (phonetic) effects from the NRIs?
Frankly, I don't think so. It won't change much in terms of funding. It will be more comfortable for the IGF to have the regular funding part of it through the UN budget, although the UN budget as we all know is under severe attack. So it remains to be seen how much they would get out of the budget but it would give institutional stability to the IGF. That in itself I think that will be a very positive effect.
But in terms of funding, honestly I don't think it would change much. Quite a lot of extra funding would be needed to outside resources and obviously the IGFSA remains a valid institution. But I don't think it would affect or have any impact on the IGFSA as such. These are my initial preliminary thoughts. Thank you.
>> JOYCE CHEN: Yes. Please kindly state your name and affiliate.
>> MARY UDUMA: Can you hear me?
>> JOYCE CHEN: Yes.
>> MARY UDUMA: Okay. My name is Mary Uduma. I coordinate the West Africa Internet Governance Forum. On question one, if there is any change in ‑‑ there are changes in the renewal of the mandate as we are calling, I don't see much changing at the local level. The only thing that I know that will happen is that governments at the national level or sub‑regional level or regional level will now be more interested and might provide more support whether in kind or in cash, because different communities and different countries the NRI position is differently viewed.
So I will say that if the mandate is renewed permanently and it becomes, you know, the front line process of the U.S. ‑‑ of the UN, sorry, the governments of the nations will not take interest. It will not just be Civil Society again because in some countries it's only the Civil Society that is organizing the IGF. So for that support might be better but might not be enough because in some countries governments are interested and supported, they don't support enough. So they provide some kind. So the rest will source funding for the programme. Thank you.
>> JOYCE CHEN: Thank you. Jennifer?
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Thank you, Mary, for sharing that. It's actually quite interesting because I know both for our Nigeria IGF and also West Africa IGF it's actually quite a ‑‑ you know, a big undertaking for all of that.
One thing I wanted to point out also is for many of the NRIs there's a substantial grant that happens from the IGF Secretariat. So one thing that I can see that could be happening if anything really changed substantially is there would need to be a gap that needs to be filled because, of course, from the generosity, the generosity of the grants coming from IGF Secretariat. And that we can talk about a little bit, as well. It would make it necessary for a lot of the NRIs to kind of consider different sources of funding and diversifying the way that we look at sponsorship, as well. And I think that's a really good segue to our next one but I'll hand it back to Joyce to see if we can wrap these two questions.
>> JOYCE CHEN: I just want to make note that we do have two comments online, which I'll read out.
So Mark Carvell: As a member of the European regional IGF I share in principal about what Vint has said about being useful for individual and regional IGFs but the practicalities of this will vary across the 170 plus NRIs according to the degree of recognition and support provided by the national administrations for individual NRIs.
And Bea Geuvarra ‑‑ I hope I pronounced your name correctly ‑‑ YIGFs and regional youth initiatives will have more space and support in the local dialogue with intergenerational approaches embedded in official outcomes. I also think better coordination will improve the synergies among NRIs and encourage inclusive participation.
Thanks, very much, for these comments. I'm just doing a quick sweep to see if I missed anyone else. Just in closing for this section, I appreciate the optimism and I do hope that if the IGF were to get its mandate renewed and it moves into a more permanent structure, that that means that there would be more resources made available from all the varying contributions from Member States and top off any other additional funding sources.
What I would like to note though is that I think as part of the WSIS+20 review process, I think it is kind of contingent on us to inform the Member States who are negotiating about the importance of the NRIs. And to make sure that when we are talking about sustainability of the IGF, we also include the NRIs.
My worry is that we see the IGF as just the annual event and then miss out on the intersessional work and the NRIs that are also part of the IGF ecosystem. So as much as possible I would encourage when you are speaking with your governments, with your administrations, with different stakeholders in your local community, make sure that the word on the NRIs is you raise awareness of it so that they are thinking in the more holistic manner as they're doing their negotiations. I think this is the important piece. I'll close here and I'll move on to the next person.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Yes. Thank you so much, Joyce. I think that's important because the mandate and also the survival of many NRIs are very interlinked in many countries and we should not forget that the communities at the grassroot level. And with this we move to Flavio.
Flavio, you would be leading this section, right?
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Yeah. Thank you, Amrita. Can we see the questions on the screen on the Zoom room, please?
So, again, this is not for us to speak about those issues. We would love to hear from you, your visions, your contributions regarding these three questions about funding.
The first one, which are the current funding models and best practices for the NRIs that you are involved in as important stakeholders in your respective NRIs in your regions or countries?
What are the common pain points for fund‑raising that you feel trying to get funding for your NRIs?
And then we should kind of brainstorm together here what funding strategies and innovations can the IGF and NRIs explore?
So we know that NRIs try to access very different types of funding from IGFSA, of course, from the Internet Society Foundation from the IGF Secretariat this means from the Trust Fund itself, from local governments, from organisations from the Technical Community, ICANN, the NRIs. From the local ccTLDs, internet service providers, technology companies, telecom companies, universities, associations and so on. So there's a wide spectrum of different funding sources and of course this depends very much on the local reality of each country.
So I would love to hear from you, yeah, what are the other funding models you are using and what type of funds you are accessing and what are the pain points you have and would you have suggestions for new strategies, innovations, that community could try to use to access a new type of funding? So, the floor is ‑‑ yeah, Vint, please.
>> VINT CERF: Well, I have just a generic response here. I've been in the business of trying to raise funds for nonprofits for many, many years now. And the usual question when you approach anyone for funding is, well, what's it in for me? And I don't mean necessarily in some self‑centered way. Someone who is asked to fund something will ask why would I do that? What is the benefit?
And I'm pretty sure that's not always an easy question to answer. You want some concrete way of explaining why funding this particular activity is a good thing either for the funder in some very direct way or in an indirect way because it benefits the local environment.
So the consequence of that line of reasoning reinforces my general sense that the NRIs in particular have an opportunity to speak to potential funders to say if you fund us, we will be able to do the following things which we believe will improve the utility of the internet in our country or region. But I'm very interested to hear what some of the other folks have to say.
In some parts of the world Private Sector funding is not common. It's more common in the U.S. than in other places, and so we forget that not always the Private Sector is accustomed to supporting these kinds of operations. So let's hear from some of the NRIs about their experience so far.
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Thank you, Vint. So, floor is opened.
>> RONALD SACANO: I can.
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Yeah, please.
>> RONALD SACANO: Thank you. My name is Ronald Sacano. I'm from Original Internet Registry. I also have some roots to support of IGF initiatives in the central Asia, Moldova, and some other countries.
Well, we can also understand that in some cases it is also attractive for private companies to come and make the sponsorship because it is a really good visibility and more mature. The IGF is more possibilities for the organizers to engage them and ensure this visibility and sell them these packages. But we should also remember that technical communities are quite passionate to participate if you discuss issues that is really important for them, not something that is very far from their reality but that is very close to them like the infrastructure access and all this stuff.
And it is already the issue of the organizer to ensure this engagement to bring to the agenda really important and urgent issues of their local community.
Another point is the engagement of the state. I don't believe ‑‑ or it will be very tough for the developing countries to put it in the budget but it can also create the possibility to engage new partners. We ‑‑ at least in our region IGOs is not very active to participate in the IGF initiatives but if it goes to the upper level, let's say, it might open your door for the IGOs to make this intervention and to ensure this funding for them.
So I'm quite optimistic but we should work all together with Technical Community with the skill set of the governments and all other stakeholders to ensure that it is not going the wrong way and it is not ‑‑ well, we will say that there are a lot of possibilities but we have now a current model that at least ensuring the active promotion of the IGF and activities of IGF in the region and the country. So we should make sure that we can keep it, at least.
Another part is very active engagement of ccTLDs. At least in our region they are either hosting the IGFs or supporting the IGFs. And it is also maybe our role to tell them that they are also a very important part that is supporting this IGF initiative because they are ‑‑ also their eligibility somehow comes from the community and that is why they should support these activities. Thank you.
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Thank you. Someone else would like to ‑‑ yep.
>> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: It's on, is it?
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Yep.
>> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: Okay. Thank you, very much. Thank you for giving me the opportunity that we can sit here around and discuss this important topic. I'm organizing the regional IGF, the EuroDIG IGF for Europe and I'm doing this since almost 20 years now. I can't believe that I'm saying that.
What strikes me in those almost 20 years is that I have the feeling that for the NRIs the regional and the national in particular it's still somehow expected that we are working on a rather voluntary basis or at least on a very low budget and this is somehow anticipated that it's just like that.
At a certain point we did not really get over the status of grassroots initiatives.
On the other hand, full performance is expected. And just to give you an example I want to remind us when the pandemic hit the world, we realized that we were actually front runners in virtual work and remote participation. And suddenly the entire world understood the costs that are involved and the effort that is involved in running meaningful remote participation to really make it work.
And this is just an example how we performed even before the pandemic in this respect. And then suddenly everyone realized, oh, my gosh, this is a lot of effort. This is really expensive. But it was just expected that we are doing this. And we did it with a lot of enthusiasm, with a lot of voluntary work, et cetera. But honestly this cannot go on for another five or ten years. We are doing this since almost 20 years now and that is way too long time.
So I think it's a matter of expectation management here. We really to have say if you expect full performance on all levels and it's not just technical issues, it's also outreach to the political level, engaging of all stakeholders and engaging stakeholders is the most hardest part of our work, not ordering a room and setting up the technical infrastructure but reaching the stakeholders. And here where the national regional IGFs play a really important role because they can reach out to the local and to the national level. They understand the issues and they speak the language that is spoken in communities that are not familiar with having a conversation in English.
So I do agree what had been said in the first segment that a permanent mandate and a well‑financed mandate for the IGF Secretariat will definitely help national regional IGFs to get the needed attention on a regional and a national level but I don't expect it will help funding the national and regionals because as I said we are not UN bodies, we started as grassroots initiatives.
I see a big need for the Private Sector and in particular big tech to play the role here because what we are doing here basically we are fighting for free and interoperable internet. And big tech has the biggest benefit of all this.
So they must step in to IGFSA as an institution to manage a Trust Fund could be very helpful in this respect collecting money. That then helps the national and regional IGFs to do their work on the ground.
But expectations and anticipations at the moment are very far apart from each other. Thank you, very much.
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Thank you, Sandra. Yeah, Mary, please?
>> MARY UDUMA: Thank you, can you hear me?
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Yeah.
>> MARY UDUMA: Okay. The NRIs as we started from Norway, nobody instituted it and it was organic, it started from grassroots. And what we have done in my own region, the administrations in my region will be getting them involved in the first instance. For instance, in West Africa our Secretariat is with the West Africa Economic Commission called ECOWAS. We have Member States. Each year we get an administration to do the heavy lifting for us in terms of funding that will provide 80% of the funds or resources we need to organize our NRI ‑‑ I mean our annual meeting. Our businesses have not been involved so much.
But last year what we did was to develop a package, you know, saying that funding package to attract resources from the non‑usual cooperators and fund us. One of them were able to get funding from an uber‑like organisation that operates in West Africa. This year again we did the same and we found that we got attention.
But getting that attention of the resource funders we also need to give ‑‑ you know, convincing that there's something in there for them just like others have spoken and also the visibility so some of them want to be in the plenary session or do workshop or do exhibition just to encourage them.
So those are the strategies we have used and it has worked for us. We held the last one in Nigeria and it was very, very successful. So but we have not convinced the Private Sector enough to be able to participate fully. So we are still looking at what we should do to attract the Private Sector. Then we will give them sessions so with that session it creates visibility for them. So that's how we have been managing our funding. Thank you, very much.
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Thank you, Mary. Please.
>> LEE McKNIGHT: Hi, thank you. This is Lee McKnight, a veteran. Going back to the Caribbean Internet Forum which started two years before there was an Internet Governance Forum, so working closely with the Jamaican government in those very early days.
So what I'm hearing all around the room, first I just want to compliment everybody how far we have come over the decades. The fact there's now 170 plus NRIs is amazing. It's a tribute to the work of everybody in the room and online that they exist.
Second, I wanted to highlight the complementarity. Probably they wouldn't exist without the UN IGF and all the work of the people here at the UN, Marilyn Cade, I'm thinking of, who has passed away who helped encourage and provide a model for the local initiatives. Turning back to the funding question it was hard 22 years ago for the ‑‑ Courtney Jackson from the government of Jamaica to persuade industry to throw in funds. It was impossible for me to get big tech companies to say it was hard for me to say I can't go to my boss and say there's going to be a meeting in Grenada that I have to be at and Google is going to sponsor it or whoever it is. So there's a balance of needs of the local and regional communities which somehow has gotten us to this point.
I do think it will be easier, somewhat, if the UN IGF is institutionalized that will provide further legitimacy for the grassroots efforts and will sort of strengthen the support of potential going forward. So I don't think there's going to be any magic solution. And I feel our EuroDIG founder's pain in having done this so long. We are overcoming so many challenges. So it's still going to be difficult. There's no magic solutions. But I think with the progress made over the decades and the IGF, UN IGF institutionalization, it should get marginally better, not magically better. Thank you.
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Thank you. So we have Jordan and then Edmon. Yeah, Jordan.
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you, Flavio. Good morning, everyone. My name is Jordan Carter. I work for the Australian Domain Administration, the organization that runs the ccTLD. And just two thoughts.
In my experience in both New Zealand and Australia the most integral funding partners for the national IGFs have been the ccTLD manager and the IGF is a core part of the country's Internet Governance infrastructure. When the CC has a role and responsibility to do that and its strategy or its mandate from the government it's a natural fit, at least partly because it tends to be disinterested in the outcomes and the substance of the discussion so it's a great supporter for a neutral platform. I guess that could be different if there was a fight about the ccTLD happening in the local area but usually most of the time that doesn't seem to be the case.
So if you're from a CC and you're not currently a supporter of that Internet Governance infrastructure, I would urge you to do so.
The second point I'd make is just to highlight the tension between some of these Private Sector wishes that we have for funding and the fact that the NRIs and the IGF generally are designed to be dialogue forums.
When you have been in this game for a while you sort of think about the decision‑shaping and norm‑making facets there. But if you are an executive with limited funds to give out, you tend to prioritize things where a decision is going to be made that you care about. So ironically the non‑decisional aspect of this forum which is so important makes it more difficult to achieve Private Sector funding.
And I think it's more important to keep that dialog space than it is to change it in order to save that funding which reinforces the importance of organizations like ccTLDs and being resources for their NRIs, resources in this case being funding and other in kind support that we provide the Secretariat for the IGF, as well. I hope that helps, thanks.
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Thank you, Jordan. Edmon?
>> EDMON CHUNG: Edmon here. And from DotAsia. Like Sandra, we have been supporting the APR IGF Secretariat. But also speaking from Internet Society Hong Kong where the Hong Kong IGF that, you know, I'm involved in. Building on what I guess really Vint and Sandra and also what Jordan touched on, I think besides getting the support which we really lean on the ISOCs, the ccTLDs, the registries for at this moment I think creating impact of the work that really informs the local legislation might be a very important part because right now the line between the NRIs and the actual decision making part which Jordan highlighted is not quite there.
But I think one of the things that the institutionalization of IGF or the UN IGF would be very useful for is to bring this parliamentary track thing to the NRIs because then that thread between the NRI discussion and the local legislation could be much better drawn. And that, I think, would create the impact and that would create the interest for sponsorship for other types of funding that would support the NRIs which came from a grassroots direction as mentioned. But the UN IGF once institutionalized can really bring the parliamentary track to the NRIs and I think this could create impact.
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Yep. Jennifer?
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Thanks, Flavio. So this is Jennifer. And actually I'm going to speak on behalf of being part of the Secretariat IGF team of the Asia‑Pacific regional IGF.
I think many colleagues mentioned that the ccTLDs do play a very large role especially when they also host and help out with the regional ‑‑ sorry ‑‑ the national IGFs. But of course in APAC region they also do a lot to host the regional IGFs when we rotate to them. I mean, just looking at Jordan as well when APR IGF was in Australia in, Brisbane, auDA did a very big part in doing so. And as we have rotated to other countries and economies the same thing happened.
But now I'm going to speak on behalf of, I guess, a little bit more of the G's, the generic top‑level domains. I guess DotAsia is one of them. And I see in the room there are quite a few of us here. PIR I'm seeing. And of course Vera Zang Phon (phonetic) is in the room. But they also play a very large part in supporting their national IGFs. And I think our NCC colleague who now might not be in the room anymore but have also mentioned Technical Community does play a very large role especially in supporting NRIs and youth initiatives around the world. I see ICANN in the room. I see Adam over there. I don't know if you want to mention a little more.
There is a lot of support around there as well as ISOC. ISOC itself has also a foundation that looks into funding and supporting both in kind and of course in cash a lot of the different NRI networks. And I think a lot of the NRIs also rely very much on their local ISOC chapters to help with the funding there.
One thing I wanted to point out is that of course looking at a more innovative or different funding strategy is a little, you know, we do have a little bit of framework around it because the NRIs like the IGF is non‑commercial. So when we are looking into putting in some kind of packaging or something for the donors or sponsors especially when we are looking at private sector or big tech or companies, it's becomes quite difficult for them to understand and justify, okay, if we are going to support you, what about our logos, are we going to have this, what is it that we can get?
And it becomes a little bit of a dialogue back and forth to actually explain this is the criteria of what the NRIs have to do because this is non‑commercial, we can't look into charging an admission fee.
I don't know if people in the room have taken a look at the non‑papers that I guess both the Swiss government and also the Australian government have put out. And in there there's some actually quite creative ideas about looking at it from a different point of view. I think it's ideas of food for thought and how we can look into getting more sustainable models of funding for both the NRIs and the global IGF. These are questions we don't have answers. And I think it's a really good brainstorming session right now for us to consider.
Back to you, Flavio.
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Yeah, thank you, Jen. I think we have to move forward. I see Amrita worried. T.
Hank you for this very good exchange of ideas. We have this fantastic NRIs network here which is led by the IGF Secretariat. I think there's a lot of room for exchanging good practices that people from different NRIs share their good practices with other ones, and give other insights of different types of funding sources that can be approached.
And we know that the community has a lot of things to share with the other NRIs. And I hope that the NRIs network can be used for that.
So let's move to the next point in the agenda. Amrita, please.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Thank you so much, Flavio. And for those that have more ideas but could not speak, you could also e‑mail it to us. And if you want to speak, those who have just come in, we have the mics on the table. Please come in and sit out here and raise your hand.
We have Fiona taking in the next section. But, yes, in NRI funding NRIs are different, they come from varied backgrounds. The countries are different. Things which may work in some countries may not but best practices if they are shared helps because sustainability is a challenge for the NRIs, for sure.
Fiona, the next section is yours. Ten minutes.
>> FIONA ASONGA: Thank you so much, Amrita. Good morning, everyone.
I believe that following through from the discussion as we continue we are going to see the importance of sustainability planning for the NRIs moving forward. And a number of things are glaringly hitting us in the face. For example it has been mentioned about the role of getting the different stakeholders to be involved in the discussions. It is important that where we have reached right now we should have already had this ‑‑ all the stakeholders coming in for the IGF, for the national IGF or the national levels, and being able to then cascade and getting them to participate even at the global IGF. But that seems to be a challenge which we to have figure out how to overcome.
That said and done, as you continue having our national and regional Internet Governance Forums what are the things that we need to consider moving forward?
Is there a role still for the IGFSA to play in the national and regional IGF forums? And what would be the role of the NRIs ensuring sustainability of resourcing of the global IGF? Is there a role for the NRIs to play in that space? What other resources are helpful for us to be able to tap into to ensure the sustainability of the NRIs.
These questions are important because we are at a point where we have not exhausted the engagement and the conversations that we need to have with other stakeholders with having and driving the multistakeholder discussions and engagements. Even if the Internet Governance Forums are not decision‑making, the collaboration and discussions and looking at policy at that level by all stakeholders is very important in capacity building and firming discussions that can go into other areas to ensure and sustain engagement and multi‑stakeholder participation at our different ‑‑ all the different levels. The local, the national levels and regional levels and cascading it from a bottom‑up multistakeholder engagement process.
So the floor I think is going to be opened for us to have a conversation for the next few minutes. Our time is moving very fast but we can get your views for those who are here on what you think can be done to entrust sustainability and better planning for both the local NRIs and the global IGFs, I think that would be important to hear views on. And so we will start with feedback and input from Jimson.
>> JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you, very much. My name is Jimson Olufuye from the Africa ICT Alliance. I run Kontemporary Konsulting business in Abuja, Nigeria.
I've been involved in the process quite a while and I'm happy with what we are doing. Thank you, the executive committee, for a great job.
The ecosystem is gaining strength year by year, there's no doubt about that. And we need to continuously enrich it. We enrich it through various measures, expanding the structure and also funding mechanism. If you permit me to just recall back to what we discussed earlier.
How do we get more funding? Yes, Chris, that is from the sectors, business in particular. The businesses need to have a seat on MAG. As it is at a global level. At a local level there should be specific seats for business as well for the Civil Society. And they need to be followed up to make sure they are there. Once their interest is covered, there should be funding from that source physically.
An interesting development is that they are being called for sub national idea that is apart from national. Even at the state level, local level. I recall I proposed this, I mentioned this at the IGF in Brazil 2006. But I was surprised I gained some traction. So people asking me about the state level is he allowed? At the local level, is he allowed? Yes, why not.
That brings me to the point that my colleague mentioned about sustainability. Can we continue the volunteering aspect of it?
So we need to be looking at how to really empower the Secretariat at a local level and funding makes a lot of difference. That is why if we make it permanent, if it's renewed extensively at the global level, so whatever applies globally will apply at the local level. Funding at the local level will make the national government and the local government oversee the budget for it, provide budget and bring in the parliamentarians, the ones that approved the budget at the National Assembly. So if you bring them in more closely, create a seat for them at the MAG, and make them coordinate the process, I think we will continue to just move forward. So with that we will continue the strengthen the ecosystem going forward. Thank you.
>> FIONA ASONGA: Thank you, so much, Jimson. We have got Chris online who has something to add.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: I don't know if Chris Mondini, one of our EC members, would like to join in on this particular part. But if not, then we can go to the next speaker, as well.
>> JOYCE CHEN: Thanks. This is Joyce speaking. For the record, I'm not speaking with my EC hat on, I'm just speaking as a participant, as a follower, and as one of the sponsors, as well, for initiatives like the APR IGF. And I really relate to this idea that we have really been doing all this on a voluntary basis and very much at a best effort kind of manner. Whatever available resources there are and just try your best to put on a good show.
And I was just thinking in terms of the additional resources required, I think we should also think from an operational point of view the professionalization of all the different Secretariats. I think that's really important.
And I think, for example, the APR IGF, not that I'm speaking on behalf of them, I'm speaking just as a participant. My observation is because DotAsia is the Secretariat, they put in a lot of effort to make the event happen.
And I'm not sure if many of the other NRIs have similar very dedicated Secretariats with the skills to put the event together to, you know, kind of herd the cats of whichever is your steering group, committees, et cetera. And it requires a lot of heavy lifting on the part of your Secretariats.
And so I think part of our discussion about resources is also to think about how we can bridge our Secretariats together and how we can also resource our Secretariats better. So that's my point of view. Thank you.
>> FIONA ASONGA: Amrita?
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Thank you, Fiona. And just to take up from what Joyce said, for the record, most of the NRIs are volunteer‑driven. They do not have a Secretariat.
So if one person goes, the show kind of becomes shaky. So building that leadership for sustainability is important. And many times if you go to donors, many big tech, they do not understand the volunteer work which happens that there is no, you know, how is it structured, it's not legally registered somewhere. So it's very difficult for them to understand how volunteers work.
And many from ‑‑ people from the external audience do not understand this volunteer work how passionately people work. So it also takes time to explain to them how it works. Many governments, they find it difficult that how volunteers come, contribute, and go away. What is the interest? So it takes a lot of education. Fiona, over to you. I know we are short of time.
>> FIONA ASONGA: We are running short of time but I think also in the interest of being able to ensure sustainability and planning is improved, I like the idea of formalizing because the truth is when a volunteer leaves, they pass away or they move on to something else, everything stops there. Those like school of Internet Governance has been run by our dear friend for the longest time. If she moved on to something else, who takes over from you, you know?
When you think about it, even the national Internet Governance forums are run in that way. Is there a way that the multi‑stakeholders can come together and formalize that process so that it's always a team that is working together to get things done so that then we are able to entrust sustainability in the way we operate and run these forums, you know.
And when you think about it, I think that's the food of thought we should carry from this discussion and take home with us because then it gives us something that we can be able to work on and think through and see how we engage to make it happen and to make sure that the national and regional districts are sustainable.
I have two minutes, I think we have two minutes for our session. And Anriette has just stepped in so I want to give her an opportunity to add onto the discussion on sustainability and planning and what you could do to improve on it. Thank you.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Okay. Anriette, if you need one minute to come back. Yes, I'll just come to you. We may be thrown out of the room in two minutes' time. I'll give you half a minute.
But before we end, we would like to take a group photograph. And from the IGF EC we would also like to remember Nigel, who was our treasurer. We didn't do it early because most of the people were not here. We really miss him. He was an integral part. He managed as a treasurer. And obviously many of you would know him in person. So we would like to remember him also out here. Anriette, if you could speak.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, very much. My apologies, everyone. Anriette Esterhuysen. I'm one of the executives. I'm sorry I couldn't be here earlier.
I think this is really just to share that we have been talking about how to strengthen the IGF but particularly to strengthen national and regional IGFs that the challenge that we should all try and tackle collectively is not just one about funding.
The sustainability and the ongoing strength and impact of national and regional IGFs also requires them to be legitimate, to be inclusive, to be able to play a role at a national level that brings together interest groups and stakeholders that might not find it easy to work together but that need to work together. And also to be able to have the systems, the critical thinking, the processes in place to give them that longer term sustainability.
And ultimately I think we all understand that in the long run in our eyes do need to be supported by their communities and by the institutions and organisations that come together through that NRI.
And that's not something that happens easily. It requires a lot of relationship‑building, as well.
So I think that would just be my opening remarks. We have some ideas. We want your ideas. We want to hear how people feel about this way of thinking, about sustainability, long‑term sustainability and impact of NRIs, and then also to hear some ideas about what kind of activity and what kind of collaboration could help contribute to this longer term sustainability. Does that capture what we have been talking about?
>> Yes.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Thank you so much, Anriette. I'm sorry, I don't think we will be able to take you because I can see three seconds and we have been told we need to close it. But please keep the conversation opened. We will keep these questions. Please write to us. And we would ‑‑ if required, if you want, we can always have another discussion online.
But thank you so much for joining us today ‑‑ (applause) ‑‑ early morning. And we will take a group photograph. Thank you.