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.
***
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for attending and participating in this Open Forum. My name is Isabelle Lois at the Office of Communications and the CSTD.
We have an interesting Open Forum called Building bridges for WSIS Plus : A multistakeholder dialogue.
You can see we have a great panel here. Let me introduce the panellists a bit.
On my right, we have Anita Gurumurthy. We have Flavio Wagner.
And then we have Maria Fernanda Garza.
And then we have Min Jiang and Juan Fernandez.
Before we start the discussion and the conversation, I would like to give the floor to Jorge Cancio, who is Co‑director of International Relations at the Swiss Office of Communications. Please share some words, Jorge.
>> JORGE CANCIO: Thank you.
I won't be long. Many of you know we have a non‑paper that is advocating for WSIS+20 and WSIS framework that is both up to speed for the digital needs of today's world, in terms of substance and in terms of how the UN system works together both internally and with all the interested stakeholders.
So we are offering this non‑paper as food for thought for the community, and we look forward to a very substantive discussion of today's forum with all the panellists. I think only the IGF can bring together such a diverse group with so many different sensitivities, and we really are very happy to have you here.
Thank you so much.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you, Jorge.
Thank you for sharing a few thoughts on our non‑paper. If anyone wants to have a copy, we can share it with you.
If anyone wants to sit on the podium, on the panel, come up and sit here. Don't be shy.
I think we can jump straight into the discussions. We all know what we're talking about. This is not the first discussion about WSIS and what we want out of it. So I think we can jump right in.
I want to talk to you, Anita, and ask if you can share some of your thoughts on what specific changes you consider necessary to make the entire WSIS architecture fit for purpose beyond 2025, and how will you implement those changes?
>> ANITA GURUMURTHY: Thank you for coming out with the paper.
What I want to say is we completely agree that the existing action lines in WSIS+20 are flexible enough for new challenges, and rather than deleting existing ones, updates should be made to the currently implementation document.
The first one on the role of public governance and stakeholders can be updated to include public standards for goods and ownership and control and transparency and accountability of digital public infrastructure.
Similarly, on action line three can really encompass the need to tackle the risks to integrity because of misinformation and hate speech, et cetera.
The fourth line speaks about capacity building. Could actually look at transformative public digital education, which goes by the name of digital literacy.
You can think about different adaptations. We have a list of this kind of update.
But what is critical, I think, is the gaps, in the first place, arise because of one Achilles hill. We know commitments are not really being respected and the related financing is in trouble, and, therefore, there are architectural gaps. I think this is for the SDGs related to the WSIS. We really have to look at it front and center.
I would also like to make a couple of points that have residences in the non‑paper have to do with better linking the review of WSIS and the GDC tracks and the IGF's annual track of this is how we imagine this is really important.
What will be the metrics? How do we look at it from inclusion, diversity, et cetera?
How can it be with reviews when national reviews will be presented.
It's really, really important that in the business of standard setting and going forward ‑‑ we're talking about AI ‑‑ we know many of the action item holders are busy with groups looking at ‑‑ there's an absence that we need to pay attention to. Otherwise, I think going forward from here, we are not going to have a robust approach with the WSIS+20 process.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you very much. I think you raised a lot of very important and very specific points that I took well note of. I like how you both gave ideas on specific action lines where we could do better and also thinking on how are we calculating progress? How are we celebrate wag we have done and what we have achieved and making sure that's well recorded.
I will turn to you, Flavio. Can you share what specific subject‑matter updates that go beyond the architecture to make sure WSIS is truly impactful beyond 2025? How can they be integrated into the entire framework?
>> FLAVIO WAGNER: Thank you ‑‑ ‑‑ Isabelle.
I heard this expression this morning and found it very useful. The action lines did not lose their validity and strength after 20 years.
However, of course, there are issues that are emerging trends in 2005 or even in 2015 with the WSIS+20 review.
It should be ended with the WSIS+20 Review and the follow‑up of the WSIS process.
This is still a major challenge. Billions remain offline in these marginalised areas. There's barriers like affordability, low digital ‑‑ lack of content services, for instance, in their native languages.
A second issue is the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence. Everyone is talking about the impact, both positive and negative. It continues to expand, affecting labour, ethics, environment, and still deserves careful assessment by society.
The action lines, AI is both an enabler and a threat across many areas, many action lines.
Data governance, closely tied to AI, many raise concerns about data sovereignty. This must be a key focus of the WSIS+20 review process.
Social media and digital platforms, barely emerging 20 years ago. Now there's SMEs and a fuelling of hate speech. Human rights must be protected. Freedom of speech, gender equity, rights of marginalised groups, children's rights, privacy, and more. This remains one of the most pressing concerns in today's digital world.
A growing issue in recent years is the energy consumption of ICT. ICTs now account for estimated 506% of global energy users. That's rising rapidly due to AI.
Environmental protection, the growing impact requires energy‑efficient solutions.
Finally, there's an increasing demand for legislation. That's a different perspective.
Labour disruptions and more.
And now there's many jurisdictions that claim ‑‑ there should be harmonised legislation that doesn't undermine the full potential of the Internet as a globally connected resource. And the final point, the integration of the WSIS action lines, the SDGs, must be strengthened.
Mapped to the SDGs, the digitalisation role needs actionable items, especially beyond 2030 and when the SDGs should be revised.
So thank you and I look forward to the continuation of the discussion.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you, Flavio, for your comprehensive list of discussion matters that we need to consider now that we're looking for the WSIS review and want to implement further this year.
Maybe I will take the point to just remind everyone that we are many panellists. Everybody is an expert. You have a lot to say but try to keep your remarks as short as possible so we can have a discussion.
I will turn to you, Maria Fernanda Garza.
There's a core principle. What would meaningful inclusion look like in the WSIS+20 review and the implementation after this year, and what is missing today?
>> Maria Fernanda Garza: It is a pleasure to join you this afternoon. Thank you to the Swiss government. I'm Maria Fernanda Garza, member of the leadership panel.
Since WSIS was envisioned in 2005, there's been support of the global business community for our people‑centred, inclusive, and developmental‑oriented information society.
The process of this agenda and the Geneva action plan focus on creating a truly global Internet where everyone can benefit from what it has to offer.
Since 2003, the world around us has been involved significantly with the new challenges of the Internet leading to fragmented policy responses that had also been influenced by the digital technologies that go beyond the Internet.
But WSIS settles out with a uniform vision and offers a toolbox to cope with these challenges of technology.
So while 20 years have passed since this was created, new challenges have surfaced.
The most important question we need to ask ourself is whether we have been using it effectively. The WSIS architecture provides a unique and inclusive distributed governance model that promotes interoperability, multistakeholder collaboration to around the policy, regulatory, and legal space more broadly around this technology.
Bringing these pieces together is why WSIS created the IGF.
So less than halfway to the WSIS+20 review, we must think about how to take the existing architecture into the future.
ICT shares the views presented in the Switzerland non‑paper which called for strengthening existing structure and fixing the gaps and enhancing the IGF.
The WSIS+20 process will not only talk about inclusion but operationalise it by implementing ‑‑ and by giving the IGF a permanent mandate through sustainable funding.
Bottom‑up multistakeholder dialogue on digital policy issues, the IGF has demonstrated its value over the past 20 years, especially as technology has evolved and policy changes become more.
We mean to ensure meaningful opportunities for stakeholders ‑‑ we want to ensure that the policies are viable and privacy and human rights are protected, leaving no one behind in the digital age means ensuring everyone has a seat at the table but also a voice and a power to shape the digital future.
Thank you.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you so much, Maria Fernanda.
I like the point you make about having the toolbox and are we using the tools. I think that's great to think about, especially this year.
I will turn to our online speaker, Min Jiang. Maybe you can share what you see as the main challenges or concerns that the academic community is raising now regarding the role of the IGF within the broader WSIS architecture.
>> Min Jiang: Thanks for having me on this panel, and thanks, Jorge ‑‑ Isabelle and Lois.
The community works with other stakeholders in governmental, tactical business communities and civil society to advance research, ideas, and well‑being in our society.
From an academic perspective, IGF faces some challenges within the broader WSIS and digital governance architecture. I will flag two for consideration.
First is deliberation versus decision‑making. IGF, is a structure under the auspice of UN that allows issues of digital governance to emerge from the confluence of diverse communities.
Unfortunately, also, limited by its design, a lot of the great IGF discussions and outcomes do not necessarily land in decision‑making fora at the UN, regional, or national levels.
Structurally, it seems a conveyer belt of some sorts needs to exist between IGF and a larger WSIS infrastructure as well as between multistakeholder and multilateral processes to transmit and generate outcomes more effectively into decision‑making processes. Otherwise, we risk taking time away from making actual binding decisions to address critical issues and challenges.
A second related issue is limited visibility and capacity.
Without a permanent mandate, subject to WSIS review. As mentioned by Maria Fernanda Garza, without sustainable funding, IGF risks the status of one of most diverse fora.
Also with a proliferating number of processes ‑‑ also now including GDC, IGF faces an existential question. Many see GDC's multilateral process and IGF's multistakeholder process ‑‑ there's no reason why the two cannot collaborate under the same UN umbrella to press issues more effectively.
Thank you. Looking forward to more discussions.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you, Min. I think you raise points on what we're looking for at the IGF and how we can make it strong. We are the WSIS+20 review.
I will turn to you now, Juan.
What roadmap, framework, joint mechanisms, anything in that sense would you see linking the processes? I'm thinking about within GDC and the other points you also want to raise. And we also have a slide that we're sharing behind.
>> Juan Fernandez: Thank you for having me.
And the audience, can you be with me? I will be presenting three slides. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. That way, I will speak less, and we'll have more time to get the interaction with you. That is what is our interest.
My first slide is just to motivate. It's taken from the book that's there at the right. "Governing AI for Humanity." By the way, I recommend the book. This shows several processes related with AI, and it makes the list of which countries have participated.
You see with the yellow in the bottom, most of the countries, most of the south cannot participate.
This situation that ‑‑ because, of course, I agree with the substantive issues that was said by my previous speakers, but, in the end, work has to be done, and we have to do it through mechanisms, something, and we can't have too many of them. Otherwise, it's impossible for developing countries to be in all of them.
In that sense, I agree with what is said in the document from the Swiss government and in the non‑paper and what was said. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. We can keep the processes that were established during WSIS, of course, and perfecting them now that we have the experience of the years.
These four are in the screen now. The IGF that we are here now, the CSTD, the WSIS Forum, and also the UN General Assembly. There's some arrows in the middle that's not just there for the show. This means there needs to be some institutional linkage and coordination to avoid duplication.
In the Swiss document, they go into detail that mentions the United Group of Information Society. I told the Secretary‑General in another meeting that, beyond that, we need a for fluid alliance between all of this.
Just to finish the last slide, of course, I'm open to question if you want me to go into more details. But quickly to say why the essence of those three ‑‑ four mechanisms. First, we have the IGF. I put them first not by chance.
The IGF is an agenda‑setter. It's bottom‑up, from the national and regional IGF, problems are presented. Problems that many times are not heard at the global level. So it's natural to channel those problems to the UN at large and to the international community at large.
As Vint Cerf says, IGF may not be the place to solve the problem, but it's certainly the place to frame the problem.
It's very important because it's the dialogue and part of the mandate. That does not have to be changed.
There's some perfection that can be done but okay.
Then we have the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. We need the space. There's the mandate of the review of WSIS. We need that. Somebody is still calling the enhanced corporation ‑‑ if you know, I have this story very well. I was there in Tunis during that discussion. We don't have time here.
But we need an intergovernmental space. It may the CSTD. For instance, in CSTD, it was decided last year to create a group for the analysis of data governance because it's important. Maybe next year, they will say we need a group for the analysis of AI governance or blockchain, whatever. We need a place where governments can also challenge their own concerns and take decisions.
Of course, we have the WSIS Forum, the original mandate is to have the accountability of the moderator, facilitator of the action lines and to review the action lines. Here I underline the word "action" because in some other forum here in the policy dialogue, in CSTD ‑‑ this has to be translated into actions. All of these processes can be the clearinghouse. The IGF is a clearinghouse for policy dialogue because everybody can hear.
But the action lines, the first slide processes outside the United Nations for artificial intelligence, for instance. We don't have a line for it but let me put one for cybersecurity. We have many processes for cybersecurity, even the London process that is outside of the UN, we have the open‑ended working group. All of those many people cannot be in many places in the world, but they can converse the result of that on cybersecurity. It's already there. It's a mandate. We should focus on that.
I believe the WSIS Forum has been drifting away from the core principle.
Finally, we need the United Nations General Assembly. It's the most inclusive for all member states.
Of course, by the way, they're carried out, the information society, they review from ‑‑ and that goes there. That should be kept the place for the political review on the outcomes on the voices of the GDC of the future.
I will leave it there. I know you may want me to go deep into something, but, if we have time, please ask.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you so much, Juan, first of all, for your enthusiasm in the presentation and for all the different points.
I'm very happy that you're commenting and agreeing with the points we did. I have not asked them to endorse it. You're free to share your own position and opinions, and I'm happy you all like it. Just to make it clear, they were all free to say whatever they wanted. It was just to start the conversation.
But, Olaf, I will turn to you. Could you share a few of your thoughts on how the IGF is evolving or could evolve as a space for discussion or maybe a strategic platform to shape the conversation across the governance landscape.
>> Olaf: I will.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Please try to be brief.
>> Olaf: Is this on?
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Yes.
>> Olaf: I will. Thank you for sharing the non‑paper. These papers are a brilliant contribution to the global brainstorm that is happening around this topic.
Brainstorming ourselves a little bit a couple of years ago, we thought about what is actually the IGF, and how can we create an atmosphere which is a little bit more productive?
Then referring to the conveyor belt of decisions, perhaps you need a little bit more structure. One of the things we identified, if you look at the policy topics that entered the IGF, they are of various maturity.
New ones require storming, forming, and norming by their stakeholder groups.
Other policies may only need coordination and sharing of experiences. Perhaps even more mature, you can deliver best practices.
You can notice that I'm sort of an engineer going at this as a solution‑oriented approach.
So if you think about that and think about policy topics that might be interesting, organise those in verticals, in pillars.
I can see the infrastructure governance as its own pillar. Digital public infrastructure as its own pillar. AI as its own pillar. Digital literacy as its own pillar.
By identifying where there's sufficient scope to do work, you can basically design work programmes. Is this really about coordination, maybe reporting to each other in the community, what the state of things are, what work is being done.
What are things on the table? What are the actual dilemmas? What is the storming and the forming?
Now the matrix, we have the horizontals of the global qualities and human rights and questions around climate and technical competency that needs to be in all of those pillars and the academic community that needs to come out of those pillars.
And by making work programmes within those pillars, you have a little bit of a continuity and a chance of producing outcome that will be picked up either by the communities in, say, their regional and national Internet governance bodies and picked up by governance or, perhaps, reported up to the food chain, as you just described it.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: (Chuckling).
>> Olaf: And that's pretty much the pitch.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you for the pitch. I really liked it. Short, sweet, and to the point.
Without further ado, I will turn to our last panellist. If we're zooming out a bit, consideration the discussion on the WSIS+20 review and the whole UN system. Both in New York and Geneva, how are you approaching this from a governmental perspective? What are the key issues being raised that you think should be raised throughout the different UN fora?
>> Thank you for the invitation to join this panel. I'm glad to be here. I think you know that the Internet in Brazil is built on the multistakeholder model. The CGI, the Steering Committee, I think you're familiar with what we have been doing. We're now celebrating 30 years of this Internet Steering Committee. You also might be familiar with the San Paolo multistakeholder guidelines they were developed last year.
This is the foundation of our position.
I want to congratulate Switzerland for the non‑paper. I fully recommend those in the audience to read this non‑paper. There were interesting ideas. One of them is a joint implementation roadmap because we always talk about avoiding duplication efforts and creating new platforms ‑‑ it would make no sense to have two different tracks dealing with the same subject matter.
We have the Global Digital Compact, the GDC, so the challenge is how can we integrate both processes?
In terms of negotiations in New York, you've probably read the elements paper by the co‑facilitators of the WSIS process. Our assessment is that they have tried to make a comprehensive document highlighting the benefits but also risks associated with it.
But in terms of proposals, they are very cautious. They are promising for the zero draft coming by August, possibly, to come up with some concrete ideas, in terms of how we can go forward with this process, which has a timeline for December in New York.
We have ongoing negotiations on the GDC, especially the AI track. I think some of you may have read the third draft, which are the terms of reference and modalities for the AI scientific panel. The draft was circulated to UN member states, and the deadline is tomorrow. There's a procedure. We don't know if delegations will break the ‑‑ there's developing countries that are having a coordinated meeting today to decide what to do.
All of this is happening at the same time. We have a challenging political environment, particularly this year, with growing polarisation. The idealological design, some talk about the tech war. This is difficult, adding complexity to how we organise the global digital ecosystem.
I say to my colleagues that we have a window of opportunity, but when we open the wind, there's a storm outside.
We need to see how to finish.
The future of IGF, first, that the IGF should be made permanent. I think it doesn't make any sense that we have been discussing again and again renewing the mandate of the IGF which has a very positive role.
I see a consensus from delegations in New York about this. Maybe this is a low‑hanging fruit that we can secure, if we manage to have stable and predictable funding.
What we see here and in previous IGFs, we have several issues, information integrity and so on.
So this will acknowledge a reality that we need to discuss, if this is also feasible. The question, can we make a compromise. I will stop here. Looking forward to the discussions.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you.
Thank you, all, for your very interesting and important thoughts.
We have about half an hour for questions and comments from the audience. I have a few questions, if no one has something to say.
Look I'm looking at you, listeners.
The mics are on the side.
In the meantime, while you walk over to the mic, I would like us to think a bit on our perspective as different stakeholder groups and maybe think about the main challenges, concerns that we want to get out or that we think we could solve with the WSIS+20 review this year and the outcome.
Thank you. Jacques, I see your first on the mic.
>> Thank all the panel for the contribution.
My name is Jacques. I'm here to speak in support of the ‑‑ the role of the NRIs are at risk as the grand operation. In business, we know all business is local. The IGF is not just happening have in New York or somewhere in cyberspace, but it's actually happening underground.
Maybe three would be great, to have even expanded a little bit on the role of what's happening on the ground.
In the, I think, 140‑something local IGFs.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you so much, Jacques.
>> Bertrand: I want to focus on one thing, the renew of the IGF has been mentioned. I, of course, like many people wholeheartedly support the expansion and even making it permanent. However, it's not enough.
Twenty years in, it's time to stake stock. I do not expect the WSIS+20 by December to make decisions on how to improve the IGF further, how to revise its mandate, how to more formally institutionalise it, which I think is the right thing 20 years in.
However, I take the example of what was achieved with the working group of Internet governance in 2004 and 2005, which was one of the rare truly multistakeholder groupings that initiated not only the definition of Internet governance but also the concept of a forum that gave birth to the IGF.
I strongly believe that 2026, with impetus coming from the WSIS+20 Review, what should be the evolution and the mandate of the IGF to make it formally? What it is supposed to be an issue framing an exercise and agenda‑setting, as one said.
And, second, how to institutionalise it more coherently in a charter of sorts that explains the different powers and the existing building blocks that we have.
I think there's a process we need to take into account during the WSIS+20 review in terms of how to organise the discussion that has to take place in 2026. Thank you.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you. There's two people. Ana, please.
>> Ana: Thank you. Ana Olson. Focusing on free speech. I would like to thank Switzerland for this non‑paper. It's very much appreciated.
We're also a member of the coalition for rights for WSIS, by the way.
The first point is really ‑‑ and I've said this in so many sessions already, so I feel like a broken record, but I do think it's important. We need to strengthen the human rights across the whole WSIS infrastructure.
I'm talking about all human rights, freedom of expression, labour, et cetera.
Inclusion, this is extremely important.
When I talk about inclusion, I mean it in the broadest sense of the word. It's important to include all underserved communes across the globe, obviously within the global majority but across the globe. There are communities that are not represented in the WSIS architecture and vision.
I agree with what you're saying with trying to integrate. There's so many processes going on, whether it's AI governance, et cetera, it's becoming very confusing. I like your proposal for a joint implementation roadmap. So my question is: Could you perhaps elaborate on how you see that in practice? Because we fully support the principle of it, the idea of it, but it's possibly good to hear how you see that in practice.
Thank you so much.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you so much, Ana.
>> Thank you. We all agree that the IGF played a good role today, but when we look at the agenda, we're talking about many things. It is not only intended. We are not just talking about intended here. I don't know if there's missing to see if it's possible today to change the name and look at something very different and permit talk about everything considering the digital space globally.
Thank you.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you so much.
Please, sir.
>> Octavian. I have in my hand the declaration of the min centers on the Council of Europe on the Information Society and the extension of its mandate we you heard about. There's many recommendations. I will focus on one aspect.
Technology companies that are so important for the building of the architecture of this digital world.
The Council of Europe has set up a few years ago partnership with different companies, and we have consultations. We have them as part of the committee works to develop corporate and social responsibility. There's ethical standards by design, et cetera.
What can be done more to engage the business community to forward our goals?
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you so much. And, yes, I know about the statement. It's actually a very good summary of what we could agree on at the Council of Europe.
Please.
>> Hi. I forgot my headphones for some reason. Sorry. Two points, actually. We speak a lot about inclusion of stakeholders, but we often forget to address what are the gaps and the problems around here. Right?
I'm part of a civil society organisation, as part of the stakeholder within the IGF, it seems it's growing. We're forgetting to address the gaps and forgetting levels of participation. To me that's one of the main points we need to tackle within this review. And looking forward to what could be the next 20 years of the IGF and just an example, I think we had a rather good session this morning on the future of work in AI where there was no perspective from civil society and that conversation and a topic that's so relevant that's going to be part of the ‑‑ you know, what is going to come out of the WSIS review. It's really relevant that we keep addressing those points and so on.
Just jumping briefly into the AI conversation, it's really relevant that we don't just allow for the Global North perspective to be the dominant one within this conversation. We have problems and gaps. Many countries in the world are trying to tackle this question through different lenses, and it's really important that when addressing the inclusion of AI within the WSIS framework, we do some evaluation or how to acknowledge the differences, the perspectives and not just the ‑‑ the new topic that the U.S. Government is pushing forward will be the new ones. It's good to achieve a compromise or balance within that. Thanks.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you so much, Bruna. I truly agree with the point of how we can be more inclusive of working at the multistakeholder element of every session we have at the IGF, of every part of the system and to think about it.
On that note, I would, of course, like to highlight the guidelines that are a very good resource on how we can think about multistakeholderism.
Is there anyone who wants to say anything on the points raised from the floor? We had a lot of thoughts about the IGF and on some other themes that we have to include this year in the review, human rights, et cetera.
I'm looking around. Anyone of you who wants to take the floor.
Juan, please, go ahead.
>> Juan: Yes. I will comment briefly in the proposal that's been made several times, the change of name to digital. Early this morning, there was a launch of the new edition of the book of our colleague Jovan Kurbalija, the essential book. He addressed that problem in depth. He is already distributing some notes. I think in the notes he explains. There's a graphic with a pyramid of concepts. Of course, what's in a name? We could name it the way we want, if we have the definition of what that means.
But he argues ‑‑ and I agree with him ‑‑ that the definition of "Internet" as a concept encompasses many things happening today. What is digital without Internet nowadays? What is artificial intelligence without Internet or network based on the network protocol?
So there can be arguments in pro or in con, but it's not necessary to change the name if that is the name that's already engraved on the minds of people outside this room.
Sometimes that's important. Sometimes we think that we are with the only one working on this. But it's not the case. There are many people that take the decisions that influence this that are not technical savvy or something like that. It's better to keep the things that works and not change it very much. That's the same.
Of course, if there's a majority that change the name, it would be okay. But I think we should study what Jovan said.
Thank you.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you so much, Juan, for both the book recommendation and your thoughts on the name change.
I think you wanted to expand?
>> I think the discussion is if the IGF can become policy relevant.
Right now, we see all the panels are great. There's multistakeholder engagement, but we are not really negotiating any outcome, and I think when we think about New York and UN, some member states are clearly opposing any ‑‑ we had discussions on AI governance, the dialogue that's now being considered, and some delegations are against any negotiated outcome. So this is a challenge that we need to face. I want to go back to one of the questions on inclusion and diversity. Of course, we need to ensure that inclusion of women and girls, children and the youth, older persons, persons with disabilities, migrants, refugees, displaced persons, Indigenous peoples, and groups in vulnerable situations because I think Brazil will be hosting the COP 30 in Berlin on climate change. It's the first ever COP in the Amazon Rainforest. Because the principle here is "nothing for us without us," it's thinking about Indigenous people.
Come to the Amazon and meet people and engage with them. We think that digital technologies can be a plus in terms of facilitating more engagement from these groups. So we are preparing like a metaverse for people to engage remotely because, of course, nobody can guarantee that we have all these groups represented physically in Berlin. But we need to provide solutions. I think online meetings, the online environments will help us to do this.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you.
I know you wanted to say something and then I have Olaf.
Go ahead.
>> I think I have an overall reflection about the paper and, of course, the comments.
One thing is in getting the WSIS architecture right and making it fit for purpose, at least for the next 10 years, an important thing that needs to be done is look at the evidence and the ground about the real politics of how negotiations take place.
I mean, I think it's too cruel to say who wins, but what I really mean is how does public interest really get defined? How does it get materialised?
To that extent, I must say Section 7.5, I was not completely convinced that you had thought it through. And I really like the approach that the Australian non‑paper takes to frame the issues, which it says is: What is the evidence? What have we heard? What is the evidence? In the Australian non‑paper is about studying what is coming up on non‑specific issues.
To that extent, I would like to think about the SDG roles very carefully. If you really want to bolster enhanced cooperation and also promote multistakeholder cooperation, I think it's important to think about whether CSTD is offering guidance to governments ‑‑ the defining of issues in the digital arena will be benefited from privacy interest and also defining the agenda.
For instance, in the WHO, there have been private philanthropist who have defined what should be prioritised in the world. And there's copious amounts of evidence to tell you that that really does not serve the world. It does not serve public equity. It's required to go through democratic processes where people's interests are put ahead. And I'm not sure if the private interests get into the ‑‑ in the way that will serve public interest.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: We only have 15 minutes. So I'm trying to be mindful of time.
There's truly a multistakeholder element that I wanted to point out. We can discuss it further.
Please, Olaf, I know you wanted to say something online, and, Min, I have not forgotten about you.
>> Olaf: The name change I wanted to get into, when I described the architecture, I used the word "Internet infrastructure coordination." I do think all these pieces, data governance AI need to be in one name. I have no problem with this name.
If you read the relevance paper, the only place where multistakeholderism is being mentioned is in the Internet governance section. The other sections, the data governance sections and the AI sections have a much more multilateral tone.
So I do think that we need to keep that ‑‑ at least that's the way that I read it.
And I do think that's something we need to keep in the back of our minds if we talk about name changes or perhaps even entity changes that we take care that also the other topics would have global spending effects where that flywheel of regional IGF, National IGF ‑‑ it's all back and forth and it's relevant and stays in place as well.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you so much for your thoughts.
Min, online, I know you've been waiting a bit.
Then we also have Maria Fernanda Garza.
>> Min Jiang: Thank you. Processes would have to address the present challenge of AI and the role of the Global South in policies. AI is a galvanising issues that intersects with things like digital divide, human rights ‑‑ also in socio‑economic terms ‑‑ and infrastructure. The other piece is the participation of the Global South. I deem it really critical. This is an old issue that can go back to the New World Information Communication Order, the debate in the 1970s to address the power imbalances between the Global North and Global South. So there's a historical legacy there.
So between the United States and the rest of the world ‑‑ in the way that the history ‑‑ the current administration is trying to stop individual states from regulating AI in the next decade.
So given the limited number of countries, particularly U.S. and China, are ahead of the rest in AI development, it's really important to be globally inclusive in our processes.
Thank you.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you so much, Min. I agree on the essentialness of being inclusive.
Flavio, I know you wanted to share your thoughts as well.
>> Flavio Wagner: Thank you. I would like to make a comment which is somewhat related to the issue raised by Bertrand and namely on addressing the WSIS Forum.
I think this is the low‑hanging fruit for the WSIS+20 review process. One way to achieve this is through a concrete, institutionalised multistakeholder mechanism, and this is addressed in the Swiss non‑paper.
This can create exchange in both directions, between the IGF and the WSIS Forum.
And this will help achieve one of the major improvements that is required for the IGF. This has been said for many years, namely, that there's multiple outcomes and from the many workstreams, it's conveyed to decision‑makers in an effective way.
As stated by others, the IGF has a role for agenda‑setting and bring image issues and possible solutions and also from the various stakeholder groups to those solutions.
This is a powerful input to other processes or forums involving decision makers, and there we have the WSIS Forum. The IGF shall continue as a dialogue space, convening all the multistakeholder ‑‑ all the stakeholder groups.
The WSIS Forum has a history of attracting agencies that discuss the advancement along the WSIS action lines.
So the IGF should become concrete contribution to the assessment of the action lines.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you so much, Flavio.
Maria Fernanda Garza, I will give you the floor now.
>> Maria Fernanda Garza: Thank you. Going back to regular avenues to stakeholders to deliberate policy ‑‑ there's standing to strengthen the WSIS architecture. We can champion the voices to ensure voices are heard.
But supporting Information Society, we're coordinating input into the WSIS+20 review, and we are committed to continuing our contribution to those to ensure that the input of the next phase of deliberations is truly representative and truly operational.
I am also pleased to have been able to respond to these tasks through my role at the IGF leadership panel.
And on that point, I would urge you to consider that the paper that the leadership panel with the support of the MAG have put together, the outlook of the IGF, which can serve as an important complement in our broader campaign to strengthen the role in the IGF system and make the IGF a permanent structure supported by the regular UN budget, and ensure the viability of the multistakeholder model for the consideration of Internet governance and digital policy issues and enable to IGF to adapt to future needs as the Internet and digital technologies continue to evolve.
And to enable these, we need a solid strategic approach to communications that informs, educate, and elevate interests in the IGF among UN member countries.
Our paper provides useful recommendations on developing clear communications, channels, and messages to the influence of IGF discussions on international policy dialogues, including the G20, the G7, and UN bodies.
And introducing structure follow‑up mechanisms to track and report and impact the recommendations, making our contributions more visible and tangible.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you. I can only highlight what you said. It's a very good document. If you have not read it, there's different points being raised there.
Maybe I will use my privilege as moderator and share a few thoughts. I really like that I think all of you ‑‑ or most, if not all, have highlighted the importance of having an inclusive participation of thinking of Global South and priorities and perspectives. I think this is something that Switzerland is very aligned with this idea, of, first of all, engaging with the preparation for the review and the negotiations in a positive way of trying to find some gain. We have the opportunity to get something really good, to agree on a document that we're happy about to next year when we're starting the implementation of the WSIS+20 outcomes, we're happy with the results. It shows here there's a willingness to contribute to the elements paper and to find something that's positive. I think this IGF ‑‑ at least so far, from what I've attended, has really shown the beautiful impact it can have, the questions, the legislative power being used here is really being used and will hopefully come out of zero draft for the WSIS+20 and then the negotiations. So I'm sure this is something that's very good, and I wanted to highlight this positive outtake that I'm getting from this conversation and reminding everyone that we have time. There's not much time until December, but we still have time to get something great and sort of considering a fair deal for all is something that's a priority for us.
I think we have four minutes left. Maybe I can give you all ‑‑ sorry. There's a comment online.
>> Allow me to read out a comment from Mark Carvell online.
Agree with Flavio that the outcomes of IGF intersessional activities notably of the over 30 dynamic coalitions need to be better communicated and their concrete outputs advocated, both in the IGF process and the WSIS Forum. I can't speak about these issues in this session because I'm in a noisy environment with house builders! . Can they be read out please?
He was talking about the 30 dynamic coalitions, that they need to be better communicated and the outputs are in the IGF and the WSIS Forum. So, yes, it was just a comment to mention what was said online.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you for reading that and sharing that. Sorry. I should have been paying more attention to what is happening online.
If you imagine January 2026. We have finished negotiations. We have finished the WSIS+20 review. What are you happy about?
I'm sorry to put you on the spot.
>> The role to December is to have many opportunities to go deeper into these discussions. It's essential that we incorporate, that the Global South voice is onboard, fully onboard. I said about Indigenous peoples, nothing about us without us, so that's the same for developing countries. We take the global majority. We're not going anywhere if we don't include them. That's the aspect we expect to achieve.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Flavio, what are you happy about?
>> Flavio Wagner: I think this will be achieved, but the important role already within the WSIS architecture ‑‑ in January, I would be very happy expecting the IGF has been very considerate as one of the outcomes and the main discussion space for governance issues, not just AI governance, all the emerging issues.
And the follow‑up for the GDC and the WSIS processes, that would make me happy.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Anita?
>> Anita Gurumurthy: I would like to add that harmonising the architecture with the WSIS, we should not forget that the WSIS architecture itself needs to be harmonised with the large agenda of the multilateral system needs to be fair, which includes fair trade, climate justice, gender equality, taxation, competition, and all the things that make the Global South voice so special and valuable to the WSIS.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Min, online, do you want to share your word?
>> Min Jiang: I think there's shared goals and aspirations under the same UN umbrella.
Hopefully, you know, where there's a will, there's a way for us to actually put global interest, Global South, inclusive processes to make the joint architecture happen.
Thank you.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Juan?
>> Juan: What is the question?
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Close your eyes. 2026, January, what are you happy about?
>> Juan: A lot of work.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: And?
>> That everyone has a seat at the table a voice and a shape in the digital future. That's the vision that embodies the IGF.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: It is.
Olaf?
>> Olaf: We wake up and have strong commitments from all over the world to bridge the divide, and that means bringing the Internet to the people who don't have it now and want to have it.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: That is beautiful. Thank you so much.
And maybe I would give my word, if I can. I know we're over time. I would say that we have a fair deal for all.
And on that note, I apologise for taking a bit extra of your time, but thank you so much, all of the panellists, for sharing your thoughts and for all of you listening and sharing your concerns.
(Applause)
