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.
***
>> ANNOUNCER: Please welcome to the stage, the moderator, Avri Doria, Researcher, Technicalities.
(Applause)
>> AVRI DORIA: It's a long walk.
So, welcome. And thank you for coming. And let me get out my little speech here. This is a very interesting setup. It was far more formal than I expected. But anyway.
Welcome to this session of the IGF on the impact of the IGF on the Information Society. My name is Avri Doria. But it's nice they already said it. And I'm moderator of this session.
In this session I'm going to ask the distinguished panelists who will be joining us soon, and you all, the participants, for personal and professional viewpoints on the questions.
To start in my speaking, let me talk about who I am and my personal perspective on this. The IGF is very important to me. And I expect it is to so many of you. I hope it is. But then again, there's not all that many of you here.
Sometimes I'm in love with it, truly in love with it. And sometimes, well, not so much. So, it's been a long relationship with many different feelings and such.
I was here at its conception, I was here at its birth. I have been here through many of its ups and downs, managed to make it to most all of the meetings and have a very strong personal relationship to it.
I also have felt that it has helped me understand the various viewpoints of the various populations to information, Information Society, the needs and such. So, for me, it has been a critical information source, a critical ability to meet people, talk to people, understand people who have a different view than I do, and such. So that, for me, has been very strong and has entered every bit of my work as I have gotten involved in other parts of the community.
Going to ask all the panelists for their view. Going to have a set of three questions that I will go through in a bit. And then I'm going to go to you, the participants, and I am very glad to see that you are lit and not sitting in the dark, watching a show. But I really want this to be something where, after everybody on stage, all the participants on stage, the speakers have had their chance to speak to the questions, that all of you do.
So, when I ask the questions, I'm going to be asking them not only of the panelists, but those of you who are here and those online as well.
The IGF has been important. I think it's been important to your businesses, to your research, your learning, your teaching, to those of you that are involved in a political life. Over the 20 years, that importance has shown up in many places, at many times, in many ways. It's part of what I'm hoping that we can capture. It has provided a home for an evolving set of objectives over the years.
You know, there's been many efforts. It developed the national and regional initiatives and developing Internet Governance policy. The best practice efforts, the policy networks, the aptly named Dynamic Coalitions and that work all year round that have, basically, looked into a number of different issues, exciting issues and important issues.
Just as Internet Governance has evolved with the new issues, the IGF now stands at a milestone period of its evolving role in the coordination of digital governance spaces. To improve the dialogue and the links among people, the links among governments, the links among institutions, ways of looking at the Internet and data. How does it evolve? How do they all interact? How do we all interact when this is happening?
It is a place for many issues that we haven't even discovered yet, those that are emerging issues, and those that will emerge, hopefully, over the next couple years.
So, this main session, basically, has two objectives. The first objective is to share the experiences of you, the stakeholders, that demonstrate the IGF's usefulness, and to illustrate its concrete and meaningful impact on the evolution of the digital ecosystem in different national and regional contexts and in different sectors of the economy of society.
The second purpose is to discuss how the IGF should continue to contribute to the achievement of a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented Information Society. Of how it should play its central role in the ongoing WSIS and in the beginnings of the GDC processes. These are the questions that I will ask each of the participants, and these are the questions that I will ask you to consider when we open up microphones. And I'm told there will be two microphones at the edge of the hallway. But that's, I guess, when we get to that part of the discussion. So, first I will ask them of the panelists and then I will ask them of all of you.
Also, there will be a Mentimeter poll on the first question that as that goes through, and I guess at some point that will get displayed with the QR code that you all will need to go to if you are going to use the Mentimeter and give your opinions, and I hope you do.
So, the first question that I will ask is, what has the IGF meant to you and what do you want it to mean to you in the future? So, it's looking both a retrospective and also forward and how is that connected, what does it mean, what should it mean, what can it mean.
How has the IGF multistakeholder model, one among many and its realizations, whether it's in the IGF meetings, the NRIs, the Dynamic Coalitions, the policy networks, the Best Practice Forums, how has that worked? Has some part of that really been resonant with you and what was important and such.
How has it made an impact on your organization, your Internet issues, your country, your region? However it's made an impact, it's important for us to hear.
How can the IGF play a more impactful role to contribute to the implementation of WSIS goals and the GDC. So, the third question then comes down to, how can it be better? How can it become more impactful, how can it achieve its results better?
As I said, first I will ask the panelists and then I plan to come to all of you. So, think about your answers to the questions. Think about whether you want to answer just one, just two, or all three of them, everybody will get the same three minutes that each of the panelists can get.
We have a very fine set of panelists, of speakers, and so I'm going to ask you to welcome them all. And we have Hans Petter Holen of RIPE NCC.
We have Professor, Ambassador Bitange Ndemo, who is Ambassador of Kenya to Belgium and the European Union.
We have Renata Mielli, Chair of CGI.br, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee.
We have Funke Opeke, Founder of MainOne in Nigeria.
We have Qusai Al Shatti of the Arab IGF.
We have Chat Garcia Ramilo of the Association for Progressive Communications APC.
We have Luca Belli, a Professor at FGV Law School in Rio De Janeiro.
And we have Isabelle Lois, Vice-Chair of the CSTD.
At this point I ask you to welcome them all as they come in and find their seats.
(Applause)
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you, please, please, welcome.
Okay. The first thing I'm going to do, and I have given the questions to all of you. They have been reading the questions for days now. And I am going to ask each of them, basically, to go through their set of answers and the view they have of the three questions. And first I'd like to start -- sorry. I'm stumbling over my words. I apologize.
So, first I'd like to ask you, Bitange Ndemo, to please give us your view of the three questions and their answers.
>> BITANGE NDEMO: Thank you for the opportunity and this wonderful thing to discuss IGF over the past several years. The first encounter I had with IGF, I had just become a policymaker in my country, Kenya. And policymakers then would make policy and make sure it's implemented. And this new method of consultations with the stakeholders was very new and very painful. But once you have gone through the whole process with the stakeholders, implementation became much, much easier.
For those who are younger, at the time there was no Google. I think there was Netscape, Alta Vista, is what was there. We didn't know exactly what Internet will do. But thank God, it went the IGF way. Otherwise, it would have been a private sector company selling its services to the people.
There was no infrastructure. In Kenya, for example, not just Kenya but the whole of Africa, Africa had only one gig of capacity, for the whole continent through Intelsat. And the moment we started talking about building the infrastructure, even those who are funding would ask questions like, who is going to use the capacities that you want to bring through the embassy?
I remember once in The World Bank meeting, I said, you must watch the movie Field of Dreams, that if you build it, they will come. And they said, is that the answer that you are giving? I said, yes. This is what we think that is going to change or liberalize these new technologies that are coming.
To cut the story short, the infrastructure came. Then building the regulatory mechanisms and building the way we are now using the Internet, but that came through the several consultations or early meetings of IGF where we came to learn precisely what we needed to do to make this technology work for the people.
I think I would stop there.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. It's a very good start. It's a very good perspective to start with.
Now Hans Petter, I would like to go to you, and from your perspective as the leader of one part of the critical resources that we rest this Internet on, could you please give us your view of the three?
>> HANS PETTER HOLEN: Yeah. Thank you very much for that, Avri. This is not about me. This is about the RIPE NCC, the institution I am in charge of, which is then supporting its community, the RIPE community, which is a part of the larger technical community. And the IGF has been a rare and essential place where technical realities meet policy aspirations. And as digital governance agendas accelerate globally, the IGF must remain the venue that promotes clarity, ensure that we don't jeopardize the Internet's core infrastructure, while trying to regulate the services built atop it, where necessary.
So, this means we need to protect the Internet coordination, which keeps it running, through stable interoperational systems, and we need to strengthen Internet Governance, which shapes how we use it through shared norms and policies, and we need to guide digital governance which shapes what it becomes in terms of social transformations.
And I think it's important to be aware that the IGF, as we see it here, is not the only thing. It's not just a single event. It's a living ecosystem that includes national and regional IGFs, Dynamic Coalitions, Best Practice Forums, policy networks. So it's not only about the once-a-year IGF. It's about this whole ecosystem around it.
And our engagement starts in the rooted belief that we should start at the local level and scale it upwards. We support IGFs and network operators groups, both financially and with speakers to help the communities organize. And identify emergent issues and understand stakeholder needs so we can bring them to the regional and global level.
And as one of the five regional Internet registries, the RIPE LLC is tasked with ensuring long-term scalability, resilience and security of the Internet. So, scalability we drew to allocation and registration of IP addresses, number resources, the ones that you don't see, but your computers need in order to communicate. IPv6 is an important thing here. That's what we need for scalability for the future.
We also need to strengthen written security by implementing something called resource public infrastructure, where the providers can sign their routing announcements so we know that packets flow where they should. And resilience is also important where we assign or register ASN numbers, which enables multi-homing and pairing and creation of robust interconnection. All of this is needed for the new and fancy applications we need on top of the network to work.
And how can we do this in the future? Well, we need to continue to deepen the collaboration with governments and between governments. We need to empower the national and regional IGFs, and they are crucial for localizing the global discussions and fostering bottom-up approaches and we need to enhance inclusivity and accessibility. And we need to translate this dialogue here into tangible process.
And important here is that we need to secure now a permanent mandate for the IGF, so that we can have the focus on the matters at hand, not securing the future as a meeting place. I think that's important.
And I think one of the things we need to bear in mind here is that the Internet is a public good and that must serve humanity, to quote the minister from earlier this week.
Yeah, I think I will leave it there and then pass it on.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. And I want to give one piece of advice that I often get when you get too short a time, please be sure to speak slowly. It makes it harder for people to listen and it makes it harder for those to translate. But thank you very much. So, I apologize for the short time zones, but please.
So, Renata, coming from a very -- a multistakeholder, an early multistakeholder instantiation at a national level, I wonder if you could give your view on the three questions.
>> RENATA MIELLI: Thank you, Avri, thank you, everybody, for being here with us this morning. I am going to speak as a Chair of the Brazil Internet Steering Committee. I will do the multistakeholder model of the Brazil Internet CGI.br predates the IGF. The IGF model, is a space for multistakeholder dialogue and for bringing new relevant issues to the attention of the society has been very influential in inspiring the creation -- in the creation of the Brazilian IGF in 2011. The Brazilian IGF in turn has been essential, also in the creation of a very robust Brazilian multistakeholder Internet Governance community, because we are not talking about an event. We are not also talking about a body. But we are talking about an ecosystem. And this regional IGFs and the IGF, they put this ecosystem in moving. So, which is very, very achievable, our IGF, we call it FIBE, because it's foreign Internet in Brazil, speaking in Portuguese. It's very important for us, in particular, because this space has been an essential part in the development of Internet policies in Brazil, inspired by the multistakeholder nature of the IGF, being extremely influential in the public debates that lead to the Brazil, the Brazil Internet civil rights framework in 2014 that was signed on the NETMundial, and the Brazilian general data protection law in 2018.
But regarding the third question about how we strengthen the IGF, how, interlink IGF with the other process like GDC, I also believe that some multistakeholder guidelines that we launched yesterday and was developed during the NETMundial+10 last year, raise important points that can be taken into account in order to contribute with the debate on strengthening the IGF. So, I invite to everybody to go to the CGI stand there and pick up your book.
But bringing some aspects, the first step is to give the IGF a permanent mandate. I think this is very -- we are listening this a lot here. Which requires a more stable and robust funding.
And second, we need to amplify the role of the IGF in the WSIS framework and better integration with the WSIS Forum. The WSIS Forum is the platform for following up the action lines. But it's a space that restricted to governments and facilitators representing the various UN agencies responsible for each action lines.
So, I think, we are thinking this governance structure is, in my view, one of the main challenges we have to face. We need also better integration with decision-making forums, such as UN organizations and other spaces. And particularly regarding GDC, I think the IGF has to be in power as a main focal point for the follow-up of the Global Digital Compact implementation and integrated with the WSIS Forum, as I said, according to modalities to be defined. And that UN avoids any fragmentation and duplication of spaces in that regard. Because when we have a lot of spaces different, it's become very difficult to civil society, academia, and even governments from the Global South to attend all these different spaces. And this is not good for a multistakeholder model.
Well, I think I am going to stop here. Thank you, Avri, for the opportunity. Thank you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Next I come to Funke. And I guess as an entrepreneur, as a founder in Nigeria in the development area, I wonder what your perspective, what your company's perspective would be on these questions.
>> FUNKE OPEKE: Thank you, Avri. And good morning, everyone. Really great to have this opportunity to speak and reflect, as I'm coming to the end of one phase of my career, which is retiring from a company that I founded in West Africa, MainOne, to build digital infrastructure and close the digital divide. When we launched the submarine cable from Lagos to Portugal in 2010, Internet penetration in our region was close to 10%. And as pioneers, we have had to lean on platforms like the IGF to learn best practices, to really help build the ecosystem that's been critical in growing that base to close to 50% across West Africa today. The cable does extend into five countries directly. We are serving, providing data, access to 10 countries across West Africa.
And when I get to reflect this stage of my career, what the IGF has meant, first, as pioneers in the Global South, and I heard Bitange talk about, access to information, be it policy information or stakeholder in terms of civil society and the populations, how you really bridge that gap with regulators and government policies, partners and working with the content providers, we realized early on that just building the infrastructure was not sufficient to close the gap.
So, a lot of work had to be done and, hence, the role of platforms like the IGF in enabling us do that, really understand the role of the ecosystem and all the players and the stakeholders, how we work with them, how we leverage those resources to build skill and capacity in our markets, to build out IXPs and Internet connection points, to address issues data governance as that has become a more critical issue as we got more access, cybersecurity. So it's really given us a platform, and not just from a Global South or large platform, Global North, Global South dialogue. But by having other Global South partners, I note very early on in the journey, I met Bitange when he was regulator in Kenya, Kenya was a couple years ahead of what they were doing, and we were able to learn from them and bring some of those practices to our market. So, that's been the role.
Sitting here at this point and looking at the issue of permanence, I agree, and I think with the polarized world that we have today, contemplating not having this kind of platform, multistakeholder platform, recognizing it's not decision making for the Internet, it's actually a very chilling part. What would it be if we did not have -- the Global South did not have a seat at the table.
There's still a lot of work to be done. Because I said just 50% penetration across large parts of Africa. So there's still work to be done on digital inclusion, on building up access, on addressing issues of skills and digital literacy and affordability to really get to the very last person so no one gets left behind.
The challenge is the Global North has a different set of issues, with the acceleration of AI and the pace of digital transformation. And I look today, I'm not sure the divide is closer than was when I started 15 years ago on this journey. So, I think for the IGF, as you say, permanent status, engagement under the WSIS agenda, more deeper engagement with decisionmakers on a global scale to really drive that objective for 2030 so that no one is left behind. That's what I look out for in the future.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much. Now I would like to move on to Qusai, who have been part of this IGF scheme for as long as I remember and instrumental in Arab IGF. From your perspective, from that perspective, how do you see the answers to the three questions?
>> QUSAI AL SHATTI: Thank you, Avri. And thank you. I am so honored to be with you, our best panel and the distinguished panelists.
I will look at this. I will say in 2005, there was 500 million users, Internet users, today we have above 4.5 billion users. Internet-related organizations, today are more open, more inclusive, more bottom-up, and it's a structure in its operation across the world. Diversity, multilingualism, wider audience and tools and mechanisms that is widely available for us, is widely available to be used and take the benefit of.
Broadband is widely available. Choice of access is widely available with lower costs, compared to, let's say, 20 years ago. Devices are costing less. Multistakeholder process become the norm of things, became crucial, became the fact that we used when we are engaged in policy dialogue or regulation or others.
Digital economy, the enabling environment for innovation and the greater role it's playing in the GDPs of countries, that's today a fact.
Reflecting this, it became also the known for us on regional, on national level where we took the conduct and the practice of governance to our regions and countries. What that says to me, governance works. 20 years after the inception of the IGF, the IGF or the IG works and is successful. And maybe it's the most successful outcome of the WSIS. And it works because who was behind it? The people who had the will and passion from all segments of stakeholders, who wanted governance to work because they believe this is the best for the Internet.
So, being part of them, such a wonderful experience. Learning from them, exchanging knowledge, exchanging expertise, resolving our differences and point of views, yet united and agreeing that governance is the way to go. And that's passion by itself. And this passion needs to continue. So moving forward, the IGF should continue, because there is more work to do. And it is an ongoing work. And the best to do it is to couple it with digital cooperation were issues today like AI governance, cross-border data, as an example, not as all, need to be addressed within a platform like the IGF. And I will stop here.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.
Coming next to you, Chat, with APC, probably was my first introduction into the whole civil society part of this whole issue, having come out of the tech areas when I first got involved. So, from that perspective, and you have also been there since the beginning, could you tackle the three questions, please?
>> CHAT GARCIA RAMILO: Thank you, Avri, and good morning, everyone. APC is part of the IGF tribe in the last 20 plus years. And so it's an honour to be here. And I want to start by recognizing that, yes, APC has been deeply engaged with IGF since its inception. From the early days of WSIS, to the working group that helped actually form the IGF, which you were a part of, and I think many of probably people sitting were a part of.
And we worked alongside our fellow civil society stakeholders to shape its structure and content. For over 20 years, our contributions, we believe, have been integral to the IGF's evolution, and in turn, this space has played a pivotal role in sharing our advocacy and our work. This I have learned, connected, and really engaged. Because we have also changed how we think because of the connections that this space has offered us.
It has been an invaluable platform, a place to listen, deeply, to speak, and, more importantly, to act. It has amplified voices from the Global South, which is something that we are really passionate about. This is what we bring to this space. Often those who are marginalized in digital governance conversations. And this is really important because otherwise, those perspectives cannot be heard.
It's also shifted the focus of these conversations to centre in human rights inclusion, you referred to this, digital inclusion, and I think increasingly justice, values that are essential in shaping the digital future that we will all share.
Through initiatives like, and I just want to share with you, I mean to remind you, we have done quite a few things in relation to looking at really what has IGF achieved. And we have contributed in looking at our global Information Society watch. Really trying to, again, bring voices from the Global South, local voices to see how that really plays out locally because we have many members in different countries. We have also contributed in relation to really looking at the school of African school on Internet Governance where it's not only civil society that we have engaged in. We have help build capacity of government, regulators, civil society, grassroots to engage more meaningfully. Because really, it's really what makes IGF is the people behind it. And I do think it's important to really build that capacity.
For us at APC, the IGF, as everyone has said here is not just an annual event. I think people refer to it as an ecosystem, a living ecosystem. It's a network of regional initiatives, intersessional work, and relationships that lead to tangible, real-world change.
This platform, the IGF, has allowed us to advocate for policies that prioritize, for example, community-centered connectivity and challenge market models that leave entire communities without access. And I think that's what you referred to in terms of the challenge, more than 50%. We have also, I remember, and part of that in Kenya, for example, we have worked with the regulators to have a license for community-centered connectivity. I think it's this kind of connections that really add value to the work that we all do.
The IGF has also been crucial in helping us address issues that are critical, for example, like gender-based violence and defending sexual and reproductive rights in digital spaces, issues that you wouldn't think should be part of the discussion of infrastructure. I think other people referred to it.
And more than a decade ago, many of us here have been involved in this. We helped put forward a key principle that human rights must apply online as they do offline. 2012 is when this really important declaration at the Human Rights Council and I'm sure many of us have been involved in that.
What were once considered issues has been globally recognized and acted upon. And I want to end to refer to, what is it that we need to do more of. And that last question of yours, Avri. Last year, one of the big issues now is crises and wars, when I say crises and wars, it's the wars but it's also crises, environmental crises, et cetera. And I think I heard this also at the opening and also at other sessions, that it's really important for us to look at the more difficult issues, the one that challenges us.
And here last year, we helped organize a main session on securing access to the Internet during times of war and crises. And we will have, because of that, there will be a main session on where we will be discussing the norms and responsibilities of this multistakeholder Internet community, particularly in relation to shutdowns. So we are speaking about critical resources that was alluded to by Hans. Part of it is really there's this structure of communication infrastructure and we need to look at that. What are the kinds of communication, what are the norms that can help us really defend that and protect the infrastructure. It's not only about access. It's also about, in fact, the discussion because of this. In countries like Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan and Myanmar.
As we stand here today, 20 years after, we see the vision of the future digital feels more urgent than ever, that's how we feel. And to some extent more under siege because of corporate power state controlled that are driving the issues that we have been looking at.
One of the things we were doing as part of our engagement with WSIS is being part of the digital justice now coalition and we have launched a campaign here now in IGF. It's a global society movement to reclaim digit power for the people. We call on this multistakeholder international community to take bold action, which we need at this time so that we can continue to shape a democratic digital future for all of us.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.
Come to you, Luca. Since you have come here, you have been among the most prolific of the volunteers, the people working with the book that just came out on community networks and such. So, please, I would like to turn to you from your hard working perspective on all of this and where it goes. Please.
>> LUCA BELLI: Thank you very much, Avri, for the kind introduction. Thank you very much to all the friends that have organized this, particularly Olga and all other friends that have invited me.
I want to start by explaining what has been the impact on me, and then how this has been a real engine for change also in policymaking and how this is an untold story to some extent.
This is my 15th IGF. The first one, I was a young Ph.D. student analyzing how multistakeholder processes can build better quality of regulation. And then I met a young Markus Kumar that in his last months as secretary of the IGF brought me in as an intern and allowed me to interact and meet a lot of the stakeholders that we know that became mentors and then colleagues and most of all, friends. And I think that this allowed to construct, and I think that is also an excellent output of the IGF, constructing trust amongst stakeholders. This is not something that you can artificially construct. You can build it only with relations.
And this allowed me to be a very hyperactive convener of Dynamic Coalitions over the past years. And I think, again, these have been extremely powerful engines of cooperation and meaningful impact. I had the pleasure to start and help organizing four, one on net neutrality, one on platinum responsibility, one on community connectivity. It has been extremely successful. And the last one on data and AI governance.
And I am an academic myself, I have always tried to include this academic approach, doing research to help people explain what we are doing and try to propose new policy solutions and this is what we have been doing for the past 15 years. And many organizations have used this. The Council of Europe used both the report and recommendation, net neutrality and responsibility for their own recommendations, multiple regulators in the Americas, in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil or even in Africa and Kenya used the work that we did with the dynamic coalition community connectivity to explain what our community networks and regulate them in a better way.
And then there is a little bit of frustration in my 15 years of experience because all of this is not very visible. And as Markus always tells very well, the IGF is not very good at making its success visible. Maybe one can also think that some stakeholder want the IGF to be irrelevant. I let you understand what is your answer to this question. But I think that we may easily do a lot more to make the IGF, to prove that the IGF is relevant, not only talking about things, but as the very same IGF mandate in paragraphs of 27G of the 22nd agenda states to make issues relevant to the public and to all stakeholders visible and relevant and to make all the reports and recommendations that we have elaborated over the past 20 years visible on the IGF website would be a very good first step, I believe. Thank you very much.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. It's a refrain that I have heard a couple of times over the course of the last couple days is we need to become.
Coming to you, Isabelle, you occupy kind of a critical position in this whole process that we are going now in your role at the CSTD. So I'm wondering how do you look at this both from the perspective of what is the case and what could be the case.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you so much, Avri, for the question. And for having me on this panel. It's an honour to be able to speak on behalf of the CSTD as vice-chair of the CSTD but also it's a representative of the Swiss government.
I have not been in this space as long as most of my co-panelists here. But I have seen the value and the tremendous work that has been done throughout the years at the IGF. And I can only highlight whatever all of you said before on the successes and the many, many examples of what we have been able to do, take out of these discussions.
I think the IGF is the primary space where we have discussions on digital governance or on digital issues. It is the agenda setting, the issue spotting place and that is essential to be able to feed into the rest of the system. If we want to regulate something or create a policy, we need to first identify what are the key issues, what are the different actors and stakeholders thinking, what are they concerned about, and this is the place where we can do it. So, that role is truly essential. And something we absolutely must preserve, highlight and strengthen. So, I think that's maybe my first point I want to raise. And it echoes what all of you have been saying right before as well.
I think the other important point to see a bit what can we do next, how could -- would the IGF look like after this year. And I think, yeah, there's many different ideas. If we keep this focus of having the issue spotting place at the IGF. And we see all the examples of how this has been able to be used.
I think we need to connect it more throughout the entire WSIS system. I mean, IGF has its own ecosystem with a different parts, the policy networks, the Dynamic Coalitions, and all of that great work. So, that interconnectedness is one part. And then connecting to the rest of the system. And by that, I mean bringing the messages, the outcomes of each IGF session of the policy network, of all of the NRIs, all of the work that is being the CSTD and this is where my role comes in, bringing the main issues that we see the community, all of the stakeholders are concerned about, and then making sure that we are feeding that into the rest of the UN System.
And I think this is where we could definitely do better. There is potential, there is space, now with the WSIS+20 review we have the opportunity to look at that, to make sure that the entire system and architecture is well connected and I think this is something at the CSTD we are trying to do. There's a few ideas in this from the CSTD resolution from earlier this year, but also the Swiss government is pushing as one of the main points. I think that's my main answer for you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. And thank you all. I think you have given us all a good sampling of both the values, the personal gain, the personal importance and such. And some of what we can go further.
Now going to this next stage, and I will be coming back to you all later, probably just go in the reverse order so you will get to be last this time. But, basically, advertisement I would really like to go to the participants that are sitting in the chairs. But we also need to have the Mentimeter put up. We have a Mentimeter that is going. I was told that they would put the URL. Oh, there it is. So, people should join it and, basically, go through it, focusing on the answer to the first question. But go through.
I would also like to, first of all, go to the remote moderator, Jimson, to see whether there is any commentary online from those that are joining us on Zoom, et cetera, to come up with. Jimson, is there anything else?
>> JIMSON OLUFUYE: Yes, Avri. Thank you very much. We have a lot of comments on the remote platform. And first and foremost, Dr. Robinson Sibe will be providing his own virtual intervention. And after that, I will read out comments and the questions. Dr. Sibe, can you go ahead for your two to three minutes?
>> SIBE ROBINSON: Yeah. Thank you very much, Jimson, I am Dr. Robinson Sibe, Cybersecurity and Digital Forensic Expert, the CEO, and examiner of Digital Footprints Nigeria. Thanks for the opportunity.
I will be making my intervention from a perspective as a private sector player in cybersecurity ecosystem in Nigeria. First, in practical terms, IGF has helped contextualize the challenges we face in Nigeria and Africa and there are quite a lot of them, challenges like the rising caseloads of cybercrime and the complexities of investigating same and when I mean complexities, that of inclusion, global and jurisdictional complexities which we face, building trust in digital platforms or navigating the challenges of information governance and data protection in an environment where many are still digitally excluded.
Now, as a cybersecurity and digital forensics company, I work quite often -- our work quite often sits at the intersection of policy, support for law enforcement and technology. And the IGF model has been instrumental in showing us the value of inclusive and collaborative governance, not just as an ideal but as a practical tool for problem solving.
However, the United States interventions by the IGF have deepened the understanding of the global dimensions of the Internet policy, whether it be data protection and trust frameworks to digital inclusion and resilience. More importantly, it has humanized these issues by showing how policy is crafted in one part of the world would potentially affect both lives and systems in others, including that of Africa, where infrastructure gaps and policy disconnects quite often amplify these vulnerabilities.
These lessons have been crucial in our practice both from a proactive defense pointer of view to an investigative point of view. That's from a forensic point of view.
Looking ahead, I want the IGF to move even closer to implementation. I would love to see more localized action, for instance, where IGF outcomes have been translated into two key for cyber capacity building in African countries or technical working groups formed to address specific regional challenges, like Internet shutdowns, targeting, public institutions or public centric processes like elections. I believe the IGF should continue to be a bridge between regions, between policy and practice and between aspirations and actions.
For people like me on the front lines in Nigeria, this kind of impact is not just valuable. It's absolutely necessary. Thank you very much.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much. And very happy to have a voice from the online participants. So, thank you. I'm going to reread the questions because I don't see anybody jumping up willing to make a comment on such. I do have one in the back here.
First, let me reread the questions for you all, just so everyone remembers. The first question was, what has the IGF meant to you, and what do you want it to mean to you in the future?
2, how has the IGF multistakeholder model and its realizations, for example, the IGF meeting NRIs, DCs, BPFs, policy networks, and et cetera. How have they made an impact in your organization or Internet issues in your country or region.
And 3, how can the IGF play a more impactful expanded role to contribute to the implementation of the WSIS goals and the GDC. I see the spotlight shining on the first one. And please make sure, Anriette that you introduce yourself.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I'm Anriette Esterhuysen, was with APC, still work with APC, Association for Progressive Communications, a MAG chair in the past.
Very briefly, I think what it has meant for me personally is it's created an impatience for me in all other forums that are not linked to the WSIS. And I think that is because the IGF is so uniquely connects working with policymakers and implementers and now I find civil society only spaces, for example, deeply frustrating because I feel I am surrounded by colleagues, but I'm not sure how I'm going to have impact. I think what this space gives is both, the ability to be with likeminded actors, but also with those that are different, might have different perspectives, but together you can bring about change.
But what I want to say for the future, I really want to echo what Isabelle said. I think the IGF and its link to the WSIS creates a link to people-centered development and to people. I think we live with so much fragmentation in how we talk about digital. And I think so many of the new fora, Global Digital Compact, for example, artificial intelligence dialogue, puts the emphasis on the technology, not on the society and not on the people. And I think that's the power of the WSIS. That's what the WSIS has given the IGF. And that's what the IGF gives to dialogue about digital governance and cooperation.
So, just to reinforce what Isabelle said. A future IGF must retain this link to people-centered development and to society. Information Society is not used much as a term anymore. But please let's not lose that, because that's ultimately what we want to change. We want more equal, more inclusive society.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. And I don't see anything else at the mic. At first I thought I had seen several other people there. Hopefully. I note you have another online one.
I know many of you and I know most of you aren't shy and have opinions. So please take advantage of this opportunity to express those opinions on those three questions.
But in the meantime, I will go back to you, Jimson, for an online contribution.
>> JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you, Avri. We have this question from Nathan Latte from IGF Cote d'Ivoire. It says, "What is the concrete impact of the IGF on Internet Governance in developing countries?" Then we have a number of interesting comments. Someone said, "For me, the IGF has been a platform for learning, connection, and advocacy. Going forward, I hope it becomes a space where more actionable policy outcomes are shaped through inclusive multistakeholder dialogue as it is been envisioned in AfiCTA."
Mark Carvell from the UK also has an expression, says he agreed that the multistakeholder approach has become the norm in many countries since the WSIS. In the UK government, after the first IGF in Athens, we decided, one, to work with the UK ccTLD registry in setting up national IGF, the UK IGF, to prepare for the next global IGF. And also, 2, to establish a multistakeholder advisory group in our government ministry that we will meet with at regular intervals. So, maybe I will stop here for now.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I heard a couple of questions in there, but I'm not -- I had trouble really parsing some of them. I want to go to the microphone but if I could come back to you and if you could pick out the questions that were there and then I will look to someone up here to give an answer. But please, at the microphone, introduce yourself and give us your comment. This microphone that is lit at the moment.
>> PARTICIPANT: Thank you, Avri, ask thank you for being persistent. I'm the CEO of SIDN, the registry for the concept domain. I don't go to IGFs for myself so I find the first question a bit confusing. But I think in my opinion the most important things that the IGF has brought us, and I have been to roughly 15 IGF meetings, is a platform where we can, in a kind of global context, discuss topics that are important for the Internet, but what it really brings, is it makes the multistakeholder model function because it helps us explaining our stakes or interests and listening to the explanation of the other stakeholders explaining their interest. And I think that that was lacking in the period before the IGF, that we were all as organizations, even sometimes as individuals, defending our own stakes and we were not listening well to the other stakeholders explaining theirs.
And I think the only way that the multistakeholder model can function is when we -- if we understand and respect the stakes of the other stakeholders. And I think that's one of the big outcomes of this whole process.
If I compare it with the first one in 2006 and the last ones I have followed over the recent years, there's much more understanding in all participants of the stakes of the other stakeholders.
On the last question, what should change, what should improve to make it function even better than it does, in the Netherlands, IGFs or national IGF, a couple of years ago we produced a document, a one-page document on that and I will make sure you get it after this session.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you, thank you. Before I go back to Jimson for the questions. I see we also have Juan at the thing. Please introduce yourself and make your comment.
>> JUAN FERNANDEZ: Well, my name is Juan Fernandez. I'm from the Ministry of Communication of Cuba. But I want to tell here what it means personally for me as in the IGF. I think for me, it's very special impact because it proved that no matter how old you are, no matter how learned you are, always have to keep an open mind, because you could be wrong and you could be proved wrong very easily. You know that I participate and many people here know me, I participated on the negotiation of both WSIS outcome documents. I was part of the WEOG and we discussed the creation of a forum such as this.
So, I can tell you when this began and I went to the first one, I was very skeptical. I think, well, this is, just we are given breadcrumbs to the civil society because they were shunned out of the process. So, this is just for that, you know.
But I was proven wrong. Over the years, I have been, in a way, learning the value and feeling the value of having this conversation, as the previous speaker said. That I think it's not only important also, as Anriette said, in terms of the personal capacity, the institutional capacity that each of us has here, but also the personal enrichment. At least for me, I, as a person, has been enriched by having a personal relationship and dialogue with persons from other points of view, from other realities. And that's for me, I think, I have been enriched by the IGF. That's what I want to tell you, Avri. Thank you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.
And definitely been enriched by knowing you.
I will go to this one, which is Stephanie, please, and introduce yourself.
>> STEPHANIE PERRIN: Hi, my name is Stephanie Perrin, I'm from Canada. I am a sporadic attendee at the IGF. I was, however, at the initial WSIS, and I echo the previous speaker's remarks. I was a little -- I was working for the Canadian government in the telecom sector at the time. I was a little cynical about the potential outputs from the IGF. But I think I was wrong. I agree with Anriette, that the impact is on the people and we have to come back to that.
Now, one of our colleagues is even more cynical than I was, Milton Mueller has issued his more or less call for remarks on his IGF blog saying the time has come, you know, it's over. Time to move on to something new.
So, this has prompted me all week to say, well, hang on. How would we measure? How do we measure the impacts? And because it has been such a success as a multistakeholder, innovator and enricher and stimulant and, basically, it comes up with a dialogue that we want, it's a parliament of a multistakeholder effort. How do you measure that?
I have been thinking about metrics all week and I think it's quite hard, but something we should focus on, because the difference and the impact between the Nigerian cybercrime industry, I mean not only the bad guys, but the good guys fighting it, to local initiatives, to bringing broadband to underserved areas, all those are different things to measure. But it would be worth it to do it. So, that's a comment. Thank you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.
And I will go to first of all, Jimson, did you have the questions that I kind of -- I sometimes have trouble hearing what's being said there. So, please, if there were a specific question.
>> JIMSON OLUFUYE: We have Emily Taylor. Emily Taylor is going to intervene with her two minutes. Then, of course, some comments later. Emily.
>> EMILY TAYLOR: Thank you so much, Jimson, for giving me the floor and for this very interesting discussion. I just wanted to highlight a study, an evidence-based study that we did for the UK government. It was published last year. And I have put the link in the chat. It was an evidence-based exploration of the impact of the IGF. And really looking from the perspective of the Global South, if I can put it in that way. And we found after 48 expert interviews and also a large-scale text analysis enriched by AI and ML, we looked at thematic dynamism of the IGF over a long period, and came out with a series of both direct and indirect impacts for those communities.
The direct impacts are the spontaneous emergence of national and regional IGFs and the youth movement. These were never anticipated in the Tunis Agenda and yet they happened. And they have both, they have brought young people in particular to the IGF and had an onboarding ramp for new policymakers who then go back to their home countries and bring and receive messages that link between the local and the international.
And another aspect that's sort of on the direct impact is the emergence of Internet exchange points in Africa. There's a very clear line from the IGF to the people who built out that network, and that has a really concrete impact in reducing latency, reducing costs and improving speed of connectivity within Africa.
Indirect impacts, this is a forum where discussions happen first on emerging issues, and you can really see that in the thematic dynamism. You can really see priority to 2017, no one was talking about disinformation and fake news. Prior to 2018, there was not much on artificial intelligence. And then it really exploded in the 2023 arena, and you really see that from the thematic analysis.
And one, perhaps, controversial point is, I think it goes back to what Ruloph was saying in his intervention, that many of our interviewees attributed the successful IANA transition to dialogue in the IGF where the IGF had been a forum which really reduced the temperature of a very polarizing issue prior to that, laid the groundwork, allowed stakeholders to understand what was at stake for others, not just themselves, and laid the groundwork, in their opinion, for a successful IANA. I will leave it there. Thank you for giving me the floor, Avri.
>> AVRI DORIA: Good to see you. At the moment I think we have got five people in the lines so that's probably where I will try to cut the line. So after encouraging all to get in line, I do have a deadline, and I am going to want to give at least a minute or so to each of our panelists who are sitting here to be able to respond.
I guess I next go to this line, please. Introduce yourself and give us your -- very clever, yes. Thank you. Please give us your comment.
>> PARTICIPANT: Thank you very much. I have been attending for the past 10 years the IGF. What has brought me is I have had so many interesting discussions with all of you, mainly in sessions, but mostly in the corridor chats, which are even more valuable than the main sessions happening here in the virtual rooms.
So, the network and the way we can interact on this forum is really valuable for me and also for the work that we are doing.
My wish for the future is that we can engage in workshops more of a discussion, because currently my observation is still in the past 10 years, that it's mostly one way and not that many discussions taking place. And that's something that really needs to be improved to make this even more valuable for me, but also for the others. Thank you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.
Go to Markus on this line. Please introduce yourself.
>> MARKUS KUMAR: I'm Markus Kumar, and I have been around for a while. My name has been mentioned by Luca.
Yes, I was here since the inception, like you, Avri, and I will not answer your questions. I, rather, go back to the inception of the IGF and back to the working group on Internet Governance when we actually came up with the idea and we conceived the IGF as a platform for dialogue.
As we all know, the WGIG came up with a definition on Internet Governance and there are still a lot of misunderstandings around. We did have a highly academic definition, working definition which not everybody understands but we also came up with a practical description of what Internet Governance means and that relates to the physical infrastructure, that is the cables, nuts and bolts, the logical infrastructure, the Domain Name System, the Internet addresses, but it also relates to the use and abuse of the Internet.
So, the IGF right from the beginning relied on this work, groundwork, from the WGIG and dealt with issues mainly related to the use and abuse of the Internet and I do recall the four themes that we set for the very first meeting, where openness, inclusion, diversity, openness, diversity, access and inclusion, I think, yes, but there were, in essence, a mixture between technical and societal issues, and that's what the IGF has been dealing with all along. And the notion that the IGF is more of technical issue as it is described within the GDC is blatantly wrong. It creates an artificial dichotomy between Internet Governance. IGF is dealing with Internet Governance but then there are much broader issues and the IGF has always dealt with these much broader issues such as, as has been mentioned, artificial intelligence and, and, and, and.
And as to the impact, Emily said it very nicely, I think always the very IXPs have been set up as a direct consequence are a tremendous success stories of the IGF, and I also agree with Emily that the IANA transition would not have been possible without the IGF because the IGF taught people to talk with each other and that has been mentioned by many of the speakers, not just talk, but also to listen to each other. And that actually showed that there is merit in having this mixture between multistakeholders that, people meet that would not otherwise meet under the same roof and they talk to each other and learn from each other.
And I hope this will continue. And as far as the impact is concerned, yes, the IGF was conceived as a platform for dialogue, not as a decision-making body but as a body that can shape decisions that are taken elsewhere. And then we do actually produce outcomes. I mean, Luca mentioned his dynamic coalition, there are other Dynamic Coalitions and they really produce tangible outcomes but they are not so-called official IGF outcomes, but they can be used and they have been used, taken up, there is other Dynamic Coalitions, there's one on rights and principles that produced very good paper on rights and principles that has been taken up in other organizations.
So, there is clearly something to build on. And I think, as Luca already said, we are not good actually at celebrating success and promoting our success. And I think making this okay, just look at what we are doing and be open and proud about it and show the world that we actually are more than just a talking shop. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much.
(Applause)
>> AVRI DORIA: Very good to hear from you in line.
Please, to the next microphone. And please make them relatively brief. I'm sorry to do that to you.
>> PARTICIPANT: No problem. This is Jasmin. Actually didn't expect this will be very personal and emotional for myself. And I actually come, struggle to come to speak because in front -- before me there were a lot of amazing, great senior leaders in the industry. So I feel like nobody at the beginning still. As a youth and as someone who grew up in capital incentive and hierarchy society, I truly value this platform, IGF as come up and a place that you could easily talk to people even with senior role and with many years of experience, I truly appreciate that, that I could also have a chance to speak of my feeling, because in Hong Kong where I'm from, it's totally challenging to even just communicate and reach out to senior people and leaders like you guys.
But another thing that I really value is something that we could bring an issue from local, bring it to the table here at global level, we can exchange good practice and at the same time any issue that brought by the other local community can also bring back to my local community for good references.
So, myself is, I really put effort to talk about what IGF is to my local community. It is challenging because no one know what is it, and no one understand at all, I feel like there are still many misunderstandings but I think what you all have been sharing, the success and also quantitative cases are very good reference for me to also create my own local good practice. How does the IGF make positive impacts to our local community and how do we create value that speak to our local stakeholder, that makes sense of and really make it relevant. And thank you very much.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. And I must say how happy I am to see younger people speaking, because if it was just us old ones, it would not be much hope.
Please.
>> PARTICIPANT: Hello, everyone. This is PO from Myanmar. I think that IGF mean a lot to us because according to ace principles and ace model, we could input somewhat way after delivering the summary of the UN initiative at the global level in some point, way.
Frankly speaking, it's not very easy to share our input at global level, organization like the UN. Even it is, even the especially from the grassroots initiative, like young people, you know, have lots of challenge in terms of the policy fetter, economic fetter. But so far, like, initiatives like IGF could approach to the UN people to draw a line with the approach like very open way to collect their input, while respecting their voices and then bridging their voices at the global level.
I think that was very effective approach that we could do at the IGF. And even the vulnerable community voices needed to have in not only at the IGF, but also at the other aspects of the global-level policymaking. But so far, IGF is open for all people. Everyone can attend the conference. You know, you don't need to be worried about, like, you are expected to be invited to attend the conference. I think that approach is very meaningful to us, to participate as a young person and input our voices at the IGF.
So, the future, we would like to see as a young person is that please include us in the future of the IGF and please officially recognize our voice as a part of the multistakeholder to be meaningfully engaged and participate at the IGF. Thank you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much. I have got two left. Two of the original great ones. And please, though, be very brief because I want to give at least everybody up here on stage the chance to, perhaps, give us your biggest takeaway from the discussion that we have heard in terms of what's ahead of us. So, no. Are you guys -- are you guys doing the old gentleman thing, you go first, no, you go first?
>> RAUL ECHEBERRIA: At the same time.
Here I go. My name is Raul Echeberria. I'm an Uruguay MAG member, have been around for many years, and I think that IGF is the most innovative experience I have seen in my life in international governance, not only related to Internet, but in general. It inspired me in a way that we work. I think we have developed the culture of dialogue and deal in a civilized manner with our differences. I have seen sessions in this IGF, like in others, where people that have positions that oppose to each other, discuss in a very positive or constructive manner.
So, when we work on the ground, we realize that not everybody work in the same manner. So, I think it's very important what we are doing here and the impact that it can have in the rest of the world.
It's my wish to the future, I would like to see a more simplified IGF where it is more simple to become involved with and we should facilitate that in newcomers to be involved meaningfully.
I would also like to see an IGF that is better connected with other existing processes and mechanisms. I think the most important is an IGF that connect better with policymaking at the global and regional level that is, at the end of the day, where things are really happening. So, thank you very much.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Bertrand, one last word for the microphones.
>> BERTRAND CHAPELLE: I'm Bertrand Chapelle, the Executive Director of the Internet and jurisdiction policy network. Two quick comments. One, for me, the thing that I am most happy about in the last few exercises of the IGF is this recognition of distinction between the issue framing, agenda setting and decision shaping versus the decision making. This is the core function of the IGF. And it is particularly important because in all international and multilateral processes, putting something on the agenda takes usually many years because there's always a lack of unanimity and somebody objects to the issue being on the agenda. The goal of the IGF should be increasingly to be early on and facilitate the common picture of the key topics.
The second thing, quickly, in the discussion on the WSIS+20 review, we should not focus only on the renewal of the mandate of the IGF. Whatever the duration. We need to reach a new step and we need to do what we did with the WGIG in 2004 or '5, IE, having a group that discusses, one, the evolution of the mandate and the focus and scope of the IGF, along the lines that I just mentioned.
And second, the institutionalization of the structure, we have all the components at the moment, but it's like a car that is limited in its speed, although it has all the capacities to do much, much more.
So, I hope that in 2026 a group of sorts will be set up in a multistakeholder fashion to address those two issues. Thank you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much.
So, now I'm going to start with you, Isabelle, and then, basically, just move across the line, give us a quick, if you can. Certainly what you would take away from what we have heard from what all was said.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you. Thank you, Avri. And there has been a lot of good points and comments said so it's difficult to be quick but I will try to be. I think one of the main points I would like to highlight was the taking the time to listen. I think that's an important point. We have a lot of good information, a lot of knowledge that is shared throughout the sessions at IGF so taking the time to listen, taking the time to write down what has been written, read the reports, even if there is no consensus, use the information that has been given here. We can use it as capacity building. I mean, I have learned tremendously throughout the years attending the IGF and participating in the intersessional work so I think this is really something that we have to take advantage of. And it goes in line with what I said earlier in using the IGF and the information that we get here throughout the space, connecting it the rest of the WSIS structure. It also goes with the listening to all stakeholders and listening to all positions. So, I think I will keep it at that.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Isabelle.
Luca, please.
>> LUCA BELLI: Yeah, I think after 20 years, it's clear that the IGF is an excellent fora, it's like a forge of ideas, and the stakeholders are convened here every year to speak up their mind, there is relatively low barrier of entry, well, it is high for Global South countries that have to pay to come to Norway or other exotic places and this could be solved with little bit of more help. But it's working very well in terms of allowing to people to speak their mind freely and also it's a very good engine for multistakeholder cooperation. Because you find here potential partners to implement your initiatives, not only in terms of policy, again, the example of community networks is very good people here have found friends and partners to create the Internet, to create new community networks and give access to people.
So, I think that there are a lot of things that may be idealistic like having a very well-funded IGF, but a lot of things that could be very pragmatic and simple like giving more space between IGF and the others so people can organize themselves. Or trying not to limit that much the number of sessions because if this is a very open forum that gives people the possibility to speak, then if you cut down the number of session, less people will have an incentive to come here and speak.
So, I think those are very few little pragmatic things that we could do to help people exploit better the potential of IGF.
>> AVRI DORIA: Fantastic. Thank you, Luca.
Chat, please.
>> CHAT GARCIA RAMILO: What I have heard here is that there's really nothing else we can say about -- everything has been said about the importance of IGF. I think, to me, it's not a debate. It's sort of like, it is, it is a reality here. And I think the celebration for me is something that we could do more of. In the feminist circles, we do say that we need to have joy, joy in what we do, and I think this is part of what we need. It's a very difficult time for everyone. And I think that part of celebration and saying and recognizing that we need that for ourselves and also for our community is so, so important.
But having said that, I think the second thing I want to say is that to be able to make it more robust, as you say, Luca, is that the entry, is that who we bring into in here. Because, yes, there's much more that we can bring, more people, more perspectives. I think that is something that we can continue to do. Because it will provide that energy, it will provide that connectivity for this community.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Chat.
Qusai, please.
>> QUSAI AL SHATTI: Well, I will join my colleagues.
>> AVRI DORIA: Do you still have that microphone?
>> QUSAI AL SHATTI: I will join my colleagues in the fact, what was said on the floor, but from the perspective of developing countries, Internet Governance, one of the most important aspects of introducing the multistakeholder process in our part of the world, where policymaking or regulation is fully engaged in a multistakeholder process, where the decision maker or the policymaker believes now, in a fixed mind shift, if you want to introduce effective regulation or policymaking, he needs to engage in the multistakeholder. So, that's one of the most important aspects for us when it comes to IGF in our part of the world. And I will stop here.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.
Funke, please.
>> FUNKE OPEKE: I think a lot has been said. For me personally, what resonates is the multistakeholder participation from the Global South with other global stakeholders in shaping the future governance of the Internet.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.
Renata, please.
>> RENATA MIELLI: Everything has been set. Just to close my participation, saying that anybody said that IGF is not about technology or digital or Internet issues. IGF is about its impacts on people and society, and it's about building connections. IGF is about dialogue and is about multiplying worldwide the conviction and the inspiration that multistakeholder process can build better policies and can contribute to develop an equal future for everybody. I think that is the thing I want to say. And I hope we can continue to this conversation for permanent years in this sense, to point that IGF has to be a mandate, a permanent mandate. Thank you very much.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you so much.
Hans Petter, please.
>> HANS PETTER HOLEN: Thank you. As being one of the techies here, I remember being one of the young guys in the room and I realize I am not anymore. This was 30 years ago. And I think one of the things I picked up from the floor here was that this national engagement and regional engagement was not in vision when this was started. I think this is really important to recruit the next generation and train the next generation. We have talked about regional or national IGFs, but I also want to do a shoutout for the schools that have been developed, the Internet Governance schools, summer schools that actually trains professionals that have a subject that may be interesting to take to the global governance.
And I think if we want to achieve what Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said in his opening speech, the Internet should not be governed by the few, but by the world. We really need to continue this part of IGF. Thank you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you.
Bitange, please.
>> BITANGE NDEMO: Thank you. One regret I have is that all the years we have thought in silos, we deal with infrastructure, we deal with violence, we deal with. Now looking forward, I would want to see discussions in IGF focusing in, what I call within systemwide. This technology has come. How can it be used to solve the problems? AI has come, most consequential technology ever. We need now not just talk about how people get it. How do they benefit from this technology, and what is it needed to make sure that the people benefit?
For example, if we talking to the farmers, educate them on how to use AI on agriculture, the productivity would improve.
So, if we bring in the systems approach to everything from now on, 30 years from now, we will talk about the different world. Thank you.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you so much.
Thank you all, panelists, thank you all, stakeholders, participants sitting in the house there, online, offline.
I just want to say that I really do love the multistakeholder model and all its variants and really do hope that the IGF continues and that we continue to talk together. I think it took a long time to get us talking. And now it's over. But thank you all. Thank you.
(Applause)
