IGF 2020 - Day 9 - Main Session: Digital Cooperation

 

>> Okay. I guess it is now time. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Thank you all so much for your flexibility to join us today. We sincerely hope that you and your families are in the best of health at this time and stand in solidarity with everyone who has an affected by the global pandemic.

Our conversation today could not be more timely or relevant. We are honored to be joined by a distinguished panel. We will have four segments of the conversation starting off with an opening and introduction by Fabrizio Hochschild continued by a high level panel followed by then a segment and discussion with distinguished experts before we move on to the closing segment.

So without further ado, allow me to turn over to his excellency under‑Secretary‑General Fabrizio Hochschild who is special adviser to Secretary‑General of the United Nations for his opening remarks.

>> Thank you so much, Hana. It is a pleasure to see so many familiar faces. I would also like to reiterate the hope expressed by Hana that everybody is in good health and their loved ones also.

Welcome to this IGF main session on Global Digital Cooperation. It is a pleasure to be among you. Many of you read and provided input to the roadmap on digital cooperation we launched in June. The reactions have been favorable and indicate to me that what we brought together in the roadmap really represents a convergence of views of what needs to be done across stakeholder groups and regions.

I was further encouraged that in September member states formally recognized the need for global digital cooperation with a paragraph in the high level declaration on the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. That paragraph calls for the U.N. to be a platform for all actors together to steer global digital technologies better towards serving the SDGs.

The challenge before us now does not appear so much to be what to do. We know we need to overcome digital divides.

We know we need to find ways to make online access safer, more useful, more secure while respecting human rights.

What is not so clear is not so much the what as the how and while many efforts point to the how, there are already efforts ongoing that are very valuable, but they are not to scale and they are not always very well coordinated.

One example of that is the multiple efforts that are under way to include ‑‑ to make the access to the internet more inclusive especially of women and girls and despite the many outstanding efforts the statistics indicate we are going in the reverse direction that, in fact, in terms of connectivity the gender gap is growing rather than declining on the internet.

What we do know on the how is that whatever we do needs to be done through a multi stakeholder effort.

Although there may be different strongly held views, a multi stakeholder approach is essential and the IGF in that sense is a tremendous platform. Indeed, we have seen this week as the sessions so far have been timely and insightful. We are very fortunate to have all of you here now for this session, a truly multi‑stakeholder representation.

This session takes place as we consider how best to implement the Secretary‑General's roadmap, recommendations pertaining to the digital cooperation architecture.

In addition to the IGF sessions that have covered specific themes like cybersecurity and digital connectivity, here we will discuss how to strengthen the IGF itself advancing toward an IGF plus.

Many of you provided inputs that are reflected in the excellent options paper prepared by the governments of Germany and the UAE.

A number of you also participated in the IGF working group on strategy and strengthening which provided a very useful response paper with further analysis and suggestions.

In this session, we will consider several key policy areas that have emerged pertaining to global digital cooperation, namely inclusion, broader participation, accelerated cooperation, outcomes, high level engagement, and communications and financing. Each of these will be essential in ensuring a more impactful IGF or IGF plus and a more robust digital cooperation system.

We are very fortunate to have several distinguished high level speakers here with us. I would like to start with the topic of accelerated cooperation with a question for his excellency Omar sultan Al Olama minister of state for, artificial intelligence digital government and remote work of the UAE. How do you think we can strengthen cooperation between stakeholder organization processes and foras.

>> Thank you. It is a pleasure and honor to be with you all today. It is a privilege that we are able to continue to meet together through digital means and aspire change across different geographies.

It is a very important question you pose. I would like to be pragmatic and try to answer in the best way possible. I think in a world where we want to see accelerated change where we are constantly distracted by notifications, where we are gratified by specific actions and specific pop‑ups that come to us on these digital platforms, we need to ensure the strategies and the roadmaps are appealing to that kind of audience.

We tend to like to go through discussions or put very ambitious goals that seem too far off. Unfortunately as impact and momentum slows down people get less motivated whether it's countries, companies, or even individuals, to continue the efforts.

It would be important for us to break down grand visions and also big goals into smaller chunks and actually create incentives for people to go through everything by step and milestone the same way they use social media or specific digital platforms.

The second is it is also very important and imperative that we ensure that the goals are goals that are multi‑generational. Sometimes we talk to one generation over the other. With climate change is that because it is a multi‑generational issue and the young people are as involved as the older generation, we are seeing today an exclusion of action across the world and activism trying to solve this important issue.

So I do hope able to put things in this perspective. I also do hope you're able to leverage both technology and the architecture of technology that's being built to put the right roadmap for us moving forward.

>> Excellency, thank you so much. The points you emphasized about having achievable goals and not being overambitious and thus setting ourselves up for failure. And secondly, ensuring that we have a generational approach that doesn't exclude anyone are two very important points that we will all try to bear better in mind.

I would like to now turn to his excellency David Sengeh of Sierra Leone. You are acutely aware of the digital divide, minister. You know while most of the developed world enjoys connectivity rates of 80 to 95% in the least developed countries connectivity is for the most part under 20%.

How could we have the most impact in improving representation of least developed countries in global digital cooperation?

>> Thank you, Fabrizio, and other distinguished members on the call.

There are two ways to address it. One from what we are doing in Sierra Leone and an opportunity that exists and how we can take advantage of

You rightly mention that connectivity, access to internet or internet use in a place like Sierra Leone is around 20% in many places. Mobile connectivity is above 80%. The opportunity here is many of these communities are going from 0G to 4G directly. Oh our mobile tech companies aren't building 1G, 2G, 3G. They are going directly from a space with no tower to 4G.

So you have hundreds of thousands of people in communities going from never having been connected to having the opportunity and capacity to use data, high speed internet. We saw this and we knew this would happen which is why to address this inclusion and opportunity because inclusion is also bringing people who are excluded from opportunity from everybody else and we have an approach through our national innovation and digital strategy called Mobile First. Mobile First and Hybrid Technology Systems. We are taking a mobile first approach that means how do we build solutions, applications, solve problems that everybody can have access to a phone and now many will have cheaper phones and it becomes a question of not just connectivity but how do we make devices available? How do we have $50 devices and not every device has to be $500. How do you go from a $500 device that's a computer to a $50 device that can allow people to buy goods, access health facilities, be able to check up on the education learning.

When we have mobile first approaches it means then we are able to include people not just able to use data but also USSD and SMS. Then we'll really take advantage of the percent of people who are connected.

In Sierra Leone we build apps that work offline, online, on the web, on mobile, and also SMS and USSD. A lot of solutions work with everybody using USSD and that's no cost. To go from not just low cost but low cost use of government services.

Within the digital public goods system as well as one of the founding members, one of our solutions just got added to the digital public goods registry which is for how we do batch payments from governments in a safe and secure with mobile money.

These hybrid solutions and mobile technology which might seem like it is already excluding actually have a huge opportunity to include the most amount of people to be able to get services because ultimately what we need is access to services. That comes about when we think about connectivity and access in an expansive way. Thank you.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Thank you very much. I think sharing with us those innovative approaches that you are adopting was valuable. I think there is a lot of learning we can do from such examples.

I would like now to turn to Lisa Fuhr the director general of ETNO. I would like to discuss the issue of accelerated cooperation. You say in your view what is a framework, a model that serves as a best practice for multi‑stakeholder cross‑country cooperation.

>> Well, I think there are many ways we can build a framework around multi‑stakeholder cooperation.

I think there is an important point first and foremost to find a way to bring discussions and implementable solutions to actions. I think here it's important that we bring in all the different stakeholder groups.

I think IGF now is already leading the way in bringing all the players around the table. So that's a very good framework. At this core you have the multi‑stakeholder model and the beauty of this is actually the bottom‑up, the all-inclusive model.

But the next step if we are to bridge a gap and make sure all stakeholder groups are present and not only present. We need them also to be engaged and we need to be sure that every voice the heard here. Sometimes we have big companies that might speak louder than others. But it's important that we engage and have every voice heard in these discussions.

I think there is a very important engagement from institutions here, too. We see already increasing participation from parliamentarians. We need to see even more involvement around the world. It's important they go back to their countries with the IGF discussions to bring them alive in their organizations and also I think it's important that the national or regional internet governance fora that are all around the world.

Tools to bring these discussions around the world, but also to make them implementable. Also at ETNO we find it is important to find a strong European voice to bring European values in the worldwide discussions and I think it is important we do that through the EU institutions and also through the stakeholders

So what is the implemented solutions? To what end can we implement those solutions? ETNO represents the telcos of Europe. While thinking about this question, I asked myself, why do we as Etno come to IGF year after year? And why does ETNO and the members prioritize being here? We come exactly for this. We come for an informed discussion and informed exchange of views from all the people and all the groups that actually matters in this.

We think that IGF has served very successfully as a laboratory of an exchange, of a discussion, of a dissemination of best practices of technical expertise, of capacity building initiatives along these stakeholder groups. I think the IGF is a good institution and this is where dialogue is happening where it is a result of who's here, who is in the room, who is at the table or as is the case this year on a virtual conference.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Thank you very much. Think your point on ensuring inclusion is not just tokenistic but makes voices heard that otherwise are not heard and taking those ‑‑ giving weight to what is really important.

I would like to continue a bit with the same topic and turn to Joseph hall who is senior vice president for strong internet at the Internet Society which has long been a strong supporter of the IGF and actively engaged in follow up to the high level panel and roadmap.

Joseph, how do you think the IGF can be better connected with other forums and processes which consider related matters?

>> Thank you. What an honor to be on this panel. In order to bridge the gap between discussions and implementable solutions, I think it is important ‑‑ at The Internet Society we would say we need to share a common understanding of what the internet is. This goes without saying but the internet is a complex system at least half of the planet benefits from.

However, like any eco‑system we must understand what makes it such a platform for communication, creation, innovation. We also have to preserve the essential elements in core regulatory aspects of how it functions.

I was thinking about this earlier and a quick analogy is to the, quote/unquote, scientific forestry employed in Germany where complex forests were replaced with monocultural, linear tree farms that were more easily tended to from a centralized way with limited knowledge.

The first yields of the mathematical timber, so to speak, were very high. Within about a century those trees were small and weak reflecting the interdependencies that exist in creating a truly magnificent sustainable eco‑system. If with think about that, though only decades old the internet is like an old growth forest in the depth, ability to survive attacks, disasters and continually reinvent itself. It is a network of networks. The value is the interrelationship of different devices, applications and uses linked by a common set of protocols.

The management is not centralized. Intelligence is at the edges in the hands of those running local networks. The internet is increasing the value for all. It's not just the technology or its services and use that define the internet. It is how we network which the Internet Society called the internet way of networking that also matters. We have to understand what the internet is and honor the DNA when we decide to make changes to it. That's a really key core thread to what we are doing here.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Thank you so much, Joseph. I think this notion of maintaining the decentralized character of the internet, the diversity of the internet is a key point.

A little known and totally irrelevant fact but you provoked me to share it is that I am actually a forester by training and I spent ‑‑

>> Cool!

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: ‑‑ part of my training in Germany. Your analogy is good. But to be fair to German forestry of today, they have long left behind a passion for monocultures and now do plant forests that are not linear and are multi mixed species. I like the analogy and I will use it.

Also, like foresters thinking not just whatever economic gains or social impacts or political impact we'll have today, but foresters think 50, 80, 120 years from now. There is a legacy issue around the internet that we also say deserves greater attention. You have provoked me, but I'll shut up.

Next to Olga Cavalli, academic director at the South School on Internet Governance. I would like to go back to inclusion and participation. In what ways can we improve meaningful participation of academia in global digital cooperation, especially to the extent possible academia from developing countries.

>> Thank you. I want to congratulate the staff for organizing this great IGF. I know how difficult it is to move from a face‑to‑face large meeting like IGF to a virtual meeting. I think it is going very well. I'm happy it spread all over so I can participate in more workshops and sessions before. So I commend you for that.

We learned in the IGF that we needed in Latin America stronger leadership. We realize the leadership participation in IGF was low or not informed. We started with the School of Internet Governance creating a space especially with multi-disciplinary perspectives.

So those who were trained in law could learn from technology. Those trained in technology like myself could learn about regulations and human rights and privacy and security and other things.

There is still a gap in between universities and all that we are doing in the IGF. It's up to us to bridge that gap. Many of us ‑‑ I'm a teacher at the University of Buenos Aires. Let me tell you, I am the only one in a very big university. The largest English speaking language in South America and I am the only one following the IGF. I talk about it with my colleagues and students. Many of them have gotten engaged after I have been in touch with them to give them information and developments of the IGF. I think we still have a gap, especially in developing countries. We could partner with universities to have more active hubs. The hubs are there but we should have more active engagement with universities from developing economies. As I said before we believe a stronger leadership in developing economies is relevant for achieving the goals that we need for development. We need to work to make that gap smaller. Thank you for inviting me.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Thank you, Olga. Yes. We have to recognize that gap and be aware of it. Thank you for your efforts in trying to reduce it.

We are also joined by Miranda Sissons. From your perspective what do you see as one of the greatest challenges in digital cooperation and what role do you see for the IGF in better addressing it?

>> Thank you very much indeed. I'm delighted to be here today. As‑salamu alaykum. I would like to say that actually in the roadmap roundtables we participated in it was itself a great example of the practical benefits of a multi‑stakeholder approach.

That multi‑stakeholder approach is essential to what we need to do to drive global digital cooperation moving forward.

Let me echo other speakers. We do see the IGF as an extremely valuable forum because it is uniquely democratic. It has a vital role in helping drive the vitality and connectedness of this crucial conversation which is how we work to ensure this messy network of networks, the internet, remains open, inclusive, secure and responsive to the needs of our time.

From my perspective and that of the human rights team at the company I work for, in terms of a challenge to global digital cooperation one of the fundamental challenges is that the internet no longer has novelty value to many of us. Many of us are taking its economic developmental and human rights benefits for granted. But we shouldn't.

The internet's development isn't linear and neither is the governance development. It is not going to continue to act towards open exchange of information, innovation, expression, unless we work hard to make it so. That's particularly important this year. It is particularly important for this IGF because the realities of fragmentation are increasing rapidly. They are caused by the efforts of some governments to segregate their internet, deploy arbitrary surveillance, weaken encrypted chat platforms or enforce coercive sovereignty regimes. There are also many other centrifugal forces in play. But these changes are accelerating now and they do present a real threat to the open internet.

So the Secretary‑General's roadmap is a good start because it recognizes that human rights exist online as they do offline. In your connect, protect and respect framework I would call attention to whatever we do now we do have to give very strong attention to the idea that global human rights have to be protected and respected in full. That rights regime is our strongest and most developed framework for promoting and protecting the best of our digital world and mitigating the worst.

To this audience I want to remind you of article 19 of the ICCPR, freedom of expression. Article two, nondiscrimination. Article 17, privacy from arbitrary government interference.

So I spend and many of the teams I work with, many of the entities I work with spend many hours in practical work daily to defend those rights. We hope that the increased due diligence and transparency will be a rich vein of insight and accountability for all.

We want to say we think the meaningful global cooperation this year and in the years beyond depend on a bottom‑up transparent multi‑stakeholder process. We see the soon‑to‑be appointed as potentially playing a really important role in making that process a reality. Thank you.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Thank you so much, Miranda. It was very helpful to remind us that we should not take this great creation for granted but work to conserve it. It reminds me of something my former boss Louise Arbor, a Supreme Court justice in Canada, head of the high commission for human rights, liked to emphasize that the opposite of freedom is not the rule of law. The opposite of freedom is tyranny. In the absence of the rule of law, that's where tyranny can easily prevail. The paradox of the internet, an instrument built on very libertarian ideals, is to conserve its inclusiveness, conserve its free nature, conserve its human rights aligned character will require a greater rule of law precisely to protect that. That's something we are beginning to understand better. But of course it has to be, as you said a bottom‑up, multi‑stakeholder approach.

With that, I would like to return to his excellency sultan Al Olama. The roadmap is to create a strategic and empowered multi‑stakeholder high level body as part of the IGF which can strengthen its responsiveness and relevance.

What role do you see for this body to support global digital cooperation?

>> Thank you. It's very exciting hearing inputs from the different panelists. I do echo everything that was raised. I would like to add one more important factor we need to factor in when thinking about the IGF and access for all. Sometimes we think generically and expect that everyone understands where we need to go. As was proposed, certain companies are leapfrogging specific issues. The adoption rates are quite high. In the challenges and the issues are not linear in a sense. They are very sporadic when it comes to developing infrastructure and putting policies and comparison between the countries.

First and foremost we need to not look at all countries on one map equally. When it comes to technical capabilities there are, for example, very finite but help is determined who is advanced versus who is still a lagger.

But if you look at the citizens and adoptions and policies as well, everyone has a chance to have an open discussion rather than a very generic proposal.

I also think we need to be pushing a universal basic tech infrastructure that's global in nature. We hear the private sector when it comes to Facebook and Google and other companies looking at providing internet for all using certain means and technologies, but it is not just about internet for all. There are so many other technology requirements from infrastructure perspective. We don't need to wait for the private sector to monetize it. Sometimes it requires for governments and NGOs. It is putting a basic tech infrastructure that allows for everyone to become a part of this world and make sure no one is left behind.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Thank you so much. We admire the leadership you have shown and UAE has shown precisely for those ends. I would like to go back to Minister Sengeh of Sierra Leone. How would you like to see the IGF better bridge the gap between discussions and concrete solutions?

>> I think it comes down to partnerships. A criticism that existed really of these consortiums and conferences, meetings and forums before was that it didn't lead to the outcomes we spoke and. But since the launch of the activities this summer with you and the Secretary‑General on digital we have seen at every engagement it leads to more partnerships. And more specifically actually with UAE and I remember maybe three, four, five months ago that conversation led to bilateral meetings between Sierra Leone and UAE and collaborations now in building tangible experiences between our countries.

These things are just a hypothetical with the government of Norway. I think I have a meeting with the minister of international development of Norway next week, again, which happened along the sidelines of these compositions we are having.

With UNICEF, the incoming new activities that will be announced soon all into these digital public goods. It's really that the right people. I think somebody mentioned having the right people in the room, the right people having a conversation.

So not just the right people but people who are technical, people who can be policy makers. And who understand the problems they are going to resolve. That link between the problems, the understanding of the technology and the opportunity that exists can be the leverage we need and the opportunity that exists for us to take advantage of the U.N. network and this global partnership and the globalization really, the digitization and the internet enhances. It comes down to the right partnerships and demonstrating something with the right ideas. Good ideas. We can't overtheorize good ideas. We have to test them. And the way to get results is by testing them and we learn from them we have the humility to test our pilots what we can modify, improve and do them. Then share that with the rest of the world. There are good ideas and good pilots that are never shared in this opportunity. It is the right partnership generosity to share is what we need.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: I like that ‑‑ generosity to share. Partnerships that are giving is critical.

I would like to now move and talk a bit about communications and financing. I would like to come back to Lise. Tell me what outreach and financing should be considered for the IGF.

>> I think the beauty of this question and I agree this is a really important question. I think it is part of a virtual circle. If we get the people and groups that matter to join the IGF in this room we will actually have the discussions that are needed. The fruitful discussions that are important for all the stakeholders.

It is important we have the policy makers, civil society. We need the companies, technical communities. We need them to take those messages and discussions home. We need them to be inspired and to implement them because that's when you realize the value of coming to IGF. I think the visibility and the support of the IGF really rests on the participation and participants.

Another important element for me is that IGF should not be something that happens once a year. We need the discussion to continue between the IGFs. We don't want more than one meeting a year, but we need to have our members involved also between the meetings. There are other foras where you can bring those discussions. ETNO and our members have been involved in EURO‑dig and C‑dig and we think those are important for us to continue those discussions. If we build on an ongoing discussion at the international, at the regional and also at the national level that we attract relevant stakeholders and this is how we remain attractive and continue to get support that's needed for IGF to thrive. I think that's important. The discussion isn't just a one‑off. It is an ongoing discussion that needs to be here in IGF and also percolated out into the member states or the states, sorry. Thank you.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Thank you. Your points about getting the funding required because people see usefulness in the exercise and secondly the point of the IGF not being a one‑off annual event but an ongoing process and discussion not necessarily with multiplicity of meetings but very important.

I would like to come back to Joseph now. I would like to ask you what additional methods for concrete policy recommendations you would like to see at the IGF.

>> Thanks. So I think it is important to recognize the value of the discursive forum and not discount it and understand that the value IGF brings as a discursive form is really important. While we are thinking of potential different ways to have concrete outcomes or policy recommendations I don't want to lose track that talking in a well moderated forum with a good level of accessibility is something there is just not a lot of places like that despite the fact that we haven't penetrated everyone's brain as Olga said.

I think it's pretty easy to pick a few genres of outcomes and try to create forums within IGF where folks that participate in those forums are on notice that this isn't purely discursive. For example, you could imagine by entering this aspect of IGF discussion you are committing to take part in a pilot project to commit funds to fund additional research that may be informed by the discussion that happens. So I don't think that's hard. I think we have to come together and think about what are the outcomes that the multi‑stakeholder environment particularly values or wants to see more of. Do you want to see novel forms of networks out there? This is what we do. I'm sorry to be a one‑note thing.

What are those? We have feelings or that but having a session to talk about how to set up the rules in different IGF forums to focus and let people know we are expecting you to make changes to business operations by spending time with us. I'm sorry so speak so fast.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: No, no, Joseph. Thank you. Your emphasis on not disregarding the value of the IGF is very valuable and important.

I think we also have to beware not to establish the dichotomy between either a discursive form or one with outcomes. Hopefully we can combine both. I don't think it is contrary to maintaining the discursive character of the IGF.

Olga, if I could turn to you, in addition to the creation of the multi stakeholder body how could the IGF boost high level engagement and hopefully through that impact.

>> Very good question. It's been the source for so many interesting activities like the schools of internet governance, regional IGF, national IGF. I still think there is a gap Wu with regional and other activities that do not address exactly what the IGF is doing.

So the MAG and the high level body could find ways to contribute with content and I like what Lise said about doing activities between the different IGFs. Not only one time a year activity but it is a process along the year. So the Mag and this high level group could partner and be in touch with regional and national activities and then send some documents, input, perhaps partner with experts that can participate. Now that we have learned that distance doesn't exist for participation, we organized the school virtual last month and had many experts from all over the world and students. We now know we can count on experience and knowledge from all over the world and from all over the experts. So let's profit on that and let's profit from what we have learned with this pandemic that participation is not limited.

Now we have learned. Let's do that with exchanging the IGF experience into other existing processes, schools, regional IGF, national IGF, government activities, government meetings, technical meetings.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Thank you so much, Olga. It's good to have a reminder of what the IGF has led to coming into being through its activities.

Miranda, final question. What type of outcomes would you like to see from the IGF in the future?

>> Oh, that's a big question. I think what from my perspective would be extremely valuable is to take this discursive frame and absolutely run with the idea that the goal should be to make it easier for stakeholders with limited budgets, power, expertise to make their voices heard in this valuable discursive process and that the IGF should be convened in various regions taking place outside of Europe and that there should be an active process, a thoughtful process of considering the value of examples of multi‑stakeholder initiatives such as the global network initiative which, in our experience, has developed into a valuable and impactful resource for many kinds of stakeholders.

So not diminishing at all the discursive value of the program and the process but thinking how do we design in this multi‑stakeholder sharing of knowledge in an intentional way. The freedom house, freedom on the net report in 2020 argued the best way to stave off the rise of cybersovereignty is to restore confidence in the legitimacy and efficacy of the existing multi‑stakeholder model.

We look to see practical steps for people to rally to see how to architect, how to develop the capacity and resources to bring together the various important conversations on digital cooperation so that there is more capacity for the IGF to become a central node for many of those conversations.

We appreciate the fact that some governments have shown a strong interest in strengthening the IGF and that the Secretary‑General's roadmap also points in that direction. We'd look to see as part of this broader and more practical stakeholder linkage and participation that there is linking to other parts of the U.N. or OECD this is developing internet and other important policy principles and to multi stakeholder fora.

I would also like to harken back to Joseph and give him plus one. What happens if we seek to also adapt the IGF toolset. An experiment with becoming agile in some way to meet these challenges. If we can rally multi stakeholder focus to define a problem to solve using the tech to understand, codesign, create, iterate, what experiment could we run to provide rapid value now for this unprecedented time of COVID and this unprecedented moment of regulatory action. I'll stop there. Those are thoughts rather than comments. I hope they are useful.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: A lot of interesting thoughts about how to use the technology to try to informalize an experiment and in particular to add more road grip with this multi‑stakeholder approach. I think those are valuable ideas and I hope we can. I think we all hope we can move in that direction.

I would like to thank all of you that spoke for the brevity and outstanding input. I think it's been a rich discussion. This concludes this segment of our discussion.

I would like now to turn over to a member of the multi stakeholder advisory group Rudolf Gridl. He will moderate a dialogue now on these key areas. Over to you.

>> Thank you so much. Good evening, good morning, good afternoon to everybody. Distinguished guests, speakers and panelists. I am also very honored to be the moderator of this expert session. We have already had a good discussion on questions concerning the way forward in the architecture of the internet governance. I'm very pleased to continue this with renowned experts.

My first question would go to his excellency Thomas Schneider, director of the international affairs at the Swiss federal office of communications. He has been around in the internet governance scene for quite some time. I would say from the very outset. At least from the forum.

Thomas, for you the question from your experience and all the networks that you have been in and you are still in, how can we manage this aim of an accelerated cooperation? How can these different stakeholder group organizations come together to break the silos and work together?

>> Thank you. Can you hear me?

>> Yes.

>> Excellent. It's good to see you all at least virtually, if not physically. I hope everybody is fine and healthy. With regard to your question, indeed one of the key issues of breaking the silos is bridging the gaps between the discussions and pragmatic solutions so when it comes to IGF as a process this will work. Switzerland has a clear vision that the IGF needs to evolve into what many call IGF plus to become a keynote for digital governance.

The IGF over the years has already repeatedly demonstrated its value for identifying emerging topics and for sharing policy discussions. Its rich multi‑stakeholder community has always offered fertile ground for further development and evolution.

In our eyes the IGF is predestined to be the place in the future to shape policies for the digital world and to use an expression used in the high level panel the IGF, in our view, can be and should be the kitchen where many of the dishes can be prepared that are needed to address the challenges in our digital present. However, excellent discussions and brilliant ideas and insightful approaches to solutions developed at the IGF run the risk of fading away unheard and unheeded if they do not reach the halls of decision‑making institutions and fora. We need to build strong bridges between the actors. Especially between the discussions and insights of experts like here at the IGF and the decision‑makers including high level decision‑makers among all stakeholder groups.

The U.N. SG's road map and options paper prepared by the cochampions I hear the UAE and Germany for roundtable 5A and B and the office of Fabrizio contain ways and means to make it happen. We think these things should be implemented. First by boosting the relevance of the policy networks and outputs as already was mentioned.

For instance, by covering politically relevant topics like the issue of digital self‑determination or the intersection between digitization and climate change. And by connecting these policy networks with the decision‑making levels through linking these network discussions with the high level segment of the multi‑stakeholder high level body through relaying these policy networks and IGF outputs to all other fora directly through their engagement and at a high level through the multi‑stakeholder high level body.

Second by effectively and timely addressing urgent issues with an empowered IGF. Third, by increasing the ownership of the IGF way of doing things in decision‑making levels through the high level segment parliamentarian track we have seen growing in Berlin and the rotating membership of the multi‑stakeholder high level board.

Finally, by strengthening our valuable secretariat of the IGF and also its funding in order to allow it to more effectively liase with others and creating the future. Funding is key there. With no funding you are not present even in virtual meetings.

Finally by strengthening the links and synergies between the IGF and existing observatories, help desks, active in offering capacity building and quality information in the field of digital governance like the Geneva internet platform and various schools of internet governance mentioned already.

In addition to improve the inclusiveness of IGF plus by including voices and views of ordinary citizens, particularly from the global south through digital styles that have been tested this year. With such evolutions we just need to implement them. We are convinced the IGF will be in a position of playing the role of a major multi‑stakeholder node in the network of digital policy shaping and making fit to answer the challenges of our interdependent digital world. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Thomas, for this concrete and actionable ideas. Some of these ideas are already being tested in the European dialogue on internet governance. I'm happy and pleased to have Sandra Hoferichter here. She is a very knowledgeable internet governance expert. Sandra, the issue that also Thomas raised of actionable outcomes, what can we do concretely to have more outcomes that are relevant for people outside the IGF community? What's your experience?

>> Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Thank you very much for inviting me to this session.

I would like to redirect your question in a little bit different direction. I would say what can be done to make the outcomes of the IGF more relevant to decision‑makers. You know, as an organizer of the regional forum I'm advocating that we have quite a number of good outcomes and I would like to see them become more influential and thinking about what can be produced in addition.

Let me quickly name what I consider to be an output of the multi‑stakeholder discussions. I will be brief. Many things have been said already by the other distinguished speakers.

Messages, reports, papers from the sessions, workshops, plenaries and best practice foras and dynamic coalitions are the main outcome produced in all IGF initiatives. A lot of effort even was invested in transparent reporting methodologies including comment phases by involving all stakeholders.

We know these outcomes aren't negotiated but built on consensus. That makes them strong and weak at the same time. Depending from which perspective you look at them. They are strong because the substance has broad support from multi‑stakeholders and they can be weak because it is sometimes a group could agree on. Sometimes even the group agrees to disagree and I think this is a message, too, because it points to the direction in which a discussion has to be continued.

If you would call for more papers to be produced, I wonder what it would envision other than resolutions or declarations. Then we are giving up on the unique selling point of the IGF and ignoring the mandate IGF has. A second is the input. That's underestimated. To give you an idea what could be achieved when a legislator understands the technical basis before adopting a law or when they understand the implications such a law might have in practice.

On the other side it helps when someone from the technical community understands the constraints of an elected legislator and the relationship between code and law. This could be achieved at the IGF. The third output is the global societal debate. We need to have this debate on risk challenges, opportunities, in order to build a sustainable digital future. Without broad consensus we risk to damage and fragment our network.

A fourth outcome is transcript, videos, records, messages. There is meanwhile a huge repository of knowledge and many Ph.D. students and researchers are referring to these sources, analyzing for research and I think that's also highly underestimated.

Fifth involvement of young people, I think we did well in this regard. Youth programs are always on the agenda of many IGFs and many youngsters got started in such a program became high level experts later on.

The sixth is the tremendous growth of national and regional IGFs that can be considered at one of the most significant outcomes of the IGF mandate.

To give you a number as of 2019 there were more than 120 initiatives located in all five regions of the world. This proves there is a desire for multi‑stakeholder discussion in all parts of the world.

This all happened with limited resources on a voluntary basis. We need to place these in order to add more building blocks in the future. The question is within IGF model what can such building blocks entail? I understand that many of the things I have just mentioned of the outcomes cannot be measured and I'm also as the organizer of a regional IGF constantly thinking what can be done from our side to become more visible and relevant.

First and foremost, I think we can improve on the communication on our outcomes. Just look at how it is reported on the world economic forum or on climate summits. We have to get there. It is possible.

We currently don't have the resources to do so. Secondly, make sure our messages, our reports are really understood and I'm saying nothing new here. Capacity building is key and Olga elaborated already. A lot of why these things are important and what is in place already.

Third, we have to narrow the gap between the level of discussions and the decision‑making level. It's just started with the involvement of parliamentarians. We must win this group as a constant contributor to the IGF and we can help them to connect with each other to exchange on their experiences. They just reiterated on Tuesday and it is our task to guide them through our sometimes complicated participation process.

>> Sandra, we have to look a little bit to the clock.

>> Okay. I'll summarize what I consider the most urgent action items for the IGF and all national and regional initiatives improve the communications and make sure our outcomes from really understood. Thank you.

>> Thank you so much, Sandra for these great insights. I'm now turning to a commissioner and advocate specialist Bocar Ba focused on infrastructure extension and investment through collaboration and multi‑stakeholder partnership in the region. Also the CEO of the telecommunications council and has several high ranking tasks within the ITU. For 29 years he's been a professional with experience in the telecoms industry.

With all your experience and knowledge and what we have heard today, do you have any ideas that you could share with us about inclusion that is so vital and so crucial for the development of internet and internet governance? It would be great to hear insights from your experience.

>> Thank you very much. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, from Dubai. It is a pleasure to be here today in this important session which aims to enhance stakeholder inclusion as mentioned by Rudolf, and enable broader participation on this IGF platform. As has been identified the world is at a critical inflection point concerning multiple issues and challenge abound. These need be addressed. We have heard that earlier from my colleague. Everyone heard equally to ensure we can develop cooperative ways of overcoming issues and challenges and remain aligned on sustainable goals and reap the positives of the digital revolution. Now the option papers spells out very clearly where we need to improve our efforts to include the developing nations. Inclusivity has been identified as one of the biggest challenges and the most important pillars for supporting improved cooperation especially in the digital space. We all require sharing information and experience and I would like to repeat again on an equal footing. To help ourselves and those with policy making powers to push actions based on informed decisions. This can truly enable thoughtful discussions and dissemination of best practices for the express purpose of enabling more countries ‑‑ and this is important ‑‑ to realize the economic and societal benefits of digital transformation that we are talking about globally. In this regard, the IGF informs and inspires those with policy‑making power in both public and private sector.

Given the tremendous potential that the platform IGF carries and drawing inspiration from it, there are multiple ways we can further inclusion in global digital cooperation and especially from so far let's say underrepresented stakeholders group.

This can start with incentivizing greater participation within the forum for all stakeholders and countries and create a sense of belonging and someone before me mentioned from the developing nations.

As an example the preparation for the IGF agenda and priorities must be focused enough to allow for fruitful dialogue and yet be general enough so to remain relevant to both developed and developing nations. One focus is on the sustainable economy for developing and developed nations alike.

If we can elevate ‑‑ and I will be short, Rudolf ‑‑ the concern of national ICT players as an example, national income operators to be to the highest level of ICF agenda when we are forming it this will enhance the focus to those stakeholders and to the geography they are representing in those countries. Generally, our approach in policy governance and regulation has to be driven by objective. It was listed by Fabrizio at the beginning.

So the objective is leave no one behind. In conclusion, the stakeholders in developing nations are keen on pursuing collaboration in order to make progress on both national ICT visions as well as global commitments. Given that the internet is undergoing fundamental changes it is inevitable that the world will learn to cooperate better and all nations will have to strive toward achieving and facilitating inclusiveness. The IGF has a well-defined much needed role to play in helping nations embrace these challenges we are talking about. Thank you very much.

>> Thank you so much, Bocar. Our next expert is one out of three of my bosses or former bosses now on this expert call. She has been for many years the CEO of the Internet Society and then she was the chair of the Mag and in this capacity she was my boss. I was a humble, ordinary member. Lynn St.‑Amour. We have already many discussions, Lynn, about the question of financing of the IGF and the communications.

With all your experience, what are your insights and ideas about this very crucial and critical topic which has already been raised several times this evening.

>> Thank you. One of the pluses of being part of a multi‑stakeholder process is there are no bosses. We are all in it together as equals.

I would just come quickly to the point where I support so many of the comments that have been made. In particular Thomas, Sandra and Bocar's comments with respect to things we could do to improve the IGF's attractiveness, if you will.

The IGF community has been working on these problems and issues for a long time, since its first days, in fact. So many elements are prepositioned. We have a great idea what needs to be done, good ideas of how they could be done and who we would reach out to. Partnerships are central to much of what we do.

The one thing we lack still consistently is finances to support the resources to do this. We have lots of outputs and they could be strengthened and improved primarily, I think, in how they are communicated and how they are aggregated and then ultimately shared. But, again, we lack the resources to do that. Most of you will have heard me say this before. The IGF gets a tremendous amount of support from a very small number of governments and even smaller number of private sector companies.

To some extent there is not a great enough appreciation of the benefits of the dialogues. The problems we are grappling with are complex, nuanced, differ by societal and cultural and geographic. It takes time to really understand and pull apart those key components. I think that's not recognized well enough. Maybe it's coming more to that point even for the Stanford deliberative processes. A lot of what the IGF has done and is trying to do. We really need to break the back of the financing problem. I think there are elements to do that. The IGF mag had a working group on financing. We are restricted somewhat by the U.N. affiliation and our own financing requirements. Transparency helps. Putting the mag in charge in terms of reference of any pilot or project that might be funded from external money or sources.

Making it a central part of the IGF's policy activities at any point in time. All those things would bring more attention, funding, outcomes. There are ways to do that that would not endanger any kind of U.N. rules or protocols would ensure they weren't captured by any specific special interest. Again, transparency. Putting the mag in very significant responsibility position would help that. The world economic forum has some models that I think would need to be adapted for the IGF but also are good learning experiences for how we can bring in more support, more resources and more funding.

I know we're short on time. So I will stop there. But the number one problem we all need to fix is resources and financing. That starts with all of us doing everything we can to advocate for the IGF to pull in participation, to pull in acknowledgment of outputs to put them into our workstreams as well so there continues to be a greater awareness. Here, I think the U.N. could play a significant role. Honestly have not always been as present as we might have expected them to be given Kofi Annan's leadership and vision so many years ago.

I will stop there and hope it was concrete enough and to some degree helpful. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Lynn. It was very concrete and very helpful, of course. So now to hear from the private sector. Mr. Radoslaw Kedzai from Huawei. What is your idea to have high level engagement to have more high level participation and perhaps also outreach within the system. Do you have views on that?

>> Thank you. Thank you for having me. I'm very impressed by my predecessors' points of view. It is a very good question. I think we should start with several points. I have put them down to some extent to make my thinking stream more systematic.

First of all, the pandemic has accelerated the digital and intelligent transformation and reminded us that we are in urgent need of innovation and cooperation to ensure the effect that technology has on society and individuals is positive, balanced and inclusive.

We would like to share our practices as well as commitment to innovation, equal opportunities, diversity, that inclusion globally with a focus on collaborating with them to create better society for every person, family, and organization.

Digital technologies have unleashed a new age of computing, information mobility and communication. My predecessors don't talk about laptops or computers. They talk about mobile phones. This is the reality.

With the pandemic situation mobile communication plays a much more important role in our daily life work and other activities.

The digitalization has become a global trend that could bring profound changes to life and economies. Therefore there needs to be a global multi‑stakeholder efforts and global inclusive standards that apply for all. The time the U.S. saw dominance and has been the greatest driver and beneficiary of technology, innovation and also a vibrant entrepreneurial spirit have passed. Inclusive cooperation in the digital sector across all regions and balanced competition that bring more opportunities have become significant more than ever.

We are living in a more connected world with boundaries, attempts to undermine global cooperation in the digital sector or exclude stakeholders from the markets should be prevented in order for all of us not to bear the costs of this exclusion.

We continue to work with partners to build an industrial eco‑system. With a focus on driving progress toward the U.N. sustainable development as we create the digital and intelligent work together we are bringing the benefits to more homes, individuals and organizations. Today we need to accelerate this global digital cooperation seizing on the opportunities that are presented by technology while mitigating the risks so that the progress toward achieving goals by 2030 can be made collectively.

Huawei is ready to help the countries, societies and partners around the globe to harness the power of technology and innovation. We welcome the cooperation with all the stakeholders and they are committed to fight exclusion around the globe.

My predecessors talked about the differences between the developed and developing markets. This is torrent important to keep in mind there are different ways of looking at the importance of digitization in different parts of the world but we have to come together and harness them, looking at them from a different point of view.

I think this is one of the opportunities for IGF to play the role of having a global view and including everyone in its organization to address the challenges that come from a different angle and different dimension.

What I also wanted to mention is that, you know, hearing my former speakers, that the existing digital cooperation architecture has become highly complex and diffused but not necessarily effective. Global processes are often not inclusive enough.

This situation is exacerbated by the lack of common standards and rules for the global digital architecture which makes it especially hard for developing countries, small and medium‑sized enterprises, groups with hard hit economics by the pandemic, limited budgets and expertise to make their voice heard.

Also in those difficult times you see we are all embracing the fact that we can communicate between each other without being very close to each other. It became part of our life. Whether this is in forums like IGF, in our work, in learning, where Netherlands, this kind of communication becomes a new normal.

We have to have standards, how to make it simple for the organizations to adapt to the technological baseline that will allow everyone to use this technology in the unified manner.

My predecessors talked about the governance which doesn't mean limitation. Governance means setting up the standards and basic rules that everyone can follow. For example, certification of certain technologies. Or a set of recommendations. How to prepare the technologies in certain areas regardless if it's an economic area, education, geographical area to be used in the same way. I was about to finish actually. Thank you for having me.

>> Thank you so much. I'm very sorry. I also want to apologize to the next speakers that I have to ask them now to be concise and short. The birthday child of the day, Anriette. You are somebody who has been working on internet governance issues for a very long time. You are one of the most outstanding experts in Africa, southern Africa and in the internet hall of fame.

My question would be coming from the multi‑stakeholder community and being in this community, what do you think about this idea of high level engagement of new high level ideas you would perhaps need in the internet governance forum that's been on the table for some months now? Thank you.

>> Thank you very much, Rudolf. I want to talk just briefly before I talk specifically about the particular multi‑stakeholder high level body. Just a little bit about the challenges of digital cooperation. Because I think it's not easy and we need to take that into account.

Firstly the scope of cooperation. The internet and digital technologies don't exist in a parallel universe. So the challenges that we need to address are more than digital challenges. They involve working with more than just people in the digital sphere. So that makes it complex. The scope of cooperation first.

Secondly the quality of cooperation. I think we know already from 20 years of working through this process trying to find solutions that meaningful cooperation and partnership is not easy. We heard this from previous speakers as well. Multi‑stakeholder engagement takes up more than just putting people from different backgrounds around the table. It needs revealing differences, dealing with interest, working through these interests to build lasting partnerships.

Thirdly, inclusivity. We just heard the previous speaker talk about this as well. We talk a lot about cooperation and being inclusive. I think we use it quite loosely.

How do we develop the kind of targeted inclusivity if you're dealing with hate speech, how do you make sure people that are impacted by hate speech, the people that perpetrate hate speech, they are facilitated together. This is complex.

Fourthly, sustaining cooperation takes time. It takes institutional capacity and we have heard that from previous speaker as well.

To talk about the multi‑stakeholder community I think the IGF needs to evolve and connecting more effectively with leaders is part of what we need to do. I think this body can help to achieve that. But I think we also need to keep in mind that the IGF needs to connect effectively with two other groups as well that I think we are not connecting with effectively enough. That's people, communities, end users, people impacted by the issues we talk about but that are not yet in the process itself. That don't come to the IGF that are not part of NRIs.

A second group, implementers, the small businesses, people that build the network, that run the infrastructure on the ground. The local government officials, technocrats. We need them in the IGF as well. I think when we invest in this multi‑stakeholder high level body we need to invest in it in a way that strengthens the credibility, legitimacy of the IGF. But not in a way that effects that strength of the IGF, the primary strength of the IGF which is its bottom‑up nature. We need to continue to invest in that at the very same time as we invest in better interinstitutional leadership relationships.

>> Thank you. That's a very important point. I want to go directly to the next speaker, my actual director in the ministry for economic affairs in Germany, Daniela Bronstrup. She was cochair of the mag last year and is responsible for the telecommunications for the G7 and the multi‑stakeholder process amongst others. Daniela, we heard that we need to focus on the multi‑stakeholders and the bottom‑up aspect of the IGF. On the other hand we want outcomes that are actionable and outcomes that are relevant for the outside world. What is your view on this challenge?

>> Thank you so much for the question. Hello, everybody. I'm delighted that at least we can meet each other virtually and I can see you on screen today.

Yes, coming to the question, what I would like to echo with Fabrizio Hochschild, he mentioned we need policy recommendations on one man and on the other hand that doesn't mean we do not need discussions on the contrary. Good policy recommendations are built on discussions and I think the IGF plus should stay a discussion body.

Nevertheless, we should ‑‑ like, for example, someone said to focus on recommendations or outcomes that really help in changing the world. So in my view we have already made considerable progress during the last years. I remind you of the Geneva messages. We should try to make them even more action‑oriented and as concrete as possible.

I think there is significant demand for stronger common orientation on digital cooperation and there have been proposals for strong leadership enjoying wide support and deserves particular attention. This is especially the high level group as a part of the IGF. Similar to executive committee and in addition to the mag which could continue to focus on organizational tasks. The high level group would have a limited number of members to ensure effectiveness and operability, feature multi‑stakeholder representation and create links to other fora.

This suggestion would correspond to the strategic and empowered multi stakeholder high level body mentioned in the Secretary‑General's road map for digital cooperation.

While the group would not be a decision‑making body they would support bringing outcomes to decision‑makers.

In my view the high level body needs to be interlinked. The chair needs to be a born member of the high level body. And the high level body should be a transmission gear between discussions at the IGF and the decision‑making bodies.

Last year we invited parliamentarians to Berlin to make sure the outcomes of the IGF are transmitted to the political process. I think that was very successful. I heard that yesterday the parliamentarian session at the IGF 2020 was very successful as well. I think we should follow on that path. Thank you.

>> Thank you so much, Daniela. Last but not least from the Civil Society we have the coordinator of the internet caucus in Brazilia Bruna Santos. What are your views and insights? Could you share them with us, please?

>> Thank you very much. It is an honor and a pleasure to participate in the session today with so many esteemed colleagues. On behalf of the internet governance caucus and organizations very much welcome this opportunity to address this IGF session on furthering digital cooperation.

It is already mentioned organizations actively taking part in the digital cooperation process from its inception committed to supporting the implementation of the roadmap in which all stakeholders play a part in a safer more equitable world, one which leads to a brighter and more prosperous future for all.

In terms of outcomes and suggestions we commend the discussions on improving and strengthening the IGF both in the context of roundtable 5A and B, the mag working group and strengthening and strategy.

When it comes to enhancing the IGF mission we agree that it is key for this to facilitate a greater range of outcomes and promote a broader range of discussions with all approaches.

Additionally we commend and welcome the call for voluntary commitments. But jumping onto our recommendation, I think I would highlight three.

First of all, the need for stronger links between the IGF secretariat and the office of the U.N. SG and the IGF as well to ensure higher visibility for the forum and coordination with various U.N. processes and projects. We likewise agree the appointment and eventual office and work of the envoy should be grounded in principles of multi stakeholder dialogue and transparency.

Any possible discussions should take into consideration existing structures through improved documentation process, coalitions as well as a national and regional IGF in order for outcomes and more inclusivity in the parliamentarian track already mentioned here.

We would like to see improved communication of the final messages to parliaments and the community as a whole.

Last but not least, we'd like to point out this process should not create or avoid creating duplications with the mag or the processes that are already under way. We should retain the primary role as a multi stakeholder body.

Just to finalize my intervention I would say that the IGF should remain inclusive, open, gender responsive and keep the multi‑stakeholder nature of which has been its hallmark over 15 years. Thank you very much.

>> Thank you so much. We are already five minutes over time. So that leaves me with nothing else but giving back to you, Fabrizio and thanking you all for valuable contributions. Thank you.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Thank you. I was listening to the discussion with great interest and many important points shared there.

I'll be brief. But I have to mention something within the time constraints and I hope the person concerned won't get upset with me. If I'm not mistaken today, in fact, is an important day not just because of this discussion but even more so because I think it is Anriette's birthday. I think we are all fans and I'm not sure if we might actually scare her away if we tried to sing together, but I know we join in wishing her the best and a wonderful year ahead.

As we conclude, I would like to invite each of the high level speakers we had at the beginning to make a quick 15‑second commitment on how they will contribute to global digital cooperation including a stronger IGF or IGF plus. Sadly his excellency minister Al‑Alama had to leave us. I would go to minister Sengeh.

>> For me because I sit at minister of education and chief innovation officer my commitment is clear to support what the U.N. is doing with these digital assets and particularly with the digital public goods. I remain committed as one of the digital public goods alliance institutions and our government units for ensuring that we can use data, technology that we can share and engage with to transform national development. These have to be open and used for driving impacts in our countries. In Sierra Leone we are focused on human capital development which is education, security, and health. That's what we are committed to do. Thank you.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Thank you so much. If I could go to Lise now.

>> Thank you. I think this dialogue showed it is extremely important to discuss the future of the global digital cooperation, the two panels showed a high level of engagement and there were many commonalities including we talked about inclusion, dialogue and also defining the differences in the different stakeholders which I think it's important, but the underlying point from my side is there is a strong commitment actually to the internet and to the multi stakeholder model.

We at ETNO think it is important all those involved and it is a vital dialogue. We think this year showed the need for resilient internet. It took a greater importance than ever. We will continue to come together as part of the global community to ensure a robust open, secure, resilient and accessible internet for everyone. We are here to continue the dialogue not only with IGF but also with EURO‑dig, C‑dig on the national levels, too. We are a strong supporter. We think the dialogue must continue. Thank you.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Thank you. Thank you for your contribution to make that dialogue continue. Joseph, over to you.

>> At the Internet Society we can commit to working through our community, we have chapters in over 120 countries including recently Bosnia and Herzogovina. But to make sure we fund things and have a stronger, bigger internet that's more inclusive and fundamentally through our projects which include ‑‑ I won't bore you about them. Please check out the Internet Society. End to end encryption and the global encryption coalition and where those issues overlap we are happy to bring resources and connections to experts and things like that to improve the work and make sure everyone has the kinds of information they need to make the decisions and the capacity to go out and do things like connect the rest of the world that's unconnected.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Thank you, Joseph. We hugely appreciate. Olga?

>> Thank you. I think we are facing challenging times. Economies will suffer. Technology will become very important for developing economies for the global south. Count on our huge network of thousands of fellows and experts from all stakeholders to continue this dialogue and enhance what the IGF is today and will be in the future. Thank you for inviting me.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Thank you, Olga. Miranda, the last word.

>> Thank you and thank you everyone. As you know safeguarding an open, free and unfragmented internet is more important than ever. The responsibility lies with all of us and we at Facebook and I and my team are committed to preserving an open and secure internet that allows for information to flow freely and that enables an environment for sustainable innovation, economic development, freedom of expression and association that creates a more connected and cooperative world. We are doing that every hour of every day. Thank you.

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Excellent. Thank you. Inspiring words.

Now if I could go back to where we started, my dear friend Hana Alhashimi for the final word. I'll say good‑bye. Please stay safe. I look forward to working together to realize the vision so many articulated and where there is a strong convergence of views.

>> Thank you very much, your excellency. Thank you all and thank you to all speakers for insightful and rich discussion. Given that we have already gone over time we thank you so much for your patience and for making the time. I know for some it is 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning in the east. In other cases the middle of the day.

This has been an important step in moving forward in this discussion that's started in some ways although back in Geneva and Tunis and other ways in the realm of digital cooperation in 2016, 2017, and we are privileged to have been able to work under your leadership under the Secretary‑General and under the leadership of the Secretary‑General on digital cooperation.

All that is left building on what the panelists said is encourage all to join the Secretary‑General's call to connect, respect, and protect in the digital age and to note that this is not just an event but really a steppingstone towards the next steps on digital cooperation on a digital future we can all be proud of for both present and future generations.

If I may, allow me to thank all of the coorganizers together with my cofacilitators, mag members for the session. I would like to thank Rudolf as well for his moderation and in addition, of course, to yourself, Fabrizio Hochschild. I would like to thank the participants and give you a little bit of homework which is, of course, to continue your work in supporting the IGF plus and in supporting global digital cooperation in your respective domains. This is not something any one stakeholder group or any one country or person can do by themselves. We very much rely on all of you to be part of this mission going forward. Thank you so very much. See you on the internet. Take care.