The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF virtual 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.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. Good afternoon, evening, and morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the second day of Open Consultations for the IGF 2020 meeting.
As yesterday, before we start I'd like to remind you of a few things that will make our sessions easier. The meeting is being recorded, transcribed, and live streamed through the IGF YouTube channel. Also, with thanks to the government of Poland, we are able to provide you with interpretation in English and French, so, please, if you would prefer to speak in French, please do so. The facility is here.
Links to the agenda, transcription, documents, and prerecorded videos are available on the IGF front page and also the links will be put into the chat.
Please make sure your microphone is muted at all times, and if you want to make an intervention, please use the online request system. The link is available on the front page of the IGF website and will also be periodically put into the chat room.
If for some reason you cannot log into the request system, please send a message to the host in the chat or just put a message in the chat and a posting from the secretariat will put your name on the queue.
When it is your turn to take the floor, the Chair will call your name and give you the floor. It is quite easy to see your place on the queue by looking at the queue list.
If you don't have any connection limitation, please switch on your camera. It not only helps the scribes and the interpreters but also enhances the atmosphere of the meeting.
Please start your intervention by saying your name and affiliation. I know I'm guilty of it times, but please also try to speak the a measured pace, not too fast, and this helps the knot non-native English speakers better understand you and also helps the scribes and the interpreters.
Please also try and keep your intervention short. And once you've finished your intervention, please remember to mute your microphone again.
With that, let me call upon our chair, Anriette Esterhuysen, to introduce the agenda and start the meeting.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Chengetai. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening everyone. I am calling in from Johannesburg. It's a public holiday here. It's June 16, which some of you might remember was a very -- and is a very important day in the history of the struggle against Apartheid, so I feel good to be sharing this day with all of you.
Welcome to the interpreters and to the captioners as well and to the MAG members and the observers and secretariat. It's really good to have you all with us.
Just a quick overview of the agenda. Today is the second day of the second Open Consultation of IGF 2020. We'll have a short welcome from UN DESA as soon as I am done. And just to review the agenda. Our next plenary session after this opening is to look at the intersessional work of the IGF, so we'll start by looking at the Internet Governance Forum Best Practice Forums for 2020. I hope you have had a chance to review the videos. They will be very short. We'll do an overview of the Best Practice Forums for this year, and then we will have short updates on these Best Practice Forums, and that will be followed by a question-and-answer session.
Then we will have a break. And this is not a break where you are working together in breakout rooms in any way. We felt we needed to give you a proper break, particularly those for whom it will be lunchtime, and also our interpreters deserve and need a break.
Then we start again at 1300 UTC. So please do come back. And that's our second plenary session. This time it will be focused on dynamic coalitions and national, regional, and youth IGFs, which I know many of you are part of, so we really want you and need you for that session.
After that, after the discussion on the dynamic coalitions, there will be a short report and then a discussion. Then we will have -- we will be honored, we will be actually addressed by the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for economic and social affairs, Mr. Liu Zhenmin. He'll address us shortly, and immediately after that, we're very honored to be visited by the host of IGF 2021 -- sorry, 2022, and we'll have a short address by Vice-Minister for International Affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and that is Her Excellency Ms. Makiko Yamada.
And after that short address, it should be, if we stick to time, 14:15 UTC, and then we go into an interactive Q&A session with Under-Secretary-General Fabrizio Hochschild about the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation. And hopefully many of you or most of you will have seen a presentation of this, so he won't present the roadmap. He'll just give us highlights and open the discussion for us. We'll have inputs from some of the co-champions and key constituents on recommendation 5a and b. That's the recommendation that touches very much on the IGF and includes the IGF+ model. So we'll have input from Germany and Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates, co-champions and key constituents, and then it will be open to all of you to participate. And I know there are other key constituents who have supported the roadmap process, and you are all invited to take the floor.
That discussion then takes us up to 15:15 UTC, at which point we will be closing the session.
I want you to hang on for the closing of the session because we are going to ask you some questions about the design of a virtual IGF. So please do not rush off, or make sure that you come back for the end, because we'll do a brief poll just to get your feedback, as the Open Consultation IGF community, on how we can start the process of planning the virtual IGF.
And that is it for today's agenda.
I see no one requesting the floor, and so on that note, can I hand over to Wai Min from UN DESA. And Wai Min, thank you very much again for being with us.
>>WAI MIN KWOK: Thank you. Thank you, Anriette. This is Wai Min Kwok from UN DESA. Again, it's just a short welcome here. As you just heard from Anriette, the Under-Secretary-General Mr. Liu, he will be joining you live later at 1400 UTC.
Here I would just like to express the appreciation of UN DESA to the Government of Poland for their strong commitment and support to now host the IGF in 2021 and, in addition, for their generosity in supporting the interpretation and other costs in relation to the global virtual IGF this November.
I would also like to express thanks to the Government of Ethiopia. And one issue -- one group I have not -- I missed out yesterday is I would like to thank our colleagues from the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. They'll be supporting us together with the host government, Ethiopia, in planning for the IGF in 2022.
Anriette mentioned about the Vice-Minister from Japan for International Affairs for joining us. Japan, just to -- Anriette, I think just to make a small correction that you say. Japan will be hosting -- is planning to host IGF in 2023. So with that, just a small and it's important but I'll do a short acknowledgment to the host government.
I would like to hand back to you, Anriette.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Wai-Min. And thanks for correcting me. So 2021 will be hosted by Poland and 2022 by Ethiopia and 2023 Japan, correct.
>>WAI-MIN KWOK: Yes.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Wai-Min.
Before we start, I would like to ask Luis or Chengetai just to tell everyone who would like to use the French interpretation service how to go about it.
Just because we really -- thanks to the generosity of Poland, we are able to provide French and English interpretation today. We won't have it for the rest of the week, but we have it for today. So please, please use it.
And, secretariat, could you just give everyone clear instructions about how to go about using the interpretation.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Luis, please go ahead.
>>LUIS BOBO: Okay. You can see me. So this is very easy. Basically, at the bottom of your screen, you will have an interpretation button saying English and French interpretation available. You can click on that button, and you will see French and U.S. flags there for selecting French and English languages.
You can -- if someone speaks in French, for example, you can select the English flag and you will listen to the English interpretation. And if at any time, for example, now is the time I'm talking in English, you can select the French flag, and you will hear the French interpretation. So it's very easy to use.
Simply to let you know that when you listen to the double channel, you will also hear at the bottom the original speech just to have the tones of the speech. But you can also mute that, if you prefer. In the same interpretation menu, you will have an option called "mute original audio." That's all. It's very easy to use. At any time you can click on "off" in the menu to go to the floor language.
I hope that clarifies. Thank you, Anriette.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Luis.
Is that clear? Does everyone who would like to use the interpretation, is it clear? Has everyone followed that? Just speak up, if you were not clear. Okay. Good.
And, please, if you do need help, just type in the chat session and the secretariat will follow up with you.
So -- and now, let's move on to our first plenary session. Best practice forums were introduced in the IGF quite a few years ago, and we have some of the pioneers of this modality with us in the room today, like Markus Kummer. And I'm not sure if Constance is with us, Constance Bommelaer from ISOC.
But BPFs, best practice forums -- sometimes people say they feel we should call them "good practice forums," not best practice forums -- emerged as a way of taking the richness of participation and inclusion in the IGF and using that to address topics that have been discussed extensively, that are in a sense actually maturing. There's emerging consensus on those issues, to take them then out of the IGF dialogue format into a format where they can then be channeled into concrete recommendations. So that's more or less the history of the BPF. We'll talk more about that.
Wim Degezelle has started with BPFs. And one of our long-term best practice forum consultants, because best practice forums do achieve some support from the secretariat and UN DESA, he will introduce to us the 2020 best practice forums.
So, Wim, are you there? Are you ready to take the floor?
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: Now, you should be able to hear me. We have a presentation prepared for this session. So if you -- apologies for this -- I try to share -- better you are prepared, the more things that can go wrong, I think. Just a second.
Should be able to see it now.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Perfect, perfect. Please, go ahead.
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: Okay. So like you mentioned in the introduction of the session, the best practice forums have been around since 2014, and they're one of the parts of the intersessional program of the IGF, an intersessional program that was created to give more weight to the IGF in terms of concrete impact and concrete outputs.
So since 2014, BPFs have been discussing topics that are relevant to the future of the Internet with the aim of facilitating a dialogue between stakeholders and collecting emerging and existing practices to address specific themes.
It's, well, a definition that you need to read three or four times. But I think there are two elements or three elements that are very important. It is an open forum for stakeholders to discuss on concrete issues, concrete issues relevant today, relevant to the Internet of tomorrow, and to look for specific solutions and specific best practices, sharing and collecting them, and provide them as a resource to the community.
BPFs typically start to work -- or the BPF topics typically are selected very early on in the IGF cycle, January, February, and then they start to work towards the annual meeting later on in the year.
This year there have been four topics selected for best practice forums. One is cybersecurity. There's gender and access, data and new technologies, and local content. The different MAG coordinators, MAG facilitators that are responsible for the best practice forums will give a brief introduction in a minute.
But before moving there, I really would like to stress how important it is for best practice forums to have community involvement. Like I said, it is not a think tank or a small group of people. The idea is the best practices discuss concrete issues and look in the community, what answers the community has or has prepared to deal with those questions, to deal with those challenges.
So for a BPF, it is very important that there is that community input, community input into the design and the discussion of how a BPF should approach their topic but also community input because communities -- the community and the different stakeholders are the ones that have to deliver the examples.
So how is it possible now for you and for everyone to participate in the best practice forums? One of the most important things, each BPF has a specific -- has its own Web page. Go and see there to stay up to date with the progress, the plan, the work plan, and the activities.
Don't worry, at the end of this presentation of today's call, there is an overview with the different links to the different Web pages.
So go regularly visit the updates. Or if you are interested in one specific BPF, keep an eye on that Web page.
Then join BPF discussions. How is it possible? Every BPF has its own open mailing list, where you can join and help building and help guiding the BPF.
Also, while there are, I would say, two types of discussions on the BPF mailing list, one, what should the BPF be doing and then the second one, discussing second items. So either way, if you're on the list, you can join those discussions.
You will also on those lists get the information when and where the BPF is meeting. Different BPFs, they have virtual work with virtual meetings, depending on the BPF. One BPF has every two or three weeks. One has a meeting every month. But on the Web page, you can find the details and the links to the meetings. Participating is free for everyone interested, and you just have to log in, and please do participate.
And, like I said, every BPF is -- for each BPF, it's very important that there is input from the community in terms of concrete case studies or concrete examples.
I would say look out for BPFs because they will have their individual calls for feedback and input.
But I think that's enough for now. I'm happy to come back and discuss more on this, how to join BPF and BPF discussions. But I think it's important to move to our first short update on BPF, and I think that's the BPF on cybersecurity.
And give the floor to Ben.
>>BEN WALLIS: Good morning. Good morning from Seattle. I hope you can hear me. My name is Ben Wallis. I work for Microsoft. I'm the MAG member who acts as the facilitator for the BPF on Cybersecurity. And apologies in advance if there's any background noise. One of my cats is quite hungry.
I'll talk about the BPF's work this year, but in order to do so, it's helpful to first explain the work that was done last year.
In 2019, the BPF explored best practices in relation to recent international cybersecurity initiatives, such as the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, the Norse packages adopted by the U.N. Group of Governmental Experts, the UNGGE, and by the Global Forum for Security in Cyberspace, the GCSC, and by many others.
And the report last year identified best practice for how to implement and adhere to the different principles, norms and policy approaches that are contained in these intersessional agreements.
So for this year we set up three workstreams, and the first one, to some extent, is actually a continuation of last year's work, and that's partly because new norms have been developed since we did our analysis last year, and we'd like to take them into account. But also, the breadth of the work last year limited the possibility to go into depth. So we want to progress the work partly by selecting a few sets of norms and looking into them in greater detail.
Secondly, we will explore norms assessment. Now, that is to say how can you assess whether norms are being respected by state and nonstate actors, and does the act of assessing in itself contribute to increasing the take-up of the norms. And for this we will be incorporating a multi-disciplinary angle by bringing in experts from other strands of social science where norms have been dominant forms of rulemaking to see what learnings could be applied in the area of cybersecurity.
And finally, and this is something that BPFs generally try and do, but we're going to normalize effort to outreach and widen participation of the BPF, and in particular we'll be trying to engage with government, developing countries, and youth representatives.
The draft output will be shared with the BPF for comment before being published later in the summer alongside a call for contributions from the wider community. And then we could incorporate all the input into a final draft report to be presented and discussed as part of IGF 2020.
The last thing I wanted to share is that we are going to reflect within these workstreams whether and how to take account of the COVID-19 pandemic in the BPF's work this year. There have been targeted cyberattacks on hospitals and research institutions, for example, that only further underlines the need to equip organizations with good practices to enhance their security. So that's something we're looking at within the workstreams, as to whether that can be reflected in this year's work.
Thank you very much.
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: And sorry, the idea was to have first the four updates of the BPFs for this year, and then there's a time for questions and answers of these -- of the BPFs. So I would like to move to the next BPF, which is the BPF Data and New Technologies in Internet context.
>>CONCETTINA CASSA: Thanks, Wim, for giving me the floor. Can you hear me?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, Titti, we can hear you. Please go ahead.
>>CONCETTINA CASSA: Hello, my name is Titti Cassa. I work for AGID, I am a MAG member, and the facilitator of the BPF on Data and New Technology in the Internet context.
The BPF is focusing on how user data is collected, analyzed, and used and what are the best practice that to ensure that the data is used to reap benefits (indiscernible).
So the BPF intends to focus on how initiative end up (indiscernible).
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Sorry to interrupt, Titti. (Indiscernible) closed. So all participants, if you are not speaking, please mute your mic. We suddenly have quite a bit of noise.
It's gone. Thanks.
Go ahead, Titti.
>>CONCETTINA CASSA: Okay. Thanks, Anriette. I was just saying the BPF focus is on how user data is collected, analyzed and used and the best practice to ensure the data is used to bring the benefits and not to our users. So the BPF is focused on initiatives (indiscernible) application that deal with the specific concern related to the user and the processing of data.
Actually includes also the discussion on COVID-19 because COVID-19 has accelerated several discussion about priority protection of the user. But actually these are not new discussion. And also, they are not discussion related only to user data and new technologies in the context of pandemic.
So the BPF will look at case study related to the current crisis as well as case studies outside this context.
We have defined our work plan this year with participant which includes three main elements: define the issues and concern that we have actually have discussed so far with participants, identify relevant stakeholders and assist the stakeholders' dialogue, and also collect the case study and documents these existing project and initiative addressing concern.
We have done a lot of discussion this year, and the need to have a clear definition and the need to use unambiguous language came out in order to keep focus on the discussion.
There were also different definition on data governance, data (indiscernible) and also on the definition of best practice in the scope of the BPF.
During the last call, we also introduced a new concept, the concept of issue card. What is the issue card? It's a tool to help stakeholders asking the right question when assessing data in new technology application. The issue card is a list of concern, question, and potential issues related to the use of user data formulate as a question also.
We define four classes of issue card. Data collection, which includes all question related to what type of data is collected, how -- if they are collected anonymized, aggregate, and (indiscernible), and also the context in which the data are collected, democratic and free society or repressive system.
The second issues card we identified is related to data storage which includes all the question and issues related to how and where is the data stored, how long is the data kept, and when they are canceled.
The third issue card is enabling and unlocking value, which includes question related to the issue of what purpose is data serving. Is this useful? Necessary?
And also, a question related to who decides which are legitimate partners in terms of data collection.
The last but not least issues card is related to data sharing. How can data be shared in order to create value for all parties. This could be one of the question. And also deferred model of data sharing, and whose benefit for data sharing.
So what are the next steps for the BPF? We are going to review the issues card with BPF participants. We will publicize the issues card on the BPF web page, and we will invite community to provide their feedback. And also we will launch a call for case study and best practice examples.
I want also to remind you that next BPF call will be held on the 25th of June, 3:00 p.m. UTC, so I invite you to join to this call.
I want to also thank Manuela that is co-facilitator of this BPF and Wim Degezelle as IGF Secretariat consultant for the BPF.
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: Thank you, Titti.
And apologies. I think I skipped the slide of the BPF gender and access.
So, please, Maria Paz. Maria Paz Canales.
>>CHENAI CHAIR: Hi, Wim. It's actually going to be me.
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: Please.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Please introduce yourself, Chenai.
>>CHENAI CHAIR: Yes. Hi, everyone. My name is Chenai Chair, dialing in from Johannesburg. I'm a second year MAG member and co-facilitator of the BPF Gender and Access with Maria Paz as the MAG members and with support from organizations such as APC and Point of View members as well on the facilitation of the BPF.
So this year's Best Practice Forum actually stems from the one that we had last year where we were specifically looking at gender and economic participation; however, we wanted to take a more reflective process in terms of the policy, practices, and spaces, and to take on a much more thought-provoking methodology to understanding policy practices. And we took a look at -- so our focus for this year is assessing Internet-related policy processes and spaces through a feminist approach to determine whether and how they protect and foster participation of women and gender-diverse people, particularly young ones. We're specifically focusing on Internet-related policy, processes, and spaces that address issues related to violence, harm, pleasure, and consent online.
So our four focus areas are a way in which to balance the way in which women and gender diverse -- in fact, everyone experiences the Internet, but to move from the -- just it being a space of harm for women and gender-diverse people but to actually look at the other side of the coin which is pleasure and consent online.
So in light of COVID-19 and increased reliance on the digital space as well and an awareness that it's likely to be increased, there is an increased gender-based violence but there is also an increased online gender-based violence. We are actually going to be considering how digital policies focusing on COVID-19 consider gender perspectives related to violence and pleasure and consent online, and integrate the views of women and gender-diverse people.
So so far we have had two very successful -- we've had introductory calls where we had guest speakers including the initial moderator, facilitator from 2015, Andrew Van der Spay (phonetic) who reflected on their experience with their online gender-based violence work that was then related to the Gamergate attack and how it was received and engaged within the IGF policy space. And then we also had Neema Ayev (phonetic) from policy who presented on the research that they have done on online gender-based violence in African countries. Next week we're having to have speakers who will be talking about the consent and pleasure aspect. And I think this is quite an interesting BPF in terms of, like, the cross-cuts it has in all of the work that it's done within the IGF and the policy processes.
The timeline is shared here and what our next steps are going to be. So we meet every second Thursday. In the end of June/July we will be putting together our methodology which is fully aware of the context in which that these are sensitive topics and may not just be done as a public survey as was experienced last year where we had two very radical people respond to the survey. If I'm not mistaken, Anriette was facilitating that. And then we have the -- as you can see from the timeline, we should be able to have the findings by September, draft report for public comment by October, and then everything will be ready for the presentation in November.
So I do encourage everyone to attend, including other MAG members and community members, so that we can strengthen the work of the BPF and have diverse inputs on the topic.
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: Thank you for this update.
And then for the next one is the BPF Local Content for which we will show a video. I don't know, Luis, if you can share the video.
No, it's the video on the BPF Local Content. It's the...
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Carlos Afonso is with us, if you did want --
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Carlos and Giacomo, yes. We --
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Both of you are with us.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Yes, we are here and waiting for the video. Luis said it would be okay to run it. So it's updated, so it would be better to have it run, and then we comment at the end very quickly.
And this is Anriette.
>>LUIS BOBO: Yes, hello. Markus, I'm going to share it just now.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Thank you, Luis.
>>LUIS BOBO: Can you see the screen?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: The video has not started yet, Luis. Not from where I can see it. But in the meantime, while we're waiting for the Local Content BPF video to play, people who want to ask questions about these BPFs, please start adding your hands to the speakers' queue.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Yes, the idea was to save time with the video.
>>LIANNA GALSTYAN: And I think we should play a different video while Luis is trying to deal with Markus' video with Markus.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: My video doesn't need to be shown.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Carlos, keep in mind, we are having technical problems, and I don't want to keep people waiting. Do you mind -- we can show the slide, and then if we can -- if you can just give people a quick verbal input, please.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: I'll do it. Can you show the slides one by one?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: No, the slide that's included in Wim's presentation.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: It's embedded in the video, that's right, but there is also separate video file with the slides which was sent to -- to the...
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Um...
>>CARLOS AFONSO: I never saw --
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Okay. I think we have --
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Okay. Now. Now he found it. Okay.
No sound, Luis. My voice is lousy, but...
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Secretariat, there's no audio on the video.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: We are learning very quickly how to do video in Zoom.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Is it possible to give us, like, ten minutes? Could we ask questions on the other best practice forums and then come back to this one?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Okay. We can definitely do that.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Yes, yes, yes.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I, therefore, open the floor to questions on the first three BPFs that we heard about. So that was gender and cybersecurity and the one with the long name that I always get the order incorrect.
>>CONCETTINA CASSA: It's data, new technologies, and Internet context.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Data and new technologies and?
>>CONCETTINA CASSA: Internet context.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Internet context. Thanks, Titti. Sorry about that.
Anyone who wants to, I can't see the speakers queue right now. But is there anyone who wants to ask questions about how to get involved, about how these BPFs work, what they've achieved, and what they hope to achieve?
I see a hand from Jutta. Jutta, you have the floor.
>>JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Anriette, for giving me the floor. Jutta Croll, MAG member in my third year from Germany for civil society.
I wanted to ask Titti whether she could explain a bit how that best practice forum has developed from its start to a much broader perspective. I get it. I know you started with Internet of Things and data and artificial intelligence as well. And now I see the best practice forum has fast expanded its focus. I do think that's very beneficial for the task of the BPF. But could you explain a bit how you came from the beginning to where you are now?
>>CONCETTINA CASSA: Thanks, Jutta, from this question. Actually, the BPF started in 2018. And the focus was in -- the name also was different, was a BPF on IoT, big data, and artificial intelligence.
The first year, 2018, we actually shared best practice about how to better facilitate a dialogue. I mean, it was important for us to be sure that people discussing these kind of issues use the same terminology.
So the first year was most dedicated to the best practice on terminology on, yes -- on how to use better words to narrow and to discuss these topics.
Last year, 2019, we continued the discussion but we were more focused on how to improve trust of application on IoT, data, and artificial intelligence and how this application can be used to address societal challenges. But what happened is that especially during the event that we had in Berlin, we recognized the importance to address all the issues related to data, data collection. There were a lot of highlighting on these kind of issues.
That's why we decided to change the name and to focus the BPF more on how data are collected and analyzed because this came out from the discussion we had in Berlin because there were a lot of best practice sharing opportunities on these issues. That's why we changed the title and also the focus of the BPF.
I hope this explain a little bit more. Maybe if you need any other explanation, please let me know, Jutta.
>>JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Titti. That was excellent. I now better understand how the focus has expanded and how beneficial that is for the work of the BPF. Thank you so much.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Jutta.
Anyone else with any questions?
Secretariat, are you ready to play the local content BPF video?
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Sorry to create this difficulty. Sorry.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yes, we are. Just give me ten seconds, and we'll be able to play it right now.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I see there's a hand from Mary. Mary, please wait until after we have the video. Thanks.
>>MARY UDUMA: Okay.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Ahhh, well, great.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Hi. I'm Carlos Afonso, member of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet Governance Forum for 2020 and a co-facilitator of the Best Practice Forum on Local Content.
The BPFs are a unique platform for multistakeholder discussion on topics relevant to the future of the Internet. They aim at facilitating dialogue and collecting emerging and existing practices to address specific issues or policy questions.
BPFs are an intersessional activity. An important part of the work is done in the months ahead of the annual IGF meeting. BPF outcomes in the form of compilations of good practices and recommendations are intended to help inform policy debates and serve as inputs into other pertinent forums.
BPFs carry their work in an open and consultative manner. All interested stakeholders are encouraged to contribute through public consultation, service mailing list discussions and online meetings.
Taking a look at the BPF on Local Content, since it started in the IGF 2014, Istanbul, when it established a focus on how to create an enabling environment for the development of local content, which is part of one of the action lines of the Geneva Plan of Action.
In 2017 in Geneva, the BPF collected examples of initiatives that succeeded in stimulating the creation of local cultural assets. The goal was to inspire policymakers and other stakeholders.
The BPF in Paris examined the relationship between local Internet access provision and the development of locally relevant content and services in order to enable a sustainable local content value chain.
In Berlin in 2019, it extended the scope with an emphasis on preservation and promotion of languages and heritage under conditions in which cultural and linguistic diversity, artifacts and histories are sometimes at risk as a result of political and social shifts.
Several issues from 2019 are still pertinent. Practices demonstrating the benefits and risks of enforcing author or community rights on cultural assets. State support for creativity in all cultural fields is central, a major export item in developed countries. How the UNESCO Convention on cultural diversity may positively impact the fair trade of digital cultural goods. Various mechanisms of direct or indirect support to local content production, not only state aids and grants but also other indirect mechanisms, such as quotas of local production, private sector supporting local cultural production, stimulus to public service media.
Cases which illustrates how Internet platforms contribute to the production and circulation of local content to the benefit of local national cultures.
Developing local capacities for proper digitization of local content, creating an enabling environment to secure digital assets while minimizing barriers to their broad use.
Encouraging learning and use of cryptography for protection of sensitive content, creative use of local networks and encrypted tools by communities to protect their content without renouncing broader communications in a safer way.
Free or affordable use of locally available spectrum to effectively enable community networks and media.
The issue of digital sovereignty raised by the European Union and by some European governments applies also to these specific fields where localization of citizens' data related to content and content itself ought to be considered.
The consultant and the co-facilitators of the BPF on Local Content are proposing that in 2020 the BPF concentrates its work in one key element which emerged from the 2019 outcome report: The need to further explore issues related to the protection, preservation, and remuneration of creative work and collective wisdom, from a local content perspective.
As such, the BPF will focus on how to protect, preserve, and remunerate creative work and collective wisdom in order to create a sustainable model for the production, distribution, and local fruition of local content in the digital age. This may involve intellectual ownership rights, communities' intellectual property rights, ownership of national or community identifiers of natural resources, and protection of creative works, and so on.
There are several issues related to the new focus. For instance, successful examples of remuneration and protection of traditional/collective wisdom, traditional and innovative ones over the Internet. Comparison for various existing models to protect different kinds of rights, and the opportunities and challenges they bring when it comes to the development and protection of local content.
Successful examples of approaches that help local communities develop their creative products and services.
Best practices about the creation of virtuous circles to put in direct relations producers and final users through innovative solutions.
Approaches for protecting against risks of commercial takeover of local and indigenous identifiers of natural/cultural assets. Examples, the cases of babaçu, cupuaçu, and the Japanese food companies.
There is a timeline for a BPF on Local Content. From May to September, community work, calls, surveys, outreach. In October, draft report issued for comments. November, BPF session at the IGF 2020. And December, the final report.
A final word is that the IGF intersessional work makes no sense without the effective participation of the community. The secretariat provides the mechanisms to enable this participation, through lists, online meetings, and support to the facilitators. This is especially the case of the Best Practice Forums which rely on exchange of knowledge on experiences provided by participants. We therefore encourage you to contribute to this work.
The presentation shows local content BPF web page, the BPF Local Content mailing list, and the BPF local work plan document.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Carlos, for that input on the local content best practice forum. And, everyone, please note that there is this level of detailed report available for all the BPFs. We didn't have time to play the videos today, but they are on the website. You can link to them through the agenda. So I urge you to look at those reports. It will give you more depth, more detail on what the BPFs have done.
And, Wim, can I hand back to you at this point before we open to questions and answers. Did you want to make any concluding remarks?
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: Thank you. Did somebody wanted to say a word? Start talking.
Anyhow, I would like to thank the BPF coordinators for giving these updates. And the second point is it is important for the community to provide feedback. Like Anriette mentioned, the videos -- detailed videos are on the website that say what the plans are, what is coming the next months.
Second point, don't forget to check the website for what happens.
So that's it, I think. And now we can go to the Q&A questions for the BPF co-facilitators because there is also the separate exercise of BPF -- the BPF on BPFs that will be presented by Markus after this round of Q&A.
But for me, I would like to thank all and hand back to you, Anriette. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Wim, for that.
So now the floor is open to questions and discussion on these 2020 BPFs. And Mary Uduma, you had your hand. So please take the floor and introduce yourself.
Others, please add your names to the queue.
Mary, you can go ahead.
>>MARY UDUMA: Sorry. I was trying to unmute myself.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: That's fine. We can hear you now.
>>MARY UDUMA: Thank you for giving me the floor.
My question was to Titti on the BPFs on big data. I wanted to know whether they are taking into consideration the data localization and cross-border data issues and governance in the BPF activity.
>>CONCETTINA CASSA: Thanks, Mary, for your question. Yes, Mary, we are also considering this aspect that you have just realized. Actually, we had a very intensive discussion on data governance. So one of the most shared definitions of data governance was actually related to the flow of data cross-border. So, yes, we will consider it.
And then we invite you to join and also highlight any other aspects that you want to -- the BPF should include. Thank you.
>>MARY UDUMA: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Titti, for all that answer.
Now to Wim. I want to ask what will happen of the output of the BPFs. Do we share it with the stakeholders? Do we monitor whether the stakeholders are picking up -- implement the last (indiscernible) or collaborating to see that there is implementation of the recommendations that are coming out from the BPFs or just for us to throw issues out and allow it to float? Thank you.
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: Thank you very much, Mary, for this question.
It is very relevant and not only for the BPF data but for all BPFs is what happens with the BPF output.
The idea is that the BPF collects information, case studies, and it is presented to everyone that can make use of it.
I'm hesitating to say too much because I know it's actually one of the key points of what Markus will present after this Q&A session, is exactly the issue of how can -- how can we help BPFs bring their outputs out and make sure they arrive at the relevant place.
So I don't want to say too much about this, but thank you for the question.
I'm sure it will come up later on.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Mary, and thanks, Wim, for that.
Nigel Hickson, you have the floor. And, please, everyone, remember to introduce yourself for the record.
>>NIGEL HICKSON: Oh, yes, yes. Thank you very much, indeed. And good morning, good afternoon. I'm speaking on my own behalf, as I speak.
Thank you very much, indeed, well, for this opportunity during this Open Consultation to discuss these things. It's great to have a second day of Open Consultation.
And, really, the question I had, and I'll be brief for once, is to Ben Wallis. Thank you, Ben. It's really nice to see you. Nice to hear about the ongoing work on cybersecurity. This is something that I think has been really important over a number of years as Best Practice Forum.
And just to say that I -- I, just as mere observer, would really encourage you to look at cybersecurity and COVID-19. Not so -- not so much in -- lots of people are looking at this, but I think to assemble some of the facts would be really useful, because no doubt you'll have a session at the IGF. And to be able to put over a sort of unvarnished and unbiased account of what has gone on I think would be useful.
I was aghast at -- to listen in to a U.N. discussion the other day concerning the U.N. 75th declaration where so many countries were expressing real concerns on this issue. And nothing wrong with that. Their ambassadors were talking about the enhancement of cybersecurity attacks, of cybercrime and gender hatred and things, and you know, one is not dismissing this at all, but the thrust of their arguments was that this was an overwhelming problem during COVID and, therefore, you know, a way to tackle this would be to have U.N. top-down regulation or whatever.
Now, I'm not saying it isn't a global problem, but I think, you know, the work you do, it would be so good to be able to have a factual-based account of actually what the issues have been in terms of false registration of names, in terms of -- you know, and other types of phishing, et cetera.
And, sorry, I've gone on too long. So I think this work is really useful that you do.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for that, Nigel.
I'm sure people want to respond, but let's listen to the next speaker first, and then we'll give the BPF coordinators the chance to respond.
Giacomo, you have the floor.
>>GIACOMO MAZZONE: Yes, thank you very much for being here, and with Carlos facilitating the coordination of the BPF on Local Content.
He said already most of it, so I want just to stress two points. One is that to remember that there is a survey going on on these days, so please, I invite everybody that is listening this conversation to join and give his contribution in writing. This will be shaping the next steps of the activity of the BPF.
The second point is that, especially now, we are talking about the -- what could be the future model for the IGF. And this is overlapping with the discussion going with the United Nations High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation. I think that we are already experimenting one of the modality that could be an intersessional activity, because we have inside our BPF a strong and active participation of international organizations that have a mandate for contents, that are UNESCO, the WIPO, and others.
So I think that if we have a look at it in this perspective, we can use this BPF as a laboratory for enhancing the quality of the contribution of the IGF to the global discussion on Internet governance. The crisis of COVID-19 showed us dramatically that the best way to bring the people that is out of the Internet at the moment into the Internet conversation is through the content. The schools, the teacher, the pupils, the parents that were not familiar with the Internet have been obliged to because they need to access to this kind of content.
So I think that this is one of the key for the success of any Internet governance policy for the future.
That's all. Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Giacomo, for that.
I don't see any other hands or speakers requesting the floor, so I'd like to give the BPF facilitators the opportunity to respond.
Any further comments from your end?
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Carlos here. Yes, thank you for the opportunity of showing the video. Great. This really helped a lot.
The presentation itself is available somewhere in the -- in the IGF website, and if you -- if you want to download it. And I cannot stress enough the importance of anyone who is interested in the themes of the Local Content BPF to answer the survey. The deadline is June 24th. The survey is already online. If you please can participate and contribute, it would be great.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you, Carlos.
Chenai, do you have anything to add?
>>CHENAI CHAIR: Yes, I do. Sorry, I was looking for my unmute button.
Yes, definitely. I think as always, my call is for everyone to engage and share particular spaces. We have been thinking about assessing -- well, one of the spaces we're going to assess is definitely going to be the Internet Governance Forum itself. And we had a very good comment the other day in the tea break session that I had with Sharnong (phonetic) from U.N. where she mentioned that the analysis that's done in terms of the sessions that are provided does not -- looks at participation but would require actually looking at the content in terms of, like, what are the gender issues that come up. And that for me is such a crucial input from someone who's not part of the process. And I could encourage other MAG members who participate in other policy spaces that may think may have value to engage on this assessment and to also -- definitely when the interviews -- because we're into the together to do a survey given the sensitivity of these topic but to actually respond when you're called upon, including the secretariat itself, other MAG members, and other people in other policy spaces to respond to the survey interviews that we're going to do so that we build a rich report that takes into account the different processes and policy spaces and can also provide the best practice forums to show that the BPF on gender and IGF space itself is innovative in the way that it thinks about these issues beyond just participation in these spaces. So, yeah.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Thanks, Chenai.
Titti, do you want to add anything?
>>CONCETTINA CASSA: I want to just add a few words asking you all to participate to the BPF, to give your feedback and to share best practices. There is a lot to say on data, data collection, data sharing. And so please participate and join your best practice for your comment.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Titti.
>>BEN WALLIS: Let me just respond to Nigel. And great to hear from you, too, Nigel. Thank you. I have taken note of your excellent suggestion about whether the BPF could -- how to provide an account of what's going on with cybersecurity issues and COVID-19 this year. I'm going to share that with the BPF lead expert and others who are leading the work streams to see how that could be integrated into the work done in parallel.
In the IGF context, as one of those who was looking at the workshop proposals under the track, the track for trust, I did note there were one of two workshops also related to this topic about security of the infrastructure and in relation to COVID-19. So it would be interesting to see if one or two of those ended up being approved and being part of the program. That would be another way for the IGF to look at those issues.
And, finally, just to kind of -- well, beyond the IGF, as you were talking about a discussion around the U.N. 75 Declaration, I know the roadmap for digital cooperation included a paragraph about health care facilities being the targets of serious cyberattacks during the crises. Even the WHO has faced severe cyberattacks and impersonation attempts.
So, yes, it's clearly and interest within the global community and amongst governments.
And I just wanted to share that one of the aims of the BPFs -- of the IGF generally and the BPFs in particular, as I think Anriette said yesterday, is the importance of taking our work in the IGF and making connections with relevant decision-making bodies and relevant discussions elsewhere.
And so one thing the BPFs on cybersecurity did report last year was to present as an input to the U.N.'s ongoing OEWG exercise, the open-ended working group on development in the field of information and telecommunications.
So that was recognized as a formal input into that process. And we had help with UN DESA in making that link with the other part of the U.N. and getting us a hearing. So good opportunity to thank them as well. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much to Ben. I want to urge two things, maybe three. First one, the videos are all on the agenda. They are embedded in the agenda, and they are in the documents section of the meeting page so you can view them from the agenda.
And then the second point, participation. Really, the participation is vital and you can participate in different ways. You can contribute to the surveys. You can be part of the discussion. You can contribute in writing.
If you are from a government or institution, you can either participate in the capacity of your institution or you can participate in the capacity of your individual -- as an individual. You don't have to feel that you have to represent an institution. But if you can, that's also good.
And then the third thing, these BPFs this year all build on work that took place last year. So look at the reports and the outcomes from the 2019 IGF cycle because they inform the work that is being done this year.
So thanks very much to everyone for that.
I now want to give the floor to Markus Kummer, past executive secretary and past chair of the MAG who has very graciously agreed, at the request of myself and the MAG, to do a bit of a reflection, a critical, reflective looking back at BPFs.
Markus, you have the floor.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Anriette. Hello, everyone. Good afternoon, good morning. Can you hear me? Can you see me?
>>WIM DEGEZELLE: We can hear you, we cannot see you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: We can see your presentation.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. Well, that's more important. Well, I did try to turn the camera on.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: We can see you now.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Okay. I think a lot of what this work consists of has already come up in the discussion so far. Just to recall, you asked me, Anriette, in the first meeting of the MAG this year to launch a process that would evaluate past efforts and look at the lessons learned of what we had so far, and that's what's on the slide there. And then the video I had uploaded, I gave a very high-level overview, and I alluded to these four buckets, but that will be contained in the final output report of what we are working on. We consider there will be a toolbox for future BPF facilitators. There will be a modalities document, and there will be suggestions and recommendations on how to move forward and it will contain metrics to evaluate BPF proposals and outcomes. And in the video, I mentioned that we find it not that easy, actually, to come up with the metrics, and it would be nice to have quantitative metrics where you can just tick a box, but the discussion so far have been we are more moving towards qualitative metrics, how to assess the various IGFs. And I would like now to go a bit into the preliminary findings so far.
So we identified areas where we clearly can do better.
There is maybe a first point, the general awareness and understanding of the BPF activities, what they are and not are. Then, secondly, we don't have a sort of universally agreed on document that sets out the modalities, who gives practical guidance for the organizers. And also we find it will be important to keep focus and for each BPF to setting realistic and achievable goals.
And participation has been mentioned by many who have taken the floor so far. BPF facilitators but also yourself, Anriette, and other participants. Participation is key. Participation of the community, but also of key stakeholders, of relevant institutions in any particular field of activity.
But then the other point that has also been mentioned, Ben gave a successful example of sharing disseminating outputs, that was the BPF Security last year which was actually fed into a U.N. process, but very clearly is something where we can do better. We can improve and make sure, have maybe a more systematic sharing and disseminating of the outputs.
And linked to that is also, then, the actual impact the BPF can have on Internet governance and policy in the broader area, in other organizations and governments. We had some examples where we actually had impact, but I think it has not been broad enough so far, and that definitely there's room for improvement.
And when it comes to evaluating and selecting BPF proposals and outputs, that is then something we look forward to once the report is out. And hopefully the report can then guide the MAG in assessing the outcomes and in selecting new proposals.
So one point, are the issues proposed, are they relevant and suitable for a BPF? Not good enough just to be interesting, but it needs also to be a topic where it is possible and practical to collect best practices on a particular subject.
Then the functioning of the BPF on any given topic, will it be possible to have an open and bottom-up multistakeholder dialogue on this or will it be too controversial? If people don't even talk to each other, then there's not much point, but if there is a common understanding of what the issues are, then it's much easier.
And then lastly, maybe most importantly, would be can we anticipate that there will be a successful outcome? Is the goal the BPF has set itself, is it realistic? Is it achievable? Has it the potential to have impact?
So these are some of the elements that will be part of the report. We had hoped to share a first draft ahead of this MAG meeting. Unfortunately, it was not possible. We were all a little bit delayed in whatever we were doing due to COVID-19. But hopefully in the next fortnight, we'll be able to circulate a draft record, and then we invite the MAG and the broader community to provide feedback during the summer months, July-September, and the final report that will then go to the IGF should be ready in the beginning of October. That can still be adjusted at the IGF itself, at the virtual IGF this year. And hopefully, then we will have something that will provide guidance to the MAG and provide the tools for the BPF facilitators to carry on their activities from '21 onwards.
Thank you very much for your attention, and happy to answer any questions you may have and take on board any suggestions you may have.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much for that update, Markus.
Now, does anyone have any -- any questions or comments in response to Markus's report and this BPF on BPFs?
I can't see the speaker cue.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Yes, I'm here.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Go ahead, Carlos, and others, please put up your hand or use the speakers' queue. Carlos Afonso, you can go.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Yes, thank you. Very quick.
Markus, you say that there is -- there will be a final report on the -- at the end of October. And usually the BPFs do the -- their final outcome reports at the end of the final session in the IGF itself.
Will there be a wrap-up on the BPF on BPFs' work after those outcome reports which will be presented at the IGF itself or the work of the BPF on BPFs finishes in October? That's my question.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: That's an excellent question. That is definitely something that is open for discussion.
I think your point is a very valid one. If we follow the BPF modality, the report mentioned in the slide 1st October, that will be the final report of the preparatory work. But my understanding would also be that it will have to be discussed at the IGF itself, like all the other BPF reports, and then adjusted, taking on board the discussion and the reactions of the community.
The report that will be ready is an input document into the BPF. But this is something we will have to discuss also within the group, and we will take on board obviously community input and the document that will be released early July will be open for discussion. And all the input will be taken on board and will be sampled then in a reworked report that will be presented on October the 1st. And that will go to then IGF and can then also be adjusted. But, again, this is not sort of hard and fast, cast in stone, but we have to discuss on how best to improve the pipe.
Personally would very much go along with your suggestion that we treat it like the other BPF reports and adjust it after the actual annual meeting.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Thank you, Markus.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Markus. In fact, I think I just want to emphasize here how valuable this type of report will be in the context of the IGF being midway through its renewed WSIS+10 mandate. I can also report -- it's very preliminary. But I'm in discussion with ISOC and some other institutions to do a paper that reflects on participation in the IGF, that uses the metrics that we have, that then analyzes it critically to look at how shifts in participation from stakeholder group and region has moved across the IGF since its inception. And I think these output papers will be useful in multiple ways but also because we are midyear through our mandate.
Next I want to give the floor to Wout. I don't see anyone else in the speakers queue, and we have roughly eight minutes left to the end of this session. So, Wout, Wout de Natris, you have the floor. Introduce yourself.
Wout, we can't hear you. Are you unmuted?
>>WOUT DE NATRIS: No. Sorry. Can you hear me like this?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, now we can hear you.
>>WOUT DE NATRIS: Okay, thank you. There's something with the microphone on the laptop.
Thank you very much. This is Wout de Natris, Internet governance consultant from The Netherlands. I would like to respond to Markus' presentation and would like to give one extra comment perhaps for consideration.
It was said about dissemination of the end results of the BPFs. What I think could be added to it that up front it is also deliberated how the best practices can best be disseminated among the relevant stakeholders because that's probably one way to get more involvement up front as well.
And I think that is something which is often overlooked when the importance of the topic is identified about who actually needs to become a member of this group to have a chance at success and a better dissemination and a better, broader input.
So that's the comment I would like to make.
And thank you for the opportunity.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Wout. I think that's a really important point. We shouldn't assume that the same dissemination practices will work for all stakeholder groups.
And I don't see anyone else asking for the floor. But there's been a discussion in chat. So, Secretariat, can I ask you just to read for us a few highlights from the comments that have been made in the chat session.
>>ANJA GENGO: Hi, Anriette. Yes, thank you. I will --
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Anja.
>>ANJA GENGO: I will read a couple of chats. Just a second.
From Amir from Iran: I propose that the digital cooperation BPF, it could help to exchange best practices in the area of digital cooperation related to the SG's digital roadmap.
From Mark Carvell: Thanks to Markus for excellent overview of the draft. This work on IGF and especially BPF modalities is timed well with the U.N. roadmap on architecture. Important to keep in step with this.
From Giacomo Mazzone: I stress the importance of what Wout just told about how to organize our future works.
And I believe those would be the key, yes -- I believe those would be the latest comments reflecting Markus' points.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Thanks for that, Anja.
I just want to clarify to Amirhossein, there isn't a BPF on digital cooperation. There is a working group on IGF strategy and strengthening that is looking at digital cooperation. And then I think the different -- all the different BPFs are looking at digital cooperation to some extent in the context of their work.
Markus, did you have any final thoughts, particularly in response to some of the comments that were made?
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Well, thank you very much. And thank you for the comments. And I think they're all very helpful. And I certainly very much agree with what Wout said. There's no one-size-fits-all model. I mean, each BPF has to find its own strategy for dissemination of its outcomes depending on the subject area.
Obviously, the relevant stakeholder groups are different depending on the BPF. I mean, the BPF on gender and access obviously has a different stakeholder constituency than a BPF on cybersecurity. So we have to target your audience really carefully and specifically addressing your interest groups that are involved in the particular BPF.
Thank you, all, for your comments. They were all very helpful. And they will be taken into account. And I invite you all then to actively participate once we release it. You can send your comments, and we will also maybe reach out to some of you individually when you make comments and have follow-up questions and so on.
Last, but not least, thank you for the encouraging words. And we also think this is a very relevant exercise to bring the IGF forward and really enhance its impact. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Markus. And thanks to Wim and everyone else.
Remember that BPFs, they're not new in the IGF. But I think we are also at a juncture now with the roadmap for digital cooperation and the support for the IGF+ model where we need to think about how these BPFs can fit well into an enhanced IGF model. For example, the idea of a policy incubator, how can the BPFs support or inform such a function.
So for those of you involved in the BPFs and comment and participate in it, also think about how those BPFs can be strengthened and fit into the future strategy for the IGF.
We've come to the end of the first part of today's open consultation. And we have one minute left. But we've prepared a poll for you, so just stay with us for a minute or two.
And this is really taking us back to yesterday's discussion about the virtual IGF where we had some brainstorming to what is still a very new reality for us to deal with.
But we wanted to get your feedback on some very bit of broad parameters of how as the MAG and the secretariat we should approach planning for virtual IGF 2020.
So before you go, we're going to put the poll online now and you can fill it in and we'll look at the results and then we'll break. Thanks.
It should be in front of you now. Not very complicated. Just three questions for you to look at and to respond to.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Hi, Anriette. In the meantime, I want to thank again the secretariat for the work of showing the video. I think it was important. And I -- I think that the way we tested successfully the way of making Zoom work with video. It finally worked.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: It did. And I think we're going to have to use these methods a lot more in the coming months.
I see we are up to 52 people have responded to the poll.
Everyone else, please try and respond. The more of you respond, the better for us. The more feedback we have, or input we have.
I think we have 65% of participants that have voted. So we just closed it. And we can share the results. Secretariat, are you able to -- good. You can see the results.
So thanks very much. In fact, this is very helpful. We see that there's a slight preference for spacing the IGF over a longer period but clearly not a very long period. And then we also -- interestingly enough, there seems to be a preference for having the time slots, the period over which the IGF will run concentrated in one time zone. So thanks very much.
And then there clearly is a preference for workshop proposers to be given the option for choosing their time slot.
So we can't promise that we will follow any one of these particular approaches. The MAG and the secretariat will have many considerations to take into account, but we'll definitely take this on board.
So on that, I want to thank everyone and close the morning session. And remind you that we are starting again at 1300 UTC, and then we'll be looking at dynamic coalitions. And we'll go on to having an address from Under-Secretary-General Liu. And I'm very happy to report we have ministerial representation from both the hosts from IGF 2022 and '23. So we will have Ethiopia and Japan having their vice ministers present to address us.
So, everyone, enjoy your break, if it's meal break or work break. And we will see you back promptly at 1300 UTC. Thanks, everyone.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thanks very much, Anriette.
>>CARLOS AFONSO: Thank you. Thank you.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Okay. It's two minutes past the hour. And welcome to the -- how should I call it? -- second session of the second day of the open consultations.
Just a very quick reminder that the session is being recorded and also live-streamed through YouTube. And there will be a summary of the meeting probably next week. And there is a transcript available. And that transcript will be made available later on today.
Then also, I'd also like to remind you to please keep your microphones muted at all times. And if you want to make an intervention, please use the online request system. If you're unable to use the online request system, as a second option, please put your request at the speaking queue or in the chat, and then somebody from the secretariat will pick it up.
When you take your turn, the chair will call your name to the floor. And please say your name and also the institution which you represent. If you're speaking in your personal capacity, please, you can also say that as well. When you're speaking, could you please speak at a measured pace. I sometimes speak very quickly. But in order for other people whose first language is not English to fully understand you and also for the transcribers and the interpreters to interpret what you're saying properly, could you please speak at a measured pace. You don't have to speak too slowly. Just at a normal, measured pace. Thank you.
Once you've finished, can you please remember to switch off your microphone so that there's no interference with other people when they make their intervention.
For the interpretation, many thanks to the government of Poland for sponsoring the interpretation for the open consultations. There is a little icon at the bottom of the Zoom screen next to the leave button, at least on my screen, with interpretation. So all you have to do is click that button and choose whether you want English or French.
We do encourage you, please, if you feel more comfortable speaking in French, please do speak in French. This is what the facility is here for. And would really appreciate it if people would use it.
With that, I will give the floor to the chair, Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen, to start the meeting.
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Chengetai. Welcome back, everyone.
I'm sitting here with a blanket around me. It's a very cold day here in the far southern hemisphere.
I just wanted to check quickly, can everyone see the icon for interpretation on the Zoom screen? I'm asking because I can't see it. I don't have it. But that might be a function of how I'm logged into the meeting.
So everyone's fine. Good. Thank you. I'm watching the chat. Thanks. I feel reassured.
And I want to reaffirm what Chengetai said about thanking the government of Poland for their generosity to make this possible.
So the second and the final session of the second open consultation of IGF 2020.
We have a short but interesting agenda this afternoon, and afternoon being in my time zone, morning for some of you, and evening for others.
We're going to look at the other two current components of IGF's intersessional work. Remember, we always said that the IGF is not an event; it is a process. Expect we've looked at Best Practice Forums. And now we'll look at dynamic coalitions, which is a self-organized modality. You'll hear more about that. And we'll also hear from the national, regional, and youth IGFs, of which many of you are part.
And then we are going to be visited by important and valued supporters. We'll have an address from Under-Secretary-General for the Division of Economic and Social Affairs, Mr. Liu. And then we'll have a short address from the host of IGF 2022, from Ethiopia, the state minister of information and technology, also responsible for ICT and digital transformation.
And after Mr. Ahmedin Mohammed Ahmed from Ethiopia, we'll have vice minister for international affairs and communication from Japan, Ms. Makiko Yamada.
So they'll give us very short inputs. And I think it means a lot to us to have this certainty of hosting for the coming three years.
And then we'll go into an input from Under-Secretary-General Hochschild and have inputs from some of the other governments who have been part of that process. And then we'll have an open Q&A. And then we'll move to our closing. We'll also have a Q&A after the presentations from the dynamic coalitions and the national and regional youth initiatives.
So I'm now very pleased to be able to handing over the floor to the coordinators of the dynamic coalition, Jutta Croll and Markus Kummer.
>>JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Anriette, for giving me the floor.
My name is Jutta Croll, and I'm a MAG member in my third year representing civil society. I'm from Germany. And I had the pleasure to co-facilitate the work of the dynamic coalitions together with my much more experienced colleagues Markus Kummer.
I hope we can share now the slides that were kindly prepared by Lima Madomi from the secretariat, together with Markus and me.
Luis, can you show us the slide, please.
Thank you so much. Can everybody see the slides now?
I can't see your videos, but probably -- Okay. It's -- it should be visible for all of you.
So I would like to give you some updates on the work of the dynamic coalitions during 2019 and what we are preparing for 2020.
Could you go to the next slide, please.
Okay. That's fine. Yes.
Here you can see an overview on the dynamic coalitions that are actively working. And it's -- since I do think a few weeks ago we are now 19 dynamic coalitions working in different areas all around Internet governance in various activities.
You can have a look at these dynamic coalitions also on the IGF website when you go to the section on intersessional activities. And that is the crucial term for the work dynamic coalitions are doing, because they are working in between the sessions of the global Internet Governance Forum, but also are closely connected and related to the work of the national and regional initiatives.
Can we go to the next slide, please.
So what we did during the last weeks was that we have tried in a bottom-up process to develop further the dynamic coalitions guideline. The guideline that we had was not very clear in terms of the dynamic coalitions annual report. So since we are doing intersessional work, it's very important that this work is somehow made visible not only with the outcomes of the work, but also within an annual report.
So with the help of Michael Oghia from the Dynamic Coalition on Sustainability of Journalism, we've improved the dynamic coalitions guideline to identify what other expected outcomes of dynamic coalitions, that the report should show their activities throughout the year and should not be confused with the usual session a dynamic coalition holds at the IGF.
Usually, this is the highlight of the year to have that session and then reproduce all the work that has been done throughout the year. But also some dynamic coalitions have a specific issue or topic on their agenda for their session at the global IGF, so that might not be completely in the same light the annual report content.
And we have set also a clear time frame for the submission of the report.
So these are more or less the conditions under that dynamic coalitions are working.
And could you please go to the next slide.
So dynamic coalitions' outputs throughout the year are varied and submitted in different formats. Besides these reports, the dynamic coalitions' substantive outputs are also contributed. There is the input to a main session that is usually organized by the dynamic coalitions around the work that they are doing. And in 2019, we had this main session prepared with 14 out of the -- out of the then 18 dynamic coalitions we had so far. And they all had prepared a substantive paper in advance of the session where they assessed how much their work is related to the SDGs, which SDGs they address with their work and how that could be brought further.
Then most of the dynamic coalitions apply for a slot for their dynamic coalition session. And that is usually a session where all the members of the dynamic coalition that throughout the year only meet occasionally at some events, maybe national or regional IGFs, but mostly, the work is done on a virtual basis, so via calls, Web conferences, and via the email lists. Nonetheless, then, at the end of the year, when the IGF takes place, the dynamic coalition members come together to hold their session. And then they also produce reports on the session.
And then, as mentioned before, we have the annual DC reports, which were now a bit more streamlined and formalized now that we have the new guideline.
Can you click, please, to the next slide? Thank you, Luis.
So for 2020, we have 16 recognized DCs who have submitted their proposals for individual slots at IGF 2020. I don't know whether it's possible to include that newly founded dynamic coalition on Internet and jobs also to have their own session, because they were just set up after the deadline had been closed.
And we have been working with all the 19 dynamic coalitions to draft a main session.
After two years where dynamic coalitions' main session was related to the SDGs, we have decided now that we will deal with the impact the pandemic has on the work of the different dynamic coalitions. And these are -- we need to say the "impacts," because it's very much different either if you are working in -- on the dynamic coalition, for example, on small islands, on gender, or on access in libraries, it's very much differently impacted how the pandemic had consequences for the work.
We will summarize that all. We will give examples. And we would also like to go a step further beyond the current situation of the pandemic to prepare how dynamic coalitions can help to develop an approach that helps us in maybe further circumstances, maybe other crisis, to be well prepared to continue with the work, with the beneficial work for the overall community that the dynamic coalitions are doing, even though we might come under stress with a crisis situation or -- like the pandemic is now in these days.
I do think that is more or less what I would like to tell you about the dynamic coalitions.
Could you go to the last slide, please.
I do think it's very important to line out to all -- not only the participants today to the meeting, but beyond that, in your own communities, that dynamic coalitions are a very good opportunity to step in the whole environment of Internet governance. It's a low threshold, nobody will be denied to join a dynamic coalition. The condition is only that you support the work the certain dynamic coalition you have chosen in a way that is appropriate to the goals and the objectives of the dynamic coalition and that fits also into your own be it either your individual background or the background of your organization. So it's a very good opportunity to get engaged in Internet governance relations. And therefore I highly recommend to check the list of dynamic coalitions, find the relations to the work you are doing yourself, or even consider maybe to set up a new dynamic coalition for a certain area that is not yet addressed by one of the 19 we already have.
It's a pleasure to work with dynamic coalitions. I'm very happy to do so.
And with that said, I would like to hand over to Markus.
If you have anything to add, you're welcome to do so.
Thank you so much.
>>MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Jutta. No, I have nothing to add of any substance except to emphasize that you said.
I mean, dynamic coalitions provide a very flexible format for dealing with any Internet governance-related issues. And a variety of the many dynamic coalitions that exist now are witness to that. It's proof of concept, indeed. And over the past few years, we have really made great progress in finding more coherent approach among the dynamic coalitions in a very bottom-up process, such as the work that has been under way for streamlining the guidelines on reporting.
So we are really much more coherent as a group of dynamic coalitions. And I would second Jutta inviting you all to look at their work and be involved in any area of particular interest to you.
>>ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Markus. Thanks, Jutta.
And I just want to affirm, speaking in my personal capacity, not in my MAG chair capacity, that I'm currently part of two dynamic coalitions, the one on schools of Internet governance, and the one on community connectivity. And, really, they are incredibly valuable.
Like other IGF formats, they are as valuable as the people that are in them and the work that goes into them. But I certainly, in my work in ICT4Development and connectivity and in capacity-building, I have found them incredibly valuable.
So I want to give the floor now -- it's open to everyone from a DC who has questions or wants to add anything.
To Michael Oghia. Michael, you want to share with us something about your DC. You have the floor.
>>MICHAEL OGHIA: Hi, everyone. Thank you so much, Anriette, for encouraging me to take the floor.
So a couple things that I would like to stress as it relates to this is. One, Jutta showed the second-to-last slide and there was nothing on the circle graph that indicated that a DC is supporting the environmental track. And I really cannot stress enough how although that is true based on the graph, the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition of which I'm -- which June, who is on the call, and myself are both steering committee members, the environment and the -- rather, sustainability as it relates to the Internet and to ICTs and Internet governance are all very much one of our key focus areas. And although we did not -- actually, because the focus -- one of the themes for this year is the environment, we decided to -- Hello? Oh, sorry.
We decided to actually dedicate our DC session to one of our other priorities, which in this case has to do with refugees, and actually focus our environmental efforts within the environmental track. So, you know, we're trying to align with the overall format as much as possible.
I wanted to make a second point as well very quickly, and that is, two, especially as we discuss the future of the IGF and the future of what the post-WSIS world will look like, or one of the three models as proposed in the U.N. report, I just want to stress so much especially as it relates to another dynamic coalition that I'm involved with, the DC sustainability which is not focused on environmental sustainability but journalism and news media sustainability, the DC sustainability exists because there are so few other places where that kind of coalition could actually happen and could have the kind of legitimacy to do what it's doing.
It's not to say that -- I'm not saying that the DCs are an endangered in any sense -- in that way. But I do just want to stress the importance of having the structure and that we would not be able to have the coalition as it is if it were not for the kind of guidelines set by the IGF and the ability for us to work as we can and organize ourselves the way we are.
So it's just so integral into our advocacy going forward. And we just really appreciate that and all the work that especially Markus and Jutta and Lima put into making this coordination happen. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Michael. And, absolutely, Markus and Jutta, you have done an incredible job. And thanks to Lima for your support.
I see his hand is up in the participant list, Ananda Raj Khanal.
Ananda, you have the floor. Can you hear me, Ananda? I see your mic is still muted.
>>ANANDA RAJ KHANAL: Yes, thank you. Can you hear me?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, Ananda. Please just introduce yourself for the record.
>>ANANDA RAJ KHANAL: I'm Ananda Raj Khanal. I'm a government stakeholder from Nepal. Just one point that this dynamic coalition use "child online safety." Most of the U.N. agencies, including ITU and UNICEF, use "child online protection." Just for the sake of harmony, can we use the same terminology so that people do not confuse? That's it. That's my comment. Thank you.
>>JUTTA CROLL: Anriette, if I may answer to that request shortly. It's Jutta again from the dynamic coalition on child online safety as well, which I was a founding member in 2007 at the Internet Governance Forum in Rio de Janeiro.
Ananda, I understand your request. But I do think the name was given in 2007, so that's a long time ago. And I will forward that request to the whole dynamic coalition to our next meeting. And probably we can discuss whether we move with the name of the dynamic coalition a bit in that way.
We've already shifted the focus a bit not only to child online safety or protection but also to children's rights in general and to children's right to be protected. So that might be an option to change it. I will forward that to the dynamic coalition. Thanks for your question.
>>ANANDA RAJ KHANAL: Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Ananda. Thanks, Jutta.
Before I give the floor to Wout de Natris, who will tell us about something that's slightly different from a DC, Anja, are you able to read some highlights from the chat for us?
>>ANJA GENGO: Yes, just a very few comments. Thank you.
From Giacomo Mazzone: In the perspective of transforming IGF in a governmental reflection on Internet governance, the DCs are a vital and very live tool to link IGF process to grassroots activities.
From Chenai Chair: We, the gender BPF, are collaborating with the DCs and have the facilitator as part of our planning. Definitely helpful building this collaboration in the work on gender.
From Sylvia Cadena: +1. The value comes from the work people put into in from the DCs.
And then the latest comment I have from Nigel Hickson: Thank you, Jutta and Markus. Agree the importance of DCs with respect to U.N. Roadmap on Digital Cooperation. A DC has flexibility to pick up an emerging policy issue, difficulty, and produce some initial considerations for sharing with wider IGF community.
I think that would be all. I didn't miss anything. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Anja.
Next we have -- I am going to can take Eileen first. Eileen, you have the floor. Please introduce yourself for the record.
>>EILEEN CEJAS: Thank you very much, Anriette.
Good morning, afternoon, evening for everyone. I just want to quickly present about the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance. I am going to share a link on the chat. If you can open, it will be great.
So what I want to present today is quickly about the work of the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance on how we presented a DC -- we submitted to present a DC session on the IGF last week on the EuroDIG on the day zero session called "Youth Coalition on Internet Governance: Creating Synergies and the Way Forward."
So as you see, we are a very active DC coalition. And we would really like if you can join our mailing list, our Facebook, so we can work together. We are open to receive applications from any young people around the world. So thank you for the opportunity.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for that, Eileen. And when we're finished with this DC session, we are also going to talk more about the NRIs.
And so I would now like to give the floor to Wout to briefly talk about a project that he has been implementing, which emerged from IGF MAG work last year.
Wout, you have the floor.
>>WOUT DE NATRIS: Thank you, Anriette, for the opportunity to speak. Can you hear me?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, we can.
>>WOUT DE NATRIS: Yes, okay, thank you.
Last year, there was a project on the deployment or adoption of Internet and ICT standards and best practices that kindly resulted in a report that was presented to the MAG and on the IGF website on the 6th of March of this year.
The question I would like to put to the MAG today is how best to continue the work done there and to follow up on the recommendations and the pressure points identified in the report.
So how can we continue this work on Internet standards and ICT best practice deployment in a fully inclusive and an equal way where the IGF stands for?
So what I would like to suggest to the MAG and ask the MAG is how can we discuss this over the coming days and is there support to do so.
Let me first take a few steps back and present very, very briefly on the report that what we tried to do is to find reasons for the slow adoption of Internet standards and ICT best practices and come up with tangible solutions for them.
We were able to work with a few hundred people. Dozens of people were interviewed. There were online questionnaires that were answered by all communities involved in this discussion.
And what the report presents is basically the aggregated opinions of all people and organizations that have participated. So there's no bias to answers. And it's impossible for everybody to agree to everything simply because it's an amalgamation of all the opinions that were presented in an aggregated way.
So what were reasons for slow adoption? Most people said there's no business case. But if you look behind it, there's no pressure on decision takers in industry. There's a lack of educational Internet security and ICT. And current actions are simply suboptimal because after 20 years of trying, there has not been a great uptake on the deployment of these standards that make the Internet immediately more secure of every single end user, whether institutional or personal.
There's six recommendations on how to create these business cases and 25 pressure points on the decision takers in industry.
And I will not present on them here. They're in the report. But to work forward with the suggestions that were made, we need a new sort of format. What I'm asking the MAG to consider is: What is the best format to continue this important work? So would that be a dynamic coalition? Would that be a policy track? Would that be a best practice forum? Or would it be something of a policy incubator and new sort of format that is suggested in the IGF+ model?
We look at from there what sort of topics need to be discussed is to create business cases, for example, through creating procurement best practices for industry and for governments so that larger stakeholders have a business model which ask for these Internet standards and best practices in IoT and software, et cetera, to be deployed; to have safe websites when they are built and not afterwards.
It would mean that ICT education needs to be changed. So that would be sort of topics on Internet architecture become a part of the education of our children.
So these disseminated best practices including -- I stress we've heard a lot from participants, parliamentarians for developing nations that they need assistance in this procurement and they need to be trained on the best practices because they often do not know and they're not being offered them by industry.
So it could be on current laws. What do current laws actually propose yet? It's not about new legislation. It's not about regulation. But what is possible to put pressure on companies, if necessary? That could be through testing, with consumer organizations and make them participate in this process. It's a category that is now almost missing in the IGF and that we want to bring in regulators that express interest to look at, okay, how can we start a discussion on Internet security and Internet standards and ICT best practices because they are sometimes a part of current legislation already. They would like to become part of this as they have expressed to me.
So what is the current impact of the report? And I can share with you that it's rather good, that a lot of people -- and organizations have let me present or propose to present. But COVID got in between. But there were a presentation for high-level group at the European Commission on Internet governance. There was a presentation for the Dutch parliament. Every single parliamentarian has received the report.
There is presentations with the global forum of cyber expertise that did not go through because it was canceled. But that means that all these sort of organizations have expressed their interest already and want to see how they can work of giving a presentation to international regulatory organizations on the report and impact of the report.
So if you look at what this report has managed to do in the five months it took to assemble, the influence is already there. No, not everybody is happy with it because, as I said, it's an aggregation of opinions and not individual opinion.
So the question is how to continue. And I would like to invite you to discuss this -- to discuss this later in the week as it is a golden opportunity -- I stop here, Anriette -- it's a golden opportunity to continue this important work and make the Internet safer for every individual user of the Internet and every institution and organization.
So thank you for this opportunity, and I hope that we are able to present more later in the week or that you are able to discuss the proposal further.
Thank you very much for this opportunity, Anriette.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Wout. And we will make your -- your presentation and the link to the report available in the record of the meeting.
And any reactions to that? I see Sylvia Cadena has requested the floor. Sylvia, can you take the floor and introduce yourself, please.
And then we do need to go on to NRIs, but let's discuss this a little bit. Wout has explicitly asked for oust our advice.
>>SYLVIA CADENA: Thank you, Anriette, for giving me the floor. And thanks, Wout, for your presentation. It's very welcoming. It's very good to see how persistent you are with your work, and I think the community can benefit from it.
As I have expressed directly to you in the past, I think the best mechanism will be to set up a dynamic coalition or a Best Practice Forum to strengthen the mechanisms that the IGF already has in place. I do not support the structure of a separate track for this policy or standards work that is not validated through the community input, as I mentioned before. And I am sure that the existing mechanisms and the ones that are coming through the IGF+ pipeline, let's say, will find ways to accommodate the work that you have been doing.
I think that the dynamic coalition, in particular, is very suitable because it will allow for those voices that are probably not part of this report to get engaged. And I think that one of the biggest challenges for the adoption of standards is completely outside of policy discussions and is about market -- market share and pressures from the market that are not necessarily discussed in any of the -- of the IGF sessions. There are a few sessions discussing business models and initiatives of this sort but it's not that -- that well -- the linkages, let's say between governance and policy are not that well put together.
So I encourage you to follow the DC or BPF approach, and we'll continue the conversation during the -- during the MAG meeting if -- if there is time in the agenda for that.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for that, Sylvia. And I think that it's an interesting challenge for the IGF Secretariat and the MAG to consider because as we move towards trying to take on board the IGF+ functionality, we do need to look at taking on different areas of work, but we also have to be consistent with the capacity that we have at the moment and the modalities that we have at the moment.
But thanks for that thoughtful response, Sylvia.
And we have 20 minutes left. And now to a very, very important part of our meeting, the NRIs; national, regional and youth initiatives.
And secretariat, you have the floor.
>>ANJA GENGO: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I hope you can see a few slides on your screens that I am sharing through my computer.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes. Yes, we can.
>>ANJA GENGO: Thank you.
So with the NRIs, the IGF secretariat worked on recording a video message that speaks more in detail about the origin, the background of the NRIs, the overall concept, what -- what would the NRIs do individually and collectively. So the video statement and this presentation that I'm going to share now is available in the -- on the IGF website in the agenda section.
I am not going to focus a lot on the past. I'm going to focus on the present, and especially on yesterday's day, which I think was excellent in terms of the many inputs the community shared on possible additional collaboration with the NRIs.
Very briefly, we're very proud that we, at the present time, have 129 officially recognized NRIs with 89 countries running national IGFs, 19 regional and subregional IGFs, and 21 youth IGFs. We are hoping that by the end of the year, we are going to recognize a few more national IGFs. It could be that the subregional IGF covering the regions and countries in the Indian Ocean will be recognized. Some very interesting processes happening in the background with the secretariat and many communities.
The geographical spread is very good across continents much that is helping us a lot to understand the priorities on digital policy across many countries and regions, which we can definitely say that they're different.
Looking at the more than 80 NRI annual meetings last year, it is without a doubt that the priority on a global scale for the community is with cybersecurity and safety followed by access and connectivity matters.
As I said, I'm focusing on the present moment. Unfortunately, as you know, the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the IGF and of course the NRIs as well, especially their scheduling. Many of the -- well, actually the majority of the NRIs have decided to either postpone their meetings or to host them online.
It is a challenging time, but at the same time, it is -- it is a very creative momentum, I have to say. For example, many are rethinking creative, innovative ideas how to host fully online meetings to be equally attractive for -- and easy for participation as the on-site meetings are. EuroDIG, as you know, concluded their meeting last year. It was very interesting to see the virtual hosting centers being -- being deployed, and we actually very much enjoyed the fully online meeting. So we're looking forward to see how other meetings will be hosted.
For now, there are a few NRIs that reported to us that their countries or regions are to a good extent, if not completely COVID free. So for example, Vanuatu IGF confirmed that they will be hosting their meeting on-site in addition to a couple of NRIs in Africa. So we will see how the situation will be developing there.
Presently as well, the NRIs collectively are focused on organizing the main session. The preparatory process is very much under way since the beginning of the year. The main session, pending the final confirmation of the MAG, will focus on the role of the Internet in emergency situations.
I can say from that stage that there are a couple of policy areas and process digital policy areas that the NRIs will be looking at. Of course, this session will be taking into account primarily the current momentum, which means it will be reflecting the response of the Internet governance processes on local levels to the ongoing pandemic, but we believe that it is also going to focus on the role of the Internet in, like, say state of natural disasters or even terrorist attacks. So there will be quite a diversified aspects covered.
In addition to the main session, the NRIs work on organizing seven collaborative sessions. Those are the workshop-like sessions that are focused on particular topics defined in a bottom-up manner across the NRIs. They're very precious to us for two reasons. The first reason is that they allow us to see the local specificities of digital policy in certain countries and regions on certain topics, but also they're very important long-time speaking for creating trust and, I would say, even friendship, good cooperation, good partnership between different NRIs. In the past years, this really advanced the network, and we are very, very grateful to the entire IGF process for allowing and welcoming these sessions.
As you know, the NRIs planned this year to have a booth. We'll see how the village will be set up and if so in this virtual setup.
And the NRIs coordination session is a traditional open-work meeting that is going to happen also this year. We are focusing altogether on the vision with the NRIs on the future work and how can we strengthen that ecosystem and the global IGF and NRIs' collaboration.
What is very new, and it's going to be discussed, I assume, in the HLPDC report related session today is that the NRIs self-organized, and they've decided to establish an NRI stat course that run consultations through a dedicated survey and has managed to produce a very good output document to the fifth recommendations of the report of the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation that was submitted to that recommendations co-champions. That output document is also available on the IGF website NRIs pages, in case some of you are interested to look at it.
In addition to working with the NRIs and organizing their sessions, we are very much focused in strengthening the NRIs through the trust and good cooperation that we have with so many. And in addition, through that work, as you know the IGF is mandated to develop capacity on local and global levels.
We see the NRIs as critically important partners in strengthening the local communities, and through that, strengthening the global IGF process.
Last year we have, in addition to supporting the NRIs substantively, also supported some of the NRIs financially with financial grants; concretely, nine NRIs whose communities relate to the scope of developing countries.
This year, as we know, is a little bit challenging because things have changed overnight in terms of transitioning to online hosting of many of the NRIs meetings in addition to a vibrant work atmosphere with the IGF, but we are exploring together with the NRIs ways how to support the online NRI meetings that are going to be hosted in this year.
One of the particular focuses that was mentioned also yesterday and earlier today is that in cooperation with the now next year's host and with the -- with the efforts of the IGF Secretariat at the youth IGFs, we are focusing on specifically strengthening the youth engagement in 2020 IGF processes.
So in short, we will be informing the community about this concrete plan. What we plan to do primarily is to capture all the good practices that exist across the youth IGFs, but also across national and regional IGFs only with engagement to cooperate on youth engagement with many stakeholders from the ecosystem -- such as, for example, ISOC has an excellent youth-led program -- and to try to bring to the annual IGF meeting those good practices and hopefully inspire others to help to elevate our future young experts and leaders.
Finally, if you would like to learn more about the NRIs, I advise that you visit the IGF website, the NRIs website, which are very informative, to write at [email protected]. That is our team that is more than happy to respond to any questions that you have.
Yesterday -- Just in my closing, yesterday some of the community members made some excellent references to how can we strengthen the cooperation with the NRIs, particularly this year due to these challenging times, to have the virtual IGF work on its accessibility. As you know, the fact that we are not traveling doesn't, unfortunately, remove the matter that we will still face accessibility issues, especially in developing countries where the connectivity is very challenging. So there was a very good idea yesterday shared by community members that the NRIs could act as some sort of additional remote hubs where stakeholders could gather in one place where the connectivity could be of a better quality and participate collectively in our meetings. So that's just food for thought for the next minutes.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and at the disposal if you would have any questions.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks to Anja, and thanks to -- one of the things that I've learned since I've joined as MAG chair is that everyone in the secretariat works very hard. But Anja's work for -- on supporting the NRIs is boundless. She's available to NRIs constantly and really puts a lot of time into it. So thanks very much, Anja, and everyone else.
And, Lima, can you read any highlights for us from the chat? And then we'll go -- and I see people -- actually, let's take the queue first, and then Lima will read to us from the chat. Jennifer Chung, you have the floor. Everyone remember to introduce yourself for the record.
>>JENNIFER CHUNG: Thank you, Anriette. Hope everyone can see and hear me right now.
My name is Jennifer Chung. I'm actually taking the floor with a different hat on, not as a MAG member but as part of the secretariat of the Asia Pacific regional IGF.
I wanted to echo all the, you know, thanks and praise in the chats and have this on record: Without Anja, the NRI network would not be where they are right now. She started helping us and supporting us when we were very few in number and now we have grown exponentially. So it is really due to Anja's really good and hard work that we are able to be where we are right now.
Also wanted to take the floor to thank the IGF Secretariat because Asia Pacific regional IGF was one of the beneficiaries of the grants that was given out to support the NRIs in developing countries last year. This year, as with many other NRIs, we are actually going to go virtual. Our host country, Nepal, has graciously agreed to host a 2021. So this year we will also go virtual. So we'll be taking on the very good lessons learned and best practices that our colleagues at EuroDIG has, you know, shared with us. And it's actually a very good basis for all of the NRIs as well as the global IGF to take on all these lessons that the different virtual meetings are currently taking place and in format and also in content.
One more thing I wanted to highlight is, you know, with the NRI task force, we were able to, with many colleagues within the NRI network, come up with a very fulsome and comprehensive report to add to the recommendations of the U.N. HLPDC recommendations 5a and b. So I just urge everybody to take a look at that and really thanks to all of the NRI colleagues. You know, really happy to continue working with all of you this year.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Jennifer.
We have very little time left, but I'm going to give the floor to Andrea and MAHEN. And, Jennifer, I'm hoping that we can present inputs or highlights from that report later this afternoon.
Andrea, you have the floor.
>>ANDREA BECCALLI: Hello. Hello, Anriette. Hello, everyone. Good to see you.
Basically just what I was writing in the chat. As we think about the challenges for the next global digital IGF, I think we have some solutions in-house, and I think the network of the NRIs, they prove extremely valuable in this case. And I also, you know -- it's not very likely that we will have a global gathering anytime soon. We have to see how the COVID develops, whether there will be a vaccine, but I see difficult. So we may enter in a place where these things will be complicated for the next years to come.
And having established regional, national, subregional NRIs, the European, the Latin American one, we just did the (indiscernible). I think they could be part of a rethink of the global IGF using those as hubs where sessions can be organized and workstreams can be shared across the different -- different initiatives, and they can be kind of all in sync.
And in a way, it also goes -- gives also a different way to look at the IGF+ (indiscernible) and the other model of the (indiscernible) -- no? -- getting kind of modular sets -- subsets of coordination policy mechanisms.
So I think that we have the elements there. It's not clear -- it's not completely clear to me yet how to do that, but I think it's unfolding as a way to look and to explore. The network is there. The work is there. The commitment is there. The technology is also there. So why don't we seize. And the IGF is all about the Internet and forums. Those are two of the three words. Let's -- let's see how we can link and make the best use of these experiences that natural are already existing to get a first of a virtual IGF that it's, in a way, distributed and takes advantage of the assets in NRI, and so on, environment.
So that was my point. And again, just if I can make one praise more to the work that Anja tirelessly does. You know, I will do that.
And not as ICANN but as part of the national Italian IGF, I see how valuable is the work she provides to all the NRIs. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Andrea. In fact, listening to these comments, it makes me think that we need to look at not just the broader architecture of digital cooperation, but at the architecture of the IGF and how that all fits together.
So our last speaker in this segment is going to be Mahen. Mahen, you have the floor.
>>MAHEN BUSGOPAUL: Thank you, Anriette.
Yeah, I am Mahen Busgopaul from Mauritius IGF.
Anriette, it's good to see you again. And I would also like to join my words to everyone who has said the words to the IGF secretariat. Yes, Anja is doing a very good job.
What I am going to share today is that the Mauritius IGF has embarked on a research study. Last year, when we conducted the Mauritius IGF, we just found out that one of the recommendations was that we had some stakeholder gaps within the Internet governance process.
And what we are willing to do right now is bridging stakeholders' gaps and eliminating barriers to participation in the IGF process.
I am sharing with you that this survey has already started in Mauritius. It will also be extended to the Indian Ocean Islands stakeholders as well.
While we are going for it is, I would like to share with everybody, that when we talk about IGF, at least we need not to leave people behind. What I am thinking about is the disabled community, including children. We also are looking at the elderly population.
When we talk about Internet governance, we need to explore ways to involve all communities.
There is a convergence of IUT, big data, and AI which has a huge potential to benefit society. There are so many things happening at Internet governance that, at Mauritius level, and it's an idea at global level as well, that we don't need to leave marginalized people outside this group.
So I'm just sharing, and I would be happy that somewhere we take into account this idea.
Thank you for listening to me.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for your input, Mahen.
And we have three minutes left. I don't want to keep Under-Secretary-General Liu Zhenmin waiting for us, but, Lima, please share with us some highlights from the chat.
>>ANJA GENGO: Hi, and thank you, Madam Chair.
The highlights -- I have some highlights from Mark. He said as one of the coauthors of the analysis of the responses to the NRI Task Force survey on High-level Panel Recommendation, I will provide the meeting with a quick summary of the main points of agreement.
Jutta says it's an interesting initiative that should be streamlined into the IGF ecosystem.
She was talking about NRIs.
(Indiscernible) I see what was proposed as a perfect mission for the future IGF, a trusted repository of best practices on Internet for the countries or institutions in need.
He also said that he sees are the most flexible tools we have to bring, grass roots movement.
Thank you. That's all.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Sorry, I was just unmuting.
Thanks very much for that, Lima. And I'm sorry we didn't have more time for this session.
And so, everyone, we have to move on now to the next segment of our open consultation and MAG meeting.
And I'm very happy, it's a great honor for us to have with us Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations USGM Secretary for Economic and Social Affairs, Mr. Liu Zhenmin.
Mr. Liu, are you ready to take the floor?
Wonderful, we can see you.
>>MR. LIU ZHENMIN: You can hear me now?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: We can hear you and see you clearly.
>>MR. LIU ZHENMIN: Thank you, Anriette.
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening to all colleagues. Thank you to Madam Chair, members of the group, colleagues, friends from around the world. I am honored to join you today.
Six months ago, we gathered in Berlin at the 14th annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. Today, in this unprecedented moment of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are meeting virtually.
This is made possible, first of all, because of Internet connectivity and technologies, the centrality of what the Internet Governance Forum is about.
During these past months, we have witnessed how the pandemic has accelerated the global use of the Internet and the digital transformation. It is impacting economies and social lives in so many ways, from telemedicine and distance learning, to remote working.
We are also encouraged by the resilience of the global Internet system during this pandemic, with no major breakdowns. There's increased use and adaptation to connectivity and the information sharing within and among governments, businesses, health workers, and the public.
At the same time, however, the pandemic has also exposed and magnified the dark sides of the Internet. We see various undesirable economic and social trends, especially the spread of misinformation, cybersecurity, and data privacy issues, as well as persistent digital divides. Half of the world still does not have meaningful access to the Internet. Indeed, in some cases, the divides have widened during the pandemic.
Distinguished MAG members, this speaks to the need for the IGF to step up its (indiscernible) and to fully deliver on its mandate.
I am reminded by the U.N. Secretary-General, the Internet is a powerful and essential global public good. It therefore requires as the highest principle level of international cooperation.
Last Thursday, the Secretary-General launched his roadmap for digital cooperation, supporting various measures to enhance IGF.
Yesterday, I submitted a note to the Secretary-General outlining how we are going to follow up his roadmap in enhancing IGF, in collaboration with all stakeholders, including the MAG members.
Dear colleagues, in some areas, we have made headway, such as the high-level ministry segment and the first-ever parliamentary track convened in Berlin last year. And the growing network and the links among the global IGF and regional, national, subregional, and the youth initiatives, all the NRIs.
The Department of Social and Economic Affairs, UNDESA, is fully commitment to support capacity-building efforts, especially through the NRIs, together with other organizations. These efforts include providing grants to support annual meetings of NRIs in joining global, regional, and international linkages, and leveraging the network effect of the NRIs by working together with other IG-related organizations.
In other areas, there's much more to be done. For example, the need to better integrate intersessional work, to enhance the visibility of the IGF, and to address its long-term sustainability and the resources necessary for increased participation of stakeholders, especially those from the developing countries.
This year, 2020, marks the halfway point of IGF's current mandate, ending in 2025. It is both timely and critical for us to reflect on past success and the lessons learned.
I invite MAG members and interested stakeholders to work with us and come up with concrete solutions for stronger IGF.
Distinguished MAG members, the 15th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, the IGF, will now be held online in November. Indeed, the COVID-19 global pandemic is requiring of everyone an unprecedented response to work together on a way forward and map out a positive turning point.
Improving on this first-ever virtual meeting of IGF in November, I welcome new ideas and proposals. I invite you to innovate and highlight the essential role of the Internet in this global crisis, along with concrete outcomes for consideration by the United Nations General Assembly and other global, regional, or national forums and platforms.
I welcome your engagement with IGF secretariat and UNDESA in the preparation of the forthcoming IGF in November.
In this context, I express my special appreciation to the government of Poland for extending its offer to host the physical meeting of the IGF in 2021 instead.
It's also important for us to bring future meetings of IGF to all geographical regions. In this context, also thank the government of Ethiopia, who has offered to host the 17th meeting of the IGF in 2022, supported at the United Nations economic commission for Africa, and to the government of Japan, who has offered to host the 18th meeting of IGF in 2023.
The relevance and success of the IGF is contingent on the continued engagement of all stakeholder groups with the participation of the international and the intergovernmental bodies, across sectors, across disciplines, and across generations.
Dear colleagues, collectively, we have important responsibilities to fulfill to ensure successful outcomes of the IGF in 2020 and in the coming years.
I wish you all a vibrant, successful, and outcome-oriented meeting.
I thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Liu. I'm not sure if you can see, but there are comments in the chat that really thank you for being with us in person and not sending us a prerecorded message, which is what important people usually do. We really feel very honored by having your presence with us.
And we now have with us -- I hope he's ready to address us. I'm very happy to welcome the minister of state from Ethiopia, Minister Ahmedin Mohammed Ahmed from the Ministry of Innovation and Technology.
Is he ready to address us? Secretariat, are you -- there you are. Fantastic. I had the honor of meeting you in January -- February this year, I think, or March, early March. Sorry.
You have the floor. Thanks very much for joining us.
>>DR. AHMEDIN MOHAMMED AHMED: Thank you.
Dear Mr. Liu Zhenmin, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for economic and social affairs, dear Madam Chairman, dear participants, dear organizers of IGF, Ethiopia welcomes its selection to host the 2022 Internet Governance Forum with great enthusiasm. It is an honor and privilege for Ethiopia to be trusted with such a responsibility. Our country has made significant strides to advance information and communications technology, development, and is committed to building an inclusive digital society.
In the last two years, the Ethiopian government has been leading remarkable transformations to its digital sector and reforms to promote peace, economic, and social progress. Its selection to host the 17th annual Internet Governance Forum, IGF, in 2022 is a testament to the world recognizing its efforts.
Though Ethiopia's economic progress in the last years is remarkable, it needs more growth to guarantee its people the prosperity they deserve. It counts on the Internet to enable that to happen.
The Internet is critical to supporting micro and small enterprises, which Ethiopia hopes to create millions of jobs for its young and increasingly educated population.
One thing the new coronavirus pandemic is teaching us is the importance of a strong and vibrant Internet in supporting the economy in times of difficulties. We observed its usefulness in allowing businesses to stay on their feet and in supporting education.
As we prepare to deal with COVID-19 and the economic downturn that comes with it, we will need a stronger Internet that enables us to build a thriving economy.
The Ethiopian Council of Ministers adopted yesterday an ambitious digital transformation strategy that aims at bringing the currently mostly analog economy to a fully integrated, inclusive digital economy. This cannot be achieved without an open, resilient, (indiscernible), and affordable Internet for every citizen. And such Internet cannot be built without the participation of every sector of the society. That is why we believe in the multistakeholder governance of the Internet and are delighted to be selected to host the Internet Governance Forum.
We are convinced it will bring important experiences and specialist knowledge that will help Ethiopia and the whole of Africa build strong Internet economies.
Finally, we look forward to welcome you to historic Ethiopia, the origin of mankind, the land of multitudes of cultures, and the home of the African Union.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much for that, Minister Ahmed. And we really look forward to having the IGF in Ethiopia. And thanks very much for taking the time to join us. It's really a big honor for us.
And Mr. Liu, if you are still with us, there have been requests in the chat, please make available to us the document that UNDESA has submitted to the Secretary-General on the roadmap.
Now we have with us, together, following Mr. Ahmed's input, we have the host of IGF 2023. We have Japan, committed to be the host. And I hope she's online. Secretariat, is she ready to take the floor?
We have Ms. Makiko Yamada.
You have the floor. Thanks very much for joining us. Go ahead.
>>MS. YAMADA MAKIKO: Thank you, Madam Chair person. Also Under-Secretary-General Mr. Liu. It's my great honor here to address at the MAG meeting, on the occasion of the MAG meeting.
And the COVID-19 pandemic brought back a lasting challenge of universal connectivity with increased urgency. It is sad that we cannot get together for IGF in the real world this year. But it again highlights the power of the Internet, which gives us the capacity to hold virtual IGF online.
The Internet access can be seen as a part of fundamental human rights that provides the essential foundations for sustainability social activities, including medical care as well as education.
Japan has been hoping to host IGF in our country, with the objective to accelerate inclusive development of the Internet even farther. And we welcome the decision of the United Nations DESA on Japan's hosting of the annual meeting in the year 2023.
The U.N. roadmap for digital cooperation launched last week presented the urgency of extending connectivity, as well as the importance of strengthening capacity-building and trust in digital society in making our efforts towards inclusive digital society.
Japan very much welcomes these elements as coherent with our digital policy instruments, such as society 5.0 and data free flow with trust, DFFD.
We will embark on our preparation to a strengthened IGF with inclusive and productive approach, in line with the recommendations in the roadmap for the advanced multistakeholder platform, and we'll make our contribution to promoting global digital cooperation.
Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Vice-Minister Yamada. You and Minister Ahmed probably cannot see the chat, but people are discussing very enthusiastically about going to Africa and then going to Japan. This really means a lot to us and to the IGF community. And the different context, the different realities of different host countries and host governments, that contributes enormously to the content of the IGF and the outcomes of the IGF. So it's really important to us. And thanks very much to both of you, and to both Your Excellencies for being with us live as well as Under-Secretary-General Liu. I'm very sorry we can't give you more time and we can't ask questions, but, please, if you are able to stay with us, we will next be moving on to a discussion of the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and Under-Secretary-General Fabrizio Hochschild will join us.
So thank you very much. And I wonder if we can't all switch our mics on and just give applause to Ethiopia and Japan so they can hear how excited we are.
[ Applause ]
>>DR. AHMEDIN MOHAMMED AHMED: Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, congratulations.
>> Thank you.
>> All the best.
>> Congratulations, Ethiopia and Japan.
>> Congratulations, Ethiopia and Japan.
>> See you soon.
>> See you soon.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, everyone. And the enthusiasm was clear, as well as the noise.
We now bring to an end this segment of the meeting of the Open Consultation, and we're moving into the final part of the second day of the Open Consultation, second Open Consultation for IGF 2020. And I'm ready, I assume he's with us, to give the floor to someone who has been working extremely hard. Any of you involved in Internet governance would have noticed that he's been working round the clock probably in preparations but also in giving -- giving reports.
So I'm now happen to welcome Under-Secretary Fabrizio Hochschild and special advisor to the Secretary-General and the driving force behind the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation.
Fabrizio, are you with us? Are you ready to --
>>MR. FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Yes, I'm here, and I would like to thank you for this opportunity. I'd also like to say how much we appreciate your outstanding leadership of the MAG and of this process. And I'm here to respond to any questions that anyone may have regarding the roadmap. But many participated in its formulation, and we're also very grateful for the contributions that were made on the way by many who will now be listening in.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Fabrizio, before we open to everyone, there's just one thing I'd like you to share with the participants. I think it's important for us as an IGF community to not forget the big picture of the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation. So maybe if you can just give a short overview of the -- obviously the architecture of the digital cooperation is a big part of it, of the roadmap, and we hope to be part of that. But I think there are very other -- there are other aspects of the roadmap, the eight areas, that are also very important. So if you can just run through them briefly, I would appreciate it.
>>MR. FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: I think the background to this is that we're dealing -- and many of you know this much better than I. I'm new to this area. I'm a veteran in the U.N. but new to this area, so many of you know this much better than me, but we're talking about a technology that has spread at a speed and transformed the world in a manner that has no parallel with previous technologies. And that spread and transformation has happened largely unguided.
Policymakers at a national level, at a regional level, and certainly at an international level, have had a very hard time keeping up. And of course the technology has brought massive benefits, but it has also brought risks. And I think many of the problems that preexisted, predated COVID have been exacerbated or magnified, as have the benefits, by COVID.
And I think, you know, the manner in which the technology, which virtually touched -- didn't touch upon our lives for anybody, you know, of my age, in their fifties, they didn't know it really for the first half of their lives but now it's become essential to our lives. And the way it's allowed us to keep studying, keep working, keep connected with our friends in COVID is not something that's just going to be reversed post COVID.
And that also highlights, and this is the chief recommendation of the roadmap, that also highlights just how disadvantaged those who are unconnected are. And while this technology has benefited far larger numbers in a far shorter time than any previous technology, like vehicles or motor vehicles or airplanes or electricity, there's still a major issue, and it's in threat of becoming the new face of inequality in terms of the division between those who are connected and unconnected. So the first set of recommendations is around affordable access. And I won't lay out the statistics, but you know that half the world is not connected, and when you look at the least-developed countries, it's much less than half.
But of course what we want is meaningful Internet that provides a public good. With no disrespect to commercial enterprise, you know, an Internet that just links us all up everywhere across the globe to Amazon would be of limited ben- -- I don't mean to speak negatively of Amazon, I use it all the time, but we're not just about -- we also want to reassert the Internet as a means -- you know, what it was in the eyes of those who invented it, a means of democratizing knowledge and access to knowledge. So this idea of reasserting the value of digital public goods, repromoting digital public goods is also very central.
And then of course as well as being affordable and promoting public good, it also has to be safe. Safe in multiple senses of the word. Safe from cyberattacks that either have, you know, a disruptive effect, like the types we've seen against hospitals or the types we've seen against WHO or cyberattacks with purely lucrative, I mean money-making motives which have gone up, according to all platforms we have spoken to, have risen disproportionately against the background of COVID, but also safe -- so safe in terms of traditional notions of security, but also safe in terms of violations of our human rights. And that -- the very nefarious aspect of that is the increases we've seen in child abuse online against the backdrop of COVID, but that can also mean invasive forms of surveillance in the name of public health that we have also seen.
So the next set of recommendations is around trying to ensure that security and safety is upheld on the Internet through a number of -- a number of means.
And then there's a lot around governance. I mean, the -- the U.N. is not new to regulating new technologies. And the very first -- the recommendation -- the very first recommendation of the General Assembly was on the peaceful use of nuclear technology. And what did the world do then? It came together. It set up an international -- set up the International Atomic Energy Association, it set up a large body to monitor, it created conventions that safeguarded the public from -- from the threats of nuclear technology and steered it towards good use. It set up oversight bodies to ensure that was happening. It gave a fairly intrusive mandate to the International Atomic Energy Association in terms of being able to monitor state practice, but those approaches are never going to work for digital. The technology is too fast moving and the member states' appetite for new conventions or new U.N. bodies is just not there.
So, you know, the report tries to recognize that reality and work with what already exists, recognize that reality.
But the truth is, and we have to acknowledge this, the reality is a lot of fragmented bodies, a lot of agreements among like-minded stakeholders or like-minded states. And when all that is valuable, to the extent that we don't have truly universal approaches, truly universal institutions, you know, we could be unwittingly undermining the chief benefit of the Internet, which is its universality. And we could be, you know, contributing to the extent we just stay content with agreements among like-minded actors towards a greater fragmentation.
So the report, without -- without asserting approaches that would simply not be realistic in the current international climate, does try and make a humble but hopefully realistic plea for strengthening some of the universal mechanisms we have, like the IGF. Making them more inclusive, making them more outcomes oriented. And then it does also have this plea for an advisory body with no -- with no normative powers on AI. You know, always upholding the multistakeholder approach, but then it also makes the plea for a high-level declaration on digital trust and security. So, you know, within the constraints of the rather disfunctional global politics we have now, the report also pushes, within those constraints, for great -- for more universal cooperation mechanisms.
So that's really the basic approach. I mean, the main thing is universal connectivity and mechanisms around that, and it's definitely the chief recommendation. The next set of recommendations is ensuring that connectivity promotes the public good and can you remember tails harms and -- be they threats to human rights or be they other forms of theft or disruption. And then the third set of recommendations is around, you know, governance light, I would say, or governance extra light, building on existing mechanisms to try to uphold the universality, multistakeholder universality of this incredible tool.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Thanks very much, Fabrizio. I think it's really important for us, because as the IGF, those are actually substantive areas that have been discussed at the IGF over the years but which we have not necessarily been able to bring to formal conclusion or resolution in any particular way. But they are concerns that we are familiar with.
Apologies for the noise here.
Just everyone, the sequence of this Q&A session with Fabrizio, first we'll have some inputs from Thomas Schneider from Switzerland, past IGF host country and very actively involved in the High-level Panel, and then we'll have Rudolf Gridl, our very own beloved MAG member and also the host and organizer of IGF 2019.
And then we'll also have a short summary presented I think by Mark Carvell of the NRI, the national, regional, and youth IGF initiative who did their own self-organized response.
So everyone, just keep your interventions brief, and then we'll open to the floor to anyone else who has any question for Fabrizio.
And so, Thomas, are you ready to go?
>>THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you. I hope you can hear me.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I can hear you and see you. And you've got a tie on today.
>>THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Yeah, I put that on only for you. Only for you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: (Indiscernible) me.
>>THOMAS SCHNEIDER: I'm in an office in Bern where I'm normally not so -- yeah. I hope that this whole thing works.
So as some of you may have seen or heard our president of the Swiss Confederation, Ms. Simonetta Sommaruga, expressed a few ideas already during the launch of the roadmap last week where she also referred, of course, to the coronavirus and compared it to a magnifying glass that would, let's say, put the essence or the priorities a little bit easier into our focus.
And also, that the crisis has acted as an accelerator for digitalization, and that we know the technology itself is neutral. Whether the effects of the use of technologies are good or bad depends mainly on the intentions of the people that use it. So if it is used with good intentions and successfully, there are many opportunities to achieve the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals, more efficient, better, faster. Unfortunately, of course, if these technologies are used with bad intentions or with particular interests, they can be used to gain power or control over people, to spread misinformation, to disturb democratic processes, and so on and so forth. So what's important for us is digitization must be put at the service of all people. All people from all over the world. They need to have a voice in shaping digitization through shaping digital cooperation and governance.
So what do we need to do today? We have -- 15 years ago we have agreed at the World Summit on the Information Society, we have agreed that we need a space for inclusive dialogue among all stakeholders, and we have created the IGF, which is a platform for multistakeholder dialogue which is unique in the sense that it's open to everybody. You don't need to ask for permission. You can just participate.
Today, 15 years later, this dialogue is still necessary but we have the feeling that it's, like many others, that it's no longer sufficient. So we need now to go one step further and develop a space where we -- and by we, I mean all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities -- can develop shared rules together.
Last year's recommendation of the High-level Panel, recommendations of the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation, they have been important milestones recommending steps forward. And the U.N. Secretary-General's roadmap (indiscernible)
offer an important next step towards a more inclusive digital cooperation and governance.
Given, and Fabrizio has already referred to it, that it is easier to build on existing mechanisms rather than to try to agree on something new, we are convinced that the best way forward is to use the model of the so-called Internet Governance Forum+; that this has the best chance to bring us to the next step ahead. In this sense, we warmly welcome the excellent measures included in the roadmap oriented to strengthen and develop the ecosystem of digital cooperation and governance in this period of the IGF model. The roadmap contains many important subject-matter goals, from meaningful connectivity to digital public goods, from artificial intelligence to human rights in the digital sphere. From digital trust to children's safety online. In all these areas, we need concrete solutions and decisions that allow us to seize the opportunities and to avoid risks that these technologies bring.
So the problem is that we are -- with our current institutional ecosystem, we need to further develop it in order to produce these solutions through cooperation that is inclusive and based on our shared values.
The High-level Panel, in the discussions there was an image that came up in the discussions that we would like to cook a number of different dishes for different purposes, for different tastes and different situations at different times of the day, but we do not necessarily have the kitchen that is able to produce these dishes. And what we are now trying to do, or what we should be trying to do is to build such a kitchen where everybody can come in, where we can bring all the ingredients that we have so that together we can cook all the dishes that we would want to create and to eat.
And of course we cannot and we should not create this kitchen out of nothing. So again, we should build on the IGF, which basically has already the potential to bring all the people in, bring all the ingredients in, but not just for discussion but actually to shape cooperation and governance in order to make sure that we -- nobody is falling off the table, nobody is left behind, and nobody is forgotten.
So -- And not to be misunderstood. By developing the IGF further, we do not intend or we think the dialogue potential, the dialogue function of the IGF should be in any way modified or destroyed because this is the fundamental. The fundament of the dialogue is, okay, what is the recipe, what is the meal that we would want to cook? What could the solution be? So we need this dialogue as a first step, but now we need to move ahead.
And we think it is an opportunity that we now can show together how the IGF+ can be the place to discuss and find rough consensus-based solutions for many of these issues.
So -- and again, the roadmap includes many good proposals to improve the situation, and we stand ready to assist the U.N. and the future tech envoy together with the whole community worldwide in order to develop the IGF into something that is inclusive and effective, not just as a dialogue but also to produce concrete solutions.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for that, Thomas. In fact next -- I was wrong. In fact next the floor is not going to Rudolf. It's going to another beloved MAG member, Hana who in her capacity as a representative of the United Arab Emirates is along with Germany one of the co-champions. And the two countries that have co-championed recommendation 5a and 5b, United Arab Emirates and Germany. And Hana is a member of the MAG so understands the IGF very well.
Hana, over to you.
>>HANA ALHASHIMI: Thank you very much, Anriette. Thank you.
We all -- as the USG has mentioned a couple of times in the last couple of days, we're all still learning the beauties of the mute button, so bear with us.
Thank you all so very much for -- I really have to say for -- to everyone this, for your active engagement, really from the beginning. But special thanks, of course, to our co-chairs, Germany and the Executive Office of the Secretary-General. It's been a true privilege to be able to work with you on this process. And we're very happy to be able to build on the great work that's coming out of the roadmap.
I think the Under-Secretary-General has outlined sort of very clearly where we've been, how we got here. And from what I can see from the chat, there's a lot of interest in where we are going.
So I'll start with perhaps, you know, a little -- a little -- since that's, I know, what everyone is interested in, the short term of where we're going, at least in our role as co-champions, is that we are taking in the rich inputs that we've received from within and beyond the IGF community in order to come up with hopefully some more concrete next steps to concretize really what's suggested in the roadmap and start to work towards -- towards, you know, implementing the model suggested in the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation's report, and we'll put that in an options paper for the Secretary-General's consideration in the next month.
However, where -- you know, where -- that's just a paper. However, where -- that's just a paper. And I think that one of the things that's been reiterated a few times is that the interest is very much in going beyond pure philosophy of what can be done and starting to implement it, because in the meantime, the -- this has been an area where people's lives are increasingly impacted, whether we're talking about the security, the development, the privacy aspects, it's something that's becoming increasingly urgent and one where we really need to find architectures in order to enhance the work and support progress in that regard.
So the options paper will be a paper for consideration. But that's really just the start. And we very much encourage everyone to remain engaged and remain the important work that you're doing in various aspects. We've heard today from Best Practice Forums, from the dynamic coalitions, different parts of the IGF ecosystems, national, regional initiatives and NIGFs. And there's a lot of work that can continue to happen.
And now that I've addressed, I think, what everyone really wanted to hear, I think that I do want to take some time to do -- to give due thanks especially to Under-Secretary-General Fabrizio Hochschild, and your team, Yu Ping, Jason, Jamal. It's been fantastic to work with you, and we hope to continue to be able to support your work going further.
As this question of really how to cooperate on digital cooperation is something that we heard way back in 2017, and we were very honored to be able to work with Switzerland at the time in consulting with over 120 countries and multiple stakeholders beyond the U.N. on what it is that they think is missing in the current system of Internet governance, and the one answer that kept coming back is this idea of systems of cooperation, this idea of how we cooperate. There are -- as the USG has mentioned a couple of times in the last week, there are a multitude of bilateral, regional, stakeholder-specific or sectoral specific initiatives, and these continue to grow and that's very valuable. But at the individual level, when it comes to increasing the global and increasing the interdependent world and the age of interdependence, that's not sufficient.
But it's also not a given that there has to be a one-size-fits-all or a one-space-fits-all solution to this answer. And that's why, as cochampions, we've been keeping our ears open and keeping the options open in terms of which model of the three could be interesting, how it might be implemented. And a large focus has been on how we can strengthen and enhance the IGF. But we've also heard interest beyond that of what could be done. And workable models are ones that we've been listening for and we will continue to listen for moving forward.
So you've all, I'm sure, also heard, and as our crown prince mentioned, we were very honored that he could be there for the launch of the roadmap. It's now, you know, the time for accelerated cooperation in the right spaces. And we've -- we now have the roadmap. But the challenge is now to actually build the road. I hope you'll all join us in building it. And I hope you continue your important work moving forward.
Our consultations are now largely over as we need to start writing. But we do, of course, encourage you to go beyond, to your own networks, and to see what all (indiscernible) can do.
Thank you very much. And very, very happy to be able to hand over to my twin in this endeavor, which is Rudolf Gridl.
Please go ahead.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Hana.
>>RUDOLF GRIDL: Do you hear me? Do you see me? Hello?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: We can hear you and we can see you.
>>RUDOLF GRIDL: Okay.
So hello to everybody, also from Berlin. Thank you for -- you, Anriette, and to the IGF secretariat for organizing this very smoothly-going online MAG. I'm really impressed. And thank you, of course, to Under-Secretary-General Hochschild for taking the time to explain to us the sorts of new Under-Secretary-General. We were very pleased by the roadmap when it had been published. And we had asked a little bit for the bigger picture. And I think we are, as Hana said, not at the end with this roadmap and the options maybe to come, but at the beginning or the middle at least of a process that will at one point in time end up in what we will probably call the WSIS + 20 process, because in four and a half years' time, we will be 20 years from the WSIS Summit and also from the mandates that had been adopted by then. And it is very important to start now with a broad consultation, with a regionally and multistakeholder-wide diverse consultation with everybody involved to see where can we get -- how shall we adapt the existing system that Fabrizio Hochschild has said was set up at a certain time and was very well fit at the time, how can we adapt it to the time that we will face now and in the years to come. And for that, the process that started with the high-level report, with the roadmap, and with the options paper that has been mentioned will be an essential one. But I would like to say in this context that I think that the IGF and the MAG itself can play an important role.
We will hear something about the input by the NRIs. We were actually very pleased to have this input. It was very substantial, it was very diverse. It is something that we cherish and value a lot. And we will hear more about it in the next intervention. But I think also the exchange we had in the MAG in January and the exchange we had, for instance, in EuroDIG before were very valuable and will add to what will come out of this process.
So as a cochampion, of course, it is not our role to formulate national positions and to have our own opinion being on the forefront. But we see ourselves as honest brokers of what we get as inputs. And it has been said before, the IGF Plus model seems to be the one that everyone can gather around and where we need to build upon. And it is also clear that it will not be an inclusive exercise. We will have to add elements from the other proposed models, and we will need to do out of it a good, common structure and architecture for the years to come. And the most important questions that we have seen are multistakeholders must be involved at all times. Bottom-up process must be kept alive. At the same time, many people are calling for a clearer agenda-setting, a leaner agenda of the IGF, and also for better interaction between the discussions going on in the IGF and the decisions being taken elsewhere. I think there, we have to find some kind of linking mechanism. And that will be a challenge, of course, to everyone. But I think we will get there.
And we learned in Berlin also that the implication of everybody, from the political sphere, parliamentarians, ministers, secretaries of state, and vice ministers, has been very fruitful and enriching for the IGF. So I think that's also something, and we heard it a lot from the inputs that we should keep and try to somehow maintain.
I hope that we will be able to present to the SG an options paper by the end of July. If it is a few days later, please bear with us. There is a lot of input that we have to process. But by then, as I said at the beginning, the process will not be over; it will be another step in a larger picture. And I hope that the IGF and the MAG will play an essential role, as it has before, in this process.
Thank you so much for the time being, Anriette.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Rudolf and Hana and Thomas.
And, Fabrizio, before we go on to other questions -- there are several in the chat -- did you want to respond to these three inputs before we move on?
>>MR. FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: I wholeheartedly agree with everything that's been said. And I think it's perhaps an open secret that if the Secretary-General embarked on this journey three years ago, in April 2017, four months after his appointment, it really was thanks to a lunch organized here by Switzerland and the UAE, where they invited former Secretary of State Kissinger, who eloquently made the point, with many stakeholders from other parts of the world, that the world was facing a dangerous combination of a rapidly accelerating technology without adequate thought or policy frameworks to ensure that it was entirely beneficial.
And the UAE and Switzerland were very instrumental and key supporters of the high-level panel. We were very privileged to have Doris Leuthard, the former president of Switzerland, on the panel, as well as a very distinguished UAE minister, the minister for the future, very aptly. And they've been steady supporters throughout. And we were also very privileged to have President Sommaruga at the launch, and also the minister of AI from the UAE. And Germany has also been a very key supporter. So we're lucky to have such partners.
But I would emphasize what Olive said. I mean, the roadmap is exactly that, a roadmap. And to quote Hana, we have the roadmap, but the challenge is to actually build the road.
And to quote Rudolf, this is another step in a larger picture. This is a milestone in what is going to be a very, very long and hard road. We have no delusions about how easy it's going to be to get universal connectivity. We have no delusions about how easy it is to get international understanding and a common pronunciation on principles which will guide digital trust and security. Those -- some of the tasks are politically fraught. Some of the tasks are logistically fraught.
One thing is clear: That if we maintain the unity of purpose, if we maintain a multistakeholder, geographically diverse unity of purpose, we will make a lot of progress. So the road is long, but I have no doubt we'll make good progress on it if we can continue working as well together as we have thus far in the formulation of the roadmap across regions and across stakeholder groups.
So we're in this -- the Secretary-General, having been, you know, pushed on this road, is in this for the long term. And we hope very much that we can continue working all together in the long term, because that's what it will take.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, FABRIZIO. It definitely takes time. For those of us who have been part of the existing process since the WSIS, it is -- building cooperation and partnership in this way does take time. And often the changes and the achievements are incremental.
But we know it can be done.
And I'd like to ask the secretariat -- I can't see the speaker queue at the moment. But there are various questions in the chat.
So, Lima, can you read the questions in the chat for Fabrizio to respond to?
We'll that I can round of questions. I see there's a long speakers' queue.
And then we will move on to -- let's finish this queue, close it for now. And then we'll have the NRI input briefly.
Lima, are you ready?
>>LIMA MADOMI: Hi, Anriette. Yes, I am ready. But there is a lot of question, I am not sure if I should go first or -- because there might be some of them already in the queue.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: That's a good idea.
Let's do that. Let's start -- will you just please keep note. There are some people who questioned in the chat who said that they cannot take the floor. So if you can just take note of those. But let's move on, and I'll give the floor to Jutta Croll. You'll be our first speaker.
>>JUTTA CROLL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Jutta Croll, MAG member in my third year representing civil society. I'm from Germany.
I wanted to thank Under-Secretary-General Hochschild and all the other people working around the roadmap and the reports for the special emphasis that was given to child protection, which is an issue that only can be solved by cooperation. Child rights advocates around the world have very much appreciated that the report refers to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. And you may already know that the child's rights committees is working on a children comment on children's rights in the digital environment. So there is a very close link between these activities.
What we've seen with the COVID-19 pandemic, it has a huge impact on children's lives. And that is not only in regard of their rights to protection, but also in regard of their rights on freedom of speech, on peaceful assembly and association, but also their rights to privacy, and especially their right to education is impacted by COVID-19. The digital divide has become more obvious in these times, and it's very natural that we react to that to be better prepared to overcome the digital divide and to be better prepared in times of crisis and also in times of the new normality that we hopefully will get back to.
So thanks again for putting so much emphasis on children's rights and on their right to be protected.
Thank you so much.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Jutta.
Next, we have Esteve Sanz.
And Esteve, please just introduce yourself for the record, please.
>>Esteve SANZ: Just checking, can you hear me? Can you hear me?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, we can hear and see you.
>>Esteve SANZ: Perfect. So thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Under-Secretary. My name is Esteve Sanz. I'm the head of sector of the Internet Governance of the European Commission. And I am going to speak on behalf of my institution.
First of all, the European Commission very much welcomes the publication of the roadmap as a way to streamline the work of the roundtable from the different recommendations from the U.N. report. Thank you for your hard work and very good results.
In particular, on recommendation 5a and 5b on the future cooperation on government's mechanisms, the European Commission supports the development of the proposal for an IGF Plus that will make the IGF more responsive and relevant while not discarding certain positive aspects of the other two models being discussed.
European Commission, alongside other stakeholders, has put forward suggestions on how to improve the IGF that are aligned with several roadmap recommendations. In particular, the suggestion to have a mechanism to coordinate follow-up actions on IGF discussions and link them to appropriate normative and decision-making forums. The need for the IGF to have a more focused agenda based on a limited number of strategic policy issues. The possibility of stronger links among the global forum and its regional, national, subregional, and youth initiatives. The idea of better integrating program and intersessional policy developments work to support priority areas. The need to address the long-term sustainability of the forum and the resources necessary for increased participation.
European Commission welcomes the more direct and closer involvement of the U.N. Secretary-General in the IGF Plus model and the appointment of an tech envoy to advise the U.N. Secretary-General on global digital cooperation, while maintaining a fully stakeholder, bottom-up, and inclusive approach.
We also welcome the creation of a strategic and empowered multistakeholder high-level body that builds on the experience of the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group.
The European Commission will continue to cooperate actively with the U.N. Secretary-General office in the follow-up of this roadmap and its recommendation, as well as the roundtable process, conscious, as we have discussed already, that this is just the first step in a long process of implementation.
European Commission invites all the other parties to do the same, and while the long horizon for the community is the WSIS + 20 milestone in 2025, we agree with the U.N. Secretary-General that the time is to act now.
Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Esteve, and thank you very much for being with us today.
Fabrizio, I'm hoping you're keeping note. There's a very long queue of people.
Next I'm going to ask Lima -- Let's take two more questions, and then I'll give you a chance to respond and then we'll continue.
Lima, can you please read those questions from -- I think there's Amirhossein and Chrystiane who are not able to take the mic or anyone else who has put their question in the chat and is not able to take the mic.
Lima, are you ready?
>>LIMA MADOMI: Yes, I am ready. There is one question from Chrystiane. He said: What next? With this roadmap there are lots of excellent recommendation in it, namely around the urgency of connectivity, an explicit call to end Internet shutdowns, a call for human-centered development of AI among others. As we know, in the U.N., decisions are taken by U.N. member states via resolution or treaties. This document is the issued roadmap, so is he the one implementing it? Does he instruct, for instance, ITU to drop everything else and get connectivity done? Where does the funding come from?
We have another question from --
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Lima, just to pause, just for the record, that question came from Chrystiane Roy from the Canadian mission in Geneva. And thanks, Lima. Move on to the next.
>>LIMA MADOMI: Thank you.
The next question is from Jim, from Jim, the Galway Strategy Group. He says: On the role of digital envoy, would it be a full-time U.N. staff position? An external part-time advisory? Would it play a role in facilitating connections between the IGF and other fora dealing with digital policy issue inside and external to the U.N. system? Thanks.
We have another question from Dalsie. She says -- it says: So fulfilling to hear a lot of positive statements about a lot of works done on the roadmap of digital cooperation. Is the copy of this roadmap being circulated? Which I think Sylvia already respond. Sorry for that.
I think -- I don't see any other one.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Lima. And, Fabrizio, that question from Dalsie is a MAG member from the South Pacific. I think it's early hours of the morning for her at the moment.
Fabrizio, should I give you a chance to respond to those initial questions before we move on?
>>MR. FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Yes, please. Yes, thank you. First of all, on Dalsie's question, the report is freely available on our website and there's a lot of explanatory communications material around it. And if anybody's unsure about the links, we can certainly reshare them. But obviously we want the roadmap to be disseminated as broad as possible, and we've created tools to make that easier much on Jim's question around the tech envoy, my understanding is it would be a full-time position. It's not one of these one-dollar-a-year envoys that get engaged part time. It would be a full-time position with a modest office supporting him or her.
I mean, I think the principle role of the envoy would be driving forward the digital cooperation agenda, driving forward the implementation of the roadmap. So to that end, it would most certainly also have a role in being an interface between the IGF and other bodies.
But that -- that -- it should be made clear, though, that, you know, this tech envoy position would not be a tech czar. It wouldn't be like the counter-terrorism czar that the U.S. appointed post 9/11 where there was a new head of Homeland Security who had executive authority over all entities that preexisted that were dealing with the issue. That's not the idea. This person, whether he or she, will not be directing all tech activities in the U.N. They will have a coordinating role, and they will be an interface for the tech community. They will keep the Secretary-General senior management updated on relevant tech developments, but above all they will be driving forward but through cooperation, not through direction, the implementation of the roadmap.
I mean, what next? The question of Chrystiane. We will -- I mean, the roadmap is out there, so we will now see how member states react. From the launch events, we've got pretty positive feedback from north and from south. I think -- I mean, it's not surprising, because the roadmap was put together through a very consultative process so people, you know, had inputs.
You know, some issues definitely have to be driven by member states. Anything that is governance related, any global declaration on digital trust and security, that will have to be -- come out of member states. The Secretary-General has no authority for independent action in that sense.
But driving forward the multistakeholder agenda, promoting the idea of universal connectivity, which is not, I don't think, controversial is something where the Secretary-General will do everything possible to multiply efforts. But the Secretary-General is not going to start directing ITU what to do. I mean, the ITU has its own governance body. It's a specialized agency. It's not strictly on the authority of the Secretary-General. But having said that, ITU have been -- we have a very gifted staff member of ITU on our team. Houlin Zhao has been hugely supportive during lockdown, has been hugely supportive, so we're working very much hand in hand. But how we move forward will depend on the alliances we can build and maintain to drive forward momentum. The SG has no Chapter 7 powers just to make this happen.
So keeping up, maintaining the multistakeholder momentum for the priorities set out in the roadmap is -- will be critical. And the engagement of all of you will be critical in that process.
And as a next step, you know, we will be mapping out what to do next with our existing multistakeholder consultation groups that all have an open-door policy, so anybody is free to join at anytime. And we'll be consulting with them cluster by cluster about how we promote the implementation from here on.
We're very grateful of the support of the European Commission that Esteve Sanz expressed. I mean, I think there are many, many lessons to be learned from the work done that the Commission has done in this area and continues to do. We certainly share the view of the Secretary-General, is very emphatic and has been at his two IGF appearances in Paris and in Berlin about the need for an bottom-up, inclusive, multistakeholder approach.
And finally, on children's rights and Jutta's point, I have to say, I mean, you know, as the father of three children who grew up, they are now all adolescents, in the digital age, and as someone who did not, you know, I've learned a great deal through them, both of the benefits and of the threats, especially now in COVID. I mean, the three of them can now continue their education, one of them at university level, two at school level, thanks to digital connectivity. But it also reminds me just how many people in the world don't have that advantage.
But I'm also very aware of the risks. And for me, you know, if there's one area that illustrates the deficit in international cooperation and the -- the way that existing mechanisms, as good as they are, have not risen to the challenge, it is the protection of child rights. I mean, when it comes to issues like acceptable processes for surveillance of citizens, when it comes to issues like how we define freedom of speech, when it comes to issues like how individual countries interpret their application of their human rights obligations on their citizens, we have very divergent views. And it's very difficult to negotiate those divergent views and get universal approaches.
But when it comes to the protection of child rights and when it comes to seeing the Internet as something that should benefit children and not be a threat to them, I don't think there are very divergent views between north, south, east and west. I think there's a broad international consensus that children should not be harmed over the Internet. And yet all the statistics show, all the experts say that harm to children has grown at a more rapid speed than connectivity. So this is an area where you can't say but east and west see things differently or we see human rights differently or we have different approaches. No. Everybody shares the same values in this area, and yet cooperation -- and it takes international cooperation, because as you all know, the consumers of child abuse can be in one country and the producers more often than not are in another country. And so it is an international problem.
So even in an area where there's clear consensus on an international level, the cooperation mechanisms that we have are not effective or not adequately effective in curtailing the harms.
So, you know, it's very clear that we need to improve our game, and it's nowhere better illustrated than this. And I think if there's one tangible outcome that we want out of this process, it's to make sure that children of the future will benefit equally from connectivity and will benefit safely from Internet connectivity.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Fabrizio. I wish I could respond to that myself, but I won't; I'm the chair.
We have a question in the chat, excuse me, everyone, about sanctions, about digital sanctions. Will this roadmap or this process that we're establishing help address, for example, how a country -- the question is from Iran, how some countries are affected by not getting access to certain technology, certain Internet technology. So that's one question for you to note.
And then we've got a long queue here. Everyone, we are going to have to go over a little bit, but, please, we need to let Fabrizio go and we need to close our meeting, so keep your questions very short.
And, Fabrizio, I am going to give everyone a chance, and we still need a two-minute input from the NRIs, and then I hope note to keep you too much longer.
Next we have Giacomo Mazzone.
>>GIACOMO MAZZONE: Yes. Thank you very much, Anriette. Thank you, Fabrizio, for listening to us.
Just very short comment to what has been said.
I think that we need to go for the IGF+ model, of course, but need to integrate in it and to organize around it a link, strong link with all the good things that already exist. For instance, the Broadband Commission of the ITU is a very interesting model. The WSIS produced very interesting reflections. But even other things that we are not usually thinking about. Like the United Kingdom/Canada initiative on freedom of expression that was launched last year has a lot of things to see and a lot of contribution possible if we are able to integrate all of that in the roadmap.
So I think as has been said by Anja, by Esteve and others, we need to think -- and by Thomas, we need to think like global architecture where all these things can work together and can find their place. And of course, preaching for my community, I think that media are still not properly figure out in this panorama why they are an essential tool if we are going to reach 100% of the population. So I still insist for getting this in the picture as best as possible.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Giacomo.
Nigel, and -- you are next, and after Nigel we have Danko. But just before, Danko, I give you the floor, I believe there's a question in the chat that Lima will read for us.
So next we have Nigel.
>>NIGEL HICKSON: Yes, and thank you very much. Thank you, Under-Secretary-General.
Three very brief points. I'm Nigel Hickson. I'm speaking on my own behalf. I have a bit of history on Internet governance, but apart from that, nothing -- nothing significant at all.
First of all, thank you very much for the launch last week of the roadmap and the incredible work that went into that. And also for the implementation sessions which you hosted on Friday and yesterday. I thought these were particularly useful in sort of teasing out some of the underlying points in the roadmap.
Secondly, as others have said, it's a great -- it's very encouraging to see the support given to the Internet Governance Forum in the roadmap. It's really excellent to hear the interventions that we heard earlier from the United Arab Emirates and Germany, the co-hosts of the roundtable on that and how they're taking forward the options paper. And I think this is going to be very significant, indeed, for the IGF.
One of the points picked up from the consultations that I've been taking part in on the -- on the different models was the -- obviously the need for the IGF to enhance, to be nimble, to be flexible, and to perhaps take account of some of the support given in many quarters to the -- to the issue and to the concept of Internet commons and of norms.
Thirdly, Mr. Under-Secretary-General, to finish, you said very eloquently, I think, on a couple of occasions in the last two, three days that some of the interventions, if you didn't know who they came from, you wouldn't have known who they came from. In other words, the support given to the basics of connectivity, to inclusion, to having a -- security, et cetera. And I'm just wondering whether, you know, in light of that and for the passionate endorsement that you've given for the multistakeholder approach, which I think has been absolutely excellent, whether we've turned the corner in this debate. Whether this roadmap has perhaps been as significant as the WSIS process and also the work that went on subsequent to it. But whether this has been a real turning point on the road of Internet -- Internet governance.
Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Thanks, Nigel.
And, Fabrizio, sorry that you're being overwhelmed with so many questions.
Next we have the question that Lima will read, which is I think from -- and someone in the online chat, again from Iran.
Lima, are you ready?
>>LIMA MADOMI: Hi. Yes, I'm ready. I have a question from Amirhossein. He say: My question to dear USG: What is your strategy to solve the key issue of digital identity in international level and international architecture level? If international community under -- sorry -- under U.N. can solve all these old problem, many security issues, cybercrimes and cyberattacks would be solved and accountability gaps will be filled. What does U.N. roadmap strategy and solution in this regard? Many thanks for your efforts during this year.
And I have one comment from Hana. She say: Special appreciation to Jovan Kurbalija for his instrumental role with the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation report for building capacities on governance and for your continued leadership.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Lima, and, yes, thanks very much to Jovan.
Next I'm giving the floor to.
>>DANKO JEVTOVIC: My name is Danko Jevtovic, I'm from Serbia, a developing country in southeast Europe, and I'm speaking in my personal capacity. Mr. Under-Secretary-General, thank you for presenting us this roadmap and taking the time for our questions.
I believe this is a hugely important work for the core Internet ecosystem, and as said, the roadmap includes many, many excellent solutions.
But I have some questions, and the first question is about multistakeholderism in the implementation roadmap. I'm very happy that the U.N. is ready to serve as a platform for the multistakeholder policy dialogue, but from the document it seems, at least to me, that the roadmap recognizes the movement towards a more multilateral approach where member states remain at the center -- I'm quoting one of the sentences, "remain in the center and other stakeholders are only consulted."
So another question I believe is central is about funding. We are all aware of the current (indiscernible) term of the IGF process. So my question is how can the U.N. digital cooperation plans and possible IGF+ model that we all recognize, how can that be effective without proper funding, hopefully by being part of regular U.N. budget sometime in future.
So the representation you gave us on the roadmap is very encouraging. And it's obviously based on the complex realities that (indiscernible) the roadmap has built through them.
But can I please ask a bit of your more comments on those two questions.
So thank you very much.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. Thanks, Danko.
Fabrizio, I just want to check that you're able to stay with us about ten minutes longer than scheduled. Is that okay?
>>MR. FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: It is. It is.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you so much. Because we really have a lot of interest.
So next -- and I know you're being overwhelmed with quite challenging questions.
Next, we have Paul Blaker taking the floor.
Paul, please introduce yourself for the record.
>>PAUL BLAKER: Thank you. It's Paul Blaker here speaking for the U.K. government. Thank you for the opportunity to take the floor.
The U.K. has welcomed the publication of the roadmap, and in particular, of course, we strongly support the work to develop an IGF Plus. We suggested some concrete steps to make IGF Plus a reality, and we have donated just over $300,000 to transform the IGF website and help make IGF Plus become a reality. So we'd like very much to thank the UAE and thank Germany for the work that they are doing as cochampions and chairing and supporting the work of the roundtable on recommendation 5.
I have two quick questions. The first question, it would be good to understand more about the process for developing the options paper. Will that be a paper by the UAE and Germany? Or will the roundtable constituents be involved in developing that? And how will that process work?
And my second question, the roadmap says the Secretary-General will create a strategic, an empowered high-level body, building on the experience of the MAG.
It would be good to understand a bit more of the thinking there. Will that be replacing the MAG or additional to the MAG? How will the two sit next to each other? I wonder if it's possible just to understand some of the issues and some of the thinking behind that proposal.
Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for your questions, Paul. Thanks very much for that.
Next we have Raquel Gatto, past MAG member.
Raquel, you have the floor.
>>RAQUEL GATTO: Thank you so much, Anriette. And I hope you all can hear me. I was having problems with my audio earlier.
I do want to -- Well, I'm Raquel Gatto. I'm speaking in my individual capacity. If Nigel has little history on the Internet governance, I have less than that. So, anyway, that's my background.
But I wanted to take my intervention into three pieces. The first one is to take some time to really be grateful for all the work the undersecretariat and his team, as well as all the co-champs and everyone involved, is taking, despite all the challenges with the pandemic. I guess we've been complaining for all the travel and the time we take for travels, but I've seen you all in the calls, and you are probably now suffering with the burnout from Zoom calls or whatever platform you are using. So thank you very much for all the things that you do and the efforts put there.
If anything, what we've heard over the last days and with this moment, with the launch of the roadmap, with the EuroDIG, the regional IGF that took over last weekend, those -- these two days with the MAG, is that we need to take the time to -- sorry, I have a plane coming up. Just -- as I talked about travel, I think they heard me.
So what we heard is that we need to take this time also to be looking into the impact of the new technologies in facing the COVID pandemic, but also in terms of being grateful not only for the tool, for the Internet that made us, with social and economic resiliency, but also for the ecosystem which brought this reliability to face such a huge challenge. And as I was saying, the tenacity of all the individuals. So being grateful is our first -- is my first message.
The other point I wanted to say is that I think the MAG has been taking this unique position not only to look into the expected evolution and changes, the IGF Plus is outlined in the roadmap and will be further outlined in the options paper. And all those discussions are already taking place in the MAG. Earlier on, we were listening for this wonderful news, having hosts aligned and announced in really early days. So having Poland, Ethiopia, and Japan coming next for the IGF is a proof point for its relevancy, for having countries with the commitment, but also with the community and bringing out the diversity that is crucial for those discussions.
And as we come together not only with the crowdsourcing of the community and the grass roots that Giacomo and others were mentioning when we take the time to listen, but also that we take the time to act and to do our report.
So this is the unique position that the MAG is facing, and with the unexpected challenges that the first time ever, the IGF is going to be hosted online.
So that's, I guess, a very challenging year. But I think we are in this great position to take it on and to build further.
And my question, finally, on the -- my --
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Can you --
>>RAQUEL GATTO: I'm so sorry. I'm not one of those brief persons.
So I would take further what Danko, Chrystiane, and other started in the next chapter, what comes next.
I understood that the roadmap is out there. And we heard from Hana that the options paper is coming out with more detailed assessment and sort of recommendations and suggestions to go further.
But also, with the U.N. environment, we have the 75th General Assembly coming up. We have also keeping the eye on the ball of the next five years with the WSIS in 2025. And if there are Under-Secretary, Fabrizio, if there are any expectations in terms of the time frames or time lines in how we can get this up-front.
Thank you very much. And I'm sorry for taking the time, Anriette.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: I have to ask everyone to please keep your interventions much more briefly than that.
Next, we have Bruna Santos, also from Brazil. But, Bruna, before you speak, before he leaves, in case he does, I just want to say to Paul Blaker thank you very much for the U.K. government's support for revamping and improving the IGF's website. It's really a very important initiative. We look forward to it. So I hope you're still here that you can hear that. Thank you, Paul, and thanks to the U.K. government.
Bruna, you have the floor, then we have Susan Chalmers, then Shawna Finnegan and then the response from the champions and the NRI feedback before Fabrizio has the last word.
Bruna, you have the floor.
>>BRUNA SANTOS: Thank you, everyone.
My name is Bruna Santos, and I work with Coding Rights, which is an NGO based here in Brazil.
I just want to add a short note on congratulations to the USG for all the work with the digital cooperation roadmap, the experts roundtable, and so on. On behalf of Coding Rights, I guess I can say that we found it very important that the topics --
(Multiple people speaking simultaneously.)
>>BRUNA SANTOS: Sorry.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: On muted. Please, if you're not speaking, mute your mic.
Go ahead, Bruna.
>>BRUNA SANTOS: Thanks, Anriette.
Just to mention that we were happy to see that the topics of human rights in the digital age actually transcended the roundtable 3a/b and we're taking to a more central topic and to a more central core of this document, as well as discussions on digital identities, content moderation, AI, and the enhancement of digital cooperation.
It is important to mention that all of these topics have been debated at the IGF for years. And it's also really important and relevant to see the synergies between the two spaces.
As one of the constituencies of the roundtable 3a and b, we look forward to continue the cooperation with the implementation on the recommendations for the upcoming years.
But I do have a question as well on the next steps, which I think have been already addressed with some other colleagues here.
USG Fabrizio started to address it by mentioning that the roundtable will be involved in this process of implementation. But with regards to more explicit terms of these next steps, I do believe and agree that some of the actions can be taken by the states, but there are a lot of other actions and maybe a plethora of other discussions that can be shared between civil society, private sector, academia, and so on.
So my question would be if there is such thing as a mapping of those actions already or any other topics or convergencies that any other actors can be involved. And just put ourselves in position for any other future work on these topics.
Thank you very much.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you, Bruna. And my apologies that I have to rush you. MAG members know I like to finish on time.
Susan Chalmers, you have the floor.
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: Thank you, Anriette. Are you able to hear me?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, we can hear you clearly.
>>SUSAN CHALMERS: Okay. Thank you. I actually did withdraw my hand, but I don't think the system updated. I'd like to thank Paul Blaker for actually asking the question that I was interested in.
So I will yield my time. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Susan. And that was, for the record, Susan Chalmers, a MAG member from the U.S. government.
Next, we have Shawna Finnegan.
>>SHAWNA FINNEGAN: Hi. Thank you so much for the opportunity to share a brief question.
So my name is Shawna Finnegan. I work with the Association for Progressive Communications. I'm based in Winnipeg, in Canada.
So my question is in relation to the impact of technology on the environment and opportunities to use technology to respond to the climate crisis.
The introduction to the report refers to the impact and opportunities of technology on the environment, but notes that there is not explicit indication of environmental issues in the panel's reports.
Under-Secretary, thank you so far for being here with us, if you're able, can you speak to some of the ways in which the environment is considered implicitly in the report, such as guidance on impact assessments in the development and use of digital technologies?
Thank you very much for the time.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Shawna.
And, Fabrizio, my apologies that you have this long list of questions to respond to. But just in order to give you the time to respond to everything, I would now like the national, regional IGF initiatives to give us a two-minute snapshot of the input paper that was produced by the IGF national and regional and youth IGF initiatives.
And then we'll allow Fabrizio to respond and Rudolf and Hana if they wanted to add.
Mark, are you ready?
>>MARK CARVELL: Two minutes, that's quite a tall order. I'll see what I can do.
But, first of all, appreciation on behalf of the NRI Task Force to the Under-Secretary-General for joining us and spending so much time to listen to a fascinating array of questions that have emerged so far. And some of those have been picked up, indeed, in the NRI Task Force survey, which I was very pleased to assist the task in reviewing responses of, working with Anja and Titti Cassa and Pierre-Jean Darres in bringing out the common elements of the 111, I think it was, responses to the survey last month, the questionnaire survey last month. And also very wide range of responses geographically and across all the major constituencies. So it was a very successful, in my view, survey, quickly put together by the task force. And that was a very impressive piece of networking and collaboration by the NRI network.
So, quickly moving on to what did the responses basically say, well, there was overwhelming support for sustaining global digital cooperation mechanisms that are multistakeholder, multidisciplinary, accessible, and open, transparent processes covering all perspectives. So very strong reinforcement of that key aspect of engagement and openness in devising the way forward for digital cooperation.
And as has been readily commented previously, the IGF Plus model of the three options of the architecture was the overwhelming choice, preference, in terms of devising the core architecture, if you like, of the governance of digital cooperation. So very strong support for that.
But also picking up a point that Rudolf made early, there were quite a lot of comments about pulling in some of the elements of the other two options, the distributed co-governance architecture and the digital commons architecture, the other one, pulling in some elements of those into a kind of hybrid, if you like version of the IGF Plus approach, which that was -- there were a lot of comments saying, you know, don't automatically rule out the other options, there were good points that came out of the thinking that the high-level panel put into the architecture as shown in those other options.
Another key point, I think, worth noting was that there was a lot of support for the IGF Plus in its future role having the facility to make recommendations.
The IGF in the past has always had that as a sort of thing in the back pocket, but never done it. But in terms of giving a function which has more impact for the multistakeholder process examining the challenges of digital and the way forward for the Internet and so on, the ability to make recommendations for other parts of the Internet community, of the ecosystem of governance of digital to pick up and implement, there was a lot of support for that as a conceptual move forward for the IGF in delivering real impact.
And also, a third key point was integrating the NRI networks into this whole architecture so that they are the channels for pushing up proposals and thoughts and opportunities for dialogue from the national and regional level into the global forum and then wider dissemination. The NRIs can have that important role in disseminating outputs at the local and national level.
The survey also had questions about the elements of functions that could be developed into the IGF Plus, the cooperation accelerator, policy incubator. A lot of support for that, but some caution of looking at what already exists, not, hopefully, duplicating what does exist and works successfully. For example, observatories, there are observatories around that do that. And maybe help desks, that function could be at a much lower level, the local and regional level rather than global level of the IGF Plus.
Support for strengthening the linkage to the U.N., the appointment of the tech envoy, all of that came through very positively in the responses to the survey.
So that's very quick. I probably went way over two minutes, Anriette. Apologies. But maybe in the chat, the link -- maybe Anja could put that into the link.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Anja has already posted the link.
>>MARK CARVELL: You'll get a lot more detail. I hope that's helpful in informing Anna and Rudolf and, indeed, the Secretary-General's team as they concretize the roadmap and the proposal so they can serve the global community.
I hope that's helpful. Thank you.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much. And my apologies that we didn't allocate two hours to this session.
So I want to give now the floor back to Fabrizio to answer as many of those questions as he had time to capture, and then to Rudolf and Hana. And I know Thomas Schneider cannot be with us. But Jorge is with us, Jorge Cancio.
I noticed, Hana, just watch the chat. I see there's a question for you in the chat.
But, Fabrizio, first I'm going to give the floor to you to respond to this flood of questions and responses.
>>MR. FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Thank you, Anriette. And they're all excellent questions.
If I could just make an appeal also for now and for the future, but please just -- if everybody could just call me Fabrizio, it would be much simpler. So please refer to me as Fabrizio. And forgive me if I also refer to you by your first names.
First there was a question from Iran on sanctions. I mean, the Secretary-General since late March has been very clear in appealing for the easing or the waiving of sanctions in public health interests against the backdrop of COVID. And those words have been echoed by Michelle Bachelet, the High Commissioner for Human Rights. So the Secretary-General's position on that is very clear.
In terms of Giacomo's point about global architecture, we fully agree, we want bottom-up approaches, inclusive approaches. But "global" is the key word, because there's a tendency in this domain, which is growing, towards fragmentation of approaches either by stakeholder groups or among like-minded states. And as important as that can be as a stepping-stone towards more global approaches, we will be undermining the -- many of the benefits of the Internet if we can't get global cooperation functioning better.
On Nigel's point, very eloquent point, you know, does the roadmap represent -- have we turned a corner? I mean, I found the response to the roadmap so far tremendously encouraging. I think there were, you know, more than the usual diplomatic words of support. I think the roadmap did hit a chord. It struck a note that has become much more relevant against the backdrop of COVID, you know, the threat of inequality posed by lack of progress on universal connectivity. I don't think there's any disagreement on that.
The needs for more safe and secure Internet, the need for the digital technology to be of broader benefit to the public good, I think, at least in general terms, there's no disagreement in that. When we start to define what we mean exactly by safe and secure, yes, we'll get into disagreements.
But I think there is a broad convergence -- I don't want to say consensus, because it's just not true. But there is a convergence of views which I hope we can build on.
You know, there are -- it's no secret that there are states who have reservations about the multistakeholder.
I don't think it's so much about the multistakeholder model. I think it's more about, you know, the role of states within that. I think there's a number of states who want to assert and uphold that states have particular responsibilities to uphold the particular good.
And I think that -- I'm not sure that many of us would disagree with that. But we have -- in putting together the roadmap, we've had people around the table as equals. But we have -- in putting together the roadmap, we've had people around the table as equals. Member state representatives, industry representatives, civil society representatives, and that's been tremendously productive. And we will try and move forward on that basis.
But when it comes to passing legislation, when it comes to upholding public policy through measures, I mean, states have unique responsibilities. And I think it's -- it's something that we live with the benefits from, those responsibilities.
So I -- we'll see how far we get. We'll see what pushback there is. I think the real test will be as we try and implement. But again, maintaining this alliance, not -- you know, if the SG is left alone to pursue this, we won't get very far. If we can maintain the very productive relationships, multistakeholder models that helped us put the roadmap together, I'm sure we will make important advances.
There was a question on digital identity. You know, this is an interesting point, because, frankly, the High-level Panel, you know, co-chaired by Jack Ma and Melinda Gates, was divided on this issue. And if you look at the language on digital identity in the panel report, it's rather cautious because there were divisions of view. There were those that really felt that the panel should come out very strongly for digital identity and there are those who had very strong reservations.
The Secretary-General in his report has come out very clearly for digital identity, but digital identity with adequate safeguards for privacy, with adequate safeguards against human rights abuses. So he's taken -- In articulating his position, he's gone further than the High-level Panel felt it could go given the dissenting voices within it.
Now, how we go about implementing that is a long -- you know, is a long, hard road. I mean, there are many excellent examples, Estonia is one, of effective digital identity systems set up with adequate safeguards against human rights abuses and full transparency, but how far that can be universalized, who knows.
The panel makes for -- the report, not the panel, makes very clear that digital identity is a key tool for integrating international systems, those who now have no nationality, no identity. And because they have no nationality, no identity, they're deprived all benefits of the protection of state, of social services, et cetera. And that is the group the Secretary-General, not least because of his background with UNHR who have a unique mandate with regard to state disbursements, who the Secretary-General has a particular concern and a very heartfelt concern for. So I think at least for that group, we will see the U.N. trying to do much more.
A question -- there was a question from Danko in Serbia, and, you know, I actually had the privilege of living in Serbia. I had a daughter who was born in Serbia, so I know it -- I know it very well, and I'm an admirer. I have many, many friends there.
You know, the -- his question was really around keeping multilateral approaches at the center. And that is very much the aim. I mean, that's what the U.N. stands for, not just multilateral but universal multilateral, global multilateral. That is our added value. And then he had a question on funding.
I mean, all resources for this will have to be mobilized from voluntary sources. There's huge pressure on the regular U.N. budget. The question of increasing the U.N. budget is out of the question at the moment.
So all the work we've done on this, from the -- from the High-level Panel to the follow-up to the High-level Panel report, has all been mobilized from private sources: from foundations, from the private sector, and from states. And we've been fortunate that we've had support, but there will be a need for further support moving forward. And -- but that will -- we will be dependent on voluntary support, and we will now start a fundraising program on the basis of the roadmap.
Paul from the UK had a question that I understand the U.S., you know, echoed around, you know, expressing a preference for the IGF+ model. I'll leave it to Hana and Rudolf to respond to the question about what the consultation will be on the options paper, but my understanding is the options paper has been extremely broadly consulted. But they will present the paper to us, I think, when it's done. If I'm not mistaken, July, but I'm sure Hana and Rudolf will talk to that.
In terms of the high-level body that participates in the roadmap, it's not to replace the MAG. It's complementary to the MAG. But part of the issue that we want to see with the IGF+ or strengthened IGF is that it has more impact on policymakers; that it's a better link to policymakers. I mean, part of the argument of the Secretary-General has been that these issues that are transforming our world in ways that we are only beginning to understand now, from our democracies and our democratic systems to how -- to our human rights, to questions of equality, need to be discussed at a more senior policy level. And that's when the Secretary-General had a High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation not a technical panel on cooperation. That's why the Secretary-General believes that these discussions should be held at the highest level possible, among state leaders.
So I think the idea of this body would be to really connect better with global leaders, global opinion makers on these issues. These issues are transforming the world as we know it. So to keep saying that we have this or that obscure body dealing with it, we don't need to worry, I -- I'm not sure if that's working, quite frankly. And as I say, harm to children, which nobody agrees with, is one sign that it's not working. So we want to raise the stature of the discussions and raise the impact among decision-makers of the discussion, and that's the purpose, and it's very complementary to the MAG in that regard.
Raquel had a question around timelines. I mean, we'll have to map out the timelines for implementation. I mean, I don't think that's going to be so easy. Some things -- you know, some things are very straightforward from a logistics and an implementation point of view, but tremendously fraught from a political point of view. Other things are tremendously difficult from a logistics and implementation point of view, but relatively straightforward from a political point of view. And nothing is easy on both sides of the equation.
So, you know, a global declaration on digital trust and security, I suspect virtually any one of us could draft it overnight. But to get it adopted by heads of state will be -- will be a tremendously difficult political task. So there, the actual implementation of the recommendation from a logistics or substantive point of view is extremely easy. From a political point of view, it's extremely difficult. But universal connectivity, I haven't heard anybody speak against it. So from a political point of view, I think we have 200% backing. But from an implementation point of view and a logistic point of view, it's going to be tremendously difficult.
So I think with all aspects of the report, we're fraught either with the difficulty of implementation from a logistics or substantive point of view or because of political difficulties. And we'll have to negotiate all of those, and that will determine the timelines. But the Secretary-General is very committed to moving forward as fast as possible. And I think delays in implementation will mean more insecurity, more inequality, and more threats to our human rights.
There was a question from Bruna around, you know, what can go ahead without endorsement from the GA. I mean, anything governance related can only move with the GA. But there are many initiatives that the High-level Panel -- that the Secretary-General's roadmap supports that are already under way and where we will continue to try and build momentum behind those initiatives.
So there's the Giga Initiative about universal connectivity of schools, which is being led by UNICEF and ITU and has many, many backers. You know, we will try and amplify support for that as part of the global connectivity agenda. There is the Digital Public Goods Alliance that Norway has been so instrumental in putting together that the roadmap comes out in support of, and we will try and get further backing for that.
There is ITU and UNDP have announced new intentions to work closely together on the capacity building side. So we will try and strengthen those initiatives.
So there's a lot that's already happening that's referred to in the roadmap that we will try to multiple and support to. And, you know, work through ongoing channels to try and increase. So we will certainly move forward where we can move forward, obviously in full transparency.
There was a question from Shawna on the environmental side, and this is an extremely broad area. And both the High-level Panel and the roadmap, you know, had the intention of saying this is a totally new area where our traditional divides don't work very well. And I think many governments know that. So many governments are adopting whole new structures to deal with the digital phenomena. They're not just using their old silos. They're all adjusting their structures, and they're all trying to look at it, most of them, from a more linked-up position, from a (indiscernible) position. And with the High-level Panel, with the roadmap, the U.N. is trying to do exactly the same, to try to look at it in a more joined-up way, because our old divisions don't necessarily work very well when it comes to the digital domain.
But of course that means they're very broad, and that means that you neglect certain aspects. So the High-level Panel did neglect the environmental aspect. The roadmap makes very clear that that aspect needs much more focus. We are going to work with UNEP. Inger Andersen, the new head of UNEP, gave a very eloquent speech yesterday. She made very clear that this cannot be treated as we mistitled it, as "another area," because everything depends on the environment. I mean, our life depends on the environment, so it has to be made much more central. And exactly how we go about that, I mean, we will build on existing initiatives. I mean, there are many positive -- you know, the use of AI applications to open standards energy consumption is one tremendous benefit of digital technologies to the environment, but we will be working with Inger Andersen and her team as we'll be working with other partners who have a particular concern in this area -- like you, Shawna -- to see how we can develop and do more in this area.
And then, finally, there were Mark's points, and it was very useful feedback, and we appreciate that feedback. And on that, I'd like to thank you all for this tremendously useful session. And I believe it's one of a series of conversations we have as we strive to implement the recommendations of the roadmap and work together to that end.
And with that, I'd like to thank you, in particular Anriette and everybody else who has been of such extraordinary support in getting us to the milestone we're at today. And I'd like to hand back to you, Anriette, and I think you indicated you were going to give the floor to Hana and Rudolf.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you so much, Fabrizio. That was expertly done, and we should have allocated more time. But thank you very much for being with us and for staying so much longer than planned.
Hana and Rudolf, as the co-champions of recommendation five a and b on the architecture of digital cooperation, can you please respond to the questions that have been made about the options paper, please.
And then we'll close after that. So everyone bear with us. We're nearly done.
>>RUDOLF GRIDL: Yes, this is Rudolf, voluntarily.
First of all, of course it is true what Fabrizio has said. There has been extensive consultation. All the input, the original input that we got, is public on the website, global-cooperation.digital. So there is a lot of transparency and everyone of course is invited, if he or she is interested, to look at it.
Nevertheless we thought as we have been in the process with key constituents from the very outset we would like to share our thoughts with the key constituents, but before transmitting them to the Secretary-General at one point in time. What we do not want to start is a common drafting exercise. I think that would be a little bit too burdensome. But once we have agreed amongst ourselves and with Fabrizio's team on an options paper, we will then share it with the key constituents who can have a look at it and flag, I would say, very red lines. But in order to keep the process going and not to burden it too much, we would not like to have, you know, a drafting exercise with 20 or more parties around the table but we would rather go for this lean consultation mechanism that we will -- so we will give some days of time to read and respond, and then with the input we get and perhaps some amendments or not, let's see, we will then forward it to the Secretary-General, as I said, probably towards the end of July, beginning of August.
That is the process that we were thinking about and which will also -- has been or will be published also on the website that I junction just mentioned, global-cooperation.digital.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Rudolf. Hana, can you add to that, please.
>>HANA ALHASHIMI: Thanks very much. Just echoing, of course, what my very, very, very esteemed colleagues have just said. And as I mentioned also in response to some of the comments in the chat, what we will be submitting is, as per the name, as the name suggests, an options paper. What we were asked to do from the beginning is to essentially look at the report, which was also put together in a very consultative way, and by bringing in a lot of -- a lot of perspectives from across the globe and different sectors to look at how to concretize some of the recommendations on digital architectures. Our approach to that has been to cast a wide net and to get perspectives. And now our task is to look at that range of perspectives that we've received and see what concretely can be done as suggestions or the Secretary-General.
The actual action will be, of course, partly for the Secretary-General to decide, partly -- as the Under-Secretary-General has suggested, partly for the appetite of member states on what they would like to do with their processes, and also for the multistakeholder community on what concretely can be done, right? So I think some of the ideas don't necessarily need an entire summit to decide on. But -- but some steps might benefit from that.
So we've -- we're just receiving the last inputs. We will be looking widely, and we'll try to come up with something constructive. But I would stress that the responsibility is a shared one for us to find ways to cooperate across sectors and across regions and to leave nobody behind in our digital future.
So thank you so very much for your continued engagement. You're not off the hook yet.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for that, Hana. And I see there are comments in the chat about -- about the importance of consultation.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for that, Hana. And I see there are comments in the chat about the importance of consultation and consensus.
To close this segment, I'm going to ask Jorge Cancio, member of the MAG -- and Switzerland is not one of the cochampions of recommendation 5b, they're a key constituent, but have been very supportive of this process. And as you all know, we organized, as MAG chair and -- myself, and Fabrizio's office, we organized a similar consultation in January at the first MAG and open consultation.
So, Jorge, do you want to make some closing remarks, please?
Are you ready?
Is Jorge with us or has he left? I'm just checking to see if I have a message from him.
>>JUNE PARRIS: There's a message from him to unmute.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Jorge, you are muted.
Jorge, are you there?
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Yeah, it seems his microphone is not --
>>JORGE CANCIO: Do you hear me now?
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Yes, we can hear you.
>>JORGE CANCIO: Hello, everyone, and thank you very much, Anriette.
I will be very brief and just (indiscernible) that Fabrizio mentioned at the very start of the high-level panel and also all along the process. I just wanted to stress very clearly and very loudly that today and for the publication of the roadmap, it's really a big milestone for the IGF, a huge recognition of its role. And the roadmap really includes very useful measures to strengthen the IGF in the spirit of the IGF Plus. It includes already good elements from the other models. There are a lot of issues about digital public goods all along the roadmap. The notion of stronger networks coming from the co-governance model is also included. So I think we have also to congratulate the whole community, and, of course, Fabrizio and his team, for this outstanding work. And of course also to the cochampions, to Germany and the UAE, for those consultations in Latin America and Africa with Mission Publique, all over more than 80 countries. Also the NRI consultations, which all have confirmed what we saw in Berlin and in Geneva in January, that the right way to go is this IGF with elements from the other models, as is already built into the roadmap.
So going back to something that some of the intervenors said who asked about the U.N. budget, I would reply, don't ask the U.N. about this, ask yourself about what we can do about funding and improving the digital cooperation, about improving the IGF. So we have to walk the talk. If this is a multilateral and multistakeholder ecosystem, we all have to fund it.
I leave it at that. And we are, of course, happy to continue engaging in this process.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Jorge, thanks to Rudolf and Hana and thanks to Fabrizio.
And I don't want to keep anyone any longer. This has been a long session. It's been a very rich session.
And I think that this is -- for the IGF, this is an incredible opportunity, as Jorge has said, and to take all of this on board as we plan IGF 2020 and as we strengthen IGF for the future. I am very happy to say that we have environment as one of our main themes this year. The other themes, inclusion, trust, and data also resonate with some of the substantive issues that are identified in the roadmap.
So for us, as the IGF community, it's a fantastic opportunity to connect with this process and to take it forward.
So on that note, everyone, I'm very sorry to run late. I don't normally do this. But sometimes it's worth it. So thanks for staying late.
We're now closing the open consultation, the second open consultation of IGF 2020. And thank you, every single person who was -- who were with us for this process and this experiment of a virtual open consultation.
Tomorrow, the MAG will meet. And you are welcome to observe. But the open consultation has now closed.
Thanks enormously to the secretariat for all your work. We've got a quick poll for you to respond to just to give us some feedback on the meeting.
And on that, good-bye to everyone, then, the early risers and the late stayer uppers, thank you very much, everyone.
Thanks to the interpreters, and thanks also to the captioners. We wouldn't be able to do this without you.
And Luis, our technician, are you there? Are you ready to close the poll? How does it look? We need a few more people to respond.
>> And thanks to our wonderful Madam Chair. Thank you, Anriette, so much.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: It's a pleasure. You were all so well prepared.
So thanks, everyone. And the meeting is closed. And those of you that will be with us tomorrow, see you tomorrow.
Thank you very much, Fabrizio, if you are still with us.
>>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Anriette. And thank you, everybody.
>>CHAIR ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Chengetai. Thanks, secretariat.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you to all.