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.
***
>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Hello everyone. Guide morning. Good
afternoon. Welcome to this session. Thank you for joining us for
this session, which will focus on Imagining the Future of
International Internet Governance. This session is the result of a
serious regional multistakeholder conversations that have happened
in the past weeks in Asia, Latin America, Africa, in collaboration
with Derechos Digitales, Latin American Association of Internet
Policy, Kictanet, Dot.Asia and APNIC. And is organised by the
Association for Progressive Communications, APC, and the Swedish
International Development Corporation -- Agency, Sida.
So let me brief you with the agenda for this session so we can
perhaps show the slide, please.
Thank you. The next one. Thank you.
So we will look at the past, imagining the future. And we're
really glad that you have you all here with us for this collective
exercise. I could also like to invite you all to please use the
chat to share your views along the session to participate in the
conversation or to ask questions.
We will be following your inputs in the chat, and we will
address them in the last part of the session.
And in order to start the session, I would like to introduce
you to Fredrik Westerholm from Sida. Fredrik a senior programme
manager and specialist in democracy and human rights, and Fredrik
will offer us some opening remarks and will help us to frame this
issue. Wo welcome again, and Fredrik, the floor is yours.
>> FREDRIK WESTERHOLM: Okay. Thank you so much. It's an
honor for me to be able to give you some opening remarks for this
workshop, important workshop, I would say. For those of you who
don't know me, I'm -- on a quick note, I replaced Anna Karefelt, a
colleague of mine, on a great late notice she was hindered to join.
So I'm replacing her here in this workshop.
Well, as opening remarks, I cannot foresee the future,
although we are hopefully looking a little bit into the crystal
ball.
Although I want to emphasize that Sida and Sweden's take on
Internet and digitalization, both now and in the future, should
continue to create opportunities to expand enjoyment of fundamental
human rights such as freedom of expression and opinion, freedom of
assembly, and will have the opportunity to enable the economic,
social, and cultural rights.
I -- we wanted to enable development that also exacerbates
existing social, political, and economic divides. This is
important for us. And also strengthen people belonging to
vulnerable groups such as women or religious minorities, and those
in vulnerable situations in poverty, or conflict situation, who are
most impacted by the Internet.
However, digitalization, you know as well as all of us, can
also pose threats to human rights. This is -- such as the right to
privacy. We should all be aware of this in discussing the future.
Security is key.
And it's a core issue for us at Sida and Sweden. Sida and our
partners we have focussed and supported many initiatives at
securing a free, open, and secure Internet central to
digitalization, both in terms of gaining access to the Internet,
but also in relation to how it's used and regulated.
So IGF, what role should and could the IGF play is also a
question for this workshop in advancing global digital cooperation.
Well, I can only say inclusiveness, this forum is unique, as I
understand. Including civil society, all kinds of stakeholders,
states, and the private companies. I think we all should be equal
parts of this discussion, being equal human beings in this world.
And I think it's even more important now to give all of us equal
space in the discussion.
So how does Internet governance need to change, is the main
question, in order to meet the changing nature and role of
Internet?
What tools, mechanisms, and capacity building implements are
needed for us stakeholders to effectively cooperate and engage in
the Internet governance?
Well, as I said already, I don't have the answers. But I do
think the answers are with all of us in this room. And I really
look forward to hearing the discussion today.
Thank you very much.
>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you so much, Fredrik. Directly
democratizing Internet governance is still a challenge ahead. And
we should hope that by identifying together what has to happen in
the future what's having an open, free, and centralized Internet we
can all work together around that. And the IGF has a key role to
play in that regard.
That is why I would like to invite next Anriette Esterhuysen,
the IGF MAG chair, and one of the most experienced advocates for
transparent and inclusive and multistakeholder Internet governance.
Anriette, before we move to the future, we would like to take a
stock of Internet governance so far. So please share your views
with us of the past and how we have got to this point.
So welcome, Anriette. The floor is yours.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you very much, Valeria. I
have to confess that my laptop is dead, and I can't find a
PowerPoint, so all my notes are not available to me. So I will try
to remember them. To take stock where we are, that is -- you
know, I think that we started off -- when I say "we," I'm using it
in the sense of the very early collection of I think individual
social movements, activists, academics, who started thinking about
Internet governance. Many of them were part of the communications
rights movement in the 1990s.
I think it was also a time when there was an active debate
about global governance, particularly around finance. Some of you
are too young to remember. But there was a debate about the World
Bank, the International Monetary Fund. There was a sense that
global governance was disconnected from what people really need.
And so when this discussion about global Internet governance
immerged, I think we saw this as an opportunity to reshape global
governance, and in a different way. In a way that was really
bottom up. That was really shaped by not outsiders but the people
that were inside creating and building the Internet. And creating
content and shaping the Internet.
And I think then that shifted in many ways. And I think what
we've -- what we've -- I think we've retained a spirit of that. I
think the IGF represents that. But I think what the IGF and
Internet governance now has to negotiate. And I think it's
challenging for Internet governance as we know it.
It has to negotiate the interest of states, and the interest
of states as coming from different places. It's these days very
often coming from the cyber security space. It's very driven by
lack of trust between states, lack of very solid cooperation
frameworks.
And these of course emerging areas of consensus. It's then
also coming from the place of states that are authoritarian,
fearing the Internet, fearing the use of the Internet by -- by
activists, by civil society, by citizens in political processes,
for example.
And then there's the presence of the corporate sector, which
has used this open platform in a way to build immense power, but
also power that the public sphere depends on. And I think that's
one of the big paradoxes and challenges for Internet governance is
how do you govern an Internet that continues to play this role of
establishing and operating as a kind of commons and the public
sphere when so much of what is used to facilitate that is actually
controlled and provided by corporations at an immense cost when it
comes to surveillance, to the violation of your sovereignty as an
individual.
And are we talking about that?
Yes, we are. But are we also talking about the sovereignty of
states; and I think we're talking about that in a way that doesn't
actually create a more just global governance system. I think it
just creates perhaps a more statused system. And I think we still
haven't found a way of really protecting the publicness, the
commons that the Internet is and should be.
Having governments at the table, playing an enabling role, and
continuing the power of corporations while also utilizing the
creativity and the resources of corporations.
So Valeria, I think in terms of democratization, maybe.
Because maybe all this complexity and all this tension and -- does
in fact represent a kind of democratization.
Inclusive?
No. I think we don't have inclusive Internet governance yet.
And I think that is definitely something that we -- we need to
think about how to do it. And I think we need to unpack what it
really means. I think we use the language of inclusion in Internet
governance too loosely. I think we've gone beyond where we can
just use it without really unpacking it, being very specific about
who should be included, who is excluded, when, why, about what.
That was unprepared, Valeria. I hope it wasn't too long.
Back to you.
>> PAULA MARTINS: Thank you so much, Anriette, for the
provocation, for providing us an overview of what has been achieved
so far. It really helps us to set the scene. We need to look at
the future by taking stock of what happened or of the lessons
learned, and the success stories. And really looking at the future
is at the core of the session and of the initiative in which it is
inserted.
We've heard so many international actors that we have reached
an inflection point in addition to the original issues and the
governance.
So what we are seeing today, as Anriette was describing, is a
also multiplication of processes, of fora at the global level that
seek to frame and regulate digital technologies. Not to mention
the regulatory impetus that is taking place at the international
level.
And what we see is that there's always a consultation open to
tomorrow, a new draft view in relation to do we need to react by
next week?
There's a treaty that can have a huge impact on rights that is
coming up next year.
And what happens is that in this context we really lack the
time and the mind space to place ourselves outside of this
convulsive environment, to look further ahead. We lack
opportunities to turn off the reactive mode, allowing us to be more
proactive.
And this is the proposal of the futures initiative, to provide
the spaces and resources and to allow us to imagine and plan for
different futures and for -- possibly to be more strategic, more
targeted and more coordinated in our democracy for a different
Internet governance that at APC we believe should be promoting
social and environmental justice, human rights, and feminist
futures.
So bottom line, the session is really part of a broader
project that we started with some exercises carried out with APC
staff and members, and we also organised regional workshops.
We've partners in Africa, in Asia, and Latin America, as was
mentioned by Valeria at the beginning. We initiated this process
of imagining what global Internet governance could look like ten
years from now. Of course, ten years from now is far, but is not
that far away. So the seeds for what will be in ten years are
already here.
Our first step, therefore, was really to identify the key
trends that are observable today. And this is what we did in the
regional workshops.
So what we'll do now is to invite our co-organisers to present
some of the highlights for each of the regional workshops, and will
later on in the session viewed on these trends, and we will go back
to Anriette to look at the future after providing us these -- so
rich look into the past.
So I invite now Jamila Venturini from Derechos Digitales who
will be presenting the highlights for Latin America. Barrack
Otieno from Kictanet will be presenting the highlights for Africa,
and Jennifer Chung from Asia who will be presenting the highlights
for Asia.
And I think we could start with you, Jamila. So on to you.
>> JAMILA VENTURINI: Thank you, Paula. I'll be very quick.
Sharing that the Latin American Internet governance community is
looking to a future that has gender equality, sustainability, and
environmental protection as fundi mental pillars for tech
development and deployment. They are concerned about increased
divides that affect -- affect the region after the pandemic and
with the widespread production and consumption of tech devices.
And they want to develop actions that leads us to a different
future that is little likely to occur if things continue as they
are right now.
Increased surveillance and government control of Internet at
different layers and of shut-downs are scenarios that they believe
are probable, while they think is very little likely that people
decide to completely disconnect from the Internet.
There was little coincidence among the group of the future of
multistakeholder institutions and fora, including possible capture
of the IGF by state actors, for instance. And this might be due to
a variation on the perceptions of different actors from varied
countries and sectors may have and the experience they had in such
spaces.
Finally, there was a concern around the role of global
corporations and global economy and trade, how virtual reality in
the metaverse can implement existing social and political
fragmentation and polarization and how such fragmentation could
then reflect on the technical Internet infrastructure. A final
call for building a more plural and diverse Internet governance was
made with the inclusion of absent voices in the debates.
Back to you.
>> PAULA MARTINS: Thanks so much, Jamila.
Barrack, maybe we can go to you now.
>> BARRACK OTIENO: Yes. Thank you very much. This is
Barrack Otieno. I'll follow suit very quickly.
In the Africa region, three key issues came up, which I will
summarize. One of them was obviously access. Of course as more
and more people have come online, courtesy of the COVID-19
pandemic, it has also been evident, particularly in the African
region, that access remains a major area of concern. And we are
likely to see a lot of effort in this direction to make sure that
more and more citizens have access to the Internet.
And along with access is the issue of digital literacy.
Because optimal use of the Internet or optimal access can only be
attained with a society that is digitally literate.
So this is one of the key areas or key trends that is likely
to be seen, more and more people being trained or capacity-building
initiatives that will enable more people to take advantage of the
Internet.
The other trend that was discussed was the issue of
participation of governments in the Internet governance arena. As
more citizens come online, the interest of governments is
increasing on matters Internet governance. And it's an area that
participants felt would be worth looking into.
Obviously as many more citizens come online and government
services come online, the governments will pay a lot more attention
on the governance of the Internet, compared to the past where they
may have not been very keen on what was happening in the Internet
governance arena or space.
There's also a conversation around whether the gender digital
divide will widen or narrow. And there seem to be concerns as that
-- that with the COVID propelled digital transformation, the gender
digital divide is likely to narrow, as more and more citizens
across different demographics come online to take advantage of the
use -- to take advantage of the Internet.
So I will summarize those three key areas as some of the
important trends that were discussed by the African groups on
issues that are to watch out for.
Thank you very much.
>> PAULA MARTINS: Thanks to you, Barrack.
Now we have Jennifer. And Jennifer is in the room in Poland.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Thank you, Paula.
Yes. This is Jennifer Chung, actually, in Katowice, Poland.
Very happy to be here in the room, and also to see all the
colleagues in Zoom room as well.
So I'll present a little bit of the trends that we did in the
Asia Pacific regional workshop.
We had the advantage of actually being the last regional
workshop to perform this exercise and had the good fortune to look
at the trends that were discussed both in the Latin American
workshop as well as the African workshop. And of course there's
shared trends that we also looked at, was of course access, cost of
access. Asia Pacific is an extremely diverse region. There --
when the COVID pandemic hit, it was extremely difficult for many
economies in the Asia Pacific region to have people continue in
their daily lives in education, in work.
And not surprisingly there's also a big concern here as well
that Internet governance has a relationship with the political
system; and a lot of countries in Southeast Asia and Asia Pacific
region as a whole are trending towards getting less democratic.
There's a concern here as well that government and big tech may
have their way of governing rather than looking at it in a
multistakeholder approach.
Surveillance was another thing that was talked about during
our session. There's certain states in the Asia Pacific region
where this is a particular concern. And I think APC also did a
study on Internet shutdowns as well as the regulations that are
affecting different jurisdictions in Asia Pacific that will affect
Internet freedoms as well.
Another thing that is quite interesting that came up in our
regional workshop was environmental sustainability. I think this
has become extremely important topic, not just in our region but
also globally. And there was concern here that, you know, we
really need to have this focus, a looking at Internet governance
issues with this lens in order to keep this discussion sustainable.
And then finally -- and this is not surprising at all --
multilingual Internet. There is a vast majority of the Asian --
Asia Pacific countries where English is absolutely not the first
language. There is a multitude of people who are unconnected,
especially in the Asia Pacific region where they cannot understand
or they don't have content in their local language. And they
would -- you know -- ask why are we -- why should we connect to
this network? What is the benefits for us when the content there
is not for us?
So here are the main trends that we talked about in Asia
Pacific.
Back to you, Paula.
>> PAULA MARTINS: Thanks, Jennifer. And to Barrack and
Jamila. Very interesting highlights coming from the different
regions. We can see a regional intake in some of the issues. And
as I mentioned to you, this session is part of a broader process.
So what we did after the regional workshops was to work on the
trends that were identified and build scenarios, scenarios for the
future. So we have different scenarios. And what we are going to
do in the session today is to work on the projected scenario, the
most probable scenario that came out of the trends that were just
discussed with you and presented by our regional partners.
So to lead on the exercise, please have your minds and head
ready for a hands-on effort now. I'm going to invite my colleague
Roxana Bassi, who will be leading us on the exercise.
Roxana, back to you.
>> ROXANA BASSI: Yes. Thank you, Paula.
Thank you everyone for participating. I'm very -- reading
your comments in the chat. And this is going to be a very
interesting session. So the methodology we used in order to
develop the session for today is part of what's called
prospectives, planning for the future. And it's not reading the
future ball; right?
It's not magic. But what I love about these methodologies,
these combination of science fiction, in a way, of opening up the
mind to what is possible and what's even beyond the possible. And
at the same time, a very contained and complex methodology to
observe the present. Maybe the things that Anriette shared with
us. And how is the present taking us to the future?
So the methodology that we used, we identified a series of
what we call indicators, trends, things that are happening and that
lead into the future. And when we do a perspective, when we do
what's called scenario planning, we don't think of just one future.
We analyze various different futures. Right?
Can we move on to the next slide please?
So for our exercise today we have selected just one of these
futures. What will happen in ten years?
If nothing really changes. So what is happening now, the
trends that we're seeing now, are we just extrapolate them into the
future. We prolong them into the future. So again, this is not
the one future that will happen, it's one of the possible future
scenarios. But it's important because it is what we have detected
in the different workshops that we did as the most probable thing
to happen.
So we have built with different trends a story. And we'd like
to share with you that story. So that we can think together about
this future and what we like and don't like about it.
>> So Valeria, whenever you're ready, we can start the video.
(Video: )
>> The future we imagine is most probable. Avi wakes up on a
beautiful sunny morning of 2031. Her house teaming with Internet
connected sensors and devices makes this process effortlessly
smooth. She awakens to soothing music that gains tempo as she gets
ready to start her day. Automatic heating and lights and machines
that start preparing breakfast before she even reaches the kitchen.
Avi, like the average person in her town owns about 30 devices
connected to the different Internets she has access to.
A tiny blip in the sea of billions of interconnected devices
owned by cities, companies, and even cars.
Many years ago Avi used to participate in the IGF, a global
open hybrid event where multistakeholder debates took place on how
to better govern the then unified network of networks. But in the
years since, the IGF became a space of politics and bureaucracy,
locked in its own debate. It lost its power to influence Internet
governance processes.
Because of this, Internet governance has changed its focus:
Not anymore on people and their rights, but mostly about securing
interoperability and interconnection among the myriad of devices
and platforms.
After many years of trying to agree on a common management
framework for the Internet, most of the world adopted a more
divided, drastic approach. We now have hundreds of fragmented semi
interconnected networks. Some countries have even more than one.
Others connect to networks according to their religion, their
status, or the company they work with.
Not all network are connected, and some are heavily
controlled.
Avi finishes her breakfast while one of her devices reads her
news out to her. She remembers this format used to be called
social media. But those lines of distinction make little sense to
her anymore.
The news she receives in her feed is very specific to her, and
it's determined by the restrictions on sources that her country has
set, her choice of trusted sources, and her friends' choices and
her reactions to each piece of news that her devices record and
uses to curate interests.
Avi often worries that her friends trust the news they hear,
read and watch online too much. She also wonders if even despite
her skepticism perhaps she trusts the news too much as well.
It's become very hard to determine the truth in this deeply
fake, post-truth world.
But finding truth online is low on most people's list of
concerns when connecting to the Internet. Most people whom Avi
knows face daily attacks on their devices, sensors and data. The
fragmented Internets, incoherent and disparate security policies
have made cyber security threats far too sophisticated for most
people to protect themselves from.
Half the options to help protect you seem to attack you
themselves, and the other options seem to demand too much from
users to implement. So attacks have become almost the norm.
It's not so much a question of have you been attacked or has
your data ever been breached, it's a question of how many times
this last year.
The threats online don't stop there. Although Avi has access
to hundreds of platforms and ways to express herself, she must be
very careful about what she does or writes online. Surveillance of
citizens has increased and is facilitated by Internet
fragmentation, lack of international norms, and unaccountable
collusion by tech companies and states.
She can never fully be sure that her private message or
private post to a closed circle is really private at all.
She's also acutely aware that "too much expression" makes
network openers temporarily shut down their networks.
Sometime later, Avi starts her work day. Like most of the
people she knows, Avi works entirely from home, assisted by remote
sensors and devices. After remote work became popular during the
2020 pandemic, forcing major changes in labour, there are now
fortunately strong laws and practices that protect her rights and
that of other remote workers, making them equal to any other
worker.
In her work, Avi makes use of the open data collected by the
large number of connected devices and sensors. Much of the data
today is shared openly by companies, governments and others. All
over the world the collected data from systems and sensors is used
by people and automated systems, and this open availability has
helped improve and optimize the use of resources, as well as
streamline many processes affecting human lives.
Sometimes Avi thinks of her world, and how Internet governance
decisions made in the past years, or not made, even, has affected
her current life. And sometimes she wonders if things could have
been different.
(End of video).
>> ROXANA BASSI: Okay. We are back from a glimpse of the
future. Huh, how does it feel? We saw a future as identified in
the different workshops as most possible from happening. It
doesn't mean that this will be the future. It means that maybe
it's the future if we don't act; right?
So this is ten years from now. Is it a future that we like?
Maybe we like parts of it. Other parts of -- or aspects that we
don't like or that we can control or change definitely we can. And
there are others that we cannot control.
But we can definitely do is plan a strategy, work towards
changing this future, turning it into a different future. Many
hoping to modify it into a future we would like to live in.
So when we think about Internet governance, Internet
governance has many dimensions including economic dimension,
social, technical and political aspects. We're going to work all
together now in an exercise.
A collect exercise of changing this future.
And for that we would like you to concentrate, to focus on the
political and institutional dimension of Internet governance. So
when we're doing the exercise, think about the policies, the
regulations, the accountability schemes, collaboration about the
different players, the transparency and openness. What can we do
to change this future?
And the way we're going to work all together is on four
different mirror boards. So on this board we would like everyone
to work together inputting your different ideas of what we could
act, how we can act and change this feature. In order to achieve a
future that is more aligned to the protection of human rights, to
the promotion of social and environmental justice, and to promoting
feminist futures.
So what could you be doing, thinking again, going back to the
political and institutional dimension of Internet governance.
Can we move onto the next slide, please, Igor?
So these are four different Miro boards, and there are four
links there for you to access. And the idea is that you access
them according to your main stakeholder group. And the areas that
you access, the word there, you start adding sticky notes, ideas of
actions. From your place, from your organisation, from your
stakeholder group of things we could do.
And when you access the board, there's a note that you can
access by clicking on like a note icon on the top right where you
can see a summary of the different trends. And Igor, if you move
forward just one more slide, we can show you -- so that story that
we heard all together, actually comes from these different trends.
Different trends identified in the different workshops. All
these trends are copied there in the Miro boards for you to review
and keep them in mind. So would you like to support the
development of these trends, or would you like to combat these
trends?
And the areas that you put your own ideas for action in the
Miro board. If you go back one to the links, back one, Igor. So
now we have exactly 20 minutes to work together. So I invite you
all to access the board according to your stakeholder group. And
start adding ideas. And we'll be sharing them after these 20
minutes. And always keep in mind we are talking about the
political and institutional dimension of Internet governance. So
what could we be doing in these specific policy and institutional
dimensions in order to change the future.
Okay. You are invited to join the board. Remember you have
in the notes in the board, you have all these ideas. Oh, I see
lots of visitors in the boards already.
So you have a summary of the trends in the notes, in case you
need to check them.
>> Just to clarify, so ideas about actions. Right?
>> ROXANA BASSI: Actions. Exactly. Actions. They could be
short term, they can be long term. Always keeping in mind we're
talking ten years from now, maximum. Okay?
We also have links pasted in the chat in Zoom.
>> For those of you in the room, you know there are 60 people
online. So I think altogether we are more than 80 people in this
session. About 20 people in the room.
>> ROXANA BASSI: Yes. And I see already some ideas coming to
life in the different Miro boards. Please remember that you can
also, besides inserting new ideas and moving them around, you can
connect them with other related ideas.
(Silence).
>> ROXANA BASSI: So for those that have just joined, there
are instructions here of joining one of the four boards according
to your stakeholder group and entering ideas for changes, for
things you want to do in order to change the future. The most
probable future we saw in the video.
You can also see some references and the trends in the notes
in the Miro board in the top right corner of the board.
(Silence).
>> ROXANA BASSI: Please remember if you want to view the
trends which we used as the story of the future, there are notes in
the Miro board on the top right corner of the board.
(Silence).
>> PAULA MARTINS: So we have seven minutes left of the
exercise we're doing with the Miro boards. Some of the boards are
becoming quite intense with arrows connecting. I'm happy to see
the government group starts working on ideas as well. So excellent
work.
(Silence).
>> ROXANA BASSI: I can see a lot of use happening in all the
boards. We only have two minutes left and then we have rapporteurs
who will tell us trends and ideas.
Okay, everyone. Our time is up to work on the boards. Of
course you can continue working on ideas and connecting arrows.
And now we're going to start sharing with you some of the main
highlights from the different Rapporteurs, and I would like to
invite Jamila, if you would like, to start with what you saw in the
government board.
Jamila? Floor is yours.
>> JAMILA VENTURINI: Yes, Roxana, of course. I was
systemizing, organising. I organised in topics. The first one I
would highlight is human rights. So they mentioned human
rights-based protocols. And I believe that putting both the
different Internet layers and each related to a call that they also
mentioned for the active engagement of standard-setting bodies
around the discussion of Internet governance.
Also they mention implementing an Internet bill of rights to
be adopted by status which leads us to a question on how they would
dialogue with other human rights commitments at that already exist
and which states are already committed to.
The second topic has to do related to the first one. With
international role, orienting norms based order for the cyberspace
and their responsible state behavior in cyberspace.
Three other points s one of them has to do with participation.
There is a mention on technology acting as a means to facilitate
participation from global south countries in international
negotiations.
Another for opening multi lateral -- for multi latter
stakeholder -- another point for coordination that I think is very
interesting. Has to do with a call for better connection between
regional and global processes. Another call for more coordination
among different state agencies dealing with digital issues.
And I guess that would also apply to international
organizations.
And finally, a point of capacity building at the regional
level and focus on emerging technologies. I hope that could
systemize it, summarize it well. And open if you want to
compliment in the chat or further explore any point on the chat.
Back to you, Roxana.
>> ROXANA BASSI: Amazing, right? So much to do, so many
ideas. Okay. Jennifer, if you want to talk about the technical
community.
>> JENNIFER CHUNG: Thank you, Roxana. A little bit of a
technical issue with the mic in the room as well.
So the technical community board is actually quite filled, as
you see, we are a wordy bunch here. I've tried my best to enlargen
the font size so I can read it on my screen. Hopefully you can
also read it on your screen or go to the Miro board to look at it
in more detail.
I've also tried to organise it in a way that I can, you know,
see the groupings. There's a first grouping that talking about AI.
A point about buildings an AI fact-checker to implement AI sentries
and threat actors. And VPNs for all Internet activity and states
to abide by cyber norms and a group about cooperation within the
technical community about implementing HTTPS, by default and also
consolidating the fragmented Internet standards development. And
promote hyper local root instance developed by the IETF, and a
greater cooperation among the certificates across boundaries.
There's also a note here to make sure that's the evolution of
the technical policy making processes are more inclusive and also
more resilient to capture a takeover.
The technical community wants the stakeholders to understand
and respect the work of the technical community more. I guess this
is why we are here, right?
And then also bring people back to the centre of Internet
governance discussions.
Finally, we're looking at the human rights lens here. There
want -- the conversation -- to have conversations and develop
guidelines for practices to combat misinformation and
disinformation. To promote human-centred design and innovation.
And also embed the multistakeholder model in innovation to ensure
that products and services address societal needs.
There's one last thing I wanted to bring out. Is to focus on
the environmentally friendly technical solutions, built on locally
available material with local resources.
Back to you, Roxana.
>> ROXANA BASSI: Thank you so much. It's very difficult
sometimes to categorize the input. Because everything connects
with everything else, right? And then also among the stakeholder
groups.
So if you want to go ahead with civil society, you have a hard
one because there's so many ideas in there.
>> BEYAMBA GILBERT: Some highlights that stand out on this
board, the issue of capacity building, and capacity building cuts
across from government, but also to civil society in terms of civil
society advocating for a more human right-based Internet space.
There's also ban on surveillance, on a global level. That is
something that was so kind of -- stands out on this board. There's
a component of having -- solving another mystery -- solving
anonymous usage of Internet being solved.
There's also a huge component of making sure that big tech,
very responsible for how they collect data, but also issue of data
protection that also stands out on this board.
Building a more community network, meaning strengthening
different aspects of -- or different regions within which different
individuals utilize the Internet.
There's also promotion of privacy, which is also -- cuts into
the issue of surveillance.
Again, this board is very...is very busy. So I get the time
to check it out. And then there's a balance on harmful utilization
of weaponizing the Internet. That also stands out. Which brings
back the issue of surveillance. So capacity building,
surveillance, making sure that big tech more accountable is what
really stands out on this board.
Thank you very much.
>> ROXANA BASSI: Perfect. Thank you so much. Very
interesting. And a lot to read and process. And like Valerie
said, there are next steps and she will share information.
So Raul, if you want to talk about the private sector and what
you've seen.
>> RAUL ECHEBERRIA: Thank you, Rox. First of all, I
collected a set of recommendations and ideas that are related to
the -- to policy development and governance itself. Like mechanism
for getting high level agreements on given topics. Consistency,
the need of consistency between national objectives and specific
policies.
And I think in every country.
The use of sandboxes as a regular normal tool. The
development of new models with participation of the stakeholders
since the beginning of the discussions.
More analysis of impact as in the -- as part of the policy
development process.
There's a government commitments to the -- with
multistakeholder model.
Some focus on small, medium and micro enterprises. In both
sense, in the sense of innovation, mission-oriented innovation as
we -- SMS. And also in the sense of giving or creating more
incentives for the participation in discussions of small, medium
enterprises.
Also is -- is marked the need for not a single regulation
approach globally, and the need of each region to develop their own
approaches, based on their own needs and objectives and reality.
There are some things that are more specific, like the need of
novel approaches to connectivity and different on the point of view
of technology and in relation to public policy.
The need of not fragmented Internet. International agreements
that are low flow of data and that are really based on the respect
of rights of the users.
And the -- there is one comment that I don't -- I didn't
understand exactly. But it speaks about different responsibilities
and accountability. I guess that refers to companies.
The...provide, develop, and create a safe world for political
infrastructure. Those commitments, I guess, would relate to not
affect and not harm the infrastructure.
And that's all for my side, I think.
>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you so much, Jamila, Raul,
Gilbert, Jennifer for the reports. So many relevant ideas that are
also very telling about how we, the different stakeholders, see our
roles in shaping the future.
Now, in order to close the circle of the reflection, and also
in order to build bridges between the past and the future, I would
like to invite Anriette again to share a head of you, what the
commonalities are among who will stick groups and how do you
contrast Anriette these suggested actions coming from the groups
with your initial intervention that look at the past?
So Anriette, I'm really willing to hear you.
>> Value la I think this is APC's revenge for -- all the
terrible past years you have had to do this. It's a fascinating
exercise. I congratulate Rox and all of you for doing this.
The first thing that struck me is that different things do
come out of different stakeholder groups.
Now, nothing that reinforces the need for multistakeholder
processes. Maybe we can do them better or do them differently.
But in principle you do get a richer set of perspectives and a
more diverse and challenging set of perspectives if you draw them
from different stakeholder groups.
I'll just say a little bit about what struck for me. So I
think governments clearly there was a lot of emphasis on standards,
norms, laws.
Partnership. Tech, very solution-oriented.
And actually, also harnessing technology to help solve the
problems created by technology which might then create more
problems. But at the same time is very creative response. And
then Civil Society, everything. Which is what normally happens
with Civil Society.
But I think what was different there was more of an emphasis
on the need for capabilities, for capacity, and for -- and also
recognition of gaps.
I think definitely -- and then private sector, I think very
interesting. I saw the word "frameworks." And it really -- it
stands out to me that I think what you see from the private sector
is the need for predictability. The need for policy and -- and in
some ways, if you just did a very superficial analysis of this, I
think the private sector Miro board was the most regulation
friendly of all of them. Because I think that is predictable.
And cross-border regulation, that harmonizes across borders,
that's very important for business. It's very hard for business to
have to articulate its work to so many different environments.
Sorry, I'm working with my phone.
So what stood out for me and what can I -- don't have
solutions at all.
I think the one thing that really stood out for me, though, in
all of the boards was the lack of recognition or consideration of
the offline world. I think maybe we are also immersed in this
world of the Internet. That even in the context of the pandemic,
we stop imagining or considering in fact how even though the
Internet is so powerful and technology is so endless and creative,
that things can happen in the world, and those things happen every
day.
They happen to people that are offline, that are not online
yet. And they happen to those of us that are online. And I think
that part of the Internet governance project is to always retain
some kind of sensibility that the Internet is not an alternative
reality. It is rooted in geopolitical conflicts and social
inequalities.
In natural disasters that can happen. And in environmental
disasters. So I think -- I mean, there was a reference to climate
change, Jennifer, in your group. So I think what do I read from
this? I think at that we -- there's an enthusiasm, there is
different approaches. There is a lot of identification of both the
challenges and the opportunity.
And it feels to me that we still really are in many ways at
the beginning of coming to terms of how to approach Internet
governance. But there were some things that stood out. I think
there was the understanding -- quite a few of the boards talked
about the need for some kind of global agreement, global consensus,
norms on what the Internet is, how we should think about it. And
how it should be governed.
I think that does create a bridge for us to -- or a set of
bridges to work with. And certainly I think what these boards
indicate to me is that this is not a finite -- Internet governance
and establishing Internet governance that does respect those
categories that the APC team put up for us, which were human
rights -- I can't remember them all. Paula, maybe you can just
read them. The -- the considerations.
>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Human rights, social and environmental
justice, and -- futures.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Exactly. So to keep those in mind,
it's an ongoing process. It's continuous. And I think we need to
look at evidence, we need to be willing to go into the space of
norms and laws and regulation. But in a way that definitely
doesn't undermine or harm the interoperability of the Internet.
And that helps us achieve that.
So there's a lot of work for us to do, basically.
And to bring different perspectives together.
Sorry, it was an impossible task. But thanks for a really
interesting, challenging exercise.
>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: On the contrary, thank you so much,
Anriette. I think you have highlighted what is needed. And
really, this exercise, as you are pointing out, we are at the
beginning, coming to terms with what is needed next in terms of
Internet governance.
So this is so timely, and all your ideas are so welcome.
So thank you, Anriette, fora. And by the way, you were a
fantastic host. That's no doubt on that.
And at this point of the session I would like to check with
Veronica about the comments in the chat. As we offer, we would
like to address some of the comments or at least, you know, give
them a space of -- Vero, if you can share with us what has been
happening in the chat in terms of reflections ideas there.
>> VERONICA FERRARI: Hi, Valeria. Hi, everyone. Yeah. If
you can hear me. If other comments arrive, I will take a look at
the chat. Some of the comments that I've been checking, some
comments from Andrew -- creative, proactive -- which is true.
But he also mention that even a lot of maturity of the
Internet, we are well beyond the point where there is a need
for actual governance as well as dialogue. In the beginning we
were -- the IGF role. And we raise the issue of maybe the proposed
IGF leadership panel could be able to play a role in ensuring this.
There was also comment in the chat about the need of lipping the
democratization of legal rights of people with Internet governance
frameworks and policies.
There were some comments about the link to the video that we
shared about the tensions regarding open data and innovation on the
privacy concerns. The world saw that -- so addressing on boards.
Some comments are not -- a lot of comments and discussion on
relevant new processes, as us, for example, connected with service
issues, which I think, yeah, we didn't talk a lot about the UN
role. And these discussions, those are some of the comments that I
read.
I maybe -- I think Nicholas mentioned something he wanted to
bring something. So Nicholas, if you are there, I want to type in
the chat, any final comments or reflections. Otherwise I think we
are done with the comments. Thank you very much.
>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Thank you very much, Vero, and thank
you everyone for the comments. As we have been mentioning, this
session is just a part of a broader initiative. So there are going
also to be more opportunities in the future for you to engage and
to continue this reflection. And that's precisely what I want to
refer to next.
So as I mentioned, this session is part of this global
initiative that Paula mentioned to you, that seeks to put in motion
a strategy, creative process that will contribute to a better and
hopefully more nuanced understanding of what Internet governance
should look like or be in the future.
To respond to the users' needs and rights, and to also respond
to the structural challenges expressed in the online space as a
result of what Anriette was saying.
This continuum between the offline and the online. We will be
producing a report based on the outcomes of this session. And we
will be also undertaking some research, additional interviews,
additional global and regional conversations in the first part of
2022, in the first half of the year.
Oriented to create a strategic framework to engage in
democracy and government building and stakeholder partnerships.
Our own digital governance and cooperation. Our role is not only
to collect the feedback, marked by this plurality and diversity of
views, coming from different stakeholders, but also to contribute
to a strengthened movement, that the possibility could lead to
increased agreement, synergy and coordination in the work of the
different stakeholders around Internet governance.
So we do expect you to see -- expect to see you around the
activities that we are going to be planning neck. To help us to
keep identifying the key ideas, the stakeholders, bottlenecks and
also the converging spaces concerning Internet governance, models
and visions for the future.
An important reference to this work will be the run-up to the
WUSIS past 20 celebrations. About -- but also the negotiations
around the global digital compact and all the processes happening
at the UN level with the road map for digital cooperation and so on
and the strengthening of the IGF. So we really want to connect
with all those processes, so thank you also for all the ideas that
came up in this session about the processes that we should be
connecting with.
So if you want to get involved, if you want to know more about
the process of this initiative, if you have questions as well about
the next steps, I can offer you the contact of my colleague Paula
Martins, about her global policy work and would be very happy to
provide you with more details or respond to questions that you
might have.
With that I think that we are ready to close this session.
Thank you very much everyone for your participation. And thank you
to Sida, and to our regional partners for the work be and the input
and your leadership on this area. We really look forward to see
you around the activities that are coming in next year. So thank
you very much.