IGF 2021 - Day 2 - WS #252 Imagining the Future of International Internet Governance

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


        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


        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


        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


        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.


        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


        We've heard so many international actors that we have reached

    an inflection point in addition to the original issues and the


        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


        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


        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


        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


        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


        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


        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


        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


        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


        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.


        >> 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.


        >> 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.


        >> 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



        >> 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


        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


        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


        >> 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


        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


        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


        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


        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


        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


        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.