IGF 2022 WS #67 Testing values of inclusion in Multistakeholderism

Organizer 1: Shreedeep Rayamajhi, RayZnews

Speaker 1: Sajina Karki, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 2: Lilian Deluque Bruges, Government, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 3: Raymond Selorm Mamattah, Civil Society, African Group

Moderator

Shreedeep Rayamajhi, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group

Online Moderator

Sajina Karki, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group

Rapporteur

Shreedeep Rayamajhi, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group

Format

Round Table - Circle - 90 Min

Policy Question(s)

1. What are the true values of Multistakeholder practice in Internet Governance, Is it the bottom up approach or is it the survival of the fittest?
2. How can we ensure equality when there is a difference of knowledge, resource and capacity ?
3. How can we bridge the gaps in internet governance when at international level the issues are standardized but at regional level it is subsidized by stronger players and at national level its commercialized by the civil society NGOs and INGOs

Connection with previous Messages: The value of inclusion in multistakeholder approach has been worked on with different strategy and collaboration but at grassroots level the knowledge and experience remains the same creating a bigger gaps of digital divide. Inclusion has been a major challenges and major voice where most of the times lower economies and leaders are always marginalized from their reach in view of resources, funds, participation and many other managerial and operational hinderance.

SDGs

10.2


Targets: 10.2 states By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status

Inclusion has been a major issue in the Technology world where there are huge discrimination and difference. There is a digital divide which instigates at regional level and national Level. This dialogue will help to resolve the issues as today inclusion happens in the name of gender where there are other issues of participation required. The meaning of Inclusion or participation or diversity have to be clearly stepped up or defined so that values retains its meaning. This discussion will help bridge the gaps talking about issues of inclusion of lower economies and their challenges

Description:

The internet is growing every year with exponential number, there has been various collaboration and funding done in regards to development and capacity building in various region but every year the number of participation has been a major challenge in regards to voicing out the issues, participation in public policy process and other collaboration. Thought there has been various standards developed to facilitate inclusion in the name of participation but the community is still facing the same challenges of see same people raising limited issues in Internet governance hemisphere.

The multistakeholder model is widely accepted as the Internet Governance model by the internet ecosystem. The model has always been a challenge in context of adaptation and mitigation of equal values. The concept of equality and inclusion is a question which has been collectively raised at various levels of implementation. And lack of proper knowledge and wrong interpretation has hugely overdue the bottoms up approach. Similarly, representation and diversity are yet another issue which has been a major challenge in terms of inclusion. The number of limited representations is also subjected to politics and manipulation at various level with limitation of values and awareness campaign. It has been defined that the multistakeholder model should fosters a balance among various stakeholders in Internet ecosystem facilitating inclusion and bottom-up approach in action. It is an effort of implementing the multi-stakeholder democratization process with the possibility of overcoming the gaps and facilitating the overall internet governance process. But at grassroots level the concept and values of multistakeholder concept is politicized and conditioned, creating a matrix of power, control and numbers.

The NETmundial Internet governance process principle states “Internet governance should be built on democratic multi-stakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users.”

Today the evolution of the Internet-based technologies has created a need of control over the system and its policies that support them. In this context the overall multistakeholder process seems to be overdriven and politicized in terms of proper development of values and other dynamics of representation and collaboration. The bottom’s up approach is certainly a key strategy but in lower economies, it is manipulated to create a syndicate of values where lack of openness, transparency and lack of communication creates big problems and challenges.

From the participation and development of policies to running the concept of any kind of technology platform, the sense of control and collaboration that catalyzed in the overall process pushes the developing world aside in saying they have second rights to technology and other aspect of internet development process. May be an abrupt but most of us coming down from the third world scenario or developing country feel different about what technology is all about.

The long practice of the favoritism and nepotism are still seen in big Internet governance platforms where still today the nominations are based on recommendations and power. The big platform have reservation of Big developed nation in terms of decision making roles and leadership where developed nation have been shadowed. Though the concept of Multistakeholderism has been adopted but it radically differentiates in terms of finding its own meaning and interpretation. Multistakeholderism in absence of practice apprehends like a bait that lures us to be part of the whole digital ecosystem but gives us no voice in shouting out the real issues. We are limited within a cocoon where the developed nation leads and govern in majority with the so called technical community’s recommendation.

The so called practice may give voices to very few nations but what about the rest?
Who is going to represent them?

Expected Outcomes

From past few years we have been lobby this discussion into various IG forums at local level and it needs to further diversity with true values of internet governance. We further plan to open up discussion within the various groups and communities

Hybrid Format: If there is a situation of conducting the session online we will facilitate the meeting by zoom where our moderator will manage the time and schedule

0-5 Min Minutes opening and introduction of proposal
5-25 Min 5 Minutes each for Speakers introduction and Take on the topic
25-30 Min Online remote question or social media check regarding comments and take
30-50 Min Open Discussion on the topic among Speaker
50-80 Min Opens Discussion with the floor
80-90 Min Concluding and networking

Online Participation



Usage of IGF Official Tool.