This is now a legacy site and could be not up to date. Please move to the new IGF Website at https://www.intgovforum.org

You are here

List of inputs received in response to the consultations on paragraph 93(a) in the Roadmap for digital cooperation


Government

Australia
Submitted by: Kenneth Harri

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Australia supports the Secretary General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and agrees that the IGF requires stronger leadership and strategic direction. In line with the UK Government position, we believe that the new High Level Body would be better placed to sit within the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), rather than as a separate entity. This would ensure accountability to the MAG and the broader IGF community and be in keeping with the bottom up ethos of the IGF.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
We believe having the new High Level Body as part of the existing MAG would reduce bureaucracy and cost. Possible membership could include representatives from each stakeholder group to provide senior leadership and strategic direction, and to ensure that efforts are coordinated.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Further consultation is required regarding funding and support to the new High Level Body.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Azerbaijan
Submitted by: Government of Azerbaijan

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
If this high-level body is established, following main functions could be performed:

- Creating a high-level multi-stakeholder policy dialogue among IGF community;
- Coordinating of the process of facilitations and improvement of understanding and agreement on International Internet Public Policies and their impacts;
- Enhancing cooperation and collaboration especially on security, stability and development of internet;
- Making decisions and recommendations in the relevant field, and following up their implementation.

This high-level multi-stakeholder body could be a main content and priority making unit for the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Our recommendation on governance structure and composition of this high-level multi-stakeholder body is as following:

- Have members/representatives from IGF community stakeholders as well as from countries of IGF community on high level;
- Number of members up to 45 (odd number) taking into consideration the regional balance;
- Maintaining the rotation principle with preference for those who did not participate in the last term and renewing at least one-third in each term;
- Appointment of the head once in 3 (three) years provided that the current head cannot be appointed for the next term.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
If this high-level multi-stakeholder body is established, at the first stage it could be supported and funded jointly by the initiating countries or on a voluntary basis varying from contributions of governments and non-governmental organisations from the technical community to the private sector and the civil society.

At the next stage, performance of this body can be assessed and the issue of joint support and funding by member states can be considered in accordance with the degree of effectiveness.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: -
Brazil
Submitted by: Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Brazil supports the establishment of the multi-stakeholder high-level body (MHLB) for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as proposed by the UN Secretary General in his Roadmap, as an important means to transform the IGF into a more relevant and efficient ''IGF+''.

In terms of priority functions, we are in agreement with the suggestions put forward in paragraph 93(a) of the Roadmap. The main objective of the high-level body was adequately defined in the report of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) Working Group on IGF Strengthening and Strategy, as a link that channels the perceptions and messages from IGF towards decision-makers in higher levels. We subscribe to the conclusions of the Working Group on the functions of the MHLB and its relations to the IGF architecture, including the MAG.

In terms of substantive discussions, we understand that MHLB can play an important role for the promotion of an open, single, free and participatory internet that upholds fundamental freedoms crucial to human dignity; that fosters, in particular, freedom of expression and the promotion of human rights; that contributes to advance human capacities; an internet free from
undue obstacles, motivated by political, religious or other sort of persecutions, and free from attempts to hamper access to information, violate one's privacy, make use of data for users' and citizens' loss, disseminate intrusive technologies of surveillance; and an internet that promotes innovation, free competition and freedom of enterprise and not monopolies, oligopolies, market manipulation and rent-seeking.

With regards to the relation between MHLB and MAG, we understand that it will be important that high-level experts join MHLB and closely work with MAG, in order to effectively implement the functions foreseen in paragraph 93(a).

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
We are of the view that this high-level expert group should be restricted to a maximum of 25 participants with a multistakeholder background, appointed by the UN Secretary General following proposals by their respective sectors, with limited mandates, ensuring a clear, predictable and transparent recruitment process, taking into account the need for regional and sectoral balance. The recently created "Tech Envoy'' could act as an "ex officio'' member of this
body.

Its governance structure should be simple and concise, that would allow for a harmonious collaboration with the MAG.

To comply with the provisions of the MAG Working Group, it is suggested that the members be high-level experts capable of an effective dialogue between IGF and other decision making bodies.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The MHLB must be supported by an enhanced IGF secretariat. The IGF Trust Fund might be an adequate mechanism to channel financial contributions linked to the implementation of paragraph 93(a).

MHLB high-level members can be additionally supported by their institutions of affiliation, while the IGF Secretariat could manage the logistics of the meetings.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
We support the statement of the UN Secretary General in favor of the strengthening of the Internet Governance Forum, in line with Brazil's longstanding support to a multisectoral approach for internet governance, as stated in the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil. A swift implementation of paragraph 93(a) is a necessary step in that direction.

The strengthening of the IGF must be based on the results of the consultation process undertaken by the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation and also on the broad, transparent and participatory consultations led by the MAG throughout 2020.
Bulgaria - Ministry of Transport, IT and Communications
Submitted by: Nelly Stoyanova

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
We don’t see a reason for establishing a new high‐level body. In our view, it will cause more bureaucracy and
confusion among the stakeholders who support the IGF.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?: N.A

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
If nevertheless a new high‐level body is established, it has to be funded by the UN budget.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: -
Bulgaria - Permanent Mission to the UN
Submitted by: Nikolay Nikolov

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Currently, we consider the existing multi-stakeholder advisory group sufficient to address urgent issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and transmit policy recommendations to other relevant forums. The creation of another multi-stakeholder body runs the risk of increasing the burden on stakeholders committed to the IGF.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
If nevertheless a new high-level body is established, we deem it appropriate to be funded by the UN budget and possible voluntary commitments.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Canada
Submitted by: Government of Canada

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Canada supports efforts to improve and strengthen the IGF, including many of the proposals contained in the Secretary General’s Roadmap for digital Cooperation. However, with regard to paragraph 93a) of the Roadmap we do not support the creation of the MHLB as a separate entity alongside the existing MAG. Instead, we believe that the functions set out in paragraph 93a) should be performed by a new sub-body of the MAG, along the lines of the “MAG+” model, which is one of three options for implementation of 93 a) suggested by the MAG Working Group on Strategy and Strengthening.

Unlike the MAG+ model, the MHLB implies the creation of a new entity alongside the MAG. This risks duplication of tasks between the two bodies. It also risks having the MHLB competing with or overshadowing the MAG. Such an MHLB might even overshadow the IGF itself, attracting resources and attention that the IGF requires in order to realize the vision for an “IGF+”, which stakeholders support.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
As per the “MAG+” model, this sub-body of the MAG could take the form of an “executive committee” or similar group within the MAG, nominated by IGF stakeholders and led by the chair of the MAG. It would act on behalf of the MAG to carry out the tasks indicated in paragraph 93a). It should include representatives of all stakeholder groups, and also reflect gender balance.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
As we indicate above, we do not support the creation of a new MHLB separate from the MAG. With regard to the “MAG+” model which we do support, funding and other resources should be considered in the context of overall discussions on the resource needs of the IGF+. The resource requirements for a MAG+ would presumably be far less than those for an entirely new body.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The task of building bridges between the IGF and decision-making bodies is an important component of the IGF+ model. However, it is crucial that we pursue this function in a way that strengthens and not undermines the IGF itself. We should also consider, in addition to paragraph 93a), other ways of strengthening links between the IGF and decision-making bodies, for example through intensified
outreach and great inclusion of high-level participants in the annual IGF meeting and intersessional activities.
Canada - Innovation, Science, and Economic Development
Submitted by: Taylor Bentley

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
This high level body should ONLY be limited to the leadership of the MAG, staff, and UN relevant PoCs. It can be a body that keeps UN and treaty-bound organizations ALIGNED. So UNDESA doesn't compete with ITU doesn't compete with the UN SecGen's office. There is enough efficiency that can be gained within the current patchwork that a new high level body would only further confuse. Please don't create this.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Chair of MAG
Representative of UN SecGen (call it a Tech Envoy if you wante)
IGF Secretariat/UNDESA Staff
Representatives from UN bodies and IGOs to ensure

These positions will naturally switch/rotate, but the composition of representatives will not. This leadership committee will coordinate digital policy activies across both the multilateral and multistakeholder ecosystems - and will be able to pinpoint where a combined approach (via IGF) will work best.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
current IGF Secretariat act as support staff. Comes from IGF/MAG funding, and doesn't add anything but a new (now virtual) working group. Don't spend a lot of money on this new group, find the money and oppoertunity where it already exists.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The objective of ensuring 'coherence' and preventing 'duplication' is shared by all stakeholder groups. It's also a very contentious discussion when we get into the mechanics of it. In the end, coherence/alignment is best achieved through binding directions, but in Interet Governance, the Carrot must be larger than the STICK. Folks need to WANT to refer to this IGF leadership to make their lives easier when whether they're a private sector company (like Microsoft or facebook) looking for a little guidance, or a group like ICANN that needs to defer a public policy concern that is active in an IGO or UN organizations (e.g. geographic names, human rights). This group can accomplish this shared objective if we can all agree on the mechanics and incentives of this group's work. A straightforward leadership team, plus interdepartmental working group, will be able to see the full landscape, be fully observed by the community, and be able to refer issues and identify gaps. I don't believe the mechanisms to achieve this shared objective are widely supported, such as they are in 93(a). We all agree on change, but need to think about a better way to do it that what we currently have. Let's pivot fast. I hope my contribution could help us get there faster : ] THANK YOU,!!!
Canada - Mission Permanente
Submitted by: Chrystiane Roy

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Frankly, creating a new body would simply be duplicative and further removing resources and focus from the MAG. I am not/not in favour of this MHLB. Instead, resources should be provided so that the MAG can do the follow up outreach and demarche other stakeholder groups (parliamentarians, private sector) to join the IGF debates.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
If a new entity must be identified, it should draw on the membership of the existing MAG and be some sort of MAG Executive. It would match the composition of the MAG with representatives from the various stakeholder groups and regions.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
As I do not support the creation of a new body, the question of supporting it or funding it is moot. If any such resources were already available, they should be given to the MAG and the IGF secretariat to support the activities of the National and Regional IGFs or the dynamic coalitions and the Best Practice Forums.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
There is no point in creating something just for the sake of saying you created something. As such, the UN SG who is mandated to convene the IGF would be better to give due consideration and attention to the MAG rather than have ambitions to rub shoulders with CEOs and Heads of Governments for annual photo ops.
Colombia
Submitted by: Isabel Cristina De Avila Benitez

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Among the main functions that this new body would have would be to generate clear and binding guidelines for the formulation of public policies that would allow immediate decisions to be made in order to solve problems within the member countries. The current advisory group (MAG) would be in charge of establishing the issues that need to be prioritized due to their complexity and the new high-level multisectoral body would be in charge of making decisions, given its level of empowerment.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The conformation for this new group would have a select group of representatives from each region of the world (America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania) with a participation proportional to the number of countries in each region. The rotation of its members would take place for a determined period of time without losing the quota of representation. The nomination of members from each region to form part of this new body will be made on a voluntary basis, taking into account their experience and expertise in the sector.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Support and funding for this new group would have to be shared between the United Nations and the member countries in each region.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: No comments
Egypt
Submitted by: National Telecom Regulatory Authority (NTRA)

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The Government of Egypt represented by the National Telecom Regulatory Authority (NTRA) welcomes the opportunity to submit input to the Consultations on paragraph 93(a) of the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation (https://www.un.org/en/content/digital-cooperation-roadmap/) and thanks the Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat, and for consulting with Member States and stakeholders on the way forward.
The NTRA supports creating a strategic and empowered Multi-stakeholder High-Level Body (MHLB) as an integral part of the IGF architecture. The MHLB should work towards a reinforced and full implementation of IGF mandate as set out in Tunis Agenda and as reaffirmed by UNGA. The MHLB should strive to bridge current gaps as a matter of priority, provide strategic leadership to the IGF work. It should perform its function transparently, and have a clear accountability framework that is consistent with its purpose, and strengthens IGF pivotal role.
Furthermore, MHLB should relay IGF outcomes to relevant decision-making venues, and channel relevant strategic input from other fora to the IGF work. It should coordinate follow-up actions, address urgent and pressing priorities and strengthen meaningful inclusion of underrepresented actors, particularly that of governments from the Global South— a key stakeholder with which the IGF traction warrants prioritized remedy. The MHLB should also advise the UNSG on strategic issues pertinent to the IGF and contribute to identifying any further gaps that need to be addressed to fulfill the IGF mandate.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The MHLB should be an independent component of the IGF architecture. It should have close coordination with the MAG, while having a distinct role and separate responsibilities that do not overlap with those of the MAG. It should have the flexibility to perform its role, and be empowered to provide strategic leadership for the IGF work.
The MHLB membership should be high level, with expertise relevant to urgent priority areas, concise enough in number that it allows for the required practical effectiveness, but large enough for it to capture the critically needed balanced representation. Its membership composition, rotation, and organization of work should build on relevant experience and best practice of MAG and other similar high-level bodies. The MHLB should be appointed by the UNSG through a simple, clear, and accountable composition process, guided by the IGF mandate as set out by WSIS outcomes.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The work of the MHLB should be supported by the IGF secretariat, which needs to be further strengthened and well-resourced. Innovative approaches should be explored in mobilizing additional secretarial resources on a needs basis.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
In conclusion, NTRA re-iterates its support to a strengthened IGF through moving to action on the implementation of paragraph 93(a) of the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation.
Estonia - Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Submitted by: Meelis Tiigimae

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The multi-stakeholder model must be protected and perfected, so it continues fostering open, free and secure Internet. The influence of the IGF lies in the multi-stakeholder model, which is bottom-up and all-inclusive.
Estonia does not support appointing a MHLB since such a body would undermine IGF multi-stakeholder policy discussions. The role of the MHLB would overlap with the role of the MAG. Instead, there is a need to strengthen the MAG.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?: See above.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?: See above.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Ethiopia
Submitted by: Government of Ethiopia

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Priority Functions of multi-stakeholder high-level body:
- Identifying major issues and proposes policy issues and recommendation on major trends
- Identify areas of concern filter and propose for the decision making body at UN and follow-up
- Report and advise internet governance issue from a thematic or trend specific perspective
- It shouldn’t be entangled on the routine activities of IGF rather an empowered group that filter area of concern and mandated for actions

The relationship between this body and the existing Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF:
It could be a two-way relationship, it uses IGF reports to identify the major and pressing issues and propose policy and recommendations to the high-level body (the decision-making body). Also, identify major areas of issues, challenges, and trends and propose topics to MAG.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Number of Members:
- Nineteen (19)
- From every region 2- 3 members,

Representation:
- It should be a gender balance,
- It should be Multi-stakeholder,
- It should include technical, legal, policy, and other aspects
- It should be a lightweight team that work online
- Discusses on Strategic major issue lay every month for an hour
- It can be supported by the IGF secretariat
- Lightweight with limited funding

Rotation:
- Rotation could use staggered approaches
- Two consecutive meeting absence should be replaced
- For two years and one year
- Every year there will be an election to replace half of the members
- Chairperson and co-chairperson (elected every year)

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Since it is a light weight body, it only requires limited funding. So, the funding should come from UN not from IGF

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: Non
Ethiopia - Ministry of Innovation and Technology
Submitted by: Abere Shiferaw

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
- Identifying major issues and proposes policy issues and recommendation on major trends
- Identify areas of concern filter and propose for the decision making body at UN and follow-up
- Report and advise internet governance issue from a thematic or trend specific perspective
- It shouldn’t be entangled on the routine activities of IGF rather an empowered group that filter area of concern and mandated for actions

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
- It could be a two-way relationship, it uses IGF reports to identify the major and pressing issues and propose policy and recommendations to the high-level body (the decision-making body). Also, identify major areas of issues, challenges, and trends and propose topics to MAG.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Number of Members
- Nineteen (19)
- From every region 2- 3 members,
Representation
- It should be a gender balance,
- It should be Multi-stakeholder,
- It should include technical, legal, policy, and other aspects
- It should be a lightweight team that work online
- Discusses on Strategic major issue lay every month for an hour
- It can be supported by the IGF secretariat
- Lightweight with limited funding
Rotation
- Rotation could use staggered approaches
- Two consecutive meeting absence should be replaced
- For two years and one year
- Every year there will be an election to replace half of the members
- Chairperson and co-chairperson (elected every year)

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: NON
Finland - Multistakeholder WSIS Coordination Group
Submitted by: Finnish Multistakeholder WSIS Coordination Group

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The IGF is a unique structure in the UN system that should be nurtured while strengthening and improving it. Any changes considered to the IGF’s structure must continue to ensure full participation of all stakeholder groups, maintain the bottom-up process and also ensure accountability to the entire internet governance community. Decision making in the IGF preparatory process must be consensus based.

In our view, it should first be examined whether we have exploited the full potential of existing structures before creating new ones. We believe this has not been the case and that this opportunity should be used to reform the MAG (renewed ToR, composition etc).

As sketched in Approach B, we see the ‘MHLB’ as the leadership team of the MAG, empowered by and accountable to it, not a separate body, which would risk rivaling and eclipsing it.

By providing leadership to the MAG, the high-level body should enable IGF to carry out those elements of its mandate (Art. 72 b, c and g of the Tunis Agenda in particular) that originally were intended to bridge the gap between IGF deliberations and decision-making by appropriate entities. Until now, these elements have not been given sufficient attention because the MAG has always had to focus on planning the program of the next IGF.

MHLB members would be having a visible role in addressing urgent issues and contributing as liaisons “between the world of discussion and the world of decision”, but they would not be doing this alone. We already have an existing network to amplify and take IGF messages home to decision-makers in different regions and countries; MAG members, regional and national IGF initiatives (NRIs) and other community efforts, including chapters of the Internet Society.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
We envision this renewed, two-body MAG would be of similar size as the current MAG, but with clear division of roles and responsibilities.

For Government seats in the (possibly 10-15 seat) ‘MHLB’, a troika of past, current and future host countries would ensure sufficient high-level attention from governments. Other stakeholder groups would select and rotate their representatives in accordance with renewed terms of reference.
To renew the MAG, we should improve stakeholder balance by for example considering whether it is necessary for past IGF host countries to remain MAG members.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The UN Tech Envoy should be the co-chair of the MHLB with the host country Government representative and act as a liaison between the body and the MAG.
Finland is a long standing contributor to the IGF Trust Fund. We consider it important to ensure the IGF Secretariat improves its sustainability by being sufficiently staffed on working level. We remain concerned of the potential negative impacts of a possible MHLB on IGF secretariat resourcing.
Members of a possible MHLB should cover their own participation costs. We should also explore the option of including all costs related to preparing the annual IGF (such as MAG meetings, travel support etc.) to be covered by the host country. This would simplify IGF Trust Fund management and provide it with much needed accountability and transparency.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The Finnish stakeholder community supports the UN Secretary-General in his efforts to strengthen the IGF.
Germany
Submitted by: Federal Government of Germany

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The proposal to establish an MHLB represents one of the key elements to address challenges in the
existing Internet Governance architecture. It is consistent with the objectives and recommendations
of the UN High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation (UN HLPDC) and with the content and outcomes
of the global Multistakeholder consultations on UNHLPDC Recommendations 5A/B, set out in the
document “Options for the Future of Global Digital Cooperation” (Options Paper).

The MHLB, as part of an updated and upgraded Internet Governance Forum (IGF+), should help to
improve international cooperation on pressing Internet Governance issues and strengthen the IGF
as the central discussion platform for all stakeholders around the Internet. The goal is to better
connect existing discussions in order to create synergies, to increase visibility and relevance and to
better link the policy making process at all levels, from the local to the international.

With the High Level Segment on Day Zero of the annual IGF and the Parliamentarians' Track,
important elements have already been introduced to contribute to the achievement of these
objectives. However, the link between discussions and decisions must also be maintained during the
course of the year, and all stakeholder groups from all regions have to be represented. The MHLB
should perform - together with existing processes such as BPFs, DC’s and the most valuable work of
the NRI’s - this important hinge function. It should be an integral part of the IGF ecosystem,
strengthen the discussion and enhance strategic capacity while preserving the bottom-up and
flexible nature of the current IGF. This contributes to a higher profile of the IGF and increases the
perceptibility of Internet Governance debates.

The MHLB should in no way be an independent, agenda-setting body of a top-down nature. Its
recommendations or reports – like those of the Internet Governance Forum - should remain nonbinding.
Even a IGF+ is to remain a discussion body.

There is also a broad consensus on the high value and credibility of the MAG and its contributions.
This must be respected and maintained in any kind of updated structures.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Various proposals for operationalizing the MHLB were developed and discussed by the MAG
Working Group on IGF Strategy and Strengthening and tabled as Response to the Options Paper.
These proposals excellently reflect the considerations and concerns of the community and are
balanced and actionable. The discussions on the governance structure and the design of the MHLB
as well as its relationship to the MAG should be conducted openly, transparently and inclusively on
this basis.

The MHLB should be institutionally connected with the MAG, e.g. by assuring that the MHLB Chair is
at the same time Vice Chair of the MAG and the MAG Chair is Vice Chair of the MHLB. A
strengthened IGF Secretariat should be the support unit for the MHLB.

As for the ranking of its members, a good balance needs to be found between High Level and
technical expertise of the participants.

With regard to the composition of this body, transparent and clear nomination and designation
procedures and criteria (including on geographical, gender and stakeholder balance) should be used.
A rotation principle is considered valuable. The existing processes used for MAG appointments may
be built upon as they respect stakeholder community processes.

It may be worth considering limiting the number of acting individuals in the MHLB to a medium size
number, perhaps not more than 20 in order to support the agility of the body. A rotation of 2 years
would be appropriate. The Tech Envoy should have a strong linkage to the MHLB.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
As part of the MAG, the MHLB would be supported by the IGF Secretariat. While some members
would support their participation via their organisations, others (e.g. civil society or academia) might
require specific funding to accommodate their active participation.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: -
Hungary
Submitted by: Government of Hungary

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Hungary appreciates very much the valuable work of the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation.
In general, Hungary agrees and supports the five sets of the Panel’s recommendations in order to
work jointly towards reaching Sustainable Developments Goals, and to serve global development
with inclusive and sustainable digital economy and society as those will open a way for wide
progress for all people and nations. For acting jointly on the way of exploiting the most of the
benefits and potential of the digital technologies and services while mitigating the risks, we have
to work on the base of the principles laid down by the Tunis Agenda.

We regard the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a rather powerful and useful meeting place
(both in its physical and in virtual forms) for all those stakeholders who are interested and want
to contribute to the progress of Internet Society and economy. Representatives of governments,
international organizations, private sector, civil society, academia, etc. from all geographical
regions and countries may be present, express their views, listen to others’ views and talk and
argue with each other. This way it has given a real and useful forum since 2006.

The success of the work of the IGF and the organization of the program of the meetings are
supported by the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). We also value very much the work of
this group which proved to be operational, professional and efficient in its activity based of the
versatile and multidisciplinary knowledge and approach of its members.

Firstly, because of the constant changes and fast progress of digital technologies and services
and secondly building on the experience and learnings of the past 15 years, certain
improvements and some modifications in the work of MAG and the organization and program of
the yearly IGF fora always are useful after a careful evaluation of the changes, accumulated
experience.

If a Multi-stakeholder High-level Body (MSHLB) is to be established, its duties have to
concentrate on desirable and possible improvements of IGF activities mainly by strengthening
the contacts between IGF and policymakers, and creating so added value while being thoughtful
not to undermining IGF-s, their real open, multistakeholder nature, where interested and
motivated people will come to gather from all geographical areas, all professions, all
organizations, etc. in order to talk openly about and share their views, experiences, opinion on
future development. Policymakers would be states, regional and international organizations,
major companies with global impact.

The MSHLB should not replace the MAG, rather it has to strengthen and help the MAG and its
activities. The MAG terms of reference has to be updated, extended by including the role of the
MSHLB.

This also means that the MSHLB members have to be committed to the WSIS outcomes, the IGF
mandate. The MAG will organize IGF meetings’ agenda, while MSHLB member duties will mostly
include inviting high-level participants and agreeing about their priorities and contribution to the
agenda; this way ensuring their active participation and contribution to the IGF process.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
In order to maintain both professionalism and efficient work with valuable contribution to the
IGF, the MSHLB should be of a limited size (e.g. 20 people). The members should be well known
governmental officials, senior executives of civil society, private sector, technical communities
and academia. The membership should be structured on a regular rotational principle. Chair of
the MAG will be a member of the Board.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?: As part of the MAG, the MSHLB should be supported by the Secretariat of the IGF.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
We are supportive for the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation in order to establish a more effective
global digital cooperation architecture where the IGF remains in its center.
Japan
Submitted by: Japan Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
- Japan believes that the High Level Body should have the function of making proposals and recommendations to the MAG so that the MAG can respond to the urgent challenges in the digital society and make decision in a quick and flexible way.

- The decision-making body of the IGF should be composed of the representatives of each stakeholder, and the HLB should help the decision-making and action of the MAG.

- The MAG should make decisions for follow-up of IGF discussions and policy recommendations, and input the outcomes of the IGF into other forums. The HLB should serve as the role of making proposal to the MAG.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
- Japan believes that the HLB should not be created in a form separated from the MAG but inside of the MAG. Japan also believes that the members of the HLB should be selected from MAG members by mutual selection among the MAG members, and the appointment and dismissal should be decided by the MAG.

- Because the balance between each region and stakeholder group is considered in the selection of the MAG members, it is enough that the HLB members are selected as representatives of MAG in the terms of diversity of stakeholders and geography.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
- Japan believes that there will be substantial increase in cost by creating the HLB inside of MAG. To begin with, budgets for the IGF secretariat are historically severe and the current IGF secretariat has been making efforts with minimal resources. Therefore, we don’t support adopting any measures that would require additional funds.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
- In order to strengthen the functions of the MAG, Japan believes it is important rather to ensure transparency in the member selection of the MAG, to reduce the number of the MAG members, to strengthen the connection with various stakeholders’ communities in order to promote discussions within the MAG as well as interactions with outside communities, compared to creating the HLB. There is no need to create the proposed HLB.

- Still if we would like to try creating the HLB based on the roadmap, it is desirable to create the HLB as a more agile and flexible body inside of the MAG without losing the representativeness of the MAG.

- The functions of following up the issues raised by the IGF and relaying policy recommendations to other forums, as described in 93(a), could be fulfilled by, for example, the website materialized by UK’s funding and the Tech Envoy appointed late last year, rather than handled directly by the MAG and HLB themselves.
Latvia
Submitted by: Linda Ozolina

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
IGF have been created as a multi-stake holder discussion platform to gather governments, industry, private companies, technology experts, academia, NGOs to discuss variety of Internet Governance topics with an aim to better understand specific issue. It was intended to provide an additional information and knowledge for decision makers when decisions are needed. Free and open discussions brings an opportunity to examine Internet related topics in-depth and have a look from the different angles.

We see that IGF keeps this form as a discussion platform with Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) steering the direction and selection of discussion topics. IGF and MAG were created by the decision of the World Summit of the Information Society. Creation of an additional body may raise question of legitimacy and may affect the nature of IGF. MAG is IGF’s programme committee. Proposed high level body would attempt to address the perceived lack of outcome of the Forum. At the same time one can’t expect formal outcome of the discussion forum without changing the nature of the Forum itself.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The existing MAG terms of regional representation, community representation, level of representation as well as gender balance should be applied.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?: Existing MAG financing form should be applied.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Strengthening of the IGF Secretariat by putting senior UN official at its helm could potentially suffice to perform suggested functions. That would alleviate any legitimacy concerns but would be sufficiently authoritative within the UN system and industry. Cooperation of the strengthened IGF Secretariat with the newly established post of UN Tech Envoy could be beneficial in this respect.
Malta - Permanent Representation to the UN
Submitted by: Francesca Gatt

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Priority functions:
• Translate best practices and actions coming from MAG and the IGF to policy recommendations tailored to individual states, regions, or organisations.
• Act as a sounding board for individual states, regions, or organisations to relay their initiatives and/or issues to the IGF.

Relationship with MAG:
• The MHLB would act as a more direct line of communication with governments and executive agencies around the world, whereas MAG would consolidate its activities as a programme committee and organisation.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
It would be sensible to have chairpersonship being shared, at some level, between the MHLB and MAG so as to ensure the two groups move in lock-step and to reduce duplication of effort. In terms of size and composition, a balance must be struck between inclusiveness and having an unwieldy body. One approach would be to have an upper limit of 25–30 members that represent countries or entities. A more inclusive approach would be to limit the direct membership to a number of representatives, who would be tasked with liaising with groups of nations or organisations; for small countries such as Malta the latter approach is likely to give us a stronger voice. This would also allow for a greater regional balance, since each region could be represented by the same number of delegates.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Organisations with direct representation in the MHLB, e.g., the European Union, etc., could be asked to pay a membership fee. Such fees must, however, not give an unfair advantage to wealthy countries or multinational organisations.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
There is a degree of concern, arguably justified, in that this paragraph may be interpreted as calling for a body whose remit overlaps, to some extent, with the existing MAG. By clearly delineating the responsibilities, e.g., tasking the MHLB with a more directly executive role and the MAG with an organisation role, such overlap would be minimised and allow the two bodies to complement each other.
México - Coordinación de Estrategia Digital Nacional. Oficina de la Presidencia de la República.
Submitted by: Jazmin Aquino

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Fortalecer el espíritu abierto y colaborativo del internet como un habilitador de la soberanía digital.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?: Equilibrio regional y rotación de miembros.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
México - MFA
Submitted by: VALERIA SOLIS

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
It should be a platform for the presentation, promotion, understanding and sharing of stakeholder interests and topical policies in the era of digital interdependence as well as a platform to orient stakeholders on whom to address when facing questions related to global digital policy issues.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Should be a horizontal and collegiate governance structure, with a balanced multistakeholder composition reflecting at least the following stakeholder groups but open to additional ones: governments, digital industry, NGO´s, technical community, citizen or end-users. It must aim at establishing a management of digital interdependence among all stakeholders in the 30 issues identified by the Roadmap and reflected in at least the following 8 topical segments: techology, legal, socioeconomic, security, economic, human rights and development. Regional and GENDER balance is of course expected. Could be allocated on a rotating basis among regional groups for all categories alike. Rotation could be for periods of 2-4 years to achieve continuity and stability.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?: Through contributions by all stakeholder segments.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Make sure to use digital tools and platforms for the operationalization and reach of this multi-stakeholder high-level body.
Netherlands - Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate
Submitted by: Alisa Heaver

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
We think the MHLB should have a well-defined and limited scope, which decisively contributes to the creation of a more strategic and relevant IGF+, while keeping it firmly rooted in the multi-stakeholder system of internet governance. We share the legitimate concerns around the creation of the MHLB, in particular the risk that the MHLB undermines and takes attention away from the IGF itself.
To address these issues, we believe that the main function of the MHLB should be to engage with internet decision-makers to convey the results of the IGF and bring them to the IGF table to openly discuss their policy proposals and concepts with the global multistakeholder community. These decision-makers would be states, regional and international organisations, but also major internet companies that take decisions about the internet that have a global impact. The discussion would focus on particular policies, not on the organisations as such. There is no clear global fora for decision-makers to gather such policy input and discussions, and the IGF+ is well positioned to cover this gap in a globally diverse and relevant way and make decision-makers more accountable to the global community.
To fulfil this role, and to avoid creating new unnecessary structures, we think the MHLB should be integrated in the MAG and collaborate with MAG members, with no hierarchical relations. The “current” MAG should continue performing its functions, with attention to the elements defined in paragraph 93 (a), which we consider are already part of the MAG. The MAG terms of reference should be updated to better reflect those roles, and include the MHLB. As part of the new MAG, the MHLB should focus on fulfilling the role defined in the paragraph above.
All MHLB members should be committed to the WSIS outcomes and the IGF mandate, and be collegially involved in the selection of high-level IGF participants and policies for discussion, following defined diversity criteria. The MAG would continue organizing the IGF bottom-up agenda, providing concrete suggestions to the MHLB regarding the high-level IGF participants to be invited and the policies and initiatives to be discussed.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Given its function, the members of this body should have the capacity to engage a diverse range of decision-makers to openly participate in the IGF annually, including their own organisations. The members should be at ministerial level or senior official level for governments and head of organisation or senior executive level for civil society, private sector, academia and technical community organisations.
The group should be of small size (less than 20 participants) to allow for fruitful exchanges and efficient coordination and should work in an open and transparent manner. A good level of diversity should be ensured in terms of representation of stakeholder groups, regions and gender. The members of the MHLB should rotate on a regular basis, for example every 2 years. The Chair of the MAG and the Tech Envoy would participate in the MHLB.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
As part of the MAG, the MHLB would be supported by the IGF Secretariat. While some members would support their participation via their organisations, others (e.g. civil society or academia) might require specific funding to accommodate their active participation. Increased funding – via the IGF Trust Fund – may be required to support the MHLB, part of which may be provided by MHLB members on a voluntary basis.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
We remain fully supportive of the consensus created around the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, in particular to what concerns recommendations 5a and 5b – we would like a more strategic, more focused, more ambitious IGF. We call for a swift implementation of recommendations 5a and 5b, in full consultation with the multistakeholder community, to establish a new and more efficient global digital cooperation architecture, with an IGF+ at its centre.
The effectiveness and legitimacy of the MHLB will be served best by an open and transparent process. Therefore the outcome of the questionnaire and follow-up process should be discussed within the multistakeholder community.
Poland
Submitted by: Government of Poland

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Looking at the perspective of the IGF 2021 host country, Poland is in favour of creating the new Multistakeholder High-Level Body (MHLB) proposed in the UN Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation. We see as an important issue to either appoint this Body before the IGF 2021 and/or to officially inaugurate the MHLB during the IGF 2021 in Poland.
In our view, it should work towards strengthening cooperation, developing capacities in digital policy and ensuring technology works for people. Considering the IGF 2021 overarching theme “Internet United”, we would welcome, if the newly established MHLB could create linkage between the decision world and the discussion world, taking into account multistakeholder perspective of internet governance. Such a Body could make better use of the knowledge and contacts of high-level people who are not always actively involved in operational and technical discussions.

That is why we suggest to take into consideration a broader involvement of representatives of the past, present and future IGF host countries in the works of MHLB. This would be an added value as these countries have broad contacts and experience in gathering the IGF communities but also other entities. On the other hand, it could be a form of appreciation for their commitment as the IGF host countries. Their engagement would be without prejudice to the participation of representatives from the government sector. This is because they would not consume places reserved for the high-level governmental officials. Instead, they could set up a permanent advisory group. Building on their expertise and experience, an informal presidency of the MHLB could be set up, using for instance the current formula of troika in the EU Presidency. A special place would be reserved also for the UN Tech Envoy, who could also be involved in chairing this Body and to discuss at a high-level key principle issues. Moreover, the MHLB would have an overall supervision of the UN SG.

Bearing this in mind, the creation of MHLB could give an opportunity to reach out to those that have an important role to play in the IGF ecosystem but have not been part of it so far. Therefore, the Body would base on know-how and experience not only of representatives of academia, private sector, NGOs or administrations (governments). It could also reach out for instance to national regulatory authorities which have knowledge and expertise on many aspects related to Internet (e.g. digitals skills, roll-out of broadband infrastructure, emerging technologies, spectrum management issues related to 5G). In addition, we propose to consider, at the UN level, that the MHLB also includes heads of entities subordinate to the UN, which deal with digitization – e.g. the International Telecommunication Union – ITU. The UN and its agencies could therefore better support member states in dealing with digital challenges.

Last but not least, key principles such as multistakeholderism, transparency, inclusivity and dialogue should be safeguarded. There should be no overlapping leadership. Duplication of tasks and lack of coordination should be avoided.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) have managed to break down silos between stakeholders in the area of internet governance.
In case a two-tiered multistakeholder IGF leadership structure would be introduced, including the MHLB and the MAG, the MHLB could provide strategic leadership, while the MAG would continue to focus on the IGF programme.

If an option of a new separate body within the IGF prevails (with strong linkages of the MHLB with the MAG, equality and no hierarchy), there should be clear division of competencies between the MAG and the newly established MHLB.

With reference to criteria for the MHLB selection procedure, it could be the same or very similar like those used for the MAG, with special focus on transparent and clear nomination and designation. Composition of this Body could be based on the MAG practice and experience and would comprise of equal number of people from each stakeholder group. However, we would like try to prevent this group from being too large. In our view, a maximum of 15 – 20 people would be sufficient.

As regards the MHLB representation, it would consist of a high-level senior ministerial/ambassador level for governments or heads of organization level for civil society, private sector, academia and technical community organizations, as well as of prominent individuals, senior officials or executives from the respective stakeholder and regional groups. The MHLB could meet twice a year, whereas the first (mid-term) meeting would be rather operational and the second (at the end of the year) would be summarizing and organized on the margins of the annual IGF. The rotation of members would be for 3 years, similar to the MAG. A Multiannual IGF Strategy Plan would need to be prepared and approved in order to clearly define main issues and goals for the coming years.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
We think it would be good to use the current UN resources, including those from the IGF Trust Fund to support the works of the MHLB. In case it would be somehow connected with the MAG, it could be supported by the IGF Secretariat, whose staff would need to be enlarged.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Poland remains fully committed to reaching the goals set up in the UN SG’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation. We are ready to cooperate with all stakeholders in reaching out the consensus on establishing a more efficient global digital cooperation architecture.
Qatar
Submitted by: Permanent Mission of the State of Qatar to the United Nations

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
1.1 State of Qatar welcomes establishing of the mentioned multi-stakeholder, high-level body.
1.2 The priority function of this group shall focus on Internet Governance issues that has a global impact on the Internet as a platform for digital services while on the other hand, the group can also facilitate on bridging the gap between developed and developing countries with special focus on topics related to human rights.
1.3 Larger communities are at risk of digital inclusion due to adoption of technology during Covid. This should be a priority consideration for the group.
1.4 Collaboration between countries that are contributing well towards SDGs need to support countries where the need is greater. Mechanisms for concerted collaborative effort need to be developed.
1.5 State of Qatar suggests that the body can be part of the existing multi-stakeholder advisory group of the IGF to coordinate the efforts and avoid duplication of efforts.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
2.1 The governance structure of the current existing Multi stakeholder Advisory Group can be applied to the suggested body.
2.2 State of Qatar recommends that the composition of the body can be agreed globally as followings:
A. Body members: 2 presenters from each region (North America, South America, Asia and Australia. Europe, Africa, and Middle-East).
B. Body Participants: presenters from stakeholder groups experts and selected academic institutes and any other interested parties.
C. Rotation of members and participants shall be 4 years with option of extension to 8 years.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Support and fund can be secured from related United Nations organizations like ITU, UPU and similar other organizations.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: N/A
Spain
Submitted by: MINISTERIO DE ASUNTOS ECONÓMICOS Y TRANSFORMACIÓN DIGITAL

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Spain supports the establishment of the MHLB foreseen in the UN Secretary-General Roadmap. It would help bridge relevant gaps in the existing IGF. Regarding the functions we support the ones outlined in section 93a of the Roadmap.
We agree with the way the MAG WG on Strategy has detailed those functions.
Concerning the relationship with the existing MAG we think that they should be separate and complementary, as they perform different functions which imply distinct profiles.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The MAG WG has developed very useful criteria regarding all these aspects. The body of high-level people should be small, and drawn from all stakeholder groups, with nominations by stakeholder groups and designation by the UNSG, rotation by thirds, and limited terms – ensuring a clear, predictable and transparent process and criteria on geographical, gender and stakeholder balance.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The body should be supported by a strengthened IGF Secretariat and the existing IGF Trust Fund should be used for funding.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: None.
Switzerland
Submitted by: Swiss Government

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
We support the establishment of the MHLB, as envisaged by the UN Secretary-General in his
Roadmap, as an important element for developing the IGF into a more effective and relevant “IGF+”.

Functions:
Regarding the “priority functions”, we agree with those included in paragraph 93(a) of the Roadmap.
The main purpose of the body has been aptly defined in the approaches developed by the MAG WG
on Strategy “as a carrier that transports the insights and messages from the IGF so that they reach the
eyes and ears of decision-makers at the highest levels” (see both approaches A and B).
We support how said MAG WG has clustered those functions (very similarly in all approaches A, B,
and C), connecting them to other elements of the IGF architecture, including the MAG.

Relationship with the MAG:
We consider that the distinct functions envisaged in paragraph 93(a) require a high-level profile group
able to perform them effectively as a collective, within the IGF structures. This prima facie calls in our
opinion for a separate body with strong cooperation ties with the MAG, as envisaged in approach A of
the MAG WG, although with different profiles as mentioned in our response to question 2.
Nevertheless, the performance of such functions by such a high-level group may also be possible by
adding a new “leadership or executive” layer to the MAG (as proposed in approach B of the MAG WG)
or by means of an integrated structure of MHLB and MAG as proposed in approach C of the MAG
WG..

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
We support the criteria developed by the MAG WG regarding composition and related aspects,
which are consistent with the intention, expressed in 93(a), to build on the experience of the existing
MAG. The high-level group should be small, probably with a maximum of 25 people from all
stakeholder groups, with bottom-up nominations by stakeholder groups and UNSG designation,
rotation by thirds, and limited terms – ensuring a clear, predictable and transparent process and
criteria on geographical, gender and stakeholder balance. The UNGS’s Envoy on Technology should
possibly and ex officio be member of this body.

The governance structure should be as lean and simple as possible, ensuring smooth cooperation
between the body and the MAG (should they be separate, as proposed in approach A of the MAG
WG) or by integrating the body as a new layer in the MAG (approach B) or by a common leadership
structure (approach C).

The profile of the members of this body should be sufficiently high-level, as envisaged by all MAG
WG approaches (where we would have a certain preference for how the profile is defined in
approaches A and C), allowing them to effectively liaise between IGF discussions and decisionmaking
fora.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
We agree with the MAG WG (in all its approaches A, B and C) that the body should be supported by a
strengthened IGF Secretariat.

In our opinion, the IGF Trust Fund should be the funding channel for the costs associated with
implementing paragraph 93 (a). These costs should be limited as synergies in the IGF Secretariat
should be used. We would closely consider contributing together with other stakeholders to such
effort.

Further to this, and as mentioned in some of the approaches developed by the MAG WG, the highlevel
individuals designated for such a body will potentially be individually supported by their own
organizations (e.g. with "Sherpas", advisers etc.).

The IGF Secretariat would remain responsible for the organization and logistics of the meetings.
Potentially, some organizations with high-level representatives in the MHLB might be more prone to
funding the IGF Trust Fund, given the increased

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
We support the UN Secretary-General in his declared intention to continue the “strengthening of the
Internet Governance Forum” (Secretary-General's remarks to Member States on Priorities for 2021).
We consider that a swift implementation of paragraph 93(a) is a necessary means in that process.
Hence, based on the results of the rich consultation process which started with the work of the High-
Level Panel on Digital Cooperation and which culminated in the implementation approaches
developed by the MAG during 2020, we call for moving to action to making the Internet Governance
Forum more responsive and relevant to current digital issues.

1.https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/filedepot_download/10447/2267
2.https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2021-01-28/secretary-generals-remarks-member-states-priorities-for-2021-bilingual-delivered-scroll-down-for-all-english-version#:~:text=2021%20must%20be%20the%20year,more%20important%20now%20than%20ever.
Ukraine
Submitted by: Ministry of Digital Transformation

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
We would recommend that one of the main tasks would be a development or recommendations for state authorities in charge of policy making in the field of internet and digitalization. Such recommendations shall be developed by the working groups of
the body.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The body should consist of working groups divided by the institutional background of representatives (state authorities, civil society, professional associations etc.) Governance of the body may be provided by a secretariat (as an administrative
body) which would consist of 7 members chosen by the representatives of working groups.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?: The body may use the funding model of IGF.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
United Arab Emirates
Submitted by: Anna Reich

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The UAE fully support the establishment of a high-level body, which should not replace the existing MAG but be complementary to it.
If we want to improve digital cooperation based on the existing structures (IGF+ model) then we have to breathe new life into the IGF, by among other things, ensuring political relevance of the IGF. The high-level body could advise the IGF on policy-priorities and ensure that outcomes of the IGF reach the radar of decision-makers. The main purpose of having a “high-level” body should be to ensure that the IGF’s work and its outcomes are closely linked with decision-makers policy priorities in governments.
The high-level body should report directly to the SG.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The high-level body should be limited in size and high-level in terms of its participation. That said, it might be worthwhile considering have a sherpa system for the participants, given that the membership is high-level, and yet the work would be substantive.
The high-level body should be multistakeholder in nature, including science, private sector (CEO level ) and government representatives (minister level).
The duration of the term could be capped at 3 years at most. (based on the current MAG membership term being also 3 years.)

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Participation in the high-level body should be on a pro bono basis.
Funding could be raised through a Trust Fund.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
United Kingdom
Submitted by: UK Government

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The UK Government strongly supports the proposals to strengthen the IGF, as outlined in
the UN Secretary General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation. We believe that the proposed
High Level Body (HLB) should provide strategic leadership to the development of the IGF+,
improve the Forum’s senior representation and strengthen its links with decision-making and
other influential organisations.

The UK Government does, however, have serious concerns on the creation of a High Level
Body as a separate body distinct from the MAG. Instead, and as articulated as an option in
the Report 1 from the IGF Strategic Working Group, we favour an approach where the new
High Level Body sits within the MAG. Essentially the body would act like an Executive
Committee or multi-stakeholder Leadership Team of the MAG.

While the UK Government agrees (as noted above) that the IGF needs stronger leadership,
we are concerned that creating a HLB that is separate to the MAG could actually undermine
the IGF. There is a risk that a separate body of high profile individuals could detract attention
from the IGF itself and not be accountable to the IGF community. There is also a risk that the
role of the HLB would overlap with the role of the MAG, which could lead to confusion, as
well as additional bureaucracy and costs. Furthermore, we believe that appointing a group of
high profile individuals, separate to the MAG, would not be in keeping with the Forum’s
bottom-up, multi-stakeholder ethos.

We believe that our proposal, in positioning the body within the MAG, would enable us to
ensure that the IGF has a stronger leadership, a stronger corporate identity and a more
strategic approach. It would empower the MAG by improving its current composition and
would ensure cohesion between efforts to strengthen the IGF.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
While, clearly, these questions merit further dialogue and debate, the UK suggests that the
HLB could be composed of one or two senior representatives from each stakeholder group,
plus the IGF Chair (or their nominee). It should of course be diverse in its representation in
terms of geographical region, gender and stakeholder group, and its membership should
rotate on a regular basis. As part of the MAG, the body would follow the MAG’s expected
behaviours and procedures.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
As part of the MAG (or effectively an Executive Committee of it), the new HLB should be
supported through MAG funding mechanisms, including additional funding and support from
UN DESA.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The UK Government, as noted, is very supportive of its proposals to strengthen the IGF and
the effectiveness of the MAG. We are pleased that there is so much consensus in the wider
community around these proposals and look forward to them being taken forward.

Summary:
The UK Government would like to thank the UN, and specifically the Office of the UN Envoy,
for this opportunity to further elaborate our views on the important proposal in the UN
Secretary General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation for a High Level Body (HLB) as
articulated in paragraph 93(a). We are also grateful for all the work taken forward by the UN,
Germany, the UAE and others in articulating the potential role, governance and membership
of the HLB and how it might work to enhance the important work of the Internet Governance
Forum (IGF).

The UK is a strong supporter of the IGF, and has been since its inception in 2006. The IGF
is the only global multi-stakeholder forum for discussion and deliberation on Internet
Governance issues, bringing together annually, as well as in the National and Regional
Initiatives (NRIs), stakeholders from many different constituencies, cultures and regions. As
highlighted during the global pandemic, ICTs and the Internet now play a pivotal role in
society, which makes these discussions increasingly important. As recognised in the
Roadmap and Recommendations from the High Level Panel, it is therefore important that
the IGF and the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) are strengthened, both in terms of
resources and support, enabling a more focused, strategic and output-orientated annual
programme for the IGF along with the valuable inter-sessional activities.

We look forward to working with the UN, with other governments and with the wider
stakeholder community to ensure, as the UN Secretary General has noted, that the IGF
continues to allow all stakeholders to have a voice on the policies and technologies that will
shape the evolution of the Internet.
United States
Submitted by: Government of the United States of America

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The United States opposes the creation of the new Multistakeholder High-level Body (MHLB)
described in paragraph 93(a) of the Roadmap on Digital Cooperation. The fundamental problem
is that this new body is envisioned to “relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations
from the IGF to the appropriate normative and decision-making forums,” which we believe is
contrary to the role of the IGF and potentially undermines the role of the current
Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and, importantly, the multistakeholder approach to
Internet policy and governance long supported by the international community. This proposal
also raises procedural questions and concerns for the other ‘forums” where the new body would
presumably make policy recommendations.

As a practical matter, while great strides have been made in recent years, the IGF has yet to
develop a transparent and inclusive mechanism for the drafting of “policy approaches and
recommendations.” The MHLB risks channeling its interpretation of multistakeholder
discussions into decision-making bodies without accountability.

The United States also does not see the need to create a second advisory body for the IGF,
particularly one that is not clearly distinct or different from the MAG. The MAG is already well
established and has a long history of supporting the IGF process, both in the planning for the
annual meeting and in working to support the global dialogue in the interim periods.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Instead of creating a new body, the United States encourages the UN Secretariat to better support
the international community towards improving the MAG, including by providing additional
secretariat support and resources, elevating the profile of the MAG, and helping to streamline
MAG processes. We also support enhancing the feedback loop between the global IGF and the
National and Regional IGF initiatives.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The United States encourages the UN secretariat, within existing resources, to fully support the
work of the IGF, the MAG, and the IGF Secretariat, particularly as the IGF can take a central
role in implementing the Roadmap on Digital Cooperation.

Also, to ensure trust and confidence in the integrity of the bottom-up nature of the IGF, any new
effort should continue to be as transparent and inclusive as possible when it comes to
participation and funding.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The United States continues to strongly support the IGF. For 16 years, it has served as an open
forum for global discussion on Internet policy issues. It is a unique annual event in that it is
hosted by the United Nations but driven by the multistakeholder community. Its program is
created from the bottom up, not the top down, and it functions as a platform for synergy,
discussion, and debate to fuel policy innovation. We believe that the IGF has evolved and
improved over the years in large part because of these characteristics. We will continue to
support improvements to the IGF that make its work more impactful, while still remaining true to
its multistakeholder nature.

Private Sector

419 Consulting Ltd
Submitted by: Andrew Campling

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Such a body should be able to set public policy priorities that, amongst other things, give direction to Internet standards development organisations such as the IETF. It should be an integral part of the MAG rather than a free-standing body.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
To be effective, the diversity of the multi-stakeholder body is vitally important. Ideally, members will be drawn from a range of geographies and ensure representation of as wide a range as possible of different stakeholder groups, avoiding undue weight to, for example, big tech companies or governments.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
A "pay-to-play" model is not desirable as this would likely reinforce the current position of some of the more entrenched stakeholders, in particular, big tech companies, to the disadvantage of other groups.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
True Internet governance is sorely needed so the proposed "strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body" is necessary. The trick will be to establish a body that can operate in the best interests of a multitude of stakeholder groups without allowing the big tech companies to apply undue influence. The Internet has been an incredible force for good, however, it seems clear that the balance has moved increasingly towards harm over the last decade. This needs to be both recognised and addressed.
Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property
Submitted by: Charles Sha'ban

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
To have better access to decision making people from the different stakeholders and get any needed information and concerns to the current IGF MAG, and vice-versa.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Should include people from all stakeholders but not to be big; i.e. we should not create another MAG with 40 or even 50+ members rather 10-12 members max (2 from each stakeholder as an example).

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
From usual donors and big firms who know that this will help pass their concerns to all stakeholders and many governments.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Afilias
Submitted by: Desiree Miloshevic Evans

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The new high-level body should be an integral part of the MAG, like the Executive Committee part of the MAG itself.
It should not be a separate body from the MAG itself.
Its task should be acting as an external relations arm of the MAG, but also give input and guidelines to the MAG members and the MAG Chair in preparation of the Annual IGF program and its future development.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
As someone who acted as one of several Special Advisors to the first MAG Chair, I believe that the group should not be larger than 7 but preferably only 5 members to represent 5 basic stakeholder categories, Civil Society, Private Sector, Governments, Internet Technical Community and Academia and 5 regions. Therefore the composition of the Executive MAG should aim to get the regional balance as well as represent all stakeholder groups. Rotation of members should be every 3rd year, but possibly staggered.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
This body members should be supported by the MAG budget and the UN IGF Trust Fund and by the very stakeholder group the member comes from.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The meetings of the Executive MAG members should be scheduled before and/or attached to the Open MAG Consultation Day meetings.
Amali De Silva-Mitchell
Submitted by: Amali De Silva-Mitchell

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Priority should be about international risk management in times of crisis. This could be to support immediate connectivity and ensuing issues for events such as the Covid19 pandemic and associated ICT issues for education, workplace connectivity and especially mobile and general ehealth. Other examples would be a tsunami, earthquake, rising sea-levels etc. It should be a focus on United Nations emergency operations in keeping with mandates such as UNICEF and communications for citizens. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals long term achievement for new normals come in to existence on a different developmental trajectory post a crisis event or due to sudden changes to technology infra-structure that is unaffordable to the general global public. This requires integrated risk management for success. Bridging the digital gap in times of crisis, for fast relief to reach a new normal, with the provision of quality internet access should be the key to success.

The IGF Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) are well placed, bottom-up groups to identify emerging risks and provide observations for uptake for high-level discussions. DCs should be consulted annually, in a systematic manner and an open call to all DCs made, so that cross cutting issues for sustainable integration, inclusivity and diversity of expectations can be considered.

Consideration should be given also to development of sustainable circular economies for technology with low e-waste and participation from local nonprofit groups for cost effective local solutions.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Up to 75 members of two-year terms each with a good balance of sectors, stakeholders, size of entity, regions, age and gender etc. IGF dynamic coalitions should also have a seat and can be very effective to attain stakeholder inclusiveness.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
All meetings should be virtual meetings so that there can be affordable access for all equally.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Quality access to the internet is key to meets the UN SDGs in the new world era. New technologies such as AI, Blockchain and Quantum Technology will create a heavier load on the internet and this should be an area for discussion. We will also see new manners for connectivity and jurisdictional management and this also is an important area when considering the role of the Policy Network vis a vis ICANN.
ICC BASIS
Submitted by: ICC BASIS

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
We agree that the goals of raising the IGF’s political profile and better coordination with various
other UN processes and projects are important, and we support holistic reforms towards these
aims. In the right circumstances, which we outline in response to question 4 below, a
multistakeholder high-level body may contribute to adding weight and visibility to the IGF’s
work and provide a place for some strategic discussions about the role and activities of the IGF
on the road towards becoming “IGF Plus”, as envisioned by the UN Secretary General’s
Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, and expanded upon in the Options Paper provided by the
co-champions of Recommendation 5A/B.

Function
Indications on some of the would-be functions of such a strategic and empowered body are
included in paragraph 93(a) of the Roadmap that mentions:
▪ “address urgent issues”;
▪ “coordinate follow-up action on the [Internet Governance] Forum discussions”;
▪ “relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the [Internet
Governance] Forum to the appropriate normative and decision-making forums”.

Appropriate coordination and cooperation with other UN bodies and multilateral organizations
can support higher visibility for the deliberations of the IGF, so that its mission, roles, and
outputs are more widely understood, referenced and incorporated across the UN system and
in other multilateral organizations. The IGF is the foremost multistakeholder forum for Internet
governance issues and it is important to make global decision-making bodies, where
stakeholders are often not part of the decision-making process, aware of IGF multistakeholder
deliberations and viewpoints. This would ensure better use of the IGF’s outputs and Messages
as well as raising the profile of the IGF to relevant decision-makers and policy-makers.

We would emphasize this function and agree with the representative of the Office of the
Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology during the 22 February consultations on the
potential for the MHLB to play a role in making links “between discussion and decision”.
Members of the new high-level body could act as liaison points between the IGF and any
international decision-making bodies and normative bodies with remits and activities that are
touched on by IGF outputs.

To ensure the body performs its functions efficiently, its Terms of Reference should include
clear indication on how the community could hold it accountable to agreed-upon charters and rules of engagement with the UN as well as other multilateral and multistakeholder entities.

Furthermore, the body should also keep informed of the activities and workplans of these
organizations, therefore ensuring its awareness of any urgent or emerging issues, avoiding
duplication of work and in turn informing the IGF. This would help support another central
function for the new body, to provide strategic direction to the IGF. This would include tasks
such as drafting a multi-year strategic framework and taking a lead on designing and
implementing the changes that would encompass the transition to an “IGF Plus”.

At the same time, the role of any new high-level body cannot be considered in isolation. We
would identify two other key actors that support IGF visibility and coordination:

First, the National, Sub-Regional, Regional and Youth IGF initiatives (NRIs) should be seen a
primary channel for disseminating the global IGF discussions down to the national and regional
levels. The new body could therefore focus on performing outreach to international bodies but
also help to more effectively use the NRI network as a way to amplify the IGF’s messages
beyond the international level and down to where decisions are taken at local and national
levels.

Second, the IGF Secretariat: we would note that providing additional resources to the IGF
Secretariat will also support the goals of visibility and coordination, as this would enable the
IGF Secretariat to perform tasks to support improved communications and reporting.

Indeed, an additional function for the high-level body could be to support fundraising. It is
already the case that one of the responsibilities of MAG members under the Terms of
Reference is to “explore new fundraising opportunities for contributions to the IGF Trust Fund”.
However, fundraising requests from senior representatives with a higher profile are likely to be
received with greater consideration, so this could be a valuable way to leverage the more
senior profile foreseen for members of this new body.

Relationship to the IGF MAG:

While the text of paragraph 93(a) provides indication on the would-be functions of the body,
the chapeau text of the paragraph provides the context and spirit in which the body would be
established. The paragraph notes how the recommendations in 93(a) and onwards are made
“with a view to make the Internet Governance Forum more responsive and relevant to current
digital issues”. This implies that the proposed body is intended to work to build up the
reputation and relevance of the IGF, not to pull attention or support away from it. The structure
of the proposed body must therefore support the bottom-up multistakeholder ethos, which is
reflected in the IGF MAG.

It is from this consideration that we broadly support Approach B of the Response to the
Options Paper provided by the MAG Working Group on Strengthening & Strategy. Approach B
sets out a “MAG Plus” structure whereby the functions of the body would be performed by an
executive committee of the MAG. Rather than establishing a body in addition to the MAG, it
would be simpler and more coherent to create an additional layer within the MAG.
Such an approach would also make it much easier to avoid duplication and lack of
coordination. But the structure and terms of reference should also avoid creating another layer
to decision-making. While MAG members would continue to be primarily responsible for
organizational tasks around the annual meeting (e.g. designing the program, evaluating workshop proposals, organizing Main Sessions etc.), the members of the executive committee
would have different functions and terms of reference of a strategic nature, performing an
advisory role to the more operational MAG. Having the high-level leadership as a second
senior tier of the MAG, rather than being in a separate body, would better ensure coherence
and coordination between the existing work of the MAG and the new functions foreseen in
paragraph 93(a) of the Roadmap. In addition, establishing a single body overseen by a single
MAG Chair would avoid the complication of having two separate leaders of two separate
bodies.

We would envisage this MAG executive committee meeting alongside the three face-to-face
meetings of the MAG, both for the sake of efficiency, and to enable the executive committee to
also take part in the MAG meetings. With the MAG meetings lasting for three days, this could
mean the Executive Committee meeting on the day before the MAG meeting starts and on the
day after it concludes. It could also meet at the request of the UN Secretary General’s Envoy
on Technology or the MAG Chair to address emergencies in line with the reference in
paragraph 93(a) for the body to “address urgent issues”.

We would underline the necessity of a well-funded IGF Secretariat for the relationship we
outline above to be, at best, effective, and at least, not harmful to the functioning of the IGF.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
We recall again Approach B of the Response to the Roundtable 5AB Options Paper provided
by the MAG Working Group on Strengthening & Strategy, that outlines a very pragmatic way
forward for the functioning of the body – established as an executive committee of the MAG.

While some proposed that the body be composed of top-level senior officials (Ministerial and
C-level), we do not believe that composition would yield the innovative and practical steps
needed to move the IGF forward. Rather, we urge that members of the new body be senior
working level government officials, stakeholder representatives and executives who have
experience operating within digital policy-related decision bodies and Internet governance, and
who have time to commit to attend the meetings and carry out the additional outreach activities
and other work between meetings.

We believe the executive committee, as described above, should be led by the MAG Chair and
composed of 8 additional members from the IGF’s four stakeholder groups – governments,
civil society, private sector and technical community. Having two representatives per
stakeholder group rather than just the one, as originally envisaged in Approach B, would be
important both for facilitating gender and geographic diversity and for having enough people to
efficiently carry out the functions of the Executive Committee. Given that one of the body’s
main roles would be to provide a link to relevant international organisations, it would not be
necessary for it to include IGOs among its members.

The body should have a very similar nomination and selection procedure to the one used for
the MAG. To strengthen the link between the new body and the MAG, four of the executive
committee members (one for each stakeholder group) could be selected either by or from the
MAG. The other members of the new body could be appointed by the Office of the Envoy on
International Chamber of Commerce | 4
Technology, based on nominations from the community. We reiterate that establishing a single
body overseen by a single MAG Chair would avoid the complication of having two separate
leaders of two separate bodies.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The creation of a new body, with new functions and its own meetings, will require some
funding, at least in terms of Secretariat staff to support its work and to support travel costs of
members from developing countries (as is the case for MAG members).

As clarified by the representative of the Office of the Envoy on Technology during the 22
February consultations, the proposed MHLB is envisaged to be “part of the structure of the
IGF” and “is not foreseen as a separate body from the IGF”. It therefore follows that the new
body should be supported and funded like the rest of the global IGF – supported by the IGF
Secretariat and funded by the IGF Trust Fund. Not only will this help underline that the new
body is part of the IGF, but it would help prevent a situation whereby different parts of the IGF
are competing for funding.

As it currently stands, the Trust Fund struggles to support existing IGF activities, and more
funding would need to be found to support the establishment of a new high-level body or the
new executive committee of the MAG. The Trust Fund should continue to be the single focus
for IGF fundraising, and we therefore appreciate the recognition by UN DESA of the need to
professionalize fundraising to support an improved and expanded IGF. The private sector,
including ICC BASIS and member companies, urged this for many years and were gratified to
see efforts underway to recruit a fundraising consultant for 2021, which we expect to be
successful in increasing the size of the Trust Fund’s budget.

Another potential way to boost the Trust Fund could be for the UN to forego or reduce its
“Programme Support Costs”. These overhead costs result in 13% of the Trust Fund being
diverted away from the staffing and other activities of the IGF, and it might create some
difficulty for potential donors to understand how this reflects actual costs of supporting the IGF.
Such a symbolic gesture would result in a significant boost to the Trust Fund money available
for IGF staffing and activities, and it would very visibly demonstrate to the broader community
the commitment from the UN itself to the strengthening and success of the IGF.

In addition, we reiterate calls made during previous consultations by the UN Secretary
General’s High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation and Roundtable 5 A/B, for more accessible
and transparent mechanisms to enable charitable contributions of any size to the IGF’s budget.
The IGF Trust Fund’s operations must have greater transparency and the contribution process
simplified to enable stakeholders of all sizes to make contributions or varying amounts.

As already mentioned in our response to question 1 above, one of the functions of the
members of this new body could be to support fundraising to boost the IGF Trust Fund and
enable the various new activities foreseen as part of a transition to a strengthened and
expanded “IGF Plus”.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
We very much welcome this opportunity to provide feedback on how to implement paragraph 93(a) of the UN Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation. We again highlight foundational issues that must be addressed in parallel with consideration of a high-level body, including: funding for the IGF Secretariat; more predictability and clarity on the IGF’s areas of focus; and support from the UN to amplify IGF deliberations and outputs.

We also strongly urge UN DESA, the IGF Secretariat and the Office of the Envoy on Technology to seek input on the fully formed proposal that will result from this consultation.

This new body will play a key role in the transition to an expanded and strengthened IGF, as envisioned by the Roadmap. It is therefore increasingly important to get the overarching goals and details right. There are risks of unintended, potentially harmful, consequences if the functions and architecture of a new body are not appropriately tailored. For example, risks to the bottom-up nature of the IGF model, the value of which is seen in the national IGF chapters and is at the heart of the IGF’s multi-stakeholder approach.

It is therefore important that the IGF community is able to provide views on a proposed description of this new IGF body which is more granular than the 45 words contained in paragraph 93(a) of the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation. That future consultation should be accompanied by a summary of the responses to this consultation.

It is important to take the time to get this significant new step in the IGF’s evolution right and to ensure that it has the support of the community that it will serve. We think it is also important to wait until there is a permanent Envoy on Technology in situ and until funding has been found or pledged to cover the costs of this new body.
June Parris
Submitted by: June Parris

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The group shoulda first of all prioritize a goos relationship with the MAG in order to have a good understanding of the ethos of the organization. things should not be duplicated, therefore there must be clear guidelines. I would also suggest policy making and clear protocols.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
All stake holder groups should be represented, there must be inclusion and language interpretation must also be considered. No of members should not exceed those of the MAG. In terms of funding too many members should not exist. There is already a secretariat, there fore there is need to have a chair or a President that is on the same level as the MAG Chair.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
As with the MAG, set up a workgroup on funding . And organize donors, separate from that of the MAG

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: None at this time
Jusoor Media
Submitted by: Nadia Al-Sakkaf

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:

The high-level body (HLB) should ensure that outputs of the IGF process are translated into policy and action.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:

The HLB needs to be supplemented and supported by a "Citizens’ Council" that will ensure a reality check and legitimacy of the work of the body.
The future of the Internet needs to be discussed and decided together with the very people that will bear the consequences of the decisions made. To have fruitful discussions with legitimate results, it is crucial to bring together people with different viewpoints and from different social backgrounds. The body should assemble groups of citizens that would reflect the respective country’s diversity with a particular focus on reaching minorities and non-connected citizens. Therefore, general criteria like age, gender, education, occupation, geographical spread, and connectedness must be defined. These people would be gathered and delivered balanced information on the key topics discussed by the HLB: They would give their feedback and recommendations to improve the work of the HLB.

Last year, the Global Citizens' Dialogue on the Future of the Internet (www.wetheinternet.org) was proof that the approach of a global deliberative discussion on our shared digital future is both possible and relevant. Not only did the participants from over 80 countries understand the complexity of the internet but they also accordingly had a balanced position on it.

One of the core results of the Dialogue was that citizens wish to be included in the governance. The complexity of the topic does not refrain them from expressing their desires, hopes, fears and recommendations about it. As daily practitioners citizens are the most relevant actors to talk with while discussing the internet.
Adding a Citizens' Council to the HLB will ensure that the views and concerns of normal day-to-day people are taken into consideration. This Council does not aim to be a counter-power but a co-creator of the design of the Internet of tomorrow.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The Citizens’ Council will support the work of the HLB by giving a reality check to its discussions.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The future of Internet Governance needs to be built to serve the citizens’ of the world. This is why it is so important to have a way to have a direct bridge with the informed views of citizens.

A citizen’s council, representing the whole diversity of internet users on earth, is also a good opportunity to have an overview of the development of the internet and the challenges occurring in different parts of the world. It will allow the HLB to have a strategy that takes into account the different levels of use of the internet worldwide, in line with a vision of inclusion of all countries and people.

As the internet is becoming more and more decentralized and the people are more and more mobile across the world, it is urgent to adopt in some way a human-centered approach by understanding the needs and demands of the citizens.



Microsoft
Submitted by: Ben Wallis

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
• Relationship between new high-level body and the MAG:

Microsoft very much sees the proposed new high-level body as part of the IGF, to be supported by the IGF Secretariat and funded by the IGF Trust Fund. It will be important that the work of the high-level body be closely integrated and coordinated with the work of the MAG, and that these two bodies have clearly defined and distinct roles.

This is well captured in the “MAG Plus” formula set out in Approach B of the Response to the Roadmap Roundtable 5AB Options Paper provided by the MAG Working Group on Strengthening & Strategy2. Microsoft supports this idea whereby the functions of a new Multistakeholder High-Level Body would be performed by an executive committee of the MAG.

The MAG would continue to focus on developing the program and schedule of the annual IGF meetings as well as overseeing and supporting the various intersessional workstreams. The Executive Committee would focus on the new functions foreseen in paragraph 93(a), but sketched out in more detail, for example as suggested below. This two-tier MAG approach would be the best way of ensuring coherence and coordination and avoiding duplication.

Both the MAG and the MAG Executive Committee should be chaired by the MAG Chair. Just as the MAG is co-chaired by a representative of that year’s host country, it could be helpful (for example to not overload the MAG Chair with too many activities) for the MAG Executive Committee to be co-chaired by one of its members. In addition, it will be important for the UN Envoy on Technology to engage closely with the Executive Committee, possibly as an observer or honorary member of the new body.

The MAG Executive Committee could hold its meetings on the day before and / or the day after the two or three face-to-face meetings that the MAG has every year. This would enable coordination with the MAG, and participation in its meetings.

N.B. for the sake of being concise, we refer in the rest of the response below to “the new body” in order to discuss its functions and funding, but Microsoft’s preference is for an expanded and two-tier MAG rather than a new body separate from the MAG.
1 https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/consultations-on-paragraph-93a-of-the-roadmap-for-digital-cooperation
2 https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/filedepot_download/10447/2267

• Functions of the new body:

In terms of its priority functions, we note the three functions outlined in paragraph 93(a) (“address urgent issues”, “coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions”, and relay IGF outputs to “appropriate normative and decision-making forums”).

This third function of acting as the bridge between the IGF and global decision-making bodies in the area of Internet governance and digital policy is particularly important. This is something that the IGF has struggled to do effectively, largely due to the thinly-stretched resources of the Secretariat and the focus of the MAG on other functions. Bringing the richness of the IGF’s global and multistakeholder dialogue and deliberation into relevant multilateral decision-making bodies will not only help inform those decisions; it will also raise the profile of the IGF and make better use of its outputs. A principal function of the members of the new body should therefore be to act as liaison points with those international decision-making and normative bodies, echoing a recommendation in section II.4 of the 2014 NETmundial multistakeholder statement3 for “formal liaisons” to facilitate communication and coordination among different parts of the Internet governance ecosystem.

Another central function for the new body should be to provide strategic direction to the IGF. This would include tasks such as drafting a multi-year strategic framework and taking a lead on designing and implementing the changes that would encompass the transition to an IGF+.

Finally, the senior profile of members of the new body could be advantageous for assisting with efforts to attract contributions to the IGF Trust Fund. Assistance with fundraising is one of the activities included in the MAG Terms of Reference, but the more high-profile nature of the members of the new body might make them more effective at opening doors to potential new donors.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Members of the new body should have the time and resources to perform the functions (e.g., preparing for and attending meetings, performing outreach activities, participating in the annual IGF meeting). This suggests a profile of senior government officials and stakeholder representatives familiar with the Internet governance ecosystem and digital policy-making.

The body should be led by the MAG Chair and composed of 8 additional members from the IGF’s four stakeholder groups – governments, civil society, private sector, and technical community (as well as possibly one or two members representing international organizations). Approach B proposes one representative per stakeholder group, but this would not be sufficient for performing the identified functions and would also make it challenging to enable sufficient geographic and gender balance amongst the members.

The members of the new body could be appointed by the Office of the Envoy on Technology and, as recommended in section I.3 of the NETmundial statement, stakeholder representatives should be selected through open, democratic, and transparent processes4.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
As noted above, given the benefits and importance of integrating the new body into the existing IGF structure, its activities should be funded by the IGF Trust Fund. Such an arrangement would also be important to focus fundraising efforts for an expanded and strengthened IGF in one place rather than having separate budgets vying for support from the same donors.
It is worth noting that the Trust Fund currently has difficulty in supporting the existing activities and structure of the IGF. Strengthening and expanding the IGF, including with the addition of this new body will only be possible with a stable and appropriate budget, making it critical to address the long-term sustainability of the IGF. UN DESA’s January 2021 recruitment process for a dedicated fundraising consultant is a very welcome step which should allow the IGF to expand its pool of donors and explore new ways of raising funds.
In addition, as noted in response to question 1 above, one of the functions of the members of this new body should be to help broaden the pool of donors to the Trust Fund by suggesting, and possibly reaching out themselves to, similarly high-ranking peers from governments and organizations with a stake in the IGF and the Internet governance ecosystem for which it plays a central role.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
We propose that, once UN DESA and the Office of the Envoy on Technology have developed a proposed format, structure, and functions for the new body, they seek stakeholder input via a final consultation. The wording of paragraph 93(a) is brief and high-level. Given the important role that this new body will play in the continued success of the IGF in the lead-up to the 2025 review of its mandate, stakeholders should be given an opportunity to provide input on a detailed proposal. This final step of stakeholder consultation would also provide additional time to source the funding necessary to set up the new body.

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/filedepot_download/10447/2267
https://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
OGERO Telecom
Submitted by: Zeina Bou Harb

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high level body are: on the global level to ensure participation of each and every country in the global dialogue and on national level to cooperate with national relevant entities for drafting (if not available) and implementation of a digital policy. Government representatives in the MAG, being familiar with the multi stakeholder process, can be appointed for the Digital Cooperation multi-stakeholder high level body, especially if they are facilitating such processes in their countries.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Each country to be represented in this high-level body. Members should have experience in the UN systems for multi national/stakeholder cooperation systems and from active stakeholder group. This 1st group can work with the UN secretariat on the terms of reference including responsibilities, composition, rotation,..in a way to ensure regional and gender balance

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
At least in the establishment phase, this body would preferably be funded by the UN to encourage wide participation then the body can elaborate its funding mechanism in consultation with the UN.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
U.S. Council for International Business
Submitted by: Barbara Wanner

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The proposed High-level Body should be tasked with facilitating cooperation and coordination with other UN bodies and multilateral organizations. This would be aimed at elevating the IGF’s “brand recognition” so that its mission, roles, and outputs are more widely understood and recognized across the UN system and in other multilateral organizations. In addition, it should be spelled out in the High-Level Body’s Terms of Reference how the community could hold it accountable to agreed-upon charters and rules of engagement with UN and multilateral entities.

In terms of the relationship between the High-Level Body and the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the IGF, we make the following proposal:

Rather than establishing a body in addition to the MAG, it could simpler and more coherent to create an additional layer within the MAG – i.e, an “Executive Committee.”. While MAG members would continue to be primarily responsible for organizational tasks around the annual meeting (e.g. designing the program, evaluating workshop proposals, organizing Main Sessions etc.), the members of the Executive Committee would have different functions and Terms of Reference of a strategic nature (we elaborate below).

Having these high-level functions within a single body would create a reciprocal, mutually beneficia relationship. It would allow the Executive Committee to provide input to the work done by other MAG members on the annual meeting and would allow for MAG members to provide input to the strategic and outreach work. In addition, establishing a single body overseen by a single MAG Chair would avoid the complication of having two separate leaders of two separate bodies.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
As proposed above, the High-Level Body – we refer to as the Executive Committee -- would be focused on strategic discussions and on outreach and representation to relevant decision-making bodies aimed at elevating the IGF brand and highlighting its value as a multistakeholder discussion forum for Internet governance.

Our conception of the high-level body aligns with Approach B of the Response to the Options Paper provided by the MAG Working Group on Strengthening & Strategy. As the paper urges, rather than establishing a body in addition to the MAG, it would be simpler and more coherent to create an additional layer within the MAG. As we have proposed above, having the high-level leadership as a second senior tier of the MAG, rather than being in a separate body, would better ensure coherence and coordination between the existing work of the MAG as well as reciprocal, mutually beneficial exchanges of programming and strategic ideas.

We proposed that the Executive Committee be composed of two representatives from each stakeholder group; eight members in total. The group should strive for geographic representation and gender balance. The Executive Committee, in turn, would be led by the MAG Chair. To reiterate, establishing a single body overseen by a single MAG Chair would avoid the complication of having two separate leaders of two separate bodies.

Furthermore, while it has been proposed that the High-Level Body be composed of very senior government officials (Ministerial or sub-Ministerial level), we do not believe that composition would yield innovative and concrete outcomes that move the IGF forward. Rather, we urge that stakeholder officials at the “senior working level” be tapped for the Executive Committee given their hands-on experience “rolling up one’s sleeves” to produce meaningful work.


3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
As clarified by the representative of the Office of the Envoy on Technology during the 22 February consultations, the proposed High-Level Body is envisaged to be “part of the structure of the IGF” and “is not foreseen as a separate body from the IGF”. It therefore follows that the new body should be supported and funded like the rest of the global IGF – supported by the IGF Secretariat and funded by the IGF Trust Fund. We feel that this arrangement would help underline that the new body is part of the IGF. In addition, it would help prevent a situation whereby different parts of the IGF are competing for funding.

But in recent years, funding provided by the IGF Trust Fund has been fallen far short of what is needed to ensure a vibrant and effective IGF. We appreciate recognition by the UN Secretary General’s office of the need to professionalize fundraising to support an improved and expanded IGF. We have urged this for many years and were gratified to see efforts underway to recruit an individual with strong fundraising skills. This will be critical to compensate for shortcomings in both the operation of and actual reserves of the IGF Trust Fund.


Again, we reiterate our call for more accessible and transparent mechanisms to enable charitable contributions of any size as more funding would be needed to support the establishment of a new high-level body or new executive committee tier of the MAG. The IGF Trust Fund has created a very complicated process for making contributions. If the Trust Fund is to continue as the “main bucket” for IGF fundraising, its operations must have greater transparency and the contribution process simplified to enable stakeholders of all sizes to makes contributions or varying amounts. Even relatively “small contributions” (e.g., US$100) by individual supporters of the IGF can add up if such contributions can be solicited globally. The structure, process, and operation of the IGF Trust Fund currently does not enable such contributions.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:

Civil Society

AFVMC Assistance to Families and Victims of Clandestine Migrations
Submitted by: André Le Doux Wamba

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Priority functions of this body should ne to work un a bottom to up's approach.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Its number should reflect/ represent various / different stakeholders (and should come from) all the regions of the World.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
This body should be supported by workshops / trainings / experts / consultants / Governments / UN / partners / NGOs / universitees and research centres.
This body should ne funded by national and international donors.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: No
Albania IGF
Submitted by: Fotjon Kosta

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
I fully support the establishment of a multi-stakeholder high-level body.

In my personal capacity i suggest that this multi-stakeholder high-level body to be as approval body (with personalities and individuals in high level) and the MAG to functioning as in technical level with experts in the field and individuals that are long contributors to IGF.
I would like again to rise the need that the MAG to have members from countries that never elected before.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
As will be a high level body needs to have individuals from governance as Ministers, Deputy Minister, State Secretaries, Secretary General, or even Director/Head of Departments which are directly working with digital, ICT, Innovation Internet Governance.
The structure can be like the same as MAG or as it is a high level one maybe needs to have representatives from each Member States including representatives from each region of the world / from all stake stakeholder group , each stakeholder group for each region needs to select an representative.
Regional balanced needs to be well calculated and even members professional background and contribution in the field

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
I personal believe that this body needs to be supported from UN and biggest international organizations, all governments and everyone who is working for a better digital and internet ecosystem for all.
As per funded part i am suggested that UN, biggest international organization, more development countries, telecommunication, ICT and digital industry should be the main funding members.

Less development countries, organizations and companies it will be ok to receive from them their contributions and work

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
i fully support all 8 key areas of action, they are all very much important and very much connected to each other.
We need to start working asap as all these are very urgent areas of action
Anti Corruption Coalition Uganda
Submitted by: Arthur Oyako

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The high-level body (HLB) should ensure that outputs of the IGF process are translated into policy and action.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The HLB needs to be supplemented and supported by a "Citizens’ Council" that will ensure a reality check and legitimacy of the work of the body.
The future of the Internet needs to be discussed and decided together with the very people that will bear the consequences of the decisions made. To have fruitful discussions with legitimate results, it is crucial to bring together people with different viewpoints and from different social backgrounds. The body should assemble groups of citizens that would reflect the respective country’s diversity with a particular focus on reaching minorities and non-connected citizens. Therefore, general criteria like age, gender, education, occupation, geographical spread, and connectedness must be defined. These people would be gathered and delivered balanced information on the key topics discussed by the HLB: They would give their feedback and recommendations to improve the work of the HLB.

Last year, the Global Citizens' Dialogue on the Future of the Internet (www.wetheinternet.org) was proof that the approach of a global deliberative discussion on our shared digital future is both possible and relevant. Not only did the participants from over 80 countries understand the complexity of the internet but they also accordingly had a balanced position on it.

One of the core results of the Dialogue was that citizens wish to be included in the governance. The complexity of the topic does not refrain them from expressing their desires, hopes, fears and recommendations about it. As daily practitioners, citizens are the most relevant actors to talk with while discussing the internet.
Adding a Citizens' Council to the HLB will ensure that the views and concerns of normal day-to-day people are taken into consideration. This Council does not aim to be a counter-power but a co-creator of the design of the Internet of tomorrow.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The Citizens’ Council will support the work of the HLB by giving a reality check to its discussions.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The future of Internet Governance needs to be built to serve the citizens of the world. This is why it is so important to have a way to have a direct bridge with the informed views of citizens.

A citizen’s council, representing the whole diversity of internet users on earth, is also a good opportunity to have an overview of the development of the internet and the challenges occurring in different parts of the world. It will allow the HLB to have a strategy that takes into account the different levels of use of the internet worldwide, in line with a vision of inclusion of all countries and people.

As the internet is becoming more and more decentralized and the people are more and more mobile across the world, it is urgent to adopt in some way a human-centred approach by understanding the needs and demands of the citizens.


Asia Internet History Project
Submitted by: Kilnam Chon

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
close cooperation between igf mag and digital cooperation even though their coverages are different.
igf - covers internet governance
digital cooperation - governance of digital space including internet, AI, data,..

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
stakeholdre: need to cover AI community as well as data community and IoT community.
need to have much more members from industry
number of members, regional balance, rotation: similar to IGF MAG.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
similar to igf mag in addition to elaborate fund raising from communities of AI, IoT and data.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: hope to see active digital cooperation in the coming years.
Asociatia GEYC
Submitted by: Alexandra-Florentina Peca

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The high-level body (HLB) should ensure that outputs of the IGF process are translated into policy and action.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The HLB needs to be supplemented and supported by a "Citizens’ Council" that will ensure a reality check and legitimacy of the work of the body.
The future of the Internet needs to be discussed and decided together with the very people that will bear the consequences of the decisions made. To have fruitful discussions with legitimate results, it is crucial to bring together people with different viewpoints and from different social backgrounds. The body should assemble groups of citizens that would reflect the respective country’s diversity with a particular focus on reaching minorities and non-connected citizens. Therefore, general criteria like age, gender, education, occupation, geographical spread, and connectedness must be defined. These people would be gathered and delivered balanced information on the key topics discussed by the HLB: They would give their feedback and recommendations to improve the work of the HLB.

Last year, the Global Citizens' Dialogue on the Future of the Internet (www.wetheinternet.org) was proof that the approach of a global deliberative discussion on our shared digital future is both possible and relevant. Not only did the participants from over 80 countries understand the complexity of the internet but they also accordingly had a balanced position on it.

One of the core results of the Dialogue was that citizens wish to be included in the governance. The complexity of the topic does not refrain them from expressing their desires, hopes, fears and recommendations about it. As daily practitioners citizens are the most relevant actors to talk with while discussing the internet.
Adding a Citizens' Council to the HLB will ensure that the views and concerns of normal day-to-day people are taken into consideration. This Council does not aim to be a counter-power but a co-creator of the design of the Internet of tomorrow.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The Citizens’ Council will support the work of the HLB by giving a reality check to its discussions.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The future of Internet Governance needs to be built to serve the citizens’ of the world. This is why it is so important to have a way to have a direct bridge with the informed views of citizens.

A citizen’s council, representing the whole diversity of internet users on earth, is also a good opportunity to have an overview of the development of the internet and the challenges occurring in different parts of the world. It will allow the HLB to have a strategy that takes into account the different levels of use of the internet worldwide, in line with a vision of inclusion of all countries and people.

As the internet is becoming more and more decentralized and the people are more and more mobile across the world, it is urgent to adopt in some way a human-centered approach by understanding the needs and demands of the citizens.
Association for Progressive Communications - APC
Submitted by: Paula Martins

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The MAG is a representative body that has played a central role in the consolidation of the IGF. It focuses, however, on programmatic tasks. An empowered executive body that could build on a stronger thematic focus during the sessions and enhanced intersessional work, sending clear messages to inform and feed other internet policy and internet governance processes would be an important development, as well as contribute to raise visibility of the IGF

This body could possibly assist in bridging the gap between deliberative spaces and decision-making processes. That said, we worry about the format, composition and attributions to be defined to such a body. It is key to ensure that the lessons learned from years of MAG operation feed into this process of strengthening leadership in internet governance as a key component of digital cooperation.

We consider that any new body has to be considered only after a careful cost-benefit analysis. We know a number of the challenges faced by the IGF result from lack of capacity, which is caused mainly by a sustained lack of resources. Therefore, any new structure could drain even more from the reduced funds and personnel available.

If any new structure is to be considered, it should aim at strengthening and raising the profile of the IGF within the UN system, working hand-in-hand, or possibly even as a part of the current MAG. No such structure should be created outside of the IGF infrastructure.

In APC’s view, the ideal would be for this body to have executive functions and few senior members, recognized in their personal capacity and experience for their contributions and commitment to the IGF and internet governance more broadly. The process of selection should be fully transparent and participatory in order to build the legitimacy of the group.

If a new space is to be created, its main function should be to communicate, promote and give visibility to the policy making guidelines merging from the IGF process as such, particularly the intersessional work.

No new body should be created to take decisions on behalf of the IGF and should not be conceived to become a policy decision body - it should not be taken as a substitute to the needed overall strengthening of the IGF institutional capacity.

Some other functions could include:
- Build bridges and interact with decision making-bodies at the national, regional and international level, in order to ensure cross-fertilization;
- Provide advise to the UNSG and his Tech Envoy on strategic issues, based on IGF discussions, especially as it refers to the implementation of the Digital Cooperation Roadmap;
- Establish a space for increased collaboration and dialogue between the IGF community and the UNSG and his Tech Envoy;
- Provide strategic recommendations and support the MAG in the planning of the IGF and its strengthening; the MAG should retain programming leadership.
- Contribute to strengthen linkages among the NRIs and between the NRIs and the global IGF.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
- We consider that if a new body is to be considered, it should be formed to join the current MAG, as an executive body;
- The executive body should be small, possibly 6 - 12 members, representing the different stakeholder groups;
- Both the MAG and the executive body could have a similar nomination process, with suggestions from all stakeholder groups and confirmation by the UNSG, building on the current MAG nomination process, ensuring diversity in terms of geographical representation, gender, type of experience and expertise, etc.;
- ⅓ of members should rotate each time, and the standard mandate could be of 2-3 years.


3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Any funding mechanism to be established should ‘equalize the plainfield’ - that is to say: it should not create further inequality among participants. On the contrary, it should ensure balanced and diverse participation. We consider that payment for participation in the IGF, even if such contributions were to be redirected to allow participation of others, is not in line with such a premise. Differentiated contributions may create even another layer of power dynamics between different participants and may be taken as paternalizing.

A better option would be the creation of a dedicated team to work on resource mobilization. Not only to directly fundraise for the IGF, but also to build alliances and strategic partnerships that would allow the strengthening of the process, cooperation and commitment by different stakeholders.

Any resources raised should be directed to the Trust Fund and managed based on principles of transparency and accountability Direct donations to predetermined projects or activities should, as a rule, be avoided.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Multistakeholderism, transparency, inclusivity and dialogue are key aspects to be safeguarded.

We believe there is a risk, with the creation of a new structure, of creating a top-down approach to digital cooperation that could undermine the IGF’s legacy if not carefully designed. It is important to ensure that this new body will not be disconnected from the IGF community and the other institutions and processes of the internet governance ecosystem.

Therefore we believe that extensive multistakeholder discussions should guide any developments. We urge you to create, in addition to the questionnaire, other spaces specifically for discussion of the proposed Multistakeholder High Level Body, with enough time and publicization to allow a broad and more meaningful participation at this point and clarity about next steps.

We consider the response document to the Options Paper that was prepared by the MAG Strategy Working Group to be a very valuable starting point for further consultations and conversations.
CLEFGenius
Submitted by: lovensky leon

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The high-level body (HLB) should ensure that outputs of the IGF process are translated into policy and action.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The HLB needs to be supplemented and supported by a "Citizens’ Council" that will ensure a reality check and legitimacy of the work of the body.
The future of the Internet needs to be discussed and decided together with the very people that will bear the consequences of the decisions made. To have fruitful discussions with legitimate results, it is crucial to bring together people with different viewpoints and from different social backgrounds. The body should assemble groups of citizens that would reflect the respective country’s diversity with a particular focus on reaching minorities and non-connected citizens. Therefore, general criteria like age, gender, education, occupation, geographical spread, and connectedness must be defined. These people would be gathered and delivered balanced information on the key topics discussed by the HLB: They would give their feedback and recommendations to improve the work of the HLB.

Last year, the Global Citizens' Dialogue on the Future of the Internet (www.wetheinternet.org) was proof that the approach of a global deliberative discussion on our shared digital future is both possible and relevant. Not only did the participants from over 80 countries understand the complexity of the internet but they also accordingly had a balanced position on it.

One of the core results of the Dialogue was that citizens wish to be included in the governance. The complexity of the topic does not refrain them from expressing their desires, hopes, fears and recommendations about it. As daily practitioners citizens are the most relevant actors to talk with while discussing the internet.
Adding a Citizens' Council to the HLB will ensure that the views and concerns of normal day-to-day people are taken into consideration. This Council does not aim to be a counter-power but a co-creator of the design of the Internet of tomorrow.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The Citizens’ Council will support the work of the HLB by giving a reality check to its discussions.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The future of Internet Governance needs to be built to serve the citizens’ of the world. This is why it is so important to have a way to have a direct bridge with the informed views of citizens.

A citizen’s council, representing the whole diversity of internet users on earth, is also a good opportunity to have an overview of the development of the internet and the challenges occurring in different parts of the world. It will allow the HLB to have a strategy that takes into account the different levels of use of the internet worldwide, in line with a vision of inclusion of all countries and people.

As the internet is becoming more and more decentralized and the people are more and more mobile across the world, it is urgent to adopt in some way a human-centered approach by understanding the needs and demands of the citizens.
Concettina Cassa
Submitted by: Concettina Cassa

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The MHLB should act as a carrier that transports the insights and messages from the IGF to the decision-makers at the highest levels and facilitate the input of these decision-makers into the IGF’s agenda-setting process. It should be incorporated in the MAG, a specialized group of the MAG.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The MHLB should be multistakeholder with no more than 16 people. It should work in an open and transparent manner. A good level of diversity should be ensured in terms of representation of stakeholder groups, regions and gender. The members of the MHLB should rotate on a regular basis, for example every 3 years. The Chair of the MAG and the Tech Envoy would participate in the MHLB.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?: It should be supported by the IGF Secretariat and funded by the the IGF.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
CyberPeace Institute
Submitted by: Juliana Crema

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Priority should be placed on embodying a human-centric approach. The value added by multi-stakeholder bodies is to provide varied perspectives, and civil society organizations can particularly speak to concerns regarding human rights and freedoms.
This multi-stakeholder body could provide the background and expertise that the MAG can then use during more formal sessions. This body can help to foster a more inclusive environment and be more open than the current MAG can be.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Regional balance is incredibly important in order for the body to be truly representative of global concerns and approaches. The more perspectives that can be included will only add value to the input that will be provided, and will help the group to gain legitimacy quickly.
Ideally this group should be run by non-state entities with no limit on the number of members.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The CyberPeace Institute supports the proposal to launch a multi-stakeholder high level body that would support the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation. This is a chance for non-state bodies, particularly civil society organizations, to take a lead in these negotiations and to really apply their expertise and experience to a UN process. If this body is able to deliver impactful work, its structure and organization could be used for other UN bodies in the future.
Delibera Brasil / Rede Conhecimento Social
Submitted by: Marisa Villi

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The high-level body (HLB) should ensure that outputs of the IGF process are translated into policy and action.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The HLB needs to be supplemented and supported by a "Citizens’ Council" that will ensure a reality check and legitimacy of the work of the body.
The future of the Internet needs to be discussed and decided together with the very people that will bear the consequences of the decisions made. To have fruitful discussions with legitimate results, it is crucial to bring together people with different viewpoints and from different social backgrounds. The body should assemble groups of citizens that would reflect the respective country’s diversity with a particular focus on reaching minorities and non-connected citizens. Therefore, general criteria like age, gender, education, occupation, geographical spread, and connectedness must be defined. These people would be gathered and delivered balanced information on the key topics discussed by the HLB: They would give their feedback and recommendations to improve the work of the HLB.

Last year, the Global Citizens' Dialogue on the Future of the Internet (www.wetheinternet.org) was proof that the approach of a global deliberative discussion on our shared digital future is both possible and relevant. Not only did the participants from over 80 countries understand the complexity of the internet but they also accordingly had a balanced position on it.

One of the core results of the Dialogue was that citizens wish to be included in the governance. The complexity of the topic does not refrain them from expressing their desires, hopes, fears and recommendations about it. As daily practitioners citizens are the most relevant actors to talk with while discussing the internet.
Adding a Citizens' Council to the HLB will ensure that the views and concerns of normal day-to-day people are taken into consideration. This Council does not aim to be a counter-power but a co-creator of the design of the Internet of tomorrow.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The Citizens’ Council will support the work of the HLB by giving a reality check to its discussions.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The future of Internet Governance needs to be built to serve the citizens’ of the world. This is why it is so important to have a way to have a direct bridge with the informed views of citizens.

A citizen’s council, representing the whole diversity of internet users on earth, is also a good opportunity to have an overview of the development of the internet and the challenges occurring in different parts of the world. It will allow the HLB to have a strategy that takes into account the different levels of use of the internet worldwide, in line with a vision of inclusion of all countries and people.

As the internet is becoming more and more decentralized and the people are more and more mobile across the world, it is urgent to adopt in some way a human-centered approach by understanding the needs and demands of the citizens.

Derechos Digitales
Submitted by: J. Carlos Lara

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
At Derechos Digitales, and following the MAG Working Group on IGF Strategy and Strengthening's Response to the paper on “Options for the Future of Digital Cooperation”, and specifically the option B to operationalise paragraph 93(a) as laid out in the Annex of that Response, we believe that the relationship between the current MAG and the proposed multi-stakeholder high-level body (MHLB) determines how it prioritises its functions. An in-depth reform of the MAG would be the best way to operationalise paragraph 93(a) (option B in the aforementioned document annex), establishing an executive committee to assume the MHLB functions, and maintaining core MAG functions, while avoiding the pitfalls of a separate body with which to establish a new relationship. A new body by itself would distract from the IGF, while affecting the representation behind the multistakeholder approach that is part of the nature of the existing MAG. This is the model that in the Response has been called the MAG Plus or MAG+.
The executive committee or leadership team, composed of senior representatives from each stakeholder group plus the MAG+, would be the ideal way to provide leadership and develop the IGF+ model, with the main function of leading the work of the MAG+ to ensure that IGF+ is able to address issues effectively, bring the messages from the IGF to high-level decision-makers, and support the work of the IGF/IGF+ and the IGF policy networks. The MAG Working Group’s Response appropriately details what those functions would include in practices. In turn, the main function of the reformed MAG+ would be to: Address and raise awareness on urgent issues; Contribute to coordinating follow-up to IGF discussions; Relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to appropriate normative and decision-making forums.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
As already mentioned, the most appropriate operationalisation of paragraph 93(a) would involve in-depth reform of the current MAG, as a MAG+, with an executive committee to lead the MHLB functions. As such, it would be better served with increased mechanisms for transparency and accountability than that of regular MAG members, to ensure not only relevant expertise, but also meaningful contribution and commitment to the IGF mandate. The MAG+ itself should maintain the current number and stakeholder representation of the MAG, limited terms, member rotation, and bottom-up nomination. Based on that MAG model, the executive committee or leadership team should be representative of all the stakeholder groups within the MAG/MAG+, with similar rules for terms, rotation and nomination, and it should be composed as as a small group of high-level, senior members and recognised leaders in their sectors and institutions. The group should be completed with the MAG+ Chair.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The support of this executive committee would come from the IGF Secretariat, and the MAG+ would not also assume secretariat functions. The IGF Trust Fund should be the main source of funding, also considering the need for strengthened funding for the IGF Secretariat itself.
The establishment of a professional fundraising structure within the IGF Secretariat should also consider the support for the MHLB/MAG+ executive committee activities, taking into account the costs associated with the increased demand of time on the committee for leadership and coordination purposes, and incorporating them into its fundraising goals. The support should make sure that those coordination costs do not become a barrier for meaningful participation, especially for representatives of certain groups, organisations and geographical regions.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
It must be stressed that an MHLB integrated within the MAG would be preferable, in the form of the executive committee or leadership team, to avoid the costs of coordinating work between potentially rivalrous bodies or overlapping tasks and priorities. This would also make the best possible use of the experience of the MAG, already acknowledged as trusted and functioning body, but for which a reform would also become an opportunity for reform and improvement of its own representation and participation, as well as its transparency and accountability mechanisms to ensure that all of its members are appropriately representing their constituencies. In all, the implementation of the Roadmap presents an opportunity to strengthen the current institutional framework of the IGF.
Disease Management Association of India
Submitted by: Rajendra Pratap Gupta

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Instead of setting up a new body, it may be worth re-orienting the structure and role of the existing body.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
This body should be based on

1) People who have contributed to the IGF through various forums/reports etc.
2) Represent various themes
3) Gender representation
4) Geographical representation
5) Countries based on income ground classification

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Now that the work is mainly online we should be asset-light and this should become the overarching them of the various constituent bodies of the IGF. Also, MAG members should cover their expenses.

We could look at funding from international foundations to support the miscellaneous and other incidental costs.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
We should let the MAG work on the objective criteria to watch the progress of Internet Adoption and other related policy issues and interventions.
E-Governance and Internet Governance Foundation for Africa (EGIGFA)
Submitted by: Raymond Mamattah

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
I think it is good to have this body as it is done in other internet governance ecosystem like ICANN. The priority function should be the channel for decisions and consultations to be made on behalf of the global IGF. This body could be a consultative body to the MAG.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
I suggest it should have limit to the number of terms members can serve, for example 2 years term of maximum 2 terms. However, the problem in most other ecosystem is that people move from one role to another. For example, after someone serves as a Treasurer for the maximum 2 terms, the person goes on to contest for the Secretary role within the same entity, making it recycling of roles. This is one major issue that must be prevented. This happens a lot within the ICANN constituencies.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Since this is a part of the IGF, their operation should be part of the budget allocation to IGF. I, however, believe the IGFSA, that supports the mandate of the IGF with funding will continue to play a role with their funding support.

If there will be any WG on deliberate more on this issue, I am ready to volunteer as a working member.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: None.
EuroDIG
Submitted by: Sandra Hoferichter

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:

EURODIG “EXTRA” ON UN IGF MULTISTAKEHOLDER HIGH LEVEL BOARD PROPOSAL (ROADMAP PARAGRAPH 93A), 3 MARCH 2021


In the course of the Consultation on paragraph 93(a) of the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation European stakeholder discussed during a EuroDIG Extra (https://www.eurodig.org/get-involved/eurodig-extra/) the need and function of a Multi-Stakeholder High Level Body (MHLB) and its relationship to the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).
The aim was to come up with a shared view in order to make a contribution to the questioner that was prepared by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat, in collaboration with the Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology.
We did focus on Q1 of the survey and discussed the function of the MHLB and it’s relationship to the MAG. Thereafter we summarised the discussion in two short paragraphs (one on the function and one on the relationship to the MAG) and invited for comments on our Commenting Platform.
No further comments were received until the deadline 8 March 2021.

Read the transcript of the session:
https://www.eurodig.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/20210303-EuroDIG-Extra-0900UTC_final-transcript.rtf or listen to the recording (https://youtu.be/gICpTvKmFmY).

Around 40 participants coming from all stakeholder groups and across Europe participated in this session. The discussion was engaging.


MAIN MESSAGES

i. Functions of the new body

• There was broad agreement among the EuroDIG Extra participants in support of the rationale for creating the MHLB to undertake specific functions as outlined in Paragraph 93a of the UNSGs Roadmap, in particular coordinating follow-up actions and relaying proposed policy approaches and recommendations to decision-making fora.

• None of the MHLB’s activities should draw attention away from the IGF or undermine its bottom-up, multistakeholder nature.

• By creating a table at the IGF for decision-makers from all stakeholder groups to have high-level discussions, the MHLB would serve to bridge the gap between discussions and decisions.

• There were tentative expressions of support, subject to further clarifying discussion, for the MHLB to address specific “urgent issues” as stated in Paragraph 93 A. This should be undertaken in full consultation and coordination with the MAG.

• There was support for the MHLB providing strategic inputs with the aim of helping to shape the IGF programme and long-term strategy. Participants emphasised, however, that the MAG should continue to have full authority and responsibility for the IGF’s programme development.

ii. The MHLB’s Relationship with the MAG

• There was general agreement on the need for the MHLB to have a strong linkage with the MAG rather than being a separate body.

• Differing views were expressed on how this linkage should be achieved, either as a single combined body (the smaller MHLB being part of the MAG), or by creating a layered governance structure with the MHLB supporting the MAG. There were several expressions of support for one or more of the three options developed by the MAG Working Group on Strengthening and Strategy, as providing the basis for a final decision.

• Participants agreed that it would be essential to ensure multi-stakeholder accountability and transparency for the MHLB’s membership nomination.

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSALS AND COMMENTS WORTH RECORDING

• The Chairs of the MHLB and the MAG should sit on both groups. The Technology Envoy should also have a seat on the MHLB. (DE)
• The MHLB should draw on the IGF’s extensive repository of expertise and knowledge when formulating its advice. (G. Mazzone).

• The accountability of the MHLB would be established by building on the MAG’s nominations system (Telefonica and CH).

• In order to ensure full diversity of geographical and constituency representation, the size of the MHLB’s membership needs to be 15-20 high ranking people with appointments made on a rotating basis (CH)

• The MHLB would have a valuable role in addressing specific major crises and emergencies and major global challenges such as climate change, and informing the Tech Envoy’s engagement across the UN system on these issues (Amali De Silva-Mitchell).



2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Federation of Computer Association of Nepal
Submitted by: Hempal Shrestha

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Yes, a specialized multi-stakeholder high-level body/agency should be constituted that would address the urgent issues, coordinate follow-up action on Internet Governance Forum discussions and relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate normative and decision-making forums.

The priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level agency should foster digital cooperation among the member states, the trade association representing the Internet and Internet-based services, technical communities, civil society and netizens at large to ensure safe, secure and sustainable Internet for the people.

The existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF should continue as one of the verticals to supplement the specialized multi-stakeholder high-level body/agency with the discussions and development taking place at the different and among different stakeholders. It should act as a facilitator and steward of discussions and deliberations both top-down and bottom-up. However, the roles, responsibilities and representation of both entities need to be thoroughly thought through to limit any counteractions.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The Governance Structure of the multi-stakeholder high-level body should be formed as a specialized agency to facilitate and foster digital cooperation among all the multi-stakeholders of the Internet Ecosystem. The composition of this specialized body should including the member states, the trade association representing the Internet and Internet-based services, technical communities, civil society and netizens.

The two-tier structure of Assembly of the member state and elected Council for a three-year term from the assembly. Commissioners nominated by the council, serve as independent expert and lead different task-forces for harmonization and sustainable digital cooperation among the member states and stakeholders and carry out the direction of the assembly.

This agency should establish regional presences which should further assist the member states and national economies through training and capacity building program is required at the local level. It should build the capacity of the government officials and facilitate the formalization of the innovation at the regional and international level.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
This specialized multi-stakeholder high-level body/agency must be directly funded by the national government of the member state.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: No comments.
Frédéric COHEN
Submitted by: Frédéric COHEN

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The MHLB would have to improve the leadership of the organization for the global community. Their personality addressed to the whole membership give an orientation for the discussions in concerne.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Coordination between this body and the UNSG and MAG members is a key part of our work. Consultation and decision making could be taken earlier through this process.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Security and funding should be improved by member states and the international community.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
To strengthen the power of the IGF community, there is a strong need for security for members as NGOs and other partners are present to engage with the international community while their home government is often involved in an other part.
Georgia IGF
Submitted by: Ucha Seturi

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
As a founder and coordinator I want to bring my country's practice and experience, however I think this challenge or information could be used and could be same for a many developed and developing countries. In the case of Georgia, a dialogue and forum on Internet governance took place in 2015, and this process is developing and continuing. Our NRI chapter model is based on the Tunis Agreement, the practice of the Global IGF and the practice of European regional forums- EuroDIG and SeeDIG .The main value of our platform is equality of stakeholders and the possibility of a dialogue on ongoing local hot topics on the horizontal level, primarily with such a players as the public sector, government and parliament of the country. If the proposed initiative is accepted and implemented, national NRI's will copy and implement in their practice and in short term we will beginning end of the IG dialogue or, in the worst case model of the fully Governmental ITU model on national level with one main player - State and other four "fake" stakeholders, where the voices of this stakeholders will not be heard, and this primarily applies to developing or, in other words, countries of the young democracies.
In our opinion, the IGF dialogue works because it is not a platform for direct decision-making and policy creation, but rather a dialogue, exchange of information and best practices, perhaps with possibilities sometimes use practice of the "naming and shaming". This is our tools on national levels.
The suggested high-level body proposed by the amendments, from the moment it begins to adopt and disseminate policy and advisory agreements, will create temptation and opportunity for the public sector to manage these processes, especially in young democracies where they can easily do so.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
It is not clear for me. I am working for SMEs association and have to find my place in Private sector group, but can any new private startup and/ or SME's find it's place inside of this group with companies and organizations of top 10 of the world. Honestly this sector need separate quota. In any case 25 members are not enough to cover global engagement.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Global Youth Network Bénin
Submitted by: Yao Amevi Amessinou Sossou

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The high-level body (HLB) should ensure that outputs of the IGF process are translated into policy and action.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
To ensure reality check and legitimacy of the work of the body we think that the HLB should be supplemented and supported by a "Citizens’ Council".
Citizens have for long time been left aside when it comes to policy making of such a matter. The decisions regarding the future of the Internet (our future) should be built on global consensus. Because they are the persons facing the consequences of the decisions made, normal citizens should take part in discussion together with the HLB . To have fruitful discussions with legitimate results, it is crucial to bring together people with different viewpoints and from different social backgrounds. The body should assemble groups of citizens that would reflect the respective country’s diversity with a particular focus on reaching minorities and non-connected citizens. Therefore, general criteria like age, gender, education, occupation, geographical spread, and connectedness must be defined. These people would be gathered and delivered balanced information on the key topics discussed by the HLB: They would give their feedback and recommendations to improve the work of the HLB.

Last year, the Global Citizens' Dialogue on the Future of the Internet (www.wetheinternet.org) was proof that the approach of a global deliberative discussion on our shared digital future is both possible and relevant. Not only did the participants from over 80 countries ( including Benin) understand the complexity of the internet but they also accordingly had a balanced position on it.

One of the core results of the Dialogue was that citizens wish to be included in the governance. The complexity of the topic does not refrain them from expressing their desires, hopes, fears and recommendations about it. As daily practitioners citizens are the most relevant actors to talk with while discussing the internet.
Adding a Citizens' Council to the HLB will ensure that the views and concerns of normal day-to-day people are taken into consideration. This Council does not aim to be a counter-power but a co-creator of the design of the Internet of tomorrow.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The Citizens’ Council will support the work of the HLB by giving a reality check to its discussions.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
We strongly believe that finding a way to have a direct bridge with the informed views of citizens is of vital necessity for the future of Internet. After all, the future of Internet Governance needs to be built to serve the citizens’ of the world.

With this citizen’s council, representing the whole diversity of internet users on earth, is definitely going to be a great asset as it will allow the HLB to have an overview of the development of the internet and the challenges occurring in different parts of the world. It will allow the HLB to have a strategy that takes into account the different levels of use of the internet worldwide, in line with a vision of inclusion of all countries and people.

There is an urgent need to adopt in some way a human-centered approach by understanding the needs and demands of the citizens. Because the internet is decentralizing services and the people are more and more mobile across the world.
Hungarian Space Generation Foundation
Submitted by: Laszlo Veress

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The high-level body (HLB) should ensure that outputs of the IGF process are translated into policy and action.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The HLB needs to be supplemented and supported by a "Citizens’ Council" that will ensure a reality check and legitimacy of the work of the body.
The future of the Internet needs to be discussed and decided together with the very people that will bear the consequences of the decisions made. To have fruitful discussions with legitimate results, it is crucial to bring together people with different viewpoints and from different social backgrounds. The body should assemble groups of citizens that would reflect the respective country’s diversity with a particular focus on reaching minorities and non-connected citizens. Therefore, general criteria like age, gender, education, occupation, geographical spread, and connectedness must be defined. These people would be gathered and delivered balanced information on the key topics discussed by the HLB: They would give their feedback and recommendations to improve the work of the HLB.

Last year, the Global Citizens' Dialogue on the Future of the Internet (www.wetheinternet.org) was proof that the approach of a global deliberative discussion on our shared digital future is both possible and relevant. Not only did the participants from over 80 countries understand the complexity of the internet but they also accordingly had a balanced position on it.

One of the core results of the Dialogue was that citizens wish to be included in the governance. The complexity of the topic does not refrain them from expressing their desires, hopes, fears and recommendations about it. As daily practitioners citizens are the most relevant actors to talk with while discussing the internet.
Adding a Citizens' Council to the HLB will ensure that the views and concerns of normal day-to-day people are taken into consideration. This Council does not aim to be a counter-power but a co-creator of the design of the Internet of tomorrow.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The Citizens’ Council will support the work of the HLB by giving a reality check to its discussions.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:

The future of Internet Governance needs to be built to serve the citizens’ of the world. This is why it is so important to have a way to have a direct bridge with the informed views of citizens.

A citizen’s council, representing the whole diversity of internet users on earth, is also a good opportunity to have an overview of the development of the internet and the challenges occurring in different parts of the world. It will allow the HLB to have a strategy that takes into account the different levels of use of the internet worldwide, in line with a vision of inclusion of all countries and people.

As the internet is becoming more and more decentralized and the people are more and more mobile across the world, it is urgent to adopt in some way a human-centered approach by understanding the needs and demands of the citizens.
IGF Ecuador
Submitted by: Carlos Vera

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
El organismo de alto nivel debe garantizar que los resultados del proceso del IGF se traduzcan en políticas y acciones para la efectiva participación de los ciudadanos en los resultados del
IGF

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
El Organismo de Alto Nivel debe integrarse con un por un Consejo de Actores Ciudadanos que realimente la información de territorio y haga efectivos aportes de las realidades locales. L
Trabajo de estos organismos.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
El Consejo Ciudadano debería integrarse a partir de los NRIs de los países y financiarse con aportes de Naciones Unidas para garantizar su funcionalientos

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
El futuro de la gobernanza de Internet debe construirse desde los territorios con la participación de los ciudadanos y para servir a los ciudadanos. Ahora que la realidad mundial exige acciones diferentes para mantener los trabajos, la educación, los emprendimientos y las relaciones internacionales, se torna aún más importante la
Participación activa de los ciudadanos.

Internet debe descentralizarse y desconcentrarse y las funciones de personas e instituciones se encuentran cada vez más distribuidas y mobiles por lo que la inclusión digital extensiva ya no es solamente una opción o una necesidad secundaria sino una prioridad para la Humanidad. Que no pase como con más vacunas que solo las pueden acceder los países más ricos y sus ciudadanos, quedando el resto del mundo a merced de lo que sobre. Internet debe ser realmente pars todos y por todos!
Initiative TIC et Citoyenneté
Submitted by: Jacques Rodrigue Ragnimpinda GUIGUEMDE

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Nous soutenons la création de l'organe comme l'envisage le Secrétaire général de l'ONU dans sa feuille de route, en tant qu'élément important pour faire de l'IGF un «IGF +» plus efficace et pertinent. En ce qui concerne les «fonctions prioritaires», nous souscrivons à celles figurant au paragraphe 93 (a) de la Feuille de route.
L'objectif principal de l'organe a été bien défini dans les approches développées par le MAG WG sur la stratégie comme «en tant qu'entité véhiculant les informations et les messages de l'IGF afin qu'ils atteignent des décideurs au plus haut niveau (Le rélais) ».

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Nous soutenons les critères développés par le MAG WG dans ses approches concernant ces aspects, qui sont conformes à l'intention, exprimée en 93 (a), de s'appuyer sur l'expérience du MAG existant. Une expertise de haut niveau serait d'une grande opportunité et ne devrait pas excéder un maximum de 25 personnes de tous les groupes de parties prenantes, avec des nominations ascendantes par les groupes de parties prenantes, rotation par tiers et mandats limités - assurant un processus transparent et prenant en compte les critères sur l'équilibre géographique et le genre. La structure de gouvernance doit être aussi légère et simple que possible, garantissant une coopération harmonieuse entre le corps et le MAG. L'organe devrait avoir des compétences de haut niveau, leur permettant d'assurer une liaison efficace entre les discussions de l'IGF et les forums de prise de décision.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Nous sommes d'accord avec le MAG WG (dans toutes ses approches A, B et C) que l'organisme devrait être soutenu par un Secrétariat renforcé de l'IGF.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Nous soutenons le Secrétaire général de l'ONU dans sa volonté déclarée de poursuivre le «renforcement de l'Internet Forum sur la gouvernance ».
Instituto Nupef
Submitted by: Carlos Alberto Afonso

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Nearly all of my observations/suggestions concur with the MAG Working Group on IGF Strategy and Strengthening document in response to the "Options for the Future of Digital Cooperation" paper (set/2020). The document points out that the MHLB "could contribute by forging links with decision-making bodies... [and] could also play a role in conveying messages directly to relevant decision-making bodies." This outreach would include stakeholders covered by the "network" of regional and national IGFs and other decision-making fora affecting Internet governance.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Basically as suggested in option "B" of the mentioned WG document. I do not think that creating a separate body will enhance the effectiveness of the work, so if a MHLB is created it should be part of the MAG. The MHLB's functions would actually be performed within an enhanced MAG (called MAG+), constituting an executive committee. Structure and composition are well described in the document.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
This is a key issue which I have emphasized in my short paper in Kleinwächter book prepared for IGF Berlin. The HL proponents did not dedicate enough time and effort to devise permanent funding mechanisms to implement the suggested modifications, and this remains a challenge. Ideally an international pool of bona fide donors willing to commit to long-term support could be a way to make this process real. But once an structure is decided there will be the work of budgeting all details of it for a long-term program.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: n/a
Internet Society India Chennai
Submitted by: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The role of the MAG is to plan and organise the IGF. The high level body would be an elevated body that wouldn't involve in any of the administrative functions as performed by the MAG, but would instead be an assembly of seasoned and wise individuals of higher merits and foresight, some of rank and title, who would draw the essence of the IGF, identify issues of urgency, sensitivity as well as issues of long term, far reaching significance; This high level body could be of meritorious and committed individuals of such stature that would make respectful conversations possible with the highest levels of Government, big business, academic heads, heads of international organisations and civil society, to cause actions happen at the accelerated pace as desirable, for the good of the whole world.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?: This needs to be a small Assembly, about a third as the size of the MAG.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
By comfortable funding, be it from Business, UN or Governments, as unconditional funding, i.e without narrow expectations from the body funded.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The Secretary General may carry out the very exercise of forming this body by informal processes, than by rigid rules and rigid criteria, with a view to make it possible to constitute this body with individuals of a stature as high as required.
Just Net Coalition
Submitted by: Anushka Mittal

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?: Please see detailed response as answer to question no. 4 below.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?: Please see detailed response as answer to question no. 4 below.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?: Please see detailed response as answer to question no. 4 below.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Just Net Coalition
www.justnetcoalition.org Email: [email protected]

More than 170 Civil Society Groups Worldwide Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital Governance

Not only in developing countries but also in the US and EU, calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising. At the precise point when we should be shaping global norms to regulate Big Tech, plans have emerged for an ‘empowered’ global digital governance body that will evidently be dominated by Big Tech. Adding vastly to its already overweening power, this new Body would help Big Tech resist effective regulation, globally and at national levels. Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of ‘a Big Tech led body for Global Governance of Big Tech’.

To
The Secretary General,
United Nations, New York
Your ‘Roadmap for Digital Cooperation’ rightly recognises that “the world is at a critical inflection point for technology governance, made more urgent by the ongoing pandemic”. We are however concerned that the proposal for a new “strategic and empowered” High Level Multistakeholder Body with substantial digital policies related roles runs directly counter to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and its official follow-up process. It is in any case unacceptable that such an apex policy body will have corporation and government nominees sitting as equals. Worse, the proposed Body will rely largely on private (i.e., corporate) funding, and the main proposal currently on the table for this Body suggests linking gaining a seat on it with providing funding support. This is a new low for the UN, and an unthinkably dangerous direction for the future of global governance.
The WSIS mandated a process of ‘Enhanced Cooperation’ for developing “international public policies pertaining to the Internet” (or global digital policies), and a multistakeholder policy dialogue space, the Internet Governance Forum. While a multistakeholder UN Internet Governance Forum has been functioning since 2006, the multilateral element of actual policy development, the ‘Enhanced Cooperation’ framework, is yet to come to fruition. However, it remains firmly on the agenda of WSIS follow-up, with the UN General Assembly in December, 2020, noting “the need for continued dialogue and work on the implementation of enhanced cooperation” as envisioned by the WSIS.
The delay in setting up a governments-led UN body/mechanism/framework for digital policies, as mandated by the WSIS, leaves a temporary vacuum into which this proposed High Level Multistakeholder Body seeks to insinuate itself. Yet the mandate is not at all clear for how the official, formal, process for ‘Enhanced Cooperation’ can be superseded (and subverted) by an informal process led by Secretary General’s office (albeit with a slightly changed name of ‘Digital Cooperation’). (See Annex 1 to this document on how this expressly violates mandates from the WSIS and UN GA).
With the IGF working well as a policy dialogue forum, the various functions laid out for the proposed High Level Multistakeholder Body – although often stated in rather roundabout ways – seem designed to make it ‘the’ prime norms setting body for global digital governance, while providing it a private funding base. (See Annex 2 on the obvious policy role of this proposed Body, and its problematic funding model.)
Not just in developing countries but also in the US and EU, calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising. At the precise point when we should be shaping global norms to regulate Big Tech, it is a sheer paradox to see plans emerge for an ‘empowered’ global digital governance body that will clearly be dominated by Big Tech. Adding vastly to its already overweening power, this new Body would help Big Tech resist effective regulation, globally and at national levels. We indeed face the unbelievable prospect of ‘a Big Tech led body for Global Governance of Big Tech’.
A Readers Guide (University of Massachusetts-Boston) describes how the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Redesign Initiative believed that “‘multistakeholder consultations’ on global matters should evolve into ‘multi-stakeholder governance’ arrangements”. “This transformation means that non-state actors would no longer just provide input to decision-makers ... but would actually be responsible for making global policy decisions.” The Global Redesign Initiative’s report sought a focus first on “designing multistakeholder structures for the institutions that deal with global problems with an online dimension.” And then: “... as ever more problems come to acquire an online dimension, the multistakeholder institution would become the default in international cooperation.”
The sense of déjà vu in what is now unfolding in front of us is rather eerie. The first step of turning a body for ‘multistakeholder consultations’ (IGF) into one for ‘multi-stakeholder governance’ (the IGF plus, High Level Multistakeholder Body) for the ‘online’ or digital’ dimension, is evidently under way. To be noted also is how the term ‘cooperation’ is deployed in the above WEF ‘plan’ to mean actual policy making, similar to its use in the ‘Digital Cooperation’ initiative and architecture.
We urge the office of the UN Secretary General to immediately withdraw the proposal for a High level Multistakeholder Body for ‘Digital Cooperation’, since it would become the de facto body for ‘global digital governance’. If this proposal is adopted, it will sound the death knell of democratic and multilateral global governance, replacing it with corporate-led governance systems, that (as envisaged by the WEF) will extend more widely with increasing digitalisation of all sectors.
Indeed, such capture of policy forums is already happening across several dimensions of the UN multilateral system. It already exerts a direct impact on people’s lives – as we see now clearly in the pandemic in the case of governance of health, but also in the governance of food, education and environment. Recent developments such as COVAX and Food Systems Summit are examples of movement in this direction, following the model further advanced in the WEF’s latest ‘The Great Re-Set’. The rapidly growing role of big data, AI and digital platforms in all sectors fits well with the move towards, in effect, global self-regulation of Big Tech, and would have the effect of a further lock-in of this approach across all sectors.
As it has been mandated by the WSIS, we further urge the office of the UN Secretary General to dedicate itself to exploring how best a democratic system for global digital governance can be developed, following the WSIS guidelines.

Our specific requests from the office of the Secretary General:
1. The proposal for an ‘empowered and strategic’ High Level Multistakeholder Body for Digital Cooperation should be shelved. We do not see any role or need for it.
2. A clear distinction should be made between what could be Digital Cooperation for assisting UN agencies in deploying digital technologies in programmatic terms, on the one hand, and UN's core digital policy functions, on the other. With regard to the former, some steps have been proposed in the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation. We may have varying levels of concerns in relation to some of these steps. However, what we are most concerned about here is the completely unacceptable over-reach of the Digital Cooperation agenda towards substantive policy functions, even if somewhat hidden under various vague terms and descriptions. The Digital Cooperation agenda should be re-worked to be confined, if at all, to programmatic and policy dialogue functions. Any framework or forum set up under it should not in the slightest exceed such functions. This should be fully clarified in all relevant documents and mandates. All the vague and confusing language in this regard should be replaced with clear description of roles and functions, fully excluding any substantive policy roles. We are happy to offer our further suggestions and assistance in this regard.
3. Efforts should be renewed in full earnest to develop a genuinely democratic system for global digital governance, keeping vested corporate interests at bay. The office of the Secretary General should start a new, formal, process of consultation on this issue as per WSIS guidelines. This is especially pertinent now given the dramatically changed public and political opinion on the need for close regulation of Big Tech, and the fact that Big Tech is global and therefore requires a certain level of effective global governance, with appropriate global norms and polices.

Signed

1. Just Net Coalition (Global)
2. Transnational Institute (TNI) (Global)
3. Society for International Development (SID) (Global)
4. Tricontinental Centre (CETRI) (Belgium)
5. FIAN International (Global)
6. Focus on the Global South (Asia)
7. ETC Group (Global)
8. Global Campaign for Education (Global)
9. Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) (Global)
10. Internet Ciudadana (Latin America)
11. Association for Proper Internet Governance (Switzerland)
12. Agencia Latinoamericana de Información (ALAI) (Latin America)
13. Nexus Research Cooperative (Ireland)
14. Social Watch (Global)
15. Observatory of Linguistic and Cultural Diversity on the Internet (Global)
16. IT for Change (India)

Over 150 more civil society groups supporting this letter are listed at the end of Annex 2.

Annex 1

A brief institutional history of WSIS and its follow up in relation to the proposal for a High Level Multistakeholder Body for Digital Cooperation

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), held in two phases in 2003 and 2005, mandated two complementary but distinct policy processes; a multilateral process of ‘Enhanced Cooperation’ for actual policy making, and a multistakeholder Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a policy dialogue forum.
UN IGF was formed in 2006, and it meets annually. In 2010, the UN General Assembly (GA) set up a Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group on Improvements to the IGF. Its report was adopted by the UN GA and has been implemented. Significantly, many design elements of the now proposed High Level Multistakeholder Body – involving new kinds of more substantive policy roles for the IGF or IGF associated bodies – were expressly considered by this Working Group and rejected. It is concerning, and unacceptable, how these elements of an ‘empowered IGF plus’, having been rejected by a formal process pursuant to extensive consultations, are re-emerging through the back-door of an informal process driven by the Secretary General’s office.
The other WSIS-mandated ‘complementary’ process of ‘Enhanced Cooperation’, for actual policy making, remained a contested issue. From 2014 to 2018, two successive CSTD Working Groups considered various ways to implement this key WSIS recommendation, but an agreement could not be reached. However, this process of exploring the appropriate architecture for Enhanced Cooperation on global digital policies is not closed. The WSIS + 10 meeting in 2015 called for “continued dialogue and work on the implementation of enhanced cooperation”. This call was repeated by a UN GA resolution in 2020.
As with the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the IGF – and quite likely an extension of it – the new High Level Multistakeholder Body would have corporation and government nominees, in addition to some technical community and civil society members, sit as equals. This is acceptable for the MAG whose role is basically to develop the program for the annual IGF. On the other hand, the proposed new High Level Multistakeholder Body has a clear and central policy role. There is no evident reason otherwise to go beyond the current IGF and MAG structure, which has been performing well as a policy dialogue system, as mandated by the WSIS.
The current proposal appears to be a clear effort to creep from the IGF side to the Enhanced Cooperation side of the WSIS mandate, because it was the Enhanced Cooperation process which was supposed to undertake the policy development role. It is precisely to pre-empt any such mission creep from the ‘policy dialogue’ multistakeholder IGF side to substantive policy space that the UN GA has clearly stated in its post WSIS resolutions that the IGF and Enhanced Cooperation are to be ‘distinct’ i.e. separate processes. There is therefore no scope for an ‘Internet Governance Forum plus model’ or to ‘enhance the Forum’ (both terms from the SG’s Roadmap document), as some kind of a hybrid between the policy dialogue function of the IGF and substantive policy function of the WSIS mandated ‘Enhanced Cooperation’ (which is supposed to be multilateral, but with multistakeholder consultations). The new High Level Multistakeholder Body is evidently trying to become such a hybrid. This is a clear subversion of the architecture laid out by the WSIS and subsequent guidelines from the UN GA.
The High Level Multistakeholder Body for Digital Cooperation is evidently ‘Enhanced Cooperation’ in camouflage, seeking to take over the latter’s digital policy development role. Only that it does not at all qualify for such a role from a WSIS mandate point of view, which laid out directions of what and how of such an Internet/digital policy body in its Tunis Agenda.
Once such a High Level Multistakeholder Body dabbling in substantive policy issues is formed, it will slowly but surely seek to fill up the vacuum left by non-creation of a democratic and multi-lateral body for development of global Internet and digital policies. It will thus come to be at the apex of global digital governance and policy system.

Annex 2

Some quotes from documents related to the High Level Multistakeholder Body which show its proposed central policy role, and problematic private funding model.

The evident central policy function of the proposed High Level Multistakeholder Body

The report of the ‘High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation’, on which the UN Secretary General’s (SG) ‘Roadmap for Digital Cooperation’ is based, described the policy function of the proposed High Level Multistakeholder Body in this fashion:
...incubate policies and norms for public discussion and adoption. In response to requests to look at a perceived regulatory gap, it would examine if existing norms and regulations could fill the gap and, if not, form a policy group consisting of interested stakeholders to make proposals to governments and other decision-making bodies. It would monitor policies and norms through feedback from the bodies that adopt and implement them.

Building on this report, the SG’s Roadmap specifically calls for:
Creating a strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high level body, building on the experience of the existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate normative and decision-making forum. 
The part ‘strategic and empowered’ makes evident that this Body’s role would go much beyond the policy deliberation function of the UN IGF. It will have some strategic, policy related power. ‘Address urgent issues’ is another part which points to some kind of decision-making role, quite beyond policy deliberation. So does ‘coordinate follow-up action on IGF discussions’. How does the Body relay ‘policy approaches and recommendations’ from the IGF, when there are no avenues or means for recommendation-making in the IGF? There is obviously meant to be some ‘empowered’ role of choosing, shaping and incubating policy approaches and recommendations by the new proposed Body.

In default of any other specific Internet or digital norms-shaping or policy-making body in the UN system, policy approaches and recommendations coming out of this proposed Multi-stakeholder High Level Body will be presented and construed as ‘the’ global norms and soft law in the digital arena.

The private funding model for the proposed High Level Multistakeholder Body

In this regard, the report of the ‘High level Panel’ said:
All stakeholders – including governments, international organisations, businesses and the tech sector – would be encouraged to contribute.

The SG’s Roadmap builds on this, to propose:
Addressing the long-term sustainability of the Forum and the resources necessary for increased participation, through an innovative and viable fundraising strategy, as promoted by the round table.

No document seems available about what got ‘promoted by the round table’. But all indications are that the focus is on non-UN, private funding. With such an alluring, high profile digital norms-shaping and policy role, a large part of such funding would very likely come from Big Tech and other corporate sources. A proposal for how the High Level Multistakeholder Body (HLMB) should be run developed by a Working Group of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the IGF – MAG itself being a strong candidate for a central role in the proposed new Body – has this to say about its funding:
"Probably, some senior people sitting in the MHLB will have a bigger incentive to consider funding the IGF Secretariat, without making this a requirement at all."

There is more than a hint here of ‘pay to play’. All the relevant documents are generally clear about a focus on private funding, with references to how members of this body being well resourced, and providing various resources for its functions, would be such a good thing.

Continued.

This open letter may also be accessed in English here [https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf], in French here [https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf], in Spanish here [https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf], in German here [https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-german.pdf], and in Dutch here [https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-dutch.pdf].

Continued List of Endorsing Organizations

Global

17. Third World Network
18. Bread for the World
19. Agencia internacional de noticias PRESSENZA
20. Public Health Movement
21. LDC Watch
22. Global Forest Coalition
23. World Association for Christian Communication (WACC)
24. Baby Milk Action, International Baby Foods Action Network (IBFAN)
25. Badayl
26. DisCO.coop
27. Emergent Works
28. Evolution of Mind, Life and Society Research Institute (EMLS RI)
29. Friends of The Earth International
30. International Movement of Catholic Agricultural Rural Youth (MIJARC)
31. Oikotree Global Forum
32. People's Dialogue
33. Intercontinental Network for the Promotion of Social Solidarity (RIPESS)
34. Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO)
35. The Corner House
36. Urgenci Internatonal Network
37. Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF)
38. Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID)
39. World March of Women International
40. Both ENDS
41. Ethical Minds

Regional

42. European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC) (Europe)
43. Alianza Biodiversidad (Latin America)
44. Foro de Comunicación para la Integración de NuestrAmérica (Latin America)
45. Campaña Latinoamericana por el Derecho a la Educación (CLADE) (Latin America)
46. Asociación Latinoamericana de Educación y Comunicación Popular (ALER) (Latin America)
47. ALBA TV (Latin America)
48. Jubileo Sur/Américas (Latin America)
49. Sursiendo, Comunicación y Cultura Digital (Latin America)
50. Fundación de Estudios, Acción y Participación Social (FEDAEPS) (Latin America)
51. Colectivo Voces Ecológicas (COVEC) - Radio Temblor internacional (Latin America)
52. Consejo de Educación Popular de América Latina y el Caribe (CEAAL) (Latin America)
53. Project on Organising, Development, Education and Research (PODER) (Latin America)
54. Transnational Migrant Platform-Europe (TMP-E) (Europe)
55. Platform of Filipino Migrant Organisations (Europe)
56. Europe External Programme with Africa (Africa)
57. France Amérique Latine (FAL) (Latin America)
58. Africa Europa Faith and Justice Network (Europe, Africa)
59. African Centre for Biodiversity (Africa)
60. ALTSEAN-Burma (Southeast Asia)
61. Africaine de Recherche et de Coopération pour l'Appui au Développement Endogène (ARCADE) (Africa)
62. Asia Pacific Mission for Migrants (Asia Pacific)
63. Associació Cultural i Medi Ambiental Arrels (País Valencia, Països Catalans – SPAIN)
64. BlueLink Foundation (Europe)
65. Des De Baix – Attac PV (Baix Vinalopó, Spain)
66. Manushya Foundation (Southeast Asia)
67. International Institute for Non Violent Action (NOVACT) (Mediterranean)
68. Rural Women's Assembly (Africa)
69. Sisters of Charity Federation (United States)
70. Tax Justice Network Africa (Africa)
71. Women In Development Europe+ (WIDE+) (Europe)
72. WoMin African Alliance (Africa)
73. Torang Trust (Asia)
74. Empower India (Asia Pacific)
75. Centro de Documentación en Derechos Humanos “Segundo Montes Mozo S.J.” (CSMM)(Latin America)
76. Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) (North America)
77. Public Service International (PSI Américas) (Latin America)
78. Transform Europe (Europe)

National

79. Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign - Stop the Wall (Palestine)
80. National Fisheries Solidarity Movement (Sri Lanka)
81. Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN) (Colombia)
82. Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN) (Germany)
83. Coordinacion De Ong Y Cooperativas (CONGCOOP) (Guatemala)
84. Deca, Equipo Pueblo, AC (Mexico)
85. Human Rights and Business Centre (HOMA) (Brazil)
86. Zambia Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity (ZAAB) (Zambia)
87. Afrikagrupperna (Sweden)
88. Participatory Research Action Network (PRAN) (Bangladesh)
89. Food Security Network (KHANI) (Bangladesh)
90. Centro de Estudios Humanistas de Córdoba (Argentina)
91. Agrupacion 19 de Octubre SUTEL (Uruguay)
92. Red en Defensa de la Humanidad (Ecuador)
93. Ateneo La Vaquita (Argentina)
94. Observatorio Latinoamericano de Geopolítica (OLAG) – UNAM (México)
95. Tatuy TV (Venezuela)
96. DIGNIDAD Movement (Phillipines)
97. Fundación Vía Libre (Argentina)
98. Posco Pratirodh Sangram Samiti/ Anti-Jindal & Anti-POSCO Movement (PPSS) (India)
99. Phlippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) (Phillipines)
100. SENTRO Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa (SENTRO) Trade Union (Philippines)
101. Woman Health (Philippines)
102. Asociación Red de Coordinación en Biodiversidad (Costa Rica)
103. Talent Upgrade Global Concept (Uganda)
104. Acción por la Biodiversidad (Argentina)
105. Aitec France (France)
106. All India IT and ITeS Employees' Union (India)
107. All India Online Vendors Association (India)
108. Alternative Information Development Centre (South Africa)
109. Association For Promotion Sustainable Development (India)
110. Attac (Austria)
111. Attac (Espana)
112. Aufstehn.at (Austria)
113. Balay Alternative Legal Advocates for Development in Mindanaw (Phillipines)
114. Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio & Communication (BNNRC) (Bangladesh)
115. Botswana Watch Organization (Botswana)
116. Canadian Community Economic Development Network (Canada)
117. Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability (India)
118. Centro Ecologico (Brazil)
119. Centro Internazionale Crocevia (Italy)
120. Citizens Coalition for Economic Justice (South Korea)
121. Comisión Nacional de Enlace (CNE) (Costa Rica)
122. Computer Professionals’ Union (Philippines)
123. Confederation Paysanne (France)
124. Coorg Organisation for Rural Development (India)
125. ECODAWN (India)
126. Emancipate (Indonesia)
127. Ethical Consumer Research Association (United Kingdom)
128. Forum Das ONG/AIDS Do Estado De Sao Paulo (FOAESP) (Brazil)
129. Focsiv Italian Federation Christian NGOs (Italy)
130. Frente Nacional por la Salud de los Pueblos del Ecuador (FNSPE) (Ecuador)
131. Fresh Eyes (United Kingdom)
132. Gender Equity: Citizenship, Work and Family (Mexico)
133. German NGO Forum on Environment and Development (Germany)
134. Gestos (Brazil)
135. Grupo de Incentivo à Vida (GIV) (Brazil)
136. Global Justice Now (United Kingdom)
137. Green Advocates International (Liberia)
138. Grupo de Resistência Asa Branca (GRAB) (Brazil)
139. Grupo de Trabalho sobre Propriedade Intelectual (GTPI) (Brazil)
140. Grupo Semillas (Colombia)
141. Human Rights Online Philippines (HronlinePH) (Phillipines)
142. Indian Social Action Forum (India)
143. Indonesia for Global Justice (Indonesia)
144. Jamaa Resource Initiatives (Kenya)
145. Jatio Sramik Jote (Bangladesh)
146. Justiça Ambiental (JA!) (Mozambique)
147. Kairos Europe WB (Belgium)
148. Knowledge Commune (South Korea)
149. Korea SDGs Network (South Korea)
150. La Asamblea Veracruzana de Iniciativas y Defensa Ambiental (Mexico)
151. LUMEN APS (Italy)
152. National Campaign for Sustainable Development (Nepal)
153. Observatorio de Impactos Sociales de la Inteligencia Artificial (Argentina)
154. Haitian Platform to Advocate Alternative Development (PAPDA) (Haïti)
155. REDES-Amigos de la Tierra (FoE) (Uruguay)
156. Research and Support Center for Development Alternatives- Indian Ocean (RSCDA-IO) / Centre de Recherches et d'Appui pour les Alternatives de Développement - Océan Indien (CRAAD-OI) (Madagascar)
157. Rural Infrastructure and Human Resource Development Organization (RIHRDO) (Pakistan)
158. Sciences Citoyennes (France)
159. Southern and Eastern Africa Trade Information and Negotiations Institute (SEATINI) (Uganda)
160. Sherpa (France)
161. Solifonds (Switzerland)
162. Success Capital Organisation (Botswana)
163. Sunray Harvesters (India)
164. Védegylet Egyesület (Hungary)
165. WomanHealth (Philippines)
166. Zimbabwe Smallholder Organic Farmers Forum (Zimbabwe)
167. Área Genero, Sociedad y Políticas (FLACSO) (Argentina)
168. ATTAC ACORDEM Association of Barcelona (Spain)
169. Urgewald, (Germany)
170. Vigencia (Brazil)
171. TWN, Trust (India)
172. Volkshilfe Österrei (Austria)

A list of those who endorsed this letter in a personal capacity is here [https://justnetcoalition.org/individuals-opposing-big-tech-dominated-global-governance.pdf].

Since this is an ongoing campaign still getting support, the list of endorsements will periodically be updated here [https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf].
Kossi Amessinou
Submitted by: Kossi AMESSINOU

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
C'est une bonne idée. Ce groupe est important et il jouera le rôle de trait d'union entre les décideurs publics, privés, les chercheurs et la société civile.Ce groupe collaborera avec le MAG pour la mise en œuvre effective des décisions issues du forum de l'igf.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Il est important d'avoir au plus trois représentants par partie prenante. Il doivent provenir des cinq continents à part égale. Il n'est pas nécessaire d'avoir que la désignation soit organisée par chaque partie prenante pour éviter de mettre en place un lobby manipulable. Le mandat doit être de trois ans non renouvelable.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Il faut utiliser une partie du fonds du dividende technologique pour assurer une disponibilité des fonds.En cas d'absence de ce fonds, il faut le créer avec une dotation permanente des opérateurs mobiles et des fournisseurs d'accès internet

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: La participation doit prendre en compte les femmes à compétences égales.
Radio Research and Development Institute
Submitted by: Viacheslav Erokhin

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The IGF is an international platform for all stakeholders to discuss public policy issues related to the Internet. The IGF mandate defines the main goal – to discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet.
However, the IGF is only a discussion platform, and no recommendations or decisions are made at the forum. This is a serious drawback. There are no tools and methods of practical implementation of the recommendations or approaches discussed during the sessions at the annual conferences. It would be useful from a practical point of view if a Multi-stakeholder High-Level Body would prepare recommendations and tasks based on the results of the discussions for the UN and for the UN` specialized agencies. On the basis of the input received from the IGF, the UN and agencies could prepare international legal regulation for Internet ecosystem.
The main purpose of the MAG, in accordance with its mandate, is to advise the UN Secretary-General on the program and schedule of the forum through community consultation, advocacy and stakeholder engagement. The result of this work is a detailed program and schedule of the annual IGF meetings, including the identification of topics, sub-topics and issues. The Multi-stakeholder High-Level Body should not duplicate this work of the MAG. The MAG should continue to prepare the forum agenda – work with inputs, and the Multi-stakeholder High-Level Body should determine the final recommendations of the forum – work with outputs. These two bodies can collaborate with stakeholders to facilitate multi-stakeholder participation in the forum.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
It would be useful if the organizational structure of Multi-stakeholder High-Level Body included several working groups. Each of these working groups would monitor its own topic/area of responsibility and prepare a recommendation on it and then send it to the UN or to one of the agencies.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?: same financing scheme, which is currently used for the forum

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Robert Bosch Stiftung GmbH
Submitted by: Carolin Wattenberg

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The multi-stakeholder body’s overarching goal should be to contribute to the successful implementation of the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, i.e. enhancing global digital cooperation across sectors. Strengthening the participation of different stakeholders will be crucial, especially those that have not been part of the IGF ecosystem so far, that have been marginalized or are directly affected by its goals and recommendations. Institutionalized multi-stakeholder involvement can also increase the credibility and reach of the IGF.

If an additional body is created, it will be important to clearly define its membership, mandate, objectives, and role: e. g. by asking some of the following questions:
- How does it contribute to the overall goals of the IGF/the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation?
- To whom is it accountable?
- How do you ensure transparency concerning its mandate?
- What is the value-add of a new body considering that there al-ready is a Multistakeholder Advisory Group?
- How are they distinct from each other? How do you avoid competition? How does their membership differ? How do they cooperate?

The MHLB should also directly coordinate with the Office of the Tech Envoy and the UN Secretary General.

There should be a clear understanding of what the body’s scope as an advisory group, and ultimately its role, is. The expected outcome should also be clear from the outset. Based on the description in paragraph 93 (a), the MHLB’s role will be to produce concrete and actionable outcomes. That is what its success will be measured by.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The body’s governance structure and composition depend on its core mandate and objective. Once they are defined, the relevant stake-holders should be identified and the appropriate size of the group should be determined. The invitation/nomination process should be transparent. According to paragraph 93(a), the MHLB would “address urgent issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate normative and decision-making forums”. Ideally, it would be a diverse group of leaders/senior-level experts, who are familiar with the decision-making bodies they are supposed to work with. As with its role and mandate, membership should be distinct from the MAG.
As a group that is supposed to take action on urgent matters, it needs to be manageable in size and balanced in terms of geography (representation of the Global South) and sectors (private sector, civil society, governments, research institutions, non-government organizations etc.).

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Since it is an IGF body, it should be funded by the IGF Trust Fund and supported by the IGF Secretariat. The different stakeholders can offer additional support (e.g. in the nomination/invitation process).

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
SEMANTIS
Submitted by: Richard Delmas

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
High Level Body should be established for 3 main functions :

- to act as co-facilitator between the internet multistakeholder groups and constituencies and the main organs and agences dealing with internet policies regulatory matters
- to facilitate the liaison between the MAG and others organs and agences.
- to express the multistakeholder interests and needs to the UN SG GA and ECOSOC through an open and transparent process with disclosure of affiliations and dependencies of stakeholder.


2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
This would imply for thé High Level Body:

- limited numbers of membership, maximum 30 members.
- regional balance accordino to UN GA rules and management of 5 régions and of functionning (UN resolution 65/290 of1974)
- rotation of membres by 1/3 every 2 years.
- fair balance of gender représentation gas to be ensured

3) How could this body be supported and funded?: UN budget + Trust fund

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
High Level Body work should be inspired by the corpus of international public and private law related to norms and standards for digital networks and services
TICsLegal
Submitted by: Vrikson Acosta

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
This new body should be independent from the existing MAG in other so that there is no conflict of interest, traffic of influence, corruption, else, and set to monitor what the MAG does. Furthermore, the main role should be of a highest strategic level, setting up what the secretariat should do. As well, this new body, should be named differently and relation less of the MAG, must create and guide on the implementation of long term, top level, worldwide, IG policies.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The composition should be of the same number of members as of the MAG members, with the same ratio composition of the MAG, and members would last for 3 years with the option of a re-election.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
This body should be funded by the same that fund the MAG, and Secretariat, as well as other entities, to warrantee independence.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
No current or past MAG member should be allow to be in this new body. Preference should be made on candidates who were not selected to be on the MAG.
Xi'an Jiao-tong Liverpool University
Submitted by: Yik Chan Chin

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
To enhance the policy making function of the IGF and impact of IGF on policymakers. The current impact of IGF is relative weak, it has been a talk shop without concrete outcomes. The MHLB should act as strategic leader for the IGF and it should either be a MAG+ model (sub-group of MAG )with a in-depth reform of the MAG or a two tier structure.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Multistakeholder group with stronger representation of government representatives, inter-governmental groups and experts. It should have a regional balance. Ideally between 10-15 members.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?: Supported and funded by the UN and IGF Trust Fund

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
It is very important that this MHLB could play the strategical leadership for the IGF and make sure the IGF having policy impact.
Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (YCIG)
Submitted by: Youth Coalition on Internet Governance

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Regarding the priority functions, we consider it is important to include some of the functions mentioned at the WG Strategy paper:
● “Raising the profile of the IGF;
● Strengthening its inclusiveness across all geographies and stakeholder groups;
● Devising and implementing a professional and targeted communications and outreach strategy;
● Collaborate with existing structures of the IGF such as the Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) and Best Practice Forums (BPFs);
● Establishing a professional and dedicated fundraising structure.”

Taking into account the three options explained at the Open Consultation event, we suggest that the MHLB will assist the MAG structure. In this way, the MHLB will take care of the leadership and the MAG of the IGF programme. The current situation at the MAG requires some assistance due the limited resources and time the MAG has available for all its functions, especially in bringing attention to stakeholders such as governments to discuss regional issues, pursuing in the future a model of governance where the recommendations taken in the IGF could become enforceable in regional and national levels.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The number of members should be at least 10 (2 per each region), having representation of all the stakeholders including youth1. The inclusion of youth experts is fundamental for their role in shaping the current and future Internet Governance policies. It would be extremely important to have a balance between gender (women and gender diverse community); age (youth and non youth); geographical (5 regional groups determined by UN, preventing predominance of Global North members); and stakeholders representation (avoiding big techs having more presence than other sectors). Moreover, we suggest creating an intersection between both bodies by having representatives from DCs, BPFs and MAG representatives in the MHLB and vice versa.

Members could rotate every year, and elections would be conducted two weeks after the global IGF ends. Nominations could be part of the open process where the community can submit candidates to represent these stakeholders, and then have an electoral process in order to guarantee transparency and equally rotation of members.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
It could be supported by the current MAG Working Groups, DCs, and BPFs. In this point, we should remark that their work should be taken into account by the MHLB for having a longer trajectory in IG space by elaborating policy summaries (BPFs) and connecting the IG policy discussions within their communities (DCs).

On the matter of funding, we propose the approach of a dedicated and professional fundraising structure within the IGF Secretariat, as stated at the WG Strategy paper. Also, funding should come from the private sector and governments, avoiding mandatory membership fees from other stakeholders like youth, civil society or academia. There shall not be economic restrictions

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
-Finally, we would like to bring up the comment made about the Policy Incubatory by the WG Strategy: “[BPFs and DCs] They should be given a clear mandate, working procedures and principles and receive more resources and administrative support by the IGF Secretariat. The work of the Dynamic Coalitions and Best Practice Fora has to be complemented by other initiatives to link discussion and decision-making bodies. The WG further suggests that BPFs and DCs should as a rule include experts from external organizations and, especially, representatives from decision-making bodies. They would discuss recommendations that could inform the adoption of norms and policies by decision-making bodies and organizations from various stakeholder groups. This way, these structures would also help strengthen cooperation and coordination with other fora of the digital cooperation ecosystem...” In this regard, Dynamic Coalitions want to remark the significance of the cooperation among MHLB and DCs, not only as already existing policy discussion spaces with active communities, but also we as youth shall have an essential role in the MHLB for our ongoing work towards present and future Internet Governance.

1 Our dynamic coalition considers that a person between 18 to 35 years old is part of the “youth” group. We are aware this criteria is not widely used, however young people between 30 and 35 years could be valuable assets and enrich the policy discussions at the MLHB.
of equal participation from under developed countries for instance (voluntary donations would be welcome).
Youth IGF Uruguay
Submitted by: Nicolas Fiumarelli

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
In my opinion, the MAG will assist the high-level-body on multistakeholder with best practices, then the high-level-body will make all the necessary work to put these practices in reality.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Regional and stakeholder balance for sure but also sub-regional reachability, via the bottom-up process from national IGFs to sub-regional to regional to a global level. A rotation of members is a need.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Technology plays an important role. There are open-source projects and volunteering spirit in the world of multistakeholderism. For sure, decisions need to be taken from the input, but this input needs to be "accessible" and low-connection based, also broadcasted to millions of people around the world, stakeholders in their position in a very ordered bottom-up process, borning at the National and Youth IGFs and then going up in the chain to the Regional and Global level. Some kind of reference of this bottom-up process is in Youth SIG, NRIs, Regional Registries, IETF and many existing working groups inside the Internet Governance ecosystem.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The decision-making in such a Multistakeholder process needs to be made in some "automatic" manner, given the quantity of input, these could be easily researched in terms of Artificial intelligence algorithms, that may sum-up and find conflicts in multistakeholder statements, also with some assist from the High-level body. This way the Challenges and Solutions could be read via region, stakeholder, topic categorized via this software and assisted by the multistakeholder High-level body and in this manner, the Challenges and Solutions will emerge and the discussion will be fair.
Youth SIG (Youth Observatory)
Submitted by: Youth SIG (Youth Observatory)

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The main priority should be to analyze and constantly improve the ways the MAG responds to the issues addressed every year in the global IGF and pay attention to what is happening locally or/and in the Global South.
Another priority must be the diversification of the Multistakeholder model, meaning to include more people in decision-making processes and not only leave this in the hands of a few. For these two functions, we think it should be established. MAG needs something else that can work alongside them and be like an auditory/advisory group and maybe be a policy-making entity that took the incomes from every IGF organized for the MAG and transform that into something that actually can be consulted in order to establish new laws or public policies related to the internet ecosystem around the world.

In this sense, we agree on the third option presented at the IGF Open Consultation, that MAG remains in charge of organizing the annual event and the Multistakeholder Advisory Group will be in charge of policymaking. However, they should work collaboratively.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
We suggest the structure as follows: one Global board composed of 5 members (1 from each region); therefore, to ensure diversity besides the geopolitical aspect, these representatives should belong to each stakeholder group, while also including 1 member from women/gender diverse people; 1 member from the diverse capacities community, 1 member from youth.

Also, there should be regional boards assisting the work of the global board based on the 5 regional groups determined by the UN. Each regional group would be composed of 2 members each with gender equality (man/woman or cis/trans (gender diverse people), 1 member from the youth.

Members could rotate once a year and conduct elections after the annual IGF ends. Members could not be elected for two years in a row.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
A. The composition of youth representatives is extremely important to us. We want to highlight that there is a relevant number of young experts well known in the Internet Governance field (participating in NRI, conducting mentorships, etc.) who can provide new perspectives into the policy-making processes. We would not like to have the “tokenism” system within the Multistakeholder High-Level Body, and we prefer that young people be at the same table with other stakeholders’ representatives. In this matter, we provide our support as one of the youngest-led organizations with a worldwide outreach.

B. Finally, we want to call attention to the concern presented in the paper called “Civil Society Groups Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital Governance” (https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf). In this document, the civil society representatives expressed distress on the possibility of an “‘empowered’ global digital governance body that will clearly be dominated by Big Tech.” The MHLB should remain as an independent body where the representatives are chosen in a transparent way not based on the donations made to the funding, their functions shall be limited to policy dialogue and should not exceed them; avoiding an unbalance between the North and South representation, and restricting civil rights and human rights. It is essential that takes into account WSIS principles elaborated in Tunis 2005: Internet Governance should remain people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: -

Technical Community

APNIC
Submitted by: Joyce Chen

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Considerations about the MHLB’s scope, size and governance are important and should be made through transparent, inclusive and multistakeholder decision-making processes. Such processes should also resolve how the MHLB will interact with existing IGF bodies.

In absence of an ad-hoc constituent body, there might be four instances that could give birth to the MHLB: the UN Secretary General, the newly established Office of the Tech-Envoy, the IGF MAG or the wider IGF community. An alignment between these instances on the role of the MHLB should be a condition for its success.

The MAG seems to be the best IGF body where an agreement about the role, modality and creation of an MHLB should come from, because of its multistakeholder composition and its tenure as the key governing body of the IGF.

There have been suggestions about the responsibilities of the MHLB. Of those, we suggest to focus on the following important ones:

- Convening the high-level segment and ministerial and/or parliamentarian tracks of the IGF, ensuring more actionable outcomes
- Helping to build stronger connections, encouraging information sharing and the meaningful participation of these organizations in the IGF/IGF+ discussions.
- Contributing to fundraising efforts and corporate identity strategy of the IGF

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
There seems to be wide agreement that the MHLB should not replace the MAG but could work as a sub-group consisting of 5-10 members, representing different stakeholder groups.

We propose the MHLB to be comprised by a selection of existing MAG members, i.e., senior level and high-profile professionals, and perform duties that are complementary and supportive to developing the program of the IGF (as suggested above).

It might take a couple of years for the MAG selection process by the UN Secretary General to recruit the right members of the MHLB subgroup. The existing MAG members should support the UN Secretary General in his efforts of recruiting, nominating and selecting MHLB members.

The MHLB members should act individually, as members of the MAG, but their work will focus on helping to build stronger connections and support fundraising initiatives.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
As the MHLB will be comprised of MAG members, there is no need to differentiate resourcing needs from those required by the MAG.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
"Raising the level" of the IGF by involving stakeholders who are more closely connected to "decision-making", is a recommended preference of the "High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation". The recommendation consists of establishing a MHLB to solve, among other things, the desired goals of, a) having more actionable and concrete outcomes, b) discussions to link closer to decision-making bodies, and c) strengthening the leadership and profile of the IGF.

We are not convinced that there is a need for a MHLB or that the MHLB is the best solution to achieve the goals stated in paragraph 93(a). We believe that alternative options should have been considered; for example, strengthening bottom-up and more inclusive processes.

The answers offered above are based on the understanding that HLPDC’s recommendation to create a MHLB is being considered for implementation, and we believe our suggestions are the best way to preserve the multistakeholder and participatory model that are key features of the IGF and strengthen the role of the MAG, which is the key governing body of the IGF.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Submitted by: Michael Nelson

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Vint Cerf is famous for saying (of the Internet) that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The Internet Governance Forum is not broken and is more effective than most intergovernmental or international organizations. It does an excellent job of providing a way for ideas to bubble up from a very diverse, global community of Internet experts and to be debated in an open, public, and balanced way. It's not designed to solve Internet policy problems or set global norms--it could never do that. Instead, the Forum, in conjunction with the national and regional IGFs, provides a very effective way for national governments and the people who advise and influence them to learn about new developments and best practices (and worse practices) that can guide national policies. The high-level body could help promote the IGF, help urge key players to participate, and engage with national governments to make sure they are aware of the rich content and ideas generated at the annual IGF conference, the national and regional meetings, and through the intersessional work.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
According to the report on the open consultations held in late February, "The Office (of the Digital Envoy) is also committed to supporting the evolution of the IGF as a forwardlooking and purposeful platform, while maintaining its open, inclusive, bottom-up and multistakeholder nature." Because this group is not designed to represent the whole community of Internet users and service providers and because there is no way a couple dozen people could do that, what is most important is that MSHB members have broad personal networks are a well-respected in their stakeholder community and their geographic region. As I envision it, members will do much of their work in small group--reaching out to different government officials and influencers to help them them into the IGF and the expertise there.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Since the group will have lit tle reason to meet--outside of the annual IGF conference--most of the travel funding will go for individuals and small groups of members to spread the ideas shared at IGF meetings. Ideally, meetings will be minimized and members will rely on videoconference calls, meetings with reports, interviews on TV and webcasts, and social media to get their message out. Since the purpose of the new body is to increase digital cooperation, a stated goal of the Secretary-General, it would make sense to fund this new group out of core UN funding.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
All efforts should be made to ensure that the new body is not seen as undermining the work of the MAG or dictating to it. The MAG does a good job of soliciting hundreds and proposals each year and determining which sessions belong on the conference program. The new body should not be second-guessing what topics and people are showcased at the IGF conference.
Federal Telecommunications Institute
Submitted by: Ferrer Edna

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
Regarding the main functions of the MHLB, we consider that this body should be responsible of liking the discussions and deliberations that take place in the IGF with those forums, organizations or other stakeholders with decision-making power, in order to guarantee that the recommendations of the IGF are transferred to concrete actions.
Additionally, the MHLB shall have the capacity to debate strategic issues involving high-level actors. Normally, the IGF debates involve technical actors who often lack decision-making power; therefore, the MHLB should seek and encourage the participation of both high-level actors and experts, from all stakeholder groups.
Regarding the relationship that should exist between the MHLB and the MAG; even though the MHLB should be part of the IGF, it is considered that this body should be separate from the MAG. For this, it is necessary to identify clearly the functions of both bodies in order to avoid duplication of tasks.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The MHLB should be integrated by a group of 20 people who represent all the interest groups. This should include a member of the MAG, who will act as the Chair of this Body, a person from the United Nations in order to have the link with the organization. It should be considered a rotation every one or two years.
Additionally, it is important to apply the MAG rules and criteria regarding the nomination and appointment (including geographical, gender and stakeholder balance) of members.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Regarding the financing, it is important to evaluate the possible economic expenses that this body could represent, taking into account the number of participants and the future meetings in order to analyze if the IGF Trust Fund could cover it or if it will be necessary to implement another source of financing.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
As we stated before, it is important that the activities of this body should be clearly coordinated and define with the MAG, in order to complement actions and to promote the achievement of the main objectives of the IGF, without duplication of tasks.
Likewise, this body should give greater visibility to the work carried out by the IGF, providing concrete actions that decision makers can carry out, based on the recommendations of the Forum.
Hariniombonana Andriamampionona
Submitted by: Hariniombonana ANDRIAMAMPIONONA

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The MHLB should pay attention not to duplicate the function and the work already done by the MAG. We experience that it's one thing to get organizations to participate and to sign agreement, but it's not always put into practice. The MAG members is struggling to make things really change and this is where the multi stakeholder high level body is required, to follow up the recommendations with the decision-maker at regional and national level. They should work closely with the concerned organisms (government, regulator...) on how to implement those recommendations and come back to the MAG on the blocking point or any issue raised by those organisms.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The members of the body should not be a MAG member but can be an old MAG member or an expert working in some BPFs or any other working group supporting the MAG. All regions should be represented, 02 representative per region with a mandate of 2 years, renewable only once.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
Internet Society
Submitted by: Constance Bommelaer

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The Internet Society (ISOC) welcomes the endorsement of multistakeholder Internet governance contained in the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and appreciates the opportunity of this further round of stakeholder consultations to comment on the proposal to establish a new IGF Multistakeholder High Level Body.

ISOC agrees that it is important to ensure that the outcomes of the multistakeholder discussions at the IGF and its intersessional activities are communicated effectively to decision-takers in governments, international governmental organisations and agencies, and to business leaders in the private sector. ISOC looks forward to working with the stakeholder community and the Office of the Technology Envoy in clarifying with greater detail the remit and functions which are described in Paragraph 93 (a) in general terms only.

However, as we have indicated in previous contributions to the UN HLPDC process, ISOC is not convinced that a new higher-level body of representatives needs to be established.

ISOC’s preferred solution is to strengthen the existing IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) so that it has the capacity, expertise and resources to follow up the outcomes and recommendations of the IGF’s discussions with a more effective and strategic programme of awareness-raising worldwide that is supported by a targeted outreach and communications plan.

Furthermore, ISOC believes that increasing the strategic remit of the MAG in this way would obviate any risk of a new Internet governance entity, with higher authority by virtue of its more senior governmental and private sector leader membership, in effect drawing attention away from the IGF and generally diminishing the role of the MAG. This would fundamentally weaken the bottom-up multistakeholder ethos that was established for the IGF by the World Summit on the Information Society in 2005.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
If this new high-level body were created (please see our reservations under question 1), ISOC would recommend the IGF community nominating a group of senior level leaders from governments, parliaments, business, civil society and the technical and academic communities.

In order to maximize diversity in terms of stakeholder constituency and geographical representation, we would expect the size of the group needs to be in the range of 15-20 individuals.

Appointments to the group should be made on a two or three year rotating basis in order i) generally to refresh the group’s capacity for vision and strategy; and ii) to mitigate any risk of agenda capture by specific political or business interests.

Each member of the group should participate in his/her personal capacity.

The nomination process should aim to maintain a proportion of members who have direct experience of the practical workings of the IGF, and of the global network of national and regional IGFs (the “NRIs”).

There should also be a commitment in the nomination process to ensure gender balance in the group’s membership.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
If this new group were created (please see our reservations under question 1), ISOC would suggest using a mechanism similar to the UN Trust Fund. Funding should be multistakeholder to avoid capture from any specific group.

As a group working with the MAG, the high-level members could be supported by dedicated staff within the IGF Secretariat. The budget allocation would therefore need to ensure the costs of its IGF Secretariat support, its comprehensive regular reporting to and coordination with the MAG, its related open consultations with stakeholder communities worldwide, are all fully met accordingly.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
ISOC’s position is that if this high-level body were created (please see our reservations under question 1), it should be coordinated with the MAG. Further discussion with all stakeholder groups would also be needed to define its role, more specifically.

The group’s terms of reference should clearly state that it cannot in any circumstances (including emergencies) extend its role to oversee the work of the MAG or assume any superior authority over the strategic direction of the IGF and its bottom-up programme management processes. These functions should remain the sole responsibility of the MAG.

The MAG must continue to be the lead authority for a) deciding the IGF’s themes and specific areas of focus; b) developing the IGF’s agenda and programme; and c) for implementing evolutionary changes to the IGF consistent with the Roadmap’s “IGF+” objectives and recommendations. These include securing more effective integration of the IGF’s intersessional activities (in particular the dynamic coalitions, best practice fora and policy networks) and coordinating the contributions of the national and regional IGFs to the global agenda.

Safeguards should be clearly defined in the terms of reference of the new high-level group that make clear it should not seek to influence the direction and course of IGF policy discussions, or to exercise any selective choice, or prioritization, of the IGF’s outcomes and recommendations.
Internet Society IGF Youth Ambassador
Submitted by: Veronica Piccolo

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
The multi-stakeholder high-level body should act as an advocate for the positions emerged from the IGF, without either replicating the role already assigned to the MAG or replacing the outcome stemming from the IGF multi-stakeholder dialogue.
The high-level body should have an influential status. It should empower the results of the IGF multi-stakeholder dialogues in governmental and intergovernmental fora, promote its results to get the message across without substantially interfering with the content, by formulating proposals, monitoring how those proposals are implemented across the various Regions, and reporting them.
Contrary to the MAG, the high-level body should have the authority and right instruments to call out countries and companies that ignore and divert from pursuing common goals. Without them, the high-level body would be a redundant MAG replica.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The multi-stakeholder high-level body should be more streamlined than the MAG in its composition, though maintaining a multi-stakeholder governance, perhaps by picking up some members from the MAG itself. For instance:
1 Representative of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and European Commission by rotation
1 Representative of Academia
1 MP, who has particularly excelled in promoting the values of multi-stakeholderism inside and outside his/her country.
2 Representatives of the Governments
2 Representatives of the technical community
2 Representatives of the private sector (one of whom shall be chosen from among representatives of SMEs in underrepresented regions)
3 Representatives of the civil society (one of whom shall be a representative of youth)
It is important that the IGOs, MP, and Governments representatives come from different regional groups. Each UN regional groups shall have at least two representatives in the high-level body.
Each person should be appointed for one-year non-renewable term.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?: Donations

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
It is important to make sure that the high-level body’s members action is effective in order to foster IGF policy approaches and recommendations, thus avoiding worthless repetition of the MAG’s advisory job.
The multistakeholder high-level body should be the interface between the crowdsourced proposals of the IGF and those who can actually implement them.
RIPE NCC
Submitted by: Gergana Petrova

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
These responses are submitted on behalf of the RIPE NCC, the Regional Internet Registry for Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia.
---
The activities of the MHLB, as outlined in paragraph 93(a), can be summarised as effecting action and change based on the output of the IGF. Such a role must be clearly distinct from and complementary to the roles of the IGF itself and of the MAG.
The activities of the MHLB should be informed and guided by the IGF, with clear reporting, feedback and communication protocols established at the outset to ensure accountability and transparency.
We believe the MHLB should not add an additional layer of hierarchy in the existing model. Instead, it should operate adjacent to, rather than above, the MAG, though they may have personnel in common. The priority must be open and effective communication channels between the different bodies to ensure each can best fulfil its mandate, along with transparent, accessible reporting.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
A clear distinction between the roles of the MAG and the MHLB should inform the structure and composition of the MHLB. While the MAG is a larger group, ensuring that the full range of stakeholder views can be brought to bear on decisions about the IGF’s programme, content and schedule, the MHLB, as outlined in the Secretary-General’s Roadmap, should have a more targeted approach, with a focus on actualising outcomes of the IGF in various ways. As such, the MHLB should be a smaller group (likely no more than 10 people). Selection of MHLB members should focus on demonstrated ability to effect change and drive agendas in various venues.
As participants in the community processes that have been established to provide nominees to the MAG, we note that there have at times been concerns in relation to the transparency and openness of this process. Acknowledging the complexity and challenge of conducting such selection processes at a global scale as well as the need to ensure geographical, gender and stakeholder balance, we would strongly urge that transparency and openness be enshrined at the centre of any process to select members of the MHLB.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Through the Number Resource Organisation (NRO), the RIPE NCC has been a significant financial contributor to the IGF. We recognise that sustainable funding for the IGF has been a long-standing concern, along with the negative effects this has on long-term planning and strategy development. Secure, sustainable funding for the operation and activities of the MHLB, preferably via the IGF Trust Fund, must be ensured up front as a prerequisite to such a body being established. Reimbursements made to members should be reasonable, transparent and subject to the same terms as those for MAG members.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The RIPE NCC welcomes ongoing efforts to improve and evolve approaches to Internet governance. While we believe that the IGF has evolved into an important and effective venue to bring together key actors and facilitate discussion of Internet governance issues, it is clear that significant challenges remain unresolved. In that context, structural innovations like the MHLB represent positive steps towards ensuring that a multistakeholder approach to Internet governance can effectively address those challenges.
In taking those steps, particularly in empowering a new high-level body, it is essential that the IGF’s foundational principles - transparency, openness, inclusiveness - be reflected in the structures and processes through which the MHLB is established and maintained.
UNAM Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Submitted by: Alejandro Pisanty

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
It is best to NOT create a new body, no matter what "high-level" actually means. In case this bad decision is made, the first and foremost priority should be to go low-level and include real expertise and diversity ("high-level" tends to mean high-ranked politicians); second, to define a strongly constrained set of solvable problems whose solution is achievable, for which all stakeholders can be convened, which is considered a problem by the stakeholders, and one which can attract funding and develop legitimacy by providing actual, desirable solutions. Most of such cases already have a body or mechanism so the UN solution is not needed. Non-duplication, like for the IGF, is a must.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
0 (zero). But if you end up doing it, two tiers, one of them a policy board with deep expertise; consultations worldwide. The Board should be no more than 20-25 people, of which no more than 5 from governments (you know you cannot do this so you will make it half-and-half, and sink it.) Regions like ICANN or 7 at most. Rotation 3 years with one repeat, with an institutional design that incentivates good results instead of inviting to stay for peanuts.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?: By those who want it.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?: Erase it.
Zurich AR/VR Meetup
Submitted by: Alève Mine

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
I strongly advise against integrating the functions of a HLB, MAG and/or IGF as described in previous reports in the same unit of organization, because the more integrated such a HLB, MAG, and IGF are, the potentially heavier the impact of the respective agendas of participants on the overall result: more risk of skewing the bottom-up input.
The Body I’d like to propose has a very different role. Yes, a Body should be established, but the function of this Body should be to apply a single governance goal that conjugates fragility vs sustainability, the fundamental issue which is currently not being addressed anywhere, and which I’d be happy to elaborate upon. Building on the experience of the existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, the Body should not embody a process that executes what has been discussed in the IGF. Rather, the IGF input shall be informative to the Body, which should be designed in a way to be refractory to incompatible interests from the start. But for this only conceivable approach for a good basis for an actual sustainability of human activity to function as intended, it is essential that the single goal pursued be the right one.
This will of course meet great resistance because it goes in nearly diametrically the opposite direction from where we are currently heading, and doesn’t appear to, although it does, speak to the stakes of the various parties involved. Please don’t hesitate to contact me for further elaboration: [email protected]

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The number of individuals working in the Body described above will be a function of the workforce required to implement the mentioned single goal. Roughly 36 persons to start out, where small teams covering the required core competencies are built. When the goal is set appropriately and lobbying and other influences are kept at bay, theoretically, all stakeholders will automatically be represented, and regional stakes balanced. There would then technically be no need for countries or any other groups to have a representative or envoy “on site” to defend their interests, as their interests will be defended either way. Of course, safeguards for this to remain true are needed. Rotation is possible as long as these safeguards are upheld in the process, and redundancy on each task will provide risk mitigation in operations.
The individuals active in this body must follow a strict regimen of disclosures of investments, projects, affiliations, dependencies, liabilities, concerns about governance, and possibly more. Background checks will be needed for accountability, and positions in discussions will be interpreted in the light of disclosures at all times.
For constructive discussions, participants in the rest of the processes, such as MAG and IGF, should also be subjected to these disclosures.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
Funding this has mutually apparently contradictory aspects. Here some approaches to be possibly considered:
Funding will have to be done through philanthropy and through contributions by countries across the globe. Donations should be anonymous to, or, where anonymity is not possible, their origins effectively ignored by, the governance itself. At the same time, equitable contributions should be sought. An informational separation between fundraising and project execution is needed. Contributions can be made in nature where relevant. If this yields insufficient resources, another strategy, making countries and groups accountable on their contribution, may be pursued. It should be kept in mind that in the end we are on a boat together.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
If we do this right, it will be the most vital organization we’ve ever built.

Intergovernmental Organizations

European Commission
Submitted by: Esteve Sanz

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
European Commission Response to the UN/IGF Questionnaire on the Establishment of a High Level Body
8 March 2021

The following European Union Member States subscribe the European Commission’s replies as precisely stated below: Denmark, Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia.


We think the MHLB should have a well-defined and limited scope, which decisively contributes to the creation of a more strategic and relevant IGF+, while keeping it firmly rooted in the multi-stakeholder system of internet governance. We share the legitimate concerns around the creation of the MHLB, in particular the risk that the MHLB undermines and takes attention away from the IGF itself.
To address these issues, we believe that the main function of the MHLB should be to engage with internet decision-makers to convey the results of the IGF and bring them to the IGF table to openly discuss their policy proposals and concepts with the global multistakeholder community. These decision-makers would be states, regional and international organisations, but also major internet companies that take decisions about the internet that have a global impact. The discussion would focus on particular policies, not on the organisations as such. There is no clear global fora for decision-makers to gather such policy input and discussions, and the IGF+ is well positioned to cover this gap in a globally diverse and relevant way and make decision-makers more accountable to the global community.
To fulfil this role, and to avoid creating new unnecessary structures, we think the MHLB should be integrated in the MAG and collaborate with MAG members, with no hierarchical relations. The “current” MAG should continue performing its functions, with attention to the elements defined in paragraph 93 (a), which we consider are already part of the MAG. The MAG terms of reference should be updated to better reflect those roles, and include the MHLB. As part of the new MAG, the MHLB should focus on fulfilling the role defined in the paragraph above.
All MHLB members should be committed to the WSIS outcomes and the IGF mandate, and be collegially involved in the selection of high-level IGF participants and policies for discussion, following defined diversity criteria. The MAG would continue organizing the IGF bottom-up agenda, providing concrete suggestions to the MHLB regarding the high-level IGF participants to be invited and the policies and initiatives to be discussed.

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
Given its function, the members of this body should have the capacity to engage a diverse range of decision-makers to openly participate in the IGF annually, including their own organisations. The members should be at ministerial level or senior official level for governments and head of organisation or senior executive level for civil society, private sector, academia and technical community organisations.
The group should be of small size (less than 20 participants) to allow for fruitful exchanges and efficient coordination and should work in an open and transparent manner. A good level of diversity should be ensured in terms of representation of stakeholder groups, regions and gender. The members of the MHLB should rotate on a regular basis, for example every 2 years. The Chair of the MAG and the Tech Envoy would participate in the MHLB.

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
As part of the MAG, the MHLB would be supported by the IGF Secretariat. While some members would support their participation via their organisations, others (e.g. civil society or academia) might require specific funding to accommodate their active participation. Increased funding – via the IGF Trust Fund – may be required to support the MHLB, part of which may be provided by MHLB members on a voluntary basis.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
We remain fully supportive of the consensus created around the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, in particular to what concerns recommendations 5a and 5b – we would like a more strategic, more focused, more ambitious IGF. We call for a swift implementation of recommendations 5a and 5b, in full consultation with the multistakeholder community, to establish a new and more efficient global digital cooperation architecture, with an IGF+ at its centre.
UN-OHRLLS
Submitted by: Aniket Ghai

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:

3) How could this body be supported and funded?:

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
The importance of strengthening global digital cooperation has been underlined by the COVID-19 pandemic. Technological advancement and innovation can play an important role as enablers for structural transformation to build back better after the pandemic and to achieve the SDGs, which is especially relevant for LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS which include the most vulnerable member states.

Priority areas for these countries includes the development of digital ecosystems allowing for affordable broadband connectivity (incl. appropriate policies and regulation, alternative funding models, infrastructure sharing, creating the right conditions for private sector investment, adaption of existing technologies to local needs) together with investment in (digital) education and skills development to close the digital divide and increase human capacity and labor productivity so that they will be able to reap the benefits of digital transformation. For example, broadband access in LDCs is still more expensive compared to developed countries. In 2019, less than 20% of people in LDCs were estimated to have access to the Internet, and 27% in LLDCs, against the world average of about 51%. Improved ICTs are paramount for connecting LLDCs more effectively to international markets, facilitating trade transactions, enhancing the competitiveness of enterprises and fast-forwarding customs and border procedures.

The aim outlined in the roadmap of making the Internet Governance Forum more responsive and relevant to current digital issues through the suggested strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body. The body should contribute to an inclusive digital transformation, with respect to a balance between stakeholders (including representation from private sector, civil society, youth, academia, technical community) but also between member states, including adequate representation of LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS. Given the reliance of LLDCs on their transit neighbors to access undersea cables, enhanced regional integration is fundamental and therefore sub-regional and regional representation is important. Given the predominantly young population in many LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS ensuring the voice of young people is included, we also consider a priority. The group should be of manageable size, ensure coordination with other international, and regional bodies and coherence with the MAG to avoid duplication or undermining of activities and mandate.
WBU - World Broadcasting Unions
Submitted by: Giacomo Mazzone

1) What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?:
global IGF has proved over the years that has as main limit its reduced capacity to bring its messages and its very important reflections into the other fora where IG issues are discussed and even decided. the MHLB mission will then consist essentially in bringing IGF outcomes to the eyes and ears of decision-makers wherever they are, according to a multiyear agenda that keeps in account priorities deriving from the global agenda (G7, G20, UN agencies, International treaties, etc.).
RELATIONSHIPS: all three options are acceptable, once made clear the different functions expected to be performed by MAG and by MHLB.
TECH ENVOY'S ROLE: Before to take a final decision on this matter, will be important to know which functions UNSG will delegate to Special Tech envoy and to integrate those in the procedures and functioning of both (MAG and MHLB).

2) What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?:
The governance structure should be as lean and simple as possible, ensuring smooth cooperation between the body and the MAG ensured by a common leadership structure.
The profile of the members of this body should be sufficiently high-level, as envisaged by all MAG WG approaches, allowing them to effectively liaise between IGF discussions and decision-making fora.
NUMBER OF MEMBERS: between 10 and 20 (depending which formula will be retained: A,B, or C) from all stakeholder groups, with bottom-up nominations by stakeholder groups and UNSG designation for majority of them, ensuring a clear, predictable and transparent process and criteria on geographical, gender and stakeholder balance. UNSG will keep a quota at his own choice to include personalities ,International organizations, or to involve in the IG reflection new subjects(i.e. banking sector). Rotation by thirds, and limited terms will apply to All members.


3) How could this body be supported and funded?:
The two bodies needs to be linked at the top (through the chairmanship) but also at the bottom (through a common secretariat) to avoid duplications and overlaps. Existing or future ad hoc structures (as those kindly offered by Swiss government or other like-minded entities) could be included in the process, as well as liaisons officers and sherpas designated by partners organizations.

4) Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?:
We prone for a strong commitment of UNSG through all its articulations (Tech Envoy, UNDESA, interagency coordination) in the renewed effort of "strenghtening the IGF process".

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 411