The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during an IGF virtual call. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, can you hear me? Just to make sure before I start.
>> Yes, we can.
>> Yes, clear.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. We'll start on time because we only have one hour, and we're going to try and leave most of the time for interventions. We'll go through the slides quickly, but hopefully at a reasonable pace so that everybody can follow.
Thank you for joining us today, and as you know, the purpose of the session is to give an overview of the proposed approach to the IGF multistakeholder high‑level body. Before we start, I'd like to remind everybody that the session is being recorded and it is also be transcribed. You can have access to the running transcription on the buttons at the bottom there of the Zoom. And the transcription will be made available after the meeting, and we will also have a summary report out.
The contents of the chat are also considered part of the record of the meeting, so that will be saved as well and also used for the summary.
Now, just quickly with the agenda. I'd like to introduce myself, I'm Chengetai Masango, I'll be the facilitator for this meeting. So to start off with, I will give you a brief overview of the proposed approach for the implementation of the multistakeholder high‑level body, that's the overall selection process, mandate and functioning. And then after that, we will invite participants to give feedback on the proposed approach and my colleague will be there as well, calling people to the floor.
We do have a system up to collect names, which I'll go into just before this part of the session starts. But, basically, if you want to take the floor, please send your name and your organization that you're representing to the IGF secretariat host. So just send a message there and we will put your name into the speaker queue, and we'll call your name on that order. Everybody can see the speaking queue as well as we go up.
Then at the end, we will have a wrap up, just a brief wrap up. I think Yuping may want to say a few words and I'll say a few words after that. Let me make sure that my colleague doesn't want to say anything at this moment, otherwise I'll carry on. Yuping? Okay. No. Okay. She doesn't.
Let me just go on to the first slide. So this is just a slight introduction. This proposed approach for an IGF multistakeholder high‑level body takes into account the various written inputs we have received and online consultations that have taken place to date. This includes the options paper, the paper by the IGF multistakeholder advisory working group on IGF strengthening and strategy and also the public online consultations and written inputs that we had in February.
Now, it is answering recommendation 93A from the Secretary General's roadmap on digital cooperation which states that creating a strategic and empowered multistakeholder high‑level body building on the experience of the existing multistakeholder advisory group or MAG, which would address urgent issues and coordinate follow up actions on forum-based discussions and relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the forum to the appropriate normative and decision making forums.
Now, I just ‑‑ for you to remember as we go through this, the final decision of the body's attributes will be determined by the United Nations Secretary General.
Now, the purpose of the multistakeholder high‑level body is to advise the Secretary General in addressing urgent issues and coordinating follow up actions on Internet Governance Forum's discussions and exchanging proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the forum with other forums. And also acts as an informational bridge between the IGF's discussions, outcomes and relevant bodies and spaces.
These are some of the key attributes which we'll combine, of course, into a terms of reference. These are MAG reports and promotes the IGF and its outcomes, supports the stakeholder engagement and IGF processes. Supports IGF fundraising efforts and also exchanges IGF outcomes from the forum with other high‑level decision makers and the appropriate policy and decision-making fora and facilitates the feeding of input from these decision makers and fora to the IGF's agenda setting process.
Now, it's important to note that we're not saying that these key functions are exclusively for the multistakeholder high‑level body. These are very similar to what is in the MAG's terms of reference. They'll carry on doing it and also the multistakeholder high‑level body will also help in that. In fact, I think it is the hope that all stakeholders who are interested and do believe in the Internet Governance Forum will also be carrying out some of these activities. Because, of course, the MAG and the high‑level body cannot be at all meetings or cannot be everywhere.
Now, the individual member responsibilities is to attend the multistakeholder high‑level body meetings, participate actively in the annual IGF meetings, particularly the high level sessions. Familiarize with the IGF intercessional work and all the updates communicated by the IGF secretariat. To advise on emerging and urgent issues from the multistakeholder high‑level body's consideration as forum priorities to support raising awareness about the IGF and engage stakeholders in its processes. Again, as I said, it's not just for the high‑level body, but for the MAG as well and for other stakeholders.
Exploring new fundraising opportunities for contributions to the IGF trust fund and to also communicate official IGF outcomes and update the multistakeholder high‑level body on outcomes and decisions of other processes and initiatives. those are the proposed functions and individual responsibilities.
Now, as the ‑‑ as far as the membership is concerned, this model borrows heavily from the current model used by the MAG. And as with all IGF processes, we have certain principles which we want to see reflected here as well. And some of these principles are gender balance, regional balance, and stakeholder balance to the best of our ability. We may not be able to do it 100% all the time, but those are the principles that we do want to maintain.
As you can see here, we want all stakeholder groups to have equal representation here.
Now, we do intend that the multistakeholder high‑level body be a small body ‑‑ I mean, not too small, but it has to be able to function effectively and not too big as to become unwieldly and also we also think it should not cause too much strain on the IGF trust fund, because we will be seeking more funding for it, which I'll speak about a little bit more on the next slide. But we should also be very conscious of the fact that it has to be reasonable. It shouldn't be too big, and it shouldn't be too small that it's not able to function effectively.
For instance, we can't have one member from each stakeholder group, because then the group is too small and it's also difficult to get regional balance that way. And if one member gets sick, then once stakeholder group is disadvantaged, for example. So two per group is good, so each one ‑‑ one can back the other one up. But, again, we have to see how this follows the advice from the Secretary General's office.
We are recommending a two‑year term, and the selection would be, again, the same as the MAG selection. For the first time we would like to do it the same time we do the MAG selection. So we'd be following a public call for nominations and asking stakeholders to submit nominations. And as with the MAG, the decision will be by the U.N. Secretary General or his office. And then we will be having recommendations from the IGF secretariat and also the office of the envoy on technology.
There are some aspects here that are not reflected in the MAG, and we have left that to the Secretary General's office to make the final determination. But we all do believe that having the current past and future host country government there at the meetings would be very important for continuity and also having the chair of the MAG there as well, because we do have to keep coordination between these two groups.
Now, for the meeting, we suggest that they meet three times a year. First for the open consultations when the overall agenda for the year is set and they can meet then. And after the IGF annual meeting is finalized, and this is usually hosted in March. And then also in January when all the outputs have been finalized. We have the writing up, the reports, et cetera, because part of their mandate is to publicize the outputs of the IGF so they would be able to see and view the outputs of the previous IGF's.
Also, during the IGF annual meeting when group members will take part in the high‑level track and main sessions. This is usually hosted in November or December. Additional meetings can be scheduled on an as‑needed basis. If the multistakeholder high‑level body wants to meet with the MAG, yes, they can. They're free to do so and they're free to suggest that. Of course, as they'll be working together, but we'll leave it up to them to sort out the meeting schedule because we don't want to be too prescriptive here.
And then the outcomes of the group discussion will be communicated to the executive office of the Secretary General. And the meetings will be held under the Chatham House Rule. And of course, the high‑level body, as with the MAG, if you recall at the very beginning, the MAG did hold meetings underneath the Chatham House Rules and then they did a 50/50. The suggestion is to leave it up to the multistakeholder high‑level body to see which meetings they want to be held under the Chatham House Rule, et cetera. They'll have that flexibility.
They will follow up preapproved agendas that will be prepared by the secretariat. This will be put together with the group itself prior to the meeting.
Now, for secretariat support and funding, as has been suggested, it is proposed that the multistakeholder high‑level body will be supported by the IGF secretariat. Given the current workload that we have, we do feel that it is very important that in order to support this body properly that we do need an additional staff member to do that. Of course, the funding will come out of the IGF trust fund. Then again for which additional donations will need to be sourced from the donor community to support this process.
Now, as far as the funding is concerned, it will also be more or less in line with what we do for the MAG, you know. For instance, we do support members from the Global South to come to meetings and also to the annual meetings. So we envision the same sort of support in line with that.
So I think that's it. Sorry if I was too quick on that. I did send the slides out last week and you've had a chance to look at them. But, of course, in your interventions, if something is very unclear we will try and clarify that a little bit. But I would just like to also state that the purpose of this is just to get your feedback and we are not really prepared for a question and answer back and forth. First of all, because everybody involved in this process is not here. It's just myself and Yuping and a couple of people from our offices that are here, so we may not be able to answer you. What we do continue to do is to note all the interventions and all the questions and all the ideas you might have when you make your interventions.
So what we do have we have the speaking queue. And as we did say in the e‑mail that we sent out last week is that please a maximum of three minutes per speaker. If you can make it shorter, that would be very much appreciated. If you would like to make an intervention, please send your name and the organization that you represent to IGF secretariat in the Zoom chat. Please send a chat and then your name will appear here, and you'll be called out in the order that your name does appear. So with that, I will hand it over to my colleague, Yuping to facilitate the interventions.
>> Thank you so much. Thank you to all colleagues for joining us today. This is really meant to listen to your views and see how we can ‑‑ I think it's important to emphasize that nothing has been decided at this particular point and we want to hear the collective views on the key elements that have been laid out.
Let me get to the point of the interactions. The first speaker is Anna Goulden. Anna, please? Anna?
>> Thank you for the opportunity to share our views. We would also like to thank the IGF secretariat for the publication of the proposed model for the high‑level body and for hosting this helpful session today.
The UK supports the excellent work laid out in the U.N. Secretary General's roadmap. We welcome the plans to make the IGF more effective and focused, including through the establishment of the high‑level body and welcome the opportunity to contribute to the online consultation on the high‑level body.
As noted, we would like to see the high‑level body firmly embedded in the structure, and we're pleased to see the model reflects this. We are concerned the membership composition proposed, including ministers and upwards is a little top heavy and feel a more diverse and flexible membership would be more appropriate. That said we welcome others' views on the topic and are very much looking forward to hearing everyone's perspective through the upcoming discussions. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Anna, for being so concise. Timea from ICC basis.
>> Thank you very much, thank you, everyone, for organizing this meeting. We've ‑‑ I really want to thank you for this open transparency for the proposal. As you know, ICC on behalf of the business community has been calling for an opportunity for all of us to get engaged in this process and to review as you're going along. So I'm glad the community has the opportunity to share thoughts.
As noted on previous occasions, we feel under direct circumstances, a multistakeholder high‑level body will contribute to adding great invisibility to the IGF and its work and provide a place for strategic discussions about the role and activities of the IGF as they're progressing towards IGF plus. I think what you have just presented now is the first step in that direction.
Especially welcome the open inclusive and multistakeholder nature of the would be HLV and the nature of the nominations. As Anna said, we also very much are pleased with the fact this is strongly linked to the MAG.
I have three very quick points I'd like to make, questions for your considerations as you're finalizing your proposal. I understand you might not be able to respond to all of them right now. First of all, this is one of my pet peeves is the concern over resources, the IGF does very lot with very little and I do understand this is ‑‑ since the body is expected to be staffed by the IGF secretariat, and the IGF trust fund will be used to fund it, there will be further strains on these limited resources. So it will be probably helpful to have a fundraising plan at least attached to this proposal to show how some of this would be solved.
Second, this body, in addition to the IGF secretariat, the MAG, the envoy office, the various roadmap round‑tables, and there may be overlap in functions or sharing in the burden of certain functions. So I'm wondering if there would be perhaps a work plan or some sort of a structure for us to better understand how the rules are delineated and how this body is making sense of this entire picture and not adding further complexity to it.
And thirdly, I would love if possible to have a little bit more clarity on the membership of the body in terms of how many members you are thinking of, how many members per stakeholder group. And how diversity would be considered, so are we looking to have full regional gender balance within the stakeholder groups or overall? Will there be any guidance on this when you're asking for nominations in the coming weeks, months, when this is ready. Thank you very much again for this opportunity and we are standing ready to engage further with you as this is progressing further and to hear everyone else's points.
>> We'll keep that in mind as we go forward. Anita from the Just Net Coalition.
>> I speak on behalf of the Just Net Coalition and 200 plus organizations. These organizations are global, regional and local and cover a range of issues and public policy from gender justice, global justice, et cetera. We expressed concern in the letter that the proposal for a new strategic and empowered multistakeholder high‑level body with substantial digital policies runs directly counter to the outcomes of the WSIS. We called attention to Paris 69 of the agenda. And I quote, we further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future and the government on an equal footing to carry out their roles and policies containing to the internet.
(indiscernible) developing countries are ‑‑ people in the Global South, people centered and development-oriented information society. As the digital permeates all public policies and connects local ‑‑ we are concerned that the proposed model reflects an undermining of the self‑determination of all countries and peoples. The 200 plus organizations I represent were against any new body at all, considering that multistakeholderism as a huge body of research and activism from around the world has pointed is a euphemism for corporate capture. It's unclear how they can be part of a body evolving public policies. The role of the small body as an advisory body to the U.N. Secretary General is unclear. Why is there such a prominent function, a body dealing with policies in usual normal tradition needs to have no monetary interest in the process. We would like to finally recall the institutional memory of this debate and issue that the U.N. CSTD working group and IGF improvement reject the IGF plus or empowered IGF model which is behind the new proposal.
We can't understand how when an official rejected a certain IGF plus model, almost exactly the same model can now be brought back into this process. Finally, we urge that the preparatory process should start soon and new proposals for global digital governance should be fed from organizations that are dealing with a range of issues from climate justice to food security to gender justice. We're ready to discuss all possibilities towards a more equitable and socially just digital society. However, what is not acceptable is to bring from back door such proposals that can have an impact on global digital governance. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, can we now go to Sean O’Siochru from nexus Research Cooperative.
>> Thank you. Nexus was more of 200 organizations that sent a submission during the consultation process. And the first question I have is that given that the recommendation of that consultation process overall was to create the high‑level body within the MAG. What's the justification that has come out now for having it outside the MAG? I mean, why is the consultation process being ignored? What's the higher purpose that's being served here to justify this.
Secondly, this could have all ended a key body of soft policy, that develop ideas for policy and make recommendations about them. Yet, the very powerful hugely resourced private sector is sitting alongside here equally with governments. And despite what has been agreed at the WSIS and outside of it, this could really become a global default governance body in this arena. So we're wondering, you know, there's a much, much bigger issue that's involved here. And we're wondering how it can be justified in this context. Particularly when these corporations are in the ascendance and have so much power.
The third point relates to that and it's about the possibilities that are in the terms and reference for this organization. This could lead to a clear potential conflict of interest if members of the organization are on the one hand seeking to raise resources and on the other hand developing opinions and recommendations. Clearly there's a potential here for one set of activities to strongly influence the other. Thanks very much, those are my comments. I look forward to getting answers from you.
>> Thank you, Sean. I do think it's quite clear from the presentation that this is not foreseen as a soft ball body. A lot of the points of the high‑level body is to bring greater support to the excellent work the IGF is already doing. Work very closely in cooperation with MAG. To really emphasize what the IGF MAG is already doing well and also really bringing forward that. I'm not sure where this concept of there being a soft ball body has come about. I do think what has been presented and a lot of the previous proposals should be examined in greater detail. I do not think this has been in any way the role that's been envisioned by the Secretary General's high‑level body. Can I have now Vint Cerf?
>> Good day, everyone, and thanks for the opportunity to participate. I'm speaking for myself, and not for Google, since I haven't coordinated any of these remarks with my colleagues.
First of all, I thank you for taking the time to explain to us what the proposal is. I sense that there are mixed feelings about this plan. I would like to suggest, however, that one of the missing pieces that showed up in IGF plus is the desire for the results of IGF and the regionals to eventually end up before people who are making policy. I sense that this proposal, at least in part, was intended to draw a group of people together who can translate what happens in the IGF into policy recommendations and observations. It takes work to do that, so I recognize the intent ‑‑ I think the intent of this high‑level body.
However, it's a disappointment in a way that we couldn't achieve the same results simply by working within the MAG. I remain not skeptical, but let's say looking forward to further clarification of how this body would work. I also recognize that funding is a big issue. I am proud to say that Google has been a consistent partner in supporting the IGF secretariat. We will continue to do so. I'll stop there because I can hardly wait to hear what Nnenna has to say. She puts fairly exciting comments into the discussion. Thank you very much for my moment.
>> Thank you so much. Can we now turn the floor to Nnenna, please?
>> Thank you, everyone. I hope you can hear me. Vint, it's inspiring listening to you. I want to push forward from where you are. This is my second consultation from the IGF side on the same issue. And I think that we are at the point where we have a ‑‑ and maybe we should look at the reality of it.
I want to refer back to the lady from Just Net Coalition. Not all of civil society aligns with that data S. Web Foundation does not align because we believe we're at a critical point in history that we can make things work if we believe we can make them work and want to make them work. Sorry for the English.
So the first thing I'd like to point us to is the challenge of the body having an effect ‑‑ I mean, some of us have been here for all the 20 years of the summit. And we have seen the global idea is one thing, but national dialogues are different. And so my desire would be that the board was in some way bring efficiency to national Internet Governance dialogues.
I also want to point out about this board, maybe hopefully helping to shift the paradigm of member states only within the U.N. itself if we really want to work at the multistakeholder level. I know it's a challenge. But I believe we can work through that. I'm seeing that window of opportunity for this body being a bridge with the U.N. envoy's office to opening things more and helping member states lose the affair of civil society and multistakeholder engagement.
At the Web Foundation we support non‑state actors to engage with the digital roadmap. Once again I want to say keep doing the good job. It's not a thankful job you're doing, but if there's anything we can do, we're happy to support. I believe in the cautiousness of optimism, but I still believe when we want something to work, we should work at it. This is a time for us to work something out for ourselves, the people. Thank you.
>> Thank you so much, Nnenna. Now Daniela Bronstrum from the German Government. Colleagues, it's great to see you all again. Thank you very much for organizing this panel. You know that the German Government supports the idea of a multistakeholder high‑level body. We do this on the one hand because we think it could address the desire for stronger leadership. This desire is one of the outcomes of the consultations we conducted on the recommendations A and B of the high‑level panel report.
We did that worldwide and we did that with the participation of all stakeholder groups. Secondly, we support the idea because we ourselves also believe that an MHLB can increase the visibility, the relevance, and the strategic competence of Internet Governance debate. It can improve international digital cooperation. It can strengthen the IGF as the central discussions from all stakeholders around the internet. And it can also bridge between debates and decisions on Internet Governance issues.
We think it can create synergies and hopefully it can do a lot more. It can in any case increase the relevance of ‑‑ at the same time, we have all this underlying ‑‑ I do this today again ‑‑ everything depends on the exact design. The MHLB must not change the fundamental character of the existing Internet Governance ecosystem. It 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 bottom up and nonbinding.
What is also important to us, 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. The MAG must retain a central road and should be institutionally connect would the MHLB. This is very important to us. Transparency is important overall for the multistakeholder advisory stakeholder process and the governance ecosystem.
We welcome the initial proposals, but there are a lot of things to discuss. Some have already been named, and I'm looking forward to the discussions we will have together. Thank you.
>> Thank you so much. Ben Wallis from Microsoft.
>> I think there's a lot to welcome in the creation of this body and its functioning. Echoing what Daniella just said. The IGF plays an increasing role. I'm glad to see that the MHLB would be supported by the secretariat and have the MAG chair as an ex officio member. I think it's really important to have these linkages between the MAG and this new body.
There are two concerns and questions I wanted to share. First, to build upon the UK government's concern, the membership is top heavy. And the first member requirement you mentioned is to attend two meetings and to participate actively in the annual five‑day meeting. I wonder whether you're confident that ministers and CEOs will spend what ‑‑ including travel time ‑‑ might amount to three weeks a year going to meetings in Geneva and to the annual meeting. With the exception of foreign affairs ministers, the duties of government ministers are primarily national. I've seen governments in the past struggle to schedule time for ministers to attend even a day or two of an IGF meeting. I remain of the opinion it would be more effective to be senior official and representatives you could be sure would be able to carve out the time necessary to contribute to the success of the body.
The last thing, I wanted to note that the use of Chatham House Rules risks a reduction in transparency compared to MAG meetings. Chatham House Rules mean neither the identity or affiliation of the speaker will be revealed. I've been following MAG meetings for the last five years, anyone can attend, the transcript is published. If I understood correctly, the meetings will be held under Chatham House Rules, so it would be interesting to understand why this less transparent approach would be taken as compared to what we see with the MAG today. Thank you.
>> Sorry, Yuping, just to say we're closing the queue now because we are a bit afraid we're going to go over time. If you're not on the queue and you want to say something, you can post it into the chat. As I said before, the chat is part of the meeting record, thank you.
>> Thanks so much. Anin Kumar Jain, CEO Nixi India.
>> I would like to ‑‑ a good move of establishing an MHLB. I want to inform that we are supporting a multistakeholder approach and at every stage. The membership of MHLB. I request that we should have a representative and ‑‑ (indiscernible) to underdeveloped and developed countries, also, so we can have a full development of digital economy in the world.
My question is that we should have a good coordination and relation with other organizations doing similar jobs like ICANN. Sometimes there is an overlap. It should be clearly defined of how they're going to coordinate because they're going to be an important body for the digital economy for implementation in the world.
The third thing which I want is that I want to know from MHLB how the recommendation will be obligatory on the countries for implementation. Only a true interoperability and true digital economy can come. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. Esteve Sans from the European commission.
>> I'll be brief. We support the multistakeholder high‑level body as a way of reinforcing the IGF, along the lines of the IGF plus. So we submitted and represented you several observations in relationship to the concrete shaping of this body. I think there were two elements that I see missing in the current proposal and I think it's worth pointing them out.
The first one was really this idea of trying to limit and clarify the mandate of this multistakeholder high‑level body. We see kind of a ‑‑ this first mandate, I have to say in the presentation you have given, we were potentially concerned about one particular action we see needed in the IGF context, which is this capacity that this body might have of bringing to the IGF table big Internet Governance decision making to big companies or stages or regions to discuss policies with the multistakeholder community. It would actually empower the multistakeholder community and rather than potentially disempowering by creating a centralized body that chooses certain policy lines. It should be the central role.
Then the second element is something that has been repeat already, this idea that the multistakeholder high‑level body should be very much situated into the MAG functions. Thank you.
>> Thank you so much. Professor Gupta from the Dynamic Coalition.
>> Thank you so much, I really appreciate. I had a very good experience over the last few years, and I owe that to the secretariat of the IGF. I think over time IGF has become a key influencer. This was an excellent presentation and cleared a lot of clouds on our thinking of what this body would be.
Since this is a multistakeholder high‑level body, is it also an empowered body? Will the decisions be binding? Once you create a body with a lot of expectations, I think there would be an issue of in terms of will this be binding. Will it get implemented? That's one. Also, I think the priority areas and the rules of business could be decided, which leads to what the plans for the year would be. In the last two years in COVID we've seen the role of internet of saving lives and creating jobs.
As I expect from IGF and the wonderful team, is that we need to focus on a large number of small companies driving the internet than small number of large companies driving the internet. That changes the inspire perspective of what IGF could deliver to the word. With these words, I appreciate and thank you for your continued contribution to the growth of accident. We owe our success to you. Thank you.
>> Thank you so much, Professor. Now Godha Bapuji from the women in crisis response.
>> Thank you for this wonderful presentation. I agree with my respected colleagues from the digital cooperation round‑table, namely Vint Cerf and Nnenna who have highlighted some of the aspects. And I also agree with some of the colleagues who have expressed concerns regarding the agenda of the multistakeholder forum here.
I do chime in to say that I have hope that this extra forum will serve the purpose that we intend to, although I also agree with Esteve that the purpose of this forum must be clarified. Also we perhaps should have a clear outcomes based model. This is so that we clearly understand what this forum hopes to achieve compared to all other stakeholder forums that many of us attend in common. I have been at several other multistakeholder forums, so it will be nice how we interact and interconnect and what comes out of each.
The second one is how does ‑‑ how do our discussions or the panel discussions that happen here translate into let's say national action plans at the grassroots level or lack thereof? At the high‑level forum we can sit and talk about a lot of things. But as you know ‑‑ personally coming from a grassroots level as well, I see that there is a lot of gap between the knowing and the doing. My question is, are we going to have a clear outcomes-based model where we say how our discussions translate to the ground‑level actions.
Finally, I would like to talk about the chair composition. I know we did mention the emphasis on diversity and inclusion, but perhaps it would be nice to have the clarity of distribution in terms of gender equity, in terms of youth participation in these forums. I barely see youth coming into these discussions. Especially keeping in mind the Resolution 2250, I think this would be a great addition to call out. And I would also call out specific inclusion for our LGBTQ plus community so their representation is taken into account in this multistakeholder forum.
Finally, I would ‑‑ I personally refrain from using the terms Global North and Global South. It's not even accurate. I say we should have more countries coming from the developing regions. Typically, it's the usual countries that speak in any of these multistakeholder forums. Perhaps this is an opportunity for us to create more space so other countries who generally don't represent in those forums. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you so much. Cheryl Langdon from internet Australia for Net Thing.
>> We fall within the internet Australia which is a part of the multistakeholder group that runs and organizes this annual event. We have not spoken about this, but I am very confident that if we ‑‑ if I'm on the panel what I suspect I would hear is there would be overwhelming support for anything that facilitates the work of Internet Governance and particularly highlights the importance on an international stage of what we do.
However, like many of the speakers before me, I think we would be particularly concerned about balance, about the transparency, and about the ability of the national initiative to be engaged in an early, almost briefing role for whomever served on the high‑level community. In our country, in Australia, it is not one government department, but many that are involved in Internet Governance. It's often useful for us to gather in a small forum here before any sort of high‑level meeting. I think we need to look at how this works a little bit more in a little bit more detail. I'm very keen, very supportive in principle. But echoing a lot of what we've heard. Thank you.
>> Thank you so much, Cheryl. Parminder Singh from IT for Change.
>> Hello, I'm trying to unmute my mic, but it's not getting unmuted. It's unmuted but my video doesn't show and I ‑‑ okay. Now it shows.
Hello. Sorry. So I'll just start now. I'm part of the group which had opposed the creation of this body and I would start with answering some responses to those oppositions which has come by saying that this body is really not a soft ball body. Now, we have all heard the politics in a vacuum. A vacuum is left, others will come and fill it up. The problem with this body being a soft ball body is because that the ‑‑ one summit of information society amended a policy making body. There has been an active resistance to develop that body by the same actors whose are promoting this body. One side a vacuum is created, and the other side this body is allowed to fill up in that vacuum. That is how it becomes a soft ball body.
The second point which my colleagues have made, I have been a part of the working group, a member based working group, which rejected all these proposals of IGF plus model. We discussed it over many meetings. All this process is of taking information from one side to the other, all were considered and rejected and a report was given which was accepted. So I can't understand how this model can now be taken by a different process.
The question is that the U.N. Secretary General has a right to make an advisory group, which it can make. But that's a very different kind of a group. It is funded by U.N. funds. What really appalls us is to have an advisory group which I think is the first time a U.N. advisory group would be funded by private funds. There should be serious consideration given to this fact. You can't have a policy advisory group which is directly funded. That's our biggest problem based on funding. You can have a technology facilitation mechanism kind of a fund, which is not ‑‑ which is an advisory body, which is not a problem.
The last point I wish to make again, which has been made earlier is the document clearly said the winning option is a body within the MAG. This proposal is clearly making a body outside the MAG. I don't understand the purpose of consultations when the consultations outcome are not being observed.
The last point I see somebody else made is the developing countries are absent here. The developing countries were very much present initially at the IGF cooperation meetings, but they're absent here. Developing countries really want an enhanced model. Once we have that model we don't have a problem with a bridge organization between IGF conveying things to empowered membership based policy development models. So any proposal like this should be fed into the plus 20 process and should not be brought through the back door. It could not be directly funded. That's the biggest objection we have. Thank you so much.
>> On this point on private funding, I think it's been made clear by the presentation that is this going to be similar to what is currently occurring now with the MAG process, where private sector sits with other multistakeholder as part of a multistakeholder body. When it's done through the trust fund, member states contribute quite heavily to the IGF trust fund as well as other stakeholders as well. They're open to providing contributions.
We now move to Harris Glechman from University of Massachusetts Boston.
>> I've been looking at the issues about democracy. And the way multistakeholder governance is now presented on the international scene. I bring to this background a long period of time working for the U.N.
My concern here is that the traditional way in which soft law has evolved is through resolutions of an intergovernmental body. In this new area of looking at high technology industries, which are increasingly important on a global level, we're seeming to diminish the role of the intergovernmental process in setting soft law. What is soft law? Soft law in this context is what national bodies can look to to determine what's their regulatory approaches, the legal approaches and policy directions.
We've heard in this conversation an appeal that they want this body to be the site they look to. In some ways, there's a big hint that this is an evolving new form of soft law in the absence of an opportunity for the governments to do their traditional role. the way in which this is unfortunately reflected in the current terms of reference is it's saying this body should be the one to address other forums. That should be a role of the intergovernmental process, to speak between the General Assembly and FAO counsel. The text also says that at large members of an indeterminate nature are going to be injected into a body. This, frankly, raises democratic concerns. And it also invokes the prospect of a Chatham House Rule.
In the evolution of a need for soft law in this area, this body raises serious questions about the democratic legitimacy of it being potentially used by others as a new form of soft law origin. And it's unfortunate, and I speak as a former staff member in saying this to see the Secretary General's office proposing structures which may look to others as an alternative to soft law development by the multilateral system, and the marginalization, particularly of developing country governments from crucial roles they ought to have. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Harris. Paul Charlton, government of Canada. Paul? You're on mute.
>> Yes, thank you. I'm the government of Canada representative on the IGF MAG. Hello to all colleagues. The government of Canada is a strong supporter of the IGF, also supports efforts to improve and strengthen the IGF. What is known as the IGF plus model, including better funding, streamlining of meetings and improved outputs.
However, as we have publicly stated before, we do not support having a new structure like the MHLB. Our fundamental concern with the MHLB is that it is to us a top-down structure. And that is anathema to the spirit and working of the IGF which is a bottom up multistakeholder model. Also as it has been pointed out by some other commenters, in practice it may be impossible for ministers and CEOs to devote the time necessary to actively participate in this new body. Which to us suggests a lot of these suggestions may fall on the U.N. secretariat, whether the IGF secretariat or UNDESA, which means it would be the U.N. bureaucracy that would represent the IGF and not stakeholders. That to us is a problem.
We feel that given there's very little funding for the IGF that any funding that's available and any new funding should be devoted to the IGF secretariat to support its existing functions. That's a very important point to us.
Finally, I would say that the functions that are assigned to the MHLB in this presentation, in this concept, they are important functions to improve the working of the IGF, improve the outputs and transmit the outputs to other organizations where they may be acted upon. We believe this can best be done by a small group within the MAG, a kind of executive committee of the MAG. This was one of the proposals that came out of the MAG's working group last year as an option for the functions that were being ‑‑ that are being discussed here.
It would avoid duplication and would be in keeping with the multistakeholder spirit of the IGF and would ensure better engagement and address problems the MHLB concept is trying to address, but in a better and more bottom up manner. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Paul. Jorge Cancio from the government of Switzerland.
>> Hello, everyone. This is Jorge Cancio from the Swiss government for the record. I hope you hear me okay. So first of all, I want to welcome this briefing, this further discussion about the IGF plus and this specific proposal for improving the IGF.
We think this proposal is quite near to middle ground of what has been proposed so far amongst other things by the MAG working group on strategy, as was mentioned before by Paul Charlton from Canada where there were different approaches. We think that, of course, as also Germany and the European Union and others have mentioned, this could be a very useful piece to help bridging the gap between the invaluable expert discussions we have at the IGF and the decision-making fora. So this is a very important part in the architecture of an IGF plus. It's at peace within the IGF. It's, in our view, clearly not something intended to be a top-down element to govern over the IGF. But just one part of the community.
In this regard, we think that some parts of the proposals have to be fine tuned. For instance, the outputs of this body should go to the IGF community apart and without prejudice to being sent to the executive office of the Secretary General. Of course, meetings, according to the tradition which is well‑established now in the MAG should be public and accessible to everyone interested so that this body is really a part of the open bottom up and transparent way of working of the IGF.
In any case, as Nnenna said before and in the spirit of what Kofi Annan told us when we went to Tunis, we have to be nominative in how we govern this nominative space of the digital. So I think we have to see the glass half full and we have to bear in mind that the perfect is always the enemy of the good. So thank you very much.
>> Thank you so much. Gonzalo Lopez from Telefonica.
>> I think the MHLB may be a good tool to raise awareness on the work that is being done by the IGF. In this regard, my concern ‑‑ I have a concern on the requirement of the high level or top-level requirement of the MHLB. That would ‑‑ could imply they do not have the time to devote the sufficient time and resources to the work they have to accomplish. So at the end, the outcome might be the opposite and the desired outcome may not be the one aimed.
I think it would be a better outcome or a better decision to lower the level of the participants. Another concern from my side is also the significant overlaps that the IGF is having for example with the U.N., the work that is being coordinated by the U.N., considering that they will be participating in the MHLB. I think this could have some conflicts inside the work the tech envoy office would be overlapping with IGF. I'm not sure if within the proposal of the MHLB, but I think it would deserve some more clarity on how the IGF work is going to be coordinated with the U.N. tech envoy office. Thank you, that's all from my side.
>> Thank you so much. Eileen Cejas from Youth SIG. Eileen?
>> Can you hear me? Hi, everyone. Thank you very much for giving me the floor and to discuss today with you about these new updates.
So I am from the youth SIG, the youth coalition of Internet Governance, which is a Dynamic Coalition recognized by the IGF. On behalf of youth, we would like to express our concerns the youth members would be in the composition of the multistakeholder high‑level body. Within the other stakeholder groups in terms of representation, but as members of the youth group so in that way we can also consider diversity in terms of age.
We have seen many times that youth involvement is thought of as last resort, and we think that if we can have this implementation of the youth from the design of the multistakeholder body, it would be beneficial for the whole community. (choppy audio) also taking into consideration the gender diverse people within a composition of the body.
Finally, we would like to mention that there should be ‑‑ shown between the MAG and the multistakeholder body by having representatives from the Dynamic Coalition. Thank you.
>> Thank you so much, Eileen. Alejandro Pisanty. I'm not sure what you're representing, but Alejandro.
[ Garbled audio ]
>> Alejandro?
>> I'm trying to mute the double sound here.
>> Alejandro, you have the floor.
>> Can you hear me now?
>> Yes, we can, go ahead Alejandro? Can we come back to you later? Perhaps let's go to Phalguni Biswal.
>> Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor and privilege for me to speak before this audience. Diversity can be the driving force in promoting the good towards this multilateral ‑‑ play key roles, similarly diversity, civil society and tackling this challenge is critical is to promote innovation, not for the sake of innovation itself but for the public good. Society is worth perhaps given an educated society creates more employment opportunities, particularly higher income, improving economies, giving back to the community.
In addition, it plays a crucial role in sustaining economic and social progress and income distribution. With the right school, young people can play a critical role in the implementation and monitoring ‑‑ in their communities and holding leaders to account. It is important to think critically. Some of the growth in education, this goal ‑‑ in ignoring local context, these are ‑‑ planning a roadmap bridging the gaps to make this.
And my last point is we in achieving this goal, we have to define our plan such as working on programs, carving out modalities for success. Only to be ‑‑ agenda must include collaboration with all stakeholders of the society. And at last, I ‑‑ as you know, I am from India. I want to conclude with ‑‑
[Speaking non‑English language]
I am a youth. We have nine years. If I can motivate all my seniors, all my juniors, we can achieve the agenda. Thank you.
>> Thank you so much. Alejandro, can we try to give you the floor again?
>> Can you hear me? Yes.
>> I'm part of ISOC Mexico. Three questions. One who is actually asking for this? Who are the stakeholders that would not go forward without the multistakeholder ‑‑ high‑level body. Second, who opposes it? Who doesn't want it? What happens if it doesn't work out? And, third, I see that there are many concerns that it may either go wrong and become more of an authority in itself than is planned. Or that it may not work out because people will just not devote the effort enough. So would be the mechanism and plans to protect any of these? Thank you.
>> Thank you, Alejandro. Velaria Betancourt from APC?
>> Thank you very much, I hope you can hear me. Thank you to the team of the IGF secretariat for the presentation. In APC, we consider the IGF is a platform for identifying valuable grace to sustain and strengthen global digital cooperation. Not only for universalizing, but to mobilize the potential of multistakeholder collaboration and action to respond to the persistent and emerging challenges in the digital age.
Based on acknowledgment of the IGF achievements, it's important to also acknowledge that change is needed to be on those achievements. We understand the creation of this body is seen as an opportunity for it. However, we still have concerns in relationship to the format, the composition and attributions for the body. We would like to really understand what will be the coordination and synergies between the MAG and high‑level body. Roles are not clearly defined as we see so far. To ensure this is complimentality instead of ‑‑ to avoid complexity to the process by introducing a top-down approach that could undermine the IGF's legacy.
So strengthening and raising the IGF within the U.N. system cannot happen if a new body does not closely work hand in hand with the current MAG. We are also concerned over the political and financial and operational viability of the creation of the high‑level body. We know that the number of challenges faced by the IGF result from the lack of capacity, which is caused mainly by a sustained lack of resources. We do not see a cost benefit analysis and ways to prioritize the aspects that have been already identified as the ones who need to be ‑‑ which need to be strengthened.
We would like to echo what the Just Net coalition has pointed out. In addition, are there conditions for implementing the process in the short term? We would be really thankful if a timeline for the implementation of the process around the creation of the new body and a work plan is shared with the IGF community for input. Because it is very important to ensure that transparency and clarity intervention to the next steps is on the table to participation and oversight.
Finally, we agree with the Just Nest Coalition about the importance of starting the WSIS process, sorry. Particularly because the possibilities, this process offers to be a landing place for the discussions and work of the IGF. Thank you so much for the opportunity for sharing our inputs.
>> Thank you so much. Anriette, IGF MAG chair.
>> I'm sorry I cannot put my video on. My connection isn't good enough. I just wanted to make a few remarks. In my capacity as MAG chair, but I think also as a past MAG member and someone who has been involved in the IGF since its inception. Thank you for organizing this process. And I think also thank you to those who initiated the idea of an MHLB. I think it does come from a commitment to a stronger IGF.
I just have two points really I want to put on the table as considerations. Firstly, is the relationship with the MAG. I appreciate there is an effort to clarify that. But I think it can be clarified even further. I think in doing so, keep in mind that the MAG itself has an evolving terms of reference and that it needs to be updated. That has actually been documented. It was documented first during the working group on IGF improvements, and then again during the IGF retreat in 2016. There's actually a long list of recommendations with regard to evolving and updating the MAG's role so that encompasses more than just the annual program. Because the IGF is more than an annual event. The role of the MAG, with regard to being custodians of that ongoing evolution and strengthening of the IGF.
I think secondly, I value the spirit of the MHLB in intending to strengthen the relationship of the IGF to reach governments with that richness, to strengthen relationships with U.N. agencies, with decision making bodies from all stakeholder groups, including multistakeholder bodies. This is indeed vital that the IGF is able to listen and reflect and respond to all of these entities and also that the IGF content and discourse reaches that. I realize that the intention is for the MHLB to achieve that, but I just want to remind that strong processes need strong substructure. They need capacity at an institutional level. One can never communicate effectively with all the governments of the world, maybe states from developing countries, developed countries. If you don't have the capacity and the systems to document discussion, to build relationship and to communicate.
That's vital. And the IGF is very short on that type of institutional capacity. I think my fear here is that with more high‑level entities a disproportionate amount of resources could support an MHLB. At the expense of building the institution itself, and enabling it to have these democratic relationships and to include those that are already included effectively, but also to reach out to the many that are affected by Internet Governance decisions that are not yet part of the IGF.
So I think my closing message here is that, indeed, we do need to strengthen the IGF. We need to make the IGF more prominent, build its visibility. If the MHLB can contribute to that I really look forward to that. But I just urge that it doesn't take place at the expense of building that capacity within the IGF to be truly inclusive, to be bridging relationships, to reach out to governments that support multistakeholder processes as well as that don't support multistakeholder processes. I think this requires nuts and bolts day‑to‑day work. I think an MHLB on its own is not going to achieve that. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you so much for those wise words. Before I turn it over, I want to sort of say that we've heard a lot of these key points. What is very clear here is that we'll have to go back and see where we can strengthen with some of the elements that have been raised. We hear the importance of the relationship with MAG the need for synergy and being very clear that IGF high‑level body, the IGF MAG really will have to work hand in hand to ‑‑ I think in the words of one of the esteemed colleagues ‑‑ find way to make sure the important work that's been done at the IGF is really getting elsewhere, more broadly shaped. There was a comment that it's about lifting up the bottom up proposals higher, rather than being a top down process. I think the issues around youth inclusivity are very well noted. The stress on transparency.
So I think that that could be sort of the way we see it, but I do hear what you're saying, that perhaps we need to be more explicit about the importance of transparency in these processes and open engagement for the high‑level body. The capacity and funding and resources is very well taken. The secretariat are very interested in the strain it will put on the secretariat. So we hear you on this, and this is why I put an appeal out to the member states who have really stressed this very important issue of capacity to really increase your contributions to the IGF trust fund. Because that's really going to be very important.
We hear the key points about the need for greater clarity around the functions and roles of this particular body. It could really be about having other aspects of Internet Governance come to the IGF to engage with the multistakeholder community so there can be a means of the high‑level body to bring these regulators and other big players into the IGF to engage with the multistakeholder community and the fundamental nature of the high‑level body. Ultimately the purpose of the high‑level body being about making the IGF more impactful, more relevant, more responsive and making sure that all the very good work a that's being done by the IGF and so forth really have an impact on the internet governance issues of today.
We've heard all of you today. You know how to reach us and with that I turn it over to my colleague.
>> Thank you very much, Yuping. I will not repeat what was said, I think she summarized the interventions very well. Thank you for that. And we are over time, so let me let you go and thank you very much for all your contributions.