The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> Are you ready? In the interest of time. Okay. So good afternoon, everyone. I hope that our online participants can see us and they can hear us. I want to welcome you to this session on the declaration for the future of the Internet. The acronym is DFI. What is it about? What does it do? So this session as a way of introduction, the IGF 2021 messages particularly those on the topics of economic and social inclusion and human rights have some influence on this session. Universal easy is and meaningful Connectivity, trust, security and stability and inclusive Internet governance ecosystems and digital corporation. The goal is to start a multi‑stakeholder conversation about how to promote digital inclusion accomplish sustainable development and maintain an open global interoperable and secure Internet. Additionally, this calls for ensuring that everyone has meaningful and ongoing access to the Internet and preserving its openness to support democracy and human rights. In keeping with this, this session hopes to cover open Internet policies and initiatives that's a crucial to promoting reliability, stability and interoperability of the Internet including a human centric strategy. One of these cannot be accomplished without taking into account the resilience of the Internet governance Intersystem which has consolidation among various stakeholders to support eye promising future for the internet specifically in this session, we are going to be answering how do we ensure the interin the remains open, global and interoperable in line with universal values and fundamental rights. And two, how can governments private entities, Civil Society and the Technical Community translate the principles of the declaration for the future of Internet into concrete policies and actions and work together to promote this vision ‑‑ and executive director I see it listed as executive director. I know you're not executive. I know you are (?) of the association for progressive communications APC.
And are you still the manage Chair? Former MAG Chair. To join us virtually, we have Mr. Tim Wu who is a special assistant to the President for technology and competition policy, national economic Council at the White House. And then we have Ms. Marity who is the international policy director of disable policy center at the institute for human centered official intelligence at Stanford University. Thank you very much, everyone. We hope to have a very exciting and useful conversation. We have our online moderator also and that's Ms. Sonia Toro who will be guiding us on questions that are coming online. So straight away, I would like to go into the question and the first question I'm fielding to you, Mr. Donahue. Now, the declaration for the future of Internet reclaims the promise of the Internet vis‑a‑vis going global opportunities and challenges and lays out input and standards for achieving a free open and human rights protecting Internet. Now, how can governments, the Private Sector, Civil Society and Technical Community translate this principles of the declaration of the future of Internet into concrete policies and actions and work together to promote this vision globally and you have try and speak maybe 7 minutes.
>> Thank you. Good afternoon or whatever time it is for those of you online. My name Pearse Donahue, but it is not that this is one of the riches of the internet that we all get to learn about how we spell names. I'm sure that will be one of the last things that any algorithm will be able to do is to replace that particular skill. So in relation to your question, it's those kind of human elements that reinforce the principles and the strategies in the European union with like‑minded partners across the world that we in recognizing the power of the Internet as a tool have to recognize the challenges. And as a great fault leader who is back to the forefront of our work here, they have commented several times when the Internet was designed, it was assumed that everybody who was participating really wanted it to work and really wanted it to be an open communications platform. And, of course, we moved on to the situation where it might no longer be the case. Our governments have to take account of that. We will reflect challenges as well as reinforcing our objective in bringing the Internet to everybody and to ensuring it is a safe and importantly open environment for personal cultural and economic development. We have to work together to make this happen. So in that content to make the internet a trustworthy place, some of the questions that you asked me, Grace, are things that the IGF community will say we have already done that work. It is true that in the declaration for the future of the internet, I hope that there is nothing there that the multi‑stakeholder community will not recognize. The point we have seen, for example, when in a few years ago we were talking about some of the operational weaknesses of the IGF is we saw a lack of commitment by certain communities. We had governments who came and made speeches and left and we had a waning of involvement or interest from business and the commercial community. And the declaration was an attempt to address the principles, which are already common currency of the multi‑stakeholder community here in a way that would allow governments who also have a role to play to sign up to those principles. In some cases stating there are things they will not do as opposed to things they will do to ensure the Internet is and remains an open, interoperable trusted space which respects the individual including their integrity, physical and online, their personal data as well as their identity. And also then that we in having those principles manifesting themselves in an operational way, we can allow and ensure that access is available to everyone. All citizens as well as businesses can trust they are safe online, their data is secure and that their transaction is privileged. So that will give rise to that trusted environment will give rise to further innovation. It means that the data economy can thrive and it can be something to which individuals can place their trust. So that's the background of the declaration for the future of the internet.
Already we have nearly 70 partner countries who have stood behind this affirmative agenda for the internet and following its launch in April, we're now focusing on bridging the gap with other countries. Trying to ensure that the principles and their concrete implementation of seemless and transparent and now and some of you will say maybe it's a bit late, but to ensure that the multi‑stakeholder community have a crucial and leading role in doing this. That is why as well as the consultations on the principles and declaration, we organize amont ago and Prague and the Czech Republic, a conference and have four specific workshops for other multi‑stakeholder community. In order to instruct and inform the target signatures about how important this is, addressing growing threats such as threats of Internet shut downs, and, of course, looking at how we build cybersecurity and trust. And how do we build skills so that all internet users have the ability to navigate it to its full. These are issues that the governments could address or solve alone.
Again, many of the paths that have been identified have been identified here. So we have to ensure that we can in an operational way bring governments into that discussion to show them all the work that the community has gone, but also bring that work to where the discussions currently are forming, for example, in relation to the digital compact so that the input of this community, these communities will play a central role with regard to the shaping of the future Internet governance environment not least, of course, a digital compact itself, but then worked on wishes, et cetera. We are aware of certain criticism with regard to the relationship between the DFI and the IGF. For us, there is no contradiction simply because our commitment is first and foremost to the IGF and the principles. We see it as a very necessary and useful manifestation or expression of the principles to which the IGF has spent its entire 20 years constructing. And also have shown and have the ability to adapt itself to address the questions of the day in order to ensure that in the future, not only is the multi‑stakeholder community, but the Internet governance forum which you have all invested so much in will continue to play and an increasing central role with regard to the governance of the internet. Thank you so much.
>> Thanks so much for that introduction into the principles. Mr. Tim Wong, are you there? Can you hear us? I was told he was having challenges.
>> TIM: You have to unmute me. It looks like you have.
>> Grace: This is for protection and strengthening of a multi‑stakeholder system of internet governance. How is the declaration for the future, um, in line with multi‑stakeholder internet governance model, which is driven by organizations and forums such as IGF. And, ah, how can the DFI signatories work on taking further the principle of multi‑stakeholders and you have, um, with the 7 minutes. Thank you.
>> TIM: I appreciate that and I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Thank you very much. A I said in the introduction, I think being in close collaboration with a multi‑stakeholder process is very important to every goal that the United States has and also the goals of the declaration of the future of the Internet.
So let me give a sense of some of the thinking behind this. As I think people in this room know, the reason that the declaration of the future of the Internet came to me conceived of and signed as a response to alarming and concerning patterns of state behavior. And it's general goal is to set basic norms, restate basic principles which many people have long thought taken for granted as to how a nation states should compart themselves with respect to the internet. What could be considered in some respects constitutional type of norms for state behavior. And one of those and I think a very important one was to have respect for the multi‑stakeholder governance processes. The internet it's original and founding strengths was that it wasn't, you know, in any sense controlled by a single country. It wasn't subject to the whims of every single sovereign, but rather was driven and managed by the Internet community and that's been a system which has worked extraordinarily well when you think of many decades that have passed. Among the concerns that drafters had was that nation states become ‑‑ seek to increase their power or increase their leverage at the expense of the multi‑stakeholder governance process and particularly technical sides of it. So in some sense, there's an effort here by the states, nation states coming together to sign the declaration to say there needs to be respect for multi‑stakeholder processes and particularly multi‑state or technical governance. It's funny. It might seem to some people why would states have to say that, but I think it is because states are the ones who are binding these and saying we're not going to interfere with the processes. So as I said, I think that goes back to the purpose of this declaration and why now some people have said don't we have the norms in place? I think one of the most important objects of the declaration is to address what over the years had become something of a gap. There have always been very strong norms surrounding the Internet. Just take an example that the norms that, um, the infrastructure providers should faithfully carry content is a long‑standing one. It's part of the success of the Internet. Very a very long time, there was no sort of legal obligation. The internet had norms surrounding commerce and so forth. But there have not been in a tradition norms that were binding on states. I just wanted to point out that this is why I think some people say why is the declaration only states members and why is it so state focused? I think the idea is to address a gap and what had appeared to the drafters as a growing problem as I said before the problem with state behavior. I think hopefully I made this point clear. The purpose and the goal of the declaration with respect to mull‑stakeholder governance processes is to bind states to help them and not to interfere. Thank you very much.
>> Grace: Thank you so much, Tim. You have listened to teams very well and articulated points and especially the last point about why the declaration is important in light of what the governments must commit to. So as you respond to that, there is also the question of, you know, that the declaration points out to technology issues that need to be addressed especially when we look at Ukraine, what has been happening in Ukraine and equally to different to needs that require this generation to step forward and act collectively to protect human rights on the Internet. How can we ensure the Internet remains open, global in line with universal values and fundamental rights. And Rick?
>> Thanks, Grace. I'm not sure everyone knows, but Tim participated on a session in the declaration at the between the 2021 IGF. Firstly, I think we need to recognize and I think you will find this if the text that the internet might be interoperable, but it is not open and it's not global. There are many people who still do not have access to it or do have access and that are constrained or that is constrained by among other things state behaviors such as Internet shutdowns or limitations on freedom of information and expression. So I think having this as a goal and striving on open and inclusive internet is absolute important. I think I really value that the declaration emphasizes that and it has very strong content. Particularly like the concept in the declaration of reclaiming the potential of the Internet because I think for me, I find it very meaningful because I think we in a sense lost touch with that potential. That potential of the internet as a public good to use a controversial term. I'm not saying that's in the declaration. I think what concerns me is I think if we use our aspiration for bolding and inclusive rights respecting open Internet and utilizing the potential for economic and social development, we need to do that inclusively. And I think there's a concept in the declaration of like‑minded actors or like‑minded states. I feel the moment that we start using these very positive pro‑rights principles to create ultimatums or criteria or dividers for being are you with us and if you're not with us, does that mean you're against us? I think then we are straying from the path of inclusive dialogue and I think the only way in which we can enhance and strengthen the global and open internet and based on human rights and fundamental values of social justice and inclusion, whatever is meaningful to you whether in an international treaty or something that's valued at a slightly different cultural level, if we don't do that inclusively, we're not going to achieve that feel. If we make the internet a political football in terms of global geo political tension and conflict, we then harm the Internet and we're reducing the Internet's potential as a platform for bolding peace. I would like to see the declaration be a starting point rather than an end point. I think it's a strong document. I believe I agree with them. I think there is a gap in asking states to commit to certain informative behavior. But you have to bold that bottom‑up. I think it's no accident. I think there are two African states that have signed on to the declaration. There might be more. I think for many states in the global solve. It concerns them that doing universities are prepared by others and then they are asked to come to the table after the fact and sign on. That is not the kind of process that we need. It might be much harder to bold a declaration and a common ‑‑ it might take much more time. But if we don't do that, we are not actually going to change the status quo, which is where the global open rights respecting Internet is something that has potential that we want to aspire to, but we don't yet have it.
>> Grace: Thanks. Very well articulated. I don't know if our fourth speaker is online. Is Marietje online? The declaration acknowledging the surge in cyber attacks, which brings some risks to the current internet architecture. What is the role of multi‑stakeholder community in addressing this challenge in order to avoid the fragmentation. Marietje, you have about 7 minutes. Thank you.
>> Marietje: Hi, everyone. I know you can probably hear me but maybe not see me. I don't have moderator authority to unmute my camera. I'm waving at you virtually. Do you hear me?
>> Grace: Yes. We can hear you. And I'm being told that you can actually ‑‑ you can actually use your camera.
>> Marietje: Yes. Wonderful. Hi, everyone. I wish I could be there with you. It would be nice to have all the discussions and information sessions live. Without that opportunity, I'm happy to join you virtually.
I wanted to say a few things about the declaration about the multi‑stakeholder model and end with some thoughts on the very specific topic of security, but I think it is impossible to see anything related in a silo. Bleed into economic matters and we find ourselves at a particularly vulnerable geo political moment in time. So I think it's important to see the connections between those different aspects that are all very important. Now, a few words on the declaration for the future of the Internet. I want to compliment Tim for the work he's done in the U.S. and all the partners including the European union and the many other governments that have signed up. And I understand those that wonder why do we need another declaration. At the same time, I think it's important to acknowledge the significance of the return to first principles at this moment in time because so much has changed in how the Internet is not only understood by governments, for example, but also the role that the Internet has taken as a growing vital critical infrastructure for our economies, our societies, our education. Just think about where we would have been during the pandemic without the Internet. But also the way in which the Internet is increasingly considered an instrument of power by both governments that have sought to shut it down in Ethiopia, for example, but also in other countries and the way in which it is being instrumentallized for economic benefits, but also as said for political power. Plays think about all the disinformation campaigns that have gone on over the Internet and the temptation to go deeper and deeper into protocols of the Internet to a wage power battles. So I think we find yourself in a moment in time where if we would love for that to be true. The defactor is no longer truly global or truly open in practice. And certainly the trend is going in the direction of more national control, more top down control and more instrumentallizing towards political power towards silencing critics and towards making it difficult to uphold the promise of an open Internet.
So that's why it's important to realize how much we assumed the Internet would bring positive change and inclusive debates empowerment of individuals, a voice for the voiceless and opportunity to document and share human rights abuses. Really for the internet to be an Emanslaughter paer toy force. There were signs and movements in time and I think it is important to state the principles that we cherish and to see buy in from governments and that's why I think the declaration can add value.
As with many multi‑stakeholder processees and many declarations of principle, it is important that it doesn't become too much of a distraction. So in a good case, yes. A multi‑stakeholder process and declaration like this refocuses the attention, make sure there are different people at the table particularly Civil Society organizations and particularly those from the majority world or the global south that is an optimistic way in which the multi‑stakeholder process can facilitate change. Additionally when there is a commitment by Democratic governments and allies to make sure principles are implemented and translated into policies, new collaborations across borders, coalitions as well as accountability processees. Then I think the multi‑stakeholder model can work well. But in its worse case, it allows parties, governments, but also companies, for example, to be non‑committal to sign up to declarations, stay principles once more, but not to truly change their actions. And in the worst case, it can be distraction from the needed regulations. For example, by Democratic governments that are happy to support declarations with statements, but perhaps not as keen to do their own homework. And when I read the declaration, I can imagine a long wish list of steps to be taken by a number of governments, but I think the U.S. government is one important one. For example, is to reign in corporate power and the harm they're causing ecsixive power in the hands of private companies to the Internet as one example.
Then a couple more thoughts on the growing role of privacy companies. I believe there's a task for all of us particularly those of you who are at the IGF and who have worked in multi‑stakeholder processees for a long time. I hope there can be a next version of the multi‑stakeholder model as well because there's a risk that those stakeholders at the table are not necessarily proportionately represented, that relatively small voices, minor organizations are up against huge, wintery billion dollar companies under the big umbrella of a multistakeholder model. With power comes big responsibility and I think it is important to give more depth to show how different stakeholders each play their goal and should be held to account that role. Yes, a multi‑stakeholder every process and I think it can be very valuable. I believe democracy is a multistakeholder process. When we're not explicit about the values upon which a governance model is then built, a multi‑stakeholder model can take us to different directions and confusion about whether we truly share the values that we are seeking governance to be based on and whether or not those should be made a little bit more explicit. And then ultimately and I think it's been said by Pearse as well, when there is a lack of clarity, there can also be a lack of account am, a lack of results and a lack of holding up the standards that have been decided.
Now, taking all of this together, the need for anchoring in those first principles and to take the next step with the multi‑stakeholder model, I think we can learn similar lessons with regard to cybersecurity in particular because, um, there are a couple of trends that I think are worrying and then I'll stop. One is the fact that we seek companies increasingly on the front line of could be battle fields in war, could be during Peacetime, but still dealing with attacks and conflict. Questions of who is responsible and who gets to see who is responsible for those attacks are often in the hands of private companies. And that is a huge shift. I cannot underline enough how much of a shift that is from where we came from when there was notice digitization, kinetic attacks, but not cyber attacks as we see today and as we see blending in with any modern day conflict and intensiveication of competition sometimes as well. It is important that there is clarity on which role, which stakeholder plays. The fact that actually there should be a mandate to use force, for example, and there should be oversight checks and balances over the use of force as well as accountability for what has been done in the name of citizens. And I do believe that when we see too much of a privatization without the said accountant and oversight, we have a slippery slope away from principles that are enshrined in international law and we can see ‑‑
>> Grace: Marietje, I will ask you to summarize because of time.
>> Marietje: It is important that different stakeholders are held to account for the role they play and we do not in the name of inclusive process of everyone at the table let different stakeholders get away with an outsized use of power without checks on that power. I'll leave it there.
>> Grace: Okay. Thank you so much. At this point, I want to bring it back to the floor for questions, for interventions. And I will ask you to introduce yourself and then raise your question. So I'm going to take five questions and then ‑‑ and then we can ‑‑ we can bring it back to the panelists to respond. Then we have online participation. So I'll expect for those who want to participate to ask questions online and you're following us from Zoom. Please raise your hand so you can be our online moderator can raise attention on who wants to ask. So we'll start this way. Number 2. My sight (?) from there.
[Laughter]
Number 3. Anyone else? Okay. All right. So we'll do those three and then we'll see if we have others online and we'll bring it back to the panelists. Wolfgang, over to you.
>> Thank you very much. My name is Wolfgang. If I would have to evaluate the declaration, I would say substance A+, but procedure Bminus. So this absence is really wonderful and I can only agree with Tim and Pearse while declaration. There's an urgent need to reiterate what we have achieved the last 20 or 30 years. The dreams of the founding process of the Internet freedom, cyber democracy under big pleasure and has to be safe in the future of the future. This is a great document and although specifically of the principles is extremely useful. Bminus and see why the hell the U.S. government always supported a buttoned up policy development approach, private sector leadership and stakeholder came as a government leddish the initiative and excluded stakeholders from the making of declarations. I think Marietje has made a point. So you cannot expect that if you negotiate a document in an isolated way, say I exclude it from the making of the document. So this is a missed opportunity and I fully agree with Pearse that we have to look forward now. So far it is very good if the European Commission supports or started now of a serious mighty stakeholder workshops to include them. But the first thing was also transparent was also top down. There was no call or a discussion about this similar in the IGF environment. So I have two proposals. One is established mighty stakeholder broke for the committee or the implementation of the declaration and where they select seems as probably projects and you can use all the national and regional IGFs next opportunity is to (?) in tune next year. I think this would be a process. The issues which are risked in the declaration. The second is open the door for signature of non‑state actors. Pearse has said we have a lack of commitment of governments, but we have also a lack of commitment for corporations. They have opened the door for signatures by non‑state actors and it would be extremely useful if big private companies would commit themselves to the principles of the declaration. So far, there is no procedure in place. Civil Society organizations you have no way how to sign the document. So repair this procedural weaknesses. Thank you.
>> I'm from (?). We have taken some of the questions, but probably still on participation. Multistakeholders is the only way to develop documents. Is multistakeholder for those that want to run as print probably some people want to run very fast and others want to run a marathon. We run the same races and the people run underneath us and the people are running marathons are two different races. (?) go ahead and develop the declaration and then look for allies. If you develop a document and are able to bring allies to support it, is that still accepted? And probably I would want to look at this question because you had to touch on it and then to Pearse. Has any of the principles been challenged? And can there be a process to add part of the document? And probably go back and bring more stakeholders on board as they're trying to suggest in the suggestions. And if you have criticism that you explain, but you are talking about people have raised, if you explain this criticism to governments, for example, add this signing to the document if the criticism makes sense to them. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. I'm working with Internet Governance Forum. Basically one year ago, the declaration for the use of the Internet and we're still waiting for a plan of action. Of course, DFI has created lots of reactions negative and positive. Now this moment, we are discussing the declaration for the use of the Internet in the 17th IGF after all without any plan of action. Therefore, we'd like to know why in the plan of action we announce. Thank you.
>> Grace: Thank you. We have three online questions. Can Andrew be unmuted to ask the question?
>> Hopefully you can hear me okay.
>> Grace: Yes, we can hear you.
>> Fantastic. Yes. Thank you for the discussions so far. I think the declaration on the future of the internet is a really important document not least because it provides the BASIS from alternative vision for the future of the internet to that often the proown ends of new IP. So it was much needed to provide that alternative vision. In my view though with some of the other people that have commented, it really now needs ‑‑ now it has momentum. It needs to be adopted both by opening up to non‑governmental signatures as others have mentioned and by other parts of the multisting holder community such as ICANN, the ITF and maybe the ITU, et cetera, taking the key principles into their respective processes and then finally on the back of that, the mechanism for subsequently updating it through a consensus process would then be beneficial. I would like to see if other panel members would agree with that. Thank you.
>> Grace: Thank you, Andrew. Can the microphone be unmuted now Moccha Barry.
>> Hello? Can you hear me?
>> Grace: Yes, we can hear you.
>> Thank you very much for giving me the floor. First of all, I should thank you for organizing this timely session. My question is to Mr. Tim. What is the relation between the (?) presented? What is the relation between the village presented in the declaration for fast of Internet and the vision presented in the sensory court of CFR, Council of foreign relation entitled confronting reality in cyberspace. Foreign policy for fragmentd is the report concluded that the error is over. It seems that two visions are somehow contradictory. Could you explain, could you please explain more about its impact and the potential contribution of declaration for future of the Internet on facilitation of Internet fragmentation and political level and it could be a policy of excluding other countries. They lead to (?) quality of life. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to write my concert. Thank you very much.
>> Grace: Your point is noted. The last question is from Zan Kann.
>> Hi, everyone. Can you hear me?
>> Grace: Yes. Loud and clear.
>> IZAAN I appreciate the discussion that we had from the panel so far. One of the questions that I had more often an observation that pertains to the declaration. We don't see members of very important geo critical centers such as bricks as signatories of the declaration. More importantly, the ones that do exist, the Democratic nations and are the nations considered to be the digital deciders have been implemented from those types of countries that we would consider them to be extra territorial requirements to take down content or surveillance laws that exist. These countries that we usually want to try to bring towards the side of internet freedom and digital rights would basically ‑‑ you would end up with a situation of the pot calling the kettle black essentially. What would you brink in light of these observations? Thank you.
>> Grace: Thank you so much for the questions. I think there are some questions that directly address to certain speakers. I know there are some addressed to Pearse especially the one from Wolfgang on the process scoring a Cor is it a Bminus and the need to establish a multistakeholder implementation. These are questions for Henri it. You know the multistakeholders to develop Internet documents. There's also another oneha the process been engaged. There's one for team on internet fragmentation and the relationship with other players. And finally, the other two questions that can be picked by any of the speakers and that's on the important sig Natter toys missing in the declaration as well as what is the plan of action. I think we'll start this time. Let's start with you, Henri it and then we'll come to Pearse and then go to the online panelists. Thank you.
>> Thanks very much, Grace and thanks, everyone, for the questions. I want to quickly comment on Wolfgang's proposal. It's great to get more conversation. The idea of using the Internet Governance Forum and in our eyes to discuss and talk about the declaration. But I also think we need to use the international system. I think we already saw with the netmund yapual we generated a powerful, underneathful simple document in 2014 but it just never quite went into the multi‑lateral space. Therefore, it never went any further. This is the challenge of us in thinking and Marietje pointed it out. And I think one of the mechanisms that we need to bolt into this multistakeholder approach is better articulatation with the multi‑lateral system. Particularly when it comes to issues of peace and security, we need a strong, trusted united nation system. And if we don't use it, and if we don't challenge it, we'll fall short and we're going give to have it. The multi‑stakeholder approach is not the only approach. I think we also need to ‑‑ I'm not sure if we still really understand what we mean when we say the multi‑stakeholder approach. I think Marietje elaborates on that. I think she did flag that. It's an approach that needs to be critiqued, adapted, developed. It's applied differently in different context. But as for your question, can we no longer generate documents and ask others to sign on to them? My response would be yes, if you just am them to express general agreement, that's fine. But if you want them to comply with it and to live it and hold others accountable for complying with it, no. Then you can't. They actually have to feel ownership of it. They have to understand what implications offer them as a state and what implications are in terms of holding other actors accountable. I'd like to see the U.S. use the declaration as a framework for holding U.S. corporations accountable. That to me would demonstrate how seriously the U.S. has thought about the contents of this declaration. I think and hope that is the intention.
So then on the general point about bricks, I think it's on a very important point. I think you can see when you look at will signatories at the moment, it does not contain those countries. And I think that is significant and I think that if we'll want to have impact, we have to multi‑stakeholder processes are messy as fiiona Alexandre said in the chat. The transition process took a long time. But if we don't work through those disagreements ‑‑ (no audio)
>> I wanted to start by way of doing so and responding to a point that ania made in her first comments, which is quite a Stark point with regard to the needs to do this process inclusively and the risk that if somehow we said you either agree with us or you don't. That's mot inclusive. Certainly that risk existed, but what I want to go back to is just to recall that, of course, what we have is a set of principles and what we are saying is you are like mind country with your sign. But can you as a government agree to these principles and will you publicly commit to implementing them? And so we were faced with so much of a dilemma that if we went into detailed and inclusive process such as we are used to in the multi‑stakeholder environment, then we had the risk of it being watered‑down or becoming a political foot policy in that process and we would have ended up with a document of less value. It's a dilemma. It's not a perfect solution which I have to say. That hospital me then to answer the questions that were put with regard to Wolfgang on the process. We'll take that hit, the process was not. I think by definition could not have been perfect, but in ‑‑ now working when I mentioned before workshops, it is our ambition there will be many more. I hear what you're saying and thank you. It's a very good point as to how we should build on that to make it even more important. I would just like to recall to everybody in what is a short document. It is not a coincidence that the last paragraph of this document, which is the conclusion in the way forward points explicitly without any ambiguity to the multi‑staying holder process to the role plays and to the commitment of every single declaration we work with and form partnerships and that is the going forward part. The other point I would make and Ien I'm not sounds like I'm make excuses, we wanted thetect to be light.
So the last thing we want to do is create new structures because they would have been seen as being in opposition and in competition or cutting a across the focus and energies you so by being light on process, we, of course, ran into the obvious criticism about the weaknesses in the process. Where we can learn and the last point I would make is yes. We have nearly 70 signatories. It is interesting sometimes as common, but we are still in contract with a number of countries and hoping that an increasing number of signatories would engage in the discussions to see if we can bring on many more. But then that brings me to what was said by Wolfgang and Andrew. The fact this there is a critical role that is already there for the multi‑stakeholder community for Civil Society, for the noncrystal limbs of the make stakeholder community. That is simply go country that signs up must be agreeing also to expose itself, if you like, but agreeing to wire review particularly led by the multistakeholder community. So if a government signs up to maintaining and promoting human rights, then that immediately puts them into the spotlight of the multistakeholder community who can say actually, that is not the case. Now I would say that, of course, we do in that some cases we wanted to have countries that sign up who have an aspiration who may not ‑‑ that's why the role is critical. It is to monitor all within the software and also then give input again on the BASIS of multi‑stakeholder consensus building as to how those principles must be driven effective in practice. So the fact that one or other community is not asking to be a dignatory had not be seen in any way under values or pushing away communities and processes for which you control from the actual effective operation of this declaration. Thank you.
>> Grace: Thank you, Pearse. I think now we come to Tim and I hope you can make your interventions as brief. Tim?
>> TIM: Yes. Although, there's been a lot said. Really pushing these questions. Very thoughtful questions. It is a good reminder of the importance of governments. In being close to the process and understanding and hearing as much as we can. Some of the points have been addressed. Last I wanted to get ‑‑ people have asked for the United States. I think, um, one of the goals of this is to not just talk the talk, but walk the walk. We think it is extremely important just speaking for the United States that we continue to adhere to these principles. We are find thing ourselves in a way that I think is very important. I think all as I said before, I think one of the real challenges of the Internet underestimated either in the early days, certainly in the '80s and the '90s is the influence of state and development of state power. There is instrument of safe power, and it is obviously something that's become increasingly pressing and it's not something to be taken ‑‑ no one take its lightly. I won't say that. But the United States is committed I'll say (?) committed to these principles or interested that we're living these principallies as well just to take one example some of you know President Biden back in October signed a new executive order for enLansing signals intelligence activities which is a range of new protections, civil. This has to do with data privacy framework. It's important because it is onsuring the U.S. government engages intelligence activities around the world in a way that is protecting citizens and the value. I think that is important of an example we're doing to try to be adhering with the declaration. Domestically, the President has repeatedly said that he feels we need to do more in the government control the power of some of the largest tech firms and, um, take a look at the immunes. This is consistent with some of the claims or concerns. There is two little ‑‑ the administration is very concerned. I can also say we're consistent with the idea that governments should be trying to Connect citizens without spending billions of dollars building a broad man in the United States, an important passion of mine. Also I think we need to encourage other countries and the efforts to findests to Connect the world. So that's some of what we're doing on our side. I think engaging in diplomacy and USAID and the organization ‑‑ I mean, agency in fulfilling these goals overseas and engaging in the diplomacy. I want to talk for a moment about this question of fragmentation. One of the ‑‑ someone asked how is this consistent. The Council foreign relations and I want to make sure this is a very important point that we wrote the declaration believed that fragmentation was an increasingly serious problem. This declaration is a response to that some people say, you know, it's going to create us and them or ‑‑ you're a like minded country or you're not. What I have been trying to do here and I want to say we had success. We had new countries sign up this fall. We're close to getting 65 countries right now and growing. We want our commitment to a non‑fragmented Internet. You know, just say well, this is going to fragment. In a sense, we're dealing with a problem of the internet that's fragmented. We're dealing with countries that everyone must acknowledge ‑‑ shutting down the internet and certain instances and craving their own silos. We don't want the whole world to become like that. I don't think anyone here does. That is why is the time to have countries reaffirm they believe in the basic principles that countries should enterconnect and the internet should be (?) and so forth. I think that's an important thing to understand. React with ongoing fragmentation. It's not like we're in the 90s and ‑‑ we need to take action before it gets worse. I want to close. I appreciate, you know, am hearing that we ‑‑ that members of multi‑stakeholder society want to be more engaged, which they had been involved. I would say we had multiple sessions. It sounds defensive, but we meet ‑‑ but I do think we can always do more have multistakeholders involved. The reason I think it is previewed that we centered this document on states. What you're dealing with is a state package. They don't have a problem ‑‑ they're not (?) or spying on people. We don't need to ‑‑ it's good you agree. But we're ‑‑ you're serving not our target audience in terms of what we want you to agree to. In some sense, I think most ‑‑ but with that said, I think that one of the Ron going challenges is exactly how we harness the power.
>> Grace: Tim, I have to interrupt you. Kindly summarize because of time.
>> TIM: As we go forward and go forward with our dichromeacy, I think it is very important that ‑‑ I thought ‑‑ the countries that are members of the declaration right now and I think in general have to make the case without just lecturing or trying to tell other countries what to do as to why it is so important for those of us who still believe that there is merits and still believe. But we need to make the case. We need to make an economic case and we need to do all we can. The burden is on the fact all of us to keep the internet strong. We can't have it something that becomes an example of rich countries lex lecturing the rest of the world. Thank you very much. Sorry for going over time.
>> Grace: Marietje, are you there? I will ask you to very, very brief and because of time, I will also give you, you know, you'll be the first one to speak because we need to find up because of time. So you make entersections and then you will give us one key action and that's not like a presentation. We just want you to give us that key action and a twist. That is aread. So if you ask, which one key action is required to insure the over to you and then I will come to you, Pearse, and Tim, you'll be the last one and please it's just ‑‑ Pearse and Henri. We need to finish.
>> Should I go now?
>> Grace: On my calendar I chose 6:15. Okay. So we have time. All right. In that case, please just make your response to the questions that were raised.
>> Marietje: Feel free to come back to me later. I'll be very brief and it's nice to see familiar faces like Wolfgang. I don't think it's complete without his presence. So it's great to see him asking the question. So, I want to maybe invite you to look at it a certain way. The fact that nobody was at the table during the drafting process, by the way, I had nothing to do with drafting the declaration for the future of the internet. I don't own this, but I am try will to invite you to see the following way. Just because not everybody was at the table, it doesn't mean you're allowed to be ‑‑ I think it's important to appreciate the challenge and killing on board of all governments that have signed up. I'm not sure that it would have happened as others have mentioned with a long multistakeholder process. It is fair to say governments who have decided to sign up have not done enough themselves to protect and open and global internet and to avoid fragmentation so far. It is as Tim said important they look themselves in the mirror and step up where they may have failed in the past.
And I think it's important in general to avoid the following trap where there is a disqualification of the price ‑‑ I think it's logical in some ways that there is a number of countries that have signed up and there are a number of countries that will probably never sign up because there are there's one thing I would urge you all to focus on is be ecpolice it about the values and principles is that are supposed is to guide results that we would like to see. That is going to exclude some people. The silver lining is that most countries that have committed to the declaration do respect the space for Civil Society. In fact, therefore, or hopefully opens other stakeholder ares like free mess, voces from the around the world and so on. I think it is important to so and then the one call I would have for this opportunity and I think the way to be involved in the most effective way is hold the governments into account. Let them act upon the commitments that they have now signed up to in principal. That's when we really see results, but by investmenting ‑‑ there's a lot of work and Adon't to should. I hope you will take on the task.
>> Grace: Thanks. So I understand that there are there are quos, comments online. And I'm going to call on Sonia to give us those comments. Sonia?
>> Sonia: Yes. There is one question here from you'rey Council. The question is very simple and it says how do initiators visit the relation between the DFI and the global digital compact?
>> Grace: Okay. Do you want to respond to that? Okay. Thanks, Sonia.
>> If I may give a brief answer from the perspective of the European Commission. Just as a said, we're not building institutionser processes that we'll ‑‑ the global digital comment pact and the way we hope would be framed and drafted, lands on the table of 170 plus countries in the UN, that areure ‑‑ it would ‑‑ respecting human rights and improving digital literacy. These are issues which we hope will be central to the GDC. We know IGF should play a role into that. We hope smooths the path to these ‑‑
>> Grace: Okay. I think we have an opportunity to ask one more question, one final question, if at all it is there. Anyone with it? Okay. So I don't see any questions. In that case, I'm going then to give it back to my panelists and, um, ask each panelists to respond to this. If you are asked to identify one key action that is required to ensure that enternet remains accessible, open and recommend centric, who would this Hbe and why? So this time I wanted to start on with our remote panelists and I think the first opportunity I want to give to Tim. Tim, are you there?
>> TIM: I'm right here. Yeah. Thank you very much for that question. Again, thank you are if this opportunity. This is ‑‑ appreciate that ‑‑ I will say what's ‑‑ the United States needs to live up to the principles that we declared in this thing. No country has been perfect and we're aware of that, including ourselves. We just think that's important that we establish our credibility on the world stage. We have taken a great effort over the course of this administration to do some things that I talked about earlier in terms of trying to protect off the new privacy protections with trying to constrain excessive corporate power. We think in fact it is key and this is again I return to this thing. In the earlier days through many of the more ‑‑ idealistic right, in some ways, it was almost irrelevant and seeing that hasn't worked out. So I think it is appropriate for multistakeholders. It is already there for us to focus on him and around the worth. I want to crate a ‑‑ I don't think it is seen by anybody in that way. People take for granted something great here. For those of us that still believe some of the challenges that there is ‑‑ the internet has much to offer and it can become anding I be a human source of iron development and we need to make the to show that we're living as I said by the principles and show the rest of the world they should want to abide by the principles and not just assume that all this is taken for agreementd. So that's the kind of thinking that was behind a launch. The original vision of why we need to have this. There is time to bring back some of that ideals but in a sense a greater sense there is risks and dangers and reality of state power and action. Thank you very much for this opportunity to be here and, um, everybody (?).
>> Grace: Okay. Marietje, are you there? One key action.
>> My one key action ‑‑ yes. Hello. My one key action would be to appreciate the power of regulation and the need to see regulation to ensure that we move from principles. There will be a selection of those who agree and who will side with enshrining principles into law. That will be a telling parting of ways. Right? It will become very clear who is willing to actually commit not only with signatures but with laws and unfortunately, it will not be a global coalition, but a majority of countries that will keeps door open but then also not wait to take necessary actions and ensure the lacking actionability that we see at the moment. Thank you so much.
>> Grace: Thank you so much. Andrea?
>> This is reclaiming the internet and to approach that from the point of view of principles. I think my key action would be in doing so that remember it's not thend net. It's the about ‑‑ this process has to trickle down to more than just another statement that sounds good. And says important things. We have to implement that. And it's not at the level of regulating the Internet as a whole because that comes with a whole new set of risks that we want to avoid.
>> Grace: Thank you. Finally Pearse.
>> Pearse: Thank you so much. In highlighting what I would consider to be my one key action, I'm going to tease because in fact, there's eye pre‑cursor to it that we have to focus on. With that, I'm very minded of what ania had said in the opening remarks. First of all, we have to have physical access to the internet for the world's population. So all of our developing nations need to coordinate and maximize the output and partnering with countries so that the internet infrastructure is built according to their needs and local practices. So with that work going on, my one key action would then be to ensure that Civil Society and the non‑governmental multi‑stakeholder community is empowered and able to comment on without fear of attack to possibly advise governments to give implementation of the principles which are set in the declaration. Thank you.
>> Grace: I think you will all agree that the conversations ‑‑ the conversation we had here has been very healthy, has been very stimulating. People have been honest. We have raised issues that we think are critical to the success of the declaration and these issues are very important because if we don't raise them, such issues and the mind are good process. They undermind good documents. They undermine good intentions. So I'm not going to both are to summarize because there are too many points that came up. I know everyone has taken something with them out of this conversation. And so at this point, I just wanted to thank Pearse. I want to thank Anriette, team and for your very well articulated perspectives on the declaration. Your perspectives have actually enlightened more people how broken down the declaration is all about and now we're more informed than we were when we came here. I think we have been able to raise concerns. So we're grateful to you. We've also very grateful to all of you who have come and listen and raise questions. We're grateful to the online participants and so on. Anca and they have been organising this and put this together. Thank you very much and please allow me to feel the power of using this. So this session stands adjourned.