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.
***
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Hello, everyone. Maybe we can start now? Well, good morning, and welcome, everyone. Whether you are joining us online or here in person. It's a beautiful day in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which has the honour of hosting the IGF this year.
I would like to take a moment to express my heartfelt gratitude to the IGF for its invaluable contributions to the global digital governance dialogue. This platform not only brings us together, but also empowers us to engage in meaningful conversations and contribute to shaping the future of digital governance.
My name is Pari Esfandiari, and it's an honour to moderate today's critical discussion on empowering end users' voices in Internet governance.
As you can see on this screen, joining me is Sebastien Bachollet, well known figure in Internet governance. He is joining us virtually and will moderate the online comments and questions.
I am also joined by a distinguished group of panelists David, Carol, Olga, and Amrita. They are here and will provide their perspective and talks. We are also joined by invited community leaders, Olivier and Wolfgang, who is who are here, and Ellen who will join virtually, both to express their perspective, but also to include you, the community, in this interactive session.
We are also joined by Yik Chan Chin. She will summarize the key takeaways. As you can see, we have renowned leaders in the field of Internet governance. Their contributions speak for themselves, and they hardly need an introduction.
We go now to the next slide. Before we dive in, let me briefly outline our agenda for the next 90 minutes. First, I will set the stage and introduce today's topic. Then, our panelists will address three core questions, offering their diverse and unique perspective. This will be followed by invited community leaders sharing their responses, fostering a dynamic exchange of ideas. We will then open the floor to all participants for comments and questions. We will wrap up with reflections, a summary of takeaways, and closing remarks.
So, now let me take a moment to set the scene. As we gather here today, it's clear that the Internet has evolved far beyond being just a tool or platform. It's now the backbone of our interconnected world, driving economies, transforming societies, and deeply impacting personal lives. With its integration into nearly every aspect of life, governing the Internet has become an increasingly complex and critical task. This complexity is heightened by rising geopolitical tensions and the inherent friction between the Internet's borderless nature and traditional nation state frameworks.
In this context, the need for inclusive global agreements, adoptable standards, and collaborative approaches is more urgent than ever. The evolution of Internet governance reflects a profound shift in the dynamics of power, influence, and collaboration in the digital age. Traditional multilateral and bilateral frameworks often struggle to keep pace with the rapid technological advancement and transnational challenges of the Internet. This is where the multistakeholder approach emerges as indispensable. Unlike conventional governance models dominated by governments, multistakeholders acknowledge the Internet as a shared global resource, requiring shared responsibilities and diverse representation, where governments, civil society, technical community, academia, and the private sector work collaboratively to navigate this complex landscape.
At the heart of this ecosystem are those who are impacted. Their perspectives are not only valuable, but fundamental to shaping an Internet that reflects the needs and aspiration of global communities. They bring critical firsthand insights into navigating the digital landscape, from others in privacy concerns and ensuring accessibility to building trust and fostering innovation.
Policies shaped by these lived experiences are more likely to be effective, trusted, and widely adopted. Conversely, excluding them risks governance being dominated by narrow interests, perpetuating inequalities, and missing opportunities for meaningful progress. Yet, despite its necessity, as well as its amazing achievements, the multistakeholder approach faces serious challenges, as highlighted during net Mond aisle plus 10 earlier this year. Issues include issues of representation, inclusivity, meaningful participation, inefficiency, and a perceived inability to deliver actionable results.
These concerns underscore the need for reform, innovation, and a renewed commitment, making multistakeholder work not just in principle but in practice. The stakes have never been higher. As we approach the WSIS+20 review, a pivotal moment to shape the future of Internet governance.
Now, with this context in mind, I would like to engage with our audience by launching three quick polls on today's key topics. You have one minute to respond. Okay, this is Poll 1.
I think there's a problem with the poll. I cannot make a choice. You can? Poll 2. So, could we see the results?
All right, could we now end the poll and share the results, please?
Okay, Poll 3 seems to have 8%. I only see Poll 3. Okay. Number 2 is having... 1%? And number 3 having 1%. I don't know. I'm not sure if this is
>> Can you stop sharing and then go back?
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Yeah, we have 8% one and one, and I think we now stop the polls and we continue. Could we end the polls, please? We have 8%, 1%, and 1% it . So, can we please end the polls because I cannot now change the slides?
>> Okay, it's changed.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Okay, could we... sorry for this. So, now we have three overarching questions, as shown on the screen. To delve into this discussion, I would like to begin with David. So, if David is online, the issue of inclusion of Internet user has been underscored, but who exactly are we talking about, and what are barriers here? Please limit your response to three minutes.
>> DAVID SOUTER: Okay, can you hear me? Okay.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Yes. We see David as well.
>> DAVID SOUTER: There we go. So, I think I'd like to start by building on what you've just been saying, because to me, what matters about the Internet the work I do is on the development of digital policy, which includes at the moment working for the United Nations on the 20 year review of the WSIS process.
What matters most to me is use around impact. And on the whole, Internet governance has been largely led by digital insiders, as by businesses, by the technical community, by governments that are government departments that are involved in the supply of the Internet, rather than its impact on society as a whole. So, the question here I think is particularly driven by the way the Internet has evolved to be something that is now impactful across all areas of economy, society, and culture.
So, the first part of the answer is, actually not to do with the end users themselves, but to do with the expertise involved in Internet governance discussions. I think that needs to be much, much more informed, at least as much informed by people whose expertise lies in those fields of impact, rather than in the fields of the Internet itself, so by environmental experts, by health specialists, by educators, and so on. We don't have sufficient space for that in Internet governance.
In terms of end users, they're, of course, diverse, and they're the demand side rather than the supply side of the Internet. So, not just individuals, but also organizations, more businesses, trades unions, sports clubs, religious organizations, whatever. Not just organizations, but also individuals who are also very diverse from where they come in age, gender, education, in their requirements of the Internet, not just intensive users, but also occasional users, not just those who want to take part in Internet governance; we also need to understand the perspectives of those who don't want to take part in the process. And not only users, because non users are also severely affected these days by impact of the Internet on their lives and their societies.
So, there are ways to get a wider range of views like this, and maybe I'll come back to these later, but I would particularly look at ways that do not just attract vested interests or insiders to the process. So, a couple of things that might be considered here are the kind of household surveys or opinion polls that have been used a lot by Research ICT Africa, by Ofcom, the regulator in Britain, and citizens assemblies, which have been successful with ways of bringing in the very wide diversity of views on controversial issues in some societies, notably, in Ireland, as ways of ensuring that discussion is informed by everyone and not just by those who want to take part.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much, David. And now, Carol. You heard David's comments and how he explains the concept of end user. With your leadership experiences, why do you think that they remain invisible in multistakeholder process?
>> CAROL ROACH: Thank you. Thanks, David. Well, end users are part of, or trying to be part of the digital society. That means that they want to get involved using technology for social regions, being education, health, employment, or even if you look at governments or civil servants. They have to provide services online. So, the barrier to for the multistakeholder, for the end users, is that we don't tend to determine that we may have missed an end user within a group of persons. We tend to move them a lot. So, you find that the barriers that you find offline are the same type of barriers that you would find online.
So, you might have an end user that's missed because of their economic standing, or they don't have the capacity. They may have some kind of disability, and therefore, they're not aware that they could be part of the multistakeholder. They also say they think that there's some representative out there, and they're doing the work. It's not me. And I think it's a lack of awareness. Because we tend to categorize people and put them in this labeled box. And sometimes, I might be somebody that falls in more than one category. So, therefore, I'm not in a box anywhere. I'm totally left out. So, I think we need to stop looking at people as being one dimensional and review how we label boxes and how we label people.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much, Carol. And with that, Olga, in your view, to what extent do the barriers lie in inclusion, and how much are they rooted in a lack of participation?
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you. Can you hear me?
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Yes.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you very much. First, thank you very much for inviting me. I'm very honoured to be with all these important people in this room. I would like to build upon what Carol said, and I totally agree with you.
Whether you work in a big company or a government or in a civil society organization, you're always an end user. You have your own life. You learn. You communicate with your first, with your students or with your friends or family through the Internet. So, at the moment, we are always end users. So, I always find somehow weird this division. For example, in ICANN, you have the end users in one place, and then you have that label thing that you mentioned, I think it's a very interesting way (no audio)
always come very easily to our mind, lack of resources to participate, which we all know that it's a problem, especially for developing economies. People living far away from where the meetings are happening. This is the beauty of rotation of the meetings, because you always have the possibility of having something closer to your home or at your own town.
Then it's the language barrier. I don't know in other regions. I don't have that deep insight. But in Latin America, that is a big barrier. Many people are able, perhaps, to read English, but hearing a native speaker of other language, English is complicated, so that is a barrier which is important.
But I would like to also stress another barrier, which I think it's the lack of information. Sometimes, people don't know where to go. There are a diversity of spaces of participation. They don't know how to direct their interest, which meeting they should be focused on. There are several. And sometimes, they don't know how their sources of funding, for example, they don't know. So, I talk with my students about the Fellowship of ICANN or some other fellowships from ISOC to participate in IGF, in ICANN, and they have no idea. So, it's communication, it's information, and also, it's capacity building about this, how to participate and how to participate in a meaningful way in all these different spaces where we can make our voices heard. So, it's not only money, it's not only resources, but it's also information communication and a good networking to spread this news.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much. And with that, we go to Amrita. Amrita, from a grassroots and civil society viewpoint, what are your thoughts on this?
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Thank you, Pari. So, if you look at the end user and I'll go to that question first end user where? Different processes will have different people as end user. A government also can become an end user of a process. So, we need to be very clear who the end user is and what the impact, as David was saying. So, that's one thing.
And end users are not homogenous. If we think just bringing three people into the room when AI is being discussed would be end user? No. Who is impacted? How is the kind of impact? Do they understand it? It is important.
For the grassroots level, as Olga was mentioning, one of the important things is capacity. Everyone at the grassroots does not have the same resources to understand what the global discussions are all about. Are we building that amount of capacity? Because the learnings the amount of learning which goes is extremely high. Are we building it? And I think the Sao Paulo Principles also speak a bit about that.
The other thing, obviously, finances is this, resources are another thing. Even amongst grassroots end users, there may be bigger ones, there may be smaller ones. Are we making it equitable mentionst the developed and developing countries? I think there are many things to be looked into, many dimensions' party from languages, skills, et cetera. I'll leave it at that.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much, Amrita. With that, I go to Carol. From your experience, what best practices ensure meaningful inclusion?
>> CAROL ROACH: A very good question. We tend to talk about inclusion all the time, but I don't think we break it down to say who's not being included. We need to be able to identify and understand what it is, why they need and we go back again to thinking that person's a one dimensional and that we're not. And so, therefore, we need to look at a stakeholder management model, and there are so many models that we can apply, where we could look at, or something like a stakeholder mapping, where, let's say we look at the interest level and the abilities of the person, and we create a strategy based on that. Because one, just creating one strategy, it doesn't fit everybody. So, we need to sit down and take stock of who the end user is, who we're trying to reach, who we are missing. And another thing we need to do is to make it an iterative approach, in terms of I tried the strategy, who did I capture? Did I capture did I meet my objectives? If not, well, let me go back at it. Let me make a change to. Let me see who I did miss out, and then what's my strategy? Grab that person. And you just keep doing iterative approach, so you could be more agile.
Sometimes, we take we write these big strategies on paper, and we say, okay, that's it, I'm done. Let's try to implement it. And it usually doesn't work, or you don't get the impact that you would want to.
There is also, for stakeholder management, you could have a spectrum, because people fall somewhere on a spectrum, when you decide, okay, what's my different criteria on the spectrum, and you could create different strategies for it. It will require more resources, but if you want to be impactful, then you need to take the time to understand as Amrita and everyone is saying, who is really the end user? I might try to reach the government, the public service. Am I trying to reach the persons that use public services? Who am I really trying to reach? And what is that we are interested in? Sometimes we impose what we're interested in onto what we think other persons are interested in.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much. Amrita, you heard Carol. So, from your point of view, how could we grassroots approaches better support inclusion?
>> CAROL ROACH: I think there has to be a bit of, you know for inclusion at the grassroots level, as not from the grassroots David gave an example of Africa, wherein there are community discussions happening. But training the trainer to work at the grassroots is important.
For example, if I look at a country, like India, with 1.2 billion population, just five community meetings will not be enough. You need language. You need to build that capacity. So, building the capacity of, for example, it cannot be one size fits all for all topics. If I'm, say, taking AI for Good, which is a buzz word these days, and you want to use it, how is it helping in agriculture or climate change or even, you know, the change even jobs, for that matter? You have to know who in that range is working, mapping, as Carol mentioned. How will you build their skills? Are your interests and their interests aligning? And how do you get the feedback and take it up when decisions are making? I think that's also important, how you map.
And it's not going to be similar for similar places, but I think building the capacity, having the information flowing when you give suggestions, how is it being used an used the transparency in the processes? I think those are important. And building accountability.
If, for example, the problem with many point out with multistakeholderism when we talk is we don't have stakeholder accountability. Are we trying to bring in some accountability of what I am preaching?
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much, Amrita. With that, I go to Olga. What role can governments play in including underrepresented voices?
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you for the question. There is one thing in the multistakeholder concept that I usually say, that this confusion about equal footing and all stakeholders are equal. So, that is something that people, oh, we all sit together and we all talk together. But the responsibilities of each stakeholder are different. And I think that government has a kind of particular and important role, because governments are responsible for security, for promoting the economy, for taking care of citizens, security on the streets and all that. So, they have an important role.
And I think we, as members of the community, have a big challenge in trying to make the governments understand the beauty and the importance of building a real open multistakeholder environment to interact with these multilateral meetings, so both are okay. And there is this fantasy that multistakeholder is easier. No, it's much more difficult because you have to bring everyone at the table. But really, all stakeholders, good dialogue and open dialogue. Multilateral is easier. You put all of the representatives of government together. They talk with their advisors and that's it and they do a document. That's very important. But at the same time, they must governments must understand that the inclusion of end users and other stakeholders in the dialogue is fundamental for these new technologies that are impacting the society.
So, they are a very important stakeholder, not I wouldn't say more important than others, but they have kind of a governing role of all parts of the society.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much. Actually, that's a great point to make. And often, it's overlooked. With that, I go to David. What strategies can help make multistakeholder process more inclusive for underrepresented groups?
>> DAVID SOUTER: Okay, so, I think the starting point here, which applies not just to issues around the Internet, but to everything, really, is if you want to as a policymaker, you want to engage with the people whose lives your policies impact upon, if you want to engage with them, you have to engage with them on the terms that have meaning for them and that encourage them to participate.
So, I think there are probably a couple points here. First is, most people and this includes most end users don't have the time, don't have the inclination or sufficient interest to get deeply involved in the issues that are the priorities in most Internet governance discussions. They're not interested in how the technology works. They're interested in what it does to them. And so, being Internet governance institutions, if they want to reach out to those whose lives are impacted, have to do so by starting from the point of view of what is important to them, what impacts matter to them. You know, how are their daily lives affected? And then reach back from that to what the Internet governance technology questions are, how they should respond to those.
The Internet is not the end in itself, in other words, it's means to an end. We need to be multi sectoral in thinking about it.
The suggestions that I made earlier I think are trying to do that sort of reaching beyond. So, the point of household surveys or of opinion surveys is to try and get to those people who would not naturally participate. And citizens assemblies are particularly effective where I think you're doing that on complex issues over a period of time. What you do with those is you have a randomized selection made also representative of the population as a whole, of maybe 100, 200 people, who over a period of time, with expert input, discuss an issue that is complex and difficult and challenging and seek to reach consensus about it, which is a consensus of the opinion of society.
It's been very helpful in a number of countries in dealing with issues that are highly contentious, such as those to do with reproductive rights, abortion and gay rights, for example, in Ireland. And I think that is a way of getting to the public, as opposed to the much easier thing that happens, which is Internet governance, insiders talking to themselves.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you, David. And while I have you, maybe you could comment on one key challenge is fast changing digital landscape and how multistakeholder approach could adapt to it.
>> DAVID SOUTER: The biggest challenge in the digital landscape at the moment is to do with frontier technologies artificial intelligence, as we said, other things, too where the pace of technological change is too fast for our institutional frameworks to deal with their governance, their regulation, their governance, to deal with the uncertainties and risks that are associated with them. That makes it particularly important to understand the purposes of technological change as being about the common good, and so, understanding what the kind of long term goals we might have for society as a whole, rather than seeing it as being about what is for the good of technology itself.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you, David. With that, I go to Carol. How can multistakeholder discussions stay flexible and responsive to digital changes?
>> CAROL ROACH: So, if we're talking about global agreements, I think there is usually an argument between multilateral and multistakeholder. But what I tell persons, it could be because I'm from the government stakeholder, is that at the end of the day, the people vote for governments, they don't vote for civil society, they don't vote for technical companies. They vote for people who will represent them.
So, when it comes to global agreement, and as Olga says, no, not all stakeholders are created equal all the time, every time. So, in a case where you're talking about negotiations with global agreements, then the government is an important stakeholder.
Now, they have the influence, but a lot of times, they don't have the interest. So what we need to do is to ensure that we raise the interest level. We need to keep the awareness up.
We have missions that go, each country or state have a mission that will actually do the negotiations for them. So, therefore, we need to find some way in which we can raise the awareness to them. We have to ensure that we do it constantly. We can't just say, okay, wow, there's an agreement coming in. That has to be signed. Let's try to get some meetings with them. No, if you keep them constantly updated and aware, then they feel comfortable that you're not just trying to pressure them into learning something, into agreement. So, I think we just need to keep it constant.
And as I think another I can't remember who said it we need to make the stakeholders more accountable. So, you have to be a part of it. You just can't sit back. You have to play a part. You just can't say, oh, look what they did. Okay? You have to be accountable.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much. And with that, I go to Olga. How can governments ensure global agreements remain relevant amid rapid technological changes?
>> OLGA CAVALLI: That is a very interesting question and a very difficult one. Also, governments are not equal among themselves, so, it's not the same. A government of a small, developing country, then a global leader in the world.
For developing economies, it's a challenge, because developing countries, we and I live in one, so, the urgencies are other. So, there are many things. Economy's a pressing thing, strikes and inflation and other things that have to be solved in the short term and they are very impactful on the society. So, when you go to them and say, hey, we need it talk about something about artificial intelligence. Oh, Olga, what are you talking about? We don't have time for that!
But I think Carol made an interesting point. We have to be consistent. We have to be able to approach information in a way that they can quickly digest and use some you cannot provide to them 100 pages to read. Perhaps, a brief document that opens their eyes to be aware of some negotiations that could be global, but at the end will have an impact at the national level.
So, we have seen that, for example, with new GTLDs, I have been talking about for my government for decades, and once one of the names of one of our regions in our cantina got a TLD named by a company that, oh, it's so good that you're there! Okay, I've been talking about this for years. So, it is a process. I would say that it's the way it's not one point thing. It's going patiently to their advisors and to the government to tell them that their global decisions that will have impact at the national level and they have to be wear aware of that. But it's especially in developing economies.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much. And with that, I go to Amrita. Amrita, how can grassroots and civil society voices help keep multistakeholder processes adaptable?
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: By giving regular and constructive feedback, keeping you know, many times Olga rightly said that governments have sovereign interests they need to protect. However, many times, in many developing countries, in the name of sovereign interests, the interests of end users or others are overridden. So, end users, or I would say civil society organizations should continue to raise their voice, point out the things which needs to be corrected, because at the end of the day, if you look at the Internet or the digital technologies, it impacts everyone. And if these concerns are not taken up and deliberate ed in a way, no process or regulation can work.
So, you know, why multistakeholder, why different stakeholders have to be there, is not a question of having everyone in the table. It is to get the legitimate concerns and advantages coming to one point so that when decisions are taken, all aspects can be heard, not necessarily adapted, but at least heard. And there is a buy in when you have to implement those things. So, it is in the vested interest of the smart government, if they really want things to happen in the world. So, I think grassroots level, civil society have to keep on raising their voices and calling people out to make them more accountable.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much. And with that, now we go to our invited community leaders. So, you heard, we set the stage, you heard the panel. I would like you now to make comments about what you have heard so far. Who wants to go first?
>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you. Thank you very much. It's an inspiring discussion, and this remembers me on debates we had nearly 30 years ago, in the '90s when all this was new. And people came up with ideas for a cyber democracy. So, I think I haven't heard too much in the last couple of years about cyber democracy. But in the '90s, this was the catch word. And there was a great, what is cyber democracy? And some people said, okay, people with a passport are citizens, and people with a passport are now netizens, and they have the same rights, like citizens. And so, the idea of election came out because the accountability question was raised already, in particular in the ICANN context, and we had this very interesting experiment in the year 2000 to give all Internet users, end users, a right to participate in global election. At this time, it was for five directors of the ICANN Board. So, this was an incredible experience.
And the conclusion from this election was that people who were first excited about this global election and global cyber democracy became a little bit out you know, they lose their illusions in the process and were more skeptical. And people who were skeptical in the beginning that, okay, yeah, this is something new. We should have reached a level for accountability, also for various stakeholder groups by continuing state election. The device made in 2002 was, you know, to find a mix, what democratic theory is called the representative democracy and participatory democracy.
So, I think there was a long debate, whether participatory democracy will remove or substitute representative democracy. And the outcome was, no, this is in addition, brings additional value to the process. So, that means participatory elements are important, in particular, when the representative democracy has reached a certain limit. And so far, the user participation is an important element, you know, to bring more stability to decision, to bring more voices, more perspective to the policy development process.
And then, it depends on the issue, because we always decided between policy development and decision making. I think for decision making, you have to have a certain authority. But I think before a decision is made, the policy development process is even more important. So, that means if you have a good, broad, open, inclusive policy development process, then the decision maker at the end of the day just recommends the recommendation which comes out from the PDP, in their word.
So, but the problem isn't I remember the argument 30 years ago that, okay, do you really want to go for global elections? Do we want to have 5 billion people who go to the ballot box? How you can organize this? So, there were all sorts of illusions and some dreams around it. And to bring it down to real situation in 193 countries. So, it's difficult, really, to have to invite everybody to the process. So, there is a natural barrier, and not only barrier like language, finances, things like that. So, that means people who buy a car, so do not have to be engineers and have not to understand to build a car, but people have to understand the rules when they use the car.
It's also a question when we speak about user involvement, end user involvement, where and what. So, that means you have to be a little bit more specific.
For me, and it's my final word, the most important thing is that you have a channel for everybody where he can express his voice, make his position heard. And I think in a democracy, we have the free media, we have all kinds where people can express their voices and can have a channel, where they can participate in policy making in their country.
And in our Internet world, that's why the national IGF is the best institutional framework you can have, because in IGF, it gives you an opportunity to bring everybody to a table, a roundtable discussion. A businessperson has a different perspective than a technical expert. Civil society organization sees it different. And in governments, if they are wise, they listen to what is going on there. And then, everybody goes home and the decision where he has an authority to make decision. So, just a little bit idealistic, so another academic person, so I'm working with models, but I think you have to have a vision if you want to move forward in the reality. Thank you.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much. I see Olivier is shaking his head and agreeing with all of the comments made, so maybe you would like to make a comment.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN LEBLOND: Yeah, thank you very much, Pari. Olivier Crepin Leblond. I agree with a lot of the things that were said in this session. Of course, having been involved with Internet governance for quite some time, there's a lot of things that we are hashing again and again, but we don't seem to have solutions for them.
Carol was mentioning the need not to put people in boxes, but it's so easy to put people in boxes. It's, oh, what stakeholder group are you? And then, there you go, you've got a label, we've dealt with those people, let's deal with the others. That's one of the things that we've been used to do. All dimensions, big governments, small governments. You can't just put all governments under the same banner. And of course, everyone is a user at the end of the day.
Amrita mentioned that the learning is really high. And I've got a thought about this, because yes, there is a learning barrier with everything, and of course, Olga mentioned that you don't need to know how to build a car to be able to operate one, but you do need to learn how to operate it.
My belief and by the way, I don't forget, of course, David's description of methods which I find interesting about the sampling of people, taking a sample, a representative population, and then asking them questions.
I'm a firm believer in technology. And I think that we are at the moment living a fundamental change. The past maybe year, two years, a fundamental change into how everything is happening. First, we're seeing this complete crazy instability worldwide with regards to politics. Things that we would have never imagined are actually happening, things that nobody has even forecast are happening! It seems that intelligence agencies worldwide are either on holiday or something, but they didn't tell us that something was going to take place, and suddenly, you open the TV and you think, oh, this is happening! We're just thinking, oh, we're living this crazy reality TV show.
And why is that? Well, I have no answer for this, but one thing that I do know is that there is a fundamental change in the way that we're doing things that we need to embrace, and that's the use of artificial intelligence. And that is a tool that is so powerful, I really think it will help us in our aim to make multistakeholder governance something that will succeed. Because the various barriers we have in front of us, for example, languages. We all speak different languages. We all havecommon language that we're using, which is English. We all sometimes use interpreters, but that's extremely expensive. I believe that AI, with automatic interpretation, will be able to help us greatly in this respect.
Finances. Well, okay, financing is still a huge problem because we all feel the need to meet face to face. But with the technologies that we have and that are going to be developed, it's going to be easier and easier to not only interact on a Zoom room remotely, but with other tools as well to be able to interact. And when you start linking the physical world and the virtual world, that will make things a lot easier because you could have a meeting with someone with a holographic image that, you know, just put on your glasses and say, oh, by the way, I'm having a chat with some person in New York at the moment. Sorry, I'll talk to you in a second. I'll just finish my chat with the person. This sort of thing. It's stuff that is inconceivable today because AI is at the level where aviation was 100 years ago.
Now, 100 years ago, if you ever go to the Udvar Hazi Centre, I think it's in Washington, D.C., a huge airplane museum, and you see some of the earliest instances of aviation, and you think, there's no way in hell that I would ever even think of going on one of these things, because it's 99% sure you'll kill yourself. And you know, whoever wants to fly are crazy people! And yet, the majority of us who have come from outside the country have flown into here, and we haven't really thought twice about it, and that's because of (no audio)
>> Olivier, can you hear me? Sorry, Olivier, can you hear me? It's Sebastien Bachollet speaking. We can't hear you. We can't hear you, Olivier. I guess my colleague online can hear me, but not on stage, I guess. Okay, we can't hear you online, Olivier. Not at the moment.
(Laughter)
>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Okay, you are back, Olivier. Can you hear me? Sebastien Bachollet speaking.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN LEBLOND: I'm not sure where I dropped, but I'll try and summarize the point.
>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: If I may tell you where
>> OLIVIER CREPIN LEBLOND: With technology we have today, we are already able to reduce a 60 page paper into 6 pages and actually even reduce it further with tools that are seemingly not that expensive for everyone to be able to use.
It's very early on in the use of artificial intelligence, and I really believe that the tools that are currently being developed, that we, ourselves, can develop, because AI allows us to develop our own tools, too. I really believe that we will, as a group, as people, as end users, be able to develop tools for ourselves that will help us in better being equipped for taking part in these discussions of Internet governance. Whether it's explanations on things that we don't understand when somebody else talks about it; whether it's ways for us to express ourselves, because there are some difficulties sometimes when you enter a place and you have to convey a story, convey a point, but you don't quite know what language to use for that. And at the same time, also being able to do exactly what I don't do, which is to make very short interventions and let other people speak as well.
AI will help me in that, and I'll develop a tool for this for my own means, and I'm sure you will all be able to develop your own tools that will help you and the people around you in taking part in these issues and these discussions.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much, Olivier. And my apology for the technical glitch we had so far. So, with that, I go to Ellen. Ellen, could you please make your intervention on the conversation that has taken so far?
>> ELLEN HELSPER: Yes. Thank you very much. I hope you can hear me. Apologies for my voice. I've been ill, so it's not that strong. I hope it's okay.
I'm actually quite glad to be following Olivier, because I am going to give the exact counter argument, that while how everything happens might be changing and we've seen how everything happening changing at several occasions throughout the history in relation to technology what doesn't tend to change is what the result is, especially for people who are more vulnerable and unrepresented. We see that in digital spaces, their voices are often less heard, and their experiences less represented, because especially with AI, the models that AI is built on are built on the lived experience of those who have been most present online and who have created most content, and those don't tend to be the people who are underrepresented in society in general and who have historically been systematically excluded.
So, my work is in the links between social and digital inclusion, so what happens to vulnerable groups as societies become increasingly digital. And what I find interesting in this discussion, and kind of in the framing of this panel and I would have to say, I am in line also with much of what the other speakers have said, and especially David Souter is that it's interesting that we talk about users, because that presents, in the Internet and let's not forget, the Internet is not just the infrastructure, but all of the applications and platforms that are on it. It presents people with something as a fact that they then need to become engaged with, so it presents them in a way as passive in the creation of these technologies, and to have to get involved with something that wasn't from the beginning designed by or for them.
So, I think looking forward and this is kind of our experience in working with groups who tend to be unrepresented or have been excluded in various ways from society more in general and especially from more digital societies is that often there is an individual responsiblization of people need to get skills, need to become engaged, they need to be literate on how to use technologies and what these processes are, and that this often feels quite exploitative for them. It feels like it's passive for them as well. And I think this has also been mentioned before, it is kind of a mismatch about what the Internet and Internet governance is for, that that's not understood, that the outcomes of Internet governance or digitalization in general are not presented in ways that have meaning or are relevant to a lot of the people that I work with in my research.
And while I think it is definitely governments and other powerful stakeholders that should be held accountable, but for kind of the outcomes that people get from this process of governance, but we should be thinking about what kind of Internet and what kind of technology we want for the future, and that future should include all these experiences.
And including some of the work that I've done, I think there's two things that it's a bit rambling, my thoughts, because I'm following up on many very well made points earlier. But I think two things that, in thinking about the future, that I think we haven't really discussed yet is that there's many, many, many young people around the world, and actually, young people and children, especially make up the majority of the population in the Global South. And both children and the Global South, in general, are underrepresented in terms of the kind of lived experience on the ground, and they also have a very hard time making up this future that we're going to be living. Kind of they have a really hard time of getting their voices heard at a higher level.
And there was talk about, you know, a level playing field, all stakeholders being involved, but in the end, even if we talk about local and national IGFs, there needs to be a mechanism for filtering up, and governments and governance bodies need to be held accountable for putting the mechanisms in place so that through the kind of forums that David Souter talked about, but also through kind of civil society organizations that work very locally, that really understand the local impact of the way in which technologies are designed, that these organizations are involved and that they have a meaningful voice, that it's not the responsibility of the individuals who are really struggling to make their voices heard, but that there's a really clear process for that.
I think, also and that's the other point that I wanted to make. Something that we haven't mentioned, but that's obviously the big elephant in the room, that Internet governance cannot be talked about without talking about the huge power inequalities in terms of who is shaping the Internet its infrastructure, its content, its platforms, whose data gets used and collected. We have not talked about the enormous sums of money and funding that come from the tech industry itself. We haven't mentioned them necessarily as a stakeholder. They're also not here on the table. But in the end, many governments around the world are truly beholden to what big tech companies from specific parts of the world very specific parts of the world will allow them to do, in a way, or help them to do by providing content platforms and infrastructure. And I think we really need to talk about that. Because in the design of these platforms and in the kind of, you know, design of the content and the infrastructure, this is where we also see a huge underrepresentation. So, it's not just involving people as end users and focusing on who is most likely to be advantaged not all end users, but I would say especially people who tend to have been underrepresented, making sure that they are heard through some mechanism without making them responsible for their voices being heard, reaching out to them, as David Souter was saying.
But also, to think about how can governments and other stakeholders, civil society and other stakeholders, get more involved in making sure that in the design and the construction of the infrastructure and the content and the platforms, in these global tech companies and global flows of money and funding, that they are involved from the beginning and not as an after the fact, here is a technology, how should we govern it, but really thinking ahead, so it make sure that these patterns that I was talking about before, that we can see happening with AI right now, in terms of who is represented, who is kind of, you know, who are these technologies designed around, to be made useful, that will prevent a kind of more unequal future because these technologies are governed and designed in a way that doesn't necessarily represent the best interests of the future generations of vulnerable populations.
And I would say, you know, getting more young voices, young, underrepresented voices, especially from parts of the world that have been underrepresented. And I don't want to put people into boxes. My approach is always kind of understanding, kind of disadvantaged or vulnerability or living in precarious conditions, from an intersectional perspective, from a local perspective, but that requires accountability at the top for involving these voices and kind of perspectives from the beginning and not at the kind of tick box exercise, I think was mentioned before. So, that would be my contribution.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much. Thank you. With that, I think we go to Sebastien and open the floor for questions. Sebastien, the floor is yours.
>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Thank you very much, Pari. We don't have any question yet into the chat, but if people want to raise a question right now, will be very useful. And maybe you have people in the room who would like to take the floor, too?
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Well, maybe, why don't we start with you? Maybe you could make your own comments.
>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Okay, I can do that. Thank you very much. Thank you for all these questions. It is quite interesting, and I will say that,ful, I am Sebastien Bachollet. I was introduced by Pari at the beginning. Unfortunately, I am not with you, but with my good friend, and that's good.
It was really or it is a real interesting discussion. I would like to point out a few of the points you raised. And I will not pinpoint who said what.
But artificial intelligence, yes, it's an interesting tool, but if it's done by a foreign user, who is building it today? Do we need to trust them as we trust any other platform? Therefore, yes, it could be one interesting tool, but it will depend how the tool will be set up.
The second point, it's why we are talking about end user here? Because very often, we don't talk about them. I just want to give you a short story.
When I start my first meeting in ICANN, I went to my government representative, and they told me, why are you here? We don't need the end user voice. We are the voice of the citizens of the country, therefore, we are there for you, go away.
I went to the representative of the CCTLD, and they told me, but while you are here, we are gathering the user of the CCTLD of the country, and we are the voice of end user. You don't need to be there. And so on and so forth.
It happens that I am the only one still around, okay, too long, but I am the only one still around, and they left. They left, literally. There is no representative from my government anymore in ICANN, and therefore, it's important that we keep the voice of all the stakeholders if we want to have multistakeholder reality.
But don't forget that end user, it's not just gathering the billions of people around the world directly. We can't do that. Democracy is not working like that. Therefore, it's important that we are also placed where we gather people. Civil society or end user organizations are really very, very important. And don't forget that. End users are also organized more better in some parts of the world, but they're organizing a lot of places in the world, and therefore, you can't say, oh, civil society, it's everybody, but I don't have any organization. Yes, civil society gets trouble for financing participation, but we have organization.
And my last point, it's a question of equal stakeholder. I really feel that equal stakeholder, it's really, really important. At the end of the day it's not just the government we need to decide.
And the Sao Paulo Declaration is quite interesting with that, because it shows how we want to work between the two models. But we don't want to work and say, oh, multistakeholder will discuss and (?) will decide. It can't work like that. It needs to be more agile. And the Sao Paulo Declaration was very interesting for that.
Thank you very much for your opportunities. I'm sure that there is a lot to say, and maybe some of the topics we are raising here during this discussion need to be taken into account in next session, next IGF, at the National IGF, Regional IGF, or Global IGF.
And my last point yes, we can't discuss everything here, but a lot of things are discussed in other rooms within the IGF today and during these five days, and we need to take all that into account in our thinking. Pari, back to you. Thank you very much.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you, Sebastien. With that, I would go to Yik Chan, please.
>> YIK CHAN CHIN: Thank you very much. I think it is very inspiring and very interactive discussions, so I'll just pick up some point from the previous discussion.
I think we have a kind of, you know, debate about at two levels. One is, as the first speaker said, so we have to raise the bar of the demand side, not only the supply side. So, when we say demand side, we're actually talking about individual users and also civil society. So, therefore, actually, the whole debate is about the digital divide between the government and different stakeholders, including the users, so that's the digital divide, which can be the financial issue, capacity building, or IT literacy. So, this is the one debate we had in here. So, one is about the digital divide.
And outside that, it's about the role of the government, you know, and we talk about what the government's role in this multistakeholder process. Should they have a more, you know, understand more about the individuals and the different stakeholder groups? So, I think that's the issue from the government.
But on the other hand, actually, we have also as an end user with civil society or other affected stakeholder, we also have a responsibility, just like Carol said, you know. We need to raise the awareness of government, which is not entirely up to the government, but it is also up to us as a civil society or other sector to influence the government.
I think with another two speakers, Olivier talked about the technology, how technology could enhance and empower us. I actually agree with him. But on the other hand, also talked about the undermine and underrepresent. But she made a very interesting comment about, I think it was in more of the underrepresented groups, together in the world, without making them responsible, to make their word to be heard. So, I'm a bit cautious about this argument.
For example, I have a son. He's 18 years old, you know. I think for him, I need for him to be self motivated to some extent. I cannot take entire responsibility for his life and career. I think we need some kind of a self motivation in that respect.
And I really appreciate Wolfgang's point about, you know, the most important things actually have a channel for everybody can express their opinions and together heard. And that channel is very important. I think IGF is very important, is a crucial platform for us to have that kind of exchange. I think I'll stop here. Thank you.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you. Thank you very much. Amrita, do you want to make a comment? Thank you. So, on that point, I think we're arriving to the reflection. So, each of you have one minute to reflect on what has been said. Maybe I start with Olga.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you very much. A lot of very interesting thoughts. For me, not a total conclusion. I think it is the way, is the destination and all these processes about multistakeholder.
Something that came up to my mind when Olivier was talking about. I'm an engineer. I was never considered part of the technical community. Never ever. So, I don't know why. Many times I tried to participate. No, no, you are not part of it. But I'm an engineer. And they usually are a lot of lawyers there in that stakeholder. So, I think we have to be careful of the society that we are interacting with, especially people, as you said, your son. Young people have a totally different way of using information and media. They don't see television. They don't use my son and my daughter just don't have television at home. Just everything is through the Internet and through YouTube channels, different channels that inform them. So, we have to understand how new generations will use the information so they can build upon these processes that we are building upon. So, we have to stay aware of what is happening with artificial intelligence and young people. And thank you for inviting me.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much.
>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you. You know, we have reached a certain progress in the last 25 years, because 25 years ago, it was a question mark whether civil society or end user are seen as the stakeholder. So, in the middle of the '90s, it was a question mark.
Today, I think it's a good use, civil society and end users are recognised as an independent stakeholder group within the multistakeholder approach. The weak point is, that's the bad use. So, this fact is partly misused and say usage, to have a seat at the table, but you have nothing to say, or so you have weak representation and things like that. So, that means what we are missing are procedures, how multistakeholder collaboration works in practice, both in negotiations, also in intergovernmental negotiations, how far non state actors are involved in these negotiations, but also in multistakeholder bodies.
So, the procedures for interaction are not well defined or are not existent. And so far, the Net Mondile guidelines, the Sao Paulo Guidelines are a step forward, not the solution. But we have now clear criteria where we can measure whether this collaboration can be labeled multistakeholder or not. So, that means this is the next step, and I think we have to work in the next couple of years, in particular also in the context of the global IGF, the national regional IGF, to make it more clear also for outsider how the multistakeholder approach works in practice. So, it's not only a label which you put and fine, and then it's used as an excuse for traditional power policy. So, no! So, it has to be different.
But we have not yet a full, clear understanding what the multistakeholder approach means in practice. Thank you.
>> Yeah, I want to thank Ellen for actually bringing me down to earth from my technological heights around. But I was thinking about, not recent, actually, a trip to India a few years ago. India has made incredible advances in technology and in spreading the use of mobile phones to a very large segment of its population.
I remember being at the airport and the phone ringing repeatedly behind me, and I turned around. And the lady who was sweeping on the side was using a smartphone and had received a call and was speaking. And the tuk tuk driver a little bit later was also with his smartphone. And I thought, wow! Of course, these people are able to use technology, and technology has reached a level where it's affordable for them. There was a way for them to use the system. And I'm really hoping that the technologies that we have now today around AI are technologies that will be affordable and easy for people to use. And people, including those that Ellen was speaking about, the ones that are more disenfranchised, that are the young people, et cetera.
I think young people have a faster capability to adapt than we do at our age, so I'm not too concerned about them. We just have to give them the chance. And giving a chance to those people that are currently not listened to and that are young and deprived communities and so on is not a burden for us but should be something of an asset, because they're the ones that will also help with the change. Thank you.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much. With that, I go to Ellen. Ellen, would you like to have your final reflection? One minute.
>> ELLEN HELSPER: Yes. Thank you, all of you, for following up on that. I can't agree more. My final reflection, actually, is to position also the governance within a wider discourse that is going on in society at the moment, where we see that there is kind of a disempowering discourse, where there's a lot of, I mean, what we would call panics around technologies, where people feel that it's running ahead of them.
And I think one of the important things of the kind of governance forum and other similar multistakeholder approaches is to try and counter this and give people the feeling again, and especially the groups that I work with, that there is still change to be made, that they can be involved, that they are not powerless in the face of kind of the technological developments that are going on and the, you know, the documentaries that are out there about the terrible impacts that technology's having on our lives and things like that. I think that is a really important step, without falling into undue technological optimism about creating a very rosy future, but it is important that we give back this feeling of kind of empowerment/influence over the future of technologies.
And I don't have the best way of doing that, but I think that should be a priority to make the Internet ours, as in the world's and the end user's again, rather than in the realms of kind of dystopias or utopias that are governed by people who are very much not like most of the citizens of the world.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much. And with that, we go to David. David, would you like to have your final reflection? One minute, please.
>> DAVID SOUTER: Yes, okay. Let me come back to we tend to talk about multistakeholder, don't we? We have two models with multistakeholderism and we don't crit yeelts it. So, the purpose of multistakeholder involvement is to improve the quality of decision making and enable it to contribute more effectively to society. Sorry, can you hear me?
>> Yes, we can.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Yes.
>> DAVID SOUTER: Right. It disappeared from my screen. To contribute more effectively to society. We need to pay more attention to a number of things there. So, we need to pay much more attention to power structures and power imbalances, which Ellen was talking about. In particular, I think we need to recognise the vested interests within each and all of our stakeholder groups and how that influences the discussions that we have about governance.
We need especially, I think, to disaggregate the four stakeholder groups that we tend to talk about or we tend to have in our minds of governments, business, civil society, and the technical community. I think that's far too simplistic. It doesn't recognise fundamental differences, such as that of the supply and demand sides of the Internet.
So, if you look around you in the meeting in Riyadh, ask yourselves how many businesses are there from the demand side of the Internet, the people, the businesses who make use of it to do other things, compared to how many from the supply side of the Internet with their particular interests or pursuit.
And individual users are also much more complex. We need to consider them not just as consumers of the Internet, but also as citizens of their societies. There are differences between people here, but there are also differences within people about how they perceive their own context.
We need to reflect on the diverse needs and priorities there and the fact that they are often in conflict with one another, so there are conflicting needs and priorities from the Internet and its governance. And then, we need to reach out to that wider community of users in ways that they think are sufficiently relevant to them to bother taking part. In other words, if we want to hear from people, we need to listen to them and we need to create the opportunity for us to listen to them, which is also the opportunity for them to speak to us.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much, David. With that, I go to Amrita.
>> AMRITA CHOUDHURY: As reflections, I do agree with what Wolfgang mentioned, that we have a stake in the table now, but it should not be tokenism. We need to strengthen it so that at least it is heard with legitimacy, and that's where we need to work.
And I also agree with Olga. If you want the next generation to get involved in these issues, you have to work and act with them the way they look at it.
And another example I would give is when it hits the end user's interests, end users rise. In India, we had the three basics which came in. There was a huge furor from the end user community, civil societies, and it was pushed back successfully. So, when it matters and when people understand that their interests are at stake, I think they work. So, you have to create the narratives so that people understand what they would lose if they are going with it.
And for the younger generation, they use technology, they take it for granted. But what they miss out, or what are the risks or what are the trade offs they are having? I think you need to explain it to them.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Carol?
>> CAROL ROACH: I agree with what David was saying. We need to evolve the multistakeholder processes that we have, and it's something that we're looking for trying do with the IGF. Collaboration needs to be more effective. We need to be more result oriented. Now, not a result for one particular stakeholder, but we need to come to some agreed set of objectives, and then aim to meet those objectives. And each stakeholder has a different objective, but if we could come to an agreement, then it's good.
You know, one of the persons from the media, they came to me and said, oh, I'm so glad that the IGF finally recognised media as a stakeholder. And it came out from one of the meetings that we had. And when you look at it, you know, where does media fit? Are they private sector? Are they civil society? But they have a different angle, and they have a different perspective. They have different interests and they have influence. So, we do need to look at how we categorize stakeholders, so we need to be more flexible. We need to evolve the model and to not only look at the issue but look at the interests and the influence that persons, even end users have.
>> PARI ESFANDIARI: Thank you very much. I think we had a very insightful conversation here. And as we conclude, I want to emphasize the critical role of the multistakeholder approach in navigating the complexities of the rapidly evolving digital landscape and the importance of end user's participation in shaping our common digital future.
The upcoming WSIS+20 review is a pivotal opportunity to reaffirm this approach, ensuring that end users' perspectives remain at the heart of the Internet governance decisions. With that, thank you all for your time and comments to this shared mission. Thank you to our panelists, invited community leaders, and participants, both online and in person, for your engagement and thoughtful contributions. Together, let's continue to advance for an Internet that reflects the needs and aspiration of all. Again, thank you to support group, thank you to technical community, and thank you to IGF. And with that, we end this meeting. Thank you.