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.
***
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the session. We're starting two minutes late. Which is unforgivable. We're in day three. I'm from South Africa. Currently with the Association for Progressive Communications. This workshop has been organised by the Global Network Initiative and a lot of other partners. None of them are here.
(Audio is distorted)
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: We want to discuss a topic that I've certainly been involved in for the sessions is IGF. To talk about the best practices, particularly how we can look at multistakeholder practices. I think the context and it was a document that was created in a way and it was really owned by all of the people that were part of the process. I'm going to ask some of the panelist. I'm going to stray a little bit from the script. Then also the global digital compact which become formalised at the summit of the future. In September this year in New York. Of course, it is the information society and consolidated.
Generally a good idea. In the case of the information society and Internet, it is non negotiable. You can't actually do anything really effectively in development and digital and Human Rights. If you do not have effective collaboration and participation from the private sector, the technical community, governments, and Civil Society. I know we don't always have them as a separate group. The academic and research community. Think tanks. And researchers all around the world. What we want to achieve, I want to check from Ramsha from JNI is online yet? Ramsha, I'm looking for you. I don't see you yet. Just to emphasis what the goal of the workshop is. Where are the gaps and what are the key challenges and what are the opportunities that we can take from all of these processes that I've just mentioned. To really strengthen multistakeholder engagement, using the IGF. And coordinating and synergyising how we strengthen multistakeholder engagement. I think what the guidelines told us is it is not just in the multistakeholder arena that we need to strengthen the processes. Fantastic. Flavia, welcome. It is also in the multilateral space. Just to get us started. I think also to make sure there's a level playing field. Everyone, I want you to I'm not going to I will open to the audience. I want people to raise their hands. I think we are on day three of the IGF. You've discussed many of the issues. I'm going to ask people in the room to interrupt. If you want to say something at any point, put up your hand. As soon as you are brief, it is fine. We can have a very dynamic interaction between the panelist in the room. Assuming that's okay. But I think let's just I want to start and ask Bruna. I said earlier that the NETMundial+10 has guidelines from those who created it. It might have gaps. Can you tell everyone what was NETMundial+10 and on the other hand, what are the strengths?
>> BRUNA MARTINS: It was in the beginning shifted by the Brazilians and by the governments. This year we had huge support from the government yet. In terms of the ownership, I think it is because it is sad for itself the challenge of addressing all of the gaps that we received from the GDC process and attempt to improve in that. There's guideline. They are a set of principles and process steps as a how to for affecting the patient in the multistakeholder and Internet governance and digital policy; right? And in the goal. In doing so we must look forward to implementing openness, inclusiveness, agility, and Internet governance, as well as the need for all stakeholders to be well informed. I think the ownership comes from that. It is the community bottom up initiative. It lies a lot of the success of the first addition of the initiative. Last but not least, it is addressing all of the gaps that we saw throughout the process. Thanks.
ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. I didn't introduce my panel. I was waiting for Flavia. Bruna is from Civil Society. She's a member of the multistakeholder advisory group. One of the people that organised the event that we're a part of. Also was on the just to jump in, it's become quite a buzz word. We talk about it. Some governments are cautious and some not how they use it. They are active in multistakeholder processes. What do you think governments should do to deliver on this promise and potential of multistakeholder processes? What do you think they are certainly in your experience. What do you think they are doing well and what do you think they are not doing well?
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you. That's a great question and difficult question to answer. I think government can and should play a vital role in assuring that we have inclusive and open processes. I think the main point is to ensure that all of the relevant voices are being heard and are being listened to and taken in to account. But the really difficult part is how can we do that? Where is our capacity to do that highlighted? Governments have a strong power. We can set details on who will be included in the room and discussion. This is a power that we should use to make sure that everybody can be part of the conversation. That means on one part being present in multistakeholder spaces at the IGF, the international IGF and regional ones and national ones. Being active in the processes. Making sure that governments are also there and it is not just other stakeholders talking in between themselves, being part of the conversation. But also making sure within other structures and other forums that where there's a space and a need to include stakeholder, we make sure they are all in the room with us. So I think that would be from the main role in the main possibility for governments to do. Of course, this is much easier said than done. There's a way forward. I think, at least, Switzerland tries its best to include all of the stakeholders in the discussions and conversations. Make sure that if we are planning a panel, we are not just inviting governments to speak. We are using our convening power as best as we can. So what there's more than we can do. I think we should push for that and include that in all of the processes. I think that's the main point that I would say here.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I want to ask you a follow up question. Anyone else is welcome to respond as well. What's the difference between a government facilitating multistakeholder corporation and government living up to its constitutional obligations for public policymaking?
>> ISABELLE LOIS: That's a good question. A lot is how does the government include the perspective nationally and how do they make sure it is included internationally. This is a distinction that's not easy to navigate. For governments within the country and then internationally. We have a very strong will. We have a lot of public participation at the national level. We do a lot of consultations. We have semidirect democracy. We vote on any issues. We have everyone being part of the conversation at the national level. This is something we strive for and work for. It is the international plain. This is where it becomes more complicated. Because, I mean, first we have to find an argument between government and stakeholders who should be included and how should we include them and what is meaningful and how do we make sure everybody is in the room? This is where I think that the stakeholder guidelines is a very useful tool to not just talk the talk, but actually walk the walk. It is a way for us to see what are the main questions that we should ask ourselves? How do we make sure that these principles that we find valuable and necessary? How can we use them? So what should we include? How should we include? How do we make sure if there's a power imbalance, we have thought about it and tried to mitigate it? It will never be perfect. We can do better. Now we have a road map on how we can do better. This is very useful. This is why it is such an important document to read and to include in our processes.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that response, Isabelle. Speaking from Civil Society and someone that does a lot of not all but a lot of my work in Africa, what you said actually I said mirrors many governments who have some reservations about the multistakeholder approach. It is not at the national level. It is when you get to the global forum there's more caution. It is exacerbated by the fact that many developing country governments feel fairly disempowered in global arenas. When they feel they have to not just be effective and influential to deal with the power and rich. What are the lessons? The MAG is a multistakeholder advisory group. It is supposed to be perfect. It's been going for a long time. How many of the IGF? 19th. What do you think we could learn from the IGF? You know, in applying the multistakeholder approach? What are we doing wrong? What are we doing right?
>> BRUNA MARTINS: I'll start by saying 2024 has been an inflection point. Years where the Internet governance space was all sorts of crazy or dynamic in that sense. Everyone was talking about GDC, packed for the future, what is going to happen with the IGF. What happens with the IGF and many of those things. How all of those missions or questions would be integrated; right? We had a lot of meaningful processes. We had a lot of all of them taking place at the same time. I think that some of those spaces, like the GDC, in my personal opinion, they have presented a rather serious risk for the way that we do things at the IGF which is bottom up multistakeholder and ensuring everyone has a say and microphone above all; right? And coming back to the IGF, I would say this is the main value of the space. Everyone is here gets to come here or gets to join sessions remotely, given that the remote participation is working. At the same time, this is a space that relies a lot of the diversity of perspectives. Not just in terms of the difference of opinions, but the difference in terms of backgrounds and expertise. This is the space that you hear people from the Pacific and Brazil like me or Tanzania and talking about different aspects around Internet governance. To me, that's one of the core aspects. The big diversity around stakeholders and perspectives and backgrounds and so on. I would say this is what makes the IGF one of the primary spaces for Internet governance and digital cooperation related issues. Over the course of almost 20 years, the space has been leveraging on all of the vast community experts and expertise in order to move forward and evolve the model. Back to the channels that I would say to put it more bluntly, I would say that the attention to what they have catered between multilateralism and multistakeholderism is one of the challenges; right? That's because there's and there's always been some member states for exclusive mechanisms. The point is that we need to balance the true expectations. It is what the guidelines try to do by making some waves or signalisation. One should not overcome the other. We should achieve for balanced spaces in the sense. Maybe I'll stop here. Thanks.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much. Flavia, let's go to you. Did you want to oh. Thanks a lot. Flavia is from Meta. Meta has really invested in time and people in participating in many of these spaces. Picking up from what we said about this being the year of the inflection point. We have the culmination of the future. We have the process underway. How have you participated as a campaign in the process? From your perspective, what works and what doesn't work?
>> FLAVIA ALVES: Thanks a lot. I'm the director of international services for Meta. I've been doing the track of stakeholderism. From the 19 IGF, I've been on behalf of them. A good chunk. We believe it is important to have a level playing field that all stakeholders should be part of the processes. We are in the back. It is diverse and multilateral and stakeholder processes. If we go back to before, there was a clear division between stakeholder and uniliterallism and what do we deal in the stakeholder as opposed to laterallism. One of them was Internet governance. That's why the IGF was created. It was supposed to be on a level playing field. All of the Civil Society and private sector and non international organisations would have a voice. Right now the processes where private sector might not have had voices, including the communities and Civil Society. We are looking forward to see the digital compact implementation is going to be. The reality is through the process which is a multilateral process. There's a difference between the intellectual processes that want to have from other stakeholders and the processes. In the case of most processes, I believe that the global digital contract in the community. We participated at the plus 10 in the past. There was a process for consultations and processes that were taken in to account. The final document for folks to have comments on. Everything is in the web site. They have the community in the Civil Society and part of the spending process. It is part of the facilitators and concentrations.
There's the IGF before the recess. I would invite this community to work closely together to see how and what do we want from WSIS + 20. Are we going to be able to be viewed upon what the WSIS+ 20 has agreed on the resolution? Are we open for the comments? With issues, do we want to address as a community and multistakeholder community. What are the shoes that are there that we should be readdressing now. There are issues that unfortunately I think we're going to have a lot of challenged conversations to be able to agree on it. To say the list. One on Internet governance or another on humor rights. However there's the renewal of the IGF. I think we obviously want to renew the IGF. I would assume. The question here for this group is also how do we make the IGF more even more relevant for others to have more government present and more Civil Society and even more colleagues of ours in the private sector present. Meta is committed to IGF. Through the years as the IGF changed location, et cetera, we increased our participation back again after COVID. This year we had a global, diverse delegation from all over the regions, but Europe. Asia, Latin, as well as content experts. We had safety and privacy and AI talking to stakeholders in every corner. We believe it is important for us to exchange. The power of IGF is the convening power that it brings. I hope we can continue that spirit and we can continue to invest in that processes. But together. If we go inside, it is just as governments sometimes when we're working. I think the other communities we should come together. The tech community and Civil Society and private sector just as we do at ITU. It is moving where we all have a sit. I guess I would stop there. I could go for years.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: It all makes sense. I think what I don't hear is what does it mean to not work in silos? What does it mean to all come together? Do we all just come to the IGF? If it is a multistakeholder space, we all sit together. We talk together. But does it make it do we really effectively able to engage about this is where there's a common interest. This is where there's a divergent interest. Do we come together as sectors? Or as individual companies, governments, individual Civil Society Organisations. I think sometimes we romanticize the process. What we forget those of us who were there at time, we had bureaus. We had a Civil Society and private sector bureau and governments, of course, have to negotiate with one another. We had within Civil Society; we had to reach a consensus. We were given the space by the WSIS and forced to reach a consensus. The consensus statement was given to governments. Governments took the consensus statements quite seriously. The same thing with the private sector. You did not have individual companies submitting their views. Businesses had to work together to decide the priorities. We sometime forget that. You have effective multistakeholder collaboration. You need coherent stakeholder processes within those stakeholder groups. I think the same applies for regional multistakeholder processes. For Africa to have a strong voice in the global IGF or in the WSIS, Africa has to have a strong regional multistakeholder process. It needs the strong regional multilaterally process. I'm just trying to unpack a little bit how do we I think we all believe in the modality. We believe in the multistakeholder approach. It is trying to make us do that. My final challenge is it takes resources. We look at multistakeholder approach as a cost effective approach. We put everyone in the same space. Is effective multistakeholder processes not all actually quite resource and time intensive? I have not challenged the panel. I want to open it to the room. Also online if there's anyone who wants to ask a question. Or make a comment. We'll go back to the panel. Can we have a mic? Excuse me. The volunteer on her cell phone in the back of the room. Excuse me. Can you help us with the microphone please? Thanks, Flavia.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you so much.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Introduce yourself. Be brief.
>> AUDIENCE: Yup. Okay. My name is T.J. I'm from Tanzania. I really thank you for asking how and what does it mean working in silo? We know that governments want to work in silos. What about the other stakeholders? Are there that's does are there any kind or aspects in the stakeholder in their work? Do they consult with governments? This is a very important point. When we speak about multistakeholder model, we speak about it for all of the stakeholders. Not only for the governments. Thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Any other comments? Thank you. Go ahead. From the floor.
>> AUDIENCE: Hi. I'm Mena. I wonder whether or not we're being honest enough about the relationship between government, Civil Society, and the tech. Feels like the only thing that is are making things move is litigation and certain regulations that threaten fines or extreme reputational damage. Sometimes I'm just not sure that these kinds of forums are raising the issue. I think it changed. We have billions of dollars of lobby funds trying to move the needle so the regulations don't happen. I'm not saying they are wanting a coherence. Just to give an illustration of what I'm talking about. We've seen that when it comes to online safety, protection of women and children, the kinds of thing that is are on many panels here. This information has been known by the companies for a long time. They are waiting and the global south is not benefiting for any of those changes and protections. I try to see whether or not the multistakeholder model isn't being threatened about this. Are we being honest about that? Thank you.
>> AUDIENCE: Can the panel speak to the complementation of the GDC and the IGF. Are we seeing the practical element? It is with the IGF and what's the best place to implement the GDC so there's an action oriented outcome within some of the principles within the document for more safe Internet. I'm just building a lot off of your question there. Where we can see some of the impact from multistakeholderism. Because it is mentioned earlier with the resource constraints that's easy when we're all kind of coming together. This would be the most appropriate to add. Thank you.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks. We have one more comment from online. Then I'll ask you. Let me just see if I can unmute you. I can unmute you. Please go ahead and introduce yourself. Someone with deep track record in the multistakeholder process.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. Can you hear me?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Can anyone else hear Manal?
>> AUDIENCE: Hello?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: We have a remote speaker that's joined to speak. We can't hear her.
I have unmuted her.
>> AUDIENCE: Hello? Can you hear me now?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Manal, try now.
>> AUDIENCE: Hello?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Sometimes they are speaking, but we can't hear it. Manal, you can type your comment. She's speaking. We can't hear you.
Let's see if we can unmute. We have one more question in the room. Manal, just type your comment. I'm so sorry we can't hear you. The remote participants can hear you. Those of us in the room can't hear you. Whose hand was it? Please go ahead.
>> AUDIENCE: Yes. I'm Aziz. I want one quick question about what mechanism or criteria can ensure that multistakeholderism is toxic to ensure?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: That's really tough. That's a tough question. It is okay. I think Manal says we should go ahead. I do ask the technical team to try to make sure our remote participants can participate. Yes. Quite a wide range of reactions there and challenging questions. Who wants to go fist?
>> BRUNA MARTINS: I'll go to Mena's point. Brazil has gone in to policymaking and some of those things. But again we must not conflict the issues; right? The IGF is not a regulatory body. The IGF is a convening space for the discussion of ideas and
>> That doesn't have
>> BRUNA MARTINS: They are unmuting everyone now. Can we please cut it off? Let's just say the IGF has the general or initial idea for being the convening space for different thoughts and approaches.
>> Ah ha.
>> BRUNA MARTINS: Can we please stop the interference on the microphone? But in any case, Brazil has been implemented and just for cultural examples. E have the civil rights more for Internet and also the data protection act which were all discussed and co written by a group of stakeholders that were convened by the rapporteurs in the parliament. The main idea was to make sure everyone had the position. In the points that I always kind of mention when there's the rest at the table, is that when we talk about policy processes, governments talk to business, because they have the financial interaction. Governments talk to other stakeholders and technical communities because of the different interest. There's nothing that makes them talk to Civil Society. Depending on where you are coming from and what country that you are going to. Obviously, if you master the participation mechanisms and so on. That's one thing. There's nothing that obliges governments. It is bringing civil coat and making sure there's not a financial interest. They have the need to include everyone above all. That's what I go. Yeah. I'll stop.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Flavia?
>> FLAVIA ALVES: All right. Thank you. There are a couple of issues that I would like to address. Picking up on last one. We get it first. First of all, we as Meta are highly supportive for harmonization and approach of the key critical issues. We also comply the regulation globally around the world. We appreciate processes that are either interoperable or harmonized. In the sense right now you might be very familiar with the global, digital, and the GDPR. Also EAUI act, the digital services act, or digital market access. They are all of the processes that we were part of the process that they were implemented and they were development. Now we are working together with governments to try to implement them as much as possible. So I would say we are supportive of regulatory making processes that are open and provide processes for us to provide our comments and together develop documents or regulations as we said. Meta has always been proactive, supportive of the regulation, particularly because we don't want to be the ones trying to have the term of what we should or should not have in the Internet. On the safety here at IGF, we have giant safety group that's been here for years. I think right now it might have closed in that. We developed a community that should have continued working together on safety and matters and have several different groups addressing online safety. Particularly child safety issues. I can send you some of the details. My digital safety person is around here too. That's something that I wanted to make sure you understand. This convening helps us developing the community to understand what are the issues and how can we address it? Together with the companies. We have several other groups as well. From the IGF perspective and your comment, I agree that sectors need to together come up with processes. For me I cannot picture, because I wasn't at WSIS. I cannot picture another process. The first and second. It was NETMundial+102015. I remember having everyone on the different level. We had to come up with a single document. With government on the same level. The document exists. We review it last year. We should use it based for other processes. Perhaps that's where we want to go.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: In fact, an interesting thing about NETMundial+10. Imagine a room like this. It is very, very big. Then you have different microphones. One for Civil Society, one for government, one for business, one for the technical community. They have to line up, but, of course, there are only so many speakers. Civil Society has loads. As a result, we as Civil Society had to negotiate. We had a WhatsApp group and Google Doc. We could prioritise. We had three opportunities to speak. We had to prioritise. We did capture the combination of stakeholders having to collaborate as well as be on a level playing field. You know, just I'm going to give the microphone to Manal. I want to say isn't the true test to respond to the comment for the search for common ground. Isn't the true test of the multistakeholder process it should survive if there's serious disagreement on how to regulate and what to regulate by whom? Isn't that ultimately what shows us the multistakeholder processes has matured. We don't abandon it when we reach points of conflict. Same governments. That have different perceptions and different understandings of Human Rights and compliance of human right. Should we stop working with them? Because we disagree? That's another challenge. Manal, I think it works now. The team has sorted the problem. Please go ahead and share your experience.
>> AUDIENCE: Hello, everyone. Can you hear me now?
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: We can.
>> AUDIENCE: Excellent. Thank you. Just very quickly, I was struck by your comment that governments partner with Civil Society.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Please introduce yourself.
>> AUDIENCE: Sure. This is Manal Ismail. I work at national authority of Egypt. I've been participating in almost all of the IGF meetings and in ICANN I participated to the Egypt on the governmental Advisory Committee in different capacities, lots of which was chairing the committee. And just wanted to share the experience of government participation to the Advisory Committee on ICANN and I was triggered by your comment, Andrea. Governments collaborate and partnership with Civil Society and private sector at the national level. But they are more cautious globally. I think this could be attributed to. If I'm participating in the individual capacity, it was more easy and more flexible to just speak my mind. When someone is participating on behalf of the country. It is more difficult to speak up without really being prepared and consulted at the national level. We started the very first meeting I tried to participant to. I found the room was closed a key. So it was a really closed government meeting. But over the years, we started opening up gradually. We opened up certain sessions and then all of the sessions, except the communication drafting. All of the meetings are open. Including the communication drafting. I think some and a few things that help is, for example, sharing the topics and everything in advance. They can speak more freely in public. Sometimes the languages is a barrier. People are cautious in choosing every word. It is going to be attributed to the government and their country. I'm cautious of time. I wanted to share with you after we had a close meeting with a key, now we're having all of the meetings open. We are also engaging with other parts of other stakeholders groups at ICANN and thus benefiting from the multistakeholder nature of the organisation. Previously, we were meeting in silos. All of the stakeholders. But not in one meeting. I leave it at this. Thank you, Andrea. For the opportunity.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for sharing that. It is a good example of how one learns incrementally from processes. We have about 15 minutes left. We want to look at what role the IGF can play in capturing the learning and capturing based practices and applying them. I think we should also reflect. There's been a lot of talk about the global digital compact. I've also heard many people say it is one of the most inclusive and collaborative processes that has been in the UN General Assembly. I think I felt frustrated by it. I also sometimes would talk to the co facilitators and see how much additional work they had from normally just facilitating the negotiation between members of the UN General Assembly, they also tried to get in all of the other stakeholder input. It was in perfect. But there was a serious attempt. How do you think we can make these processes better? How do we use the Sao Palo guidelines. It can innovate in making us get away from the sort of happy, wonderful, multistakeholder community to having deeper engagement that produces more concrete policy outcomes that might not always be consensus based. They are serving the broader public interest in the best possible way in the Internet. Yeah. I know it is a long question. I know you've been thinking about this. You are in the spaces. Let's start with you, Isabelle.
>> ISABELLE LOIS: Thank you. This is very long. There's a lot of things. I wanted to add one point on what we've said before. It is very important. When we talk about inclusion, inclusion does not remove the power from the people in the room. They have more stakeholders and more people who are not removing from those who are there. This is something we have to remember and underline. This is the first little point that I think is important to highlight. What we can do and how we can use what has been I mean we have 20 years of experience of trying to be as multistakeholder as possible. Trying to be better. We have some guidelines on how we can make it effective. This is something we should use to not have moments where we believe the process is multistakeholder. We name it. We allow to be it. It is sort of the whitewashing just because we are using the buzz term and not living it up. This is a litmus test. Is this truly multistakeholder or cold process? This is one of the points that we can emphasise on. For the IGF specifically, it is difficult to see what it could do. Probably many ideas. One of the points I would like to highlight is on the messages. We have messages at the end of every IGF. These are not adopted by consensus. It is a summary. It is a good knowledge of what has been raised. I think we could do all. We could do much better in using the messages in other floors and bringing them and highlighting them. This was discussed. Issues were identified. Bringing them in the conversation where there might be regulation or decision making. IGF is not a regulatory party. This is very important to highlight. We are coming up with new ideas that might then just be lost in a document that's not read as much. This is something that we can actively and have the opinions. There are concretely written down. I think we should use it. This would be my point.
>> BRUNA MARTINS: I think I'll start with the idea for the upcoming host we should also make sure that the host country selection process takes in to account safety of participants. You know, comfort in participants and one community being press present. My stakeholder group is not present this year or present in much smaller numbers. And it is one of the main stakeholder within the space. 21 that's here for the first time. This space is much more lively. I do miss my colleagues from Latin America Civil Society and many other spaces in the broader conversation. Maybe looking at the IGF and making sure the host country selection takes into account of participants and so on is one thing. Lastly, I would just echo some of the guidelines. Not the guidelines but the suggestions issued by the working group strategy. Because we just issue a vision document for the IGF looking in to 2025. And a couple of the recommendations they go around making sure that the next year's events takes a lot of a couple of discussions on how to improve. Making sure the IGF has a track for follow up and implementation and brings in to a lot of the GDC follow up and implementation should the workshops and main sessions and everything that takes place. Also working on the development of relationships between the IGF and some of the WSIS partner institutions. Also continue some of the MAG discussions on the alignment. Last but not least, review and find the work models. I'll just wrap this by saying if we don't have every sipping the, you know, group and stakeholder group at table, it doesn't work. This goes both ways for Civil Society and private sector for academia and, you know, many other parts of the government and community. There's not a multistakeholder motto where we don't have one and like one of them. That's the IGF space.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: You want to make a comment. I want to act quickly. What the guidelines tells us scoped the issue that's being discussed. And based on that issue, identifying who is affected by that particular discussion. Then you bring the stakeholders. If it is about Meta and content regulation and gender based violence, you bring together Meta. You bring together feminist organisations. You bring together data brokers. Regulators and you bring together freedom of expression people. Because any kind of content regulation might impact on freedom. So you have to, I think, be quite focused and targeted as well. I think NETMundial+10gives you the steps to help do that. I said you can interrupt us. You can. Get up and fetch your own microphone. If I get up, I'm going to drop something. Thanks, Flavia.
>> AUDIENCE: Hello. Thank you so much for the mic. I'm from India. I'm representing a Civil Society Organisation that's founded by me in 2016. We are working in India in the rural sector for digital literacy. My question is here how is the smallest skill? The second question is mind to the matter. Sorry for the question. I wanted to know that how the meta is dealing. Sometimes they are using the Facebook. I see certain messages that are not relevant. Somebody is targeting. How you are dealing with that. Yeah.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: You say that. Make your final remarks as well.
>> FLAVIA ALVES: Let's talk on the side of this. We have our head of safety here to discuss. I guess most of the points that I was going to make particularly with the stakeholder were made by the economies. Particularly, I think, one thing I keep hearing is we need to map the issues. What are theirs? This needs to be an evolving process. There's not room 7 and issues that we were discussing ten years ago are different from the issues that we were discussing now. We couldn't discuss the content. Today we have GSA and content. We have the UN permission. So I think we should take it in to account as we prepare for the upcoming. We have a process particularly the country with a host to make sure we bring stakeholders from all groups. My group is not too present here. We want to bring others to the place. In Norway, we also tried to make available the list of participation and participants earlier. Others are present. Also try to bring small business and small organisations, and small countries that are making sure that we have participation.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I will stop there. The national IGF is open to any organisation. It feels again we're scratching the surface of this. We should take the experience of the global digital compact. It is an important experience where a multilateral institution tried hard to be consultative. The results might not be what we are used to or expect from the multistakeholder space. That doesn't mean there wasn't good intention. It demonstrates how difficult it is. Let's look at the process and work with multilateral processes to make the processes that original from within the United Nations. You've outlined clearly how the IGF can become more effective. You know, my closing, this workshop was convened amongst others by a global network initiative. I want to quote Rebecca McKinnon. She was the person that was the founder of the global network initiative. She always says it takes different types of initiative. There's no one fix to all of this. There's no one perfect process. And if we look at how we are making progress and using the multistakeholder approach to have more accountable, democratic, inclusive, digital, and Internet governance, it takes all of these different types of processes. It is the imperfections of all of them together. I think sometimes that really makes us be more effective and more inclusive. Thanks, everyone, for joining us. Thanks to our panel. Thanks to the remote participants. Sorry about the tech issues. Thanks very much, Manal, for your contribution as well.