CITI Governance - NETmundial +10: Opportunities and Challenges for Multistakeholder Global Internet Governance

11:28AM Dec 14, 2023

Speakers:

Nigel Hickson

William J. Drake

Mike Nelson

Wolfgang Kleinwächter

David Allen

Keywords:

multi stakeholder

process

stakeholders

governance

government

icann

internet governance

people

brazil

meeting

internet

discussion

years

participation

procedures

principles

wolfgang

question

working

challenges

like we're at 1030. So

hello, everybody. Greetings from New York. I'm Bill Drake. I'm the Director of International Studies at the Columbia Institute for talent information ziti which hosts this seminar series on a monthly basis on global digital governance. The seminar series started last year, we've covered a wide range of topics and videos. The transcripts of our previous sessions are all on the series website. If anybody's interested to see what we've done before. We'll be reconvening in January of next year. Continue and we'll be having sessions about things like the UN cybercrime treaty negotiations, international cooperation on governance of artificial intelligence and disinformation. The annual anniversary of the Declaration the future of the Internet, future the Internet that was done last year at the global digital compact initiative in the UN, and so on. So we'll be covering a lot of topics and we hope you'll be able to join us. Anybody who wants to can get on and you can always shoot me a note if you want to be added to the distribution list if you're not already on it. So today's topic, we're going to talk about the NetMundial plus 10 meeting that will be held next year. Maybe I should start with a little bit of history. Some I think a lot of the people I'm looking at so far who are online will know all this, but there may be some people who don't recall. So just to say that a decade ago in the autumn of 2013. We were in a period of kind of geopolitical ferment around the Internet governance, up to that point, multi stakeholder cooperation and having a bit of a moment coming out of the business negotiations, we had the creation of the Internet Governance Forum. Technical bodies, like ICANN were stepping up their game trying to improve their multi stakeholder mechanisms. Some organizations like the OECD in Paris are creating new mechanisms for multi stakeholder participation. Then the mood shifted. We had a large coalition of governments in the United Nations for enhanced cooperation negotiations to create a new anew and body a new UN body for Internet governance. You had a lot of complaining about the speed of the hyaena transition going on. In the US. We are the ITU is wicked negotiations where there are a lot of puzzles to extend that old Telegraph and Telephone treaty to cover the Internet, which led to a disastrous breakdown in diplomacy. And then we had the Snowden revelations of mass surveillance, which stimulated a lot of status responses around the world pretending Internet fragmentation, and worse we had we had the discovery that somebody in the NSA thought it was a good idea to tap the phone of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Which led her to then give a speech in the United Nations General Assembly in September calling for a multilateral mechanism to govern the Internet. So that got a lot of people freaked out. And then October, leaders of the various Internet technical bodies got together and released to Montevideo statement, calling for reinvigoration and multi stakeholder cooperation. And fighty chahti. The CEO at the time of ICANN flew to Brazil to meet with recess, and they decided to hold the NetMundial meeting. This was announced in October or April 2014. And the idea of a NetMundial was met with a lot of different reactions. There was skepticism, excitement, concerns, etc. But Brazil had a lot of street credibility given its successful multi stakeholder experiences with the Brazilian Internet steering committee and its role in international negotiation. So there was a big mobilization of energies and creative thinking to get people on board. We had the creation of new mechanisms like the one net coalition to try and stimulate inputs to the process. We had the illness panel chaired by the Estonian president until this on the future of international cooperation that put out a report on distributed governance networks as alternatives to Internet, international governmental mechanisms. And we had all this energy going on trying to like get the process together. And there was a kind of rush in the first part of 2014. To organize the preparations. Brazil stood up the organizational structures very quickly. We had online consultations with 180 contributions. There was a draft text put together reflecting those contributions, was posted for comment which got about 13 170 comments very quickly from people around the world. And then we had the meeting on the 23rd and 24th of April 2014, I think about 12 130 participants around the world, which was a very interesting meeting and kind of a new kind of approach to trying to do international cooperation on Internet Governance with hubs for remote participation around the world. These wonderful plenary sessions where we had four microphones and the government people had to wait in line it for their chance to speak alongside the technical community and academics and private sector and civil society. And we went through the the draft document and then had to have breakout meetings, drafting committees, which were a bit controversial, of course, everybody thought that somebody else was capturing the process, which is typical multi stakeholder processes. But at the end of the day, we ended up with a text that was approved by most of the people there, Russia, India, and Cuba did that sign off as well as some civil society people. And it was a it was a significant event. And we've had a lot of debate in the years since about just how significant it was. predicts, of course, say well, it's just a one off meeting. No big deal. Didn't really institutionalize any new processes that weren't going on already within the IGF and ICANN, etc. But there are a lot of others who felt that no, this has been a kind of a breakthrough in demonstrating that you could do multi stakeholder cooperation on broad Internet governance issues as an alternative to working through purely inter governmental processes and develop normative statements that capture sentiment of the world around some issues. So this was a big thing. We have a lot of debate in the years palabok you know, should some follow up happen and the Brazilians, led by CGI, br br got serious about this. We had discussions in Kyoto at the IGF meeting in November this year. And they announced after Kyoto that indeed, they were going to go forward to organize a meeting for the spring of next year, the 10th anniversary of the NetMundial. And so we're here, trying to have start a stimulating, broader, more inclusive discussion about what that meeting, do and what we could all get out of this international community. There have been so small initial planning meetings, but nothing on a larger scale where everybody got to weigh in so that's what we want to do and to stimulate that conversation. We have an excellent panel of participants are we Doria is an independent researcher and consultant. She served served on the ICANN Board of Directors. There's the chair of the GNSO Council and ICANN has been a member of the work UN Working Group on Internet Governance and working group and enhance cooperation, the IGF multi stakeholder advisory committee and so on, and she has long been active in the IETF technical environment as well. Wolfgang playing vector is Professor Emeritus of international communications at the University of Aarhus. He was a member of the ICANN Board of Directors, or the special ambassador for the NetMundial initiative, which involved in NetMundial is founder and chair of the European summer school and the Internet governance who was a member of the Global Commission on stability of cyberspace, and the UN Working Group in Internet governance, and he's joining us from Germany. Finally, we have Renato me, Ellie, who's the coordinator, the Brazilian Internet steering committee cgi.br And a special adviser to the Ministry of Science, technology, and innovation. Previously, Renata has been a journalist for 25 years and has been working on digital rights issues. And she's also currently a PhD student at the University of Sao Paulo some academic interest in training while she's running these big elaborate processes, so that's great. So what we're gonna do, we're gonna start with just a few minutes of background from Renata give us a give people a sense of what's the current state of play in thinking in Brazil about how this meeting may go, and then I'll go to the panel for integrated discussion. We'll talk about three kind of sets of questions until the top of the hour, and then we will open it up to dialogue with everybody in the room. So that's where we are. So okay, let's start Renata, if you could, then so could you just give us a little bit of an update on the state of play? In terms of the dialogues that you've been having, within Brazil and with the partners around the world? About how you how you're thinking right now, you'll scale this up? What it might look like, the ambition level, how can people engage and be really helpful as a starting point?

You have to turn Okay, okay, view.

Thank you. Thank you very much. First of all, now, I would like to thank for the invitation to being here with all of you it's a pleasure discussing these important issues involving the future of the midst mood, stakeholder governance and the challenges around the digital world. It's also a pleasure to see so many familiar faces, or names because not everybody has your cameras on but I see in while here some few

names and

faces that are familiar so it's it's some who are participating. We first to put Neptune gel plus Stan Oh, it fits. There are a lot of partners here with us today. And some of you are very reference not only for me, but for everyone. Who is on this journey of defending mode sector out processes.

As you mentioned 10 years ago,

we were together in some Paulo here in San Paulo. It's a very warm day today. Ahmed Zhao as a community of several countries, organizations and activists to discuss the challenges we had 10 years ago. Now,

with plenty of uncertainty

within the future of the governance ecosystem. We we are facing new challenges. So one of these challenges is, well our community has been skirting and participating in several different arenas and complexity in debates around this next five to 10 years. We have to two sided only a few will have the whispers 20 and the global digital compact we have this image of the future and all this process

or overlapping themselves

and we have different countries have been putting up their own legislations and discussions around the Internet and not only the Internet around all this digital you

age we are leaving

and he we don't know if all this process are converging. At

fact, I think they are not converging

and so we have this this problem may be that this this process, the fragmentation the discussion and in some way weakening the multifactorial participation. So, in this context, we have the stakeholders from the different interested in sectors demanding more and more transparency support and meaningful participation in these discussions and decisions. That affect absolutely every one of us. So

yeah, in this

in this context, again, we made some consultations, as you mentioned, with several partners and decide to hold an Atmel Jow ad hoc ad hoc event meeting in Brazil by the end of May April.

We are about the day two we are

designing in this days, maybe tomorrow or tomorrow. Or today 20 to 23 or 24 or 2829 A third of April, we are seeing this

today or tomorrow we are to decide this but okay end of April, to gather stakeholders around common agenda to define a concrete proposals for the future of the Internet governance ecosystem and the mooch stakeholder approach we are at this moment maybe we have a name, but we didn't decide this yet, but I'm going to share with you

the name till now is

global child net emoji helpless 10 global challenges for the governance of the digital world. Because for us, it's important to underline that there is no Gita without Internet and this separate discussion these two discussions is in my perspective, at least a mistake a very huge mistake. So we are proposing this title there. As I said, we are thinking in narrowly scoped events with an outcome. A be a final document, as we had 10 years ago with concrete proposals for the future and the role of mood stakeholder practices. And a key question for me and that we are discussing this yet is how we can improve the mood stakeholder process to be more effective and in a way that this process can offer concrete results. Recommendations for example, to the multilateral processes and government governmental decisions are taking place. We cannot close our eyes for this reality. We have this process occurring and the

participation of

mood stakeholder spaces have

a little impact in this

other spaces as not in the international level but in national level and local level. So we have to improve and we have to show these multilateral processes that we have meaningful contribution and an important contribution to the decisions that are they they made. And this is a key question for us.

I think to start is that

and we will discuss the other issues with in with you. I think it's okay for now. Right? Great. Thank you. That's very helpful.

So okay. It's giving a good sense of the timeframe April. You are doing that to match also the digital ministerial meeting of the G 20. So a lot of governmental people will be in Brazil at the same time. So, we should be able to get a good government participation, same time that that schedule may be challenging for some other participants. So of course, the important thing will be the quality of the remote participation. I assume you're planning very much a hybrid event and have been thinking about modalities to bring people in from around the world so that they can weigh in on any document etc. Right. Right. Right and about this is

important say that net Moon Zhao is not an official G 20 event to the and, but of course holding Atmel Zhao in the year in which Brazil is the G 20 presidency something that can give more visibility for to our events to not move out. And we are even working to ensure that net Munjal takes place close the meetings of the G 20. Digital Economy group. The idea inclusive is to holding together with the information integrity, trail events that will happen in San Paulo with us too. Oh In other words, when they digit when side event takes place and the other two days we will have Neto Zhao and of course it will be an hybrid event to fully give them the ways to people around the world participating in a dynamic and effective way even in online participation and view the previously in Atmel Jow already have online participation. So 10 years we have a more more and more technical possibility to to support this right back then we used

hubs in a couple of dozen countries. Now everybody can do it from their desktop. So I hope that you will also encourage the G 20 To think about more inclusive remote participation. But okay, by the way, I managed to misspeak already because normally we started 11 o'clock Eastern time and today we started a half hour early. So I misspoke we will open that to discussion at in 40 minutes at the half hour. So let me turn to the panel then. So let's start with a discussion, the context of the rationale for that this and that they're thinking about the what's going on in the multi stakeholder environment as we were a decade ago, clearly, like then we seem to be in kind of a governance Polly crisis. There's a lot going on internationally both in terms of intergovernmental negotiations that are problematic like the Cybercrime treaty, the global digital compact stuff, etc. There's a lot of industry consolidation and misbehavior that people are concerned about. There's inflammation disorders, expanding state controls, interstate rivalries, Internet fragmentation, you name it, we have a big complex environment going on. So I asked the panel and we could start with Aubrey, if you want to what geopolitical developments should the NetMundial plus pin responsive How can the How can this process of doing multi stakeholder thing contribute in your view, to the geopolitical situation we face? Every and then Wolfgang and we're not if you want to join us to

bill and thank you Renata.

I was actually quite happy to hear about how it was being looked at and how it was, you know, sort of looking at the global challenge and focusing on how we do governance. One of the things that I think has happening with all these efforts, almost every one of them is saying that to some degree. It is multi stakeholder. I mean we have everything even on the multilateral side, where people talk about participants or a multilateral ism or inclusive multilateral ism, or we have multi layer governance, are we any number of times and every even within multi stakeholder? There's any number of models, and we constantly have people pointing at well, you're not really being multi stakeholder. Well, well, you're not really being multi stakeholder and something like net mon gr which last time came out with some models for hey, here's how to approach it folks, is to basically look at it and sort of say, how do we understand what we are doing in multi stakeholder or a multi participatory or use whatever names we want, so that we can actually show that we're all moving towards a goal of greater participation in all of these subject areas, and how to perhaps get people because I've been wandering lately between this effort, that effort and the other. And there's real confusion about what is the participatory model? How do we work it? How do we understand it? How do we participate in it? How do we connect it to democracy? How do we enter support democracy? Everyone talks about lately, democracy needs participation to be supported. And then how do we connect it to the multilaterals, et cetera, in terms of making sure that it fits making sure that we have interfaces, all of that requires a better understanding of our model? The last and I'll stop at a second at the last Monday, ah, there was a real effort to sort of give some indicators of if you want to be multistakeholder. So now look at first of all, what effect has had had and then how can we build on that to sort of least stop everybody from finger pointing and take? You're not multistakeholder? We are, but rather to the point of, well, yeah, you're doing a multi stakeholder type process here at this stage of the process, but at this stage of the process, you seem to be abandoning it. Maybe you could do this. Maybe you could do that or at least understand the picture we've all got. So I think that's where I would start with that is, let's figure out what it is we're actually doing in a governance model and how it fits the multilateral, the democratic, and even the non democratic. How do we deal with that? From the multi stakeholder or whatever name we want to give it process?

So I agree, I think that's really helpful. I pay

attention to models of cooperation. It's really important especially now, in such an era of inter governmental plus, where so many processes seem to be inter governmental with a bit of multi stakeholder consultation, rather than the kind of multi stakeholder decision making processes that we were looking forward to a decade ago. Well, that consultation

is multi stakeholder process, and it shouldn't be belittled. Yeah, that's right. Absolutely. Well,

Ken Hey, yeah.

Thank you. Thank you first of

all, Bill for arranging this and also for another giving us the background for the meeting and I just can't continue whatever he has said and Bill in everywhere in the Working Group on Internet Governance. And I remember that at the eve of the working group, the first working group meeting, we had a meeting in New York with Kofi Annan and Kofi and Undersecretary General of the United Nations, and this time, gave a wonderful speech. argued that you say we need a governance for the Internet. But that doesn't mean that the governance of the Internet has to be the same as we govern as our problems and his argument was, the Internet is an innovation in technology. And what we need is innovation in policymaking. And at this time, nobody had an idea you know what? Innovation in policymaking could be because the procedures for policymaking has been established decades ago, and we continue even in the 21st century in format of policymaking like we did in the 20th century, sometimes like in the 19th century. So the challenge for the week was to innovate policymaking. And the what we delivered at the end was the proposal to have a multi stakeholder approach to the governance of the Internet, because we think we're thinking at least in New York, in multilateral terms, so and stakeholder ism at this time was rather new, and what we did in and this was the task of the week was to to give a definition for Internet governance, and this definition. This was a proposal by the wiki made its way wrote by birth into the Tunis Agenda that means the definition is accepted by 193 governments of the world it's like the article 19 and the human rights declaration. So everybody's supported. And this is a big achievement, because this is the groundwork so that we have an agreement that all stakeholders has to participate in their respective roles. This is a little bit vague, vague element of the definition, but nobody can manage the Internet alone. So the problem and weak points was that we had no clue about the principles of multi stakeholder collaboration. And the procedures. What did that mean? 10 min one God.

You froze in the year 2014.

It defined our document for 214 we see all these principles. Accountability, partner policy development, openness, inclusiveness, all these are principles, which are not basic principle for multilateral cooperation. So this is really the innovation in policymaking but we what we

do not have our procedures for the interaction among

stakeholders. So when we left the chateau in the year 2005, and on the Lake Geneva, so we had a night session at two o'clock in the morning, somebody asked you the question, we have defined now the role of the stakeholders but what about the interaction and they tend decide the chair of the week except Oh, this will take a long time. We have no time anymore. And now so we this is really a missing point. We do not have procedures and this leads to confusion about how to implement the multi stakeholder model, because everybody has a different understanding what the multi stakeholder model is, as of the trust has said you know, some governments say if we consult this is already mild stakeholder but the definition of the 26 agenda speaks about sharing decision making and sharing policy development. So between sharing and consultation, it's a broad range. And so in so far, I think the time is right now, to be a little bit more precise. About the procedures for the interaction among the various stakeholders, what is, uh, how governments can work together, hand in hand, with the private sector with civil society, the technical community, we had a number of critics

you're freezing again. moleskin you need better Internet connectivity in Leipzig.

Let's give it a second.

See if he's going to

snap out. Or frozen. Wolfgang you are frozen. It happened to me earlier. It just

takes a little while to come back up. It's everywhere.

Okay, Wolfgang, why don't we Why

don't we continue on and come back to you and you can add those add more to those points. So what we're hearing so far though, there's a lot of discussion around just like inputting to what's going on and various UN discussions etc. But really trying to concentrate on multi stakeholder analysis kind of points, which I think like maybe for the the G 20 People who are gathering you know, their G 20 is kind of a some openness, they have the different kinds of groupings that advisory groups like the T 20, the b 20, and so on, that put together documents etc. But their process is not one that you would characterize as broadly strong multistakeholder decision making. So maybe if you're bringing people in for that to be an important orientation, to bring to the table

and I want to make

a few comments about what he threw in the whole thing and said, and I completely agree with them. Because what are these mood tutorial mood stakeholder processes like what are what are our procedures we don't have this. And so I think we need to better understand our model. And there is no one there is no only one model maybe we can have many, but we need a model or a procedures to offer to the community. And you mentioned the geopolitical challenges regarding this. I think we are facing a scenario in which part of the main economic and political boots in the world revolve. around topics such as the dominance of digital technology, and artificial intelligence, for example, everything today is about artificial intelligence. And in this context, whoever has more protagonism their ship and control over the governance process of these issues will have more power. So therefore, the discussion of the challenges of governance in the in a digital world is a key issue. It's it's even important to highlight that we live in earnest. We are living in a historic moment where democratic process themselves are being questioned. It is not just the mood stakeholder process. We are facing a failure of a representative democracy around the world. And maybe we have we all here this huge opportunity by discussing concrete mechanisms for how mood sector mood stakeholder governance process can have concrete impact impacts on other decision making spaces. And we will be making a contribution not only to Internet or digital governance but we know but to the democratic process themselves.

A bit very

huge goal but

in this in this way. I think it's okay, thanks for not I think those are those are all good points.

Well, why don't we talk a little bit about the process then, that you're going to go through the preparations and the decision making how to do that. I mean, those of us who were involved last time will recall you know that? No, cgi.br you Hartwood in the group you guys had to stand up all this stuff. Really quickly to get the organizational structures put in place and begin to take in inputs from around the world. It was really a huge push to get all that together. But people stepped up and really engaged from the community around the world. And then you had this on site process where we had to finalize things and that was not without some controversies, obviously, but time management issues and the need to end up doing a lot of things in these breakout text drafting groups that some people felt were not sufficiently open etc. So I guess a question in terms of process, then we'll turn to substance then we'll open it up. To everybody. But under the terms of the process of how to do this, what lessons can we learn from 2014 that would help make 2024 more successful, make it successful? And what have we learned in the past decade really about how to make multistakeholder procedures work in these kinds of ventures? An unrelated question if anybody wants to address it, I'm concerned about whether the global multi stakeholder community ecosystem is well organized and ready to engage the same level that it was back in 2014. We had ICANN and 5G really catalyzing a lot of things and pushing things together. And post wissens There was still of interaction between stakeholder groups. I'm not sure where we are now. Let's talk about those process X aspects. I'm not sure what Wolfgang statuses if he's back, but our review could lead off. Sure.

Yeah, first, I want to say how much I agree

with what Renato was saying in terms of the whole notion of multi stakeholder participation is kind of what is almost needed to bolster democracy at this point in time. When it's when it's happening. So many difficulties. You hear it in the press, you hear it in everywhere. We need more participation, going back to where to 2014 I participated in it I submitted all various you know, comments and statements to the text. I participated. Once I was there participating. I personally found myself lost. I really couldn't fit myself into any of the groups that were actually doing stuff. Somehow or other I had missed that formative stage and watch the process pretty much the way through. And one of the things that the process didn't recognize that has been discussed and discovered since then, is that any of these processes

Okay, am I still being heard or read but somebody needs to mute. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't doing

something wrong here. Um, we had we didn't quite recognize and we talked about multistakeholder as sort of the same at every level of the process. Not only do we have this problematic discussion with roles and responsibilities where no one can really agree on what anyone else's roles and responsibilities are. But we also don't look at those in a way that facilitates thinking about them. We don't look at the plan and this is something that you know, Bertrand de la Chapelle, wrote about at the

time of the NetMundial is, you know, you

have, I think he had various four to five stages of planning, through implementation, with decision in the middle etc. And that and each of those people have different roles and responsibilities. So that's something to keep in touch in touch with, and actually look at when, when designing the program, for example, when it got to the end of the program of NetMundial was just a bunch of

the same old same old deciders sitting at the table,

looking at the statements and making decisions on what was in what was out and what to change. They were illustrious people. They were good people. They did a good job and came out close, but it still did not feel

like a multistakeholder process. It felt like every other

process we have at the moment that everybody gets to do something along the way, but at the end of the day, the serious people will sit down and decide and and that is kind of what left us with some of the sour feeling that some groups had. I wasn't one I was it was good enough for me. But that, you know, somehow their views had been had been routed around that by bringing in the serious people who came out with a clean statement and used all the proper diplomatic words to cover over the differences of interpretation and meaning.

Then it it's something I just

saw, caught my attention and distracted me for a second. But um, that that we got to the end of the process, we couldn't pull. So I think that it's sort of we look at the process that's being built for NetMundial understanding the stages at the moment you're in that that first fully planning stage where it is almost a small group, and it can't spread out and it can't allow that much participation, but it has to start allowing that participation can't wait until January because by then two months will have gone by of Gee How do I contribute? How do I participate and also very short time so and one of the things that can come out of it is a better understanding of how roles and responsibilities fit into different stages of processes and understand that different processes have different drives for those if it's a technical process, you kind of expect technical people to be more involved at the end of the decision than perhaps in the middle. If it's a political economy, then you know, you may expect you know, academics if it's, you know, a country's policies, then you expect a government at the very end to have its elected people. So understanding the needs of a particular process. How do you then fit that to the various modalities and talents and roles and responsibilities at the stage of processes? So that's kind of what and I perhaps hand wave too much and got distracted too much. By hopefully I managed to get that across. We made sense. And you know, luckily, I mean,

it was certainly the case. And one thing I would say in terms of learning. If you allow things to get down to the end and unresolved then you end up having to do things in small groups at the end and you're not going to have the buy in you're not going to have the feeling of inclusion. And you're going to have the people saying somebody captured the process and kept, you know, net neutrality or mass surveillance or something out of the text when it should have been you know, so we have to calibrate the process in a way to make sure that don't end up jammed up at the back end. I would say Wolfgang, I think you are back right. Sorry for

that I was disconnected. So what I wanted to say is if Ned would yell 10 Plus, you know, what?

Close this

this this gap of which I described when I said we have to definition from 205. We have two principles from two Oh 14 And now to 24. We can be more specific about the procedures for the interaction. So I think ICANN was always a source of inspiration for the multi stakeholder model. And so in the early days of ICANN, it was totally unclear how the interaction among the various parties and stakeholder groups could be organized. So then it was organized by an advisory committees and liaisons. And in particular, the conflict was, you know what happened when the Governmental Advisory Committee gives a recommendation to the ICANN Board which is not binding for the ICANN Board and so we have developed over the years very well. Clear procedures for the interaction between governments and the ICANN Board with an ICANN that means if they have duck advice and got contents advice is rejected by the board. Then the board has to give her rationale and to enter into consultations in a PDP and ICANN in the policy development process. We have clear defined steps you know step one, step two, public input and then commence and then we have to give a rationale and the second iteration if you are sitting in a UN meeting, or in a NASA meeting, and you give input as a non stakeholder actor or as a non governmental actor, you have no clue what happened with his input. There is no procedure you know how input can lead to a certain impact. So because there are no procedures, so what I have seen in the last couple of days and consultations in New York you know when

they go breaking up Wolfgang you need a new ISP Okay. I'm going to fill

in until you are able to communicate and again listening. These are all really good points are making right now. Can I just spin back to the other part of what I asked though, people feel like the the global multi stakeholder community such as it is, is sufficiently organized and enabled at this point to respond effectively and provide the kind of potential engagement that's going to be needed to make this thing work. Well, I mean, we, we did have in the past a lot of communication between stakeholder groups and collaboration. My feeling is that that has kind of gone fallow and I don't know if anything's being done to read that at all. Have you ever thought about that? Yeah, I do. Um, first of all, a lot of that old structure

is still there and somewhat dormant, but but it's there. In some sense. You don't really necessarily want all of those organizations with all of their old you know, Silo based intends to be there because that was sort of organizations that were modeled around a very strict you when notion of now a multi stakeholder how stakeholders are are given roles and how they find their, their responsibilities. And so, they exist, the people are still there, but I think it needs to really start evolving. I think people if I look at all the many,

you know, different processes that I've been,

I basically for the last month since I became unemployed, I've been wandering around sort of visiting as many different multi stakeholder meetings and organizations as I could find that would let me in and and basically looking at the, the energy is there. There's a very small group of people that are like core and you see them showing up everywhere, but for the most part, you've got groups of people working on problems, they care about trying to do something that is participatory governance. They don't necessarily accept multistakeholder name because they think that's ICANN and nobody wants to do that. And you know, so many names are given to, but the energy is there, finding a way to sort of harness that energy to reach into all these other folks and say, you know, these problems that you're talking about, about how to do participatory, you know, governance, and I'm using that multi stakeholder governance is as good a time as any, is is is here. We're talking about it. We're talking about how to do it, we're talking about how to organize, we're talking and how to get these models to recognize each other and be able to interface with each other. People shouldn't use the word models to interface like I just did. But but you know, use words that make more sense. But but but that kind of No, I mean, I think in terms of models, forgive me, but you know, to basically look at how you take the elements of all of those, and and they are so similar when you step back from them, but it's it's all bottom up. So we've all come up with slightly different ways of doing very much the same things, because we are people and there are only so many ways we know to behave. So um, you know, I actually think the energy is there. It's how do you reach out and harness it is one of the things that that is, is the question, you know, and a lot of organizations give you a leg up GF as a platform, you know, gives you a leg up if they want to allow themselves to be used as as a communications means, you know, all of these other organizations many of us are members have different ones. You know, if I look at this audience, they all are accessible by those people, and so they can be reached but the energy is there. Is it organized the way we were organized?

10 years ago? No. Is is ICANN got to come in

as as the rich moneybags and fund the things. I doubt it, but who knows, but um, you know, but if someone else they're going to be able to fund it, et cetera. So there's all those questions and I wish the NetMundial people the greatest of luck, but but I do believe the energy is out there. And it can be drawn from how you do that. Very little time to figure it out, but I think it can be done. I've got faith.

Okay, or not. Do you have any thoughts

on what are you aiming for the discussions you guys are having? there how to cultivate and pull together people from the community, get them engaged? And we we this is a big issue for us, right? Because we did have a lot more set up and working together years ago than we do now. But there's still the latent and perhaps out there. You guys talked about how you're going to try and draw people in?

Oh, we are

discussing these things too. And I think I need to say that we are now establishing this global mood stakeholders coping team with some of people are here. And maybe we we need to discuss this in a more particular issue because now we are discussing the proposal of joint statement document to kick off the process. And the proposal including we are facing how we are proposing organize the structure of the committee's and then I think we have to discuss how we can mobilize and engage people in this process. But I have a comment about this because I think there is no perfect process.

I completely agree for all the

evaluations that Ebru and both scanned and we are discussing here we are a lot of challenges in how we engage people in how may process more transparency but we always we will always have some level of a symmetries between the participants because we will always have those whose are arriving for the first time and how to welcome this new people and at the same time, guarantee a more concrete debate in profound debate. And there is also this challenge in how to establishing the committee's that we were organizing the event and the discussions and they need to have a degree of representation and but they also need to have a limited number of people to be effective. And well. This process this process of definition and choices will always be perfect at some point but I think

we need to improve participation,

transparency and dynamism mechanisms and engaging more and more people. And I think we have a good experiencee in last net Moon Zhao and maybe we can study what we have. We didn't do this this yet. But how can we improve and I don't have the answers. Please, I don't have but I think we can in a collective way to do some answers. So please send us ideas send us propositions in how we can make this new process more participant and more relevant and that we are very, very open to new ideas. And I don't know this is this is always be a challenge for reprocess. Okay,

great. Let's let's have one last

quick round on the substantive aspects of the statement that we're thinking about. And then I want to open it up because we have a lot of dialogue going on in the chat. We have a lot of people here who have got a lot to say, have experienced and all this so I mean, one of the questions of course, when we look back to the 2014 agreement, the text was set of principles, including both process type stuff, and how they how you do multi stakeholder conduct meetings and substantive principles, including human rights, avoiding Internet fragmentation, things like that. Then we had a roadmap that suggested ways to pursue institutional evolution, strengthening the IETF globalizing the eye and building out sort of information sharing, Clearinghouse type functions and so on. So rethinking of the same kind of framework here, how much attention should go to reviewing what was done last time and how things have evolved with the issues that we addressed last time since then, how much should we be addressing a new set of issues? How do you balance those who has some thoughts? I mean, it's all very preliminary. We're just the front end of this process, but who has some thoughts about the substantive focus that would make sense? I'm gonna guess every you do. Start with you.

Alright, yeah, well, you know, you gave

the questions at the beginning and asked us to think about them before we came. So I've got some thoughts. Um, basically, I think we do need to review. I think part of being a second instance of NetMundial means we have something to rest on we did something came out with a statement. We need to look back and sort of say, How far was that good. How far did we use it? What what has developed from it? I don't think we should dwell on it. I don't think it should consume the whole time. I think there should be a statement that similar to this that comes out. I think, taking a roadmap. How did that roadmap work? Did we get to where we were going? Do we need a road new roadmap? Let's look at the roadmap, what roadmap makes sense for the next 10 years, five years, however many, you know, so I do think it is important to incent sense recapitulate the the the output, it had output that output has been quoted many times. Lots of us have brought it into discussions where people would have preferred not to hear of it has had importance, but I think we need to sort of take a little step by step and where and how has it been effective and understand those and then recreate a word, a roadmap going forward. So I think I'll stop at that point. But that's so yeah, we should write something and it should be a roadmap and we should look at the old roadmap and make sure it worked.

Forward, keep an eye on the rearview mirror and learn from it. And trace the progress right. I mean, basically, this makes sense. Wolfgang AI are you able to communicate

I hope will not be disconnected.

Again, so I can fully support average. Well, I think what is also an opportunity for them. And that model is to clarify this confusion in the language which has emerged since the NetMundial in 2014. So in 2014, we had a general understanding of Internet governance, this was governance in the digital age. But since that we have seen you know a wave of new language digital governance, AI governance, cyber governance, all kinds of new forms of of governance and this has created a confusion because you know, sometimes with what sometimes we sped intentions, people reinvented the wheel and wanted to create you know, new channels new tracks, new silos. So, you know, the, the basic things is the definition, which was adopted in Tunis was a very broad definition. And it included all technical governance issues, and Internet related public policy issues. So that means if somebody comes now with digital governance, my question is, is this Internet related or not? So I cannot see any problem, which is not Internet related. And it's a digital governance issue. And now we have this wave is AI governance. So what is different in AI governance? The basic principles which first has been adopted in in Sao Paulo 10 years ago, say are very relevant for AI governance, so there is no need to invent new principles for AI governance, probably you can make some adjustments and can identify you know, some additional specification

but this doesn't need that you governance

filled up by the digital data governance or data governance, cyber governance or AI governance and I think this clarification could be really one of the outcomes of the NetMundial plus 10. So said you have a better understanding. I think the big step forward in 2014 was that we had a better understanding of the principles. I remember the time before NetMundial when we had an OECD Declaration on Internet Governance principle, a council of Europe Declaration on principles, there was you know, India came visit Declaration on principles. So we had 10 or 15 documents on principles for Internet governance and NetMundial. summarize this, and clarify didn't say these are the global principles for Internet governance. And insofar, you know, we could to have we have now the opportunity to clarify, you know, the understanding that means to reconfirm the definition from the Junis agenda, and the principal from Sao Paulo and add procedures for mighty stakeholder, Internet governance. So we had two principles 10 years ago, and now we have a document and annex to the roadmap of whatsoever, which called the procedures for multi stakeholder Internet governance. So I think this would be really helpful. So this has not to be legally binding or very precise, but to make general clear, that it's not enough you know, to ask for input and then ignore the input. If it comes to negotiations you need some procedures, you know, get specific roles. So that means you have different issues. different stakeholders have to take the lead. Certainly cybersecurity is one issue. For governments, the domain name system is

for the technical community, so but more

recognized globally recognized procedures. Otherwise, you know, we end up in really what some people have already called into this government in ignorance or governmental programs and this will demotivate stakeholders and we end up you know, with a struggle we have a stronger stakeholder will try to get what they want. So this would be against the basic spirit of the multi stakeholder model and NetMundial can make a very strong contribution. And if the voice is strong, then it will be difficult for governments to ignore this in the GDC. Negotiations and the future of the day summit on the future in New York and September. Because the timing is very good for that module. Thank you.

I think looking forward to the

some of the future is an important linkage there. One thing I certainly hope happens. Well, we spent there were so many instances in the years after NetMundial when we couldn't get intergovernmental agreements to even like take note of the NetMundial statement, you know, I mean, there's often a refusal to acknowledge that this thing had happened at cetera. And the most could get was maybe recognized that it occurred kind of statements so it'd be nice to see like at the G 20, could actually, like, substantively connect somehow the NetMundial statement or whatever. But I think we can there's a lot of people talking in the chat so we can go to that pretty soon and just see if we're not uh, do you have something you want to add Lastly, and this trade lines trade lines very quickly.

First of all, at least till now, our idea is not review principles. After all, they are principles and should not change in a few years. But certainly to produce a new roadmap. I think we need a new roadmap for the and it's not any roadmap is a roadmap for the governance of the digital world. And, as I as Volkswagen said, we have to clarify this terms, this definitions, this concepts, and including IGF today already debates, all these topics. The Kyoto we have a lot. We had a lot of workshops to discuss AI to this good cybersecurity to it's good, all the things around the Internet and the so called Jesuit awards. So yes, this is the the idea till now at least.

Okay, great. So there's a lot of good

chat going on on the side with a lot of veterans that is a Philia, Fiona nonreactive Nigel, or Hey Victoria, many others chatting. So hope some of them will will choose to jump into the conversation conversation in the meanwhile let's go to folks who have raised their hands we have Mike Nelson and Jacqueline on we take two questions and then tour the top to respond to those who take two more questions etc. So my comments so Mike, thank you so much for organizing

this great people. Please introduce yourself

briefly and see you there.

Thank you. I'm Michael Nelson. I'm at

the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace working on technology and International Affairs and I'm one of the veterans as well and I'm going to be my curmudgeon self here. I'm not disagreeing with what's already been said. I very much agree with Aubrey that you want to take the take the positive things that came out of net Monday all but we shouldn't spend more than 45 minutes talking about that at the summit. At any ever meeting is going to be held. And I agree with Wolfgang that principles were very useful, but it's not going to be helpful. If we just focus on where we've been and if we try to do what all these other organizations are already doing.

I was very happy to hear Renato say that we're not going to

try to come up with some new document and I think we just have to avoid that. I would ask the question, what is it that this meeting at this time in Brazil can do particularly well? And I would argue that what they could do particularly well is to build momentum around how the Internet is used by government for government services for more efficient bureaucracy for fighting corruption. Brazil has been a leader in that for 20 years. They're going to be the head of the G 20. And India has been pushing its efforts in digital public infrastructure. There's a lot of momentum behind that at the G 20. And this this would be the perfect time to bring our community of people who work on Internet governance across the board to a meeting that says what is it the government's can do to make government use of our technologies more effective, and I would focus on the network technology. We don't want to go into all this new spaces. We don't want to do what happened to IGF and Kyoto where 20% of the meeting was about AI governance. And we just repeated the same meeting that's being held in 10 different places. So focus, look for the opportunity and digital public infrastructure.

Government will be a different sort of spin.

That's an interesting thought. Mike. Thanks, gentlemen. Let me again, digital

public infrastructure is government led infrastructure that can be used by others. So it's, it's not just, you know, mainframes, run by government. Right, gotcha. Okay, Jacqueline.

Go ahead. Everyone. Can you hear me? Louder? Better now. Okay,

thank you so much. Nice to speak with all of you and nice to see nothing Professor Glasser again, my fellow Brazilians here. I want to talk a little bit about the G 20. because Brazil is now assuming the presidency for next year. And I think it's very debatable with it is a multi stakeholder process in parts because of the engagement groups, or it's all about lateral mechanisms. But the engagement groups as you mentioned, previously, like the T 2014, thanks to the C 20. For civil society, the business 20 For business anyway. I think it's a possibility for engagement of non state actors. And I'm speaking on behalf of their practice Brazil. We are a nonprofit that works with digital rights here. In Brazil, and we were just elected as co chairs of one of the task forces of the T 20. And this task force is called inclusive digital transformation. And I think it's also debatable what we understand for inclusive since we are talking about this participation in this kind of processes. But we are seeing that this giusto issues they are a growing process in the last two trends on the last like five years, because initially they were like groups talking about the specific topics as education and the future of work. And now we'll expand it to Internet governance issues like Professor clay vector was saying, we have a lot of names and different concepts, but we have this inclusive Digital Transformation Task Force that deals with meaningful connectivity with artificial intelligence, regional governments with Blackstorm around regulation, data protection, cybersecurity, anyway, a lot of topics. So I think the challenge here is for us to make this coordination we just have this task force within the T 20. But among all the engagement groups because we have transversal issues we have like the s 20 of science test versus principles to discuss artificial intelligence. So if we were able to make these recommendations together like similar recommendations from different engagement groups, we have better chances of these recommendations to reach the sharpest track and the ministerial track of the 220. So I'm also taking this opportunity to invite all of you who are in think tanks or in academic institutions, to submit abstracts to the tea to any Brazil because they are already opened the call for submissions until January 29. We are collecting the submissions this policy briefs on these topics that I mentioned. I will put the website here in the chat. And I hope we can have great submissions to discuss with other engagement groups and to bring this to the high levels of Digi 20. That's it for now.

Thanks very much, Jacqueline. Okay, so panel,

additional public infrastructure and role of governments and the G 20. responses to those points and then we'll go to some other questions. Yes.

Go ahead. They were both interesting ideas. I think.

They're different, though, than what was being suggested. And they're there yet again. specific topics. And as opposed to the more general topic of governance itself, as opposed to No, so I think they're both very valuable to do, but it seems like it's a different focus than what was being spoken. Of, in terms of the modality is that the procedures that how we take we did the previous time and one job and make it more useful to now Now yes, it should be useful to the G 20. In a sense, and it should be useful to the digital public infrastructure, though I do find myself concerned about the the government centrality of that topic, but But still, I think that whatever, unless I totally misunderstood what was being talked about. It seems that each of those is kind of following that trend at the IGF. Here's a good topic of something we should do. And and and I thought that this was going to focus more on the how we should do all those things we should do. So I'll stop

my process. Will be are you

able, please

comment, I think he

the G 20. Engagement groups and say

create a mention of these engagement

groups in the G 20. Was came from the inspiration of the mighty stakeholder model when they established his groups, because the reason was, we need the wisdom and the knowledge of various groups, which and this wisdom and knowledge is not available in the government's. So that means it was a very selfish thinking of governments because we have only limited knowledge, sometimes limited wisdom, and we're aware of a lot of other groups. So let's benefit from this input. So that's the idea of the cheat when the engagement groups I was involved when in the G 20 engagement group of think tanks when Italy was we had at the University in Milano, a wonderful meeting, but also here I realized and it's good if the engagement clubs deliver, but then you have no knowledge, you know, what happens with your deliverables. So there is at the end is a big final report about the ci 20. And just say, you know, it was great that we had this deliverables, but I think this is a very good point. To to push for. further enhancement of the procedures was for interaction among the stakeholders, what I mentioned, mentioned a little bit earlier, and then so far, I understand these are two processes chi, 20 and NetMundial. But you could have synergies and profit, you know, from it could be inspiration for both processes, if you manage it good. So that's a recommendation to our Brazilian friends. Well, I assume that you've been

thinking a lot about those synergies since here. You're trying to basically hold the meetings at the same same time, right? Yes. Well,

I completely agree well with Jackie Lynn is sad and both again ever but I think the G 20 is a very very particular process in the area of a geopolitical dialogue. And I think the call Jacqueline made is very important, but I don't think that we should have a specific focus on the G 20 agenda. But of course as I said, net mon Zhao can benefit from these processes, just as our event can end up contributing to the joint process. I think it's well we can find some synergy this

process, and I also only

to comment what Mike said, and what I could say is that of course i i appreciate your contribution, but I think our task is to have more protagonism in decision making spaces be heard to be considered in all government and multilateral processes. I think we should not focus our event the NetMundial plus Stan on telling government how they should use the Internet but on how they should take music mood stakeholder process into account when making decisions. And if you can do this, we naturally do the other thing that what you should do with the Internet. So I think the first approach is how we can be listen and the second is we are be listening we can tell them what they have to do what in our perspective, so I don't know if I made myself clear but that my eye perspective about this. Okay, great, quick reply

from my condolences. Go to new questions for Nigel and then we'll get some other people that Yeah, Mike. That was very clear or not I

think I wasn't clear. I see this as the multistakeholder. Counter counterpart, while the efforts that are going on around digital public infrastructure, and digital public infrastructure doesn't happen with more effective in and without more effective Internet governance. Particularly if you look at the authentication layer, which India has been a leader in. They're getting other countries to use their universal payment system, but they have to make them interoperable. I mean, we have a whole host of Internet governance issues that need to be addressed. And right now it's mostly government's talking to governments because our community is not engaging as much. But I hear a lot of good things here. And I think the other word I would leave you with is techno legal. This is a favorite phrase in India. Go get things built, then address the legal issues. That's how they've been successful. If we do this, right. We will infect DPI thinking into all these different governments who will take part in next Monday, all and the result will not be a grand treaty. It'll be 75 new countries engaging in some very exciting projects, which will drive great things. So I love this idea of focus on the How can happen.

Thanks, bye. Alright, so let's go new questions from Nigel and hardy. Yes, very much and good afternoon. It's great

to great to be able to take part in this just three very quick points. Really. And the question one, two, the question posed in the chat how government's going to back this? Well, you know, government's never come out with a clear position for a while perhaps. But, you know, certainly from the UK perspective, I think the timing of this NetMundial plus 10 and the certainly the discussion we've had today, feels one with a lot of optimism that we can, you know, fully support this because this is just something that is really important. The second point is the synergy with the G 20. I think is is really crucial to to be able to for Brazil as the host of both events to be able to say that to the G 20. That was a real spirit of wanting stakeholder cooperation here in terms of the future discussions on the on the Internet evolving from what we had in the West is plus 20. In the West this onwards you know, the, these things must evolve as so many people have said here, and And thirdly, the, in terms of the multi stakeholder environment, yes, as people have said, I mean, the you know, it's changed enormously, but it's I mean, we, sometimes I have to, you know, we have to slap ourselves here in the UK, if you like, you know, we talk about civil society in the technical community. Of course, we do, but, you know, when we look at some of our consultation groups, academic scientists, all sorts of different people come along to the to these meetings now and it's much wider than the traditional communities. So, really, great. Thank you so much for what Brazil are doing on this. Thank you. Okay, great. So

Nigel's with the UK Government, we should introduce ourselves. And speaking of governments, let's go next to the Swiss government. All right. All right. Hey, please introduce yourself. Exactly.

Thank you, Bill, for pickoff us

with government. So first of all, I can promise that my minister my president will be net Monday. Now. I'm joking, but we are supporting this process and we will see how high we can go in the hierarchy. So that's the first point. And of course I think Ambassador Snyder will be delighted to go to NetMundial dollhouse if you schedule Al Asad. Second point is, I very much agree with what has been discussed on focusing on the how I think it's very important. NetMundial was a really a benchmark in having multi stakeholder cooperation, developing outputs. And we can learn a lot from from that experience. We can develop at net banja plus 10 sort of gold standard of how to do things and RFC of RFCs, a protocol of protocols multistage consensus way of doing things, things that could serve as an inspiration for those places like the IGs where we still don't know how to do a recommendation in that setting. For instance, and it can also serve as a litmus test for those who call the processes multistakeholder but do something very, very different and are just passing off things as multistakeholder when they are not. Lastly, and perhaps most important, the NetMundial a really comes at a time where it's so important to re energize the multi stakeholder community, the light of the GDC process, which is going on and which will be more or less midway of negotiations. We meet in Brazil, and of course also for the whistles plus 20 and might be incubator of ideas for developing whizzes into something. That is able to address the challenges of today. Now, not only with an IETF plus, but also with an overall with this plus, so I'll leave it by that. Thank you. Thank you, Jorge. panel light

inputs from UK and Swiss governments your thoughts and reply? Harbor cholera. I read

thanks I had to mute myself thanks um

yeah, I think that

kind of agree with just about all that was said the one thing I

that popped up in my concern is when we're feeding in that house, and I'm obviously in favor of doing the how, because it's one of the things I'm suggesting we do, we have to be most careful not to try and impose any of that notion that there is one now and and that's where it sort of gets complicated in terms of while we're thinking about possible ways to do things, to be sure that we're not in any sense, you know, blessing one versus others, because that's where we start to have problems, but you know, finding finding synergies and really glad to hear that there'll be government support for all of this and definitely agree with the need to re energize the whole notion of participation, after you know, being very much excluded except for symbolically from the the GDC process.

Thanks. What can I yeah, what I remember in

the recess process, and then it was just a challenge, you know, to do next meeting and the next drafts which energize to stakeholders so that means, and everybody was challenged and said, Oh, something is going on, we have to make a contribution. And I think

the processes we have now is

stakeholders move back into their silos say we're very, let's say, disorganized. And you know, yep, the devil has no combined effort of the stakeholders. I take on the civil society, we have so many different initiatives now, and they are unable you know, to come together and to form a more coherent position of the stakeholder groups. I think this would be an important element to mobilize the stakeholders group and to say, what is your position to this, please develop it from the private sector. So what do we expect from Ai? What is the concerns of the civil society? So set you get this bottom up policy development process in the author in an organized way? If you have 5000 different voices, then governments are certainly confused and say okay, we want to listen, but it's it's very unpractical. So that means to challenge is also for the stakeholders themselves, that they have to do their homework and have to come together. So we had to Internet governance Caicos in the business process, we had to ICC for the private sector in the business process. So we had the ISOC organizations for the technical community. So this has to be, let's say, reinvent it, and mobilized and so that we can re energize the processes which will then can be channeled into the GDC and the business plus 20. Or as long as as finally in a business plus, thank you.

Well, I really,

people are saying that they think that there's a lot of energy there and people want to engage. That's great to hear. I still think that the lack of institutional connections and ongoing collaboration between stakeholder groups outside the ICANN and IGF spaces is kind of a thing we're gonna have to confront here, but it's certainly good to hear the government's and the fact that you're doing it there. The G 20 or nada should definitely spring in the government's for sure. It's gonna be engaging the rest of the stakeholder community and getting them to collaborate I think is going to be challenged. Did you have any thoughts and reply to the to government people?

Or I'm sorry. Yes.

I think it's very important. So first of all, I do I'm sorry, I want to I

want to thank you for the words, Nigel,

Jorge, and Volkswagen, Avril, and everyone else who are believing this opportunity to build an event together. to reenergize. I am going to use more this word mode stakeholder processes. And yes, I think it's very important to have this government support and of course, the Brazil government are supporting the event. And but as everybody knows, we have this G to G to end process, and the context is very different to so I think governments to participate.

Go ahead. Thanks, I. I've seen your goals and governments I going to participate of

course, but I think in last protagonist ik way because the content is very different. 10 years ago, we'll have this Snowden thing that everybody's a little bit crazy, and the government's are so worried about the consequences and impacts of this. Of that. All that repercussion is Snowden and the

surveillance of

at that time, but yes, it's very important and I think G 20 will help us to bring governments into our event and mobilize this government. Oh, this is just waiting this way. And help us if this participation in and maybe may make government listeners a little bit more, I don't know. If I answer your question and be I need to prepare myself for an important meeting. Here now that I am the one who coordinated this and I have to leave in a few minutes. I'm sorry. No worries, told

me in advance that you had to leave five minutes early, and that's fine. We're coming towards the end as well. But we want to get David Allen in here. And I also wanted to just note, again, I'm looking at the chat. There's a lot of people talking saying things. Jane coffin is making me cry by saying nobody knows about the wig process and that the Internet community and civil society used to work together that makes the three of us from the wig. Unhappy, Marcus talks about the need to reaffirm principles and clarify misunderstandings. There's a whole bunch of comments which we can all bring into the conversation. But David, you get the final question and then and run out if you need to disappear. Don't worry. Okay. David, go ahead.

Oh, this will be a comment.

Question, Bill. Not surprised to hear and I'd love to hear from some of those folks who listed it as in the chat to identify myself as somebody folks have been here while I'm also a veteran, going back quarter century 2000. Now, before I jumped into the main thought, let me say how exciting it is. For those of us who have been concerned about democracy writ large, to hear a discussion about how process can be good in this actually is process in simple words. That's the only way you get a decent democracy and to hear

one to 10 going forward is

a major role and helping make that a better place. I can't think frankly, something more important, but let me represent a point of view from the past. And now that is entirely strong, not shared by everyone here but very important to have represented here has to do with the roles of the various actors here. Are those roles going to be on an equal footing? Are they going to be in their respective roles? And of course, what I'm doing is moving from looking at process and organizing from the grassroots up to the relationship between lead organization and multilateral world, the state. Those of us who think democracy is what it's about. Damn sure, count me in that and many others that I represent here. So the only way this works is if there's input from the grassroots to those who make the choices by elected representatives. Of course, democracy is fragile and under threat, but as we know, it's, though a terrible form of government

that we've ever tried. Notice that multi stakeholder ism is actually

an instantiation. of democracy. It's saying hey, we need participation from the grassroots. The whole issue is then making that an input into those who are elected representative. Again, as frail as that process is.

With that, let me say my hat's

off. Let's make that process work.

This is Avi pointed out.

When she goes from group to group, she finds the same people they do offer you for that observation. With seven going on 8 billion people in the world. We see what a challenge we have to make this true grassroots. Thank you, Bill for making this happen. Sir David, thank you very much.

And that was a good closing sort of statement in a way I think we all agree that democracy, democratization and bottom up engagement and equal footing all these things are definitely things we want to try and advance with this process and I think resilience are trying to support so that kind of endeavor. Hopefully the community will all come together and give the resilience input and support to make this thing work. It was a big push to do it last time, but we did it in one quarter in the first half, first quarter of 2014. And maybe we can do the same thing. Again, starting from a different standpoint, in the first quarter of 2024. Let's find out if I thank everybody for participating. I want to thank you particular Jason buckholts, the Executive Director of CTI for managing the systems in getting this all working. Thank you all for joining us. We'll be back again in January with another installment in this series. And I look forward to seeing you online and elsewhere in the meantime, okay. It's much bye bye bye. Thanks everyone. Thanks

congrats.