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.
***
>> Good morning, everyone, we would like to start. May I please invite those sitting behind to seat ‑‑ it's supposed to be a roundtable so we are supposed to see each other and contribute in a multistakeholder way in a way that is equal to everybody so we don't want anyone to sit behind. Please join. Because there are more seats that need to be filled. Thank you so much.
[Pause].
>> Thank you very much for being obedient. I think we should just start. So that we ‑‑ I know when civil society sits together, we usually have very ‑‑ sometimes you have very heated conversation and sometimes we want enough time. So I need your guidance. Do we need to introduce ourselves? Just to know who is here quickly? I think because we are not too many we can do that very quickly. So we can start from the very end, just your name and maybe the organization and the country.
>> Yes my name is Jonathan, I'm with the Innovators Network Foundation. And I work on issues related to the future of work.
And I'm also part of the at‑large community inside ICAN.
>> I'm Chin Pang from China and now I'm working at the representative of ISOC Taipei chapter.
>> Hi I'm working with TOR and developing partnership within Europe.
>> Hello, Sebastian from France. I am chapter member of the internet society and involved in that at large in Europe and beekeeper.
>> Hi I'm Roger. We write privacy software to keep people safe on the internet I'm from the U.S.
>> Hi, I'm from the board.
>> Hi, Moira from the national democratic Institute based in Washington, D.C.
>> Hi, I'm based in the Bay Area.
>> Hi, I'm a non‑resident fellow with the tech initiative at the Atlantic council.
>> Hi, with freedom house based in New York.
>> Hi, everyone, Jen also with Freedom House based in Washington, D.C.
>> hi, everyone, my name is Abu.
>> And I'm Grace Githaiga from Kenya KICTANet.
>> Hi, will be your rapporteur today.
>> I'm from a global capacity, cyber capacity building organization based in The Hague but I'm in the U.S.
>> Good morning, everyone, I'm Nick at the center for international media systems at the national endowment for democracy in Washington, D.C.
>> Hi, I'm from the center for international private enterprise also in Washington, D.C.
>> Hi, I'm Daniel from the international media assistance in Washington, D.C. and I'm also the co‑chair of the dynamic coalition on the sustainability of media and news journalism, thank you.
>> Good morning, thank you very much.
>> Hi, everyone, I am from the upstart Bangladesh.
>> Good morning, everyone, I am also from Bangladesh. Thank you.
>> Hi, everyone. President of the bar association.
>> Hey. Good morning, everyone, I'm from Bangladesh, I'm an independent academic activist.
>> Hello. Foreign affairs, just listening in.
>> I'm mayor Walters, U.S. Department of State, I'm also just listening in.
>> Hi, everyone, my name is Maria and I'm from the international federation of library associations and institutions. Based in The Hague.
>> Hello.
>> Kenneth Merrill. National telecommunications and information administration. At the U.S. Department of Commerce and I'm just listening in today.
>> Hello, everyone, my name is Johann, European digital media observatory, just listening today.
>> Eileen Donahoe, special envoy for digital freedom.
>> I'm from Canada, director of the center for law technology and society.
>> I'm a retired professor.
>> Hi, Randy Michelle, from the White House also just listening in today.
>> All right. I think we have everyone identifying themselves. So I want to welcome you to these breakout group specifically for civil society on the declaration for the future of internet. And I don't know how many of you have engaged with the declaration, but it reasserts a shared version of the global internet as a platform for openness and innovation while promoting and protecting human rights. I think the element of human rights here comes very strongly. The declaration on the future of internet principles commits partner countries to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people. Promote a global internet that advances the free flow of information, advance inclusive and affordable connectivity so that all people can benefit from the digital economy. Promote tracks in the biological ecosystem including protection of society.
And protecting and strengthening the multistakeholder approach togetherness that keeps the internet running for the benefit of all. Now just looking at a few of people we have interacted with in this room, I see many friends. I see colleagues that we have both interacted. At the IGF level and I think some of these principles have been an issue of concern especially the issue of human rights and how the internet needs to protect human rights of users so I think I am just thinking that the declaration, you know, is such a futuristic and has taken into consideration some of these conversations. So it'll be interesting to hear from civil society. So we are going to have this discussion along key thematic areas. So there is the issue of priorities. You know, for example, which declaration on the future of internet principle is a top priority for a civil society and most right for action in the multistakeholder community and we have cooperation, we've been talking about, oh, Ken, where are you? I don't know how to do this. We've been talking about the need to ‑‑ the need to focus on cooperation with governments and with other civil ‑‑ I mean with other stake hold ‑‑ stakeholders and went to hear how can governments work with multistakeholder community to operationalize the declaration on future of internet principles.
And how can we identify these facilitated open, transparent dialogue and a value for candid discussions on operation on principles and how can stakeholders leverage the principles to act in support of the principles. And then I think we will also need to look into ‑‑ you know, time allowing.
How do we ‑‑ how will we define success in realizing the vision and then what obstacles do we see standing in the way? So at this point I would like to just field the first question. In your opinion, which declaration of the future of internet principle is a top priority and most right for action by the multistakeholder community? And we've just gone through the principles the first one is protect human rights and the fundamental freedoms of all people. Second promote a global internet that answers the free flow of information. Third advance inclusive connectivity so that all people can benefit from the digital economy and fourth promote trust in the global digital ecosystem including through protection of privacy and finally protecting and strengthening the multistakeholder approach to governance that keeps the internet running for the benefit of all. Who wants to give it a shot?
>> Jonathan: I guess the first thing that jump to mind for me is the multistakeholder model. I feel as though the ‑‑ civil society and business need to reengage with government and kind of work together because I feel like governments now are feeling like multistakeholder ism is too slow or bogged down and as a result taking actions that are kind of incompatible with each other and leading to a fragmentation.
And so that relates to free flow information, et cetera, that is another principle and I think that ‑‑ I think reestablishing the multistakeholder model and reaffirming its importance has got to be a critical step for us because I think right now governments are sort of at the point of create thing fragmentation we're trying to avoid.
>> I'm from India. Two quick points. Trust and access have to go hand in hand. So that ‑‑ the digital divide. And also we have to trust the internet which is very important. Second, I am a little surprised that my own country has not been a signatory and I wonder what we should do to socialize the declaration among countries so there is more widespread adoption and signatories, thanks.
>> Roger: All of these sound awesome. I would love to have a world where everybody agreed with all of these. I'm a little bit worried about interpretations of them. This trust one you're talking about. We're talking about promoting trust and include drug protection of privacy. That sounds great but if I were a government, I would be looking at this and saying, oh, trust. And then I'd be thinking misinformation and then it's a slippery slope down to censoring where Europe for example wanted to block RT.com on a claim it was misinformation and they say we're promoting trust by preventing you from reaching that website. I love the goals that I think we mean here. But I wonder how to make them more robust so that when Russia or Hungary or whoever signs onto this, and then they use it as the reason for why they need to constrain the internet, what happens then?
>> Would you have a suggestion on how to make them robust? Because, you know, I am sure you do know, in theories of participation we always say that solutions are with the people who raise the issues. So what would you be suggesting?
>> Roger: This is my first IGF. I'm going to pause before suggesting more.
>> Okay but you shouldn't be afraid. The IGF is the platform that allows you to articulate your thoughts in a very honest way. So that then it goes into guiding and shaping policies thereafter. Yeah. There was ‑‑ yeah, there were two hands.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. So actually I would reinforce the discussion on access. In terms of the global south where we are sitting in, we see a lot of digital divide, you know. So in terms of the rural division and also there are many kind of division and distinctions in terms of facilities, infrastructure, and all those. The aspect is very important. So, you know, trust is important. Everything is important but if we don't have that access, if we don't have the facilities, that we are sitting in so all the discussions are not materialized at the end of the day. Thank you very much.
>> My colleague from Bangladesh over here touched upon the point that I wanted to try to ‑‑ being from a highly dispersed nation within small islands, access to internet is not something that every island has or every person in every island has so I feel like there should be point for discussion too. Yeah, thank you.
>> There seems to be some sort of so of course there is, the issue that has been raised about the multistakeholder model in and the fact that civil society and businesses need to reengage. There's the issue of interpartition that is on principle number four on the issue of trust.
How do you translate this trust. How do you ensure that there is no misinterpretation to allow for countering of that internet. And then of course there is ‑‑ that other issue of access and connectivity. So I think our rapporteur is noting that and some of, you know, some of I think it would be interesting to hear especially in the issue of trust how we can strengthen that because trust is critical really. It's critical in even in ‑‑ even if we look into multistakeholderism we need to go back to the issue of trust.
How do we trust all stakeholders to actually bring on the opinions onto the table and to respect each other because I think there has been that issue. The issue of access for many countries, especially, countries, developing countries, we really haven't, say, for example, gotten there. And so there's still that element of being at a basic in terms of access. So we already have those three as a priority against for this group. I will now suggest we move onto the ‑‑
>> Could I chime in really quick. Yeah, I just wanted to say from a conceptual perspective, I struggle to distinguish between the different principles. Because to me it seems as if, for example, the multistakeholder internet governance is a process to achieve these other goals so I find it challenging to make a hierarchal approach to them. If I have to choose, I would just want to raise the first one a protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms because I think ‑‑ a global internet helps achieve the protection of human rights and also if you ‑‑ if a government is ‑‑ or other actors. We are talking about the private sector as well. Also, abides by that first principle then you're going to have more trust built into the digital ecosystem and same thing that a multistakeholder process can help protect rights just wanted to make that point and the conceptual concern I have of trying to break these apart.
>> Okay. We have more commenting coming. I don't know if we have one of the volunteers to help us ‑‑ oh, there she is. And then we are coming back to you. Sorry.
>> I think that's an excellent point. Which of these things leads to the other is an important part of the conversation and I think we should take note of the fact that we sort of arbitrarily decided to get into breakout rooms based on civil society, government, et cetera, in what is meant to be a multistakeholder meeting and so I mean, I think that ‑‑ again, I think that we talk about sort of thinking globally but acting locally and I feel like access, while it may be the most critical issue in many respects, is the one that's most difficult to solve at an international level. And I don't know the right way to approach that. It feels very much like a local or national problem. From a solution standpoint even though it's a global problem but I am very much to your point what are the building blocks for the others and I think getting us mixed more in with the other stakeholders might be the first step to accomplishing some of the other objectives.
>> Okay. The gentleman, next.
>> Thank you. A few points, first one, it's a lot of things you say, it's very often now done by private company. Access to internet, for example, in Ukraine now it's ‑‑ it's a satellite will give the access and we have to be very careful with that because at the end of the day those company, large company, large groups will decide what is good and what is not good for us. Government is already difficult to trust them but those private companies, we have to take care of that. The other point is that, for when we talk about multistakeholder I would very much that we add the agenda model because there is no one model of internet models and different ways of doing it. At the end of the day every organization do the same we will be lost and we will jeopardize the multistakeholder way of doing things altogether. And the last point is that we are looking to the future what is happening now, just two days ago in France I put ‑‑ I would like to put a law where everybody needs to be recognized when you are in the social network. Therefore, where is the human rights? Where is the possibility to talk and so on if everybody needs to have their own identity phone by everybody and especially by the police in our government. Democratic ‑‑ so‑called democratic developing countries. Thank you.
>> Okay. There's a gentleman behind. I don't know few got you right about the multistakeholder model and that everybody doing the same thing? That was not clear for me.
>> If you talk about multistakeholder model I think you are already saying something. It's multistakeholder models. (Annunciates the S). I hope not each organization will do exactly the same if not at the end of the day we can merge as an organization we don't need to differentiate. That's why I think it is important to remember that there is no one model fits all.
>> Hi. Very quick. I think an institutional fragmentation is key here, what, probably we are discussing because in my understanding, even the global norms and also treaties and organizations, all are actually having some institutional fragmentation. And that's probably lead us to have some forms of study on the also global leader framework and global interim governance issues as well because this is I think almost tall sector we are struggling with this particular understanding on this institutional fragmentation.
>> Okay. I think our rapporteur has noted quite a number of points there. Quite some good points. We will be reporting them back in the plenary. So, at this point, I would suggest we move onto the next question and it's on looking at cooperation modalities. And the first issue we can discuss now is how can governments work with the multistakeholder community to operationalize the DFI principles? And then of course how can DFI signatories open? We've been told in the plenary, how can DFI signatories hold open discussion. I think the issue of candid operationalization has come out in our first discussion.
And then how can stakeholders leverage the DFI to spar governments to act in support of these principles and I suggest you can just speak on any area that you want to comment on and, oh, you already have the mic already, okay. All right. Please go ahead.
>> Thanks, well, one thing is obviously settings like this are good to get input and carry forward some things but I think what is often missed is trying to main treatment these principles in venues that are not necessarily about internet freedom or human rights. This forum is great for that, the IGF but there are many forums dedicated to, say, cyber security, other issues, go of us were recently at a big conference in Las Vegas, the DEF CON conference, my organization is having a big capacity building summit in Ghana at the end of November.
I think it's important to mainstream those principles too because often the stakeholders are different depending on which of these different venues you go to and sometimes they're the same and talk to each other but often they're different communities and the same with governments. Different people in the governments deal with certain issues the more you can make this not just conversations here but conversations in those other discussions I think that will help further these efforts so people take these into account, use them when they're doing policy in other areas as well and there are stakeholder groups and interaction of those other areas too. Sometimes the same and sometimes different.
>> Daniel: I think, one of the questions here is I also have concerns about the fragmentation of these governance processes and government consist start different initiatives.
And there can be lack of understanding of where people should go and what is the most important. With that in mind I think one thing that governments can do is to understand that different stakeholders have different ability to participate in all of these.
I agree with the gentleman who just spoke so I think it might behoove governments given they have a lot of power in this space to help civil society support that engagement because I think that's going to add legitimacy and a lot more value to this process.
>> Yeah, and you make ‑‑ you actually make a point about governments and also the issue that he has raised about mainstreaming these conversations in different forums because we are sitting here in the IGF and we want to have honest conversations that shape policy but when you go into cyber security circles governments are there and they want to take.
They will take control. And sometimes look at it as a security issue. As opposed to looking at it as a multistakeholder issue so, you know completely agree with the two of you.
>> Yes, thank you, again. So, my discussion is, you know, how does this discussion is part of another international mechanism. How we are reaching out to the governments as those who have been still connected with this whole mechanism.
My friend says not a signatory. So I imagine Bangladesh is the same. Nationalization of this discussion is also important. And localization. So, you know, there are other discussion under the development goals. How this discussion is also being aligned with this, you know, sustainable development goal is disease and also other pertinent issues of global rights globally in the system and beyond so that is important if we cannot discuss from the local international and bringing the national governments under the platform that would be difficult, you know, to implement this principle that we are discussing over here. So as the multistakeholder mechanism. So, yes, thank you very much. Again.
>> Yeah, and I guess, again, you know the IGF does that a lot. We discuss issues from the global perspective. And then, you know, stakeholders are also supposed to take the conversations at national level. And especially if you want to change things at the national level then those conversations must also happen there before you can bring them up. Yes. Thank you.
>> Moira: I want to stay with the governments point that previous speakers have raised and don't use the term governments as a monolith.
Recognize the need to look at parliaments, look at electoral management bodies. Look at oversight of fiscal structures.
Judiciary structures as an important component of the outreach of this work when we talk about the DFI because that's what we're really talking about is a sustained model and all of those entities need to have a sustained engagement with several society and one quick point on many of us in the room spent yesterday talking about the feminism in the global digital compact and just the concept that an inclusive approach and it is mentioned in the DFI also puts the burden on governments to have more conversations than just simply one consultation with broad civil society but recognizing the various, interests, and I appreciate the effort by the U.S. government to sort of outline that this the consultations document that they shared but that this isn't a box checking exercise in terms of consultations. This is true engagement, it's engagement at ‑‑ with many different stakeholders and with many entities of the government. We tend to concentrate on the executive branch but that's to the detriment of the overall multistakeholder and we've seen that that sieve society is not making best use of those opportunity to strengthen those systems.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: I think that's a strong point about civil society. You know, not using the opportunities to strengthen the processes and I think if there's anything that we need to take from here, as civil society players, is that that we still need to play a major role in strengthening, in helping bring out what are the issues. And in making sure that they're brought onto the documentation that is there.
>> Roger: Speaking of governments not being monoliths.
One of the conflicts that many governments have, we have the human rights oriented pieces of government here but there's also national security or law enforcement or intelligence, people are trying to undermine human rights and there's a natural alignment between the pieces of government we're talking about here and civil society where we care about these principles that we're talking about. So in terms of how to implement this stronger collaboration between the pieces of government who want this and the civil society groups in each of these countries, and I am not just talking about funding. I'm talking about putting the people who are experts in the right situations to argue on behalf of human rights because, I mean, in a lot of ‑‑ I can look at the U.S. as an example and we've got a lot of different groups and moving pieces in the U.S. but there are a lot of different countries out there that aren't maybe as far along at making that interaction and collaboration work.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Great, very good points that are coming out here in this, gain, I think this is something that has been argued and maybe also needs to be as the declaration, yeah, we are saying it's the future. That need to bring on, you know, subject matter experts into discussions. Despite the fact of, you know, whether their background is civil society or technical but to be able to shape in these conversations. Is that all? You've been very quiet. Sorry to pick you out.
>> I mean, I guess the only thing I would add is that from my perspective it's important to think about the implementation of the DFI and how it's going to influence other processes that are happening at the global level, other visions that are being created. I think we're really at a point of fragmentation of the vision of the internet and that is very concerning and so I think principles like multistakeholder, like, protection of human rights are key and it's great that it's in the DFI. My question for governments and for civil society is how do we actually make sure that these influence perhaps other competing visions that are emerging?
>> Thanks, very quickly. And it really goes back to both what they were saying. I think we need to do a much better job of ‑‑ well governments need to do a better job but including civil society but at the national level when they're legislating I'm in a region, Europe, that is passing vast internet legislation.
And we're seeing that there are significant issues that challenge the principles of the DFI. But ‑‑ and when civil society speaks up, they're actually not being heard. So we really need to do a much better job and this is not meeting at the IGFs or other international meetings. Governments need to do a much better job of integrating the civil society in the decision‑making process and by that it don't mean they need to be able to make laws but they need to be able and to ‑‑ be in the position of holding governments accountable when they're passing laws that are against the DFI principles and that will require reimagining those processes. That currently they are very used to at applying when they're law making.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: I think you make a good point. I think it's the nature of the internet that it's very dynamic and governments are consistently feeling that they need to respond with laws on emerging tech and behavior. The example we've been given of France where, you know, they want everybody to be identified on social media. And I don't know how realistic that is or how practical that is but there's a human rights component because what if you don't want to be identified and you just want a space to communicate? Do you have that right to do that? And I think you raise a good point because a civil society, civil society is known to ensure that governments are being accountable but I think there's a challenge that's being seen in this sector where for example governments are starting to become power in civil society. I don't know if that's complied or through complicit. It's not coming out as strong as it's expected. So I know that Ken and the others who really have been working hard to ensure that the DFI are put into use, are listening to all those concerns, yes. And then we'll come back to you. Yeah. He has the microphone.
>> So, yes, I think two clear things as our speakers have said. As you know in Bangladesh case, or all Southeast Asia cases can new laws are coming and the old laws like when earlier in 20 ‑‑ around 2000 when the laws were implemented, those laws were implemented or even coming up with new legality, they're coming up with new institutional framework and new laws. At this stage if I can say probably implementation part, national human rights commissions or commissions, whoever actually establish in our jurisdiction like law commissions, National Human Rights Commission, or even some forms of privacy commission. So in some countries. So over there if we can go and interact and engage and do advocacy work, probably this is the one way to get in. Because the whole ‑‑ the generation, the rights activists, especially in this year, not necessarily interested much on this internet freedom issue or internet related digital rights issues so then there is an essential need probably to have an interaction and intersectional discussion more in our context so then probably there is a chance to have better understanding because in my understanding the all old are even law principles are heavily, heavily actually attacked through these new legislations which are about to deal with the cyberspace these days.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Okay. Pass on the microphone to this gentleman here.
>> Thanks. India. I have two points the first point is that when you talk about multistakeholderism down to the international levels there is a dearth of these structures in this world. Maybe Brazil has it but many other countries don't have it so there's a vacuum there and what fills that vacuum what I would say is that the national IGFs are already multistakeholder they can play a constructive role at the national level in places where there is no such multistakeholder structure so the national IGF service has a special role there. Secondly when the security trumps everything else, what do we as civil society have I think we should protect the global public interest as the counter influence when the national security people talk about national security trumping everything else. Thank you.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Again, good points and I think very succinct points that are coming out of that discussion. At this point, it's 10:33. We are still on time. And I would suggest we move onto the ‑‑ to our third theme which is on measuring success and we have two questions here. So how would you define success in realizing the DFI's vision? And secondly, what obstacles stand in the way of realizing the DFI's principles? So this is also time to contribute. One on if you were told to look at the principles now and say how they look ‑‑ if you want to say they are successful. How would that success look for you? And then, you know, because we've been talking, so what are we saying about the obstacles? In that success, then what obstacles stand in the way of assuring that we have that success of the DFI principles? I think you haven't contributed so we will start and go around. Yeah.
>> Thank you, yeah, I think picking up on what a colleague had mentioned I think a major obstacle that stands in the way of seeing this come to fruition is that civil society has limited bandwidth. There's so many things to talk through. We don't have a lot of time and so, you know, we can feel a bit scattered so it'd be helpful if governments collaborate, you know, to help guide or, like, hear out civil society on where we think the needle could really move to help us kind of hone in on one outcome.
>> I might make that call more direct.
We need funding to do this work to be just quite blunt. Like you said, there's just so many different spaces that we want to plug into and in order to do that meaningfully we need staff on teams to do that, especially for organizations in the global majority that are so often left out of these conversations. I think another challenge is just how to think about integrating or pushing through the DFI in the geopolitical world that we're in right now. In my opinion it takes talking about human rights and the global ‑‑ the importance of a global and interoperable internet in a way that is talking about how it impacts national security and economic incentives so learning how to speak that take and coming from a democracy organization that is something that we are also working on as well but I think that is going to be key on incentivizing certain governments that the human rights argument just might not bring them in.
>> We need to empower the DFI and the communities that are using it to use the text.
Because currently there's a text that is really nice to read and it's out there but it doesn't really have any legs. So I ‑‑ we need to figure out how we can take those principles, and when civil society first speaks up and refers to those principles we don't need to justify further why. Empowering both the declaration and the principles but also the groups that are using it I think will be a good step forward.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: For you that is what success would look like. That when we ‑‑
When the principles are there are suggestions that we don't really have to justify. Right? Yeah. Because people have thought about the process and they have discussed and they have actually come finally to the conclusion that this is good. Yeah. Yeah.
>> (Speaking off mic). About it.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Yeah. Thank you.
>> I would add to that. Find ways for government to use the principles and hold them accountable to the principles in both the domestic and the foreign policy. I think sometimes it's very easy from a foreign policy perspective to commit to these things but at a domestic level when you talk about cyber security law, surveillance it's have a very different picture so, yeah.
>> That is similar to what I was going to say about harmonizing this. If governments are signing onto this, they have committed to all aspects of this. And what instead we find is that one section of the government will have signed onto it. But that that is not harmonized throughout the rest of their foreign policy and this is especially a message for countries that are signatory to DFI that are also donor countries. We see very much in civil society that those ‑‑ they have not spoken with other parts, this also goes to the issue of national security where you will see cyber resilience or e‑governance for instance models that don't include a civil society engagement component and an equity by design component to that work.
And I should say, this is not limited to one government. It is fairly evident across all the donor nations so I think an obligation that governments need to understand that is on signing onto the DFI, they are going to create mechanisms that are then transparent about how they are going to harmonize this and how they are going to be accountable to it. Would be a useful tool. I think it especially with big donor governments you don't get there overnight, certainly but a mechanism, that demonstrates there's a path to getting there.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: I really like that point about the commitment bit. And especially you know, when there are special discussions on cyber security that touch on security because I have noticed that when it comes to that then civil society's left behind because this is seen as a national security issue or a state security issue or a government issues. And governments must sit together to just discuss cyber security and yet the perpetrators happen to be ordinary citizens out there.
>> Success to me as a civil society would be constructive dialogue within all the stakeholders. Let me give you an example. My country in India is known for its internet shutdowns. This is unilaterally. There's no consultation. We don't know when it's going to end. When civil society is called into consultation to discuss a problem and how to solve this maybe a complete shutdown, all these options are there but they only come out of this consultation so constructive connotation would be successful evidence as far as I'm concerned thank you.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: You can still have constructive dialogue but it needs nowhere. Yeah. Because we have seen where you know, governments just call, you know, like, for example, talk about, you know, my government we have ‑‑ we actually have public participation in public policy is entrenched in the constitution but it still is in some areas to tick a box so you have very constructive dialogue but it doesn't lead to really oil that you'd expect. Yeah. So ‑‑
If ‑‑
>> It doesn't construct anything.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Correct. So when we end here we will ask Ken to provide an e‑mail where you have thought through, for example, what ‑‑ how do we define constructive dialogue it'll be important to receive that so that it's better understood. Yeah. Yes. You have the microphone.
>> Yes, thanks, Jonathan again. There's an old saying that what gets measured gets done.
And one of the things you're talking about is how to define success and how to measure success. And it could very well be that coming up with some objective measures of success is part of the DFI effort should be one of our objectives is building into it some objective measures that have to do with internet fragmentation that have to do with a censorship because I feel like all the things that we're putting out there as measures of success are fairly abstract. Right now. And it'd be easy to say, well, as you said, we have the constructive dialogue and everything like that but maybe we ought to be trying to get down to brass tacks to figure out measurable statistics about internet openness. I know there are already some agencies attempting to do that but maybe we should make that part of the DFI commitment because then countries have something against to which be accountable instead of abstract principles.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Good point there. Anyone else? And then you'll bring it back to the lady here. Okay. And then we'll come to you.
>> I'd like to briefly double down on the harmonizing. The U.S. signed this and we're still arguing about high encryption is scary and maybe nobody should have it.
Did England sign this with their recent laws undermining human rights and so on? What's going on there with the different pieces of the government? And the answer is the governments are not a monolith. But that seems by far the biggest barrier to me which is we have some pieces of government saying, yeah, this is important and as you were saying, especially, it's important for other countries to have it. And then how do they reconcile that inside?
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Yeah. I think that's a very important point about ‑‑ that governments are not monolith because we have seen, and again I go back to the issue of cyber security we have seen different arms coming up with different laws and yet they are in the same country. So they need for harmonization is critical and it goes down. It boils down to multistakeholder ism.
>> Let's make clear the why for that because I think governments need to hear that from civil society that it's not just good to do.
When you look at countries that will probably not sign onto the DFI that inconsistency is exactly the vulnerability that is identified in the overall system. So the very weakness of signing onto a document and not fulfilling it on the back end demonstrates an overall weakness of the approach and so that needs to be a very clear message to governments that if they want to strengthen this approach. If they want to really help the multistakeholder that synchronization is what's going to win the day and I'm just looking at Ali with the Freedom House report from last year, right?
That identified that in clear terms, in measurable terms that the multistakeholder framework consistently applied is what increased the freedom ranking of countries that did rise on the index but, taking words out of your mouth.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: I think she needed to speak. Yeah.
>> No, just picking up on the thread about accountability. Thinking about a tangible product. Like a report card of sorts to call out the inconsistencies, the lack of synchronization would be a very tangible outcome that is a measure of success and demonstrates accountability.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Okay. I keep forgetting you. I'm so sorry. Please go on.
>> Let me recall my name. I'm from Bangladesh so you don't forget again. The thing is, you know, so you know the success should be, again, I would emphasize on how more and more national governments are respecting and protecting and fulfilling the comments that have been enshrined in the declaration. At the same time, I would say probably in many cases the technology transfer could be of vital issues for the global south. How they have the access and minimize the divide and also when you are talking about multistakeholder engagements I would also focus on how these are being localized, not only national. Sometimes, you know, in the capital, probably in the discussion in the city of how it is going down to the far beyond the capital. So that is also could be the success of all these principle discussions. Thank you very much.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Maybe rapporteur you can tell us where things are at? Are you good? Okay. So just to help again like I said in strengthening this. So one of the things we are going to suggest is that if you have any suggestions that I think would help in either strengthening the DFI, we will provide, you can make suggestions. And send those as an individual or an organization but just to wind up this discussion, you know, to what extent if any, have you, any of you in this room engaged with a DFI partner countries on programmatic areas and priorities. Just hold on. In programmatic priorities that align with the DFI principles and if so how, and it sounds like you might have done that. Yeah. I'm very bad with names but, yeah. Please pass on the microphone. I think, let me just ‑‑ let me just, yeah, let me repeat the question. To what extent, if any, have you engaged with the DFI partner countries on programmatic priorities that align with the DFI principles. If so, how and what?
>> There we go. NDI does actively I should say engage with governments around the world. We're present in about 50 countries. Engagement on these sorts of concepts and principles is consistent not only for us but for my colleagues who are also here from the national endowment for democracy family as well as others around the table that being said I will say and I can only speak for myself having done this work when we work with other entities such as election management bodies, political parties, parliaments I have never heard of the DFI referenced as a concept. They're somewhat familiar with concepts contained in the DFI. And working towards that as a work in progress and a core part of our work but the DFI as an existing structure is not in my experience not mobilizing parts of government outside of perhaps the ones that signed it which traditionally our organization would not work directly with, for instance, a foreign ministry or an executive office, we would more likely engage with parliamentary and civil society in a country. But that is why I'm saying it's where we touch. It's not to say that it doesn't exist. It's where the organization as a body would engage.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: All right. Anyone else? I know the ‑‑ for me, the first time I heard about the DFI was last year. And at that point I thought maybe they were just a draft. So you make a good point because I think those ‑‑ you know, the countries that are supporting that need to be heard in civil society. In this room are strong advocates that can help bring this out with the rest of the community. Yes.
>> Daniel: Just to echo what Moira was saying, we engage with stakeholders from the ‑‑ around the world on news media issues, also through the dynamic coalition for the sustainability of news media and I can say that I haven't ever heard anyone from civil society talk about the declaration for the future of the internet like you I learned more about it at the last IGF and found out it still existed at this IGF so there's clearly government initiative to keep pushing it forward it hasn't really engaged in the same way that I think some other processes like the global digital compact that the U.N. has led where we have seen a lot of engagement and interest so I think that is a challenge. I think it's a challenge when we think about the impact because when ‑‑ it's hard for civil society to think about that given that this is a government‑led process.
We're already engaged in other processes that are ongoing and one more thing gets slapped down and it's thinking about have you reengage your workflow. I think in terms of looking ‑‑ I think accountability is a really important thing to think about.
I think the other challenge is that we want to make sure we don't have internet fragmentation. How do we go about accountability? Making sure that governments that are not monoliths are aligning to these values without creating a splinternet. Without creating kind of a geopolitical divide in terms of the signatories of the DFI and those who are not signatories of the DFI. I think that is something that is really important for the communities at least that we work with.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: The lady.
>> Hi, yeah, from Maldives. This was the first time I heard of the DFI was today and I was sitting here. I had looked up the signatories on the list. We are on the list but have never heard of it. There have never been discussions about it in the Maldives so that highlights that there is, you know, a kind of discommunication or a discontent between the government and civil society and that's something I feel is something we have to go back home and address so I just wanted to highlight it as a point. We are on the list but we've never heard of it. Thank you.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Okay. I think let's pass on the microphone too. That's interesting because, you know, you ‑‑ your government has actually, you know, supports but the players I hate to hear about it. So, I think it's something you have to take up and in terms of strengthening and in terms of the success of the DFI, that there needs now what is the next step in terms of engagement. In terms of creating awareness. In terms of getting players to use the DFI and to articulate its values and the principles.
>> So I just feel like for the final conversation I want to pull on this thread because ‑‑ a lot of you are hitting the same thing. Did you say you're from government or civil society? Civil society. So you said you have never heard of that in civil society. Moira you started with engagement in many elements including the DFI never heard it referenced Daniel you said you never heard it in your civil society throughout the world and I want to bring this all back. This could be one of the big themes for civil society when we regroup. Constantinos you talked earlier about ‑‑ what would be success for you.
Would be if the DFI itself had more validity and solidity as a point of reference in the international community. Not that this, you know, civil society necessarily wants it to be its own thing, entity, secretariat going forward but that the principles themselves don't have to be rearticulated, renegotiated, et cetera, they have a solidity for the internet. And that is not there yet. And I think this is a ‑‑ this is something we all have to work on. How do we get there? Because the processes now, I would say, the conversations I've heard ‑‑ the global digital compact I actually think there'd be more of an open door there to do that but we've got to take a leap in solidifying the DFI itself before that really happens. So maybe that's an opportunity for civil society. Use the principles in all of your, you know, input to the global digital compact so that the U.N. itself uses it as a point of reference. You may be leading the governments. And then give this feedback to the governments that they themselves are not using it. ‑‑ you know, they did this work and they're sort of letting it go off into the ether and nobody's saying you have to bring it around the world and have a lot of meetings and, you know, and compete with the FOC or compete with other processes. But the principles are useful and can say time. I think just pull on that thread a little bit.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Yeah, that's a good response and I think at different levels. I think what we are saying is that DFI principles have not been as vocal as that and we're saying they're a good thing so how do we then start using them and strengthen them so they become, they help us in this processes.
>> The next statement is strangely those other processes don't want to compete with the DFI. As a separate initiative. And I think as the DFI was getting launched there was a little bit of concern that nobody wanted to the proliferation of venues and nobody can do everything but that's why making clear, there isn't an effort to create a separate entity. This is your principled ground. That you bring everywhere. And so that even in the global digital compact they don't need to reinvent the wheel on these topics. And help them let down their guard. That this is proliferation, competing with them instead it is solid valid principles feeding in. So they don't have to do the same work.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: That's noted. We have one minute to eleven. We are reconvening I think at 11:30. It'll be nice for people to have a coffee break so I am give thing opportunity to anyone with closing remarks. I don't know if Ken is here. Yeah. I think you need to just say something before we can give an opportunity to somebody who wants to give us closing remarks.
>> (Speaking off mic).
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Okay. I had expected that you'd be guiding us on if people had comments. I was hoping that if anyone has a comment that they, you know, people are thinking and they will continue processing the information so if they want to make input where do they share that information?
>> KENNETH MERRILL: So, you know, we as Grace mentioned earlier, you know, we've ‑‑ we do intend to keep this conversation going. And so, you know, we will certainly be following up with ‑‑ there'll be a report out in the next session we're going to be sort of pulling some of the key themes that have emerged across the breakout rooms that our rapporteurs have collected and sort of seeing how those ‑‑ what's emerged across the different breakout groups and then coming together as a multistakeholder community to discuss those. So, yeah, I think, I mean, that's the plan for the rest of the day. And it's just ‑‑ I think that this group in particular I was really pleased to hear some great feedback in this group. So with that I will hand the mic back over to Grace.
>> GRACE GITHAIGA: Okay. Thanks, Ken, so I wanted to thank every ‑‑ all of you for very grateful suggestions. Very great input and for being very active participants so let's continue getting aware, you know, let's just understand what the principles are and how they can impact our work and how we can ‑‑ I hope Ken that all the conversations in and the recommendations that have come to strengthen the principles will then be taken on board and once they're done we don't ‑‑
They don't need to compete with anyone because it will be automatic for them to be quoted in all the other processes. So thank you very much. And we reconvene in the main hall at 11:30.