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.
***
>> This is the breakout room for the session on the declaration for the future of the Internet for the private sector. So if you are in the right room, this is what we are going to be talking about. In the next hour or so really trying to get together and see the private sector's opinions, ideas about the declaration of future of the Internet. So please take your seat. How we're going to do this, there is a microphone in the middle of the room. I don't think we were able to do rolling mics in the room, so if you have something to say, I will ask you to please come up to the microphone and share what you'd like to say. So everybody can hear you. That's one thing.
Second thing, thank you very much for fulfilling a dream of mine. I have always dreamed of being a tour guide. Now I have done that, so thank you for that. What we're going to do today is really just try and go through what has happened in the past year or so around declaration for future of the Internet and feel how the private sector feels not just principles presented earlier in the main conversation, but also we were reminded if principles are just on a there on a shelf, they don't serve to do that much, right. What we are trying to see is how do we move to their implementation.
A lot of the speakers today have already said implementation really requires a multi ‑stakeholder involvement. There is not much that can be done by any one stakeholder on their on. What we are trying to suss out today, based on your experience and expertise, is how can the private sector help in implementing some of the principles, what are some of the obstacles you see around these principles and their implementation and what are some of the channels you see that can be used to take to this version. So we are going to start with a couple of questions. In three parts.
First of all talk about the priorities of the DFI. What are the ‑‑ in your opinion, what are the principles that are of top priority for the private sector and what are the ones that can be acted on as priority ‑‑ or should be acted on as priority. Those are not the same questions. One is more ripe for action; then of course what is the definition working on for other reasons. The second part of the conversation is how can we cooperate? Can we find modalities for cooperation between the private sector and governments, of course, but also with the broader multistakeholder community, how can we facilitate dialogue, can the discussions around personalization of principles and what is it that we can bring in as a multistakeholder community and leverage as a private sector. Then the last bit that we will try and get to is success. What does success look like in this and how are we defining it? But also how are we measuring it? So we have the principles.
We will talk about how to implement them. But also how to measure if we've done our work correctly. That is just a quick setup from my end. To make sense of this I will want to introduce you to my colleague, Natalie. She is going to be our Rappoteur so try to capture all your well‑thought‑out comments and advice for us. So with that, let's just jump right in, I suggest, and talk about our first question. Our first team. We are going to allocate about 20 minutes for that conversation on the priorities.
So what do you think, from the principles, the DFI principles, what is the top priority for the private sector and what is the ‑‑ what are ‑‑ what elements there that are low‑hanging fruit, perhaps, that we can start actioning on as a multistakeholder community. This is a breakout room. It is not a panel, so I won't be speaking. I do count on you all to really have a debate. Who would like to go first not sharing what you think the top priority principles could be?
>> Hello. This on, yes. So thank you very much. My name is Keith Drazik. I work for Verisign, a long‑time stakeholder of the model, obvious in IGF and icann as registry operator for.com and.net. Verisign is strong in this, in the Internet. It is an important document, approach and opportunity for expanded engagement. I think from an operational or tactical level, what more can the private sector do and what should our principles and our priorities be? I think the number one answer is, to be more actively engaged in outreach and active engagement with other parts of the multistakeholder community. I think historically we have seen in the IGF context that the private sector has been involved, but perhaps not as actively involved in some of the communications and the development of workshops and proposals for IGF meetings.
I think that there is value to be had in the private sector identifying more specific and concrete opportunities for engagement with civil society, with the technical community. Perhaps to a lesser degree I think civil society ‑‑ sorry, private sector and technical community are perhaps already more engaged.
But for the private sector to engage more actively and proactively with civil society so we can work together for multistakeholder outputs to government s, right, I think what we have seen over the last ten years ‑‑ and I'm pulling that number from the ether, but over the last ten years we have seen governments become much more active in Internet regulation. Either on a national level or regional level. I think that if we hope to support the multistakeholder model moving forward in the face of increased and increasing government regulation of the Internet, then we have to work better together as private sector technical community and civil society to present a united front that really supports not just the multistakeholder model itself; but outputs and outcomes that promote trust and principles I have highlighted in the give principles and priorities is we have to do more proactively together. That is a bit of a high‑level statement. I have more specific and concrete thoughts about how we might do that in specific areas, but I'm going to stop and see if anybody else would like to get in the cue at this point, so thank you.
>> MODERATOR: ( No audio )
>> MODERATOR: Can you hear me, okay. Putting this aside. So thanks so much, Keith. Apparently you stopped the system for your comments, thank you so much for that. And we are looking forward to some of your more specific points when we move into cooperation modalities and operationalization of the principles so I'm looking forward to that. So what we ‑‑ ( no audio )
>> MODERATOR: It is number three ‑‑ okay. Perfect, thank you. So what we've heard from Keith is the importance of not just working together individually with government but also for us in the multistakeholder community working more with each other in spreading the news and information about the principles and actually showcasing outputs as a common multistakeholder community. What I liked what you said there Keith is this actually builds the trust we need to actually move forward with some of these principles. So how do we move into that and to making sure that these are instruments for us to use and not just principles that we keep and subscribe to but don't really implement in our day‑to‑day. Would anybody like to react to that vision? So Barbara, please. I don't know your name. The gentleman with the glasses, but I will turn to you after.
>> Barbara: Hello, hello. No. I thought Keith's comments were spot‑on, the importance of collaborating together among the stakeholder community so we are not seeming to work at cross‑purposes. I think, you know, if the stakeholders can come together, we present a unified point of view, particularly in a U.N. body that has a broad cross‑section and countries participating. But I wanted to speak, to build upon Keith's point and speak to one of the priorities. And I think we cannot emphasize enough the importance of inclusivity and connectivity. Affordable connectivity and access to the Internet. If you don't have connectivity, you basically don't have anything. You don't have the Internet. So I would suggest that we prioritize that as an element of these principles to focus our unified engagement with other stakeholder groups, thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Okay. I'm very scared to turn the microphone on, but it is working, thank you. So yeah, noted that. Turn to the basics and make sure we have universal, meaningful connectivity for all that. Is where we should start. Thank you, Barbara. The gentleman please go to the microphone and introduce yourself so I don't keep calling you gentleman.
>> Thank you very much. I'm Charles Chavin with International Trademark Association. A few may know Mikea Sherman. She is not here at this time. Many of the firms are with us. So building on what Keith mentioned, which is very important. To dig deeply to some private issues. Maybe one of the principles is trust and privacy, which is very important, of course. In the terms of data privacy, as an example, I think we should prioritize a process with ‑‑ in addition to protecting the privacy, to be sure there's mechanisms in case someone interfered on intellectual property rights. For example, if someone's trying to do something which is against your rights, which is a trademark et cetera, but mainly this is important to find a way in the process with the support to talk about it and be ‑‑ sorry, sometimes I confuse myself. Anyway, mainly, I'm trying to say, we have to find a way to have a process always clear in action to protecting privacy to be sure how to reach, for example, an infringer. I know this isn't important usually a point in Internet governance in general but I think for private sector this is something important and at same time for even civil society because this even protects the consumer rights, thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. So making sure that when we look deep into a priority we are looking into protecting someone's special rights or policies and measures in one side of the top topics we don't lose sight on other points of the conversation. Thank you for sharing that, Charles. Anybody else like to take the floor on principles? Mark, you are already standing. Go ahead, Mark. Then you.
>> Mark: Yes, thanks, Timea. I'm Mark Kari. I used to work with the U.K. Government and now in the private sector. That is why I moved in this direction. I just wanted to pick up really on ‑‑ actually a point Keith made about governments increasingly getting into regulating in this sphere. How should the private sector respond. I think if we look at the roster of priorities in the declaration, you've got a lot there on trust. Specifically on combatting the harms online. That first bullet worked together to combat cyber crime, cyber‑enabled crime, deter malicious cyber activity.
Further down the ‑‑ the message from government really is ‑‑ when I was the U.K. Government, there was kind of a sea change of policy. Ministers were always advising or saying, we've got to end the wild west of the Internet. It is no longer the policy of the U.K. To be totally hands‑off, which I was pushing ministers to sustain. Within a multistakeholder government context. So governments are suing it is important now to get much better grip on tackling the harms and risks and the growth of all the negative stuff that's online. I think the DFI is a valuable opportunity, a platform far collaboration involving the private sector much more assertively by the private sector to work with governments on those particular priorities. That's where I would suggest some specific focus be applied when we come to implementing these principles. That intersects valuably, I think, with the whole global compact agenda and West 20. Demonstrating through the initiative how multistakeholder involvement involving, as Keith was saying, much more active commitment by the private sector so to defeat this assumption that the private sector is only in it for the money and not for social and welfare citizens. And also the welfare businesses. Businesses are vulnerable to all these harms, so I hope this comes out, thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, mark. Addressing this possibly false dichotomy around private sector interests versus everybody else's interests, our own interests in moving this forward as a multistakeholder community, thanks. We are noting that. You wanted to share something.
>> Good morning, everyone. My name is Samla from the Telecom community in Sri Lanka. I have a limited exposure on the advice but when go through the principles what I wanted to highlight in terms of priorities, say whole world go through a common situation. Compared to Europe or the middle ‑‑ especially the Asian region, at the present, sort of unconnected so they don't have means of, education, health care, whatever. Otherwise getting connected. We connected new additions of millions of people getting connected to something which was not really familiar because they didn't have options other than getting connected. We need to take care of these new millions who got connected. Especially privacy, cyber security. So that aspect we need to be very careful. Prioritize on those aspects. In Sri Lanka we are working on the online safety bill. It will be passed soon in parliament. Those who are newly connected to Internet so ensure they are like safe and they can continue. On the other hand, them to be connected, that point, rather inclusive and thought about, so the private sector and government and the stakeholders can play a major role also who got connected and who got benefitted. If were to sustain that, we need to make sure it is affordable and inclusive. Those two I think probably might ready for the African region as well. Those new Internet users. So those priorities I think, you know, we need to focus more.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. We are moving along nicely in a pace of connecting everyone. Once you are connected, what is necessary for you once you are online and what you can do and what others can do for you to make sure we are all in this together. I do have a point that I want to ask the room as well. Of course there's a lot of responsibility. As mark said, governments want to protect their citizens, companies want to protect their users once online. From the user perspective, I know we are here to discuss the private sector, but what can the private sector also do. Maybe build capacity or to help these other different sectors work together. So what is it ‑‑ it is the private sector responsibility but what is our responsibility to work with others in this aspect and work with the users that are coming online and what can the private sector do to help them. From what we can do but also to help others once online. Just a question for all of you to think about. Suki wanted to share something.
>> Suki: Thank you, Suki from ‑‑ German implementing agency, private company owned by the German government. I'm also somewhere in between. I would recommend actually to work in corporate much more closer with institutions such as smart Africa in Africa that is responsible for building and developing the connectivity in Africa. I think that it would also help to identify some public/private partnerships and identify some success factors and to see ‑‑ to create a win/win situation for everyone, because I think the private sector is not so much interested in just discussing things but seeing some benefits out of the corporation. I think that is why I think it is very, very important to come up with more private/public ‑‑ public/private partnerships.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Noting that. That is a clear answer to how we operationalize some of this conversation, which we are slowly going to move into. I'm going to give everyone a last chance to talk about the priorities. If there's anymore priorities that you think we should be looking at. If not, we're going to move into the direction that we are ‑‑ we are going to move to anyway because I see you are thinking about operationalization and move into some disparities. We have heard on connected/unconnected, we need to ensure there is trust online, once people are connected. That elements of that trust include security, privacy, protection of consumer but also venture property rights in a more holistic fashion. How do we move to actually make this happen? What are the elements that we need to personalize these as priorities.
What do we do as private sector to make that happen? What are we expect ing from governments to make that happen? What are we expecting from other parts of the multistakeholder world and how do we work together? So I'm simply figure three big questions we have here on the screen. But really the gist of it is, how do we really move to action. What is it that we can do and what are we expecting others to do? Keith, you said you had some points on that, so I'm willing to call on you first. But others please prepare your comments.
>> Keith: Again Keith Drazik with Verisign. I'm to provide maybe a case study or example that I think might help frame the way I see an opportunity for the private sector, the technical community, where there is some overlap. Obviously when you talk about Internet technical operators can be both private sector and technical. And the importance of engaging with civil society and governments in this particular example.
As we've noted over the last several years there have been references to trusted flaggers, right, or trusted notifiers, particularly coming out of some legislation and regulation in the European union. I think that is an example of an area where there's a need for a multistakeholder informed discussion about what it means to be a trusted flagger and what the implications of they are generally when it comes to, you know, freedoms online, privacy, due process, recourse, proportionality of action and tying this back to Mark's comments about online harms and mitigation of online harms.
I think at a very basic level it is really important for multistakeholder community, including governments, including those that are regulating, to understand the roles, responsibilities and capabilities of the various actors in the Internet ecosystem, the service providers. It is really important for regulators to truly understand what a registry does, what a hosting provider does, what an ISP or registrar does, the range of actors in the ecosystem, the stack. It matter who's are you are targeting because the roles and responsibilities of various actors are distinctly different.
I think when you take on that and add on a question of a trusted flagger and how they would interact with any more of those operators in the stack, it becomes very convoluted and complicated. We have heard from society about their trusted advisors concerned about being shadow regulation or instances where there would be lack of due process outside of a traditional court system. So, for example ‑‑ and this is the example:If there is harmful cop content hosted using a domain name and flagger identifying this harm and being most effective and efficient in removing harmful content or mitigating that online harm it is important for that trusted flagger to know who to go to and who to expect to take the most proportion gnat action in terms of that mitigation strategy, but it is also really important for the trusted flagger to be held to account in what they are reporting or flagging to the technical operator is supported by evidence and there is recourse for the impacted party.
That the action being requested is proportional. That you are not having excess negative blowback because of an action taken at the request of a trusted flagger. So I think this is an example where governments in regulating in suggesting or encouraging trusted flaggers. Civil society who have legitimate concerns about negative impact on end‑users or those that host a website and making sure the operators are receiving well‑evidenced and actionable reports that are routed to the appropriate party. I think that is an example where there is a need for a multistakeholder dialogue.
I think it probably just starts as a dialogue but could evolve into something a bit more structured or more comprehensive in terms of an operational approach. So just an example. I don't know if that is helpful. Would be happy to hear anybody else's thoughts on this one, thanks.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks. I would add one question to that: Do you see that model happening on a national, international, sub‑national level, or where do we start? Keith.
>> Keith: That is a great question and that dialogue needs to begin in an organic, bottom‑up way, where you have industry coming together and making sure the operators are talking together to make sure there's better communication and collaboration among the technical service operators, the Internet service providers, if you will. ISP, hosting companies, registries, registrars, resellers. But I think it is important to augment that with input from civil society and regulators in government and technical community, to a certain extent. So I think that that needs to start at a national level, regional level. Then evolve into something. Because clearly we have seen there are extra territorial or transborder issues when comes to these issues. I think it is a bigger issue that needs to be tackled but I think it probably needs to start at a regional level. Just for logistics, right. I think just to be able to, you know, achieve. So I would look at ‑‑ I know we are talking here about DFI and principles and priorities, but I see IGF, national and regional IGFs as an excellent opportunity for this conversation to begin and continue. I'm sure there are other examples of this type multistakeholder engagement and dialogue. I think this is where we talk about mitigation of online harms, the roles, responsibilities and capabilities of actors and how they are informed of harms and handle the harms to make sure end users are not just unproportionately handled.
>>
>> MODERATOR: If I were to draw a flowchart, we have principles defined by governments internationally to look back into the grassroots where multistakeholders can come together. Go back up to the national level and back to the national level to international policy conversations. So we do this in cycles. We go back and logistically in a way we can move organically from bottom‑up and international population levels. Just trying to make sense of how you see this happening. Amado, you wanted to share something?
>> Yes, I'm from Latin America. I am little bit concerned about the of this meeting. I'm not sure ‑‑ certainly the points are very key. I mean, from the technical standpoint. And also how the governments can react. The parliamentary or executive level. But big industry I think they are after ChatGPT, taking the leap. My recommendation is is ICC will be proper channel in terms for proposal for how keen ‑‑ I can talk on be half of Latin America I.T. industry. These issues are very key. But the main concern right now is how are we going to deal with the arrival of this huge AI wave? If we see more companies trying to invest in this code of ethics, trying to figure out the future of the Internet and collaborate altogether to solve these things as well as the infrastructure problems that we have at least, then how can we really be big industry here at this discussions? Share with us the way they used to do at the high level meetings they take part of and which direction corporations are going and how can we get all together the different sectors from industry because we are at different layers of the Internet. How can we have a common groundpoint to bring to the table to discuss with the governments and also to offer something. Also for society and having academy supporting our initiatives, thank you very much.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. That is a good point. Not treating industry as a monolith. Governments are not the same and all civil societies are not all the same. So indeed we have different sectors. We have different sizes, different capabilities in the private sector. So how do we make sure that all of those perspectives are taken into account when we look towards operationalizing principles and looking toward our shared future. I think that is a good point in figuring out really where are some of those spaces that various types of industry can connect and work together to share perspectives so that that can be taken into other communities. That is a good point. We are taking that. Yes, please.
>> Hi there, Luisa Tomar for National Private Enterprise. Thanks Timea for hosting. The principles somewhat from perspective of democratic governments and opportunities for private sector to improve how they build and deploy technology. I think with my organization we work globally in all kinds of complex environments with local business communities. The reality is that oftentimes their governments are the bad actors that they are sort of engaging in. That often can trickle up and down. I think when it comes to the multistakeholder process there can be sort of government and civil society can sometimes forget what private sector may be up against in some of the places where they are deploying technology, often for the purpose of accessibility, bringing new people online. So I think there needs to be more thought about how the multistakeholder process can support private sector in those situations and sort of not treat private sector and, one, as a monolith; two, as technology providers are sort of the bad guys in the room versus ‑‑ you know, oftentimes they are dealing with ‑‑ they want to uphold these principles and the government that they are actually dealing with is not. So I just think there needs to be a broader consideration of where the multistakeholder process can come in and which elements of the stakeholder's experience what and where support from other governments or support from civil society come into play.
I just really think that piece can be missing in terms of this declaration, I do think it ‑‑ it doesn't feel written from that perspective, necessarily. So I just wanted to have that, thank you.
>> MODERATOR: I have a follow‑up question, if you don't mind. I was just wondering, do you see potential for multistakeholder collaboration, industry collaboration in country to move the needle in some of these instances; to get more governmental support towards the DFI?
>> Julia: Yes, I think it is important to engage in the community and country in supports around this. I think that is already taking place. I think some of the gaps can be that other governments or other engagement government‑to‑government is not necessarily considering where the private sector's already sort of pushing one element or another. Then there can be a gap between like government‑to‑government engagement, where the dialogue is sort of happening separately and not necessarily more cohesively. But I also think it has to be at like the multistakeholder level as well. Sort of an appreciation of what it can actually look like on the ground as an operator or provider versus simply like, you know, these companies sort of have free rein in every market that they may be present.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much that. Is really helpful and moving us into the direction of the conversation that we were instructed to go to. To think a little bit about also how we can make sure those countries that have signed onto the DFI are effectively implementing it; but also think about ‑‑ and this is the next question I would like to move in, if there is no more important ‑‑ previous one. What can we do to move further support towards these principles? And I realize I'm assuming we think that we should be more support but if anybody wants to talk about something else, or do you think this is enough. The support for ‑‑ feel free to voice that as well. But I'm starting from the premise that we would like to see more support for the DFI. If so, what do you think the private sector can do, what the multistakeholder community can do to expand that support into other regions. Please.
>> Samantha: Hi, everyone, I'm Samantha, an attorney at law from Sri Lanka. I think it is important the regulation and law enforcement aspect of the future of the Internet is looked into. If I'm not mistaken I think the U. J A. Act is about to wrap up. In Sri Lanka we just passed protection and need law enforcement communities from the courts to regulation authorities actively joining us. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Samantha. What I take away from your comment, if you look at it issue‑by‑issue, if you see common topical issues arising, such ASAI that be a driver for broader principles that can move us and perhaps a bit more interoperable action on some of these processes so we don't think about them in silos. So moving ‑‑ principles can move action on topical issues, but also concerns around topical issues can have us think about principles more broadly and move towards more acceptance and implementation. Thank you for sharing that. Any other thoughts on either how to operational ize principles and countries that support them or move to new supporters?
I see a couple haven't spoken. I'm not going to call you out. But just know you are very welcome to share any thoughts you may have. We still have about half an hour in our conversation. Please.
>> John: Thanks Timea. One of the strengths is coalition of countries that pull together. I think it has countries across the development spectrum, who are in different stages of regulatory infrastructure in play that leads to technology and Internet. I'm John from Microsoft. I think that is a strength probably to be leveraged as relates to just modalities and processes creating regulations to begin with. That countries, especially ones more advanced in developing regulatory approaches should consider how those approaches are going to be models else where in service of the first attempt at pursuing this legislation and how that might sort of percolate through the rest of the DFI ecosystem. That could be a strength whereby the community is able to evangelize what they have found good regulatory approaches across regulatory spaces. What they consider good regulatory processes across that space. There is also a lot of risk that can create races to the bottom or outcomes if countries not being as mindful about that multistakeholder inclusion or what the practical impact of certain policies may be. One space they may well be mirrored or attempted elsewhere in ways less successful. One that jumps to mind now is the European union's CRA, provisions around mandating reporting of known exploited vulnerabilities.
Something which I have not met a security professional or anyone in the industry that thinks it is going to do anything but make the security system worse. But even if you know you think your government could pursue that policy responsibly, it would be hard to justify hey, everybody should have a similar vulnerability reporting requirement for known exploited vulnerabilities, for which there is not yet a patch. So thinking about how we are including multistakeholder voices in developing those policies to begin with as a model in developing the ecosystem and policies is important.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, John. That is a good point. How can this coalition as as multiplier for best practices as a safe space for discussing challenges that we all face. And perhaps if you can share those outputs that can drive more signatories to come to this coalition as space for helpful resources. We are noting that. Thank you so much. Okay. Please, Mark.
>> Mark: Yes, Mark Corvel, independent consultant. Just on operationalizing principles for partner governments stuff, 67, 70, something like that, the number, I think it would be a good message for the private sector to say to those partner governments, let's develop some effective mechanisms for engagement on how to develop policies that would implement these principles. Be it online harms, protecting intellectual property rights, serving the interests of data privacy, health sector, whatever. I mean in the U.K. We've had quite a good track record of establishing advisory groups. I have participated on the government side with private sector, civil society and technical community around the table. We would talk about what's happening globally. But also what is happening nationally on some of these key issues, data privacy or whatever. So for the private sector to think about models of mechanisms for that kind of discourse, that's going to be meaningful and influential. That is also taking into account the diversity of the private sector. The point raised earlier. Which is very challenging. When I was in government, you know, who do we talk to, you know, if it is on the education side or agriculture in terms of digital policies. It is not easy to get them all in the same room. The problem for the private sector, we understand, it is time consuming for them. It is a cost. But they should ‑‑ the private sector should see it as an investment of time to ensure that the right kind of policies are developed that are going to foster innovation and help private sector and at the same timed a dress citizens and address political concerns and law enforcement. The point made about law enforcement agencies, they need to be involved in this discourse too. So that ‑‑ you know, developing a model of mechanism like that, drawing on examples in the U.K. and other countries have already tried to establish. We have a regulator now taking up the whole issue in the U.K. On online safety. You know, the legislation is now passed over to the regulator, often common in U.K.'s case.
So the regulator needs the opportunity to engage effectively with the private sector too. Then on this point about engaging those administrations that are not participating in the DFI initiative, I think the private sector ‑‑ especially the bigger corporate entities could have a role to engage administrations that are not signed up to this. There are lots, you know. Where is Mexico, Egypt, south Africa, Morocco, Indonesia, a lot of these are not engaged. But the private sector, their networks can message about this in support of those efforts by the lead governments and the European commission and so on to advocate much more signing up by many more governments. Because it needs beefing up in terms of numbers of partners, certainly. Okay. Thanks, I'll stop there.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Mark. Those are some really practical comments. Which we are used to from your side already. So just to make sure we note everything that you've said, we will have noted here, we need to share information from the private sector. What is it that ‑‑ how do we see the process of our own involvement into some of these processes at the various levels of national policymaking regulating cycles.
So from this moment that we discuss it, the moment we pass legislation on this, we might think about policy frameworks, you pass regulation so we need to have that cycle first of all understood by the private sector. Then the private sector needs to figure where they come in on that. The private sector needs to be vocal about how they would like to be part of that. That also includes capacity building within the private sector to be able to do that and to the government side to be willing to do that. Then to your point about making sure that the private sector engages its own corporate networks to influence other, I would like reactions on that I think from the room. I think this is a very interesting point. Where that information from the private sector towards the government should come from. Is it from large companies, small companies, domestic companies, foreign companies, different sectors of industry? I think that's a lot to unpack on that particular point. You wanted to share.
>> David: David Sullivan, Partnership of Digital Practices working together for best practices for trust and safety online. So I think ‑‑ Mark's made tremendous comments, but I don't know the metric of success for DFI is number of governments that commit to it; I think it successful, meaningful implementation within the governments that have committed to it that share the values of the document, working together with multistakeholder community. There I think that the risks that I see for the private sector in this is, one, that practices or regulations not developed with input from the practicers are imposed on the private sector in a way that is not necessarily proportionate to players in the stack or jurisdictions, which are challenging which may fallout side of the partnerships ‑‑ signatories of the DFI. So there I really think there is ‑‑ like there is already a tremendous amount of work being done by the private sector relevant to principles in the DFI across many different coalitions and partnerships at the international and national level. To make sure those inform the implementation is important so that is my point here, thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. That consultation and working together on some of these frameworks and policies means buy‑in when it comes to implementation. Ythat was a really important important to raise. So we are noting that. You already started talking about measures of success for the DFI. That is going to be the last part of our conversation. So I want to stop here and ask anybody feels that have anything to share on operationalizi ng principles moving towards implementation. I want to make sure you have all felt heard and had the moment to share your thoughts so we can ‑‑ let me just circle back. But if not, then I suggest we start moving towards the last part of the conversation, which is what does success look like? A does success look like for the DFI in general, for the individual principles and what does success look like from the point of view of the private sector? Then as you think about that if you can add to that how do we measure progress and how do we measure our steps towards that vision of success. This is the moment to be idealistic and share the moments of what you want to accomplish.
>> I wasn't intending to talk but I think Mark mentioned a remark that can answer your question. In my previous work ten years ago, part of the basis, by the way. One of the issues, because I live in Jordan and was presenting at private firm the Jordanian minister at the time asked me to represent Jordan because they weren't active. When mark mentioned Egypt and other countries in the world that are not represented, maybe not know what is going on.
>> Maybe we can use the private sector people to make sure one of the success stories, try to move it to the governments of the countries not able to attend sometimes or not able to participate. So just thinking loudly with you, thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Making sure those actors involved act as multipliers and make sure they create that ripple in their community, that is one factor of the success. So thank you for that. Anybody else? Amado, please.
>> And you know, I think the ‑‑ also the ‑‑ an answer for mark's question is ‑‑ I come from Mexico. I will say probably the government, the officials ‑‑ the official agency responsible to be here at this meeting are not here because they are not feeling the requirement from the private sector from the civil society. But this is also good point. Maybe they are not of means to be able to attend. I think that is a good point. I think if there is organization so we can make this invitation ‑‑ open invitation for the different stakeholders to discuss, it could be ‑‑ at least in Mexico, very good way to start. Maybe it is IGF through another organization. I ‑‑ supposed to support, I don't know, but probably pathway is the same and measure of success will be how can we really be able to work all together and have this kind of commitment if the government cannot attend this meeting but maybe the private sector can also represent their interests. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: So we are percolating around this idea of defining success. Not in a number of signatories but number of partnerships and successful implementation projects that are happening in a multistakeholder fashion, so I'm hearing a lot of support for that. Barbara, you wanted to share something.
>> Barbara: Thanks very much. I realize that I didn't identify myself earlier. I'm Barbara wane are r with U.S. Council for International business. Building on the comments and to the role of private sector, I would just ‑‑ I just ‑‑ you know, when I'm speaking To other policy professionals and they say, well, what does this, you know, digital economy issues ‑‑ what are you talking about? I said well one of the buckets would be Internet governance. Eyes glaze. I would just love it if ‑‑ maybe this is more of a public outreach role. I would love if the average person could read a news article that explains what the business community is doing and why the Internet governance is important to the individual. That is a fantasy, a very high aspiration. So because, you know, this is the future of the economy. This is the future of innovation and societal welfare. People that aren't at the IGF, aren't in this space oftentimes don't understand the concept. Again, high aspirational that we have that maybe private sector could undertake fundamental public education effort, which would, in turn, have ripple effects, you know, to our government representatives and so forth. Thanks.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Barbara. A question ‑‑ not to you but to the room in general as well, why do we have this challenge? And I see it as well. In myself, mostly when I start writing talking points to people who don't necessarily talk about this every day, they tell me, this is not the language that everyday people speak. You need to go away and think about this in a way that I can read this paper and talk as if I'm talking about it. We find ourselves a lot in the space, talking about policies. We are so invested in them. It is like we are talking a foreign language. Why is that? What can we do to make this relevant to the average person in the here‑and‑now but average person that is concerned about their future on the Internet. What is it that DFI can do and what is it the private sector can do to build that bridge between policy ivory tower and here‑and‑now in our everyday lives. If somebody has that answer, I will give you a prize.
>> Keith: Thank you. Keith again. I apologize for taking the microphone so much. I may not have an answer directly to your question but I think it is important when we talk about success criteria to note number five under principles, which is listed as protected and strengthening multistakeholder approach to governance that keeps the Internet running for the benefit of all. So I think there is benefit and success ‑‑ there is a success threshold in having a multistakeholder ‑‑ healthy, vibrant stakeholder community dialogue and interaction. I think it is important northward in order to achieve is identify key areas of concern a multistakeholder dialogue can deliver upon. Especially as we anticipate government regulation. Because, look. Governments are going to legislate and governments are going to regulate. That is what they do. I'm preaching to the choir. That's their role is to protect the interest of their citizens, respectively. From their perspectives. I think that point, from their perspectives is critically important.
We as the private sector, working with civil society and technical community, need to ensure that governments, as they legislate and regulate do so in an informed way. That, you know, I think I said at the outset, we have seen over the last 20, 15, ten years ‑‑ even more recently, governments are getting much more active in regulating the Internet in all of its components and forms. It's even more important today that we make sure that as they become more active in regulating the Internet broadly, that they do so with information. They do so in an educated way. I think we as the private sector have a role in that, as has been mentioned here. I think we need to do so in collaboration with civil society actors and technical community to really present a unified multistakeholder front when comes to government so governments look to this community of multistakeholder actors. You know, as an informed resource ‑‑ as a resource. Not as competition, so thanks.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you, Keith. That is a really good point in making sure that ‑‑ yeah, that the unified voice from the multistakeholder community is not something that we just talk to governments about but talk to each other about and try to find some commonalities in how we work with one another. You wanted to share something?
>> Helen: Hi, I'm Helen from Amazon. I think one of the points that I think we can do better collectively in order to get the messaging across, in addition to having unified voice, as Keith mentioned, I think is also be more deliberate about capacity building and training. I think that applies not only to skills training but also what are the risks that we observe as consumers and users of the Internet. I think by communicating that to the global community we can also achieve the goal of making the DFI have more meaning to those that don't live and breathe IGF. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Great. Thank you so much. We are here and talk about these things but most sessions we need to talk more. We need to be more strategic about who are we talking to. One of the topics we are talking about in a fashion that really mobilizes action. And being sure all this talk that actually goes into an output that is impactful for the moment we actually need to move into the action and inform that action as best we can, based on our own individual experiences from the perspectives that we each have as stakeholders. That requires a lot of conversation. But conversation with a purpose that actually builds understanding, capacity, awareness, et cetera. Suki, you wanted to share something.
>> Suki: I find your request interesting. Coming from E.U. We have strong protection. My nephew recently said, protection, that is so 80s, I'm really scared. I was like, oh my God. I also Googled once Global Digital Compact. There was no article in German press on the theme. It is the same ‑‑ I just Googled the declaration, right. There was no single article in the German press on that. I think maybe we should also start communicating with the media, you know, to do some capacity‑building. Not only amongst us in multistakeholder group here.
We are all aware of everything because we are talking and spending time in Kyoto and the press. Germany is quite good in capturing a lot of topics. But for them it does not exist. So maybe we should also start working much more with media in general.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you, Suki. Maybe niches are newsworthy, if I can go there as a moderator. Sometimes when you go into this churning machine of policy, it does seem remove from what you feel is impactful or what we feel is newsworthy. Especially when so much is happening around us. So we need to find a way of connecting the dots. Because we were talking about the same things, but perhaps in a different language or different silos. So connecting the dots and making conversations that are trying to move some of those newsworthy items forward and be part of that discussion. So that's a good point. We do need alliances with opinion‑formers and news organizations and other media to talk about this. That's a really good point. John, you wanted to share something more.
>> John: John Hang from Microsoft again. When comes to like what it means to actually be implementing these and upholding these, I think that comes down to accountability for other countries. This is fundamental agreement between governments; that we are here because we identify with and want to support as values and principles that underscore the Internet.
What I think as a baseline this should look like identifying, what are the low‑hanging fruit policies and practices that are Covid non‑negotiable that governments subscribing to these commitments really should be abiding by? I come from a cyber security background here but I'm sure there's probably lots of these across different spaces related to this, but yah, it is hard if you are purchasing the services of private sector actors and Internet mercenaries or using Pegasus it is hard to see how you are good with human rights or protecting people. If you don't have a vulnerability equities process so people will understand how you will triage a discovery, tell a vendor, hard to promote trust in digital ecosystem. A lot of basic policies governments have adopted. Certainly not enough. Not the entirety of DFI community. There is opportunity for that community of governments with multistakeholder governments with private sector to identify what are low‑hanging fruit baseline commitments that should be non‑negotiables and where can that be tracked in saying hey this community is trying to live up to these, at least from a policy perspective. Whether or not that drives the requisite output is something to be evaluated later, thanks.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. I'm sure if you ask it is all non‑negotiable. We definitely need to figure out the ones that are ready for action across the board. Make sure we share, as you said earlier in your comments, share what has worked in implementing that. Then the multistakeholder community does have, I think, a unique way of holding people accountable to that. So it is not just coming up with the principle, sharing our good practices but also that good practice through the multistakeholder, you think you have done right.
Is there anything more you can do, anything else you should try to implement or build on on what you are already doing? This is not ‑‑ a lot of times when you talk about implementation of principles and reporting on that, it comes out as I don't want to report on that because I'm afraid to share my failures or that I don't want to share that I haven't done enough. So we also need to be careful about not making this shaming and naming list but rather incentivize input so there is a fine balance so we need to make sure, yes. Sorry to preach from the dais, the role of moderator sometimes but I think it is important to create safe spaces for dialogue, I'm trying to say. We have about ten minutes to be back in the room. Then at 11:30 we will have a 15‑minute break, 15 at 11:30, so we have about ten more minutes for discussion. So, Mark, you want to share something, then I'm going to ask for last comments from the room.
>> Mark: Yes, Timea, Mark Novel, Internet consultant. I think there is an opportunity for the private sector, through the DFI. As I understand it, this is a turning point for the initiative to move it into a more multistakeholder platform. And if there is the ambition ‑‑ I think it is stated in the declaration ‑‑ to engage with existing processes, including a lot of processes that are fundamentally intergovernmental. The U.N., ultimately the WSIS review, for example. The sustainable development goals 2030 agenda and external to the U.N., the G7, G20. So ‑‑ OECD has the opportunity through the private sector through advisory committees to engage and promote DFI principles. So if the private sector partnerships with the DFI initiative really take off, that provides a channel for the private sector into a lot of these strategic, high‑level intergovermental processes that are going to determine a way forward for A.I., determine future for IGF multistakeholder process in general. I think the message from the private sector here should be, yes, we want to engage and strengthen the DFI through our effective partnering with the governments that launched it, and with civil society communities and the technical communities as well. Because it might be a missed opportunity, you know. I really think this is an important opportunity. The time line, especially the U.N. time line that looms large over everything here and intersecting ‑‑ I missed out the GDC, global impact.
The DFI and global partners in DFI to engage in next process of GDC in New York, where it is still unclear whether there is going to be any meaningful stakeholder engagement to continue, after the initial consultation after the deep dive by the co ‑facilitators. So DFI I think provides a vehicle for the private sector, thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Mark. That's helpful in terms of DFI not being ‑‑ no just using GDC and WSIS and think about how we can further the substantive points of the DFI into some of these conversations, but also thinking how we can share the spirit of DFI as a multistakeholder initiative that is turning into be ‑‑ to bring that into these processes and in itself create opportunities for multistakeholder input. So it is a two‑way street. I think that is a very astute comment of that. Anybody else wanting to share anything on the opportunities and success visions? If not, then I'm going to ask if there's any last comments. Anything we haven't asked but you feel we should have asked you. Okay. Then I'm going to ask one last question: Any projects, opportunities, work that you have done in your own organization that was meant to further some of the priorities principles in the DFI? Have you done it with that in mind or have you realized now you have done things that are actually aligned with what's in there? Anything you might want to share from your own companies, your own life? Please.
>> Sumita: Sumita here again. Exactly what happened when going through principles. Like relating that to what we have done. So one thing if any of you take your phone and just search, you know, cheapest Internet in the world. Very sure you will get Sri Lanka at the top. So that is the kind of ‑‑ not knowingly aligning with, you know, these principles. There in the country we have made it affordable more inclusive to get majority of people, as many as possible come on board, for benefit of the Internet. Which is a theme for (?) And observation how that's been driven. I talk about Sri Lanka, India, how the competition, how the regulator has used the competition to, you know, make it more affordable. More sustainable. But in India it is ‑‑ competition has driven probably the cheapest Internet there are. In Sri Lanka, the regulator has to come into the picture and regulating ‑‑ they are nicely doing it, actually. Regulating the minimum price. Normally you regulate the ceiling price but there in Sri Lanka, they are regulating the floor price, okay. Right there regulating floor price sustains this nicely and ensures it is win/win .Maybe end user get best buy so it is more affordable. While doing that you ensure the businesses ‑‑ businesses are sustainable so you can continue to do so. So that has been something. Probably like other countries can as well.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you for that. I had my suspicions that sometimes we talked about in beginning of this session the private sector does ‑‑ what they do with a purpose. That purpose is not necessarily only economic but it is to have more broader societal implications. You look into the principles and you realize my own interest and my own company, while we are doing certain things actually aligns with these principles. So we need to highlight those areas. We need to highlight those areas also externally. Not just own companies but say hey, this is what we are doing. It actually aligns with a broader ‑‑ strategy of broader purpose and we have ‑‑ here's the coalition that can do that. Through that we can operationalize better with our own gifts but also try and move that corporation with governments with each other and other stakeholders in the stack, as we've called it earlier.
I'm going to end on that note because we are out of time. I want to thank you all for the very engaged conversation. I've learned a lot. I'm going to try in the next five, ten minutes to put that all together so we can report back in the plenary. I'm going to put a challenge in front of you. Correct me if I don't report correctly in the room. Be vocal over there. If there is anything I omit to say, please do engage and share that with the rest of the room. And challenge number two, now you have to find your own way back. Thank you, everyone.
[ APPLAUSE ]