GIF’s latest Advocacy Efforts: Global Digital Compact, Internet We Want and NETmundial+10

WHOLE AND OPEN

To ensure that the Internet stays whole, open, free, globally connected, interoperable, stable and unfragmented, we recommend setting the following goals:

1. Governments should ensure that their laws do not unduly restrict the right to freedom of expression online. As enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, restrictions to the right to freedom of expression should be provided by law, legitimate, and proportionate. Internet shutdowns, vague prohibitions of online content, and criminalization of legitimate expression on online platforms and websites are examples of how the governments across the world have restricted access to a whole and open internet in violation of international human rights law.
2. The telecommunication companies should improve their transparency reporting to ensure that their consumers understand how and why their services and data are impacted by government orders. This can be achieved, inter alia, by publishing timely and accurate information about government shutdown orders, takedown requests, and user data seizures. They should also set up mechanisms to transparently respond to government orders and to appeal orders that do not comply with domestic or international law. The IGF community should engage with telecommunication companies to monitor if and how companies observe this commitment and highlight positive examples of transparency reporting and appeals mechanisms during local, regional, and global IGF convenings.
3. With the increased usage by the public of digital means to access services and resources, governments should ensure universal access to public resources and services. This necessitates fostering initiatives for their digitization, while simultaneously prioritizing data security and inclusivity. In conjunction with this commitment, governments should also ensure the implementation of robust security measures safeguarding the data and information used by these digital platforms.
4. Governments should invest their best efforts to bridge the digital divide and ensure equal access to resources and services for individuals regardless of their internet bandwidth limitations. Governments should also address gender, age, and geographic divides. In many countries, women still have limited access to mobile devices and internet compared to men. When introducing digital services, governments should pay special attention to vulnerable and marginalized groups of population, including the elderly, youth, and people with disabilities.
5. Governments should provide access to basic digital literacy and cybersecurity courses in local languages for the most vulnerable groups of population. By doing so, governments can empower citizens and bridge the gap towards a more equitable and efficient society.
6. Governments of island nations, developing and least developed countries should prioritize the connectivity and affordability of digital services to their population. Similarly, rural areas should receive necessary resources to improve internet connectivity.
7. Governments should envisage the right to affordable and inclusive internet access in their national legislation, as well as undertake a positive obligation to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place for full and unrestricted enjoyment of this right.

UNIVERSAL AND INCLUSIVE

To move towards universal meaningful connectivity for everyone, everywhere, to encourage the uptake of new technologies at need, and to address skills gaps, we recommend setting the following goals:

1. Governments have made considerable strides to increase connectivity in the past two decades. However, internet access remains out of reach for too many. To this end, governments should enact and enforce policies to connect the unconnected and make the internet more affordable. Thus, governments should prioritize innovative solutions to last mile connectivity, particularly in rural and underserved areas and work with the international community and the private sector to improve subsea cable infrastructure.
2. Governments of landlocked countries should seek opportunities to connect to submarine cables, thus diversifying access to broadband internet and reducing monopolies.
3. Governments should commit to exploring ways to make the internet more affordable for poor and marginalized communities by subsidizing internet access costs and instituting price caps to prevent the telecommunications sector from price gouging consumers, as well as by establishing public-private partnerships that accelerate the deployment of affordable and accessible digital infrastructure.
4. Governments should collaborate with regional stakeholders to regularly assess connectivity, digital literacy, and access to online services, ensuring that indicators accurately reflect the region’s unique challenges and opportunities. Governments should also develop region-specific metrics and benchmarks to measure progress in closing the digital divide.
5. Governments should prevent tiered access to the internet by enacting and enforcing net neutrality legislation and regulation. Efforts by the private sector to circumvent net neutrality principles should be highlighted during IGF meetings. The IGF technical community and civil society should engage with the governments to explain the importance of net neutrality and ways to enforce this principle.
6. To design products that reflect the needs of a diverse society, including its most vulnerable and marginalized groups, the private sector should ensure inclusion and engage with critical voices. As such, the private sector has a responsibility to engage meaningfully with civil society organizations (CSOs), who hold invaluable insights into the needs and concerns of communities, providing a direct link to those impacted by products and services. By fostering collaboration and incorporating CSO input throughout the design, manufacture, and management processes, businesses can develop solutions that are socially responsible, sustainable, and meet the needs of the information society. This partnership benefits not only communities but also strengthens the legitimacy and ethical grounding of the private sector.
7. The private sector should increase inclusivity of their products and services by prioritizing user-centric design that considers needs of local communities, as well as local and regional context. Companies should not ignore the needs of consumers outside the Global North – instead, their policies, reports, and products should reflect the diversity of their users. New products, platforms, and sites should be tested for accessibility, including language accessibility, in different countries and regions to ensure people of all abilities can use their services, including in local languages.
8. When digitizing public services, governments should consider the digital divide in their country. Digitalization should not hinder access to these services, because some people stay behind in digital skills or because they do not have access to (affordable) internet. To overcome this obstacle, governments can offer offline alternatives to access public services, provide training for individuals lacking digital skills, and improve accessibility in remote areas.
9. The IGF community should commit to taking actionable, concrete steps to increase participation in internet governance from the Global South, including island nations. The Global South is not a homogenous and different countries and regions have unique obstacles that should be addressed through global digital cooperation. Thus, requiring that leadership positions are filled by representatives from all regions, level of economic development, and unique geographic conditions will better ensure that diverse views are considered and reflected in discussions and decision-making. IGF should also be cognizant that many countries in the Global South face barriers to meaningful participation due to lack of human and financial resources and, thus, should provide funding and capacity building opportunities to meet the needs of domestic policymakers, civil society, academics, and technical experts.
10. Governments should localize digital literacy resources to reach all people in their countries, regardless of language, literacy level, ability, socio-economic status, or other factors that might otherwise prevent access to these resources. Governments should also identify specific skills needed for effective utilization of new technologies in their respective countries and in collaboration with other stakeholders develop training programs and educational initiatives tailored to the region’s economic and technological landscape.
11. When the global internet governance community engages in capacity building efforts with local stakeholders in different regions across the world, they should ensure that rights-based norms are mainstreamed throughout the agenda and that there is correlation between human rights, free and open internet, inclusion, and sustainable development. Local civil society organizations and technical experts should be asked to review and provide feedback on the capacity building curricula to ensure they reflect local contexts.
12. Governments should establish collaborative dialogue between the policymakers, industry leaders, and regulatory bodies in their respective countries to enhance policy frameworks that promote competition, innovation, and investment in the ICT ecosystem. Governments should implement policies that support local startups and businesses, fostering a dynamic and competitive digital environment, as well as policies that promote the integration of technology in healthcare, education, and government services, with a specific focus on reaching underserved communities.

FREE-FLOWING AND TRUSTWORTHY

To unlock the value of data flows for sustainable development of all and enshrine trust as the prerequisite for data sharing regimes, founded on the protection of data, we recommend setting the following goals:

Governments that still lack comprehensive and up-to-date privacy and data protection laws and regulations should prioritize adoption and implementation of such legislation and establish robust enforcement mechanisms.

SAFE AND SECURE

To establish and implement robust frameworks for high levels of cybersecurity, and strong recommendations for legal structures, practices, and cross-border cooperation to combat cybercrime, we recommend setting the following goals:

1. The IGF community should undertake efforts to increase the capacity of stakeholders in cybersecurity. This can be achieved by lowering the barrier of entry for stakeholders to engage with matters relating to cybersecurity, for example: making knowledge about cybersecurity more accessible by simplifying overly technical language and translating cybersecurity policies and frameworks into national languages; undertaking collaborative efforts particularly between Global North and Global South countries; ensuring that cybersecurity protocols and regulations are grounded in respect for human rights, such as the right to privacy.
2. All stakeholders should tailor cybersecurity capacity-building programs to address the specific challenges faced by different countries, ensuring accessibility for those with limited resources and technical capabilities. In many countries rapidly progressing digitalization lacks nationwide awareness campaigns about potential negative consequences of uninformed decisions. Governments should also promote cybercrime incident reporting by end-users, which will improve actions directed on combatting cybercrimes. By empowering individuals and organizations with cybersecurity knowledge, we foster a culture of online safety and responsible data practices.
3. Ensuring a truly safe and secure internet requires ensuring inclusivity and empowering marginalized communities, including but not limited to women, indigenous peoples, and LGBTQ+ people. This includes incorporating their unique challenges and obstacles in navigating the internet into design of safety measures. One way this can be achieved is by ensuring meaningful representation of members from marginalized communities in internet governance mechanisms and bodies, as well as ensuring their meaningful participation in internet policy-making processes at the local, regional, and global levels.
4. Governments and private companies should commit to refraining from the use of spyware and engaging in extra-legal or disproportionate targeted surveillance practices.
5. Governments should ensure that their national policy and legal cybersecurity frameworks remain adaptive and effective and that they do not include vague provisions or disproportionate measures that unduly restrict fundamental human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. When adopting sectoral regulations, policies, and practices on combating cyber extremism and terrorism, governments should adhere to the UDHR and ICCPR, including the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Derogation of rights during emergencies is not absolute.
6. Governments should undertake multistakeholder approach when designing their cybersecurity policies with the aim to enhance cooperation and skills sharing, which is a cornerstone of effective prevention of cybercrimes.

RIGHTS-RESPECTING

To ensure a human rights-based approach to Internet governance, and to promote human rights in the digital space, we recommend setting the following goals:

1. Governments should establish rights-respecting legal frameworks fostering more inclusive and trustworthy digital future for all. To ensure a just and secure online environment, governments should prioritize the continuous development and revision of respective digital policies, laws, and regulations, while ensuring that these legal frameworks protect fundamental human rights, including privacy, personal data protection, freedom of expression, and equitable access to information and resources.
2. Governments should adhere to the multistakeholder approach to public consultation on relevant digital policies and legislation, as well as engage all relevant stakeholders in their respective roles in the monitoring mechanisms over the implementation of approved policies and legislation.
3. Given the increasing frequency of government-mandated internet shutdowns across the world, governments and the IGF community should seek to enact legally binding obligations, at both local and international levels, to make governments explicitly commit to refrain from internet shutdowns. To ensure its effective enforcement, an international mechanism can be established to document instances of internet shutdowns and bring governments to accountability for arbitrary internet shutdowns.
4. Recognizing the role of private sector actors in ensuring respect for the enjoyment of human rights in the digital space, IGF community should explore ways to identify how the private sector affects the enjoyment of human rights in the digital space and demand accountability in situations where private sector actors have been violating their commitment to respect human rights. One way this can be achieved is through the enactment and enforcement of mandatory human rights due diligence for tech companies in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
5. To avoid arbitrary and undue interference with human rights in the digital space, governments and other stakeholders should collaborate to provide adequate and continuous capacity-building to state authorities, including law enforcement officials, public prosecutors, judges, and national human rights institutions, on the application of international human rights law and standards concerning human rights in the digital space.

Stakeholder Group: Civil Society

Country: Submitted on behalf of the Greater Internet Freedom (GIF) Consortium run by Internews and uniting over 100 organizations with local, regional, and global reach across 8 regions in 39 countries.

I – PRINCIPLES FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESSES

I – A) THE 2014 NETMUNDIAL PROCESS PRINCIPLES

1. The 2014 NETmundial meeting adopted a set of 10 Principles for Internet Governance Processes. In light of the rapid technical, social, and economic evolutions that have taken place since then, please indicate below your degree of support for the following statements:

The 10 “NETmundial Internet Governance Process Principles” adopted in 2014 remain relevant to address today’s digital governance challenges.

Strongly agree ✅
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


Our persistent difficulties in dealing with digital issues largely stem from insufficient inclusion of all relevant stakeholders in policy discussions.

Strongly agree
Agree ✅
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


Our persistent difficulties in dealing with digital issues reflect different interests, priorities and value systems of distinct stakeholders.

Strongly agree
Agree ✅
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


2. After reviewing the set of Principles for Internet Governance Processes from NETmundial 2014, do you think they need to be supplemented, in order to guide the development of the governance of the digital world? Please detail.

Even a decade later, the set of principles provides a robust, comprehensive framework, adequately capturing the most pressing issues in the digital world. Rather than seeking to expand the existing list, the focus should be on the action plan aimed at measuring the success rate of incorporating those principles into the design of respective Internet governance processes to date and providing guidance and best practices for the forthcoming initiatives. More efforts should be invested into the outreach to promote these principles, thus improving their adoption, and understanding, which will ultimately improve Internet governance globally.

At the same time, it’s crucial to emphasize accountability of private sector in human rights protection. While governments indeed bear the primary legal and political responsibility, all stakeholders, including the private sector, must commit to human rights protection. Oversight mechanisms are vital to ensure accountability across sectors and uphold human rights standards.
The principles of inclusion, equity and meaningful participation must be further strengthened and emphasized. Despite many Internet governance processes being open to all interested stakeholders, subsequent decision-making often fails to duly consider their suggestions or perspectives. During the ten years in-between NETmundial editions, the power of big tech and technologically advanced states has increased, amplifying the imperative for equitable representation, particularly from voices within the Global South. This underscores the earlier point about the importance of responsible and committed principles implementation by all stakeholders. Recognizing the pivotal role of diverse stakeholder engagement in Internet governance, the provision of financial resources and capacity-building initiatives becomes imperative. These measures ensure that all stakeholders are equipped with the necessary tools and knowledge to meaningfully participate in the process, fostering a more inclusive and equitable digital world.

I – B) STAKEHOLDER RESPONSIBILITIES

3. The 2014 NETmundial statement includes the following “multistakeholder” Internet Governance Process Principle: “The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion”. The distribution of roles and responsibilities between stakeholders is an ongoing (and contentious) subject of debate. In this regard, please indicate below your degree of support for the following statements:

Each stakeholder group has different roles and responsibilities, depending on the topic and phases of specific governance processes.

Strongly agree
Agree ✅
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


Most digital governance processes are applying the above mentioned “multistakeholder” principle.

Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree ✅
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


4. Do you see room for improvements in the implementation of the above mentioned “multistakeholder” principle? If yes, what would you suggest?

Improving the “multistakeholder” principle in Internet governance that better serves diverse stakeholder interests involves broadening participation, balancing representation, ensuring inclusive decision-making, increasing transparency, establishing accountability, securing sustainable funding, and continuous evaluation of efficient implementation.

The mere existence of multistakeholder Internet governance spaces is not enough, all stakeholders should be interested to participate and see the value of such time investment. In many countries, relevant stakeholders are not engaging in local and global Internet governance initiatives for the lack of awareness and/or means to participate meaningfully. For example, while the emergence of hybrid meetings has provided a cheaper way (no travel cost) to participate, Internet access in some countries remains an exclusionary factor. But even the Internet connection itself may not be reliable enough to support meaningful participation. Moreover, stakeholder participation should be enabled, it cannot be taken for granted.

Very often, stakeholders who are expected to contribute to Internet governance processes, such as civil society organizations, academia representatives and end users, lack financial resources or face visa challenges. More efforts should be invested to ensure equitable and meaningful participation of marginalized groups and individuals from developing countries across all stakeholder groups.

Enhancing transparency in decision-making processes and promoting inclusivity through capacity-building initiatives can further strengthen the implementation of multistakeholder principle. Having same stakeholders in the attendance from year to year is not enough to meet the principle of multistakeholderism. Engagement strategies should focus on expanding outreach and bringing new actors.

Similarly, mere presence of stakeholders in these spaces is not enough if their perspectives are not considered at the decision-making phase. It is necessary to generate standards for what is meant by meaningful participation in a multistakeholder process. In other words, it is no longer enough to simply use the concept, but it is necessary to include measurement indicators and determine stakeholder roles and responsibilities when and where appropriate, that allow us to evaluate objectively whether a multistakeholder Internet governance process has truly inclusive, and equitable participation mechanisms.

I – C) COORDINATION

5. Numerous initiatives and processes have emerged to address the broad diversity of issues raised by the digital revolution. Sometimes, multiple processes address the same issues in parallel. Please indicate below your degree of support for the following statements:

Separate siloed discussions on a specific issue risk creating incompatible and even conflicting outcomes.

Strongly agree
Agree ✅
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


Distributed initiatives on a particular issue can help cover the diversity of approaches and perspectives.

Strongly agree
Agree ✅
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


Better coordination is needed between processes dealing with overlapping issues.

Strongly agree ✅
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


6. If you believe better coordination is needed, please suggest ways to do so and specific text or language that could be included as recommendations in a NETmundial+10 outcome statement.

To enhance coordination, a NETmundial+10 outcome statement could “recommend the establishment of working groups or task forces, setting up regular progress update briefings, and enhancing information sharing between the digital governance processes and initiatives dealing with the adjacent or overlapping issues. Regular information sharing and updates shall ensure that all relevant stakeholders are aware of the most recent developments, which are easily accessible on the official web resources of respective initiatives, and provide enough information to identify areas of overlap or synergy, as well as opportunities for engagement.” These measures aim to foster collaboration, prevent creation of new and redundant processes and mechanisms, and promote a more inclusive and effective Internet governance framework. NETmundial+10 as an Internet governance process itself should clearly define its role and contribution to the ongoing GDC and WSIS processes, as well as its place in the next decade of Internet governance.

There is broad consensus to support the multistakeholder approach, but little common or broadly-shared understanding about how to put it into practice. NETmundial+10 aims to help operationalize, through guidelines, principles and mechanisms, improvements for multistakeholder collaboration.

II – A) PARTICIPATION IN MULTILATERAL PROCESSES

7. Some multilateral processes offer the possibility for non-governmental stakeholders to contribute through consultations. However, these examples remain limited and there is often no transparency on how these inputs are taken into account in subsequent stages of discussions among States. Please indicate below your degree of support for the following statements:

Since NETmundial 2014, opportunities for non-governmental stakeholders to participate in multilateral processes have been improved.

Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral ✅
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


More transparent mechanisms should be put in place regarding how input from non-governmental stakeholders is taken into account.

Strongly agree ✅
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


Relevant non-governmental stakeholders should be able to attend/observe multilateral negotiations on digital issues.

Strongly agree ✅
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


Relevant non-governmental stakeholders should be able to contribute in a meaningful way to multilateral negotiations on digital issues.

Strongly agree ✅
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


8. Please suggest ways to improve meaningful participation of non-governmental stakeholders in multilateral processes and add specific text or language in that regard that could be included as recommendations in a NETmundial+10 outcome statement. If possible, please indicate examples you know of meaningful participation of stakeholders in multilateral-driven processes.

To improve meaningful participation of non-governmental stakeholders in multilateral processes, a NETmundial+10 outcome statement could “Recommend establishing dedicated consultative mechanisms and elaborating clear guidelines and modalities for stakeholder engagement. Governments shall encourage and invite input from all interested stakeholders. Where relevant, governments shall enable participation of other stakeholders in multilateral spaces by providing travel support and conducting onboarding sessions. Moreover, governments shall ensure transparency in addressing the input received during stakeholder consultations by, inter alia, making public all stakeholder submissions and acknowledging which recommendations have been accepted or declined.”

To make this happen there should be a shift in governments’ attitude towards the role of non-governmental stakeholders. Engaging them early in the policy-development process gives governments an opportunity to have a validation test, identify potential gaps, get expert acknowledgement, and do the necessary course-correct before moving to the implementation phase, thus avoiding criticism for any potential shortcomings once the policies become binding.

II – B) GUIDELINES FOR MULTISTAKEHOLDER CONSENSUS-BUILDING AND DECISION-MAKING

Principles of open and inclusive multistakeholder collaboration in digital governance are scattered in various foundational documents and declarations. The characteristics enunciated below are distilled from some of those documents that deal with multistakeholder collaboration processes as well as from current good practices and experiences. The aim here is to obtain feedback from the community as to the relevance of each of these characteristics, with a view to elaborating a sort of “gold standard” or “protocol of protocols” that may serve national, regional, and global communities to establish and develop multistakeholder collaboration processes and mechanisms, as well as to assess processes and mechanisms that are presented as being multistakeholder. 9. Please rank the relevance of the following guidelines in the order of importance in your view. Assign a number from 1 to 12 to each item, where 1 indicates the most important and 12 indicates the least important:

Multistakeholder processes should be accessible to all stakeholders, regardless of their background, status, or level of expertise.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Multistakeholder processes should empower stakeholders by providing them with the necessary information, resources, and skills to participate effectively.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Stakeholders should treat each other with mutual respect, recognizing the value of diverse viewpoints and contributions.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Multistakeholder processes should involve informed and deliberative discussion among stakeholders.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Stakeholders should share responsibility for the outcomes of the multistakeholder process.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Multistakeholder processes should be governed by the rule of law, with respect for constitutional principles, human rights, and legal frameworks.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Mechanisms for resolving conflicts among stakeholders should be in place to enable decision-making.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Digital governance processes should be flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances, evolving technologies, emerging issues, and changing geopolitical dynamics.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Decisions should consider the long-term implications and sustainability of outcomes.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Capacity-building efforts enhance understanding and skills of stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries and underrepresented communities.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Multistakeholder processes should strive to treat all stakeholders fairly and equitably, considering their respective needs, capacities, and vulnerabilities.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

A global multistakeholder approach to digital governance should recognize the need for collaborative action across national borders and stakeholder groups.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

10. Please identify up to three relevant items from the above list you consider are not being effectively implemented in current digital governance processes.

✅ Multistakeholder processes should be accessible to all stakeholders, regardless of their background, status, or level of expertise.
✅ Multistakeholder processes should empower stakeholders by providing them with the necessary information, resources, and skills to participate effectively.
– Stakeholders should treat each other with mutual respect, recognizing the value of diverse viewpoints and contributions.
– Multistakeholder processes should involve informed and deliberative discussion among stakeholders.
✅ Stakeholders should share responsibility for the outcomes of the multistakeholder process.
Multistakeholder processes should be governed by the rule of law, with respect for constitutional principles, human rights, and legal frameworks.
– Mechanisms for resolving conflicts among stakeholders should be in place to enable decision-making.
– Digital governance processes should be flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances, evolving technologies, emerging issues, and changing geopolitical dynamics.
– Decisions should consider the long-term implications and sustainability of outcomes.
– Capacity-building efforts enhance understanding and skills of stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries and underrepresented communities.
– Multistakeholder processes should strive to treat all stakeholders fairly and equitably, considering their respective needs, capacities, and vulnerabilities.
– A global multistakeholder approach to digital governance should recognize the need for collaborative action across national borders and stakeholder groups.


11. Please suggest additional elements that could take part in a set of guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration that could be included as recommendations in a NETmundial+10 outcome statement. If possible, please indicate examples you know of multistakeholder processes that stand out in your view as positive models of such collaboration.

To ensure the success of multistakeholder collaboration, genuine commitment from all stakeholders is crucial. Engagement should not be merely procedural but should add substantial value throughout the process. The following recommendations might be worth reflecting in the guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration:

– Stakeholders should commit to fostering trust and building collaborative relationships to achieve mutually set goals.
– Multistakeholder processes should acknowledge the diverse expertise and perspectives that stakeholders bring to the table, establishing clear objectives and expectations for stakeholder engagement.
– Multistakeholder processes should establish transparent decision-making processes with opportunities for meaningful input from all stakeholders.
– Multistakeholder processes should integrate accessibility measures to ensure participation from underrepresented groups.

III – INPUT TO ONGOING PROCESSES
III-A) THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM – IGF
12. The IGF environment, including the global annual event, the National and Regional Initiatives and the intersessional work, brings together all stakeholder groups on an equal footing. Please indicate below your degree of support for the following statements regarding the IGF:
The IGF has been an effective space for Internet governance debates and cooperation.

Strongly agree
Agree ✅
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


The IGF lacks the required financial resources to properly perform its mission.

Strongly agree ✅
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


With appropriate conditions, the IGF has the capacity to innovate multistakeholder approaches.

Strongly agree
Agree ✅
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


A strengthened IGF would be the preferred space to improve coordination among digital governance processes

Strongly agree
Agree ✅
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I don’t know / I’d rather not respond


13. Do you believe that a strengthened IGF environment, including the NRIs and the intersessional work, could be the right place to coordinate debates on the governance of the Internet and digital issues, and thus help tackle the problem of governance fragmentation? If so, in which ways should the IGF environment be strengthened in order to fulfill this role?

Yes, a strengthened IGF environment has a potential to be a uniting and coordinating space on Internet governance and digital issues. IGF has a history of almost two decades, a track record of achievements where it proved to be a ground breaker and some visible gaps that can be addressed. Any new multistakeholder space is not immune from similar hurdles that IGF went through, thus it is more efficient to improve the existing process, rather than establishing a brand new one that would still need to figure out and test its operational modalities. Our experience with IGF ecosystem shows that it could benefit from the following measures:

1. Enhancing better coordination between the global IGF, NRIs, and intersessional work by fostering stronger linkages (especially within the regions), sharing best practices, and harmonizing agendas to ensure alignment in addressing Internet governance and digital rights challenges.
2. Investing into meaningful outreach and engagement aiming to broaden participation in the IGF process beyond the usual suspects circle, particularly focusing on underrepresented regions and stakeholder groups.
3. Empowering NRIs by providing greater financial support and visibility, as well as facilitating networking opportunities with decision-makers.
4. Introducing robust follow-up mechanisms to ensure that outcomes and recommendations from IGF discussions are translated into tangible actions. This may involve establishing working groups or task forces to follow up on key issues and monitor progress on implementation, which can be reported back to the community at every annual meeting.
5. Elevating the visibility of the IGF and its outcomes is essential for getting broader support for its role in coordinating Internet governance discussions. This includes leveraging various communication channels and engaging with policymakers, technical community, and the private sector to highlight the importance of the IGF.
6. Investing in capacity-building initiatives is crucial to equip stakeholders, especially from developing countries, with the necessary skills and knowledge to actively contribute to debates on Internet governance. Dedicated fund can be created for supporting fellowship programs and youth schools at the NRIs level.
7. Increasing core IGF funding and expanding the understaffed IGF Secretariat team.


III-B) OTHER PROCESSES (GDC, WSIS+20 Review)

Several processes are under way in the UN context regarding the governance of digital issues, in particular the negotiations around the Global Digital Compact (included in the Pact for the Future) and the WSIS+20 review process. They may set fundamental guidelines and recommendations for the further development of the Internet and the digital ecosystem as a good for society and for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs. As a unique gathering with all participant stakeholders on an equal footing, do you believe that NETmundial+10 should send messages to these processes?

14. If you think NETmundial+10 should send messages to the Global Digital Compact, please indicate below what these key messages would be.

The Global Digital Compact must reiterate the principle of multistakeholder Internet governance and recognize its pivotal role in fostering an open, global, and interoperable Internet. Additionally, it should integrate an intersectional gender perspective, addressing the various forms of marginalization and discrimination hindering equitable access to digital technologies. While aligning commitments with Agenda 2030 goals is commendable, it’s crucial to also underscore states’ human rights obligations and the WSIS action lines throughout the GDC commitments and actions. Rather than creating multiple new fora, the GDC should focus on strengthening existing well-respected spaces, such as the IGF and WSIS and avoid duplication, especially with a view to limited financial resources.

Ensuring equitable access to digital technologies and bridging the digital divide should be supported with concrete governmental commitments. It is also worth highlighting the importance of international cooperation and effective governance frameworks to address cross-border challenges and maximize the benefits of digitalization. It would be a welcome move if governments continued engaging in meaningful consultations with interested stakeholders to finetune the GDC final text and design an accountable review process to monitor GDC implementation progress and address emerging challenges in digital governance effectively.

15. If you think NETmundial+10 should send messages to the WSIS+20 review process, please indicate below what these key messages would be.

The WSIS+20 review process should bolster the multistakeholder model of Internet governance and reaffirm the principle that the global digital agenda must be grounded in human rights. WSIS+20 should translate its conversations into tangible commitments and outcomes. The IGF mandate should be renewed.

16. Do you think there are other processes that could benefit from the outcomes of the NETmundial+10 meeting? Please detail and indicate which key messages could be sent to those processes.
–