The NETmundial+10 is taking place in Sao Paulo, Brazil on 29-30 April, convened by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. The meeting will bring together government, private sector, civil society and technical stakeholders from around the world to discuss and build consensus on how to strengthen and improve the multi-stakeholder governance framework.
auDA called for a NETmundial+10-style event as part of our 2023-25 Internet Governance Roadmap and will participate in the event.
We provided the following response to the call for submissions:
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.
The 2014 Principles were developed with broad multi-stakeholder support. They remain relevant today and could be reaffirmed as they stand as principles to guide the future development of the digital world. We do not think any additional principles are required.
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?
The principle of stakeholders participating in their respective roles and responsibilities is widely accepted but there is room for improvement in its implementation. While flexibility in interpretation should remain the goal, there would be benefit in agreeing a process for determining which stakeholders should be involved in each discussion or phase of decision-making. This principle cannot be used to exclude stakeholders in inappropriate ways (e.g. to say that a civil society organisation should not be included in a technical internet governance discussion because it does not operate internet infrastructure itself).
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.
Better coordination is required among all stakeholders to reduce duplication of effort, drive outcomes that better meet the needs of all stakeholders, including end users, and help ensure technology delivers on its promise of improving people’s lives.
NETmundial+10 should call for:
- Better coordination between the organisations and processes related to the operation of technical infrastructure (for example, the key internet infrastructure organisations known as the I* orgs, various internet and technical standards bodies, and other relevant parties)
- Better coordination between intergovernmental systems and processes that seek to address digital challenges – and better communication about these.
In addition to better coordination and better communication of the processes and outcomes within each stakeholder group, there is a need for better coordination between government and non-government stakeholders.
Solving the challenges and embracing the opportunities of the digital world requires strengthened collaboration between policymakers/regulators and technical experts/operators of technical infrastructure. To this end, NETmundial+10 should also call for:
- Establishing dedicated, issue-specific dialogues among relevant experts to take place within or alongside the IGF.
II - GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER MECHANISMS
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.
Multilateral processes were historically not designed to accommodate multistakeholder viewpoints, and they remain poorly equipped to do this. However, in recent years, there have been some attempts to better facilitate this, such as the UN’s open stakeholder consultation on the GDC zero draft. Another example is the ITU’s study groups and committees that explore defined issues that allow the views of sector members, associate members and experts to be considered. These attempts, while welcome, are imperfect and there is an urgent need to consider and establish new processes to allow the contribution of multistakeholder expertise to become part of multilateral processes.
There may be viable multistakeholder models operating within national jurisdictions that could be explored and adapted for the global level. For example, some ccTLDs have multistakeholder governance structures that ensure the views of all stakeholders are represented.
There may also be examples within the UN system that could be adapted for multilateral processes relating to digital governance. For example, the World Health Organization has expert advisory committees for specific issues. To be effective, and in line with the principles of multistakeholder governance, experts would need to be selected by bottom-up processes (as opposed to being appointed by the Secretary-General or nominated by Member States), with experts endorsed by the relevant stakeholder group.
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:
[1] A global multistakeholder approach to digital governance should recognize the need for collaborative action across national borders and stakeholder groups.
[2] Multistakeholder processes should involve informed and deliberative discussion among stakeholders.
[3] Stakeholders should treat each other with mutual respect, recognizing the value of diverse viewpoints and contributions.
[4] Stakeholders should share responsibility for the outcomes of the multistakeholder process.
[5] Digital governance processes should be flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances, evolving technologies, emerging issues, and changing geopolitical dynamics.
[6] Decisions should consider the long-term implications and sustainability of outcomes.
[7] Mechanisms for resolving conflicts among stakeholders should be in place to enable decision-making.
[8] Multistakeholder processes should be governed by the rule of law, with respect for constitutional principles, human rights, and legal frameworks.
[9] Multistakeholder processes should empower stakeholders by providing them with the necessary information, resources, and skills to participate effectively.
[10] Multistakeholder processes should strive to treat all stakeholders fairly and equitably, considering their respective needs, capacities, and vulnerabilities.
[11] Capacity-building efforts enhance understanding and skills of stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries and underrepresented communities.
[12] Multistakeholder processes should be accessible to all stakeholders, regardless of their background, status, or level of expertise.
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.
New multistakeholder processes should ensure they build linkages and effective connections with relevant national and multilateral processes dealing with the same or related issues, so that they may inform and influence the deliberations of decision-makers.
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?
We consider the IGF is the best place to coordinate discussion and debate on Internet and digital governance. It has demonstrated its ability to adapt and improve over time and the NETmundial+10 outcomes should include explicit support for its continued evolution.
Strengthening the IGF requires:
- Renewed commitment to cooperation and collaboration among all stakeholder groups and to facilitate participation from regions that are currently under-represented
- Atargeted effort to rebalance government and private sector participation with civil society
- A targeted effort to foster multidisciplinary participation
- Facilitation of issue-specific dialogue among relevant experts and governments
- Facilitation of information and updates regarding relevant multilateral processes and the opportunity for multistakeholder discussion and input on these.
- A significant expansion of the resources devoted to the IGF environment by member states and other stakeholders, to support improved participation and to improve the scope and quality of professional support available for the events and the dialogue processes that form part of the IGF system.
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 NETmundial+10 outcomes should:
- Express support for the GDC’s objectives, with specific reference to closing digital divides and accelerating progress on the Sustainable Development Goals.
- Express support for the GDC’s focus on building on the WSIS process.
- urge the GDC to unequivocally commit to multi-stakeholder governance and prioritising participation and collaboration among all relevant stakeholders.
- Urge the GDC not to duplicate existing processes.
- Urge the GDC not to create new structures or processes where existing ones could be strengthened and improved.
- Instead, provide recommendations for consolidating implementation, reporting and review of the GDC commitments within the WSIS process. For example:
- WSIS annual reporting could include a component on GDC progress.
- The proposed GDC implementation map and portal (para 62, 63) could be rolled into already established WSIS processes.
- A separate high level track within the IGF could be established to consider progress of both WSIS and the GDC and report to the CSTD. Such a process would be a prudent use of scarce resources and reduce the need for a biennial High Level Review of the GDC (UNGA could review every 5 years instead of every 2).
- Instead, provide recommendations for consolidating implementation, reporting and review of the GDC commitments within the WSIS process. For example:
- Express explicit support for the IGF.
- Call for the IGF’s continued evolution to better support the participation and collaboration between stakeholders that is required to mitigate the risks associated with digital technologies and ensure they deliver on their promise of improving people’s lives.
- Call on all stakeholders to commit to participation in and funding of the IGF.
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 key messages from Netmundial+10 to the WSIS+20 review process should include:
- Explicit reaffirming of commitment to the multi-stakeholder governance approach
- Explicit support for the continued evolution of the IGF as the best place for coordination of Internet and digital governance discussion and debate.
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.
All stakeholders, organisations and processes dealing with any aspect of digital governance and development of the digital world could benefit from the NETmundial principles and the outcomes of NETmundial+10. NETmundial+10 organisers and participants should seek to share these outcomes broadly.
