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.
***
>> MODERATOR: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this open form, IGF to GDC, An new era of global digital governance, a SIDS perspective organized by the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. The CTU is a Treaty based intergovernmental international organization dedicated to promoting and supporting the development of the Caribbean information and communication technologies, ICT and that Sector for the socioeconomic development of the Region.
This Open Forum is to share experiences and advanced discussions on the Global inequality in the new digital Global economy in the context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals 8, 9, 10 and help developing countries formulate proposals and recommendations for the Global Digital Compact as they prepare for the Future of the World Summit.
We must ensure the GDC takes into account the shortcomings of the UN‑IGF process specifically as related to DCs and SIDS and identifies those shortcomings. All of these issues are addressed in this Open Forum our issues that the Caribbean is grappling with. And which present major social and economic development challenges for the region.
Interaction between on‑site and online speakers and attendees will be facilitated by the online Moderator. That person will flag questions, comments and other actions of online participants to the on‑site Moderator.
Let's get started. Our guests this morning are ‑‑ I will start with myself. My name is Jewel Forde. I'm the on‑site Moderator. Michelle Marius is the online Moderator. Our guests this morning are Mr. Rodney Taylor, Secretary‑General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. Sylvia ‑‑ sorry Sylvia is not with us. Olga Cavalli,
Co‑founder, Director South School on Internet Governance. Mr. Quintin Chou‑Lambert, Office of The Secretary‑General envoy on technology. And Tracy Hackshaw, the president of the
Trinidad and Tobago multistakeholder Advisory Group.
Online we have ‑‑ I'm sorry?
And Ms. Sorina Teleanu, the Director of knowledge, the Diplo Foundation.
Online we have Mr. Otis Osbourne, the acting head of the Department of Information technology at the University of The Commonwealth Caribbean. And Mr. Shernon Osepa, the Internet Governance and cybersecurity policy advisor.
Good morning, everyone. We want this to be a robust discussion and interactive. Feel free to join in. I will start with opening remarks. What are the main Internet Governance challenges you believe have been facing SIDS and how has the IGF served as a platform to mitigate those challenges? I will start with you, Mr. Taylor.
>> RODNEY TAYLOR: Good morning, thank you for joining us for this discussion this morning. With respect to the challenges facing SIDS. Part is the ability to actively participate in the processes that have been ongoing now since 2005. We are small island developing States have constraints and financial resources, human resources and even though the IGF is a multistakeholder process, that means anyone can process as long as you are online, even if you are not this are barriers. There is a cost to coming to Kyoto. Even if you are on remotely you need to be brought up to speed with the issues. You will see many of the panelists are actively involved. Tracy on the panel here is a poster child for IGF participation. Because he's been active for a long time. Really active, sitting on boards, not just within IGF but in other processes like ICANN and so on. So ... if we can get 10 more like Mr. Hackshaw, I think the Region would be well represented. The reality is most people including Tracy and myself have a day job. We are happy to come here and talk and discuss, reality is that we do have other duties and responsibilities. And the IGF is well recognized as a place where people come and talk and discuss and network and so on. There is value in that. But it doesn't necessarily translate into an actionable outcome, therefore you have to start asking the value proposition of the investment that is being made to participate. So I'll stop there for now. Those are some of the challenges, thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I will move to Sorina.
>> SORINA TELEANU: Thank you building on what Rodney is saying. I work in Geneva a lot with Missions of countries there. Geneva is one of the hub of digital diplomacy Internet Governance and policy, a lot is happening this with ITU and other Internet related issues. We are hearing from small develop developing countries and larger countries, there is a lot going on and it is impossible to follow everything. There is a big challenge of keeping an eye on everything happening and meaningfully contributing as you were saying. Another challenge they're facing is lack of capacity. So much going on, on so many topics, one person cannot be an expert into everything. The question is how do you build institutional capacities, in this case across Governments and across other stakeholder groups. Tow what extent the IGF manages the challenges, the effort and whole idea of having IGF where people get together to learn more from each other is a good thing. Again, there is so much going on. You have to make a choice and again, speaking about Government, I think we are seeing this is a challenge for the IGF, not many Governments actually show up.
Let's say if the GDC can help address the challenges. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Sorina. Tracy Hackshaw?
>> TRACY HACKSHAW: Thank you very much. So ‑‑ in this session I'm representing the transmultistakeholder Working Group that puts on the will Guyana and hat of the co‑coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition of the small developing States. I'm watching my co‑coordinate from the Cook Islands. So from a positive standpoint, I think that the IGF can provide a space for SIDs to have their voices heard. Especially in terms of the national and regional IGF, the Caribbean IGF is one great example of that. Pacific IGF. I believe an Indian ocean IGF soon and the various islands that have their own IGF that can feed into the national, regional and Global IGF. Of course, there are challenges. We have the Coalition. The IGF resources said before as a challenge. The other thing that I think we need to worry about is whether or not the priorities that we place on Internet issues is policy and digital issues, in the SIDs are given sufficient priority. As we all know, in SIDs there are significant other challenges we face. Climate change being one. Obvious infrastructure issues, economic issues, so on. Of course other countries face that. Where we talk about something as dare I say isopteric as Internet Governance, when you approach the leadership in the countries, that is somewhat you know, shifted down the priority level. We need to link it to the critical issues. To a large extent that is security, emerging threats to the economy that digital brings. If we find a way to link the two, maybe we can overcome the challenges, using something along those lines. But we leave that discussion for later on. Thanks.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Tracy. I will ask Mr. Quintin to give his opening remarks.
>> QUINTIN CHOU‑LAMBERT: Thank you very much. Yeah, it seems that some of the benefits of the IGF also the cause of the sum of the issues as well. There is a tradeoff between this federated of network of networks approach that allows the regional and local consultations with the overwhelm of how many different meetings people have to go to, to keep up to speed. And in a case where we also hear in New York the Delegations, even in New York are overwhelmed when many other issues, including climate, the debt issues. And so often the urgency of these Internet governance issues can be pushed down.
So I do think one of the benefits of the IGF is to bring people together and ‑‑ this being my first IGF, I feel humble to having shared the room with people having been here from the start since 2003. And almost since the birth of IGF and WSIS action line process. Coming in, listening to the sessions, exchanging has allowed me to understand more much the issues and perspectives. There is a lot of value in the sharing of information. So in a world with some kind of political conditions are becoming more challenging, this kind of networking and exchange will become increasingly valuable. It is something that we come back to when we come to the question of the future of the IGF. These comments are a little bit generic, but some of the Internet Governance challenges and how the IGF deals with that are common with many other countries in other parts of the world, parts of the developing world, LDC says LLDCs. One of the questions is how this group will come together if it comes together to give voice to some of its concerns in the Global process.
>> MODERATOR: And I'm going to ask Ms. Olga to give her remarks.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you so much. And thank you for inviting me to this interesting panel. This is my 18th IGF. Yes, I've been young for so many years. When it was in Athens, Greece. IGF is a space for defining and creating many of the things in place. Many of the challenges that have been happening in the Global coordination of the Internet were born in discussions here. Where there is no specific outcome. I think all the changes that were done in the ICANN organization. In the transition, the affirmation of commitments, many changes that are really binding were borne in spaces of dialogue like the IGF. All the initial and regional IGFs were born spontaneous from discussions in this space. The schools of Internet Governance were born as a spinoff from the IGF. Now, we started first it was the European, and second was ours in Latin America for 15 years, now there are more than 20 all over the world. Those fantastic activities and dialogue space is perhaps more focused and regions, subregions, cities, they were born in the IGF. The IGF is a fantastic space. Sometimes people get lost. I was lost in trying to find this room. That is why I came just at the hour. That is part of the beauty. This creative chaos the IGF bring to all of us. I am always positive. I think it is a great meeting. I only attended twice virtually because I couldn't travel and the pandemic. Now I'm happy to be here again. These are my comments for the moment.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, we go to our online Moderator, Michelle. You will introduce our two online participants.
>> Michelle MARIUS: It is nighttime in Jamaica where I am. We will hear from Shernon and then Otis.
>> SHERNON OSEPA: It is possible. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening to all. It is a pleasure to be here and give a contribution to the development of the Internet. I think when we talk about Internet Governance it is important to look at the discussion of the Internet Governance. Back then, around year 2000, there was a lot of confusion going on around the globe. Especially Governments. They didn't know what the Internet was. We see the discussions, the WSIS and lead to the IGF we have nowadays.
I think when we talk about Internet Governance I like to use the baskets that Diplo Foundation is focusing on. For example, infrastructure, security, legal, economic, social, cultural development, and human rights issues. And I think especially SIDS, small island development States, we can use the baskets as a checklist to see where we are with developments in our own different jurisdictions.
We should recognize it was never the intention with the IGF to take decisions. It is not a decision‑making body. Is it more like a place where people can talk freely and discuss to see how they can come up with solutions.
Once we have our discussions of challenges and opportunities at the IGF, we should return home and have meaningful discussions with let's say all stakeholders that normally do attend IGFs. Because sometimes locally in our own jurisdictions you will not find those persons. At the IGF, you will find all the stakeholders.
And once we return home, looking at different countries, islands, whatever we should say okay, these are the challenges that we are facing in this particular jurisdiction. How do we solve the challenges we're facing. If we focus on that, it will add value. Although the girlfriend doesn't take key positions, once we return home we should be able to discuss with all the stakeholders in order for us to address local challenges that we are focused ‑‑ that we are facing.
>> MICHELLE MARIUS: Thank you. Mr. Osbourne, please.
Hello?
>> OTIS OSBOURNE: For small island States there, is an economic barrier to data transfer and access. Especially for well, everyone. The Government, businesses, citizens alike. Not to mention the pervasive lack of trust in digital transactions by majority of the medium to small ‑‑ small to medium business service providers and consumers of the services. The IGF of course plays a vital role in making recommendations and guiding discussions on Internet Governance. However, these discussions are ‑‑ may have missed Jamaica's policy and decision makers, due especially to the nonexistence of national IGF to guide initiatives on the ground. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Osbourne. We come back to our on‑site panelists. The first question is how do you see the acceptance of the GDC changing the digital governance landscape and addressing Global inequalities faces SIDS in the digital economy? I will start at the other end of the table with you Olga.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: This is an interesting process. We thought it was good to engage the fellows at the School of Internet Governance. And we started an online process of consulting with them. We received contributions from 65 fellows of the 22 countries of the five continent. I will share in the chat the document we produced. Contribute on the issues suggested. Comments made about one connect everyone to the Internet including all schools. Avoid Internet fragmentation, protect data, number three. Number four, apply human rights online promote regulation of artificial intelligence and digital commerce as a Global public good. This was a first experiment. We didn't do such an activity before. Comments and outcomes finalized an interesting document, translated to three languages, Spanish, English, Portuguese and send it to the Global Digital Compact, published now on the website. For the fellows it was really a remarkable activity. I will share with you the link to the document where you have the names of the countries of origin and the outcome document. Sometimes as we were saying a moment before, it is overwhelming how to follow all the processes, many of my students at the University also ask me that. What I tell them is okay, try to focus on things that are important for your work. We cannot be interested in everything, but we can be interested in some and follow them. We're following all of the activities of the Global Digital Compact and sum of the future. Now with the fellows of this year. We are preparing a similar document to what we did for the Global Digital Compact contributing to the sum of the future. And we have WSIS 20. I will share the document in chat. I will stop here.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much Olga. I am going to next to you, Quintin.
>> QUINTIN CHOU‑LAMBERT: Thank you, the GDC is quite a nice compliment to the IGF. And the IGF is decision shaping but not decision‑making. The GDC is a decision opportunity at a leaders' level. And what should be inside the GDC. The opportunity here for SIDS is really for everyone, especially countries who have not necessarily harvested as many of the benefits of the Global digital ecosystem over the last 20 years to maybe have an updated set of concerns incorporated. The concept of data and value of data and how it was being monetized in the 2000s. Now data some people talk about it as a very valuable resource, how is it monetized and the revenues taken into local jurisdictions and artificial intelligence is a new technology ‑‑ well, not that new, but technical breakthroughs have happened recently that were not available before. It is a chance to update the focus and it is a chance to upgrade the ambition around trying to spread the benefits of these technologies globally in a way that is safe and in a way that benefits all countries and yeah. All humans, let's say. So when we're thinking about it, is when the Sustainable Development Goals were put on the table, they were a chance to reconcile the two competing goals of development. Economic growth and sustainability because we have a finite planet. In a similar way the GDC could be a way of trying to harness the technologies and spread the benefits around the world. But to do it in a way that is safe and also benefits everyone, inclusive. We'll see what happen s with the GDC. It will be in the hands of the Member States and not the U.N.
Everything I say is speculative, if you like. It is a leader level decision. And it is a rare opportunity to take some of the questions and issues that have been surfaced during the IGF discussions. Some of those questions which cannot just be handled purely by the technical community that require high‑level political decision‑making. And inject them into this policy window.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Tracy, same question to you.
>> TRACY HACKSHAW: It is an anything question, the GDC doesn't exist yet. It is a question ‑‑ I don't know. So what I decide to do is I went into my ChatGPT and bot. Bot is the answer shorter. So bot told me that one of the key goals of the GDC is to produce a more inclusive and equitable world. Particularly important for SIDS because it can help address Global inequalities by provide little SIDS with greater access to digital technologies and resources and helping them develop their own digital economies. Sounds good. There are specific ways, increase access of digital technique and resources. Support development of the digital economy. Strengthen digital capacity, improve digital governance and plains what it means. Overall the GDC has a positive impact on Digital Governance and Global economies with SIDS and creating cooperation. The GDC can create a more inclusive and equitable digital world for all. That sounds like a lot of words that were put nicely together. It is a large language model and puts all the words together. Sounds really good. What does it mean, though, what does it mean for SIDS populations?
So I think, I agree with what is said. There is an opportunity as I said it does not exist yet. I am glad you said it is up to the Member States to actually implement it. Coming back to the priorities issue, what it can do, I think it can lift the priority of the digital issues higher up on the Agenda. Because it's something a little more formal a little more you know tangible than what the IGF is set up as sort of a discussion space. This is not a Treaty. Not any kind of, you know, mandatory thing to happen. At the very least Member States will agree to something. You are held to account. If it is ‑‑ that is what it is going to be. I would imagine like with other types of U.N. processes, SDGs. The elimination of discrimination against women, so on. We can find perhaps a way to report on this, to hold Member States to account especially in SIDS and use it to get Governments to actually Programme these activities or what can improve the SIDS economies, activities into the various budgets and allow communities in their countries, and stakeholder in the countries to deliver upon what the GDC promises. It is a promise. Speculative. It is a promise, then it is a promise to keep. I'm being optimistic that once that is happening, we can start to see a priority lift. I also would like to say that maybe the fact that it is being, you know, 2024, Summit of the Future, there is a brand. There is push towards it. As we talked about the LDC session, it is an event we can mobilize around. Could be a signal activities around this that will raise the profile of the issues. And make it, you know, along the same lines as our issues we face with infrastructure and so on. Thanks.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Tracy. And Sorina?
>> SORINA TELEANU: Going on what Tracy and bot was saying. Mostly bot. It is a lot of promise and expectation in the GDC. Looking at the question, I'm not sure there is a goal to have a GDC change the digital Governance landscape. So I would skip that part of the question.
Whether it will address inequality, I think that is part of the promise and the potential. What I personally would like to see going toward this GDC is building a Roadmap, but taking into account everything that has happened so far. So trying not to reinvent the wheel and resay all the things bot was saying. But try to take things forward. Like we have WSIS outcomes. We have the annual UNGA Resolution for the ICT development. We have SDGs that should be relying on technology February development.
‑‑ for development. If we can rely on this and have a GDC that is forward looking that would help address some of the inequalities.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Sorina. Rodney?
>> RODNEY TAYLOR: Good. This question goes to the heart of multilateralism versus multistakeholder. In the U.N., I saw this when we crafted statements for our Permanent Representative s in New York from the Caribbean, some of them were able to make interventions during the GDC deep dives, and various thematic areas. It is career that the U.N. gives priority to its Member States. So I mean, I speak on the floor of Vienna, I speak on behalf of my country. I have influence. Within this process here, you're an attendee like everybody else and you are free to make your contributions.
Yes, there may be some influence if you are a diplomat. But really, the Forum is meant to be multistakeholder and everybody has an equal voice. The U.N. is quite a different animal. So even though that process ‑‑ it is not a criticism of the process. It was sought to be multistakeholder, it was clear that the priority would be given or was given in terms in accepting intentions by the Member States.
Now, that is not necessarily a bad thing for small States. Because for small States, if you look at the ITU process for example, Barbados has the same voice and vote as United States and Canada. We can influence. There is a lot of lobbying within the processes for that very reason. Right? Whereas in the multistakeholder process, it is all equal footing but not equal resources and participation. The voices that have resources to show up are the ones that have the potential to have a stronger influence. There are those dynamics, I feel positive overall about the GDC and at least have some positive outcomes for us.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Rodney. Michelle I will hand over to you for the online panelists.
>> Michelle Marius: Thank you. Otis, can you go first. Then Shernon, please.
>> OTIS OSBOURNE: Okay, so I agree with my fellow panelists. And I would like to agree without regurgitating what was said before. There is no doubt that the world is transitioning into a new digital Global economy. However, for small island developing SIDS, especially, this transition is progressing at a very slow pace. Unless Governments, I'm talking Caribbean Governments recognize the universal access or universal access of free Internet. And I emphasize free Internet as a human right, because they are ‑‑ they're digitizing the e‑Governance, however, if you do not have data on your phones, then you're not able to access that service.
Also this free Internet as a human right must be paired with online security, privacy and safety.
If that is not done, the new digital Global economy will continue to perpetuate the old age manifestation of widespread social exclusion.
Thank you.
>> Michelle Marius: Thank you. Shernon, please.
>> SHERNON OSEPA: Yes, basically the beauty of the Global dill Compact process is the opportunity that especially small island development States will get through with this process. And whenever something doesn't exist, you have the opportunity to create it. So I think that should be the point of departure that we're going to use right now. A lot of times, especially SIDS we are looking, you know, we think we are victims. But now we have the opportunity to come to the table and to come with meaningful suggestions as Mr. Taylor did mention. Of course, you may have to do lobbying with others, but at least you have something on paper, people can discuss about it. This is the opportunity for us to put something on paper and let others give comments regarding what we have been drafting. Most of the times they draft things and we just give comments. So I think we should reverse this right now. We should draft in which the action we think we should go. This whole Global Digital Compact process and let others give comment on the direction they think we should go.
I think if we do that, at least we may have a big chance that at least our voices are being heard. And that we can make meaningful impact and changes in our Nations. Thank you.
>> Michelle Marius: Back to you Jewel.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Michelle. Is the GDC positioned to address the shortcomings of the IGF process and if so what are the tunes and mechanisms to address the shortcomings. I will start with you Michelle online. Let our online panelists get in the first word on this one.
>> Michelle Marius: Great. Shernon, would you go first, please, then Otis?
>> SHERNON OSEPA: Okay. When you talk about shortcomings of the IGF process, again, it is very important for us to identify what happened with the IGF. So the way how we have been approaching our looking at the IGF nowadays, it was ‑‑ that was not the original intention of the IGF. The IGF was more like a talking place where people can discuss ideas with not to say significant decisions right in those rooms, but to have the discussions ongoing. So I'm not sure if we should say if we look at that if we say there were shortcomings. Because it was not meant to be like that. You know, so I mean, if you look at the original objectives, they were met in one way or the other. But I believe as I did mention before, it is nice to have discussions regarding opportunities and challenges that we're facing. But at the end of the day, we would like to see actions being taken place in our countries. And that is basically what we can see with let's say with this next approach. And I think that as I did mention before, that would be a big ‑‑ a great opportunity for us to come with meaningful suggestions in order for us to achieve things and not only to keep discussions in a closed room that cannot help us with anything. That would be the way how I would like to look at it. Thank you.
>> Michelle Marius: Thank you Shernon. Otis, please?
>> OTIS OSBOURNE: It is my view the GDC coupled with the IGF due to the GDC being a U.N. directive or policy per se. Now, I agree with Shernon that because when I look ‑‑ when I think about it, for example, the IGF discussions on Best Practices in securing the Internet, seemed to have been for the most part just discussions. Right? As a best practice are seriously being implemented. Most ISPs and network operators have not adopted, for example, the actions to security data being routed through the Internet. We have two ISPs, Digicel and Flow. When I check if they are members of the manners, Digicel was the only one. They're not adopted all the actions. There are still gaps. When I look at again NDAs, ministries, departments, agencies and SMEs. Financial and educational institutions. Most of them have not implemented cost‑free DNS sect and IPv6 standards to secure digital transactions and other Internet based activities. I use Internet dot NL to check if our cybersecurity incident response team if their URL is secure and they have not implemented the DNS. They are the ‑‑ they are the implementing Agency and advisory for the Government and other institutions and organizations within the Jamaica ‑‑ within Jamaica. Right?
So I think that in conclusion, the GDC could eliminate the comments and I'm talking about a lot of action of the IGF by maybe elevating or expanding the IGF to an explanation, monitoring and maybe even an enforcement Coalition of country based IGFs. Thank you.
>> Michelle Marius: Thank you so much Otis. Yes, some very powerful thoughts about the situation in Jamaica.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Michelle. I will come to the on‑site panel. I will start with you Rodney. Your thoughts on is the GDC positioned to address the shortcomings of the IGF process? If so, what the opportunities and mechanisms to address the shortcomings?
>> RODNEY TAYLOR: Thank you, Jewel.
If we believe Otis, it will be an amazing opportunity to fix all the problems we have. Sorry Otis to take that jab at you. Those are really high expectations. I don't see the GDC addressing those things because they're not easy things to address, to start with. There is no U.N. Compact that will force the operators to implement the measures. We can encourage, we provide like you said, Best Practices. But at the level of United Nations we don't see that happening. The Compact ‑‑ I mean, there are so many other things, if you look at it globally, if you look at the politics globally in times of climate change, there is clear evidence that action needs to be taken. And still, the U.N. struggles to get the world to respond. Things like human trafficking and so on. The Internet is just another one of the very complicated things that the world is just trying to make sure that there is mechanism for collaborating. That is what the GDC is in my view another mechanism
There are advantages, like I said addressing the shortcomings, as in it has the potential to give small States a stronger voice I think it would be difficult. I wish, you know, the tech homeboy success, he's been tasked that responsibility. As Tracy pointed out, it is not yet. Let's hope that there is positive outcomes. We welcome it, we think there is an opportunity to strengthen the process. And achieve better outcomes for the world generally. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Sorina?
>> SORINA TELEANU: Thank you. I will take a step back. We need more clarities and instructions, in this case, I don't think it is fair to be the GDC and IGF in a comparison situation because the IGF is a process and the GDC is supposed to be at the end of 2024 a document. If we were to be fair, it is comparing the GDC as what Tracy was saying with the Agenda, which is the starting point for IGF. We need more clarity into that. The shortcomings of the IGF. Sure, no process is perfect. But the IGF has improved and shown willingness to change to adapt to the changing technological landscape and respond to the challenges. We had a few sessions back then. Now we have so many happening right now. We have all the intersectional activities, Best Practices form, and the parliamentary track and attempts to try to do something.
Again, it is not a perfect process. There can be improve am. As Rodney was saying, we should build on that and strengthen the IGF and discussions with IGF plus. There was endorsement of the concept. We haven't seen much follow up on that. Could build on it. I think all of us have heard throughout the week at IGF how many have said let's see how the IGF itself can serve as a follow‑up mechanism for the GDC itself. I won't go into the third question, because I was close to that. But ... yes, let's look at things this way. How to bring it together, instead of trying to see how new things might be solving problems of things that have existed.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Sorina. Tracy.
>> TRACY HACKSHAW: This is me, not bot.
(Chuckling)
So just building on what I said before, I do think the opportunities are there to raise the profile. And something I had spoken about in a session yesterday about outreach. So we expect that we're sitting in Kyoto or wherever we are and just expect things to happen. People to come, the U.N. just come to us and talk. But maybe it should be the other way around. Maybe the GDC can go the other direction allow it to reach into the communities, getting to the SIDS specific issues. Reach into SIDS saying this is something we're bringing to the table to help improve your existence and your circumstances and tell us what you need. Perhaps there is an opportunity there for better dialogue. If it is a Compact, you know, the word Compact means something. In the English language. It is some sort of promise to deliver. Promise to work together. Is a handshake almost. If that is what it is, we don't know what it is yet. If that is what it is, that is a real opportunity to have the U.N. system reach into and reach out to SIDS and to the stakeholders and make things happen. We have not ‑‑ we don't see a lot of that, I think with other digital activity. That is good it can happen that way. Besides funding interventions and so on. There maybe opportunities for real skills and knowledge transfer. Real capacity development in those territories. And also to work with Governments to ensure that as I said that the priors of the issues are brought higher up on the Agenda. Otis's concerns with cybersecurity which are the broader issues in terms of resilience can be brought further up on the Agenda. Because we can't just sit here and talk about it is not happening and not make it happen. It is not happening. Right. What do we do to make it happen? Maybe this is an opportunity to make it happen. I see promise in that regard. I hope the Tech Envoy is here. And listening. That is what we're trying to say. Don't sit in New York, Geneva wherever. Kyoto, Rio, wherever we are, and just talk about it. Let's get there. Roll up the sleeves, get it done. Remember, I always tell people, yes it is the Internet. Yes, we are connected. But not everyone is connected. Don't assume that we can just do a zoom call and make it happen. We have to get there and do it.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Tracy, as we say in our Region, enough of the long talk. Quintin?
>> QUINTIN CHOU‑LAMBERT: Yeah, I love that Tracy. In fact, with certain topics that is exactly the approach that the Tech Envoy is proposing, which we're calling a multistakeholder networked approach. So for example, with the high‑level advisory body on artificial intelligence, which will be formed in the next couple of weeks the recruitment process was extremely open. We received 1800 nominations. It was a public call on the website. Some of the nominations from SIDS countries were self‑nominations, the multistakeholder approach to consultations, what we plan to do is have the members of the body go out into difference networks that they're already members of to try to reach in and understand the needs and concerns and expertise and bring them back to the political possess. That is what can be done kind of let's say outside of New York, outside of the Intergovernmental chambers. But get that information expertise in there. And shape the decision.
Maybe coming to the main question around the shortcomings of the IGF what I heard in this panel and generally, there are two huge challenges. One is around the absence of decision‑making and the other is around the overwhelm and vast capacity track and keeping track of everything going on. Whether a GDC can address the two issues really depends. So obviously from the Secretary‑General's percent he would like an ambitious GDC, one that unified the U.N. system in providing support and get U.N. agencies all around the world working on some of the country level issues.
And also one which builds bridges between countries on issues like cross‑border commons, the moratorium on tariffs on e‑commerce. The trade revenue and taxation that may not be happening, if it were helping would help build more endogenously. These are not specifically the Secretary‑General but concerns need to be voiced from countries that have them. Concerns around socioeconomic and cultural rights and authorship and media content that can be exported and can be now done with AI. These concerns are needing to be lifted and presented in a unified voice. The ambition level to get to the principles in GDC and just objective, but get to actions and commitments where there is a promise to deliver something. There needs to be unified voice. Among the countries in whom interest it is ‑‑ whose interest it is. One of the thinks we are observing is because Delegations are so overstretched in New York, they're ‑‑ because they're so overwhelmed or the inboxes are overflowing with more urgent issues around debt relief, around some of the basic economic issues. The SDGs, you know, not on track yet with SDGs. Sometimes they're lover looking digital. The digital economy is one of the growing Sectors and will continue to be. This is a real opportunity into the future. The challenge is how can countries kind of look up from the immediate crisis they're in and think about how the digital architecture is going to look a few years down the line how their role is going to be within that. So I will come back to the issue of stretched capacity. Maybe in the final question. But one of the questions around review and follow up on commitments reached in the GDC is to what extent Governments and others can participate in that. I will come back to that point.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Quintin. Now to you Olga.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Most of my response already from the colleagues at the table. But what Sorina said, I don't think it is fair to compare the GDC and the IGF. One of the beauties of the IGF is the equal footing. Maybe the chaos you can find, walking in the corridor and take a picture. Or colleagues from other countries you didn't have the opportunity to meet before. That beauty it is remarkable from IGF. The meetings are more structured which is true. And perhaps this variety of activities running from one activity to another trying to find the room makes us find what we didn't think we were going to find. That is something I find interesting. GDC seems to be a bottom‑up process. What I have seen lately is a tendency of establishing more closed multilateral processes. I think the way forward is multistakeholder. It is the only way to solve the problems with the digital economy, the impact of the digitalization and developing countries or cross‑data flow. All of the problems of things we have to think about. It is in a disconcerting way. All the processes that are multistakeholder, they're the way and not multilateral. Whether the Delegations could be prepared for that. I have been an advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 20 years. It is different how in the Delegations it works. Sometimes there is a gap between what happens on the ground and what goes to the United Nations, for example, in a multilateral meeting. Also, the fact we can contribute in the bottom‑up process the opportunity it brings is to reflect on things and think about in deep, the seven different issues that it establishes. Value there. No problem will be solved but we will think about how to solve them.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you for the contribution. Specifically from a sits perspective what are the real benefits the vulnerable countries can derive from the GDC and is it a duplication of the current processes and should the GDC and IGF be kept separate or be an evolution of one to the other. I know that is a lot. I will start with you Rodney.
>> RODNEY TAYLOR: Thanks.
We heard it is not fair to compare the two. I will try to dissection. The benefits and realities is there a lot of Global inequality in the digital space. We talk about this not sure what the latest figure is 2.something billion not connected. The majority of those are in developing countries. Some certainly in SIDS. There is an opportunity to focus on this more in GDC. And help in the activity and infrastructural issues and SIDS by drawing attention to it globally and giving it priority in a body such as United Nations. That is good for us because we tend to play more in the multilateral processes and so on as sovereign States.
The GDC though, I ‑‑ it is not a duplication of the process, because it is meant to be a Compact, like Tracy said. Global handshake, this is how we're going to move together globally on some of the key issues like cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and so on. It might lead to a process of the digital Forum. Sort of an expansion of the role of IGF or maybe a parallel process altogether if you can imagine showing up for another one of these perhaps the following week in Australia or someplace. It would be very difficult to follow. Let's hope that doesn't evolve that way and that there is ‑‑ and clearly there are synergies. We talk about Internet Governance. The issues are beyond the Internet itself. Issues of human rights and artificial intelligence and so it is not just the Internet that we're talking about. Therefore we don't need to create a whole new process for people to follow and more meetings just to add the word digital. It is process leading toward the sum of the future. We're actively participating. We think there is opportunity to lend our voices to ensure that there isn't we talk about Internet fragmentation and Internet Governance fragmentation. Again, two separate tracks to deal with this. Thank you.
>> SORINA TELEANU: I agree with Rodney. The goal is to come up with a Compact. I was reading the Compact for migration. That could be an interesting example for the GDC to look at. It has clear commitments, clear actions to implement the commitments and a follow‑up process. There are models to follow. The discussion has Rodney was saying, we have been seeing again at the IGF about whether we can use the IGF as some sort of follow‑up mechanism for the GDC itself. The whole idea of new Forum, I think it was in the U.N. Secretary‑General policy belief the cooperation Forum it has been discussed a lot the past few days. As Quintin was saying earlier, whatever decision is made I think a few things should be kept in mind. Are people countries, Governments other stakeholders having funds that would be tackling similar or complementary issues? Are there resources to fund more than one process into the issues? At the end of the day, what would happen with the outcomes of all of the processes? Do we bring them together at some point, some way? A few things to think about the discussions of the GDC. Ideally we do find ways for things to work together, other than create competition for resources thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Tracy.
>> TRACY HACKSHAW: I did ask Bot and ChatGPT this one because I don't know as well. They agreed. They said it was complementary. That is interesting they agreed on that together.
So the ‑‑ it seems the AI model seems to agree that it will work well. So that is useful. In my opinion, though, again, I'm trying to ‑‑ we don't talk bad manners. At the IGF again, unfair comparison, the voice of SIDS is not very loud. And the volume is not very loud. So in terms of numbers and representation. Even when there are times to request representation. It seems to be that we get lost in the crowd. So ... to a large extent in the Latin American Caribbean space. Pacific is silent in AP. And the oceans are silent in the African space. Not for lack of trying. Larger countries dominate. That is the way it works. So in the IGF space where that is happening, in the SIDS discussion, having the GDC will improve that. Getting to rod fee's idea of one country, one vote process. Again being very plain talk bad manners, there is an opportunity in the GDC process to get SIDS' points across more specifically because we have a more equitable voice there. Can't Git in the IGF. I am trying. We can fix it, fix it for the GDC, simple as that. That is something I want to see happen. If the IGF process sees that happening maybe they may also wish to bring the SIDS along in their process and have the same voices the same countries and the large groups of people dominating the smaller voices every year. That is something I want to say, I'm saying it here. It is the Forum to say it in. I hope we will say it. Plain talk bad manners.
>> MODERATOR: I will ask for indulgence, Mr. Carol roach from the Bahamas is in the room. I want to give her the opportunity to say a few words before she goes. Carol?
>> ATTENDEE: Good morning everybody. It was early, early afternoon or late afternoon in different countries. Thank you for indulging me. Carol roach from Bahamans new MAG Chair. Keywords here, action, action, action. We need to put pen to paper as one speaker said and say what we want write a letter if you want me to present it to the high‑level panel they I will do so. They are looking for input especially on why you come here every year, even though it seems like SIDS not being heard but you come every year. Why is it that you come every year? What you want to be seen more, what you want improvements on, what you want in the GDC they want it in writing to forward to the co‑facilitators, I encourage you to do so. The second thing is capacity building. If you are going to have our Parliamentarians or whoever, Missions go forward to make a vote or negotiate. We need to know what to negotiate. I gave an example I will not use my country. Because I might not get back in. But I think a lot of times persons in Missions go to meetings they take notes. If you're not a technology person or a human rights person or so on, sometime those notes mean nothing to people.
You will find that the notes come to the relevant department when it is time for your Government to make a decision, give input and sign. It is not fair. We have to start now in preparing Parliamentarians and Missions. So somehow we need funding and push the IGF to get some capacity building at that level. Those are the two things I have to say. I'm definitely here for you. Thank you. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you for that carol. I'm not sure if you are going off to another meeting.
>> (Off mic)
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Still continuing with question 3, I come to you now, Quintin.
>> QUINTIN CHOU‑LAMBERT: Yeah, what is the real benefits of a GDC? Maybe I can pick up around review and follow‑up, obviously again, it is speculative. If there is an ambitious GDC with commitments and actions, how is it reviewed and followed up? Maybe I can take a moment to explain the proposal by the Secretary‑General for creating a space for that to happen. Because that speaks to how IGF and other Fora may relate to the space.
It was named digital cooperation Forum. The name doesn't matter that much. The concept is it is a space for review and follow‑up. This can address three different issues. The first is the issue of gaps in the existing digital Governance landscape for considering issues like AI Governance. Human rights things like misinformation and disinformation. And what this central place could be is a place for pooling all of the issues. Internet Governance issues that emerge through IGF can be injected in there. The Secretary‑General created an IGF leadership panel to serve as a bridge from the IGF into U.N. processes. And you know, other initiatives like the HR human rights advisory mechanism or the AI advisory body can also feed into the space for review and follow‑up. It addresses some of the gaps. The second thing this would address is this issue of capacity and fragmented Governance. Actually having one place where countries can come together to look at issues, defragments the Governance. By bringing all of the strands into one place, it allows countries to focus in a holistic way on digital Governance issues instead of running around the world from meeting to meeting, chasing off all the discussions that may or may not lead to decisions. It preserves and protects the characters of the different areas. I was ‑‑ I did not come but Chengetai showed me the video of the music night here on day one or day two. And it seems to me, you know, I heard the word creative chaos associated with IGF. It seems as a first timer to IGF there is a special feeling in IGF, there is an organic feeling where free discussions can be had on being impolite but saying what we feel. Those are very important especially when it comes to technical discussions or technical community where it needs to solve problems quickly
One risk and concern of bringing these politicalized information around hate speech, human rights, AI Governance into places like the IGF. Data protection, exploitation is that it can change the feeling of the discussion and the spirit of IGF. For the three reasons, the new proposal to have a space to review and follow‑up GDC actions and commitments addressing the gaps that the existing Fora did not meet because of technological developments. Defragmenting the Government so guaranties with resources can concentrate them on the central place to see everything and participate with a strong voice and preserving the unique character and spirit of the IGF, this is possible but only possible if there is ambitious and unity among the Member States, those countries that have an interest, perhaps SIDS sees itself as one of the groupings. If so, it would be very good to see those voices being, you know, raised loud in the GDC process so that those interests can be reflected in the outcome document.
>> OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you. Okay. Very interesting what you said. So you missed the music? You didn't see me singing? That's remarkable.
(Chuckling)
. It's a joke, I did sing. But okay. I think it is ‑‑ I love music, I think the music is really a way to bridge any gap
And it is interesting what you mention, bridging gaps in between the different process. It is very challenging for especially for developing countries. Having human resources to follow all the processes. What we have done at the Argentina in times of working at the Government and as an academic is trying to arrange meetings where we all gather together with the delegates that will then participate. But at the same time, the processes are mult indicating and sometimes the delegations are overwhelmed especially those without bigger Delegations. That is challenging. We have found also use civil working at the regional level, for example, in between countries in Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. Working with associations, Internet association or different associations for telecommunications or technical bodies. It is challenging. But as far as I understand, the process is towards some coordination or concentration of all the processes. So it would be beneficial. Even though I think the beauty of the IGF should be preserved.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you for the comments and contribution. I go to Michelle and our online panelists.
>> Michelle Marius: Thank you. Otis can we hear from you first on the same question and then Shernon?
>> OTIS OSBOURNE: Okay. Thank you, Michelle. I will begin by cautiously saying that no one can dispute the influence of the U.N. Directors. And that SIDS Governments will follow‑through eventually especially since Digital Economy has been touted as a means of realizing the 2030 SDGs. However, discussions at the U.N. level and at U.N. level are exclusive at levels so high and out of touch that start of entrepreneur or University student unless of course, it is a research paper, right? An assignment. Would not say to themselves, let's say what is being discussed and proposed at the U.N. today. The offenses of the IGF are still relevant. Though duplicated by the GDC, the IGF is in a unique position to reach everyone from grassroots people and businesses to corporations. IGF is more relatable as Internet Governance forms part of its name. In fact, at the University of The AI in the Courts an Opportunity for Economic Proceedings Caribbean first‑year students conduct research and write a report on Internet Governance topics. As their first assignment in their introduction to computer essentials course. And one of those topics include generative AI, such as ChatGPT. The importance of Internet Governance can become real for the students. Because they in addition to Civil Society and businesses and I'm talking about small, medium size businesses, can join a national IGF chapter. And become part of the process rather than become mere mentions in the mass of texts in the GDC policy paper.
Thank you.
>> Michelle Marius: Thanks. Shernon please.
>> SHERNON OSEPA: Yes, I think by now we have been discussing IGF. We know what is the IGF after let's say 18 years. The GDC is still something that needs to be developed. So we're not sure or certain what it is as yet. I think it is very important for us to whatever process we would like to focus on, the people must become better from what we're trying to do. The people in this particular case, we're focusing on the SIDS. SIDS must become better. Whatever direction we're heading, our people in the Region, SIDS, they must become better from the process we're going to focus on.
I think at the end of the day, if we can focus on let's say economic, especially economic development that is very important. We know that for example, the GDC will be focusing on the SDGs 8, 9, 10 focusing on jobs, economic growth and infrastructure. So these are the areas that we should be focusing on. Because these are the needs that we are having in our jurisdictions. And not to forget, let's say the big challenge that we're seeing nowadays with respect to climate change, natural disasters, hurricanes, so on. It doesn't make sense if we continue to build all of the infrastructures and we don't ‑‑ we cannot fight against nature to a certain extent. But when we're trying to build infrastructure and climate change can just destroy everything in just a few seconds. So we need to find the right balance how we can ‑‑ while we are still trying to focus on the SDGs 8, 9, 10, to focus a bit on climate change as well. And not forget let's say collaboration, partnership which is the SDG 17 that I haven't heard being mentioned today I think it is important to focus on. In addition to that, what I already did mention, we know more or less what our problems are. Let's start focusing identify them and see how we can bring solutions in collaboration to others to fill our very specific problems that we are facing. That's basically what I wanted to share. Thank you.
>> Michelle Marius: Thank you. Back to you Jewel.
>> MODERATOR: We will take questions and comments from the audience and those on‑site as well. If you are on‑site, state your name and who you represent and make your contributions.
>> ATTENDEE: Good morning. My name is Mahesh from Sri Lanka a small island in the Region. We have been doing' digital economy. This is about framework for Digital Transformation. Now, when it comes to Sri Lanka we have been doing many digital strategies over the last two decades. But the country is too many things. But we see IGF, GDC, and WSIS, even many other platforms are trying to set standards to make citizen satisfied. In terms of citizen‑centric Nations to leave from where we are to the next level.
Now when you see the standards they talk about on what aspect. But they hardly talk about the who and how aspect. So when it comes to my suggestion and the request from the esteemed panel is there any way we can talk more on who aspect as well as how aspect. Who is supposed to do these things. The Government, the Government is busy fighting the status quo. Who should drive the initiatives? When it comes to Sri Lanka we have a new digital strategy. Digital Transformation strategy. Over the last two decade we implement but there are many gaps. Who should drive the initiatives, one Government, multiple organizations. Can we have frameworks or Best Practices into the guidelines?
Then the how aspect, do we do it with local Parliaments, local Parliaments should get involved in the evaluation on the measures or establish outcomes and strategies. How we are going to make the initiatives sustainable. You know, over the long run and bring the citizen, you know, in the forefront and keep citizens satisfied, fulfill in all the initiatives. My concern is who and how aspect. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Nigel?
>> ATTENDEE: Thank you, Jewel. I'm Nigel Cassimire, Deputy Secretary‑General for the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. I rush to follow the gentlemen from Sri Lanka because the comment that I want to make fall straight into the issues he's raising. I heard comments of identifying shortcomings of the IGF, so on. But also some good from the IGF. One thing that is good from the IGF was the outreach. And the development of this network of national and regional initiatives. Because maybe some issues might be global. But many issues are regional or national as the case might be.
So ... in terms of the what and who and the how, it is not a one‑size‑fits‑all answer. I would suggest as well, Quintin talked about the GDC is establishing a coordination mechanism. I'm going to suggest that there should be some outreach in that as well. Right? And maybe encouragement of the national and regional type of initiatives in the same vain so the groups can share with one another. Maybe find common principles and maybe find special principles that might not apply globally. All right? I think that particular aspect of the outreach is a key point. A key benefit out of the IGF. And we should keep that in mind. In any of the implementations coming out of GDC. I would say since focusing on SIDS, one might say SIDS is an interest group. It is. Because there are the special things. But even within SIDS, it is not all one‑size‑fits‑all. One thing about the Caribbean. The Caribbean small islands. About the Pacific, small islands. Spread out. The scale is not comparable. Right? Whereas we might have populations that might be comparable, the distances we're talking about are not. It is easier to make a business case in the Caribbean for something like submarine cable than in the Pacific. So the local aspects of the problems and solutions need to be taken into account. We need to structurally build that into whatever we're doing. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much for that, Nigel. Please keep it short we have five minutes left and I want to get takeaways from the panel.
>> ATTENDEE: I'm Sameer from Sri Lanka working in the largest telecom company we see what is going on the data side. I was going through the GDC policy brief. I caught my attention very interesting. The data divide. It says data flow will grow by 400% by 2026. The negative side is developing countries risk becoming mere providers. Me being seen as a Telco in data we see that to some extent. My question to the panelists is the expert views of GDC, what kind of interventions you see, you know, handle this data divide that is mentioned in the policy brief.
>> MODERATOR: Rodney, I will let you take it. I'm getting my wrap up. We have three minutes.
>> RODNEY TAYLOR: Quintin may be more versed with respect to GDC and the last question. In relation to the previous question, you are saying global not local. I mean, at the end of the day we talk about Global cooperation, but it is really for national par limes to go back ‑‑ and we're necessary to get these in law or mention for example, the mutually agreed norms for routing cybersecurity. This has to be used at the level of operators and Internet Service Provider s. I think the point is that while we talk, we discuss, we agree on global agreements and so on. Is it really for us to go back and do what we need to do to implement. So ‑‑
>> OTIS OSBOURNE: Exactly.
>> MODERATOR: I don't think we have enough time. I got the three‑minute wrap up. I want to thank everyone for coming. Special thanks to our panelists. Mr. Rodney Taylor Secretary‑General Caribbean Telecommunications Union. Ms. Olga Cavalli, Co‑founder, Director South School on Internet Governance. Mr. Quintin
Chou‑Lambert Office of The Secretary‑General envoy on technology. Tracy Hackshaw President Trinidad and Tobago multistakeholder Advisory Group. Sorina Teleanu, Director of Knowledge from the Diplo Foundation. To our online panelists, Mr. Otis Osbourne, Department of Information technology at University of the Commonwealth Caribbean. And Mr. Shernon Osepa, Internet Governance and cybersecurity policy advisor. And our online moderator, Michelle Marius. Thank you so much.
The thing with conversations like this is they leave you wanting more. Today is the last, so exchange numbers so we can keep the conversations going. I'm Jewel Forde, your Moderator. Thank you to everyone.