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.
***
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Okay. I think we're ready to go. I would like to welcome everyone to the session of the day. This is workshop number 141. It is on regionalism and the IGF. I'm Chris Buckridge. I'm here with no hats on today. Just as a general IGF grad fly to moderate the session. I'm happy to do so. We have a panel of four speakers. Two of whom are here with me onsite in Riyadh, and two of whom are online here.
Hopefully, we'll also have a very active discussion with both participants online and in the room here. As Markus just noted, we have more people in the audience than on stage. Looking forward to that. The speakers that we have, I'm going to let them maybe as we go around with the questions, introduce themselves a little bit more in terms of their affiliations. I know certainly many of us here probably have multiple hats on. I'll let people identify for themselves.
We have Markus Kummer to my right here. Nibal Idlebi to my left. And Carolina Aguerre. The topic is Regionalism and the IGF. There's been a focus. The regional is one example of that. It has really emphasised that approach. It has allowed that structure was very much reflecting a need for local communities based around where the language, time zone, cultures, to develop policies that suited their specific needs and circumstances. While maintaining and contributing to global coordination on essential elements of governance.
Now today, we see with the governance forum there's a really vibrant network of national and regional Internet governance initiatives. And Internet governance forums which we usually call in our eyes. I'm sure that acronym will be used often in the session. In our eyes representing all of the national and regional governance initiatives. There are more than 170 of those around the world. That also includes youth IGFs. The majority of those are in the global south. I think it is probably very well represented across the world. They are defined by the multistakeholders bottom‑up approach. This is something that is laid out and overseen by the global IGF. There was a recent paper called net effects. Full disclosure, I was one of the co‑authors on that. One of the findings that it had was those NRIs, the National Regional Internet Governance Forums were one of the most significant products of the IGF process. It is a space to foster and develop new leaders and inform governance participants for global discussions. In the GDC, we see the IGF referenced in part for the importance of its connection to national and Regional Groupings.
With all of this focus on regionalism, I think the purpose of today's discussion is to dig in to that idea a little bit. Is regionalism ‑‑ how does it contribute to the idea of global governance. Today as it ever has been. How can that develop over time? The first question I want to put to the panelist that we have here is ‑‑ speaking to that ‑‑ how relevant is the regional consent for understanding the IGF or the multistakeholder and how is the regional approach and idea evolving and developing. I first want to put it to Markus. Markus, as I said, if you maybe take the opportunity on the first question just to introduce yourself and your affiliations, that would be great. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. I was the Head of the Secretariat of the Working Internet Governance that provided input. It was by and large adopted at the Internet Governance. I'm explaining what is it is. I worked for the Internet Society and I was on the board of ICANN.
Right now, I'm mainly retired. I stay involved. One of the advantages of old age that you've seen a lot and in a previous life, I was dealing with trade. Free trade agreements. I worked then for the OP and free trade association which is the tiny brother of the European Union, it groups Switzerland, Norway, Lichtenstein, and Iceland. These are four highly developed and well‑to‑do countries. We had free trade agreements all over the world Singapore to Canada to Chile. And in free trade, there was a saying of regional free trade agreements, a stumble block or building block for free trade globally. I think we can ask the same question with a regionalism in the Internet space. Chris mentioned the regional site. It was the global trade. In the Internet and technical space, they are complimentary. It is not just about naming and addresses. WSIS's outcome states that. There are issues like cybersecurity, like protecting children, and, and, and. You all know that these are all hotly debated issues.
Now, do we need to find global solutions or can we find regional solutions to tackle the problems we are placing? One of my favorite sayings was from your former boss, Chris, in public. He used to say good Internet Governance regions home. There's a lot to be said for that. A lot of Internet Governance is at the very national level. National governments have a lot to say. Obviously, in the regional, they are usually countries that share a lot of commonalities. They share the same and are from the same region. They share the same legal background.
The European Union is an excellent example of regional approaches. The European Union has obviously the market power. The regional solution by its share force become a global approach. They are more or less forced to adapt to the GDPR. If not, they will be forced and they will be left behind. This is one example. The European Union has an act of digital services. They are solutions that are regional, and they become global standards. They will not be able to do the same. They can nevertheless share the same experiences. There, I think, the possible way could be that they have a bottom up. They share the same and adopt the same.
In trade, there was never a good way of saying this is good or this is bad. The regional approach. We are the same way in the Internet governance space. We cannot say it is good. We cannot say it is bad. But I think there's a myriad of depth in discussing and sharing experiences and also in developing good practices in how to deal with some of the issues.
Obviously, it is easier to get together on the regional basis where you share and have some commonalities. Bring that into the global debate. We are as we all know, far away from having global solutions to some of the issues. We have one global solution to security. But that's also highly controversial right now. It shows. It is not easy to find global solutions. With that, I think I hand it back to you, Chris. I also apologise to the people in the room. I will nip out in between. For the session. I will come back again. Thank you.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you, Markus. We'll work around the very busy schedules that we all have. For the next speaker, and please, I want to go around the panelist first and come to the room. I know there's some questions started to bubble up. The next speaker I would like to hand to it Jenna. Please, the floors is yours.
With the same framing question there of how relevant is regional concept and how is that evolving? Thanks.
>> JENNA MANHAU FUNG: Thanks, Chris. Thanks, Markus. That makes sense. Markus is the most experienced persons I've ever met in the global IGF community. It is not a good sign to go after him. I was so stressed about what should I go next. Before I get started, and as the question perhaps, I can provide some background of myself before I started. Especially given the topic is about regionalism. I worked for a top‑level domain registry in the Asia Pacific. Mostly spending my time managing the programme. Youth capacity and programme on the Internet governance for about six or seven years now. I usually wear my hat as the Asia Pacific Youth Internet Governance Forum Coordinators when I get more involved in the IGF‑related initiative right here.
In the past year, I've been active in helping, organising, the youth‑related activity and outreach within the IGF community. Speaking of this topic, I always get very interested. I don't want to repeat too many of Markus' point. I think he makes it very clear. It is also resonated with a lot of points that I want to make. I want to echo on some of the points and build upon that. Earlier, Markus mentioned how regionalism can help with creating the solution. My personal experience and as a youth coordinator there for about six years, in younger people, in the Asia Pacific Region before you can even come up with anything that's close to a regional solution, it is a platform to amplify the voices.
As you know, Asia Pacific programme is really huge. There are many languages and different cultures as well. Even there are times when we talk about the topics that we approach there will be very different from Europe. Now that I reside in North America, I could see that people usually have different focus.
In the time, picking on my own experience organising a Youth IGF in the Asia Pacific Region, I could see that Southeastern Asian country will have a different interest on topics that might be different from East Asia, for example. Many of the students who are involved from some regions may care more about the Internet access and others want to talk about AI and technologies. Maybe not AI. Everyone wants to talk about AI. It is influencing our life. What I wanted to say is there are times with a region as vast as Asia Pacific. We already feel challenges. Making a conversation that's constructive enough to lead us close to a solution, so to speak. That's why I think the regional approach or it may become more important.
If you couldn't have a more constructive conversation at home, it will be difficult for you to represent your voice at a global stage. Myself being very involving the global Internet governance forum for so long is that I do value and I do think that global solution or a platform for that kind of conversation is important. As Chris kick started the sessions, you know, time zones sometimes doesn't work out. It just naturally eliminates some voices; right?
There's some level of practicality too. Imagine an initiative having a coordinator based in the region that has more resources that allow them to make this initiative and conversation happen. Make the consideration happen from certain regions. For example, there's rotating and the schedule to accommodation. You know, it just is different from how regional approach works. I'm starting babbling right now. It is way past midnight here in Toronto. I will stop here and pass it back to my fellow panelist and moderators to continue the conversations as we move on.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you, Jenna. Thank you for the closing illustration there of the challenges of the global conversation. And the importance of regionalism.
I would like now to ask back to the room here in person we have Nibal. Please.
>> NIBAL IDLEBI: Do you hear me? Thank you very much to Chris and Markus and everyone on the panel here. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm currently the Acting Director of Statistics, Information Society, and Technology at the United Nations Coalition for Western Asia. I was involved and we are working mainly in the Arab Region. We are focusing in the Arab Region. We are linked to the area and we have a lot of collaboration.
Myself I was also like with WSIS since the starting point since 2003 when that discussion started. I followed WSIS plus 20 and so on. We are now preparing the paper and we are making the preparation for WSIS+20. We have IGF. It is one of the Regional IGF. I'm speaking about our experience in that regard. It was really established at the beginning since 2005. Around 2005. We are continuing making that and organising that of IGF. Sometimes it is a year, sometimes it is two years.
Our experience, based on our experience, I believe the regional dimension is very important. I believe that because as Markus was saying, there's sharing that some of the same challenges maybe. We are sharing the same challenges in the region. We are aware about the dynamic of the countries in the region. We know very well the stakeholders. Based upon our experience with the stakeholders, different stakeholders, especially that I mean IGF is multistakeholder.
We were able to engage them in very dynamic way, I would say, yeah. And we were also during the experience to fill some stakeholder. We were not really knowledgeable about the IGF and its importance and so on. It was and we have made a lot of capacity building about what is IGF and what it is even with WSIS in some cases. It was very important for capacity building. I believe in the Arab Region. We had a lot of challenges. The culture and language was the same in the Arab Region. I was it was a very good experience for us. Also to bridge the gap between national and global. Because some countries at the beginning, they didn't have the national IGF. And we and our role was also to encourage countries to establish the IGF at national level. We supported some of them. We interacted with some of them.
Until now, some countries don't have IGF, a national one. I believe the regional dimension filled the gap in a way between the national and global.
Also it was very important, I believe, for the common positioning to have common position of the region. Vis‑a‑vis the global issues. I mean that are discussed at a global level. It was intermediary layer, I would say. The important block to fill the gaps and give the voice to the region at the global level. This is from one side. Also encouraging the stakeholder. I believe the dynamism was the same.
For example, the NGO needed a lot of capacity building to have and an opinion. Why the public and private sector they were more engaged. They were supportive. They wanted to be and playing the very important role. Especially, that in many countries. It is more the government who is leading that. That scope of the regulation and everything in the country. The private sector, they found it as a very important tool and forum to discuss and to discuss sensibly with the government.
To put their position and to put what they need, in fact, for enhancing the sector as it was. This is what I think was the most important issue that I would say. I believe that for the last 20 years now, I mean I believe that the discussion is started smoothly. But now I believe we have strong community for the IGF. Very strong community for the IGF at regional level. There's we can build on this when we have achieved so far.
I believe it is more promising for the future. Although there's a between the Arab country ‑‑ there's not binding rule as there is in the EA. It is an important experience. However, we don't have the political power to impose anything at regional level, unfortunately. What we do is more importing and global positioning and so on. We try to make it as serious as possible, vis‑a‑vis the global community. I'll stop here.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you, Nibal. Turning now to the last of the panelist in the first round and going back online. Carolina Aguerre. Back to you.
>> CAROLINA AGUERRE: Thank you. It is very late for me over here. I emphasise with Jenna. Bear with me for my ranting a little bit.
In my understanding, it is hard for anyone all over the world to embrace something as immaterial. How they have the standards. There was the struggle of the regional Internet registry. They were thinking about the levels of sub solidarity and assigning comes closer. This applies to all of the RERs. I think this is a very valuable lesson on how the Internet evolved originally and how it still stands today, reflecting the needs and the identities of these regional and local communities.
Lately, I would say that in my region, regionalism has tended to become more interesting for actors. I'm not exactly sure why. I think that this and a lot of the geopolitical turn concerning the governance of the Internet and also the governance of AI really leaves much less space to think about the government infrastructure and the platforms that citizens want to engage with. The actual, local power dimensions that need to be addressed. And I've seen that there's a renewed interest. Not so much in national initiatives in Latin America and in the Caribbean, but more in the regional forum. This year's Regional IGF in the 17th addition in Chile really sort of marked this kind of vibrancy that with the pandemic I think had lagged.
Now, we've seen this spike coming up again. Just to end my first intervention, I also want to address something concerning Markus' original intervention concerning this idea of, okay, so where is the ‑‑ which is the platform and which is the kind of process that's guiding regionalism. You mentioned trade, for example; right? In the EU, for example, it is an economic and political block. We don't have that kind of regional integration in that Latin America and in the Caribbean. That's much more loosely bound.
Actually, there's so many subregions that operate in the North much more than the south. Still this brings in another cleavage or interesting dimension to address. There are regional forums and regional not just the idea if there are regional processes addressing the impact of this general purpose technologies. We're seeing this in AI as well. Where identity and culture from the regional perspective does matter. I think the challenge in a region that is not politically or economically integrated as is lack.
We have the challenge to think about what kind of institutions other than the existing processes or the top‑level domain sectors. Which other institutions will be able to sort of harness this regionalism that we need to think about in terms of the digital and the Internet world? This is my closing comment for the first intervention. Thank you.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you very much, Carolina. I'm going to rectify that going forward. I think that's been a really good discussion here. I want to ‑‑
(Microphone is cutting out)
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: From the floor. I think my limited attempt to summarise what I've heard or key points I've heard here. The sort of the relevance and the importance of the regional approach comes down to obviously logistical issues. There are time zones and languages and cultural distinctiveness that can be addressed in terms of more regional processes.
There's the capacity‑building element where you can bring people into an understanding of the importance of Internet governance and this sort of space and the opportunities there are to engage. There's strengthening that ‑‑ those voices in the global discussions. I think maybe some of the discussions around EU process and GDPR and Carolina your points speak to that.
I think also Nibal, your point about regional processes allowing for more sensitive discussions with stakeholders with a really interesting and important one. Yeah. We have one in the back of the room.
>> AUDIENCE: Hello, I'm Tiago and also a fellow. It is nice to be here in the panel that's discussing the discussion on the IGF. My question is and this has been part of the discussion that we had in Brazil in during that time. How we make regionals, IGF, or national ones to be more connected? What's been shared there and best practice of the smalls? One practice that's interesting if we can have some platform and some way of sharing better and building breeds of the initiative, is how different stakeholders in this region connect with the topic. I can give an example, at least in Brazil. I'm from there, of course.
In Brazil, we see Civil Society has an outstanding role there in the way that talking about digital rights, organisations, they are very well structure in the coalition. They do a lot of policy agenda. There's different institutions that work together for common goals. I see the role of the Brazilian IGF makes a big difference for making them to connect.
This, for example, can be shared in other regions. The private actors in the Arab Region is active. I hear in some other places, it is not. People say, yeah, we should have more people from business being engaged.
Otherwise, how can we say this is really multistakeholder; right? I think there's also imbalance of how depending on the region some groups of stakeholders are more or less active. Maybe it is something that the regional approach would, I don't know, see how they share. Trying to understand why is this happening here and not there and vice versa.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you. That's a great point. I'm sure the speakers will come back to that.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you to the candidates overall. I study the regional implements. I'm interested by the panel overall. I thought the opening remarks were phenomenonal. I come from Canada. Our region does not have a strong regional focus. We're left out in the regionalism conversation. We have a similar language and the Caribbean region have their own initiatives.
Telecommunications they are European, North America, or South American. From the numbers perspective, they get split between Arab and Latin. We don't have the view that Europe or other regions might to help with it. That kind of guides like a bit of why I'm going to ask two questions. They are a bit more, like, slightly geopolitics focused.
Within the lens of recognising that not all regions have the capacity to act as regions in the North American context, Canada is the middle power, for example. The head of WSIS+20. Is there a role for middle powers to become their own region? Canada and Australia and New Zealand have been moving together. Do we need to start seeing regions emerge across similar economic frameworks and policies that may not be the same but socioeconomic factors? Such as, the Nordic countries within them.
My second question, I think maybe Carolina would be best for this. It rests within thinking about the regional empires which notes the EU, U.S. in China as three global, digital empires overall. I'm wondering if you could speak to how maybe instead of thinking as certain countries as super powers in the digital space, if it is because they might have large stakeholders groups that create the local level. That's how we can better understand the regions and the capacity to have the complex network and actors that create global super powers in the space and how different communities overall might be able to become new digital empires in and of themselves for forecasting how we might see Internet governance evolve over the next ten years. Thank you.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you, Dana. I'm going to throw to Markus. I know he has to leave us shortly.
Markus, obviously, we have some very important insights and questions from the floor. The other sort of next round of questions that we have here is in terms of I think a little bit more looking to the future. Will regions continue to be building blocks for a new multilateralism or multistakeholdersism? Can you answer that?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Can you hear me? Circle back to Carolina. She corrected and which I forgot to mention. It is the quest of regional integration and European Union, of course, is light years ahead of most of the region. They have the institutions that allow them to take and bind it to find the binding solutions to tackle the issues. That makes what comes out of the European Union and what coming out of Brussels so important.
The other very interesting question of like‑minded middle powers and whether they should work together more. You mentioned the case which is already happening. I remember my days when I was dealing in multilateral affairs for the Swiss government. We worked actually closely together also with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They were like minded. Not geographically linked. That is definitely, I think, a way to approach these.
The last question is Tiago made excellent points. That's precisely what the IGF is all about. We come here to learn from each other and share good practices. Also then to go back home and make sure that governments don't take the wrong solutions. Because governments have a tendency to shoot from the hip, so to speak. They want the solution that creates the fix. They don't think of unintended consequences. Governments in particular whatever their leaning is, they like blocking the Internet, for instance. Which is a quick solution. Something they don't like. Okay. Let's block it. I come from a country which has excellent democratic pedigrees. They adopted the solution when it came to gamble. Okay. Let's protect our own gambling industry and block foreign providers of the same services. It is part of the society and on the barricades against it. We think this is a bad solution. It essentially breaks the Internet. The government didn't listen. They listen to the lobby groups who wanted that solution.
This is, I think, one of the strengths of the IGF that we actually learn and can promote good policy and also go back. They may not think about the consequences. They may go back. We learn from each other. Let's keep up the good fight. With that, I apologise. I have to run.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you very much, Markus. Thank you for the insights. As an Australian, I'm triggered by the answer. I'll throw it back to the online speaker.
Jenna, please respond to any of the questions. Also that looking forward as to how regionalism might play in to evolving multilateralism and multistakeholdersism.
>> JENNA MANHAU FUNG: Exactly. I'll try to respond and echo on what Markus just mentioned as well. Every time Markus makes the remarks, it sparks me with some sort of new insights all the time.
Now that makes me realise how to say that. Unlike Europe, Asia Pacific, for instance, there's no singular institution that could help create a blinding solution that could influence globally to an extent of how the EU works. Many of the time it will eventually fall in to the hand of the big power of certain countries or certain corporations in the regions. You can see that, for example, microchip. You can see that certain corporations are bigger. I try not to name them out specifically.
Given my background, I'm not very comfortable naming them out directly. Many of the times, I want to name the power dynamic as well. There are certainly countries that are so big with a big market. The political power to also influence how smaller countries react to approach certain issues and then there's economical factors on top of political factors that will influence how things are aligned. So that's why I think beyond the actual organisations like RER, we are still with the technical aspect of the Internet. I certainly do see the regional NRIs or local NRIs for some countries if they do have a more democratic system there are helpful.
As a channel for them to advocate what they concern, I do believe there are times where individuals may have to leverage some sort of power. But a different kind of power. From people or organisations beyond their own physical boundaries. I don't know if that makes sense. That's some of the cases. As I think just echoing on the questions about whether I think that the multistakeholdersism will be, like, a beating block. Regionalism. It could be a catalyst.
Just how I mentioned earlier, I think how different countries share the geographical context. Because of how they are a more practical way to do it regionally. You can't start everything huge. When a small country in one of the regions does not have such global impact where everyone will give them the attention, especially right now with us actually just living, like, living online, relying on whatever information that we get through social media, for examples. Which is highly manipulative in my own opinion. I think that kind of platform is important.
At the same time, people who are involved are still the own community or bubble sometime. Tiago mentioned and threw out questions about something related to that. In terms of collaboration. I think regionalism can favor collaboration beyond the actual physical IGF what happened nationally or regionally. Because I mean not speaking for businesses, I believe unless they are a huge corporation that have resources to send people to the physical IGF to show up and partake in conversation that we're making. Sometimes smaller businesses, they are trying to survive. Even if they care, they won't be as active as those. That's why those people are usually missing in a conversation. That's why I think there are times some ongoing collaboration is important. Of course, there are many different kinds of businesses. I won't be speaking for them at this point. I start to see that in some of the Southeast Asian countries, for example.
Especially around the AI area. Last year I did a research, a really casual research on how to develop in terms of the policy lookalike. I could see that. In some of the south eastern Asian country, you rely more on. Collaboration into making things happen. I would assume not every country has such system that would allow them to have and develop something that's comprehensive right away. Just to start out with while they have to catch up everything that's evolving so quickly; right? I will stop here. I echo a few points that was asked and named earlier. That's my take on that. Thank you.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you, Jenna. A few good point there is. I was wanting to push a little the sort of AI aspect of this. This is the not the AI governance forum. Africa has done regional AI strategies in the last 12 months. We're seeing that engagement at a regional level. Not necessarily in the specifically digital policy Internet governance related groups. At more geopolitical as well.
Nibal, over to you.
>> NIBAL IDLEBI: Okay. I believe global IGF is a very good platform for sharing experiences. It is really the two previous days. I turned around and saw many regional IGF. One of them was about the Arab IGF. There was a session about their experience. It was really multistakeholder. I mean the intervention and the people who participated in the session where the difference in the background and from different groups.
Then, I believe such IGF, global IGF, is a good platform for sharing experiences. I would argue also the building block that you would have allowed. I believe that is involved in the IGF. As involved in other platforms. Related to WSIS or other development of policy in general in the forum for many, many counties. I believe having more reporting about the IGF. They were having the process. There was introduction.
After ten years of the IGF, there was the introduction of chairperson messages or key messages that were shared by a different IGM forum. This is for sharing the experience and capitalising and exchanges the best practices and so on. Reporting on what is taking place on the IGF either nationally, regionally, or globally. It is important to build on things.
It will be a more important element to building the blocks. More than the different regional IGF or even from national to regional and regional to the global. I went to look at IGF. What were the results? It is difficult to find the results? Some reporting in the introduction. I'm not here. I'm just giving the IGF. It will really be very important for everyone.
This is what I would to say. I want to mention that it is really, I mean, the multistakeholdersism that was introduced in the IGF, it was copied everywhere today. I mean in many platforms and many international or international forum, we find this is copied in a way. It is everywhere. Multistakeholdersism. Even we are working as the intergovernmental organisation. However today because we see the value of multistakeholdersism, we have the model everywhere. In all kinds of activities that we are doing today for the development. We are working more on development. Socioeconomic development. We are copying the model. The multistakeholdersism, even if there's no voting. I mean sometimes.
However, the process in multistakeholders that was introduced very much by IGF. It was copied everywhere. Then I believe this is really also a very good example to borrow from it and maybe to generalise it.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you very much, Nibal. Something that jumps out at me. Maybe others will want to comment on it. Sort of taking up your find point there.
There's the model that has been adopted. Embraced by a lot of people. Also the point you made about reporting back from the IGF to the regional areas. I think that sort of relationship between the NRIs and the global IGF is something that's very important. It is evolving. I mean, particularly, that question of how do NRIs feed into the global IGF? Is that defined, distinct process? Is that something that happens in a very organic way? Does that need to change as we go forward? Yeah.
I'll throw to Carolina now. I'm sure we'll have more discussion after that. Carolina?
>> CAROLINA AGUERRE: Yes. Thank you, Chris.
I'm taking your point. We'll address Tiago and Dana's comments. Concerning the functionalism. That avenue is very much alive. Again, I mean for many of the national or local communities that are enabled to speak or to have a voice or to representation or even to sort of follow and understand the global debates. The region is really there for them. It is closer to them. There's the value. It is the trade associations in smaller countries and the Caribbean. It is rightly pointed. There's many subregions within the vast and cultural continent. Many identities and languages as well.
Going back raises the centrality of having mechanisms and institutions. It can allow for the ongoing process and for this transparency and accountability about the discussions about the outcomes and about how those processes feed in to broader, more consistent, national discussions. But also in to the global IGF or other relevant institutions. You did mention, Chris, that you were interested about AI. I have to say in Latin America and the Caribbean, there's been a lot going in the last two years, finding and building regional institutional platform to address what kind of AI governance the region is looking forward to and building on the regionalism. It is how they have addressed the global digital search for comments September.
Finally, looking into Dana's comment. It is a super relevant question. Also to think about is geography or regionalism the only way to address the issue.
Let's go back and be kindly critical towards the stakeholder discussion which sometimes is not just about being a different stakeholder. It is sharing different points views in the same space of venue; right? This brings in the idea that you may have countries in different parts of the world and different sizes and capacities of stakeholder groups. But they have a strong opinion about normative approach and consensus about how to move forward in the debates. It is in the effect that the Brussels effect or the approach the EU may have in some regions. It is not because there's this or because the values are embraced by other jurisdictions as well. That's the kind of like mindedness I'm talking about.
You can also kind that, for example, in groups such as the D9, the advanced digital nations where governments from different parts of the world sort of embrace technologies to address government transformation for their countries. This is again another way of reflecting how values, ideas about certain issues make this kind of new network or coalition around certain topics.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you very much. I encourage you to put your hands up, online and in the room. I'm encouraged to look around the room here and see some participates in the technical processes and representatives. We started out the session talking about how the regional approach was embed in the technical government space.
It would be interested to hear in terms of the technical governance, is the regionalism still central? Has it evolved? How has it developed over time? We have a speaker here in the middle of the room first. Then as well. What you can do in the regional IGF?
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: I'm sure I'll throw it to our speaker and panelist, I'm sure. In terms of how youth can engage in regional.
>> AUDIENCE: Good morning. I work at one of the five Regional Internet Registries. A regional approach has been central to how the RIRs approach Internet governance right from the start. I can tell you how the RIPE NCC does things. For the past 12 years, while we have events that bring together the technical community and other stakeholders from across the region, we do smaller and more focused events. The Middle East network is reaching its 25th year next year. That's been a long‑running event.
One is the central appearing and interconnection column. This is in the fourth year. This is interesting. Because the central Asian countries are landlocked. You have to think about what makes the regional event happen or success? You know, mode of means and opportunity come to mind. Because when we carried out the research on the Internet infrastructure in the countries and we showed it to representatives there, they realised that co‑creation and working together was the way forward for the digital economies that they hoped to build.
We heard from the minister yesterday on the high‑level session. He was talking about unlocking the potential of digital economies. But all of that is built on Internet infrastructure. Which needs a lot more work. This is really where we see the benefits of multistakeholdersism. I wanted to add the RIPE NCC supports Internet groups. We don't always see the groups coming together. That's what makes the IGF special. Thank you.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you very much. Roman, here.
>> AUDIENCE: Hi. Roman. Representative of the IGF here. I'm going to make a different statement. Mostly it is the IGF is the standards development organisation for the Internet. Our approach on regionalism. The multistakeholder input. The charm makes the interactivity of thousands of networks. There's not a regional protocol. It is about the single collection of different kind of protocols agreed globally that makes the Internet kind of possible. Certainly kind of filtering up. If we're going to have one Internet and the IGF develops the protocols. We welcome everyone to come.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thanks, Roman. That captured the intention between the regional and global very nicely. There's a tension. It is important as well. It is not necessarily attention. It is something to be balanced and understood as we go through. We had one more question in our planning with our speakers.
Possibly we've answered it in many ways. It is, I think, a good opportunity for our speakers to go around again and maybe engage with some of the questions. For which policy challenges are the regional organisations better equipped to tackle than something at global level like the UN or even the sort of global technical organisations. We have Markus back. Thank you for coming back. We'll put you on the spot again for that.
I'm going to give you the microphone. You have a microphone there. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes. Seems to work. Yes. It is an excellent question. I mean we refer to it as, I think, in our opening statement, each speaker in a different way. That's the commonality of the regions. Same cultural values. Also different priorities.
I think it was also mentioned by speaker that different regions have different priorities. It became to me obvious the first time in Africa, access was the number one priority. First, you want to have the Internet. Then once you have the Internet, they are different issues that come to the floor. You know, if you come from the developing region, the ask security councils is a major issue. Obviously, the focus will be on promoting access, sharing best practices, and how to do that, and also sharing bad practices. What didn't work. It was quite often the incumbent did not help promoting access. They were defending their own priorities. Their own ‑‑ what they owned. You know, just to get both that resistance by the incumbent. It was also in the connection fees, governments earned from the telecos.
One minister ended a meeting by saying they want to take that away from us. Yes, you may lose something. You great betters through the connection to the Internet, which by far outweigh its connection fees that you have. Quite often there are individuals who benefit from the interconnect fees. That was built in resistance. There to change. Yes. It is nice. How they finance through that. Why should I give that away? Many, many different ways.
Just, I mention as I make a different example, that you have to overcome these obstacles in order to fight good policy. There is just one example that was accessed. So in different ways, I think regions can also learn. I mean it is one of the issues, I think, everybody agrees. That you have to take care of valuable children on the Internet. Everybody has a parent or grandparent is aware of that. That's content that's not suitable for young people. How to do that is a different issue.
There again, I mentioned in a previous intervention of the governments like to shoot from the hips. Blocking is a quick reaction. A quick solution. There we collectively dropping is not a good solution. We have to say what are the good solutions? Maybe it is like parenting. You know, as a parent, you learn how to prepare your children for the bad world. It is parents, the first and foremost responsibility to make sure the children are in the safe space when they go online. Yes, it might be difficult. Not all parents are digital natives. The children’s are. They quite often are by far smarter than the parents. They outfit their parents.
But again it is a question of trust and they need to also have trust with their children. Simple word. It is parenting. Because of the cultural affinities, they might need to share good practices.
You are much better suited to find solutions in your own regions. They are on solutions on good practices on what to do and whatnot to do. That's my short comments on this issue.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you very much, Markus. I know we're having a little choppy sound online. Hopefully, it is going to come back and be better than ever. I want to throw it to Jenna. Are you hearing? And you are available?
>> JENNA MANHAU FUNG: Yes.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Obviously, I gave a brief answer to the question of youth in these before. You are certainly much more an expert in this. Very happy to hear your views here.
>> JENNA MANHAU FUNG: It is weird to be called an expert in the youth thing. Thank you. The audio works fine now. But I realise maybe Markus' voice got cut out for, like, five seconds. I kind of missed it.
To approach and respond to your last question about which four policy changes are the regional organisation are better equipped to tackle them. I think since I also wanted to respond to the question of how you engage. In Asia specifically, it is better to approach it that way too. Usually, young people are relatively having less experience as in how to practice in to making policies and all of that compares to people who might not be the digital natives. Having more experience in different solutions in to making policy changes.
So that is why in the context, I think for young people especially, trying to find a spot in the regional space to make a change is the first start. As many speakers mention, how we get together. That's important. It gives you inspiration. What kind of change do you want to bring and make and back to your own countries? We chat here. The world doesn't work it that way. The solutions do not naturally become law right away by the end of the discussion; right? You have to bring it back to your own country. And to make the real change that will impact people in your community that can't afford to be in the room talking about the issue. Those are the people who are also being impacted by all of the things that we discussed. All of the time. Within our community.
I think, at least that's the thing I think I value so much. Some of the younger people share the same sentiment. Everyone will have a different path to try to find your way, you know, on what kind of changes that you want to make. Whether you just want to mostly spend more time advocate and amplifying the voices in your respective community or the value‑based community. I think that's very important. I think whether they are born through certain topics, values, or purely geographically, I think that's already making things slightly ‑‑ I don't know if that will be easier. What I understand right now is the issues that we are facing is like getting more complex.
Then, perhaps sometimes the cross regional approach could be one of the ways that will help us to start a conversation. Especially on some sort of topics that may need to be discussed and approached at the global level. I think we mentioned about AI. For example, they are actual, for example, climate change. It can be the disastrous and affect everyone. Then not the right related to what we've been discussing here.
There's things that kind of like menacing to people's actual life these days. Where you need that kind of global conversation. I think there are regional platform where you can talk about the interest of those people more. That's why I think with any kind of policy it is better to take the approach and start it regionally.
Then as young people, for example, find your own path. Whether you bring it globally or back to your own community.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you.
Nibal, and then the closing comments.
>> NIBAL IDLEBI: What they do versus the international forum. Let me say because we are a regional organisation and working, we are related to the UN. They are more suitable in general to make the policy and strategy for the specific area. Information society and all of the society and research and development and so on. This is based on our experience. I wanted to tell you a story.
When I started working, I was making the guidelines for the Arab Region. I tried to process. I learned a lot in the EU. However, because the government processed the sector in the Arab Region, it is different. It is more oriented towards government, not the private sector who is leading.
Then the scope was completely changed. I was obliged to completely change the scope of the work. It is guided by the government. They are facilitators. They are not the ones that do the things. They are the facilitators. They make the environment or whatever.
In the Arab countries, it was controlled by the government. It was completely different scope. We learned a lot from EU. We learned also a lot from the EU, for example, in the regulation. Regulation. I believe and here's the regional organisation can do a lot also in regulation and legislative process. I believe it is to propose. I want to add another, if you allow me. We have a lot of people responding to the global agenda. There's a lot of global agendas. It is much more than the international one.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Carolina, please.
>> CAROLINA AGUERRE: Just to mention what has been said by the other speakers. The world counter services. How many times the value of regional organisations that may contribute to the idea of service. I think this is crucial. It is closer to the citizens. You like to be the underground delivery of the policy or general principles that need to get to the ground.
I also want to add another point. It is essential. I think the institutions are key processes that enable the thought process and the development of digital infrastructure. This is something that we've seen already in the past with Internet‑related technologies from ISP and capables. It is also the kind of discussions that we're beginning to see emerge more and more in Latin America and in the Caribbean concerning the infrastructure that's is needed to develop AI capacity. Thank you.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you, Carolina. We have time left. This workshop has been put together and given by Nadia Tjahja. I want to give Nadia a chance and Jamal a chance to finish us off. Nadia, please.
NADIA TJAHJA: Thank you very much. Thank you very much to the speakers and also the people in the room for your comments and your interventions. If you haven't seen, we're taking notes online. We can put in feedback and comments. We want to start using this to build our conversation. I would like to take a moment to answer the question on how youth can participate.
What I think is important is to take the opportunity while here at the IGF to meet up with the NRI sessions. You can go to meet the people that are organising events in the spaces.
For Europe, there's Internet Governance or Uruguay, they have a stand. Don't hesitate to say I work and live in your region. Please advise me. If you are not able to find it, find it on the web site. Agenda is one of the coordinators.
If you don't have a regional event or space, there's a dynamic coalition. You are able to reach out. They can help you and support you with your own events and connected to other people in the space that are working on particular youth issues and wanting to connect to other young people. It is not a space where you have to feel alone. There are opportunities out there. Especially for those. There are summer schools and winter schools and other youth events being organised. The way to get involved is starting the mailing list. Going to the NRI sessions and also join the youth newsletter on the IGF.
I hope that's helpful. I would then give the floor back to the moderator. Thank you, Chris.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you, Nadia. Jamal, going to you for the last word here.
>> JAMAL SHAHIN: Yeah. Thanks, Chris. Thanks to the panelists as well. Everybody. It's been a great discussion. Thanks to everybody here. I have a lot of things to say. There's a lady in the back that wants me to finish. I'll go through just a few points. Oh. Okay.
A few points as a reflection on what we heard and how this fits into an ongoing and ‑‑
(Microphone cutting in and out)
>> JAMAL SHAHIN: Ongoing research programme that we're carrying out at the UN and the united university. We're looking at the idea of regionalism. This is the thing that's causing problems. Okay. There we go. Okay. All right. We're looking in to how regions can be useful. Also in the IGF sphere. I think, Mark, it doesn't help.
(No audio)
>> JAMAL SHAHIN: The project. Nadia ‑‑ it is working. Okay. Nadia has been involved in the project that we have been doing comparing trade to Internet governance. It will be interesting. We found there's quite a lot of differences that make this very difficult to compare these two. I would love to go in to more on that. I think also the idea of the global needs of the technical community of the Internet.
In fact, the regional needs of the actors to actually build up a common position. It is actually quite challenging. We need to think more about how those halfways from the regional to the global actually play out in something like the IGF. I think also we need to think that regions are actors in the non‑mosaic. We have non‑particular actors as well.
Carolina, you mentioned them. I think that's important. These are the questions that we'll carry on talking about as we go into the implementation of the GDC and what role they will play in the future. It's been a great way to have the discussion with people and open up this way of thinking on our part. Also get some insights into this. The document that we're doing will hopefully turn in to something a bit much more. We're looking forward to that. Thanks very much.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you for Nadia and Jamal for organising the session. To the speakers, Markus, Nibal, Carolina, and Jenna. Thank you for being here and thank you for your active participation in the discussion. We'll bring this to a close. Have a good day.