Session
Organizer 1: Junko Kawauchi, 🔒CFIEC
Organizer 2: Keisuke Kamimura, Daito Bunka University
Speaker 1: Avri Doria, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 2: Lillian Nalwoga, Civil Society, African Group
Speaker 3: Amrita Choudhury, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Keisuke Kamimura, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Junko Kawauchi, Private Sector, Asia-Pacific Group
Junko Kawauchi, Private Sector, Asia-Pacific Group
Classroom
Duration (minutes): 90
Format description: Moderator and speakers will present their thoughts first, and then ask audience to intervene their comments. So the classroom layout would be good for the session.
A. Will multistakeholder models as developed over the last twenty years persist, and in what way?
B. What form will multistakeholderism take in response to the ongoing changes in the institutional ecosystem on Internet governance?
What will participants gain from attending this session? Participants and attendees can share their views on multistakeholderism, i.e., its rationale and principles, and the future outlook after the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and WSIS+20 review.
Description:
Under the Tunis Agenda, the IGF has nurtured multistakeholderism for the past 20 years. Discussing various issues on the Internet in a forum attended by a wide range of stakeholders has been effective in understanding the issues and considering solutions.
After the GDC, the IGF will continue, as will multistakeholderism that it has fostered. However, according to the GDC ZERO draft, after the GDC, many of the topics that the IGF has dealt with will move to other initiatives and processes. As Doria (2023) suggests, multistakeholderism can be characterized by several maturity levels. Some will take the IGF-style multistakeholder approach, while others will remain in multistakeholder consultation (consultation only). There is also a wariness of the use of the new phrase multistakeholder cooperation (even weaker) to describe multistakeholderism (Komaitis, 2023).
On the other hand, multistakeholderism that has been adopted in the IGF arena may not be equally valid for all issues of a different nature: the scope of issues raised by Internet governance is too broad, the stakeholders involved are too diverse, and national interests are too intricate." The scope of issues raised are too broad, the stakeholders involved are too diverse, and the national interests too conflicted" (Mueller, 2023). Because such issues are Under the GDC, the meaning of multistakeholderism may change if issues that have been discussed under the common umbrella of Internet governance are divided.
We will consider how multistakeholderism will (or won't) change at such a turning point.
We will discuss if there should be a variety of multistakeholder models depending on the issue, or should there be a highly common multistakeholderism, i.e., it is not necessary to call multistakeholderism if it is not multistakeholder in nature.
Hybrid Format: We will have an online moderator who will always watch online activities including chat, so that online participants can fully join the discussion and enable hybrid session. As the onsite moderator sometimes too busy moderating the discussion, online moderator will support the onsite moderator, especially for taking comments from online participants.