IGF 2025 – Day 4 – Workshop Room 4 – Dynamic Coalition Session Future of multistakeholder governance

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much for coming to our panel. I know we're competing with so many other ones, but it's great to see a lot of people here.

This panel will focus on exploring the evolving landscapes of multi stake governance in a digital age with a focus on the outcomes of ‑‑ focusing marginalized communities young adult and children are active participants in shaping the future of the IGF.

So there's several different Dynamic Coalitions here and we also have a booth in the main area where you can pick up information about the booth and about all of our DCs that are there. So right here we have the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, which focuses on the future of multistakeholder governance and making sure that it's inclusive not only in principle but in practice.

We also have the Dynamic Coalition on core Internet values as well as the Dynamic Coalition on intergenerational planet Dynamic Coalition on security, dynamic on schools and Internet Governance, as well as Dynamic Coalition on rights of children.

So we have all these coalitions here and we're going to start first with the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability and this is Dr. Muhammed Shabbir. He along with myself are the cocoordinators of our Dynamic Coalition. So let me without ‑‑ bring it over to Dr. Muhammed Shabbir.

>> MUHAMMED SHABBIR: Thank you very much, Judith Hellerstein. Thank you for giving the opportunity and my colleagues for being at this table to discuss the future of multistakeholder governance.

From the perspective of Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, I would have a couple of points to make in the initial intervention and then we can follow those points in the interactive discussion.

The first thing is that there are a number of instruments at the high level as well as regional and national level that talk about inclusivity, accessibility, and rights of persons with disabilities in the digital spaces. These range from at the top of all these instruments since the unit nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities with most of the governments by now have‑not just signed by ratified.

Then we have the WSIS being reviewed this year. That could be ‑‑ that also talks about inclusivity. We have the global digital compact where inclusivity for persons with disabilities is also referred and then we have digital inclusion strategy by the UN secretary general where inclusivity is talked about.

While this year is very important as we all know we'll be not only deciding the future of Internet Governance but we will also be deciding that how the future of multistakeholder governance should be shaping up.

So inclusion of persons with disabilities in the decision making as we discussed in the session on beyond tokenism, the inclusion of persons with disabilities in Internet Governance. This was one of the sessions where we talked about different ways and strategies that can be implemented in the way of involving persons with disabilities in further sessions. We as Dynamic Coalitions, we also organized three key sessions on ‑‑ in different clusters. I won't go into the details, but yesterday in hall five we discussed about capacities and how principle based models can be made inclusive and it ensured that persons with disabilities are included in the decision making of the future.

The question here arises, why do we include persons with disabilities whereas we have so many people who could be deciding the future of digital governance and they have been deciding it arguably and it has functioning as a coordinator on the Dynamic Coalition on disability and disability I would say it might be functioning. The system might be functioning for some but there is a very huge number of population while that WHO would state that it is about 15 or 16 percent of the world population which considering the total world population levels at eight or 9 billion would be equal to the total population of the country which is India or China. So a huge number of population is there who are not benefiting or meaningfully benefiting from the processes or the systems that our so‑called perfect technologists, policymakers have evolved. Therefore, when Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability comes on the stage and says that if you have not been able to evolve the perfect systems perhaps because this was because you had not the right people at the decision making tables when you are making the decisions about the future of the Internet. It's high time that while we evolve the future systems now we include persons with disabilities in those decision making. So I stop here and we can discuss this further.

Judith, over to you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much for this. I'm going to next turn to my candidate on my left, Rajendra Pratap Gupta with the digital economy.

>> RAJENDRA PRATAP GUPTA: Thank you. This is a very important topic from the government standpoint. The global economy is digital but still 1/3 of the people are still not connected to the Internet. Which brings me to the very important point that the world GDP was 110 truly last year. It could be 150 truly. Just think how much difference it will make to the economy and which brings a question to the multistakeholder governance model we have. The MTC here is symbolic. There are gaps and these gaps are that our multistakeholder governance model is reactive, not protective and still knowing well that people are not connected, we have not been able to. Every year we come and see that 2.7 people not connected become 2.6 million. At this pace it will take more than a decade for us to connect the people. I think when we as the IGF from the tag line of Internet we want we also want everyone to be connected to Internet, I think there should be a ‑‑ think tank should do is the Internet usage per capita and GDP per capita. I think that would ab good correlation. We have to somehow look at not the multistakeholder governance per se but how do we govern it? What kind of issues we prioritize? I think we are prioritizing AI over access of Internet and not having Internet itself is a disability I would say. I think the multistakeholder governance models need to reset a button to look at various dimensions and KPIs of what the government should look like, what we should deliver before the end of the decade when come to an end by 2030.

Thank you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much, Doctor, for this.

Next as we ‑‑ time is moving very quickly. We're going to move to my right and we're going to hear from Tatevik GrigoryanGuilherme Canela from UNESCO.

>> TATEVIK GRIGORYANGUILHERME CANELA: Thanks very much. I'm here from UNESCO on ‑‑ I represent the Dynamic Coalition on Internet universality indicators and as we talk about multistakeholderism the these indicators are in multistakeholder approach. These are basically indicators that help countries assess their Internet performance against the pillars of human rights, openness, and accessibility and multistakeholder governance and crosscutting issues such as gender equality, safety and security online, AI and the environment.

So I mentioned the multistakeholder governance which is one of the key pillars of this indicator has also very much in line with the work that Dynamic Coalition does for us multistakeholder participation and engagement in governance of the digital environment is not just the principle but also at UNESCO it is at the heart of our actions too, our activities. For example, if I speak within the scope of the Dynamic Coalition on this Internet universality indicator, indicator is a first step that we do after there is an agreement to do these assessments we establish a multistakeholder advisory board that steers the entire process that is providing input to this national voluntary assessment reports and then validates the outcomes of the assessments and also the recommendation that we put forward to support the countries, improve their digital environment. And then we encourage this maintenance of the multistakeholder advisory board also in carrying forward and implementing these policy recommendations. So we very much not only encourage it in principle but also facilitate this in action and bring ‑‑ convene this multistakeholder dialogues in this scope and ensure that everyone ‑‑ every stakeholder group has a say around the table on these matters.

This is just one example of ‑‑ and as we speak within this scope of Dynamic Coalitions of our work where we promote and foster multistakeholder engagement to the Internet Governance but it is very much rooted in all of our activities.

I'll stop here if any questions have been taken thanks so much.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much. We'll do questions and answers later, but want to make sure we have enough time for the panelists to make their quick statement.

I'll next go to Olivier Crepin‑Leblond for the DC and core Internet values.

>> Olivier Crepin‑Leblond: Yeah, thank you very much, Judith Hellerstein. Olivier Crepin‑Leblond speaking, and I'm here to speak to you about the core Internet values and the work of the Dynamic Coalition.

So what are the core values? They comprise the technical characteristics, architectural values by which the Internet is built and evolves and derives what can be called a social or in other words universal values which we've heard about just a moment ago. That emerge from the way that the Internet works.

The Internet is a global medium open to all regardless of geography or nationality. It's interoperable because it's a network of networks. It doesn't rely on a single application. It relies on open protocols like TCPIP, like BGP. It's free of any centralized control except for the needed coordination for the domain name system, the addressing, if you want, of the Internet, and the IP addresses. It's end to end. So the traffic goes one end of the network to the other end unhindered. It's also it's user centric. Users are able to basically choose what type of traffic they want to send through, what type of information they want to send through. They have full control over what they send and receive and of course it's robust and it's reliable. But of course that was a while ago when the Internet was created. A number of these values are being eroded. Things are changing on the Internet. So we're tracking the change that we're seeing happening on the Internet.

Earlier this week on Wednesday, we had a workshop that also looked at Artificial Intelligence, AI, and tried to see if we could apply core Internet values and derive from that some AI values. Very interesting discussion. It was very well attended but one thing that did come out of the discussion was that the Dynamic Coalitions around this table and in fact the ones that were in the other workshops are all working sometimes on specific points that go on top of the core Internet values. You got the Internet as the base and other work grafts on the top of that and so one of the things that my colleagues are not aware of now, one of the action items is that we will be working with all of the different dynamic coalitions one‑on‑one and offering a partnership to try and see what core values relate to their work and how we can help defend their work through the core Internet values. I hope it's a bit helpful but I'll be happy to answer questions later.

Thank you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much and thanks so much for sticking to time.

Next I will go Avri Doria.

>> AVRI DORIA: My name's Avri Doria. I coordinate the Dynamic Coalition on schools and Internet Governance. We do a couple things. First of all, there are many schools that have sprung up around the world over I guess the last decade, what the Dynamic Coalition tries to do at the very top level is sort of offer materials, offer ways to look at things. We have developed a curriculum in the past that currently needs to be updated with all the new things that he's been talking about. We're currently working on a document, for example, on how to sustain a school. And once you found one and you get some money and you have all the enthusiasm of having created one, comes year three and year four and how do you keep the thing running? So we're doing that and it's very interesting exercise because that's done differently in different places in the world. Depends on how you've ‑‑ so that's one of the things that the Dynamic Coalition does.

The schools themselves basically do several things. One, they do coursework, and they look at the various topics. You know, whether it's AI, whether it's how IP works, whether it's what the political dimensions of schools are, et cetera. So that's one of the aspects of schools.

The other aspects of schools that we help work on is practicum and we have practicums where you look around the multistakeholder world and you find there are some of us that are constantly talking, constantly participating. The ‑‑ what do are we called? But anyhow, the regular victims or the regular ‑‑ but most people sit there quietly and it comes from at least it seems to come from they never had a place to practice. They never had a place to sort of figure out how to behave, how to interject themselves. To some of us it comes natural. To many it doesn't. So a lot of these ‑‑ are there.

The thinkers thing we focus on is actually what one could call the theory of multistakeholderism or models. A couple years ago, and it may even be true for many now, people thought there was one multistakeholder model. It was the IGF model or maybe there was one multistakeholder model and it was the ICANN model or maybe there was one. And then basically ‑‑ so we started looking at how you come down to the next level of what does it involve to have a multistakeholder model? Are there levels of maturity? A multistakeholder model? How do you progress in developing a multistakeholder model? So that in a very quick hand waive we manner is sort of what the schools on Internet Governance are about and always happy to talk about it infinitely.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much, Avri Dorian, and thanks for sticking to your time.

Next we'll go to Roberto Gaetano. He's with the DC of interplanetary networks. They are doing Internet in space.

>> ROBERTO GAETANO: Yes, the DC or interplanetary networks as the name suggests is dealing with communication, interplanetary communication. Why is this different from the regular Internet on earth. That is because for the distances in space that create delays in the communication and also the fact that we have widely moving nodes that can create interruptions in the communication. So basically long story short, we have to use a different protocol that is delay and full of tolerance. There will be some differences versus the regular Internet.

Another question is: Now that the way that interplanetary communication develops with the launch of space missions, for instance, with the possibility of communication to outer space and so on, basically what we have right now is a situation in which telecommunication operators organization and organizations that are involved with launch of space vessels, NASA, for instance just to name one, those are the ones who are currently shaping up this scenario. So the problem is having also learned the lesson from the regular Internet where we had a bit in a hurry and under pressure develop ‑‑ had to develop a governance model in order to ensure that all interested stakeholders have a place in the table and have ‑‑ and can discuss how to govern the Internet, in the same way we believe that we need to develop and deploy an interplanetary Internet Governance model. And for instance, in these days we are discussing and we are thinking of using and that gives me the possibility to advertise this booklet, which is the translation in several languages of the Sao Paolo declaration of Netmundial plus ten. We are going to be using this developing a government model that is really multistakeholder that will ensure stakeholder that are not completely aware of the development of the interplanetary networks like society or users that will be impacted can get into the process early so that their interests and needs are represented.

Thank you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much, Roberto.

The last panelist we have here is Wout De Natris. You're not on it? Okay. So then we'll go to panelists of the DC child online protection.

>> UTA: Thank you Judith Hellerstein for giving me the floor also. I was not supposed to be a panelist but I had prepared to give some input to the session. So we're welcome.

When it comes to multistakeholder collaboration, of course from the Dynamic Coalition on children's rights, the digital environment, I need to refer to young people and I really appreciate that we had many people around here at the IGF, many young people we have the dynamic team coalition that was engaged in our work and we also have the Dynamic Coalition ‑‑ the youth coalition at least let me say it in that way.

I take the opportunity to refer to the general comment No. 25 on children's rights in the digital environment because it has a whole chapter on the respectful views of the child and let me just quote: We did child participation worldwide interoperation of the general comment No. 25 and there the over 700 children in various languages reported the digital environment afforded them crucial opportunities for their voices to be heard in matters that affect them. I do think we cannot deny it was 1/3 of all Internet users worldwide are under the age of 18. They are a child in the sense of convention on the rights of the child that we have not only give them a voice but hear their words and respect their views in regard of Internet Governance.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Uta along with Markus the cochairs of the Dynamic Coalition group of all 30DCs.

So now we'll move to the next step ‑‑ well, okay, Wout De Natris wants to ‑‑ in the end he decided he wanted to speak.

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Apologies I was not aware I was on the list because I had not submitted myself but I can of course speak a little bit.

My name is Wout De Natris and I represented Dynamic Coalition of Internet standards security and safety here at the IGF and we just produced our report on post part tell cryptography and it went really successfully well with some of the other people in the room. That's good to notice.

But I'm ‑‑ let me reflect on the future of multistakeholder that we were discussing and what we have been doing as Dynamic Coalitions as a group in the past maybe three years by now, certainly two and a half is try to organize ourselves and get ourselves better known so that people in the IGF environment understand better what we as Dynamic Coalitions are doing.

And I think that from the way the people within the community look at us at this moment is different than it was three years ago because I ran into people even on the Mac who were not even aware that dynamic coalitions existed or let alone what they did. I think that has changed. The fact we are now reported on for example about DIPLO foundation not happening last year is progress. We have one and a half year probably before the next IGF and how will Dynamic Coalitions present themselves in November or December 2026 when there is a new IGF anywhere in the world? We don't know yet.

I think that that is where we can make the next step and have time to make the next step. What I'm advocating is what we managed to do with the DC clustering, it also brings together overarching themes. We notice that we start working on the ‑‑ sort of working on the same topic from a different angle and that allows us to make better messages and perhaps common messages like what you invited us to do. Thank you for that, all of you, but also I think that we need to have a bigger voice in the future and what I would suggest that we try to advocate is that we have a spot to make sure that the integration of our work becomes better known within the process so that the clustering we have now becomes part of the themes. That is something doesn't have to do with the workshop program but getting the messages across of our work that we do the whole year across in a far better and integrated way.

And that is something that we can discuss and organize and see if we ‑‑ other Dynamic Coalitions agree on but it's something I would advocate to have a voice in the mag so that we are all at the same level and not that we are always somewhere as an appendix on the side.

And I think that is ‑‑ would make multistakeholder and Internet Governance far better, stronger, and more influential in the future. So let me stop there.

Thank you for the opportunity.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thank you so much. And I'll go over to Marcus for a comment.

>> MARKUS: Yes. Thank you, Judith. You called me cochair with Uta of the coordination group. Actually we call ourself cofacilitators. Sounds less important than cochairs. And very much support Wout's comments. We really have come a long way and I think by clustering and having also the main session we have a bigger impact. Now, whether or not a seat on the map will make that much difference, I'm not necessarily convinced but we have a Mac liaison we need to use this better. Let's park that discussion. We can have it among ourselves. I was just going to make a minor point listening to Uta and she pointed out that legally speaking somebody under 18 is a child, which obviously doesn't make much sense, and I make myself here the spokesman of the teen's Dynamic Coalition who actually put forward quite thoughtful paper saying we need to look at the ages in a different way. The UN category is youth is 18 to 35 and to be frank, a 35‑year‑old is a very mature youth.

[LAUGHTER]

>> It does not make much sense but we cannot change something that's enshrined in general assembly resolution, but we can apply it maybe with more flexibility. And the dynamic teen youth ‑‑ the dynamic team coalition suggests below 12 these are children. They fall in the category where we have to look after them. Whereas from 13 to 18, they are teenagers. Well, to 19 they are teenagers but in most countries when you're 18, you're adult. So have different rights and responsibilities. And then they also go on say, you know, they are young adults, young professionals people mid‑career and the oldest who maybe can take on a different role as mental ring and they actually like this idea of looking at the age categories with a fresh eye. We have not been able to change general assembly resolutions but I think the teens have made themselves heard and he has my admiration at that age I would not have been able to argue so effectively and coherently. These are my quick comments on this matter but Uta may have more comments because she's a professional dealing with children's rights.

>> UTA: Thank you, Markus. I just wanted to get into that because isn't it also due to the opportunities that the digital environment opens up for children that they are now in this position because otherwise like those teens under the age of 18 they could only have come to the Internet accompanied by adults that like we had in several years earlier on in the Internet Governance community but now with all these digital opportunities they can take part. They can raise their voice, they can make them heard themselves. You know, the Internet with the worldwide Web came up in 1989. That was the same year that the United Nations convention on the private of the child came up so we have kind of parallel developments and I'm pretty sure they are interrelated with each other have opened up for children's evolving in certainly changed way than it was beforehand.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much, Uta. And this will also go out to our next segment which is policy questions.

>> Can I ask a question? If I can I'd like to just add some thought to that.

One, this is one reason why the DCs when they started out sort of declared a degree of independence from the mag and UN that is stricter so we wouldn't necessarily be as bound by all the UN, you know, edicts such as we could decide what we wanted in terms of how we were doing things. And two as a street kid at 16 if anybody had told me I was a child there would have been a battle.

[LAUGHTER]

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: This also leads us directly into policy question of what policies important are in the process of enabling multistakeholder practices? Uta touched on the idea of the digital ideas that we can now get the youth to engage themselves and they don't have to come with an adult or other stuff. The teen coalition on the calls in the early morning and evening and so they're very active but, you know, Rajendra Pratap Gupta, I know you wanted to make a comment on ‑‑

>> RAJENDRA PRATAP GUPTA: I just wanted to add to what Marta said is I have experience over the decade the DCs, I mean this is the best model for looking at the multistakeholder governance. I think as AVRI said independent flexible ‑‑ I have not come across any time when anyone made a suggestion it was thwarted or debated. Anything good immediately accepted and acted upon. I would actually congratulate those who facilitate the Dynamic Coalition I say within the IGF for keeping that spirit alive of change and hope along with could not neutral. Thank you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thank you so much.

Yes. So who wants to ‑‑ Avri do you want to talk about that question of policies that are important in process of enabling multistakeholder?

>> AVRI DORIAN: Certainly. I'm always willing to talk about just about any topic. But the policy certainly within the Dynamic Coalitions, it's very important that we be open and accept the whole notion that bottom up these things are dealt. Thank you for being here, Markus.

You know, the ‑‑ hmm? Bottom up. Thank you very much for reminding me where I was.

But basically that that becomes a very important part because as I was saying before, when the Dynamic Coalitions get constrained into a certain rules, a certain box, a certain structure is when we find that we can't be all that dynamic. You know, having the basic rules that we have that we have to be open, that we have to have a mailing list, that we have to be coalitions which means we have to have people from the many stakeholder groups is a very basic set of requirements, but beyond that, as multistakeholder models develop as we get beyond thinking of there being a single model, a single way to do things, it really is in the Dynamic Coalitions that you sort of have the crucible where you can try things. You could fail. You can come. You can succeed. And such that becomes more and more a problem as things start to have the blessing of the top down. Part of the problem with the IGF is its top down nature. Dynamic Coalitions are the one place where we get to experiment with sort of the other half of what it means to be multistakeholder, bottom up multistakeholder models.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much. Any other coalitions want to mention something? Otherwise we'll go to the next question.

So the next question is how can multistakeholder models be further developed to make them more inclusive and accessible? And point to Dr. Muhammed Shabbir to talk about that.

>> MUHAMMED SHABBIR: Thank you very much for that, and I have been listening to my fellow DC representatives talk about different aspects and I have been thinking that how best we can evolve this multistakeholder model that we have going up and running.

And I reflected upon the suggestion that came out from Wout and then the discussion by Avry on having a voice of space on the Mag by the DCs, and I would for one from the perspective of DCD, whereas I would want the multistakeholder model as it exists today to evolve that to include the voice of persons with disabilities on the magazine, why so because this is the largest minority that is just being made into a checks box under the diversity umbrella. It should not be that.

On the other hand, as the coordinator of Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability and one of the oldest Dynamic Coalitions in existence, I would argue for the argument that every ‑‑ forward. That is we must guard the system that we have here within the Dynamic Coalitions and that is bottom up multistakeholder. We as the coordinators of the Dynamic Coalitions, we are not the cares who would give directions to the ‑‑ from the top to be implemented. We facilitate the work of the coalitions as Markus very rightly said that they are ‑‑ Markus and Uta are preferred to be recognized as facilitators of the work because our job is not to give directions. Our job is to give guidance, to provide resources, and to facilitate the work that community wants from us, and in that, I just was thinking that whether teens, I hear Amad and am really impressed by his prowess and argumentation at this age, but when I think of the other side of the teens with disability, those who do not have the right opportunities, then I need to consider that that multistakeholder model so‑called needs to evolve and it needs to be multistakeholder in true sense and not just be some check boxes here and there.

Thank you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much. I'll go to Roberto Gaetano as he has some input.

>> ROBERTO GAETANO: Yes. Roberto Gaetano, interplant tear.

I have two comments on this. The first is once the former COO of ICANN said multistakeholder model has to be global and equal. And I think this is a very important. We cannot just have a vague representation of the stakeholders, but this‑ the model has to be global in the sense that the stakeholders have to represent different geo political situations and equal the stakeholder groups have to participate on equal footing. I think this is something that is very important, is actually the band that has played in music night takes the name GEMs which is exactly the acronym for global equal multistakeholder. So I think that we have to ‑‑ one thing that we have to do is make sure that whenever we speak about multistakeholder model we are very attentive of the fact it is global and equal.

Another point that came by the way also in one of the sessions that I have attended. Within a stakeholder group, we have to make sure that there's not a sub group that monopolizes the discussion, that monopolizes the presence.

For instance, one of the most values ‑‑ more diverse stakeholder group is probably civil society, but civil society comes in different shapes in different forms. There are different types of stakeholder that belong to the bigger group of civil society and we have to make sure that also within a stakeholder group the different types of stakeholder are represented.

Thank you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much. We are two more quick comments, one from Roberto Gaetano. I'm going to keep it short because we want to make sure we have time for questions from the audience and then Wout.

>> I have a question. Not a question actually a reflection back on the governance and the role of DCs what we do. So it should not not be just noise that some makes and I'm not putting some people in the corner but actually on the impact that we create. If you look at the world work on standards, if you look at our friend's work on the net values and others, these are substantial works and contribution to the knowledge of domain of Internet. I think that should be the primary focus. I would say I'm not really in favor of seats over titles. I'm in favor of original substantive work that ask to the knowledge for this domain of Internet that creates an impact on ground. So I think we'll have to look at like today as 20 years of IGF what is our stated position as DC's on the issue of environment? Because everything we do today in the digital economy has a carbon footprint. Second what's happening on the job site, you snow? Digital economy how do you use technology for jobs every time you open the news, you see that 30 million jobs will be lost today. So it's scary at times and I think this will boomerang into a huge mental health issue for the world. We'll have to look at DCs and how addressing these issues to create an impact. A seat will not make much of a difference but what we make a difference to the digital economy is going to be measured in terms of what we have added to the domain. I think this is where it matters for us to be impactful.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much.

Wout.

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Yes, thank you, Judith.

Whether we have a Saturday or not is not the real topic I think. I think what we've shown in the past two years is we've learned from each other what we are doing. That is one that we'll probably be able to integrate more because of the clusters and that way become more impactful.

When I think of the IGF, just going back to 2009 when I visited my first IGF, I went to many sessions as I could. I was so impressed with the brilliant people giving brilliant solutions to topics but some of them still have not been solved. We are 16 years down the line still sometimes discussing the same sort of things. Maybe we call it AI now but if you look one step up it's the same issue. In other words, we have the people to make a difference except somehow the integration of that message is not coming across in the places where it needs to land. And I think that that is the challenge of whether we get a five year or ten year or eternal mandate for the IGF. It is about bringing people to the table that decide I think I have to make a difference. And that will be the main challenge that the IGF faces where it has to move to a top shelf to influencing position and if we can manage to do that then we'll change the world. That's why I advocate that our outcomes as Dynamic Coalitions should be heard better and that starts with having more influence on the organization of the IGF because that's where we bring our message across.

And Avri just to come back to one of your comments I think yesterday. I was not really aware what you guys were doing but you make it actual difference how you coordinate on topics and that sort of thing. That should be heard. Someone comes to tell you I want to do this but that you send your message we're making a difference in the Internet Governance world and I think that is a sort of message that we need to start to share actively. And we have made that start and whatever, however we continue but it's something we need to discuss in our group like Markus said internally and then set the steps we need to take. That's how I want to advocate the IGF to Dynamic Coalitions and then I'll shut up because I said what I wanted to say thank you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thank you so much, Wout.

We want to go for the Q&A so there's a mic set up over there if in person want to stand up for that. I'm just going to check with my colleague because we might have some interventions online. So ‑‑

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Thanks. Currently we have 23 people taking part online and following us from everywhere around the globe and there is a discussion going on. It was raised the attention by Carlos Afonso on a development on the multistakeholder structure of the Internet Governance in Brazil, just a lively discussion going on, links and further informations are provided.

There is a question raised by Emanuel from Uganda who would like to know more about the concept of Dynamic Coalition we are talking about what's Dynamic Coalition are doing on what they are delivering and output and so on, but he wants to learn more about the concept and how to engage as an individual in the Dynamic Coalition.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Olivia.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: I was asked a question. The what is a Dynamic Coalition? Why is it dynamic? Have a start? Beginning? End? What do you people work on? Are these projects? Are these ongoing things? And the answer that I provided was potentially maybe one of many different answers because we are so many different coalitions and so we deal with so many different topics. But the dynamism of a Dynamic Coalition is one that actually advances with times. It has ‑‑ it deals with issues that are related to the Internet that is changing and the issues we might have been working on or focusing on a few years ago might be a bit ‑‑ they might have evolved since and in fact for some thanks to the work of that coalition the issues are have advanced. It's dynamic because it's moving but also open. I think that's one of the things we've not actually emphasized enough. They are all open. You don't need to pay a subscription or cue up or be co‑opted by some panel that will check whether you're worthy of being in that coalition or not. It's actually open to everyone and all of them are open. Automatic very friendly, run by people who have years of experience in trying to get more people involved and this is one of the big difficulties we've had I'll be very frank is actually attracting more people to go and join because, yeah, there is intersectional work going on. A lot of work needed. We're not dealing with simple issues that can be fixed in a matter of seconds, but it's also exciting because it kind of puts this bridge between the different IGFs. Not just something that happens once a year. It's something that happens all the time and that continues to grow. That's what I wanted to say about it. Thank you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: We have a quick one from Uta and then we have should be and then you.

>> UTA: Because we have all been approached over the last four days by people who wanted to join dynamic listeners, really useful to have this booth where everybody can meet us but still when it comes to how do I get to become a member of a Dynamic Coalition, it's a bit tricky. You go to the website. You need to have a look on the intersessional part, even understanding that it's intersessional work the Dynamic Coalitions are doing is a bit difficult. But to make it short, everybody can subscribe to the mailing lists of the Dynamic Coalitions to get informed about the work the Dynamic Coalition ‑‑ respective Dynamic Coalition is doing. You can apply to become a member. It's just saying my organization or me as an individual, I want to be a member of this Dynamic Coalition. Then you will be listed in the list of stakeholders within that Dynamic Coalition. And that's ‑‑ these are the first two steps and then it's up to each of the individual Dynamic Coalitions to set up how they work together. Some meet on a regular basis. Other meet only occasionally. Some produce joint reports. Some gather information of what their members have been doing in regard of the objectives of the Dynamic Coalition. So that is different across Dynamic Coalitions.

Thank you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much. And Doctor you wanted to make a comment as well.

>> AVRI DORIAN: Quick thing, I'm really glad you put it just to marry it to something that Wout has been saying. Perhaps we also can take on an action for the coordination group that says we have to make that more visible. We have to make that something easier for people to find and put it out. So perhaps we should give ourselves sort of after this all over and rested, indeed medication ourselves more visible by making that easier for people to find and do it.

>> UTA: We had a meeting the day before yesterday agreeing exactly on that approach.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: So now I know our colleague over there has been waiting patiently by the mic. I will go to him. Please tell us your name and your organization.

>> Thank you. So my name is Yiet. I'm kind of affiliated. I represent only myself. I have three assumptions or perhaps observations and one of them is that the power of Internet Governance is not in this room; it is chiefly with big tech.

The second thing is that I was sort of a part of the global digital compact process and I noticed there were no challenges to multistakeholderism in there, whereas digital comments were completely removed even though there were many excellent contributions in a dedicated deep dive.

And the third thing is that polycentrism, which is part of the digital comments and narrative has been used by humanity for thousands of years and there is a rich theory and a rich practice.S aren't we trying to reinvent the wheel here? Shouldn't we be moving towards polycentrism rather than multistakeholderism?

Thank you.

>> Very right intervention and if you heard my statement the issue is not in multistakeholder the issue is multistakeholder governance. I think as we see the world today, it is small number of large companies that drive the Internet rather than large number of companies. That's the difference we have to make and I think it's not reinventing the wheel we should first create the wheel and make something different. That is the flexibility we all have in this room to speak our mind and work towards it and luckily no one stops up. Our reports come out based on people giving input from 60, 70 companies and we have released them this is the way to go. We should not start to appreciate a problem over time we should try to solve it. I think collectively we have to start. The question is when, the time is now, we already late.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much.

>> AVRI DORIAN: Just one quick thing. I don't think anybody is ignoring any of the historical I think there's a lot of admission that multistakeholder models have evolved from previous models that there have been models throughout history that have given us the ideas that we're going on. It's really not an ignoring history. It's sort of there's a lot of parts of history that sort of had their moment and then got forgotten and how do we take what was really valuable in those and sort of incorporate it in sort of the things that are being done now. And totally agree with you we have to use what we've got here to indeed make more of an impression on those that do hold the power at the moment. So really don't disagree with anything except that we should use old words instead of new words.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Well, make it quick.

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: In Internet security that report written about five years ago now, we identified that it's about tragic of the commons. That Internet is sort of for everybody despite those five, six, seven, or eight major companies but it's everybody's. So when it's everybody's nobody cares at some point because somebody else will do it for me and I think that is not reinventing the wheel it's going back to the fundamentals of how things one started thousands of years ago and we've sort of forgotten that lesson.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thank you so much.

Dr. Muhammed Shabbir.

>> MUHAMMED SHABBIR: I'll be quick without ‑‑ power politics is my subject as a student of international relations and we all know it is not equally distributed. And through the centuries had has not been and it would never be. Power that would be would not give the equal distribution of it to anyone. While we may not have the power to change things at our will in this room, we do have the power in this room to influence things and that's what we are doing: Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability is trying to make the Internet and Internet government spaces equal for people with disabilities. That is where the power of our Dynamic Coalitions comes. We have the power of the people which cannot be taken away from us thank you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much. Let me check with online. Do we have any questions online? Okay. So we can go to the gentleman over there.

>> I'm Harry Wong from Internet Governance Forum and also cofounder for Heiwengi. For the last 20 years the power is not in the room. It's controlled by the large companies definitely but further next 20 years the power will be in this room. It's not because we are discussing. We're talking about that. It's because of the dynamic of the Internet. The prod gals are evolving. So the gals for the people are coming and not only coming; it's already invented and it's ready to be deployed. For the power of people. So why the large company dominated for last 20 years even after IGF was ‑‑ because the prod gals lead to the centralization of our data and also lead to centralization of our infrastructure but now it's different for the next 20 years the infrastructure will be decentralized by the BP network. It can be built by the community with space ground integration that works with national network to be built by people not necessarily by centralized carriers. That's on the infrastructure level. On the application level the data currently centralized in larger companies will be decentralized and by prod gals like solid, like meta life, it will be controlled by other users. So yeah ‑‑ so that the day is coming. So a Dynamic Coalition will play important role together with other allies.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thank you so much Henry. We have to have one more quick question and then we'll go to the panelists.

>> It's maybe like my comments ‑‑

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Could you introduce yourself, please.

>> It's on.

>> It's okay. Thank you very much. My name is Vasili I represent the center for global IT Russian NGO which actively works on ITO and IGF forums and I would like to say many things for this very interesting panels. And the main idea that Dynamic Coalition is very important and appreciate the role in Russia to have IGF forum youth forum and this June they hosted the first global digital forum which bringing together representative from technical communities, experts society and government from more than hundred countries including high level view and IT representatives. In this case wide to the Dynamic Coalition to collaborate with us and so the main thought and main idea let's work together. Thank you very much for useful dialogue thank you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thank you so much.

We have a ‑‑ if you can make your answers short because I want to go to the wrap to give you a time or maybe best try to answer the question along with your 30 seconds or wrap‑up. And so I will go to UTA for 30 seconds to wrap‑up and answer to these two questions.

>> UTA: Oh my God. That is quite difficult. Yes, okay. I do think we have heard a lot about multistakeholder governance. From my experience I really would say that we have improved over the last 20 years. I'm not so pessimistic and I think you have a dream and I hope somehow it will become true. What I remember of the world summit of information society especially from a civil society organization, we were just not at the table more or less. We really were not heard and that has really improved and standing up for children's rights as a civil society organization we are improving on not only making the children's rights heard but ‑‑ and their voices heard but also their rights to be respected.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Dr. Muhammed Shabbir.

>> MUHAMMED SHABBIR: Very difficult so I would just go directly to the concluding statement that I have. So Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability is ‑‑ stands ready to work with our fellow Dynamic Coalitions and there are number of subjects that one can work with. If we want, the people to use the Internet meaningfully we need to not just think about only those 2.7 billion who are not connected, but 1.5 billion people who may be connected, may be in a well developed country may have state of the art devices with the high speed Internet but still be unable to use the Internet. And I invite you to think about that situation and put yourself in that what would you do if you were in that situation? I rest my case.

Thank you.

>> TATEVIK GRIGORYANGUILHERME CANELA: I just wanted to reiterate for UNESCO the Internet universality concept that is grounded in principles A being accessibility and M being multistakeholder participation and governance is UNESCO's official position endorsed by 194 member states which we do advocate for and do reinforce on the ground too and it is very much grounded in other processes and activities that UNESCO carries on and this is ‑‑ this has been our position and we continue working so engaging on the diverse stakeholders on the ground and, yes, for us this is the reality, this is the presence, present and we will continue doing so. Thank you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thank you so much and Rajendra Pratap Gupta.

>> RAJENDRA PRATAP GUPTA: Thank you as Dynamic Coalition digital economy I would say we still aspire and very hopeful we will have Internet for all and livelihood for all and we work for policy capacity and infrastructure to make it happen thank you.

>> OLIVIER CREPIN‑LEBLOND: Thank you, Judith. So having been an Internet user for over 35 years, having heard what we've heard here in the room today with the concerns about the future of multistakeholder governance and potential new avenues on how it could turn out for the better, I think that as long as we are here around the table and as long as you are here in the room and you're present and able to do something about it, then we have hope. We can have hope. Thank you.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much. Avri Dorian.

>> AVRI DORIAN: Starting from where Olivier Crepin‑Leblond stopped I always have hope. I want to mention we have a fair number of Russian groups participating within the Dynamic Coalition on schools and in terms of making a difference from the school's perspective, we have seen our students from the various schools going into industry, going into all the institutions and associations and there really is a concept of making the change, making the difference one classroom at a time one student at a time. I meet them all the time and they are pushing the values we try to convince them of.

>> ROBERTO GAETANO: First of all, what is the value for us as Dynamic Coalition on interplanetary network to work with the other Dynamic Coalitions is that, in order to build our model of ‑‑ and governance, we can use the experience of all the other groups that is very good.

On the other hand, what we can bring to the Dynamic Coalitions is to add another dimension that meets the ability of further developing the governance model to apply that to situations that are not part of the ordinary Internet.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much.

>> WOUT DE NATRIS: Thank you on behalf of the Dynamic Coalition Internet security and safety I would say it's disgraced that many companies still not have deployed Internet standards sometimes there for 20 years that would secure us immediately so every government and big company around the world has to start procuring their ICT secure by design because that's an economic that won't be ignored. On Dynamic Coalitions let's rock and roll in 2026 and make sure that we are better heard. So thank you for this session because we really said what needed to be said.

>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much for everybody coming to the session and please come to our booth and that's where you could learn more about us. So again thanks for coming.

[APPLAUSE].