NETMundial+10

Contributor: Dr. Devesh Tyagi, National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI)

Stakeholder Group

Country

I - PRINCIPLES FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESSES

I - A) THE 2014 NETMUNDIAL PROCESS PRINCIPLES

1. The 2014 NETmundial meeting adopted a set of 10 Principles for Internet Governance Processes. In light of the rapid technical, social, and economic evolutions that have taken place since then, please indicate below your degree of support for the following statements:

The 10 “NETmundial Internet Governance Process Principles” adopted in 2014 remain relevant to address today’s digital governance challenges

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know / I'd rather not respond

Our persistent difficulties in dealing with digital issues largely stem from insufficient inclusion of all relevant stakeholders in policy discussions

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know / I'd rather not respond

Our persistent difficulties in dealing with digital issues reflect different interests, priorities and value systems of distinct stakeholders

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know / I'd rather not respond

2. After reviewing the set of Principles for Internet Governance Processes from NETmundial 2014, do you think they need to be supplemented, in order to guide the development of the governance of the digital world? Please detail.

We appreciate the efforts made by the NETmundial - Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. NIXI believes in the Multistakeholder process of the Internet, aligned with the vision of the Government of India, which has enabled various initiatives on critical areas of Internet Governance, such as the India IGF, The Universal Acceptance Steering Committee, and many more, Proudly facilitated by NIXI. India is not only spearheading technology, industry and social capital in emerging technology, it is the voice of the Global South, and a representation of the immense transformational potential which can provide the means for sustainable and inclusive development in a country in critical areas such as education, healthcare, financial inclusion and service delivery. We laude the forum's endeavour to explore the challenges and evolution of principles for digital governance processes, establish guidelines for the implementation of multistakeholder mechanisms and build inputs for ongoing processes. Regarding principles for Internet Governance (IG) processes, we strongly agree the NETmundial Principles adopted in 2014 remain relevant to address today’s digital governance challenges. The IG process must remain founded on multistakeholderism, open & participatory, transparent, and inclusive of all stakeholders. Further, we agree that persistent difficulties in dealing with digital issues largely stem from insufficient inclusion of all relevant stakeholders in policy discussions. The IG ecosystem is at a turning point, with the evolution of technology leapfrogging beyond the capacity of traditional governance structures, the multistakeholder process and approach must adapt to mitigate these new challenges. Meaningful access must be a guiding principle for connecting people, especially in the Global South. There must be increased support by global forum to assist national initiatives address issues pertaining to accessibility, affordability, content, services, digital literacy and other capabilities as well as supporting resilience and connectivity. NIXI advocates for equity in access to technological developments and supports efforts to broaden stakeholder engagement within the IG Ecosystem. We remain Neutral on the question of persistent difficulties in dealing with digital issues that reflect different interests, priorities and value systems of distinct stakeholders.

I - B) STAKEHOLDER RESPONSIBILITIES

3. The 2014 NETmundial statement includes the following “multistakeholder” Internet Governance Process Principle: “The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion”. The distribution of roles and responsibilities between stakeholders is an ongoing (and contentious) subject of debate. In this regard, please indicate below your degree of support for the following statements:

Each stakeholder group has different roles and responsibilities, depending on the topic and phases of specific governance processes

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know / I'd rather not respond

Most digital governance processes are applying the above mentioned “multistakeholder” principle

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know / I'd rather not respond

4. Do you see room for improvements in the implementation of the above mentioned “multistakeholder” principle? If yes, what would you suggest?

The NETmundial principle acknowledges that each stakeholder group has different roles and responsibilities, depending on the topic and phases of specific governance processes, we agree with the statement. However, we would like to add that the evolving digital and technological ecosystem would benefit from acknowledging the intersectional roles and increased responsibilities of stakeholders. Policy processes with earmarked roles of stakeholders can be counterproductive when dealing with multifaceted issues like governance of emerging technology, building secure digital ecosystems, and mitigating online harms through DNS, among others. Effective policy developments benefit from holistic discourse to build informed consensus. We partially agree that most digital governance processes apply the above-mentioned “multistakeholder” principle because we continue to advocate for broader stakeholder engagement in IG processes and forums. Building on the points made with regards to improving the inclusion of stakeholders in policy discussions, we recommend working on adapting the principle statement further, adapting to the intersectional and complex challenges of IG and the evolution of the Internet itself.

I - C) COORDINATION

5. Numerous initiatives and processes have emerged to address the broad diversity of issues raised by the digital revolution. Sometimes, multiple processes address the same issues in parallel. Please indicate below your degree of support for the following statements:

Separate siloed discussions on a specific issue risk creating incompatible and even conflicting outcomes.

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know / I'd rather not respond

Distributed initiatives on a particular issue can help cover the diversity of approaches and perspectives.

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know / I'd rather not respond

Better coordination is needed between processes dealing with overlapping issues

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know / I'd rather not respond

6. If you believe better coordination is needed, please suggest ways to do so and specific text or language that could be included as recommendations in a NETmundial+10 outcome statement.

We strongly agree that separate siloed discussions on specific issues risk creating incompatible and even conflicting outcomes and agree that distributed initiatives on a particular issue can help cover the diversity of approaches and perspectives. We strongly agree better coordination is needed between processes dealing with overlapping issues. We recommend the forum deliberate on the inclusion of coordination processes in the implementation guidelines of the stakeholder mechanism, establishing channels of active engagement(s) between organisers/facilitators of different forums to share notes or key takeaways from similar thematic areas. We raise the statement of 2014 roadmap of institutional improvements, i.e. “There should be adequate communication and coordination among existing forums, task forces and organisations of the Internet governance ecosystem. Periodic reports, formal liaisons and timely feedback are examples of mechanisms that could be implemented to that end. It would be recommended to analyse the option of creating Internet governance coordination tools to perform ongoing monitoring, analysis, and information-sharing functions” to be evaluated further and supported actionable guidelines which can be employed by aligned forums.

There is broad consensus to support the multistakeholder approach, but little common or broadly-shared understanding about how to put it into practice. NETmundial+10 aims to help operationalize, through guidelines, principles and mechanisms, improvements for multistakeholder collaboration.

II - A) PARTICIPATION IN MULTILATERAL PROCESSES

7. Some multilateral processes offer the possibility for non-governmental stakeholders to contribute through consultations. However, these examples remain limited and there is often no transparency on how these inputs are taken into account in subsequent stages of discussions among States. Please indicate below your degree of support for the following statements:

Since NETmundial 2014, opportunities for non-governmental stakeholders to participate in multilateral processes have been improved

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know / I'd rather not respond

More transparent mechanisms should be put in place regarding how input from non-governmental stakeholders is taken into account

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know / I'd rather not respond

Relevant non-governmental stakeholders should be able to attend/observe multilateral negotiations on digital issues.

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know / I'd rather not respond

Relevant non-governmental stakeholders should be able to contribute in a meaningful way to multilateral negotiations on digital issues.

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know / I'd rather not respond

8. Please suggest ways to improve meaningful participation of non-governmental stakeholders in multilateral processes and add specific text or language in that regard that could be included as recommendations in a NETmundial+10 outcome statement. If possible, please indicate examples you know of meaningful participation of stakeholders in multilateral-driven processes.

We remain neutral on the stance of NETmundial 2014 improving opportunities for non-governmental stakeholders to participate in multilateral processes. We strongly agree more transparent mechanisms should be put in place, stating how input(s) from non-governmental stakeholders are taken into account, and that all relevant stakeholders should be able to attend/observe and meaningfully contribute to multilateral negotiations on digital issues. Taking lessons from our recent engagement with the GDC and its informal consultations that presented an evolved multistakeholder engagement, we make the following recommendations:

- We recommend adding a degree of transparency and openness to multilateral processes clearly outlining the role of non-governmental stakeholders and establishing equity mechanisms to support their inputs during consultations and subsequent outputs. It could be prudent to include members of the technical community, civil society and industry representatives, among others, in the facilitation committee(s) of said processes. 
- NIXI has the privilege of engaging with various regional multistakeholder consultation(s) that serve to build localised and actionable inputs to support members, as the hosts of APTLD85 we facilitate a multistakeholder community policy consultation for a member nations ccTLD. Witnessing the benefits of national insights being bolstered through inputs on regional best practices, we call for similar mechanisms to be included in multilateral consultations. Timelines of future multilateral processes should make allowances to hold structured consultations in existing multistakeholder forums like the IGF and its various Regional and National extensions to accommodate bottom-up inputs and make the process inclusive for people who may not have access to the virtual channels built by facilitators for remote engagement. 
- Regional initiatives like local Internet Society chapters and national IGF’s can include capacity-building sessions for the population at large to engage with pertinent multilateral processes.

II - B) GUIDELINES FOR MULTISTAKEHOLDER CONSENSUS-BUILDING AND DECISION-MAKING

Principles of open and inclusive multistakeholder collaboration in digital governance are scattered in various foundational documents and declarations. The characteristics enunciated below are distilled from some of those documents that deal with multistakeholder collaboration processes as well as from current good practices and experiences.

The aim here is to obtain feedback from the community as to the relevance of each of these characteristics, with a view to elaborating a sort of “gold standard” or “protocol of protocols” that may serve national, regional, and global communities to establish and develop multistakeholder collaboration processes and mechanisms, as well as to assess processes and mechanisms that are presented as being multistakeholder.

9. Please rank the relevance of the following guidelines in the order of importance in your view. Assign a number from 1 to 12 to each item, where 1 indicates the most important and 12 indicates the least important:

Multistakeholder processes should be accessible to all stakeholders, regardless of their background, status, or level of expertise.

Multistakeholder processes should empower stakeholders by providing them with the necessary information, resources, and skills to participate effectively.

Stakeholders should treat each other with mutual respect, recognizing the value of diverse viewpoints and contributions.

Multistakeholder processes should involve informed and deliberative discussion among stakeholders.

Stakeholders should share responsibility for the outcomes of the multistakeholder process.

Multistakeholder processes should be governed by the rule of law, with respect for constitutional principles, human rights, and legal frameworks.

Mechanisms for resolving conflicts among stakeholders should be in place to enable decision-making.

Digital governance processes should be flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances, evolving technologies, emerging issues, and changing geopolitical dynamics.

Decisions should consider the long-term implications and sustainability of outcomes.

Capacity-building efforts enhance understanding and skills of stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries and underrepresented communities.

Multistakeholder processes should strive to treat all stakeholders fairly and equitably, considering their respective needs, capacities, and vulnerabilities.

A global multistakeholder approach to digital governance should recognize the need for collaborative action across national borders and stakeholder groups.

10. Please identify up to three relevant items from the above list you consider are not being effectively implemented in current digital governance processes.