Introduction
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) has served as a pivotal platform for fostering cooperation among governments, civil society, the private sector and technical communities to collectively address the opportunities and challenges brought about by the digital age. The UN Global Digital Compact (GDC) has expanded the scope of the global digital governance agenda beyond the internet-related public policy issues outlined in the WSIS consensus. It has put the spotlight on global inequality, also calling attention to the concentration of market power, the challenges posed by emerging technologies, in particular artificial intelligence (AI), and the need for renewed and more effective cooperation.
The process of deliberation in the UN system through the recently adopted Global Digital Compact in September 2024 and the upcoming 20-year review of the WSIS Agenda (WSIS+20) in 2025 are more than routine milestones in the multilateral process and the global digital cooperation ecosystem. They signify major opportunities to examine the adequacy of our actions and regroup to meet the trajectories of digital injustice headlong. They also are a flashpoint within which to situate, develop and push forward a renewed vision of digitality.
In that context, APC will engage with the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024 with the intention to both contribute to those conversations and to create spaces for exchange of perspectives and identification of priorities for the WSIS+20 review, including the renewal and expansion of the mandate of the IGF itself.
Below, we provide some basic information about the 2024 global event, as well as highlighting this year’s strategic priorities for APC.
1.1 Themes
The 19th Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum on "Building our Multistakeholder Digital Future" will be held in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, from 15 to 19 December 2024.The programme is shaped according to the four main themes:
- Harnessing innovation and balancing risks in the digital space
- Enhancing the digital contribution to peace, development and sustainability
- Advancing human rights and inclusion in the digital age
- Improving digital governance for the Internet We Want.
1.2 Hybrid modality
As in 2022 and 2023, the IGF sessions will have speakers/moderators/rapporteurs participating entirely online or in a mixed setting. APC welcomes the valuable efforts to include diverse stakeholders from different time zones in the sessions, also acknowledging the challenges that it will present for participants wanting to join from the Americas, in particular, but also other regions.
1.3 Types of sessions and spaces
The programme of the IGF is organised in main sessions, workshops, open forums, town halls, networking sessions, lightning talks, launches/awards, Dynamic Coalition (DC) sessions, and National, Regional and Youth Initiative (NRI) sessions. There will also be High-Level, Parliamentary and Youth tracks. The full agenda can be found here.
APC staff and members will be engaged in a number of these sessions. Check the APC schedule for the 2024 IGF here.
During the IGF, interested stakeholders can display or distribute relevant information about their internet governance-related activities at the IGF Village, which consists of physical and virtual display booths, located in the meeting's exhibition area and online.
2. APC’s thematic priorities at the IGF 2024
The WSIS 20-year review is APC’s top priority for the IGF 2024, as an opportunity to meaningfully address digital equity and inclusion, social and economic justice, peace, and a global response to climate change and environmental sustainability.
2.1 Digital inequality
Despite the fact that global digital resources reach more people across the world now, at the same time, barriers to internet access have reinforced social and economic inequalities. The transformation of the tech landscape has been parallel to key shifts in governance mechanisms, which have assumed a techno-solutionist approach, distanced, unfortunately, from the original communitarian, people-oriented promise of WSIS. The 20-year review provides an opportunity to move away from the focus on the digital to look at the well-being of people and the planet.
Efforts at national levels have been focused primarily on the physical roll-out of infrastructure, such as internet access and telecommunications networks. This approach was consolidated by the market-driven telecoms liberalisation. This approach did not address the essential human and institutional capacity needed to integrate and utilise these technologies effectively, nor did it prioritise the creation of useful content and services that could benefit local communities. It underestimated the need for public sector investment and oversight and partnerships with local communities, assuming that private sector investment was adequate to bridge the “digital divides”. One of the many harmful consequences of this is that the public sector did not have the capacity or resources to play its vital role in ensuring that ICT for development meets local needs and supports national economic development strategies.
In other words, approaches that have relied on the market to implement WSIS goals have had a doubly negative effect, as they have minimised the role of the public sector, thereby leading to (1) insufficient investment in digital equality and (2) insufficient investment in stronger public sector of institutions that have a key role to play in WSIS implementation. The WSIS+20 review should make digital inclusion a priority, and unless it is addressed, it will continue to distort digital development. Investing in human capacity will generate the enabling environment needed for people to benefit from digitalisation and to ensure it happens on their own terms in a manner that maximises local interests and creativity and meets local needs.
2.2 Financial mechanisms
Global digital cooperation, collaboration and partnership building should be directed towards the establishment of innovative and combined funding mechanisms and incentives aimed at connecting all people and for the development of public digital infrastructures.
We believe that some of the findings of the WSIS Task Force on Financing Mechanisms (TFFM) remain relevant, and will further elaborate on this below. Financing is a prerequisite to the future of the WSIS process and digital development and the implementation of the Global Digital Compact. Financing is also addressed in the Pact for the Future.
The question of whether there should be a new form of global fund for ICT for development was not adequately addressed by the TFFM, nor was the case for a new form of fund in line with the global public good argument taken seriously. In this regard, the refusal of the Task Force to discuss the concept of a mandatory global fund, or even to review the success or failure of other global funds for the environment and HIV/AIDS, was disappointing. The view, held by some in the Task Force, that existing financial mechanisms were not being fully exploited by developing countries prevailed, but the underlying reasons for this were not adequately explored. Contributing factors could be fundamental information asymmetries regarding how these financial mechanisms worked as well as a lack of coordination in the utilisation of the financial mechanisms for ICT for development. In addition, it was clear that there were also policy information gaps between agencies like the World Bank and developing country governments about the purpose of ICT policy and how to implement it.
It was in this context that in its submissions to the TFFM in 2005, APC argued for a combined, neutral policy/financial mechanism that would address the financial mechanism knowledge gaps and ICT policy information gaps, as well as create a space for a new form of fund to mobilise additional resources. APC argued that many developing countries had experienced mixed results from the telecom reform policy process, as well as from national ICT strategies, which had become so broad and complex as to be unimplementable in any meaningful way.
Policy and financial advice is often provided by investment and development banks, aid agencies and other international institutions in a context where these institutions have an interest in the outcome of the policy decisions of the governments. The governments are often unable to access independent advice on how to evaluate the information they are bombarded with and cannot negotiate as equals. A new policy/financial mechanism could provide this kind of information service as well as assist governments to access existing sources of finance more effectively.
In addition, it is not only governments that need better access to information on financing mechanisms. Such information is relevant to all stakeholder groups as well as to multistakeholder community-based initiatives and partnerships (e.g. for community-driven connectivity).
Task Force conclusions which we believe should still be considered include:
Most developing countries are not yet able to leverage the full benefits of these existing (financial) mechanisms. (Conclusion 1)
There remains a question of whether the existing array of financial mechanisms is “adequate” to “meet the challenges of ICT for development”. (Conclusion 2)
Greater cross-sectoral and cross-institutional coordination of financing programmes and ICT development initiatives would improve effectiveness and make better use of resources. (Conclusion 3)
The Task Force found that there is both a strong development rationale as well as incentives for governments, private companies, civil society and international and other development organisations to work together on multiple levels to ensure the rapid and efficient mobilisation of resources across the spectrum of existing and innovative financial mechanisms.
Among these coordination proposals in Conclusion 3 are three that may provide a productive way forward along the policy/finance nexus:
Establishment of a “virtual” financing facility to leverage multiple sources in support of identified investment objectives in key locations (notably broadband, rural and regional projects, and capacity building).
Creation of a mechanism for coordinating research and analysis into enabling policy environments, to identify best practices and priority needs for shared action by financial actors. Today there are more such mechanisms, e.g. the D4D hub in the EU, but they are still not effectively used by enough people/regions.
Development of a “rapid response” policy and regulatory support mechanism to intervene in support of short-term sector policy initiatives. A clear example of where this could be useful would be in the case of Africa, where the African Union generates strong policy strategies and guidelines, but does not have sufficient capacity to support their roll-out at country or Regional Economic Community level.
2.3 The multistakeholder approach to the governance of digital technologies
Multilateral and multistakeholder global digital governance are not mutually exclusive concepts. They are mutually reinforcing – both are needed to respond to the different and distributed ways and spaces in which global digital governance is undertaken.
Global cooperation on digital issues must be grounded in the adoption and operationalisation of the principles established during WSIS in relation to multistakeholder participation: it must be people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented.
In this context, APC considers that the IGF is a platform for identifying viable ways to shape, sustain and strengthen global digital cooperation, not only for universalising digital inclusion, but to mobilise collective intelligence and the potential of multistakeholder collaboration and action to respond to the persistent and emerging challenges in the digital age, including the environmental crisis. It is a key piece of the UN system, as well as the internet governance and digital cooperation ecosystems.
We believe the IGF continues to be the only multistakeholder process that can establish more accountable, inclusive, participatory and effective global digital cooperation among all stakeholders, building on its historical strengths and achievements, such as gender balance, multistakeholderism and decentralised structure with the organisation of national/regional IGFs (NRIs).
WSIS “mainstreamed” the multistakeholder approach and defined it explicitly as involving governments, civil society and the private sector. Over time, the technical community came to be seen as a key stakeholder in its own right, and many practitioners of the multistakeholder approach learned that to have value, it also needed to be more granular, involving specific interests groups or communities affected not just in general, but by particular decisions being made in the course of “internet governance” and WSIS follow-up and implementation.
Identifying applications of the multistakeholder approach is challenging. The Brazilian “Marco Civil” (Civil Rights Framework for the Internet) stood out as a best-practice example, but it too is facing challenges. In many parts of the world, the multistakeholder approach is treated as synonymous with its predecessor: public-private partnership (PPP). This latter approach, which excludes communities and civil society, is very much in the comfort zone of most governments and private sector entities. Challenging it if you don’t have power is difficult, but a WSIS lesson is that it can be done, using the WSIS principles as an entry point.
UN agencies and the UN system, which should be leaders in applying the multistakeholder approach effectively, have – with some exceptions – failed to do so systematically. A standout example is the process that led to the Pact for the Future and the Global Digital Compact. A “best effort” approach by the Office of the UN Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology resulted in multiple inputs by non-state actors, but presented in linear and non-interactive fashion with virtually no opportunities for dynamic interaction between governments and non-state actors.
As outlined in the NETmundial+10’s Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines, there is a need for continuous improvement in the application of the multistakeholder approach. Moreover, this is needed both in multilateral and multistakeholder forums.
2.4 Integration of the GDC and WSIS
Global digital cooperation can only respond to the current challenges through effective complementarity of the multiple existing efforts, forums and processes. WSIS+20 can and should be seen as a way to implement the GDC to put forward an agenda of equity in the digital realm. Building on and promoting concrete links with existing global processes that deal with the internet and digital technologies, and not putting at risk historical gains in these processes, including in the areas of gender equality and human rights, is paramount. The WSIS+20 review can fill one of the missing pieces in the GDC in regard to the inclusion of civil society voices, perspectives and realities, particularly of the communities and people who are most affected and vulnerable on account of gender, race, sexuality, caste, their location in cities or rural and remote areas, and Indigenous groups, among others. The IGF, in addition, could be strengthened towards nurturing thinking and practice around the WSIS action lines, including policy responses.
APC believes that the IGF is well suited to build ownership and support the implementation of the Global Digital Compact and to play a key role in connecting the different processes, nurturing them with inputs for policy decision making and contributing to build synergies between them. The IGF is also a unique space for bringing to practice the principles of multistakeholder participation and collaboration, whose learnings can be extrapolated to other processes, including multilateral ones, as a means of ensuring that the perspectives and realities all those who are affected by digitalisation, particularly historically marginalised groups, are taken into consideration in internet governance and digital technologies policies at all levels.
2.5 Long-term or permanent mandate and strengthened institutional capacity for the IGF
The IGF has proven to play key and different roles in facilitating knowledge sharing and collaboration. The IGF needs to be granted a long-term or permanent mandate by member states, and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs should be instructed to increase its capacity, starting with appointing an executive coordinator – a role that existed during the IGF’s formative phase.
The IGF’s evolution needs to be shaped by a strategic vision rather than by ad hoc partnerships or initiatives to establish new “tracks” or themes (such as a proposed private sector and judiciary track). These are valuable, but unless the IGF has the institutional capacity to interact effectively and consistently with governments and key institutions from non-state actors, expanding its range will just dilute its impact. This includes the means to communicate IGF outcomes to policy makers and to respond more effectively to their needs through the IGF agenda and intersessional modalities.
The IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) Working Group on Strategy’s vision document provides essential insight into how to achieve an increasingly impactful IGF beyond 2025.
2.5.1 Bringing the value of the IGF to the forefront: #TheIGFWeWant campaign
With the IGF’s impressive track record, APC wishes to see its mandate strengthened so it can continue to grow and serve as a central space for multistakeholder engagement.
To support this goal, APC launched #TheIGFWeWant campaign at the 2023 IGF, calling attention to the importance and value of the IGF by collecting testimonies in the first person from representatives of different stakeholder groups. The campaign advocates for a strengthened IGF in order to have the internet we want.
3. APC's activities at the IGF
A full list of events that APC and its members are organising and participating in during IGF 2024 is available here.
4. Communications: Follow APC online at IGF 2024
On X / On Facebook / On Mastodon / On Instagram / On LinkedIn
Hashtags to follow: #WSIS+20 #TheIGFWeWant #InternetGovernance #IGF2024
Media contacts: flavia@apc.org in English, Spanish or Portuguese and leila@apc.org in English and Spanish (off-site)
For matters related to APC's engagement in the IGF, contact info@apc.org.
5. Relevant resources
Inside the Digital Society: How should we review a 20-year-old Summit? What makes it relevant today?
Principles for community-centred connectivity initiatives
APC submission on “The developmental aspects to strengthen the internet”