APrIGF 2024 Session Proposal Submission Form | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part 1 - Lead Organizer | |||||||||||||
Contact Person | |||||||||||||
Ms. Junko Kawauchi | |||||||||||||
Organization / Affiliation (Please state "Individual" if appropriate) * | |||||||||||||
CFIEC | |||||||||||||
Designation | |||||||||||||
Director | |||||||||||||
Gender | |||||||||||||
Female | |||||||||||||
Economy of Residence | |||||||||||||
Japan | |||||||||||||
Primary Stakeholder Group | |||||||||||||
Private Sector | |||||||||||||
Part 2 - Session Proposal | |||||||||||||
Session Title | |||||||||||||
Multistakeholderism in the post-GDC era | |||||||||||||
Session Format | |||||||||||||
Panel Discussion (60 minutes) | |||||||||||||
Where do you plan to organize your session? | |||||||||||||
Onsite at the venue (with online moderator for questions and comments from remote participants) | |||||||||||||
Specific Issues for Discussion | |||||||||||||
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 (Konstantinos 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" (Milton 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. |
|||||||||||||
Describe the Relevance of Your Session to APrIGF | |||||||||||||
For 20 years, multistakeholder approach at IGFs has shown its unique advantages to discuss various global issues related to internet governance. Even if IGF continues to be held after WSIS+20 in 2025, multistakeholder process might not be the same as it is at the current IGF. As it would be important to discuss how multistakeholderism should be at the future internet governance discussions, we want to raise this issue for discussion at the APrIGF. | |||||||||||||
Methodology / Agenda (Please add rows by clicking "+" on the right) | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Moderators & Speakers Info (Please complete where possible) | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Please explain the rationale for choosing each of the above contributors to the session. | |||||||||||||
(Moderator Primary) Mr. Keisuke Kamimura has contributed IGF for many years both at the global and domestic level. (Moderator Facilitator) Junko Kawauchi contributes as a IGF MAG member for 2022-2024. (Speaker1) Ms. Amrita Choudhury contributed as a IGF MAG member for 2021-2023, and has wide range of expertise in internet governance issues. (Speaker 2) Mr. Chris Buckridge has been active as IGF MAG member for 2022-2024, and also working hard as the chair of the Working Group on IGF Strategy. (Speaker 3) Mr. Yoichi Iida, as a member of MIC of Japanese government, hosted IGF 2023 in Kyoto, which attracted the biggest number ever to join the event. |
|||||||||||||
Please declare if you have any potential conflict of interest with the Program Committee 2024. | |||||||||||||
No | |||||||||||||
Are you or other session contributors planning to apply for the APrIGF Fellowship Program 2024? | |||||||||||||
No | |||||||||||||
APrIGF offers live transcript in English for all sessions. Do you need any other translation support or any disability related requests for your session? APrIGF makes every effort to be a fully inclusive and accessible event, and will do the best to fulfill your needs. | |||||||||||||
No. | |||||||||||||
Brief Summary of Your Session | |||||||||||||
Firstly, the moderator Keisuke Kamimura introduced speakers and presented the key points of the discussion of this session: achievements in multistakeholder-based policy dialogue in the field of Internet governance and other policy areas, multistakeholder model as a key element of policy development in the digital society, challenges, and enviromental changes. Next, Masanobu Katoh presented the history of multistakeholder model in the field of Internet governence since1990s, including implementation at ICANN and WSIS/IGF. Chris Buckridge mentioned it is important to have multiple different multistakeholder models depending on different stakeholders and issues. Although it is not easy and complicated to get a consensus from multiple different multistakeholder approaches, it is really worthwhile and important if we can achieve it. So we need to keep engaging in and evolving it, and need to closely watch the discussions. Yoichi Iida took a case of pharmaceutical industry, which makes efforts to get more engagement of civil society and pacients, and emphasized the importance of two key elements of multistakeholder model - inclusivity and bottom up process. Lastly, Amrita Choudhury suggested that as Internet Governance will impact even non-internet users as well as internet users, we need to include everybody, and also flexibility is important for implement multistakeholderism. The moderator then opened the floor, and there were some questions and comments. |
|||||||||||||
Substantive Summary of the Key Issues Raised and the Discussion | |||||||||||||
How should be the multistakeholder model? There should be multiple different models. Why multistakeholder approach is neccessary? What are the actual benefit of multistakeholder approach? |
|||||||||||||
Conclusions and Suggestions of Way Forward | |||||||||||||
Panelists agreed that it is important to have multiple different multistakeholder models depending on different stakeholders and issues. It is not easy to get a consensus from multiple different multistakeholder approaches, but we need to keep trying. Further discussions and researches are important. | |||||||||||||
Number of Attendees (Please fill in numbers) | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Gender Balance in Moderators/Speakers (Please fill in numbers) | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
How were gender perspectives, equality, inclusion or empowerment discussed? Please provide details and context. | |||||||||||||
It was discussed that inclusiveness of all stakeholders is the most important factor for multistakeholder model. | |||||||||||||
Consent | |||||||||||||
I agree that my data can be submitted to forms.for.asia and processed by APrIGF organizers for the program selection of APrIGF 2024. |