Uncovering the DNA of European IG(F) initiatives – WS 06 2016

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

10 June 2016 | 11:30-13:00
Programme overview 2016

Session teaser

What's the DNA of n/r IG(F) initiatives in Europe? How can we strengthen European IG Ecosystem together with existing IG(F) initiatives and bring new ones on board?

Session description

This workshop is a follow up from the EuroDIG / EBU Open Forum held during the IGF in Joao Pessoa were participants agreed:

"A set of guidelines and best practices shall be published at the EuroDIG website [1]. These guidelines should be developed together with existing European IG initiatives, taking into account the existing particularities and the flexibility needed in each country. These guidelines will mainly serve to help new initiatives to develop."

The main aim of this workshop is to bring together European IG(F) coordinators/representatives to discuss what is the DNA of European n/r (national/regional) IG(F) initiatives and how we can strengthen the European Internet Governance (IG) ecosystem, and enhance collaboration and communication between national and regional IG(F)s.

Input gathered from this workshop will be reflected in the draft of the above mentioned guidelines.

Session structure

The session will be divided into three parts:

1. Brief overview: IG ecosystem in Europe. Focus on regional, sub-regional and national IG(F) initiatives (visualized).

2. Discussion:

a. What is the DNA of European IG(F) initiatives (main components, characteristics, challenges, good/best practices)?
b. What are the (specific) needs of n/r IG(F) initiatives?

3. Practical talk:

a. How can the European IG(F) ecosystem be strengthened, while empowering the n/r IG(F) initiatives?
b. How can we enhance collaboration and communication between n/r IG(F) initiatives?


EuropeanIG, initiatives, IGF-guideline, IG(F)-DNA, BestPractices


Round table with no key participants. High level of interaction. Strong focus on the dialogue between participants (those attending in person, or remotely). Moderators and remote moderator are responsible for engaging participants in the discussion through pre-set and follow up questions. Time should be given to develop discussions on raised points/issues during the workshop.

Further reading

SEEDIG IG survey, April 2016

Survey on national and regional IGF initiatives, Joao Pessoa, Brasil


  • Focal Point: Ana Kakalashvili, giz GmBH
  • Key participants

Due to the workshop objectives and format, the organizing team of this workshop decided not to list limited number of key participants. All attending n/r IG(F) Coordinators, representatives of support organizations (in person, or remotely) count equally important for this workshop, hence all are acknowledged as key participants.

  • Moderator
  • Lee Hibbard, Council of Europe, France/UK
  • Anja Gengo, UN IGF Secretariat, Switzerland/Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Remote moderator: Ayden Férdeline
  • Org team
  • Ana Kakalashvili, giz GmbH, Germany/Georgia (focal point)
  • Thomas Grob, Deutsche Telekom AG, Germany/Switzerland
  • Sorina Teleanu, DiploFoundation, Romania
  • Frédéric Donck, ISOC, Belgium
  • Narine Khachatryan, Media Education Centre, Armenia
  • Oksana Prykhodko, INGO European Media Platform, Ukraine
  • Anja Gengo, UN IGF Secretariat, Switzerland/Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Giacomo Mazzone, EBU, Switzerland/Italy
  • Lee Hibbard, Council of Europe, France
  • Nigel Hickson, ICANN, Switzerland
  • Reporter: Ana Kakalashvili, giz GmBH

Current discussion

See the discussion tab on the upper left side of this page.

Conference call. Schedules and minutes

I Virtual Meeting: Thursday, 31st of March Attending: Ana Kakalashvili, Thomas Grob, Sorina Teleanu, Narine Khachatryan. For a summary of the minutes check the discussion site You can preview the organizing team's work in progress here

Mailing list

Contact: ws6@eurodig.org


  • European IG Ecosystem is very diverse, but at the same time innovative and experimental.
  • Models, topics and processes depend on readiness / awareness of local stakeholders issues and national needs, but the main aim for all is to raise awareness of the community and get different stakeholders engaged. There is no ideal IGF in policy making processes, whether on national, regional or global level. But there are best practices to look at, share and implement locally. Therefore, t here is a need of to have common platform for stronger collaboration and communication between each local IGFs, in tandem with national, (sub) regional and global IGFs.
  • (sub) Regional IGF’s are encouraging IG debates and IGFs setting the scene can serve as a catalysator in a region, but there are few strong national IGF who serve as a role model. International (support) organizations are the ‘glue’ for national / regional IG discussions; they encourage local community and are ready to support.
  • The global IGF is interested in input from national / regional IGF’s in particular on:
a. Increasing the collaboration among all IG layers.
b. Fostering the use and the capacity of using the Internet
c. Connecting citizens (Best Practice Forum - Connecting the next billion)
d. Developing the IGF 10 year strategy including the Sustainable Development Goals(SDG)

Video record

See the video record in our youtube channel


Provided by: Caption First, Inc., P.O. Box 3066, Monument, CO 80132, Phone: +001-719-481-9835, www.captionfirst.com

This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay, welcome, everybody. Are we on time? Oh, we’re on time, 11:30.

>> ANA KAKALASHVILI: Thanks everyone for being here. I’ve been the one being in touch with you the UN Secretariat. The one thing I would like to ask you: If you have a spare paper, just if you could put your name on it and the IG(F), national IG(F) that you’re representing.

If you don’t have papers, I will try to find it. Back to you.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Hello, everybody, my name is Lee Hibbard. I’m from the Council of Europe. My name is there. Okay. Oh. Paper is there. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Please take a seat. I’m one of your co moderators. I’ll pass the floor very quickly to and gentleman beginning oh who is doing some data crunching. We’re called uncovering the DNA of European IG(F) initiatives in which there are many in Europe. There are probably more in this continent than there are elsewhere in the world, over 25, 28, I don’t know. It depends on how you count them. And they’ve become more and more prominent in the work of the Internet Governance formal, the global IG(F) if recent years and probably more so in the future. It seems to me there will be more connections between your initiatives and any other initiative in the world to feed the IG(F) and to feed the substantive issues, the trends, et cetera. Before we get going, I’d like to ask Anja to give us a few words of introduction origin. Why we’re here. Where does this initiative come from? And to explain that, thank you.

>> ANJA GENGO: As you heard, my name is Anja Gengo, the last nine, 10 months I spent working with the Secretariat working mostly with national regional initiatives. My experience tells me there is a huge diversity when it comes to the processes and the substance between the IG(F) initiatives but also what is very interesting to ask the existence in Europe, the so called IG initiatives. And that’s why we thought this could be a neat opportunity to see what are the differences between those two formations and whether we are on the same path when it comes about providing some good work for Internet Governance for our communities.

Last year in Brazil there was an annual IG(F) meeting and there was a session on the national WAN regional IG(F) initiatives, which was very well attended and there was a huge interest of the community to attend that session and to see what the different parts of the world are doing on the Internet Governance. It was very challenging when it comes about first of all the time because a lot of initiatives were there and they had a lot of things to say. And those things were mostly different when it comes about, first of all, the substantial things.

So that’s why we thought that EuroDIG would be a unique opportunity to see what is happening in Europe and what we can all do together to improve the overall work on Internet Governance.

I’m going to ask now for these slides to be projected. So last year, the IG(F) did a survey. The survey is on the national and regional IG(F) initiatives. So though the probably the data will not be completely accurate, as Lee told you that in Europe we are talking about almost 28 IG initiatives, but we thought it could be very indicative and maybe trigger a discussion to see what were the results for the last year survey. So while waiting for these slides to be projected, I’m going to tell you that last year, this survey was conducted in September. So at that time, only 11 initiatives from Europe answered to these questions that we posed. And we kind of extracted only the European, the answers from European initiatives to see what are the final results. So can we now have those slides?

So ADA is passing the papers. This is what you can use to put up your name.

Just a small addition, as a backdrop to this workshop, it was European IG(F) coordination session at IG(F) where people have agreed that a set of guidelines and best practices shall be published by the time of the IG(F) in Guadalajara in December. And this workshop is in frames of this agreement, so to say. And this workshop, yes, as the moderator said, will be to gather these best practices and experience. It was a bit of a background.

>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you, Ana for this note. As you see there is a map covering Europe when it comes to the geographical coverage of national one stop regional that exists in Europe right now and EuroDIG is regional and this is how it looks like.

All right. For those that just joined, we’re presenting the results from the survey that the IG(F) Secretariat did for national regional IG(F) initiatives in September last year. And we thought it could be indicative and maybe trigger a discussion.

So the first question that we asked is how the NRIs are hosted? According, you can see there is huge diversity there is no one size fits all model. Some have Secretariat in place, some of them are hosted by civil society entity. Some of them were hosted by the governmental entity or even by private companies. In other cases, you have the Secretariat as the formed entity that is really independent from any stakeholder group involved.

One regional initiative which was at that time EuroDIG said it was hosted by the intergovernmental organizations.

We had examples where the initiatives were hospital in the some sort of a partnership between government and private companies. Sorry, Ana, and some initiatives indicated that their annual meetings are hosted by different entities. So joint efforts by universities, foundations, NGOs, et cetera.

When it comes about the sorry, I can’t see from here about the funding sources, so we asked the initiatives to indicate how are they funded? And you will see that several options were offered and that the majority of the answers said that they are mostly funded by the official host of the annual meeting combined by the multitude of sponsors through voluntary financial contributions and, finally, they indicated that they are also funded through a combination of voluntary financial contributions, which is very indicative for us and maybe can be a question for later, in kind support from both the host of the annual meeting and other sponsors.

So, in the section about the event overview, we asked the initiatives to identify if they tracked the stakeholder group participations breakdown, meaning first of all the gender and youth participation. And when it comes about tracking the stakeholder group participation, you will see that the majority said yes, which is 89 percent, which means basically if you have 11 initiatives, that will mean that 0 of them said yes.

When it comes about 10 of them.

When it comes to gender and youth participation, 56 percent said yes while 44 percent said no. And tracking the number of participants with disabilities was very indicative for us, a bit worrying, because only 7 percent of the initiatives said yes, which is basically one initiative.

When it comes about the length of the annual event, so the majority, the largest percent of the responding initiatives, which is 78 percent, said that their event is one day lodge while 22 percent said that they have an event which is longer than one day.

The planning phase was also the question among those questions on the survey. And the initiatives indicated that when it comes about the time spending on the planning process, most of them are spending over six months planning the substantive programme and the organisation of the event.

What was also very important for us was to see how do you track the overall work? How do you capture? And you will see that most of the initiatives are using the methodology of having rapporteurs and providing written reports and then after that sending it to the community. Only one initiative said that they are using transcripts on site and provided for the communities. Webcast is used for 33 percent. And then social media are used by everyone.

On the question whether they produce any outcome or output messages, 56 percent said yes while 44 percent said no. And I think later this will be a very interesting question to see what is happening at the end with these messages.

About the average number of participants at the annual event, so 50 percent. So most of the initiatives said that the most recent annual event they have is up to 200 participants. 30 of them said that they have between 100 and 150. And only one said that they have more than 500 percent, which is EuroDIG in this case.

Whether they track the stakeholder group, the majority said yes. So we asked what is the breakdown? And the result said that most of the participants are coming from civil society, private sector, while the least number is from international organizations.

Those will be the first results.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Anja, that’s very kind. It’s nice to have the breakdown of the tapestry of the different national and regional initiatives. And many of you are from those initiatives. So we’re going to pass the mic to you now. But I think in terms of the structure of this session, I think it will be important. You see there are questions about process, funding, who decides on programming? Who decides on tangible outcomes, et cetera. So I think I’d like to the I can ask you even if you’re not a national and regional initiative driver or catalyst, I’d like to ask you. I guess you’re involved in different ones much these in Europe. I’d like to ask you a question. I’d like to ask you not the process, well we’ll come to process a bit later, come to outcomes tangible outcomes, deliverables. What happens in your country, et cetera? What are the results from your experience as with what we do who you are, where you’re from, et cetera. I think it’s very important. If we’re going to talk about process, we speak about it in terms of what is being delivered. Tangible outcomes are being discussed and re discussed. What are we trying to achieve with this dialogue? Is it working?

So I’d like if I may to come to the process after to see whether the process needs to be toward more tangible outcomes. I hope that works with you and I will pass the mic to my left. Are you feel not ready for that? We should be rather improvised. This is about sharing your experiences as well as making, talking about process. If it’s just process, I think it could be rather dry. Thank you. Your name and your.

>> I’m from the Dutch IG(F). We started, well I’m sorry, a little bit process because we started from the beginning after the Tunis oasis with only a preparatory meeting just before the IG(F). And then we felt that was too little to do this preparation and especially to create awareness in the Netherlands of the IG(F), to be on the agenda of all stakeholders, especially also politicians.

So with the support from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and as EDN, our Dutch domain name register, we started a real IG(F), Dutch IG(F). And we work all year through. So we have different events, not only one annual. But of course we have one big annual event. And we have not really what was the name, tangible outcomes. But, Arnold, you’re sitting over there, so if you want to he’s from the Ministry. I’m sorry. What we think it is important to have all stakeholders around the table. And our outcome of course is a report. And we have a website where everybody can fill in their comments all year through. So is that enough for now maybe?

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. This is very quick, very snappy if I can ask. But it’s just your feelings whether it’s working. It’s moving, it’s having an impact. If you are saying it is, that’s already a good thing.

>> The best thing is that we have a delegation of 27 Dutch people coming to the IG(F). And I think started with 7 coming up to 27 in let’s say five years, that’s the best outcome there is.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. We can queue Arnold for later. Your name, your initiative and tangible results.

>> My name is Romano from Russia and I represent the coordinating centre of .RU. Our company each year prepares Russian Internet Governance Forum. This year we have the third one. I want to say that the goal of our initiative is to set up the dialogue on Internet Governance. And we, the second one, the second goal is to have government representatives with us in the auditorium.

The main topics of our Forum is security, regulation, new technology, economic issues, international preparation and Internet Governance.

And another goal of our Forum is to have youth representatives and maybe academia representatives in the Forum. As a side event of our meeting, we have maybe two or three lectures in main universities in Moscow from well known experts in Internet Governance.

I want to say for me it’s going on well, but it’s a bit of this year we have no representatives from the government at all because in parallel, we have big economical meeting in St. Petersburg. And that’s why all the people we want to have at our meeting go there.

So we still plan to have next year, our next Forum. I suppose we will have some funding for it. And we still want to have representatives from the government because the primary purpose is to set up dialogue with government.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. That’s a good message. I wonder whether that’s the same challenge in your countries but let’s carry on. Very brief, lucks and an, can you say a few words or not, or should we come later?

>> Luxana: Actually I am remote participation moderator but we have remote and Armenia representatives. Can I hear, give him floor?

>> LEE HIBBARD: Can you queue him up later? Okay. ICANN European engagement, we know that. Do you want to have a quick word about it? Very brief.

>> I can share my experience with Italian IG(F). We hosted a meeting at ICANN when it was? On Wednesday at the ICANN office with Italian participants at the European IG(F) at EuroDIG. And one thing that I’m sorry to disappoint you, but one thing I think is important is that although Italy had a very long standing IG(F), it was lacking some process and principles. And I think that something that will be important for all the experiences to share is to get together and say, okay, how can you define an event as an IG(F) the multistakeholder, is bottom up is inclusive, is transparent. Do you have a report? How do you select the themes? How do you select the speakers? If you don’t get some common understanding about these principles then you get basically everybody can come up, set up an event, call it and say we discuss the Internet. Invite some politicians. And there you have IG(F). Process and principle as to this time.

>> LEE HIBBARD: So the results really depend upon a very strong process is what you’re saying.

One word from Alexandra from ICANN’s point of view, engagement?

>> Yeah, just a quick one. I’m global on stakeholder engagement in Europe and central Asia. And I just wanted to say that ICANN has been involved in Russian IG(F) obviously but also in other initiatives which are now developing in our region. And I see our role, I’m sure we’ll go back to the role of international organizations, but in our region from what I see, IG(F)’s a very important platform for uniting, bringing together different parts of the community which probably wouldn’t come together otherwise. And we try to first well add our own expertise to that, but at the same time being that glue which also adds to basically to the synergy of the first round IG(F). Thanks.

>> LEE HIBBARD: ICANN has some great clue. I think it’s a good work word. How is the French going?

>> Well, we had two instances in 2014 and 2015. As in every IG(F), the whole participants come from a very small group of people who are committed and who action this. One of the key elements that I took from the two past experiences is that the involvement of parliamentarians is a very interesting thing. In every country, there are a lot of entities, and France has multiplied, as we always do, structures that deal with issues related to digital aspects. And so the IG(F) was a moment and is a moment where they can get together.

I must confess, and I am a bit ashamed of doing that, that we are lagging for this year because everybody has been so busy with other things that the process has not been done for establishing this one this year, which is a bit of a problem. I hope it will be remediated. But the two first ones were pretty good. About 200 plus people participating, which was good.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Bertrand. Thank you. They don’t need to be annual events. These things can be at their own rhythm. But perhaps we have other examples in the room we can share. Roberta, do you want to say are you involved with one or do you have expectations?

>> Well very briefly because I’m Italian national. I have not been very much involved in the past in the IG(F). But also because I don’t live in Italy. But this year Andrea has pulled me into the process. And so I plan to be active.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay. Now we have the Bosnian IG(F). Come on, tell us something about the results, challenges. Very briefly. We need to get to the room.

>> Just to emphasize I’m here as executive committee and for the organisation for the last year’s Bosnian IG(F). So basically what I can say is the good thing was that it created a domino effect, sort of a domino effect for other countries in the region to organise their own national IG(F). The result is that we are having it this year, as well. I’m not sure about the details. But what we do have now is as the civil society, we have people approaching us and asking when are we doing this? Including private sector, government and others, which we had a challenge or hard time reaching to. So I feel like this was interesting.

Yeah, wield it. That was the goal for the first point is to have one. Yeah, because that was the challenge.

>> LEE HIBBARD: It’s in the programme for EuroDIG and I’m looking at the two main catalysts for SEEDIG, the region, governance. Tangible outcomes, is it having an impact? How do you feel about this briefly? If you could give a few words.

>> Thank you. I’ll start with outcomes. Has already shared with you the outcome of the SEEDIG meeting which was in April a few weeks ago. We had the messages. Basically we are following the EuroDIG model with some messages from the discussions we had.

We have an impact on the region in terms of bringing the community together discussing about Internet Governance issues that they feel are important for them, the process of creating the programme for the meeting is bottom up and inclusive one, so it reflects the needs and the interests of the community.

We still have challenges, of course, bringing the private sector probably is the largest challenge we have now. Yeah, that’s apparently the last representative.

>> LEE HIBBARD: [Inaudible].

>> Not Southeastern Europe if that’s a notion. So, yes, that’s our challenge. But as ADA mentioned we also have new initiatives, national ones in the region as a result of people coming to SEEDIG and learning about this. So we are getting there. We are achieving our objectives. We still have challenges. And we hope to become better. Thank you. If you want to add something?

>> LEE HIBBARD: Is the goal being achieved just to come together or the goal is being achieved?

>> The goal is to actually have a space for us in the region to discuss about our issues. For example, IDNs which are not so pan European and this goal is achieved definitely, yes.

>> LEE HIBBARD: The Finnish IG(F), few words, if you would.

>> Thank you. Hello, everybody. Perhaps I could start with a little bit of background, the Finnish IG(F) is seven years now started as the multistakeholder preparatory group decided we need national IG(F). The initiatives of this.

From the start we’ve had really good participation of all stakeholder groups, including the national parliamentarian. So basically they have been there from the beginning and they have hosted the meeting for the last two years. So we’re back at the parliament where we started.

Good progress on parliamentary participation, which I think is key. We had something between 10 and 15 members of parliament during the day in the room. Also, we had the Minister doing a Q & A session basically a speech and answering questions from stakeholders.

We consider this to be a process. So it’s not an annual event. We do tweets, blogs, an event if we have an interesting person to discuss with visiting Finland or something, we try to keep the process going.

We do a report of the annual event. Other outcomes, there are none. But the Finnish IG(F) annual meetings have led to, for example, after the I and an transition started and we had a discussion on this, it led to a separate consultation and basically the Finnish position, the government position on IANA was drafted, among all the stakeholders.

>> LEE HIBBARD: So, there are outcomes. They just manifest themselves in different ways. So it’s sort of a coming together about dialogue and about inputting to other processes. Tommy, do you want to say some words briefly?

>> Thank you. Tommy, I work for the Internet Society. And like you said, I’m one of the organizers of the Finnish IG(F), but my hat here is with ISOC. And we have different ways of supporting national IG(F)s, mostly through our chapters, but we also started this Internet Governance Forum support association, which is providing funding and other kinds of support for national IG(F)s. So that’s something, some of the things that we do.

We also bring travel fellows to regional, global and national IG(F)s. We brought 10 people here from around Europe. So that’s briefly.

>> LEE HIBBARD: That’s results. Tangible outcomes like the it’s bringing people to other places. That’s an outcome.

Estonia now, can you tell us more about what’s happening? Estonia has a key role now in Europe. It’s the Chairman Council of Europe. A few words about the Estonian.

>> I’m representative of Estonia Internet foundation. And we organise the Estonian already. Surprisingly we are not part of European IG(F) still and it’s one of our goals. And one of the reasons are as you mentioned that we are so many happen in Estonia, inside Estonia and even at the level we tried to lead some processes here. And our main process in Estonia is how to keep interest of people to discuss about the Internet government items also because so many happen in Estonia.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Raising awareness. General public awareness raising. That’s the goal of the initiative, mainly? And with so many initiatives, it must be a challenge.

I don’t know you, but please. Okay. Tell us in a few words.

>> Few words. It will be hard. Hi, everybody. My name is I’m a secretary of the Belarus IG(F) Steering Committee representing the organizers of the Belarus IG(F). We had our first IG(F) this year. And I’m very glad to share experience and to learn from your initiatives. And I’d like to briefly come across the three stages of our process. And talking about the preparatory process. Here in Belarus we have multistakeholder Steering Committee who act as organizer of the event. Also we have organizers team and volunteers team. And I quite good very well remember our first meeting with Ana and challenges that we have during the preparatory process. And the challenges were three main challenges. What topics to discuss? Because our society quite, this is now allowed about the Internet Governance process, how to fund this event and how to bring as many stakeholder groups as possible. And especially young people.

And the ways we solved these issues is that we put into programmes six workshops without specific subjects and we discuss government, business, civil society. And also the experience I’m personally very proud about during IG(F), we had student debates and we encouraged students participate in the Internet Governance process in our country.

>> LEE HIBBARD: So you have a multistakeholder. There’s a balance in the process. There’s a balance in how things are decided and discussed?

>> Yeah, we try to do it. I think we plan to do it.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Great. Are you? Okay. Nice to meet you.

Do you want to say a few words because you’re the Swiss IG? For part of it, do you want to say something about the results? Okay. Should we carry on? Do you want to say one word? I can’t read that now.

>> Well, we had to search with IG(F)s this year in May, always coordinated, timely with EuroDIG. So it was two weeks ago. We had around 80 participants. We have a carrier structure including all stakeholder groups in the country. 80 participants and we come out with the messages of Berne again, which handed or submitted to the European IG(F) what is EuroDIG. Everything including a call for issues is adopted from the European experience and best practices. And so it’s the or complimentary.

Any impact? Well, we had according to many participants, we had the most exciting debate on three issues: Data policy in Switzerland, new outlines. The second was blocking. And the third was on the ongoing copyright reform.

>> LEE HIBBARD: I asked the question to everybody. Is it affecting legislation? Is it affecting decisions in the national level? Parliamentarians were mentioned before. I’ll pass the floor to the UK national initiative. A few words, mark.

>> Thank you, Lee. I’m Mark. I’m on the Steering Committee on the UK IG(F). It’s quite a big committee. It includes the England chapter of ISOC, ICANN, London Internet exchange, London School of economics, royal institute of national affairs, Chatham House, British computer society, GSMA. So it’s quite a big committee.

But it ensures, I think, successfully, a good focus on issues. Last year’s UK IG(F) in June covered a range of issues, the evolution of the Internet Governance landscape, mobile Internet, identity, job protection, net neutrality. And we always have our Internet Minister, Ed Vaizey, the Digital Economy Minister.

So as with the Finnish IG(F), he’s there to take to obviously pronounce on UK policy and also to interact with stakeholders. We usually have about 250 to 300 people attending. And we have parliamentary interest. We actually link up with the parliamentary IT Forum at the House of come commons quite often for the preparatory phase for the IG(F). So we have a lot of parliamentary interest. And it’s an opportunity, really, to engage on the wider Internet Governance issues that ordinarily these people and many stakeholders are not aware of. And of course we set up the UK IG(F) basically to download on the global IG(F) and gear up for the next IG(F). Our next UK IGP meeting is in September we’re still working on the Vaizey. I think the interest is awareness, basically. We don’t formulate messages. We use, as I think was the case with the Finnish one, as well. We use the website to provide a flow of information and build on that, really, as the main output. We put the presentations on the website, the Minister’s speech and the transcripts and so on. And we blog and tweet and so on.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. We’ll come to Laura to complement Mark regarding your experience, Laura, regarding the national IG(F).

Now, are you both from Georgia? Could you say some words about the Georgian experience?

>> Sure, I’m from Georgia.

And for September, we organised IG(F) and we’re briefly about us. Right now we have committee and members of Forum, multistakeholder, five different groups: Governmental, private, state, civil society, academia and international organizations.

Right now we have more than 40 members of Forum. And we have 12 members of executive committee and a representative of this committee for organising just brief. Maybe a few words about draft agenda because we have to send surveys about the agendas and create agenda which is will be interesting for everyone.

So few words about agenda, Internet accessibility, safety in the Internet, copyright and the Internet, e government, regional achievements, domain names and Internet, data protection and new media relations. But it’s just brief and may be changed.

>> LEE HIBBARD: [Inaudible]

>> It was started December, the last year. It was helped from Council of Europe. And this year we take some guidelines from Council of Europe, some guidelines of ISOC, some consultations with our friends in ICANN, Alexandra. And create this charter for multistakeholder role for create our agenda.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. Laura Hutchinson, what’s the impact? I mean to come to Mark, what’s your take on the national IG(F) in the UK?

>> Laura: Thanks. I think Mark’s kind of covered most of the organizational stuff. In terms of the impact, I think it’s quite hard to measure of the irrelevant’s more awareness raising rather than sort of concrete outcomes. I would just say that we’re trying to slightly at the moment in terms of making the agenda more bottom up as we take it through multistakeholder committee but we’re trying to reach out beyond that in terms of shape agenda and encouraging the kind of groups that we’ve established.

Another aim is to kind of strengthen youth participation, business participation, parliamentarian engagement and also other groups that we haven’t targeted at the moment. We don’t engage with the elderly or disabled groups at the moment. So I think we’re trying to reach out more to those areas. And as it grows, I think it maybe will have more of an impact and you’ll reach out to other groups that wouldn’t necessarily engage in Internet Governance discussions.

I think also changing the agenda, we’ve been quite Internet Governance focused. We kind of covered the Internet Governance landscape. We had suggestions on IANA. I think in order to look more appealing, we might need to focus on more things that average Internet users care about and things that make a difference to them. Just by having that discussion raising and awareness, things will change.

>> LEE HIBBARD: It’s not your goal to influence policymaking. For example, is it the expectation that you’ll be consulted by a body in the UK to draft legislation or consultation before legislation is introduced? That’s not the aim, for example?

>> Laura: The UK government kind of has its own Internet government group that they’ve set up aside from the UK IG(F). It may be inputs into it. That could be a crossover and you might get more stakeholders engaging in the government’s own group.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. Masengo, we’ve been around in the Internet government field it’s been too many years to say. I can give you the floor now to talk about the global IG(F) or I can queue you up after the round and we can talk about your expectations on the future for the next 10 years and what you expect from national and regional IG(F)s?

>> I’ll do afterwards so it flows.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Hi. Let’s hear from you briefly.

>> Yes, I’m Ovi from ISOC Romania. And right now in Romania, IG(F) is a hot topic because recently on second of June we have the first meeting with the initiative group with minister on Internet Society to constitute the IG(F). The next steps will be to do a collaboration protocol accepted by the initiative group. And also we have to speak about funding and establishment of the permanent secretary.

At the meeting were involved the ISOC. National institute and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. So my expectations right now are to learn the best practices of how to do it and to get help and to do it in the future next.

>> LEE HIBBARD: It sounds a bit governmental. Is it multistakeholder or governmental?

>> It is multistakeholder, yes. So we are still, the registration is still opening for the initiative group. So we are still waiting for people to join. Also from the public sector and academical one.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Now, Bulgaria. Tell us a few words. Impact, challenges, please? Thank you.

>> Okay. For me it’s unfortunate that Bulgaria doesn’t have an IG(F) until now. We have some very preliminary talks with different stakeholders to survey their interest. And my aim is to have the first IG(F) in later this year if not next year.

The only thing that is close to IG(F) we have was 2012. I organised a multistakeholder panel with representatives from business, academia, media and government. And they were discussing for about two hours with what are the problems with Internet in Bulgaria? And the result there was that the lack of education in Internet topic is what the business sees is main issue.

And then we had some presentations from people from the community.

But it is not real yet because it is organised by real top down method.

>> LEE HIBBARD: It’s very good to be honest. Let’s hope for the future.

Now what’s your take on maybe what are your expectations from these initiatives? What is it that you are here for?

>> So, yeah, rap NCC. We’re a technical organisation with a service region that covers all of Europe and Middle East and central Asia. So we’ve obviously been involved and supportive of, well, IG events sort of at the global level, the regional level, the national level in a variety of ways.

I think our aim there is always to bring the technical community perspective to a lot of these discussions that are happening. And that’s different from event to event, different issues, different discussions. And I think a big part of it is also for us to engage with our community. And that sort of community in a broad sense in a way that we wouldn’t otherwise get to. I mean, I think you don’t want to underestimate the value of networking and bringing community together at these kind of events because I think that’s really a key to solving a lot of the issues that we might have in Internet Governance. It’s actually bringing the people who are responsible for different parts of this into the same room and actually just getting them to know each other and be able to pick up the phone, send an email and sort of do something to provide a solution.

In terms of impact, I think we have seen sort of the impact of this building communities that maybe weren’t there before or weren’t there in that form before. And I think it’s also really interesting to see the differences from event to event. I think some of these small events really provide opportunities to be a bit more experimental in how discussions happen in workshop formats, pairing it up with other events or other kinds of forums or sessions. And I think that’s really useful and can sort of feed into, feed up the chain to sort of other forums, whether it’s the global IG(F) or whatever else. I mean that’s the sort of multistakeholder model in evolution. So that’s really useful.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. I think the technical is always a mystical thing to demystify the mystical things about the Internet is part of your job. Yeah, it’s very important.

I’m going pass the floor to my co moderator to have gender balance, of course, is very important. Before we get there, Sandra, it’s the same, should we queue you up after the tableau regarding expectations for EuroDIG, the European level, what you want to say, you can do it now if you wish, the regional, the global, et cetera. Now or later?

>> It’s happened yesterday that I had to be taken out of the room and the discussion was actually most important. Well I would like to follow.

First of all, thank you for coming all to this workshop, so many national, regional IG(F) initiatives. And for those who are not yet in contact with us, EuroDIG Secretariat. It’s Belarus and Estonia. Even if you don’t consider your initiative in purely IG(F), get in contact with us because we would like to participate in sessions like this. And I think this is going to be a working format for the European community to meet either during the EuroDIG or last year it was in João Pessoa. I applied for workshop in Guadalajara already to do a similar get together of European organizers. And, well, I would really like to make this or sort of the community which meets regularly. And at the moment we are discussing for quite a while what we are doing, what we are. And this is due to the fact that there are so many new initiatives coming up. And be aware. Europe is the region with the most national initiatives all over the world. No other continent has such a broad diversity in national initiatives. And we should keep that momentum and work on that. And I will be happy to invite you to the Guadalajara workshop in case it will be confirmed.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Sandra. Before I pass the floor to this gentleman. Are you a community? Do you want to be a community? Do you want to meet? Do you want to come together? Do you really think there is a European identity in this whole Internet government initiatives? If so, this is it. You are a community. We can create it now and move forward. I don’t know, Sandra, whether we need to do something after this event, I leave that to you. And also to think about the community within Europe, going global, the scalability question. I really want you to think about that. If you really want to be tangible, how to be. I don’t know what national initiative you’re from.

>> My name is Angelo. I’m working nine years now with the various sectors like space, health, humanities and ICT. And we are organising a pan European movement, political movement which is based in science in direct democracy and in ecology. And we have 15,000 members. We are moving it right now only through the Internet. And we are supporting the European Internet, the Senate as we call it. We don’t believe in the we believe in the economic government.

>> Why not?

>> Because the global governance includes one neuron, one network, which is very dangerous for humanity. When we create 12, 10, we are proposing 10 zones around the globe which they discuss and they compete between them. And also we create the 11th one together with the scientists and the priests and for space colonization, we support Mars communities. We are creating all around Europe. Thank you.

>> Thank you. I’m seeing here. Do you want? Now things in Slovenia IG(F), which is recently established IG(F), can you tell us your processes. What were your challenges facing during the organisation?

>> Yeah, our national IG(F) is very fresh. We had our first Forum, it was held on May 16th. I was in the Steering Committee. Actually well, it is a start. We were actually surprised by the participation. It was around between 40 and 50 people but very active. We cover three themes. It was Internet Governance, net neutrality and digital divide.

Well, the main goal was to raise awareness and starting communication between different stakeholders. And since it was a success, we are thinking about using this momentum and organising another event already this year in Autumn.

>> Just a brief question. From where did the idea come to organise the Slovenian IG(F).

>> It’s a rather long story. First two years ago it came from the ministry. But well, there was no participation. And then it was somehow still and then we joined together. I’m from the registry. Then there was civil society engaged, ISOC Slovenia. And so we pushed it forward.

>> All right. Thank you, thank you, Barbara.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Before we carry on, and Stefano, we will talk about the Italian IG(F). ICANN wants 30 seconds to mention about supporting IG(F)s, national IG(F)s because he has to leave. Do you mind if I give him just 30 seconds? Andrea quickly because we will run out of time.

>> So very quickly. As part of the European team of ICANN and the engagement part, we do follow the strategic planning of ICANN in the 2016 2020 which has been developed by the community says explicitly that ICANN supports the multistakeholder model. So in line of that and being already participating and supporting many national IG(F)s, we look forward to be a partner in giving sponsorship, in giving experience in helping shaping the process. So reach out and the technical community here is very important via ripe. And ICANN is that ingrained in the strategy plan for 2020. Let’s see how it happens. But I think it’s very important to put the word, the money where the financial support, as well.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Financial support. Okay. Please.

>> Okay. So IG(F) Italy has been one of the first IG(F)s in Europe. We follow the recommendation of the European parliament to set up local IG(F)s. And this was connected to the fact that ISOC Italy participated in the summit on Information Society. And in the first global IG(F)s. And so after this, we started our role.

So one of the things is then community of other IG(F)s is that among the constant organizers there’s been the chapter of the Internet Society and the registry that is run national for research.

And another particularity that we had experimented in Italy is that we try to encourage different locations. This is maybe not common in other IG(F)s. We had three meetings in Rome that of course Rome, the capital, is easy to find occasions to also involve the government that is important. And the other location has been Sardinia, Piza, Trento, Turin. And this year we are going to have a meeting in Venetzia.

So the effort of having always multistage holder has been progressing in the sense that in the first IG(F)s that were not for a longer planning like now because now we are in the first one of decade. So we have to enforce possibly also the organisation to look for the near future.

So in the first example of IG(F)s, there was a programme committee that was not really multistakeholder. But we invited all the stakeholders, but little by little now also the programme committees formed by private sector, the government, the research and the civil society.

So we have to improve. And also to think how to get the maximum in the next 10 years. Thank you.

>> So when you say improving, you’re meaning first of all on the processes and the organisation itself of the event? To improve the event you said you need to improve the Italian IG(F).

>> The sense that I think is for everyone. Try to have more attendance, more attention, more publicity of the results and so on because this is something that is an effort to involve, measure part of the population in understanding the problem of Internet Governance that are becoming more and more complex as soon as we go ahead. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Stefano. Yes, Mark.

>> Ask a question?


>> Just a quick question. I was very interested to hear that you moved your national IG(F) around Italy to all corners, it seems. That’s very impressive. We’ve always had our UK one in London, haven’t we, Laura? And I’ve always thought maybe we ought to go to Scotland and Belfast. Has your experience been that moving it around has substantially increased the sort of permanent commitment of a wider range of stakeholders? Has it succeeded for that, in that objective, if you might?

>> Stefano: I say yes. It is not easy. Because at least in one occasion, we didn’t succeed to complete a planned IG(F) in another city that I do not mention. (laughing) but in any case, this is important in order to involve especially the population, especially the private sector in local areas and things like that. So it is not easy. Because if we look at the IG(F) UK, all the meetings are in Washington, D.C. for a number of reasons that we can understand easily because you need to involve the government possibly. Okay.

>> MODERATORThank you, Stefano. Arnold from the Netherlands IG(F).

>> Arnold from the Dutch government. We are also co organising the Netherlands IG(F). In addition to what Maryland from the Netherlands platform from the Information Society just explained to you, some words from very shortly, some words on the tangible outputs of the IG(F). Our yearly national IG(F) is preceded by two events, very important events. The first one is the national youth IG(F), which we are also organising. Those are representatives of universities, colleges and high schools. And we ask those youngsters to come forward at a discussion with 10 priorities which they would like to see tackled at our annual IG(F) and the global IG(F). Last year they came forward with 10 priorities, including hate speech, the right to be forgotten, privacy and cyber security and so forth. And we took them on board and discussed those issues. Not all of them, of course, yearly and annual IG(F) meeting.

Second important meeting is a special meeting, a multistakeholder meeting where we tackle one topic, hot topic, which our committee thinks this is reasonable to discuss.

And last year it was the subject of Internet of Things in relation to ethics. Very useful debate came forward with some recommendations. And that was fed into our national IG(F) meeting last autumn.

Then our national IGP meeting we had five to six workshops based upon different topics to be tackled, discussed. And we asked our participants to come forward with recommendations, which they did. And at the end, the whole bunch of recommendations from all those six workshops were presented during our plenary and session. And wed a short discussion. And that was more or less the substance on which the national multistakeholder delegation to the IG(F) could act.

And final word on participants. It’s still a challenge, major challenge to have parliamentarians on board. We’re very happy that every year one member of the Senate, the Dutch Senate, goes to the global IG(F), including a member of the House of Representatives. And we would like to see more politicians on board. So that’s still something which we are pushing hard, like having also the youth on board. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Arnold. We’re saving some questions later for you because we need to wrap up this part of the session. So Sylvia, really well experienced IG(F). So what are the processes, what are the main challenges?

>> Sylvia: Right now we are preparing sixth annual meeting. Last week the advisory group was had the first preparatory meeting for the annual sessions that will be in October this year. And the truth is that the IG(F) in Spain is very well consolidated. We have an advisory group with more than 80 people participating.

This year we have established two working committees, one for the programme and another one for the communication. We have noticed that it’s very important to involve civil society because perhaps sometimes they are not very well represented in the discussions we have.

And, well, we record all the sessions in our web page. Everybody can access all the materials. The conferences, the different workshops have streaming.

We prepared last year a comprehensive report, more than 300 pages that was written from, was written from collaboration of multistakeholder group for different key themes. Well, it’s written in Spanish, I’m sorry, but I think that was a very good initiative that involved all the multistakeholder groups. A very nice initiative well I can I want to share with you. And I think something perhaps not so ambitious, but something like that could be done taking all the recommendations or the messages from the different European IG(F)s.

>> MODERATOR: That’s a great recommendation especially when he speaks later for the plans.

Serbia, right?

>> It is not IG(F) initiative. It is civil society organisation.

>> MODERATOR: But there are some actions to organise a Serbian national IG(F)?

>> Also here. So can confirm something.

First basically first initiative was on 2012 year and we had Serbian covering ministry, telecommunication, then national registry and Diplo Foundation and we have more than 100 participants. But we don’t have continual meetings on that level. Main reason I think that we had problems with our ministry that is responsible for Internet and telecommunication is now it is mixture status. It was independent ministry. Then part ministry of culture. After that it is now part of ministry of tourism, trade and telecommunication. And also one bid for digital society is part of the other ministry. So basically cover first who, it’s not easy to organise. To influence on all important participants.

So when we find some cover first we’ll organise this conference and meetings will be much easier.

On the other side, we’ve I can say maybe on weekly or monthly level at least different events considering topics that are either connected with Internet Governance like cyber security, like law, then some other things I cannot remember. But very, very often. And very small regarding 30 people, maybe 40 people from separate groups of the Internet users.

But what is important, I think at the end now if Internet and informatic is very important topic in ministry of education these days, how to cover it in primary and secondary school level and how to cover all this important topics.

So we have definitely importance of Internet. But we should organise this initiative in all conference and discuss all topics in one place. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. We’re a bit in a hurry now so maybe you can tell your name and if you’re affiliated with any of the IG(F)s.

>> My name is rob Palmer. I’m here with Internet Society. Representing [Inaudible] as well. This is actually my third Internet Governance conference that I come to. Well, I really wanted to ask the SEEDIG organisation. Did you have regional IGs, I mean national IGs before? And were those like flourished by the bigger SEEDIG IG forum?

>> First was some of them existed at the region. But we had, well, let’s say several more after first SEEDIG.

>> Yeah, I’m just thinking because we’re contemplating in Finland among other Nordic countries to have our own Nordic regional thing. And was thinking that well at least here it says there’s lots of supporting organizations. And I’m thinking that maybe the Nordic would get some funding for that if we’re trying to arrange it for the first time. And there’s some people have been a little worried that if they’re like in Finland, if people back up this new Nordic, like a new Forum there, it won’t take off and then people who were backing it will look bad. So I don’t know if that’s a real concern.

>> Political or social situation is worse than in Southeastern Europe. We will talk afterwards.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Can I come in quickly. We really need to get to the next step in the agenda. There’s been many references that youth initiative charis. You’re in the Council of No Hate Speech Movement. You’re involved in many countries we have around the table. What do you have to say about the youth involvement?

>> This is the point that I wanted to raise about youth involvement and what the platform could be for youth involvement and especially to take the point that the first speaker mentioned about the law involvement of the international organizations in comparison with the civil so sit and the private sector. It was the case of Netherlands, I think. But how we can improve the youth participation in the national organisation in IGS but also, yeah, I had another affiliation but because of the short timeslot, I will speak about that later.

>> LEE HIBBARD: So there is an opportunity to use I mean it’s no hate it’s also about Human Rights and other issues. It’s probably worth noting in the room that there is a possibility to try to engage youth differently through this movement, which may be of use for you. Enrico, did you want to say something brief? So we have remote participation and we have somebody from is it from the Ukraine Roxanna very briefly.

>> There is remote in Kiev officer of Council of Europe and their idea to speak. You.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Speak briefly.

>> You are online.

>> Can somebody here manage? Yeah? Is it okay with connection?

>> LEE HIBBARD: Yes, good.

>> Okay.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Briefly.

>> Thank you. Remote participants from Ukraine welcomes organizers and participants of EuroDIG to 16. I want to say concerning IG initiatives. So I want to briefly say that first was in 2010 active participant of the Council of Europe. And private sector and civil society and academic and civil society. So the goal was to create multistakeholder model to discuss the most critical issues of Information Society. So now we are working on our seventh IG(F) A. Probably it will be in seventh of October. But the work of creation on multistakeholder platform is now not complete. And we hope for active participation of Council of Europe, ISOC and IG(F) supporting organizations. So it’s briefly want I want to say. Thank you.

>> LEE HIBBARD: That’s great. Thank you very much. The last of the national initiatives comes from Moldova. Very briefly. Tangible results. Is it multistakeholder, by the way?

>> Thank you, Lee. Hello, everyone. Veronica, open government institute from Moldova. Very briefly I wanted to share the very fact that we are learning the lessons from the way we have synchronized and organized IG(F)s in m Moldova the past two years. The reason I’m saying that is because IG(F) as an initiative is not a stand alone event. During the past two years, we did anchor it as part of the Moldova ICT summit. Whether this is a good model, this is a good approach, we are learning the lessons because anchoring an event as part of a broad ICT industry related event is not always strong for the multistakeholder approach for bringing up the issues of data protection, Human Rights, surveillance and so on and so forth.

So the next steps would be really to figure how the we can extract the IG(F) as a platform from the Moldova ICT summit and really produce comprehensive, sustainable platform at the national level.

So the lesson we learned is not, I mean, having IG(F) as part of something bigger, national, dilutes a little bit the messages and the importance and doesn’t bring always the key stakeholders around the table. Thank you.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. Now the last 20 minutes of the session we have to wrap up with Ana five minutes before the end. We have to communicate messages from this meeting to EuroDIG for the messages to the global IG(F). I’m looking at Chingatai Matengo. After he speaks, we will have a last discussion between us about what is it that what’s needed from this community of national or regional initiatives? What do you need? Is it useful? Of course we’re ex changing, but what is it that you need from each other, from EuroDIG, from SEEDIG, from NORDIG, from IG(F)? I mean if there are problems of participation, I’m sure we can try to connect each other and encourage. I’m sure we have different levers we can pull. ISOC. Council of Europe, European Union, I think that we can all sort of come together and help each other, that’s my impression. Chengatai, you have the floor.

>> Thank you very much, Lee. I’ll be very quick and short.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Quick and dirty.


>> No. Whenever I come to the Euro digs, it’s very good because the national and regional IG(F) within Europe always increase and this region is one of the most dynamic and we always learn from the global IG(F) so much.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Why is it dynamic?

>> Because you’re very innovative. You experiment a lot. So it is what I take for definite what I see here. And trying to introduce it to the global IG(F), as well. So it works both ways, I think.

>> LEE HIBBARD: What do you expect? How can we how can this group community help you at the global scalability of the regions? Can you put your finger on it?

>> Okay. That goes to my first topic, which, yes. So we had our mandate renewed for a further 10 years by the General Assembly. And as UN bodies do, we are organising a retreat. And the retreat is happening on July 14th to 16th. The retreat is only going to be about 35 people invited to the retreat. And the retreat is to look forward to the next 10 years, what should the IG(F) do in the next 10 years? Try and formulate some sort of a strategic plan for the next 10 years.

There’s been a call for inputs but that’s over now June 7th. So that was Tuesday, I think. But they are still time and opportunity for people to have written inputs into this retreat. One thing as we were discussing the participants of the retreat, we think that it’s very important that we have representatives well at least a representative from the regional and national initiatives to come to the retreat. So we might actually start a process even though the deadline is finished for the national and regional initiatives to propose somebody to come to the retreat to represent them to this retreat.

>> LEE HIBBARD: What do you want to say to them substantively.

>> How we can better increase our collaboration and cooperation together. What we can do to further our goal. Because we do have the same goal. And how can we

>> LEE HIBBARD: What goal is that? What’s the goal? Just to remind us of the goal. Briefly.

>> Making it difficult. So the goal is basically to foster the Internet, the use of the Internet, enhance the capacity of people to use the Internet. And also to cooperate and to exchange ideas on how best each individual country and region can use the Internet.

>> LEE HIBBARD: So it’s a question of process. It’s about how to connect to citizens?

>> Yes.

>> LEE HIBBARD: So really your question, your interest lies in how, what a strong robust multistakeholder process to help at the global level, is that right?

>> Yes. Global and national and regional level because we were working both ways. Not just concentrating only on the global. But for the global you have to act locally. So we’re looking at the whole spectrum of it.

And also for these 10 years, we are also looking at the SDGs, the Sustainable Development Goals, trying keep them in mind. We didn’t have to keep them in the centre place. We have to keep them in mind. We’re the IG(F) so we may not totally be in line. But I mean there are SDGs that are in line with our own aims and goals.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Briefly. Briefly, please.

>> Okay. So for the global IG(F), our main theme now is enabling inclusive and sustainable growth. We have a lot of intercessional work that’s happening. We have intercessional work happening on IXPs, IPv6s, connecting the next billion, phase 2. A lot of the national and regional initiatives helped last year with the phase 1 of connecting the next billion. So we’re doing phase 2 this year. And we want your input in that. We are also having a best practice forums on gender and access and security. And security, is well, I heard a lot of discussion about security here.


>> So in case you don’t know, Mexico in December please mark that on your calendar and there’s also remote participation. If I’ve forgotten anything, Ana will please.

>> The main session for national regional in Guadalajara which is a huge thing. Might address this later maybe if we have time.

>> LEE HIBBARD: We have basically 10 minutes left and I really want to open the floor to you. We have to give messages. We have to communicate to Ana. Ana is going to communicate to you at the very end. Do you feel connected to the global IG(F)? Do you feel connected to the European IG(F)? The EuroDIG. What is it that you seek in terms of cooperation, collaboration, how can we help? Is it youth inclusion? Is it inclusion of parliamentarians? Is it government? Can other countries help, neighboring countries help in that respect? Is it a question of financing? You heard from ICANN there. I’m sure others can talk about financing issues. The question of process, the multistakeholder process is different in different countries, different levels, different speeds. Some are more, let’s say, one could argue more captured, more and more singular, more diverse, some are not sponsored and supported by the government, I guess. These are different challenges. I will open the floor to you. But ICANN, does Ana want to say something?

>> I’m really pleased that we’re having this session for the reason that you guys can share your experience with each other but also you all represent very different contacts here. And from our work, I can say that the reasons why people do IG(F)s and the designs are still very individual. So what we as national organizations and cooperations would like to see is how IG(F) national regional serves your needs? That means that NIG(F) is specifically having taking place in Ukraine, Russia or Serbia or elsewhere. How does it serve the local needs? So we always encourage the local communities to be engaged because it’s always interesting when there are global speakers coming and sharing a global perspective, but still, the most valuable thing is to see how IG(F) serves technical community from our side, civil society, businesses and if “a” national experience can be useful for another national experience, of course that’s even better.

Another take away from me from what I have heard, there is no ideal IG(F). And even though there is no idea of what it could be like, it doesn’t serve everyone. Even if it’s not bottom up, it’s top down for now. But if it serves particular needs from the community, let it be. And it can evolve over time. And then by sharing these experiences, you can drive it to a next stage. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: You have one additional intervention that might get an answer.

>> Very briefly about knows the driver of assessments of IG(F)s. I mean multistakeholderism, bottom up approach, creation of agenda, et cetera, et cetera. It is possible to assess some IG(F)s maybe annually. I don’t know. And create some recommendations of three best practice of IG(F)s I mean on the local IG(F)s if it’s possible. Just suggestion. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Any additional comments? I can ask one question. One interesting aspect for me and I’m looking at Doshan. From my experience, I know there is an incentive in Albania to start an IG(F). The discussions and I’m really looking at Bulgaria started basically last year after EuroDIG and SEEDIG was together held there. So what is the importance of having subregional IG(F)s, regional IG(F)s in particular area? And do you think it can trigger others to start discussing the need for having an IG(F)?

>> So as I said, SEEDIG is unique, pretty much unique example in Europe. And we are talking about NORDIG second subregional IG(F) initiative. So from our experience, and first of all, Southeastern Europe have some gap between rest of the Europe. There is a gap between those we have different topics, different point of view on existing topics. So it was natural for us to organise SEEDIG. But what is outcome of SEEDIG is a large number of national IG(F)s afterwards. After Sophia, we had Bosnia, Armenia, right now after Belgrade we had Slovenia. We are preparing for Albania. We had Moldova. We had so things are going. Things are cooking up in the region. It’s not only about SEEDIG. It’s a way to show we can organise. It’s not so, I don’t know, complicated to organise things. Just go and do it.

And those, for example, Ilia from Bulgaria or fortune from Albania, they learned through SEEDIG process that it’s not very complex to organise. So just you need a will to organise your local community and local stakeholders. That’s it.

>> MODERATOR: On this note, all right, we have one more comment.

>> Thanks, Ana. Very quick. It’s actually to answer the question about what is needed, what is something that might make sense? I just heard the comment that it’s not that complex to organ to put an event. I think what’s much more important is to think about what we are doing in between the events because people gather around the events. There is a high degree of motivation and enthusiasm to address specific issues, to organise workshop sessions and so on and so forth. But then everything goes down. And from my perspective, I think we need to come up with some ideas about how to create the permanent platform for dialogue, exchange, sharing of best practices, initiatives, you name it, in between those events. Either this happens through some online common platform where communities of practice around specific issues like data protection, Human Rights and so on and so forth, there are many discussions, many conversations that keep them in the tunnels. And when they come to the next whatever SEEDIG event or to the national IG(F), they are much better prepared. They are up to date with the emerging issues. They know what’s happening. And they are also contributing to the broader debate and they are bringing an additional know how to the processes.

And another thing that it’s also important to think about in addition to developing this community of practice is to think about how this community of people engaged in the broad IG debate can be helpful for other communities of practice outside the IG space. I’m referring to communities of people from education, people from open government space, people from other sectors who could benefit enormously from getting the knowledge and the content and the experiences and embed those in the sectors that they work in.

So I think this intersectorial communication and collaboration kind of platforms are going to bring even more value for the Internet Governance platform. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, just briefly.

>> I just want to confirm that this working between conferences is very important. And it is hard working part of the job. And a lot of resources you will need to cover it because all these small meetings are afternoon, during working time, we will have some professional jobs and then cover the other meetings. So just to make administration job like issue topic reports, whatever, you should do on weekly or monthly, well it is a lot of effort. So we don’t have professional people who are working on it. So developing the organisation is very important thing. And to find resources to cover all these things and to be seen abroad, the Internet and offline and TV, whatever, media, newspapers, whatever, it is hard working job. It is not easy.

I passed some procedure, then in some previous revision we spend, I work on the job and I was ever month on different conference and different meeting making presentations promoting Internet, promoting usefulness, et cetera. If it is your first day on the job, it is possible. If not, it is really hard job.

>> MODERATOR Thank you. I think the majority are sharing this experience. We have Sandra with last comments and last one and we will wrap it up.

>> Yeah. Sandra speaking. I just wanted to reply to what Veronica and this gentleman just said in terms of we need a platform for collaboration for to get information. I think we will soon have a problem because we will have too much of a choice of these platforms. Look at the which is under development. Look at the Geneva Internet platform which is just emerging. The EuroDIG wiki where you can at the moment see what has been discussed including reading lists and everything for the last three years. I mean, we do have a lot of resources already there. And I think everybody has to find their own resource to follow because obviously you cannot follow all of them.

And also what has been discussed in João Pessoa that we will try to make a mapping of these topics to be discussed in our region. I think this will go on, as well, as well as it was agreed that well produce a set of guidelines and this workshop will definitely be a great source for developing these guidelines further.

So I think from my point of view this is all on the way and we will rather soon have a problem to follow all these resources. They just have to be maybe a little bit better interconnected and a little bit better be promoted to the broader community.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, Sandra. One last comment, I don’t think we have any time, Stefano. Maybe you can be very brief. One last comment.

>> Sandra almost said, I wanted to say. So it’s perfect. I just want to say that we should follow the example of the young people because when they if they are at our NIG(F) or we bring them also to the IG(F), they find each other very, very well. Afterwards as well whole year through. So I think it’s very good that we find a way to connect together not only at our national IG(F)s but also together at, well, these kind of sessions not only do it well wait until Guadalajara. But after today, find each other on social media or at the wikis and keep on working to make this kind of community.

And there was an example maybe make a video. This is what the young people did, as well, in our country, and it works. So think about great examples to join together and work together.

>> MODERATOR: Perfect. Thank you so much. Last comments.

>> Just quickly to add more on the resources thing. For the support for the national and regional IG(F)s, we as the IG(F) Secretariat if you want to use our WebEx account, please feel free to contact us and then you can use that for remote participation. And this year, as well, we are trying to enhance our website so that for those national or regional IG(F)s, we don’t have the resources that can also have space on our website and our mailing list, as well.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you, that’s useful. Last comment Stefano. Really briefly.

>> Stefano: Very good this meeting. And I would suggest that in order to define better the DNA of local IG(F)s is would be good if the organizer of this meeting send a question and answer in order to collect the information. And then it is very important that we follow the global IG(F) and even any local IG(F) distributing information about what we are doing. And it is in English. While it is normal that in our countries, in our IG(F)s we speak local language. And this is the reason not the effort in order to let anyone to understand what we are doing. Thank you.

>> MODERATORStefano, thank you very much. Ana, you’re patient.

>> I have to be very quick. First of all thank you again for being here and coming here and contributing to this wonderful discussion. If we can have the slides? The report points? Yes. And before, okay. Bit more bigger? And before it gets bigger, so before this workshop, I’ve been in touch with you, with most of you personally. You have provided me some information. I have been looking at your websites trying to also see your Facebook pages and Twitter walls but there is still some information missing. We want to scrub some data. So in case I need some more information, I’ll be contacting you if you don’t mind and filling and finalising the Excel sheet and then it will be available to you all.

Now back to the points that I gathered. Honestly it was very difficult to extract some main points because everyone was giving different comments. So let’s try this.

Well, I think we’ve seen from the floor that European IG ecosystem is very diverse but at the same time very innovative and experimental. Models, topic, processes depends on readiness and awareness of local stakeholders, national issues and needs but the main aim for all is to raise awareness of society and get different stakeholders engaged in policymaking processes whether on national, regional or global level.

And third point was that there is no national ideal IG(F). But there are best practices to look at, to share and implement locally.

Therefore, there is a need of common platform, a stronger collaboration and communication between each other. Regional IG(F)s and this is the fourth point, are encouraging national IG(F)s and set the scene, but there are a few strong national IG(F)s who serve as a role model.

And the final point was that international would call it support organizations are the glue, as Alexandra said very well, for national and regional IG discussions, encourage local community and ready to support these processes as also Chris from ripe said, they’re always there to support these discussions.

So these were the five take aways. Yes?

>> Thank you, Ana, very well summarized I would definitely add what the connection to the global IG(F). I took my notes. I would be happy to put it out for approval buy this workshop group.

>> Perfect: If I have the consensus that these are the take aways from this discussion, yeah just hum, nod, whatever. All agree? Very well. Thanks again for coming here. It’s about lunchtime, a little bit late. I’m here if you have any questions, please do come. If you need my contact details, I think most of you already have. But I’m still here. Still around. And I’ll be happy to talk.

>> Thank you, Ana, and thank you, everyone, for coming.


Session twitter hashtag

Hashtag: #eurodig16 #ws6 #IGF-DNA