IGF 2024

This workshop intends to highlight the importance of financial institutions in driving digital transformation by reallocating funds from underperforming projects to digital initiatives; it aims to:

Explore and identify emerging trends and technologies, such as blockchain, AI, and fintech innovations, that can enhance the capabilities of financial institutions
Assess the scalability of innovative financial solutions and their potential for broader application across different regions
Discuss various funding models and investment strategies that can support collaborative efforts in enhancing digital infrastructure

What should be the first priorities in mitigating the environmental impact of Gen-AI technologies? Do Gen-AI and traditional AI applications differ in their environmental impact? Should initiatives to regulate and govern AI globally work together to become more impactful? Who is responsible when an AI system causes damage - should liability be assigned to the developer, provider, user or apportioned across these players? Will AI disrupt or strengthen labour markets? Is using AI for tasks that were previously handled by humans beneficial for workers?

Problem Statement:
While various mappings, inventories, and initiatives provide a wealth of information on cybersecurity capacity-building offerings, overlaps and gaps in information exist and the information may not reach its target audience effectively.
Session Objectives:
The BPF will explain how it discussions led to the above problem statement and invite panellists and participants to comment on the problem statement, share their own experiences, and make suggestions to refine or rephrase if needed. The second part of the session will zoom in on actionable solutions, best practices and recommendations to address or avoid the problem.
Draft Agenda:
1. Welcome & opening of the meeting  (5 min)
2. Introduction: the BPF on Cybersecurity Capacity Building  (10 min)
3. Panel discussion & participant feedback 
Round 1  Feedback on the problem statement  (25 min)
Round 2  How to address and do better  (25 min)
4. Summary and closing remarks (10 min)

1. Welcome, introductions and session objectives (5 minutes)
2. Introduction : Summary of PNIF discussions in 2024       (5 minutes)
3. Discussion round 1:  Understanding the commitment in GDC Article 29(c)        (25 minutes)
4. Discussion round 2: Contributing to operationalising the GDC commitment and future discussions        (25 minutes)
5. Summary and next steps         (10 minutes)

The evolution of Internet governance and the multistakeholder model has been marked by significant processes and initiatives such as NETmundial+10, WSIS+20, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). These efforts have played a crucial role in shaping Internet/digital governance, fostering collaboration among diverse stakeholders, and promoting the multistakeholder model. While impacts at the local level may be less visible globally, they are nonetheless significant. Local communities are experiencing changes in the quality of multistakeholder engagement and the implementation of the model. These shifts at the local level are essential for the overall effectiveness and inclusiveness of global Internet governance, highlighting the importance of continuous adaptation and improvement in multistakeholder practices.

Through exchange with communities from around the world gathered around 174 national, regional, sub-regional, and youth IGF initiatives, this panel will address the pivotal discourse of the evolution of Internet governance and the multistakeholder model. This session will discuss aspects related to various policy matters on the session’s topic, such as:

What is the impact of NETmundial+10, WSIS+20, GDC, etc. processes on Internet governance and the multistakeholder model and how can we use the NETmundial+10 Multistakeholder Statement to advance them?
What are the existing initiatives within and beyond NRIs’ process, as examples of good practices of evolving Internet governance and the multistakeholder model?
How do Internet governance processes and its multistakeholder model advance digital public policy? How do they interact with traditional multilateral processes?
How have Internet governance and the multistakeholder model evolved from sectoral and regional points of view?
Which voices should be in the model at the national, and regional level and how can they be effectively brought in? How can Internet governance be more useful to all stakeholders so that they identify NRI spaces as a key venue for advocacy?
Can the multistakeholder approach pave the way for inclusiveness and Internet resilience in times of crisis
After 20+ years of experience, what worked well and what didn’t work in the bottom-up multistakeholder model for Internet Governance?