EuroDIG Extra Vol. 2
Should the IGF+ be supported by a Multi-Stakeholder High Level Body (MHLB)?
In the course of the Consultation on paragraph 93(a) of the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation European stakeholder discussed during a EuroDIG Extra the need and function of a Multi-Stakeholder High Level Body (MHLB) and its relationship to the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). The aim is to come up with a shared view and make a contribution to the questioner that was prepared by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat, in collaboration with the Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology.
Please comment on the summary of EuroDIG Extra until 8th March:
On the function of the Multi-Stakeholder High Level Body (MHLB)
- There was broad agreement among the EuroDIG Extra participants in support of the rationale for creating the MHLB to undertake specific functions as outlined in Paragraph 93a of the UNSGs Roadmap, in particular coordinating follow-up actions and relaying proposed policy approaches and recommendations to decision-making fora.
- None of the MHLB’s activities should draw attention away from the IGF or undermine its bottom-up, multistakeholder nature.
- By creating a table at the IGF for decision-makers from all stakeholder groups to have high-level discussions, the MHLB would serve to bridge the gap between discussions and decisions.
- There were tentative expressions of support, subject to further clarifying discussion, for the MHLB to address specific “urgent issues” as stated in Paragraph 93 A. This should be undertaken in full consultation and coordination with the MAG.
- There was support for the MHLB providing strategic inputs with the aim of helping to shape the IGF programme and long-term strategy. Participants emphasised, however, that the MAG should continue to have full authority and responsibility for the IGF’s programme development.
On its relationship to the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG)
- There was general agreement on the need for the MHLB to have a strong linkage with the MAG rather than being a separate body.
- Differing views were expressed on how this linkage should be achieved, either as a single combined body (the smaller MHLB being part of the MAG), or by creating a layered governance structure with the MHLB supporting the MAG. There were several expressions of support for one or more of the three options developed by the MAG Working Group on Strengthening and Strategy, as providing the basis for a final decision.
- Participants agreed that it would be essential to ensure multi-stakeholder accountability and transparency for the MHLB’s membership nomination.
Recent Comments on this Site
31st July 2021 at 6:00 pm
There have been some comments about the messages on the WS-16 mailing list rather than being logged as part of the messages procedure. The final result was a list of messages agreed by consensus.
See in context
11th July 2021 at 5:39 pm
I suggest to rephrase more concrete: There must be a global collaborative effort in the form of dialogic regulation between governments, tech companies, and civil society to develop a solution grounded in human rights that will address disinformation and harmful content
See in context
11th July 2021 at 5:36 pm
delete “being”
See in context
11th July 2021 at 5:34 pm
I suggest tp rephrase a bit more concrete: Liberal approaches of governments towards online platforms at there start of the platform economy led to …
See in context
11th July 2021 at 5:24 pm
Although I was the one who mentioned this during the session, I am not sure that we should push for frequency regulation – besides, it is very likely to be be outside our scope
See in context
11th July 2021 at 1:12 pm
NEW WORDING PROPOSED:
One institution ALONE CANNOT solve the problem. Multistakeholder approach IS needed, TO BUILD AN HARMONIOUS SYSTEM WHERE HARD AND SOFT REGULATION MECHANISMS FIND A BALANCE WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE BOUNDARIES, MANDATES AND ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS. IN PARTICULAR Platforms have a big stake, and should be required to develop transparent self/co-regulation.
See in context
11th July 2021 at 1:09 pm
propose to add at the end of the phrase: “Those defenses should be strengthened by media education: a field where public service broadcasters have a special role to play based on their remits.
See in context
11th July 2021 at 1:01 pm
This legitimacy needs to arise from clear legislative frameworks in which hard regulation and soft regulations could find an equilibrium, each one with its own specific role and with clear boundaries and accountability mechanisms.
See in context
11th July 2021 at 12:57 pm
[that will address disinformation and harmful content]
See in context
10th July 2021 at 9:16 pm
As I mentioned during the session, I believe we should be careful with using the term ‘content moderation’ in the context of the Internet infrastructure level, as these services are typically very far removed from the actual content. I would like to suggest amending this paragraph to read: “Recent cases show that certain infrastructure providers unwillingly take action that could be argued to be content moderation by suspending services for the platforms in an ad-hoc manner without any transparent policy. But infrastructure services have limited possible options, which tend to be temporary solutions (clearing cache), overbroad reactions (limiting access) or options that open up websites to cyberattack (terminating services of particular users).”
See in context