Thanks, Fiona.
Indeed, strange that the work of the ITU is not mentioned; hopefully member states, who are participating in this list, are taking notes, and will suggest recognition of the great work the ITU is doing; also around the WSIS Forum.

Here are my three points as of now:

• The technical community is recognized as a separate stakeholder, and not part of any other stakeholder group.
• The Multistakeholder model of Internet governance and the Internet Governance Forum are supported in several different instances.
• The creation of the (UN Secretary-General’s) multilateral Digital Cooperation Forum is not supported.

However, we could reach out to our respected national governments, and bring to their attention the issues we see in the zero draft. After all, that’s what they will discuss in April and May – how to make the document better.

Best,

v/

From: wsis20 <wsis20-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu>
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 08:40
To: "wsis20@icann.org" <wsis20@icann.org>, "anriette@gmail.com" <anriette@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draft

Thanks to those who have already shared their first impressions.  It is really helpful to see those perspectives.  This is the zero draft so I think as others have said, work to be done.  For those on the list that are governments that opportunity is apparent, any further information on how non-government stakeholders can provide input?  I thought someone had posted to the list there would an informal stakeholder input session, but I haven't seen any specifics.  Have others?  This seems particularly critical given paragraph 54 asks the private sector, technical and academic communities, and civil society to endorse the GDC.

My take on the zero draft:

• agree with Jordan, some good text on IGF and including all stakeholders;

• seems an unusual omission that the connectivity section doesn't reference or call out the work of the ITU, since connectivity is their primary mission and in the deep dives last year and the 2 consultations this year, all commenters were very pro ITU.  There is also a whole host of other work around meaningful connectivity, including the ITU Parter2Connect program and ICANN's UA work that could be mentioned.  Anriette also makes great points on concerns with this section;

• the AI section looks very expansive and perhaps is a cut and paste from the AI High Level Advisory Board report.  That seems premature since that work is ongoing and has not been endorsed or agreed by Member States; and,

• the draft falls short in a few places on avoiding duplication and using existing mechanisms, another clear point of consensus in the earlier discussions.  Specially the call for an annual AI dialogue seems duplicative of the existing AI for Good annual meeting.  And then for the follow up and implementation, it starts ok, but another clear omission, this time the WSIS Forum which seems particularly odd given the earlier call to have WSIS +20 update the WSIS action lines.  But the proposal for a high level meeting every 2 years seems completely unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful given all the follow up and implementation already identified.  It seems to be that those last two paragraphs, 64 and 65, could just be deleted.

Look forward to hearing others perspectives.

Fiona