FINISHED FILE

ASIA-PACIFIC REGIONAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM
BRISBANE 2023

AUGUST 31, 2023
CLOSING PLENARY 
1:30 PM AEST

Services provided by:
Caption First, Inc.
P.O. Box 3066
Monument, CO  80132
800‑825‑5234
www.captionfirst.com

This text document, or file is based on live transcription.  Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), captioning, and/or live transcription are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.  This text, document, or file is not to be distributed or used in any way that may violate copyright law.

>> JORDAN CARTER: Welcome, everybody.  I want to acknowledge the Gorenpul and Turrbal people, traditional custodians of Mianjin, the land on which we meet today.  And pay my respects to their elders past and present.  
	And I extend that respect to aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people here today.  Thank you for the collective shushing, ladies and gentlemen.  	My name is Jordan Carter, Internet Governance Director of policy and data.  It is my pleasure to be moderating the Closing Plenary for APrIGF 2023 and then the closing remarks that will immediately follow.  
	I will start the panel by taking you through the topic of the conversation.  The session description to give you a moment to breathe and see where we are at.  Over the course of the last three days, the APrIGF community has discussed various implications of the rapidly changing Internet and digital technology landscape in the Asia‑Pacific.  At the same time, global Internet Governance is also undergoing a shift with the beginning of the WSIS+20 process and United Nations Summit of the Future.  These processes could have a profound impact on the future of Internet Governance and the developing digital societies of our Region.  There is a need to ensure that our regional priorities are heard and reflected in these processes.  
With Governments having an overbearing role in the Governance of the Internet, how can other important stakeholders such as Civil Society, Private Sector and technical community effectively make their voices heard?  What is the duty of Governments in the Asia‑Pacific to take into consideration the realities, needs, and priorities of its Peoples while setting the Internet Governance Agenda going forward?  
So that is the program Committee description of our panel.  That is what we're here to discuss.  If I had to sum it up in my own words, the distillation will be how do we raise our voice as Asia‑Pac in shaping Internet Governance, and what should we say with our voice when we raise it?  
	To discuss this, we have a lovely, fabulous panel that are seated here with one remote participant.  I will briefly introduce them.  Paul Wilson, Director General with APNIC.  Cheryl Seeto, head of policy programs for Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Island at Meta.  Welcome.  Yoichi Iida Director of international research and policy coordination at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication of Japan is online joining us.  And our fourth and finally panelists is Vivien Maidaborn, Chief Executive Director of Internet dot Z, which is the dot Z CCLT manager.  Welcome and thank you for the hard work you are about to do.  Or easy work, depending on your point of view. 
I would like to start.  We will do a four or five‑minute round for each speaker to introduce their perspectives on the theme.  We'll bounce back and forth as we go, and I think we will have a chance for audience participation in the usual way.  If you need to run a mic, put your hand up.  If you want to stand behind the mic, do that.  We'll wrap up with one or two minutes, depending how the timing goes on reflection back from the panel, which I will do in reverse order.  And then we will be wrapped sharp before a video interlude before the closing remarks. 
We will start with Paul Wilson.  Over to you.  
>> Paul Wilson: Thanks very much Jordan.  It is great to be here.  Great to see a full room here right through to the closing event.  So ... I hope the event was thoroughly valuable, memorable and useful to you all.  APNIC has been tracking the process since before it started actually, through the course of the World Summit on the Information Society which established IGF through 10 year and consultations and supported the MAG and many Committees and sessions.  More importantly, it is that we have supported the APrIGF and really believed in the APrIGF's place in our Region for an IGF community to come together.  The whole multistakeholder IGF community.  
We are as we were discussing this morning.  APNIC is a member of the recognized technical community.  Hopefully the community as it will be recognized into the future.  I mean it not just as an organization but a community of APNIC, a community in our own right of the thousands of organizations, individual professionals and peers who collectively build and operate the Internet infrastructure.  
APNIC was started 30 years ago.  In our founding documents, we were established as the Internet address registry and established by people who were involved with the early development of the Internet for the sake of supporting the ongoing development of the Internet.  
We have in our founding documents educational Missions, infrastructure Missions and also policy and representative Missions.  So it actually is our enshrined role to be reaching out to policymakers to represent the needs of the industry and membership.  This is something we treat seriously and have taken a great deal of time and effort and expense to track and to undertake.  
And I think if we talk about ‑‑ if we were to talk here about Internet fragmentation, the biggest fragmentation we see is exactly at that level.  The number of different dimensions between Government and policy approaches across our Region, across the Asia‑Pacific is just phenomenal.  The efforts required to track changes in Governments and Government personnel across all of the different Governments and the different styles of Government of the Region are astronomical.  It is just truly hard work to do.  So I can't say that I have got any secret to that but to prioritize and to be truly engaged with Governments as much as with any other members of the multistakeholder community and recognizing that Governments need special attention in terms of the rate of eye will use the word "churn" in Governments themselves and Government representatives.  
A good example was the fact that I know the GAC of ICANN during the COVID years didn't meet face‑to‑face but when they did after that time, I think 60% of the members were new in that Forum.  That is pretty incredible when you consider the responsibility Governments have to tackle serious and deep issues and to do so with consistency and allow progress over the year.  If things have to start and restart so often, it is a handicap.  I think we accept that this is the nature of that stakeholder grouping.  And I know that Governments sometimes don't like being seen as just other stakeholders.  But that is the way we do talk about Governments here. 
I think it is the cost of doing business so to speak in this role. 
So the ‑‑ as I said a couple of other times here, it is the really important role of technical community in the technical work and make sure our technical work is understood.  That's ‑‑ I guess we heard of sieve ‑‑ Sisyphus.  We push the boulder to the top, it will roll down and we will start again.  It is the cost of what we do.  
I think the APrIGF is a fantastic opportunity.  I think this ‑‑ I'm incredibly encouraged by what I have seen in the rooms here during this week.  Because we have been supporting APrIGF as I said for many years.  Credit needs to go ‑‑ I don't take any credit in spite of the support we have given, I really think the credit is shared.  I just want to say, I think that the culture of this event and the approach that we have developed collectively has been a joint effort.  In no small part, our friends at dot Asia that are a steady and indomitable force of maintaining APrIGF as the Secretariat and critically bringing youth long side the net Mission project which is responsible for a lot of the energy and the valuable contributions here.  So I just hope that when we see that dynamic that it is being recognized and accessed and appreciated by the Governments and policymakers and so forth who can really see that there is something substantial happening here and something they can't afford not to take note of.  I will leave it there.  
>> JORDAN CARTER: Brilliant.  Thank you, Paul.  Our next speaker is Cheryl.  Over to you.  
>> Cheryl Seeto: Thank you, Jordan.  Hi, I'm happy to be part of this fantastic group.  Thank you for having me.  My role at Meta is to lead our policy programs work.  For example, this includes community education initiative, research for Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific Islands.  We are building out the programs in partnership with NGOs, Civil Society, academics, and others across areas such as online safety, media and digital literacy and supporting economic impact and disaster response.
	At Meta we committed to being a constructive partner in designing, implementing and addressing the new laws that are aimed at improving people's safety and broader experiences online. 
So as has come up throughout the discussions over the last few days, Internet Governance is so complex as we know and needs to continually invest to the context and technologies.  There is tradeoff such as voice versus safety or transparency versus right to anonymity.  And all of these need to be balanced and rebalanced as the operating environments continue to shift. 
Addressing the challenges facing Internet Governance can't be solved by any one single actor alone.  Across the groups we have being talking about throughout the week, we broadly share similar high‑level objectives, making sure people who use the Internet are doing so in ways that are safe, positive and informed.  That tech companies like Meta are transparent and accountable. 
So we really believe that collaborative approaches are crucial to developing not only good formal Internet Governance mentions but also other work and initiatives that will help to contribute towards better digital landscapes.  
So I would like to briefly share three recent examples of where Meta has collaborated with different actors towards this aim, particularly in relation to the safety which is important for us.  I want to say there is always more work to be done.  I know we're not perfect.  Maybe the examples can show the good progress to be made when industry works with multisectoral partners to bring ideas and expertise together and in turn give ourselves a stronger, more credible voice to help shape new laws and regulations that governor the Internet. 
First, in New Zealand, as Brent and Shawn shared in their great session yesterday for those who joined, last July Meta was a signatory of the code of practice for online safety enhance led by net save safe and developed with others Google, TikTok Twitch and Twitter.  Those companies have committed to actively reducing harmful online content.  Under the code there are 45 commitments that we have agreed to be held accountable to and report against each year.  While it is still very early days for the code we're keen to work hard at making this a model for self‑regulation and transparency that can help to reduce harmful online content in New Zealand.  
In the Pacific Islands in 2020 we partnered with safe the children Fiji and Australia to set up online safety and citizenship Advisory Group made up of representatives from the Region.  This provided a Forum to share the different challenges and efforts that are underway to address online safety in Pacific Island countries.  It has also helped us to steer the development of our IM digital online safety initiative which Save the Children and Meta have delivered in seven Pacific Island countries.  It is now in the third phase.  Actually Save the Children Fiji started partnering with the administration of education to deliver the I'm digital curriculum in local high schools.  It has been great to see this multisectoral collaboration start to expand and for a Government Agency to come on board and start integrating it into its own initiatives. 
Last of all, since we had so many discussions about preparing for new technologies, the last example I wanted to share is about our collaboration in Australia, which we did late last year with one of the longest standing youth safety partners, project rocket to produce a report on the potential opportunities and risks presented by the metaverse.  That was based on a series of workshops with 40 young people in diverse backgrounds.  In working with this we engage with Government and e‑safety Commission to make sure the report is useful in developing the safe and enjoyable metaverse in the future.  It is starting the metaverse safety guide for young people that will launch next week or the week after. 
I love this project.  It is an example of how a longstanding partnership for us spanning 10 years, can be agile enough to adapt and respond to emerging technologies.  I will stop there. 
I am pleased to be part of this discussion.  Looking forward to how to share more ideas about how tech companies can work with other partners to improve the digital landscapes in our Region and not just in forming new legislation and regulation, but different types of collaboration and initiatives.  Thank you.  
>> JORDAN CARTER: Brilliant.  Thank you, Cheryl.  The next panelists is Yoichi Iida.
If we can have him on the screen. 
>> Yoichi Iida: (Echo) 
(Distorted audio) 
I'm trying.  But ‑‑ 
>> JORDAN CARTER: Yes, I think this is okay now.  
>> Yoichi Iida: (Echo) 
It is a great honor to see you here in the closing panel.  I always pay a lot of respect to the activities by Asia‑Pacific regional IGF because it is always active and lively and many people are joining in a very future‑looking discussion.  We are actually learning quite a lot from APrIGF.  I will tell you why we host global IGF this year in Japan. 
Actually that started in the year 2016 when we hosted the previous G7 meeting in our country.  
At that time, we hosted G7 I.T. ministry meeting, which was the first ICT or digital Ministers meeting in the history of G7.  And the Ministers discussed the importance of free flow of information across borders.  Improving security for promotion of innovation.  How to achieve SDGs.  How to achieve inclusive development of the society through ICT technologies and we Ministers all agreed the importance of multistakeholder approach to realize all those policy objectives together.  
And our Government ministry recognized once again the importance of Internet Governance Forum.  Of course, we knew it, but the opportunity renewed our recognition.  That was one of the most important reasons for us, for our ministry, for our Government to host IGF here in Japan, here in Asia, and to show the importance of this Forum and how this important Forum is working efficiently.  
So ... we ‑‑ this is most important objective for us to host IGF in Kyoto.  As host country we fully understand the content and the discussions proposed, designed and implemented by multistakeholder participants.  But we are very happy to prepare the venue.  We are very happy with the program organized (?) and leadership panel this year.  Which is Internet we want empowering other people.  And associated with eight subthemes. 
So we (echo) are very eager to support all participants from around the world, in particular from the Asia‑Pacific Regions to discuss your challenges, your efforts and your requirements together with different communities from different Regions.  And also from the people from Japan.  
One of the objectives for our Government is also to activate the Japanese Internet community.  Especially in promoting the discussion from Internet Governance. 
We have of course a lot of people working actively in this field for long time.  But the number is very much limited and we always see lack of young people in (?)  
That is what we want to learn and import from Asia‑Pacific activity into Japanese community and IGF will be opportunity for us for Japanese community.  (Echo) 
If I want to answer the question by Jordan, Moderator, when the Government policy is overbearing, how other stakeholders can show their engagement.  (Echo) 
In the beginning, as a member of Government, I would say Government needs to be moderate in policymaking.  Only Government cannot promote the Internet Governance alone.  We need to make it in (echo) for co‑regulation and sometimes we call that approach.  (Echo) 
As some of you may know, Japanese Government has been promoting some policy Agenda called data free flow trust.  Or AI global (?) (Echo) 
This approach or correlated approach is underlying basis of those policy in digital policy field (echo) And we would propose other stakeholders to voice out your challenges, your requirement, your hopes, so that the Government can listen and learn from and even take them into actions in policy measures.  (Echo) That is the way to realize and promote correlated and multistakeholder approach in this field. 
I stop there.  This, I believe, will be very important opportunity for all of us (echo) and mentioned by the Moderator in the beginning, we are heading for WSIS+20 review process.  And I believe the common objective for us is how we can protect and even promote strengthen this multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance.  (Echo) in 2025 and beyond. 
Thank you very much.  I look forward to the discussion.  Thank you.  
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you very much Yoichi Iida.  I think we had a little bit of echo here in the room.  We might need to ask you if there is a second account or speakers going, perhaps you could mute that for the next session.  Thank you.  
Our fourth speaker in the panel is Vivien Maidaborn.  Over to you.  
>> Vivien Maidaborn: Thank you, Jordan.  I want to start with a proverb from New Zealand.  My country.  It has been on my mind over these days.  So (No English translation). 
Look to the past in order to move forward.  Several times as I have been listening about multistakeholderism, Paul this morning did a beautiful reflection about WSIS didn't invent a multistakeholder context, but rather discovered it by talking with people about the Internet and figuring out what had worked.  I thought this proverb captured that so well. 
So this is my first‑ever Internet Governance Forum regional or otherwise.  And I think I was invited to be on this panel because I know nothing.  And everything I have got to say is kind of a real‑time reflection for what I have seen over these few days.  
So the first thing I wanted to comment on was Asia‑Pacific Region.  And just to applaud the diversity of voices, the energy, the youth leadership.  Wow, that has been such a feature of this gathering.  And the call to action I heard from those conversations was if this Region is diverse as we are, as developing, as so‑called developed, as urbanized, as rural, the Indigenous power movements within this region, the connectivity or still struggling to be connected.  If across all of these diversities we can find the core messages we want to take globally, not only will we be heard, but we will create maps for other Regions.  So that was my first reflection as I was thinking about this final panel. 
You know, once I read a book called the answer to how is yes.  It was written by a man named Peter Block who wouldn't read a book with that kind of title.  The basic tenet was the questions we ask is more important than the answers we bring. 
I love that when I heard in one much the panels this is a gathering of decision‑makers, not decisions.  It focuses on the exploration rather than on the decision.  Ongoing deeper with the question rather than jumping to the first logical answer.  
Wow, did I even hear some questions?  How do we move beyond trust and into an exploration of accountability?  How do we confront and invite the issues of inclusion and disability rights?  How do we explore and deepen what is possible regionally to share globally?  Yesterday at the Town Hall, I heard a really passionate plea for us to focus on human‑centers design and Internet innovation.  To the extent that we have influence as people involved in Internet Governance, to watch for the consequences of innovation that further marginalize, exclude or belittle people, especially already marginalized groups. 
All these multifaceted and deep questions we can respond to nationally, regionally and globally.  So what a privilege to be involved in Internet Governance from that point of view.  
A question that I heard or a statement I heard at the previous Town Hall was something like ‑‑ I haven't got this quote exact.  But you know, I live in the protocol of the Internet Governance level of the Internet.  When will we stop being distracted by what's new and apply ourselves to this level because no one else will?  
I really felt like that are a call to action.  There are other Forums I can talk about AI or cyber security, but there are no other Forums that are really as a priority focusing on Internet Governance.  
I heard a lot of offerings at this gathering on how we could do Internet Governance better.  And in fact, I thought that was one of the main inquiries of the workshops I went to.  Can we reflect on who is being included and who is being excluded?  This has come up time and time again in relation to this.  How does connectivity work or not work and who does that include?  Um ... the online experience compared to the in‑person experience.  How do we keep innovating and improving in that space?  Inclusion, access and deeper still, whose voice do we value?  Whose do we not?  Those seems to be the process improvement calls that you made about Internet Governance.  
We heard examples of new forms of multistakeholder groups including the call that my colleagues of Internet New Zealand have been involved with. 
And participating in the Pacific track listening to Janice who is here at our opening.  It became clear to me that one of the challenges of Internet Governance is some core paradoxes of the space. 
In the New Zealand context, we would listen to the first people of our land.  The Mali people that are partners in the Treaty of Government.  Here we were introduced to the first Indigenous fellows.  One of the paradoxes that residing and listening to Indigenous People is how do we listen deeply, locally?  
And then act?  Nationally, regionally, globally, how do we go beyond the listening and the representing those voices but rather bringing those voices with us?  Which comes back to who do we include and how do we exclude?  The paradox of more and more connectivity in some places and slow and patchy access for others across the Region.  And even within countries is another paradox.  
I was struck by the insights a heard about the need for Internet Governance to focus on minimizing harm and maximizing openness and inclusion.  But you know, the thing I found hardest to hear and to know how to kind of write a list for was what is Internet Governance?  (Chuckling) 
And so here's a little brainstorm my colleagues and I have been having over this time.  We just can't miss out the work of the multistakeholder approach as Internet Governance.  And I think in response to Jordan's call question here, you know, what do we need to do to bring our thinking together, the thing I'm taking home is a call to action is how to we Internet New Zealand do that really well in New Zealand?  How do we involve our community in strong multistakeholder conversations?  
I want to acknowledge the paper on the Roadmap and the APNIC blog and other work.  There was much to learn here in preparation to coming to this gathering.  Certainly, what I have got is a sense of urgency that I didn't have previous to coming here.  You know that this is something that is time framed, and I, you know, I have not really had a sense of that prior to now.  I love the idea that the Kyoto Internet Governance Forum is just around the corner.  And there will be opportunity to follow up quickly and already making connections with people to do that. 
So that is certainly Internet Governance.  Universality and the Internet is certainly Internet Governance.  Such a powerful policy project that addressed the inclusion of all people.  Corruption turned up on the radar as an Internet Governance issue.  Somebody said the last bastion on interoperability.  Regulation and digital policy from Governments that might affect the Internet.  And we have been talking about fragmentation, what an awesome session that was.  The balance and role of name supporting organizations like Internet New Zealand.  And responding to online HAM.  What is it?  How do we figure that out in the balance of an open, safe Internet?  
Perhaps most importantly, I want to come back how in our own countries does this work build our muscles for multistakeholder processes?  And how do we then bring that learning and our culture differences here so we know how to put it into a cross‑cultural space?  How do we build cross‑cultural competence?  
I have found myself over these days reflecting on other human rights movements I've been part of and the importance of citizenship voice.  And I have also heard how fast the environment is changing and how hard Civil Society is finding it to just keep up.  Let alone organize, synthesize key messages and everything.  I want to think about on in terms of how Internet Governance can improve this conversation about multistakeholderism.  
So I want to complete returning to the many from the beginning.  (No English translation) 
You know, that invites our ancestors into the room and invites the people who have been before as well as those future leaders and kind of whips it into a spiral where the energy of hope and continuing learning is present. 
So on that note, I will complete.  
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you, Vivien.  And thank you actually to all four of the panelists.  You put a fascinating array of angles of this question on the table. 
Some themes I picked out ‑‑ of course it will not do justice to the richness of what you said.  An interesting double take on diversity.  Right?  Internet Governance is diverse.  It might be about shaping policy.  It might be about collaboration like this.  Or deep thinking events like the IGF.  And Governance needs diversity to fulfill and being attentive to the voices in the room and the voices that are not.  And being attentive to how we listen.  Because it is one thing for the voices to be offered.  To be spoken.  But how do we make sure we actually listen deeply and engage with it?  
And another theme that has come through not just in your remarks but more broadly is what are we here to governor?  What is the subject matter of Internet Governance?  Do we need to broaden it because the Internet connects with everything and it is a system beyond Internet Governance.  Or narrow it to get focus and attention on those names and numbers or the plumbing or tech, however you want to describe it. 
The third one is a sense of the journey, the storytelling around the Internet and how it has come to be evoked by a number of people.  So I think that's a fascinating set of things which reflecting on it, you can connect to the question of how do we raise our voice?  We do it by collaborating and existing in new ways.  And what to say, I think, from this Region as from others, would be diversity is paramount.  And building processes that listen is paramount.  Because otherwise, multistakeholderism is just a ladle.  It is ‑‑ it loses its reality.  
So with those Moderator comments, can we do another quick round?  Because we have enough time for a few responses from each of you to the other's comments or mine, if you like.  Anyone got anything they would like to add at this point?  
Vivien?  
>> Vivien Maidaborn: I wanted to call ought Yoichi's comment about respect.  I loved what you said about, you know, you love the Internet Governance because it is lively, active and brings forward those diverse views.  And I wonder whether that in itself isn't a strategy for how we bring forward the importance of the multistakeholder environment.  You know that the voice we use is a respectful and respected voice.  How do we add power to that?  
As Yoichi was speaking, I was thinking that feels important.  
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thanks, Vivien.  Paul, do you have any reflections on what you are hearing. 
>> Paul Wilson: I think it is about communications respect.  The ordeal of cost of working not just with Government but with any of our partners, anyone we want to partner with, part of our Mission as a mentioned, on behalf of the community, is to represent needs and help to see them met.  That needs a base of understanding.  It means communication and to some degree education in some sense at the same time.  
So it is not a complaint.  It is just that is just what we have to do.  In working with anyone that needs to understand this environment, our role, the roles of others.  That is going to go on.  But I think the language of clear language and clear language of respect are absolutely critical.  Language is interesting.  I said it earlier.  At the Australian IGF day at the beginning of the week, Governance is a tricky term.  I really wish back in the first early days we had realized how tricky it was.  Because Governance in English is quite an abstract term of something it moderates or helps to maintain the pace or to moderate some function.  It doesn't need to be Governmental.  But in many translations, Internet Governance Institute can only ‑‑ Governance can only be done by Government.  It is strange, isn't it to talk about a multistakeholder process that is something by definition a Governmental one.  
I think the better term is cooperation.  Rather than digital Governance.  That requires cooperation.  Vivien makes a really good point there.  Um ... 
APrIGF, it's a little rough around the edges.  It is a best effort and actually cooperation and coordination do cost.  So I give praise to the Secretariat for the ongoing work.  It is much more than that.  Despite it is bottom‑up, unchoreographed not a produced event.  It is a low‑cost event in terms of wanting to make it as accessible as possible.  So many people have been involved with that and have contributed to it.  I do also want to in case I don't get the chance, I want to acknowledge that role and how it is fantastic here.  The changes that happened in Australia over the last decade, again, it is a fact of life.  There is pretty serious changes.  The Government dropped the ball in a lot of ways on these discussions.  AuDA was out for a while and glad to have them back.  Congratulations to auDA for all they did with this event.  They can see clearly.  I'm sure any new to auDA can see how important this stuff is.  
I have three takeaways from this event.  I think we have recognized in a lot of ways here, again, there are many different Governance problems.  Some are new.  Is it a very good, interesting comment about why we keep getting distracted by the new from the old, no matter how old the old is.  That is an important thing for us to all notice.  The new things are shiny, sparkly or seem challenging or interesting.  We can forget about the old. 
Some of the newer things do require different solutions.  Some of them don't.  So particularly with emerging technologies, we may have what we need to properly address those without suddenly seeing them as something that requires reinvention of the wheel.  The variety of Governance problems is something I think we just ‑‑ Governance challenges is something we recognized here.  It is really a sign of the times, things getting more diverse and complex and speeding up.  More pressure to do more things even if some we should say no to. 
The voice of the technical community I spoke about this morning.  As we move along particularly the emerging and new technologies.  Despite the underlying is a mistake.  The risk of making big decisions on now technologies that could cut through the infrastructure.  Through the layers of the Internet and cause fragmentation at the deepest layers, which is something that will affect not only whatever it is that is the target of that particular change but will affect everything that relies on the Internet.  That is really important not to take the Internet for granted at that basic level. 
I said earlier, I think we call this network the Internet.  It will change.  Tell go on changing.  But if we allow it to, entropy and fragmentation takes, however.  We still have something we call the Internet, but in fact we may not have the Internet as we know it today in terms of its critical core functions and features and definitions. 
And I think, you know, the last one is simply as I said before, the youth and new leadership that is in the room and it is coming in is very important not to forget ‑‑ for us all not to forget lessons learned, but the way to do that is translate those lessons effectively and sincerely and openly to the next generation.  Let them help us to as an older generation let them help us and ask them to help us solve those issues. 
It has been a very rich week on the role of everyone in this room, one component of APrIGF is the synthesis document, which is collectively edited consensus of what is said and shared this week.  It is open for participation.  We can hear more about this in the closing, I encourage everyone to take a look and see what is missing from your point of view in terms of that document and how well it reflects where we are today, what we have done this week.  It will be important to take that straight to Kyoto in a month or so's time.  I will leave it there. 
>> JORDAN CARTER: We have a county down ‑‑ countdown clock.  For Yoichi Iida and then Cheryl.  Vivien?  
>> Vivien Maidaborn: The call that is the greatest influence is dive into the exploration of what multistakeholder means in our own environments at home.  And then how we bring that into the Forums we have.  So that is certainly in my mind as we close.  
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you very much.  Yoichi Iida do you have any closing remarks. 
>> Yoichi Iida: Thank you.  I hope I don't have echo anymore.  Cannot answer all the questions, but I want to emphasize the importance of diversity.  Asia is so ‑‑ Asia embraces huge diversity which we believe is a source of innovation, source of energy.  Source of growth.  And we ‑‑ when Government are discussing policymaking in this field we are always finding, even now we are continuously finding the differences in the policies and backgrounds.  You know, each concern, not only limited to the Asian countries, but also individual countries and the Regions have different histories, different backgrounds, different cultures.  Different stages of the development.  All this different backgrounds require Government to formulate a difference policymaking in this field.  Especially digital policy affect all the different aspect and element of the society.  We need to understand the individual country, individual societies have differences.  And from that point of view we are not pursuing harmonization of the policy.  Harmonization of the Governance.  But as Paul pointed out, we need to work with Governance framework regulations or whatever. 
So ... in order to pursue interoperability we need mutual recognition, mutual understanding, mutual respect.  It is very important.  And to do that we need communication, to deepen communication between different players.  Not only between Government, but between different stakeholders.  That would be very important.  And that is the real value of multistakeholder.  And I don't know how to strengthen this very valuable approach.  But I have very strong belief that we need to protect and promote this.  Thank you very much. 
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you very much Yoichi Iida.  Cheryl to you.  
>> Cheryl Seeto: Again for me, the things that have come out, the importance of voice, diversity, respect.  I think to be honest I have had challenges conversations and had people come up to me and raise some of their concerns about tech platforms and the way that we moderate content and respond to concerns from Civil Society around issues like human rights and so on.  I do want to acknowledge the conversations and thank people who did come up and have those with me.  I think it is important to not just have voice but to listen and not just go into some of the things they mentioned in my opening presentation as a box‑ticking exercise or say we have done it.  We have consulted with diverse grouped and consulted with people with lived experience.  But to take on the conversations, take them away and genuinely go into the conversations with an intent to listen and improve ourselves.  Certainly that is the approach we take with the work.  We form Advisory Groups and keep them current, because we want the conversation to be open and say what did we do right?  What can we do to continue to improve.  Taking that learning from Meta and as the amazing event comes to a close we have had robust conversations over the last few days.  I think we are privileged. I feel to have come together.  Some people from far around the world and some an hour away in Sydney but not just have the conversations, go away and do the same thing.  Even if it is just picking low‑hanging fruit to nudge towards an improved digital landscape, it makes this worthwhile.  Those are reflections and main takeaways.  Thanks, Jordan. 
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you, Cheryl.  And thank you to the entire panel for a set of insights.  There is an action for all of us in this, it is as we go home to think about how we act on this in our day‑to‑day lives and roles.  Whether it is listening better.  Expanding the diversity or raising our voices on the issues that we care about.  Let's do more of it.  Thank you very much.  
(Applause)
Panelists are free to go.  We will do a brief video interlude.  Who saw the drone on Tuesday night at the cocktail function?  We had a videographer on‑site.  We put it in a lovely video with inspiring views and music ready to share on YouTube to share to promote APrIGF for those that might attend next time.  If you are speaking in the closing remarks, come up to the stage.  You know who you are if you are speaking.  For now, let's roll that video.  
(Captioned video) 
(Cheers and applause) 
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you for that.  Share that on your socials as we go.  I have already introduced myself.  Won't do that again.  It is my honor to be the emcee for the closing ceremony for APrIGF 2023.  We have a number of closing speakers and comments.  We have a speaker that will speak.  Over to you.  You will need to unmute yourself.  Yoichi Iida, over to you.  
>> Yoichi Iida: I am from Japanese Ministry of Internal affairs and communications.  I'm honored to take this role of introducing the Kyoto IGF coming in October.  
In the beginning, I want to thank for the interlude video which brought me a lot of passions in Asia‑Pacific regional IGF over the last four days.  And I now fully understand I missed something very important. 
But I hope to join you next year.  But before that, I hope you join us in Kyoto in October. 
In Kyoto, I don't go into the details of the programs but of course, we are preparing hundreds of sessions according to the main theme and the eight subtopics.  I believe all those sessions are selected by MAG and other relevant people which will bring you a lot of information, lot of challenges, information updated current situation in digital world including connectivity, digitalization, or even AI.  And we alongside the substantive discussions in those sessions, we are also preparing for some opportunities for experience of Japanese cultures.  Such as tea ceremony or flower arrangement or whatever.  
So please come and join us in person.  And please experience of course the updated issues and challenges and even the potential solutions on Internet Governance topics.  But at the same time enjoy Japanese culture and society in and around Kyoto.  We would be very happy and honored to welcome all of you very soon in Kyoto in October.  Thank you very much. 
See you -– hopefully, see you soon again.  
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you very much Yoichi Iida.  Our next speaker in the closing remarks is my colleague the Chief executive of auDA, Rosemary Sinclair.  Please come make closing remarks.  
>> Rosemary Sinclair: Thank you very much.  I will start by saying wow.  Over 40 sessions.  Over 250 people here, and over one thousand Zoom sessions and that included nine hub connections if you like, for example, Universities spread throughout the Asia‑Pacific Region.  We have had an amazing time.  A fantastic set of events.  One contribution I will always recall came from the Pacific IGF that I was fortunate enough to attend.  The comment is this.  We make our decisions to support our values, community, family, faith.  And we at auDA do the same.  Do our work through our values.  Our values to share with you are to contribute locally, globally, to do things better together.  And to strive for excellence.  And those values really underpin our commitment to champion the multistakeholder model.  
The living heart of the multistakeholder Internet Governance system is the exchange of individuals between stakeholder groups from different Sectors, different countries, different geographies, different traditions and different identities.  And we have seen so much of that this week.  I really want to celebrate it.  I use the word "exchange" because sometimes we see it only as about dialogue.  It isn't just dialogue.  Important as that is, as necessary as that is, for sharing information, for sharing understanding, for exploration, for inspiration.  But it is also about finding solutions to common problems.  It is about each of us making decisions to support our communities.  It is about inventing new technologies and thinking about ways to use existing ones even better.  It is about working out ways to tackle the problems that use of the Internet has given rise to.  
Be they as close to us as DNS abuse or as disbursed and difficult as disinformation.  
It is about determining our voice and being ready to share it beyond the Region and all around the world.  To that end, I'm so delighted to see the progress made in the synthesis document throughout the course of the week and our incredibly engaged Town Hall sessions.  AuDA is passionate about the multistakeholder Internet Governance system because it is the right one to shape the Internet's future.  We're also passionate as you would have heard this week about making it better.  We have published ideas about improvements in the weeks before this event.  And I know there have been discussions on the Internet Governance system during the event.  We have a shared responsibility.  A responsibility to be good stewards of the Internet and how it evolves.  To keep improving the system of Governance, to keep improving it so it can deliver the Internet we all need and want.  And to make sure that whatever part of our Region we're from, we support each other to lift our voice and to make sure we're heard in charting the Internet's future.  We know there are other ideas that will replace the vibrant Government we have now with the politics of the Intergovernmental system.  
Our Region, the Asia‑Pacific should raise its voice loud and strong against such changes.  Let's shape the multistakeholder Internet Governance system and together make it even better. 
Let's all use our support for the multistakeholder exchange and what we have learned from each other this week to find each of us one new thing to do.  An action to take away from this week's exchange, to support our communities and our aspiration for delivering prosperity and social good.  The action I am thinking of for auDA focuses on values of contributing and doing our work better together.  Let me close by thanking you all once again for making the journey to Brisbane whether it has been through the air, across the sea or through your screens.  We at auDA have been delighted to be your hosts.  I hope you found the week constructive, inspiring and a little bit of fun.  On behalf of all of us as local hosts we hope you a farewell, safe journey home and good luck with your one new thing.  
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you very much Rosemary.  Our next speaker today is the Chair of the Asia‑Pacific youth IGF Committee.  Luke Teoh.  Please, your remarks.  
>> Luke Teoh: Hello, my name is Luke Teoh Chair of the youth Internet Governance Forum Committee.  I would like to thank our sincere appreciation for being given this opportunity to share a brief overview of what this year's installment of the Asia‑Pacific YIGF has achieved.  I would like to thank the fellows that took the initiative to join many of our sessions, to stay connected with the next gen and make sure the youths' voice is heard throughout the community.  I would also like to thank the amazing online participants that have joined us through different time zones and contributed to the APrIGF synthesis document and the Town Hall sessions.  
On a special note, I would like to thank the United Nations IGF Secretariat for entrusting the youth with the task of leading the youth Internet Governance community.  This empowers all of us, the youth, stakeholders of different Regions and leaders of the A‑Pac Region to remain.  Need for new blood remains.  Two key terms surfaced offer often through IGF and YIGF.  This underscores the need for bidirectional flows of learning through present and future.  The key takeaways include but not limited to insights from the panel discussion, meet up with industry experts and A‑Pac leader dialogue.  And the participants crafting their own youth policy statements and the youth voice in the synthesis document.  Once again, proving the next gen are producing tangible outputs that signify the interests in building a better Internet.  Not by chance but by design as everyone in this room should.  It must be noted that support from all stakeholders is essential in ensuring the youth continues to be properly integrated into the Internet Governance ecosystem.  Hence, I would like to utilize this opportunity to urge everyone in our community to combine the efforts and ensure the youth are included in all levels to make sure the youth are part of the movement to make the Internet a better place truly for everyone. 
If you take anything from my sharing now let it be these seven words.  Nothing for the youth without the youth.  Thank you.  
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you very much Luke.  It is now my pleasure to introduce Ashirwad Tripathy the Vice‑Chair of the steering group of the IGF.  He has a bit of news to share, I believe.  
>> Ashirwad Tripathy: I'm Vice‑Chair of the multistakeholder steering group.  First I want to pay my respect to the First Nations people of the Asia‑Pacific Region and the disability community.  On behalf of the Chair I would like to extend my thanks to our host auDA.  Sponsor, partners and Committee members, Secretariat, participants online and on‑site and wonderful fellows that added value to the Forum.  My special appreciation goes to Jim Hopkins from reliability for supporting our fellows with disability and for providing your services for free.  And also to those that connected us with them.  Thank you.  It means a lot to us.  They deserve a round of applause.  
During this four days of intensive discussion and events, I'm sure most of you have takeaways.  I made a list.  I will share it with you now.  Please don't be bored.  Firstly, the Asia‑Pacific Region needs to leverage the full potential of intergenerational solidarity, respect and understanding to create an equitable collaboration and partnerships.  It is the only way to achieve SDGs and ensure no one is left behind. 
Technology is free of prejudice or favor.  What use we make of it depends upon the way we governor it.  That is the reason the multistakeholder model of Governance is so important.  It was said this is like a sharp knife, you can cut vegetables to ease or use it to hurt people.  From putting people at the center of IG discussions to discussing emerging technologies we have come a long way this year.  Are we ready for the next phase of Internet?  I'm sure we are.  Yet so much is still to be done.  We have to work as a community for a better future and the way forward is accepting diversity and practicing empathy. 
APrIGF every two years the role changes, I would like to welcome new members to join MSG.  As a community united ensure the Internet remains a force for good and makes society better.  Let's think about our children and their children's children.  As Helen Keller said we can do so little alone.  Together we can do so much.  That's it.  I'm done.  Not so long, right?  
Now, it is time for announcement.  We have an independent election Committee who have been working hard behind the scene to make sure we have fair and transparent election.  I want to thank the election Committee for the hard work behind the scenes.  Due to technical reasons we will rerun the Vice‑Chair election.  We have a new Chair now.  Before I announce her, I will take the opportunity to thank our champion. Anju stand up.  I would say give her a hand, but everybody did it.  You will get it as well.  She's always been a motivation for me, because I know behind the scenes a lot of hard things and stress.  She's always able to put a beautiful smile on her face.  Trust me, you will be part of the team for a long time.  Let's give a round of applause for the incoming Chair.  Amrita Choudhury.  Both are instrumental in motivating women across the Region to engage in more of this important discussion.  To you Amrita Choudhury, the boss.  
>> Amrita Choudhury: Thank you Ashirwad Tripathy.  And thank you everyone, looking forward to working with you to make APrIGF grow from strength to strength.  Thank you so much.  
Finally next year's host from Brisbane to Taipei.  I will call Nicole Chan up.
thank you so much.  
>> Nicole Chan: Good afternoon everyone.  I'm Nicole Chan from Taiwan.  As we come to the closing of APrIGF 2023 I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to each one of you for being a part of this incredible event, especially thanks to the organizer auDA and Asia and all the sponsors.  Today is not just the closing of APrIGF 2023 in Brisbane but celebrating what we have achieved with our collective efforts to further exploring the diversity of Internet Governance.  And this is a remarkable achievement for our entire community of Asia‑Pacific. 
Amongst the closing I'm truly honored to address you today on behalf of the co‑located event that we have successfully had the opportunity to host APrIGF 2024 in the vibrant City of Taipei.  This achievement is our shared commitment from Taiwan to shaping the future of the Internet together with all of you within the A‑Pac Region.  
Taipei with the fugue of ‑‑ fusion of innovation, diverse cultures and activity provides the setting for dialogues and partnerships while we focused on the discussions of APrIGF 2023, I extend an open invitation to each one of you are to join us in Taipei for APrIGF 2024 in Taipei you will find open arms, topnotch facilities and promising and exceptional experience.  And your insights, expertise and collaborations and contributions will be the driving force behind the success of this first coming event.  I will show you where we will be for the APrIGF 2024 in Taipei.  Let's see the video.  
(Captioned video)
(Applause)
>> Nicole Chan: Thank you for watching.  I eagerly anticipate you joining us for APrIGF 2024.  Thank you very much.  See you all in Taipei next year.  
>> JORDAN CARTER: Thank you very much Nicole.  Look, in finally wrapping up, I will give a couple more reminders about two things.  The parliamentary track in preparation for the IGF is underway at the other end of the Convention center on this floor P10 and 11.  You're welcome.  All of the sessions are open today and tomorrow.  You can join them in person or online. 
The second reminder is that as of not that many minutes ago, we had 78 comments so far on the synthesis Document 2023.  That is great.  You still have more time to do it until September 3, which I think is Sunday.  I may get confused.  Sunday.  Sunday isn't that far away.  Let's get that comment count up. 
Finally, from us, this work matters.  You know, doing the gathering is the multistakeholder model at work.  We learn, we grow we make new connections, it is our honor at auDA to host you.  We are glad you came.  Thank you for your participation.  I hope you have a safe trip home wherever that may be.  It is my honor to declare APrIGF 2023 officially closed.  
(Concluded)

This text, document or file is based on live transcription.   Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), captioning, and/or live transcription are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.  This text, document, or file is not to be distributed or used in any way that may violate copyright law.