Donor Principles for the Digital Age: Turning Principles int | IGF 2023 Open Forum #157

Augustin Willem Van Zwoll

During the discussion, the speakers conveyed their positive sentiments towards the USAID and IDRC, commending them for their high standard multi-stakeholder processes. These processes were praised for their ability to connect unconnected topics and tie them into rights agendas. This approach was seen as a commendable effort in promoting human rights and digital development programming.

Another key point raised by the speakers was the need for locally driven action in human rights-centered digital development. They emphasized the importance of adapting donor principles into more concrete tools that can be effectively utilized by local communities. The aim was to empower communities by providing them with practical and actionable frameworks to address inequalities and promote inclusive growth. To achieve this, the speakers expressed their intention to collaborate with fellow members and share best practices to investigate how donor principles can be effectively applied at the local level.

Moreover, the speakers also discussed the integration of various components, including development work, digitalization, connectivity, security, and good governance. Particularly, there was a strong emphasis on integrating cybersecurity tools and good governance for the unconnected third of the world. The need for this integration was driven by the realization that connectivity and digital development can only be truly beneficial when accompanied by secure and stable environments. Combining cybersecurity measures with good governance practices aims to ensure a safe and reliable digital environment for the unconnected population.

To summarise, the speakers exhibited a positive outlook towards the USAID and IDRC’s multi-stakeholder processes, highlighting their ability to connect diverse topics to rights agendas. They also emphasized the importance of locally driven action and the adaptation of donor principles into practical tools for communities. Furthermore, the integration of cybersecurity tools and good governance was recognized as crucial for supporting digital development and connectivity in the unconnected regions of the world.

Audience

The discussion centres around the challenge of integrating human rights principles into the operations of donor governments and foundations without imposing additional burdens on grantees and implementing partners. The main concern is to find ways to incorporate these principles effectively without causing excessive workload or duplication of effort. This is particularly important for donor agencies like 4USAID and IDRC.

Another key aspect highlighted in the discussion is the need for a broader understanding of digital security and resilience. It is argued that a more comprehensive understanding of these concepts would facilitate their integration into the work with grantees, going beyond emergency training for specific actors. This would ensure that digital security and resilience become embedded in the programmatic activities of organizations.

Within this context, the Ford Foundation is praised as a good example of a donor that takes a holistic approach to digital security and safety. Their approach includes building capacity in their grants, considering economic, social, and cultural aspects of digital security. This indicates a commitment to comprehensive and sustainable approaches to digital security.

The discussion also emphasises the need for more creativity in community outreach efforts. It is suggested that organizations should go beyond reaching out to the usual suspects and actively include communities that are commonly marginalized. By adopting a bottom-up approach and collaborating with private foundations, organizations can enhance their outreach efforts and have a greater impact.

Moreover, it is argued that the principles of donors should not only be used to guide their funding decisions but should also serve to facilitate the transfer of funds without imposing excessive bureaucratic measures. The objective is to ensure that funds are efficiently distributed to those in need, without unnecessary delays or obstacles.

Concerns are raised about the potential funding uncertainty following the potential withdrawal of support by Open Society Foundations. It is noted that Open Society Foundations have been major contributors to human rights and digital rights organizations, particularly in global majority countries. Smaller organizations in these countries may face challenges in securing alternative funding sources to sustain their important work.

Furthermore, the discussion highlights the existence of countries where strong civil societies are lacking, resulting in prevalent digital human rights violations. Ratilo from Botswana draws attention to this issue, advocating for financial and legal assistance to protect individuals from such violations. He shares his own experience as a member of parliament, expressing a willingness to take legal action against his government over such violations, despite the financial constraints involved.

In conclusion, the discussion revolves around finding effective ways to integrate human rights principles into the operations of donor governments and foundations. It emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive understanding of digital security and resilience, along with practical mechanisms and tools to align strategies with these principles. The potential withdrawal of support by Open Society Foundations and the need to support civil society and digital rights organizations are also highlighted. Notably, the discussion highlights the challenges faced by countries lacking strong civil societies in combating prevalent digital human rights violations.

Vera Zakem

The donor principles, which have received the official endorsement of 38 member governments of the Freedom Online Coalition, play a crucial role in establishing an international framework for donor accountability. These principles also align with the ethical obligations of donors to ensure that their actions do not cause harm. Additionally, the donor governments have committed themselves to implementing procedures that protect local partners and communities from the potential misuse of digital technologies and data.

However, despite these commitments, the annual Freedom on the Net report released by Freedom House paints a concerning picture. The report reveals that global internet freedom has experienced a decline for the 13th consecutive year. This decline raises concerns about the state of digital rights and the potential threats faced by individuals and communities worldwide.

Nevertheless, there is an argument put forth that it is possible to achieve digital transformation without compromising digital rights. This argument highlights the importance of prioritising safety and security in addressing these issues. Donor governments are believed to better fulfil their mandate when they place safety and security at the heart of their approach to digital transformation.

Overall, these findings emphasize the importance of safeguarding international assistance from digital repression and upholding digital rights throughout the process of digital transformation. This requires a comprehensive and ethical approach that takes into account the potential harm caused by the misuse of digital technologies and data.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali

During the discussion, several important points were raised by the speakers. The breakout groups were organized around internal and external components, with each group focusing on a different question. This structure allowed for a comprehensive exploration of the various aspects and perspectives related to the topic at hand.

The inclusion of online groups in the discussions was widely supported, with a commitment made to involve them in the conversation. This recognition of the importance of diversity and inclusivity in decision-making processes aligns with the goal of reducing inequalities (SDG 10).

One of the participants, Lisa Poggiali, expressed appreciation for the idea of clarifying roles among stakeholders and partners. This notion of clearly defining responsibilities and actions of different actors is seen as valuable in fostering more effective collaboration and accountability in digital development. Poggiali also advocated for concrete commitments and actions by individual governments within their legal and strategic frameworks.

In moving forward, Poggiali suggested the development of toolkits as the next step in implementing the Freedom Online Coalition. These toolkits would provide specific guidance and resources for different stakeholders, including civil society, diplomats, and development actors. This approach aims to empower and equip these actors with the necessary tools to promote digital freedom and security.

Concerns were raised regarding the uncertain landscape of donor funding. The indication that Open Society Foundations may decrease their funding for various organizations has raised questions about the future financial support for initiatives and projects in the digital rights sphere. It was mentioned that statutory donors often provide larger grants, but it is more challenging to secure their support for smaller organizations.

On a positive note, the potential for partnerships between the private sector and donors in addressing digital security issues was highlighted. Private sector organisations often possess more financial resources than traditional donors, making them valuable allies in efforts to enhance digital security.

The need for greater synergy between conversations about human rights and traditional cybersecurity was emphasised. It was acknowledged that these discussions have been somewhat siloed in the past, and there is a desire to bridge this gap and integrate human rights and democratic values into cybersecurity practices. The Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Microsoft, and the government of Sweden were mentioned as entities already working towards mainstreaming digital security with a focus on human rights and democratic values.

The discussion also shed light on the silo effect in conversations about democracy and human rights in technology. These topics have often been isolated from broader global technology discussions, limiting the potential for comprehensive and integrated approaches. The Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Bureau at USAID and other donors have recognised this issue and are actively seeking ways to address it.

The importance of supporting civil society in countries where they lack leverage or resources to hold governments accountable for human rights violations was emphasised. In some instances, digital human rights violations occur, but there is no strong civil society to protect the interests of the community. Additionally, the cost of taking legal action against the government can be prohibitive for individual members of society. Therefore, it was argued that support should be provided to these civil society organisations to empower them to advocate for human rights and hold governments accountable.

The speakers concluded by urging donors to heed the call to support civil societies. The principles discussed throughout the conversation can serve as a foundation for addressing critical human rights issues. Collaboration and support among stakeholders and partners are crucial in achieving the goals set forth in the discussion.

Overall, the detailed discussion highlighted the need for inclusivity, clarity, and collaboration in the digital development sphere. By involving diverse voices, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and fostering partnerships, the participants aim to create a more secure and inclusive digital environment that upholds human rights and promotes sustainable development.

Shannon Green

The Donor Principles for Human Rights in the Digital Age have been developed and endorsed by 38 member governments of the Freedom Online Coalition. Shannon Green, an advocate for digital rights and freedom, applauds this development, stating that the principles serve as a crucial blueprint to protect individuals’ rights in the digital world.

Green highlights the significance of partnership between donors and various stakeholders, including government, civil society, and the private sector. She believes that donors have much to learn from their partners in different sectors and stresses the importance of collaboration in shaping the global digital ecosystem.

The principles are seen as a means to promote safer and more secure environments for partners and local communities. By equipping safeguards, donors can ensure the equitable distribution of programs, addressing concerns of accountability and reducing inequalities.

Green also expresses enthusiasm for the Open Government Partnership’s prioritisation of digital governance. She believes that this focus will result in improved transparency of public oversight of artificial intelligence and data processing systems. Green cites remarkable progress made under the commitments of the Open Government Partnership.

In conclusion, Green perceives the Donor Principles for Human Rights in the Digital Age as a significant contribution to a digital future that respects rights, promotes democracy, and ensures equitable sharing of technology benefits. She urges other donor governments to make concrete commitments aligned with these principles. Overall, the principles are applauded for their potential to protect and uphold individual rights in our digital world while fostering collaboration and safeguarding the equitable distribution of technology benefits.

Moderator – Sidney Leclercq

During a panel discussion, speakers from various countries and organizations provided insights into the implementation of donor principles. The Netherlands, represented by Van Zalt, a Senior Policy Officer, expressed their commitment to incorporating these principles as they assume the chairship in 2024. Emphasizing the importance of localized knowledge and evidence at the Internet Governance Resource Centre (IGRC), Immaculate Kassai, the data protection commissioner from Kenya, highlighted the significance of considering diverse perspectives and contexts when implementing these principles.

Zach Lambell, a Senior Legal Advisor for the International Center for Nonprofit Law, outlined a comprehensive framework for implementing donor principles. He stressed the need for international, domestic, and technical approaches to effectively apply these principles to ensure their adherence across different jurisdictions and organizations.

Michael Karimian, the Director for Digital Diplomacy, Asia and the Pacific, at Microsoft, provided a private sector perspective on donor principles. He recognized the relevance and importance of these principles in promoting responsible and ethical practices within the digital realm.

Closing the panel discussion, Adrian DiGiovanni, the team leader on democratic and inclusive governance at IDRC, shared closing remarks to acknowledge the contributions of all participants and their valuable insights. The discussion emphasized the need for collaboration and cooperation among stakeholders to ensure the effective implementation of donor principles and to promote inclusive and democratic practices in Internet governance.

Overall, the panel discussion underscored the significance of implementing donor principles in different contexts. It highlighted the importance of localized knowledge, international collaboration, and private sector involvement for effectively implementing these principles.

Michael Karimian

The analysis of the various speakers’ viewpoints reveals several important points regarding the role of businesses and the need for certain practices in advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). One key point is the importance of businesses upholding international human rights norms and laws. Michael, who works on Microsoft’s digital diplomacy team, emphasises the need for responsible behaviour in cyberspace based on international law. This suggests that businesses should align their practices with established legal frameworks to ensure ethical conduct and protect human rights.

Transparency and accountability are highlighted as crucial aspects of businesses implementing human rights policies and grievance mechanisms. It is argued that companies should have publicly available human rights policies that are implemented by accountable teams. Additionally, businesses are encouraged to be transparent in their practices and engage with stakeholders while undertaking human rights due diligence. This approach ensures that businesses are open and receptive to feedback, allowing them to continuously improve their practices and address any potential violations of human rights.

The need for direct connections between businesses and local civil society stakeholders is also emphasised. Transnational private sector companies are often criticised for having weak connections with local communities. Platforms like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and organisations like Access Now are identified as potential facilitators in establishing and strengthening these connections. This suggests that businesses should actively engage with local stakeholders to ensure their operations align with local contexts and address the needs and concerns of the communities they operate in.

The importance of building products that align with human rights and democratic values is highlighted. Donors are encouraged to support products that incorporate “human rights by design” processes. This includes considering salient human rights risks such as privacy, accessibility, and responsible AI when developing new products. By prioritising human rights and democratic values in product development, businesses can contribute to building a more ethical and inclusive technological landscape.

The analysis also recognises the challenge and potential of professional codes of ethics for individuals, organisations, and institutions. It is acknowledged that incorporating ethical codes into university curricula can be difficult. However, continuous training for staff and access to experts within the company are identified as important interim steps. This indicates the importance of ongoing education and professional development to ensure that individuals and organisations are aware of ethical considerations and have the necessary tools to address them.

In the context of digital development and the SDGs, mainstreaming digital security is crucial for low- and middle-income countries. As these countries undergo digital transformation, the threat landscape for cybersecurity expands. Efforts by organisations such as the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Microsoft, and the government of Sweden are mentioned as initiatives aimed at addressing this issue. By prioritising digital security in the realm of digital development, low- and middle-income countries can mitigate risks and create a safer digital environment.

Lastly, it is argued that cybersecurity should be considered in the post-2030 agenda. The analysis does not provide additional details regarding this point, but it implies that cybersecurity is a significant concern that should be addressed in future planning beyond the current 2030 agenda.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the importance of businesses upholding international human rights norms and laws, being transparent and accountable in their practices, and engaging with local civil society stakeholders. It also emphasises the significance of building products that align with human rights and democratic values. The challenge and potential of professional codes of ethics are recognised, and the importance of mainstreaming digital security in digital development is underscored. Additionally, the analysis suggests that cybersecurity should be factored into the post-2030 agenda. These insights provide valuable considerations for businesses and policymakers in their efforts to achieve the SDGs while promoting ethical practices and protecting human rights.

Juan Carlos Lara Galvez

Juan Carlos Lara Galvez, a member of an organization working on digital rights in the global majority, specifically in Latin America, emphasises the importance of engaging with governments and donor governments. These entities provide vital funding for organizations like his that strive to safeguard digital rights. Juan Carlos strongly believes that interacting with governments and donor governments is crucial for the success and sustainability of their work.

Regarding donor principles, Juan Carlos stresses the significance of not only formulating principles but also ensuring their implementation through concrete steps and actions. He highlights that the true measure of success lies in how effectively these principles are translated into tangible outcomes. He acknowledges that while the formulation of donor principles is an inspiring beginning, it is essential to monitor their progress and evaluate their impact on the ground.

An important aspect that Juan Carlos advocates for is stakeholder involvement, participation, and the recognition of human rights in various contexts, including technological development. He is pleased to see that the donor principles acknowledge the need for coordination with stakeholders. Juan Carlos believes that donor governments should actively foster collaboration between different stakeholders to promote and protect human rights. By involving diverse perspectives and including all relevant parties, these issues can be addressed more effectively.

Furthermore, Juan Carlos emphasizes that the priorities of advocacy should come from the ground level. He believes that advocacy organizations themselves, along with the individuals actively engaged in the work, hold valuable knowledge and insights into what is truly needed on the ground. By acknowledging and understanding this knowledge, officials can better advocate for and protect human rights. Juan Carlos highlights the importance of interaction and collaboration between stakeholders as a means to foster the promotion of human rights.

In conclusion, Juan Carlos Lara Galvez underscores the significance of engaging with governments and donor governments, implementing donor principles through concrete steps and actions, involving stakeholders in decision-making processes, and recognizing the importance of advocacy priorities that originate from the ground level. His arguments are rooted in the belief that collaboration and recognition of diverse perspectives lead to more effective promotion and protection of human rights.

Zora Gouhary

Zora Gouhary plays a crucial role in supporting the formation and smooth running of breakout groups for discussions. This process involves the creation of five groups, comprising four in-person groups and one online group. Each group will have its own moderator, ensuring effective facilitation and guidance during the discussions.

The breakout sessions will focus on four key questions, encouraging participants to explore and share their perspectives. These discussions are expected to last approximately 15 minutes, allowing for focused and in-depth conversations within each group.

Furthermore, Zora Gouhary actively facilitates the process of grouping participants. Participants are given the freedom to choose their own groups, potentially leading to a more diverse and engaging experience. Zora’s involvement in this process ensures that the formation of groups is well-organised and efficient.

All contributions made during the breakout sessions will be diligently summarised for later use. This summarisation enables the effective capture and consolidation of key ideas and insights generated during the discussions. By preserving these contributions, valuable information can be used to advance the next steps of the donor principles, indicating that the breakout sessions play a significant role in the overall decision-making process.

In conclusion, Zora Gouhary’s support in forming, moderating, and summarising breakout groups enhances the effectiveness and productivity of the discussions. The inclusion of multiple in-person and online groups, along with Zora’s guidance, encourages diverse perspectives, ensuring that the breakout sessions contribute meaningfully to the advancement of the donor principles.

Adrian di Giovanni

The discussion centres around the significance of donor principles on human rights in the digital age, particularly in response to the rapid advancements in technology. These principles are essential guidelines in establishing a framework to safeguard and ensure accountability for investments in digital initiatives. They are also designed to align with commitments to human rights and democratic values.

Digital technologies are recognized as powerful tools that facilitate information sharing, self-expression, and organization. However, they also present challenges, especially for marginalized and vulnerable communities. In certain cases, these technologies can be used to deny or diminish individuals’ rights, and there is a correlation between technological changes and the decline of democratic processes.

For this reason, it is crucial for donors to take responsibility for ensuring that their actions and investments in digital initiatives do not contribute to the erosion of human rights protections and democratic institutions. This necessitates adopting the principle of ‘do no harm’ when it comes to these investments. By embracing this principle, donors can mitigate adverse consequences and ensure that their initiatives have a positive impact on society.

The donor principles on human rights in the digital age provide an indispensable framework for safeguarding and ensuring accountability in investments related to digital initiatives. These principles are particularly critical in the face of fast-paced technological advancements, which continuously challenge existing norms and regulations. By aligning with commitments to human rights and democratic values, donors can contribute to the preservation and advancement of these fundamental principles.

In conclusion, the discussion underscores the importance of donor principles on human rights in the digital age. As technology continues to rapidly evolve, it is imperative for donors to proactively ensure that their investments do not undermine human rights protections and democratic institutions. This necessitates adopting the principle of ‘do no harm’ and utilizing the donor principles as a framework for safeguarding and accountability. Ultimately, by promoting responsible and ethical practices, donors can harness the full potential of digital technologies while upholding human rights and democratic values.

Allison Peters

The United States government has taken on the chairmanship of the Freedom Online Coalition, an international organization focused on promoting human rights in the digital landscape. This year, the U.S. Department of State and the government view the Coalition as a crucial partner in safeguarding and advancing human rights in the use of digital technologies globally. The U.S. government sees the Coalition as an important platform for global collaboration and sharing of best practices.

As part of its initiative, the Freedom Online Coalition has launched donor principles that provide guidance to donor governments in supporting human rights online. These principles aim to promote and protect human rights while guarding against the potential misuse of digital technologies. Donor governments, including the U.S., play an essential role in driving these efforts by responsibly investing in digital technologies with a focus on human rights.

Allison Peters, an advocate for digital rights, emphasizes the significance of donor governments investing in digital technologies while remaining vigilant against their potential misuse. The donor principles launched by the Coalition provide crucial guidance to ensure responsible investment and prevent any negative consequences that may arise from the misuse of these technologies. Peters highlights the importance of striking a balance between promoting accessibility and innovation in the digital sphere while also safeguarding against any destabilization and infringement of human rights.

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken echoes similar sentiments in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly. He emphasizes the need to govern digital technologies in partnership with those who share democratic values. This approach is essential to address the challenges and potential risks associated with the misuse of digital technologies. By working together and upholding democratic principles, governments can protect human rights, maintain stability, and ensure the responsible use of digital technologies.

In conclusion, the U.S. government’s chairmanship of the Freedom Online Coalition reflects its commitment to promoting and protecting human rights in the digital age. Through the donor principles and collaborations with like-minded partners, such as Allison Peters, the government aims to foster responsible investment and prevent any negative repercussions resulting from the misuse of digital technologies. This concerted effort aligns with Secretary Blinken’s call for governing digital technologies in partnership with those who value democratic principles. With these measures in place, the international community can work towards a digital landscape that respects and upholds human rights while promoting innovation and connectivity.

Zach Lampell

After conducting the analysis, three main arguments related to civil society organizations have been identified. The first argument emphasizes the importance of collaboration between civil society organizations and donor governments in shaping foreign assistance. It is suggested that civil societies should actively engage with donor governments to provide them with comprehensive information about the realities on the ground and the existing gaps in their country’s domestic legislation. By doing so, civil society organizations can influence the allocation of foreign assistance towards addressing these gaps and supporting initiatives that align with their objectives. The evidence supporting this argument includes the advice of Zach Lampell, who advises civil societies to utilize the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, ensuring that the voices and concerns of civil society are heard during the decision-making process on foreign assistance.

The second argument highlights the importance of civil societies pushing for inclusion in standard-setting bodies and integrating human rights protections into internet infrastructure. This argument acknowledges the increasing role of technology and the internet in today’s world, and the need for civil society organizations to actively participate in shaping the standards and practices that govern them. It is suggested that civil societies should seek assistance from the international community in developing their technical knowledge and expertise in this field. Furthermore, working with private companies is recommended to create systems that uphold human rights. This argument promotes the idea that civil society organizations have a crucial role to play in ensuring that technology and the internet serve as tools for peace, justice, and the protection of human rights. The evidence supporting this argument highlights the need for civil societies to leverage their partnerships and engage in collaborative efforts with relevant stakeholders to drive positive change in this area.

The third argument focuses on the significance of facilitating meaningful interaction with stakeholders in the process of drafting legislation. Civil society organizations are encouraged to work closely with donor governments and their own government to create open, public processes for the drafting of legislation. By actively engaging with stakeholders, civil society organizations can ensure that their perspectives, concerns, and expertise are taken into account during the development of legal frameworks. It is stressed that these legal frameworks should uphold international human rights standards and principles. The evidence supporting this argument underlines the importance of collaboration between civil society organizations and both donor and national governments to develop effective and inclusive legislative processes.

Overall, these three arguments analyzed in the research showcase the vital role civil society organizations can play in shaping policies and practices in various sectors. By collaborating with donor governments, pushing for inclusion in standard-setting bodies, and facilitating stakeholder engagement in legislation drafting processes, civil society organizations can contribute to the development of policies and initiatives that align with their objectives and promote peace, justice, and the protection of human rights. This analysis highlights the need for civil societies to actively utilize various platforms and opportunities to advocate for positive change and utilize their expertise to shape a better future for their respective communities and society as a whole.

Nele Leosk

Estonia has demonstrated the transformative potential of technology in various sectors. For the past 15 years, digitalisation has been a top priority for the country, allowing it to shift from being a recipient of aid to becoming a donor. This focus on digitalisation has played a crucial role in shaping Estonia’s development, economic policies, trade policies, and even its tech diplomacy efforts.

The integration of digital tools and processes has enabled Estonia to streamline its government services, making them more efficient and accessible for its citizens. Services such as e-residency, e-tax, and e-voting have facilitated a seamless and transparent democratic system. By placing digitalisation at the core of its development strategy, Estonia has successfully established a digital society that promotes democracy and empowers its citizens.

Moreover, Estonia has shown its commitment to supporting other nations in their development efforts, particularly through capacity building. A notable example is its 14-year partnership with Ukraine, where Estonia has helped them in building a democratic system. Ukraine’s progress in this area has been remarkable, surpassing that of many other countries. This highlights Estonia’s belief that development assistance should focus on enabling countries to develop their own capacities, sometimes even exceeding those of the donors.

Estonia’s approach to development cooperation is characterized by three main priorities: gender equality, collaboration with the private sector, and openness. Gender equality is consistently integrated into all policies and action plans, including tech diplomacy. The country aims to bridge the gender divide and ensure equal opportunities for all. Additionally, Estonia values the use of open-source principles in its development cooperation initiatives, ensuring control and transparency while avoiding dependencies.

Furthermore, Estonia’s development agency, which is only two years old, emphasizes partnerships with private companies and other organizations. This collaboration allows for a broader range of expertise and resources, contributing to national development goals. By engaging the private sector, Estonia harnesses innovation and leverages its potential for driving economic growth and sustainable development.

To conclude, Estonia’s success story exemplifies the positive impact of technology in building democracy, enhancing the economy, rebuilding trust, and establishing transparency and openness. Digitalisation has become a pivotal driver in Estonia’s development strategies, enabling the country to shift from an aid recipient to a donor. Estonia’s commitment to capacity building, gender equality, collaboration with the private sector, and openness further strengthens its approach to development cooperation. Overall, Estonia serves as a model for other nations, showcasing the possibilities and benefits that can be achieved by harnessing the power of innovation and digitalisation.

Immaculate Kassait

In the era of digitisation, the importance of data protection is emphasised, as highlighted by the arguments presented. Kenya has taken steps to address this issue by establishing a legal and institutional framework for data protection. The Office of Data Protection in Kenya has enforced six penalty notices related to the misuse of personal data, demonstrating their commitment to safeguarding individuals’ information. This positive sentiment towards data protection is further supported by the fact that 2,761 complaints have been received regarding data protection issues, indicating widespread recognition of the need for such measures.

However, challenges also exist in the realm of data protection. The newly established Office of Data Protection in Kenya faces operational and resource constraints, hindering their ability to carry out their responsibilities effectively. Additionally, there are concerns regarding the existing legal frameworks which may not adequately address the complexities posed by multinational companies operating in Kenya. The rapid progress of technological advancements, such as Artificial Intelligence, also presents additional challenges as the potential risks and implications on data protection need to be carefully navigated.

To overcome these challenges, collaboration and donor support are seen as crucial factors. Sharing expertise and best practices amongst stakeholders can enhance the regulation of data processing, allowing for a coordinated and effective approach to data protection. Donor support can play a vital role in aligning country-specific legal frameworks with international standards and providing the necessary resources for capacity building. This collaborative effort would enable Kenya to strengthen its data governance mechanisms and better protect individuals’ data.

In conclusion, the arguments presented highlight the significance of data protection in the digital age. While Kenya has made strides in establishing a legal framework and enforcing penalties for data misuse, challenges such as resource constraints, inadequate legal frameworks, and technological advancements remain. However, through collaboration and donor support, it is possible to address these challenges and enhance data governance practices. By doing so, Kenya can ensure the protection of personal data and align with global efforts towards sustainable development.

Vera Zakem:
I know it’s also early morning, but we really, really are grateful because we just really think this is such a momentous and exciting opportunity for us to roll out these principles and also what they mean for strengthening rights respecting digital ecosystem. So again, I’m delighted to welcome you to this event. I am pleased to announce that as of last week, the donor principles have been officially endorsed by 38 member governments of the Freedom Online Coalition, some of whom you will hear today. The donor principles establish international framework for donor accountability and cooperation on digital issues that align with donor ethical obligations to do no harm. Earlier this month, Freedom House released the annual Freedom on the Net report, a survey and analysis of internet freedom around the world, and we see that the global internet freedom has declined for 13th consecutive year in a row. The donor principles commit donor governments, including the United States, to reverse the trend. They call on the donors to safeguard international assistance from digital repression by establishing procedures to protect local partners and communities from the potential misuse of digital technologies and data. Over the past two decades, USAID and other donors have supported many digital initiatives around the world with, dare I say, positive outcomes. We have assisted countries to digitize their public service delivery systems from healthcare to education to participatory budgeting. We’ve also supported young entrepreneurs to develop financial technology or FinTech applications that have created new economic opportunities for those who have been excluded from traditional economic systems. At the same time, we have witnessed how governments have used digital data to target and threaten journalists and activists in Central America. We have seen how FinTech companies have weaponized the personal data of poor people through predatory digital lending practices. We have learned how consulting firms have exploited citizens’ personal data to influence their voting behavior in ways that undermine freedom of thought and expression and fundamentally weaken public trust. in democratic institutions. Such examples are common and are cause for concern, but digital transformation, we know, does not have to come at the expense of digital rights. As donor governments, we can best fulfill our mandate when we put safety and security at the heart of these issues and the values of democracy, respect for human rights and accountability, really at the heart and the center of our work. Suffice to say, I’m very pleased to be here with colleagues and partners from governments, civil society and the private sectors who have demonstrated their commitment to these values. I believe, and USCID believes, it’s only through this multi-stakeholder process and multilateral collaboration that we can fulfill the promise and the intent of these principles. I certainly want to thank the Freedom Online Coalition Support Unit who’ve made this event possible and the donor principles themselves. I also thank our panelists in the room and online. Where is Joost? I don’t think it’s, right here, thank you. Joost from the Netherlands. USCID, of course, is very much looking forward to working with you as Netherlands takes chairmanship of the Freedom Online Coalition next year. Estonia’s digital ambassador that we have here, Nili Lisk, again, congratulations to you for hosting phenomenal Thailand Digital Summit and Open Government Partnership last month in Thailand. Kenya’s commissioner, online, okay, good. Kenya’s commissioner for data protection, Immaculate Kassite. We commend you for the work that you are doing to keep Kenyans safe and look forward to partnering with you on digital governance. As Kenya begins co-chairmanship of the OGP, Open Government Partnership Steering Committee. And from the FOC Advisory Network, Juan Carlos Lara, the executive director of Derechos Digitales and Zach Lampel, senior legal advisor from the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law. We deeply appreciate your support in drafting the donor principles and, of course, very much look forward to working with you. And, of course, Michael Karimian from Microsoft. We really appreciate your company’s commitment to democratic values and respect for human rights. I also want to express especially deep gratitude to our Canadian colleagues from the International Development Research Center who have co-chaired the Freedom Online Coalition’s funding coordination group with us this year and co-led the donor principles drafting and negotiating process, so huge thanks to you. The donor principles reflect the U.S. and Canada’s shared commitment for digital inclusion with the support of the FOC Support Unit and the U.S. Department of State. U.S. and IDRC co-led the first ever public consultation process for the FOC deliverable which yielded inputs and insights from civil society, academia, and the private sector and various stakeholders from around the world. As a result, the principles better address the needs and desires of the communities that we seek that they serve. And finally, I’m so pleased that USAID at large is pleased to be here in partnership with our colleagues from the Department of State’s Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. It goes without saying that your collaboration on everything with the Freedom Online Coalition, these principles would not be possible, so I am especially delighted to turn it over to the Deputy Assistant Secretary at DRL, Alison Peters, a dear friend and colleague who has been really working hand and arm with all of us to really enable these principles to come to life, over to you.

Allison Peters:
Thanks so much, Vera, and especially to Lisa for your tireless leadership, getting these principles over the finish line. It is not ever easy negotiating anything in a multilateral, multi-stakeholder process, and we really appreciate your leadership. And also to Sydney and IDRC for your strong partnership in this effort. Thanks all for joining us. We know it’s an early morning. We hope everyone is well caffeinated, but this is a really, really momentous and exciting occasion to launch these donor principles, so we’re grateful that you took the time to join us this morning. The Department of State and the U.S. government as a whole view the Freedom Online Coalition as a key, indispensable partner in our efforts to promote and. protect human rights and the use of digital technologies globally. Pretty much every issue set that we have heard discussed here at IGF is a core priority of the work that we’re doing with the other governments in the Freedom Online Coalition to promote human rights online. As the chair this year of the Freedom Online Coalition, the United States made a firm commitment to work within the FOC and with our partners and allies to promote and protect fundamental freedoms, counter the rise of digital authoritarianism and the misuse of digital technologies, advance norms, safeguards, and principles for artificial intelligence based on human rights, and support ongoing initiatives to promote safe online spaces for marginalized and vulnerable groups. As we heard from our Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, at the UN General Assembly, which feels like 100 years ago now but was just a couple of weeks ago, we are delivering. These principles launching today really translate these priorities into action, giving donor governments concrete guidance to hold fast to our commitment to invest in digital technologies only when it is possible to protect against their potential misuse. They reinforce the Freedom Online Coalition’s shared vision to enable individual dignity and economic prosperity. Technology should be harnessed in a manner that is open, sustainable, secure, and respectable of democratic values and human rights. And these donor principles will help us take one step in that direction. They also demonstrate our shared commitment to advancing the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda as we look to harness the power of digital technologies in a rights-respecting manner to advance our shared goals from achieving gender equality to promoting inclusive and peaceful societies. As our Secretary of State stated at the UN General Assembly, we can develop the best technologies in the world. But if we haven’t determined how to govern them in partnership with those who share our values, these technologies are likely to be misused for repressive or destabilizing purposes, making our communities less peaceful, less prosperous, less secure, and unfortunately, more undermining of human rights. They’re also less likely to be leveraged for advancing societal progress around the globe. So again, I thank you all for joining us today. We have both an exciting panel with some key partners. And we’re thrilled to be joined by the government of the Netherlands, who are turning over the chairship of the FOC to next year. But we’re really thrilled to also join you in the breakout sessions to hear your thoughts on these donor principles and how we can move them forward through the FOC. So thank you again. And thank you again to Lisa and Vera for your leadership.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
Thank you, Alison.

Moderator – Sidney Leclercq:
Thank you very much. And thank you to the US, really, for the commitment and dedication in that, in getting those principles. I think that was an important process and a decisive one. But you already made the transition, actually, to a first speaker in the panel from the Netherlands. And I’ll turn over to you, I guess. Yes, Van Zalt, who is Senior Policy Officer at the Human Rights and Political and Legal Affairs in the Netherlands. And as you take over. the chairship in 2024. It’ll be interesting to hear from you the intention to implement the donor principles in that chairship in 2024. Over to you.

Augustin Willem Van Zwoll:
Thank you, Sidney. First of all, thank you USAID and thank you IDRC for really bringing something new to the table here at the FOC. I think it’s great that you were able to to create these principles, not only tying all these different important topics that we’ve been hearing the last few days about, really like connecting the unconnected, but tying that into the rights agendas that we have been discussing in our little side sessions the last few days. And I think it’s an important bridge, not only indeed in getting the development goals, getting to the development goals or reaching the development goals, but also tying, it will be an important step for us, at least from a policy side also, to get where we need to be in order to have fruitful discussions with reaching to the GDC and the West-West-West-West. So I think it’s a great important step, not only from a digitalization perspective or an aid perspective, but also really connecting it to the more human rights-related discussions that we are having as well. And also thank you for setting a really high bar that will be very difficult to reach in form of having an open multi-stakeholder process. I mean you’ve done an excellent job in that and I really want to congratulate you. I rather had it that you would do it after our chairship because it will be so challenging to work to that high standard, but it’s a great inspiration for us and we’ll really try to continue that line of work as well next year. I mean now under the guidance of the USAID and IDRC, of course in partnership with the U.S. State Department, you really set up these important donor principles that encompass the basic conditions for human rights-centered digital development programming. But however, at least for us, this would only be the beginning. I mean turning these principles into locally driven action that truly serves the target communities that we support within the context of our very diverse coalition, that is really the big task that still lies ahead of us. During our upcoming chairship, the Netherlands therefore wants to see how we can adapt these principles into even more concrete tools that can be used by our community to practice and integrate them into the activities that we support. only be done through cooperation between our members in close cooperation with our local and implementing partners whose needs and challenges are central to any solution. We will therefore also ask all of our members or all of our Freedom Online member states to share also their best practices either as a donor or a recipient. I mean given the multi-regional build-up of a coalition, this would be a great chance to see it from both sides. And also as the Netherlands, these principles will be key and there will be a great way in connecting the development work and tying it to important, to tie the agenda that we have on digitalization and tying it to connect connectivity, security and good governance. Because we see it sometimes that we have these high-level discussions at the OEWG that are very difficult and we see that it’s a certain set of countries that are very active in that and we need to reach out and make sure that those, the last third of the world that’s unconnected, will be able to connect. But that also will have to have the cybersecurity tools to keep that structure secure and then of course have a good human rights set of principles to govern that structure, as Alison really much more detail pointed out. Thank you for that. I think I will leave it at this. Thank you so much.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
Thank you so much, Kjus, and I have no doubt that you will be able to even exceed the work that we have done this year in your FOC chairship next year. So we look forward to partnering with you. No pressure. So now I’m very pleased to introduce Nelle Leosk, the Digital Ambassador at Large from Estonia. Nelle, over to you.

Nele Leosk:
Thank you. Thank you so much and I’m glad to be here in this very early hour and I’m glad to see also so many other people here. Actually last month we celebrated a little birthday in our Ministry of Foreign Affairs because 25 years passed since Estonia became a donor. From a recipient side to a donor. So we have both experiences and perhaps I will just complement these principles by some practical, I would say, takeaways from our 25 years, out of which I would say 15 digital has been a priority. And I know that we have been discussing here over the past days and also today quite a bit of everything that can go wrong with technology. And in a way I believe it’s also an increasingly trendy to talk about. It’s of course very timely and very much needed conversation. But it seems to me that we are also at the same time forgetting about everything that technology can bring. And in this sense Estonia I believe is a good reminder that technology actually can be used to build democracy. Technology can be used to enhance economy, to rebuild trust, to build openness, transparency and Estonia has all done this. And this has I believe also been the reason for interest in our experience. Because it’s not about digitalization. It’s not to become the world leader in digital services. It’s really about democratizing your state and the opportunities it gives. So for us digitalization and these principles that we’re also talking about here have actually been horizontally integrated in different programs. And not only, I would say, our development or economic policy or trade policies, but currently also in our tech diplomacy. So these principles that we are talking about here somehow need to be implemented. Because just talking about the principles will also not get us very far. And actually digitalization through development cooperation has been one of these very practical ways how we build a democratic state. And there were some examples here in these principles, for example data governance and management. So it is clear that in order to introduce a data governance or management system, for example In Estonia, we have this famous system called X-Road. It’s our interoperability layer that allows to exchange data. In order for this to work, you need to create also an ecosystem and a supporting legal framework and policies. You must have access to Information Act. You must have open standards, and so forth, and so forth. So this, in a way, creates this, I would say, democratic ecosystem. But one other aspect that we were discussing about it yesterday evening also over the party is actually that often we forget that the development is not about us. And in order to really reach these principles, it is actually about also the receiving side. So we really need to put the emphasis in building the capacity of the others to the level of us and even beyond. And we have a very good example, a practical example, from long cooperation with Ukraine, for example. Over the past 14 years, we have been working closely in supporting Ukraine to build their democratic system. And we can see now that in many areas, they may also exceed all of us in this room. So it’s really about the other side and not that much of us in this journey. I believe my time is almost finished. But I wanted to bring maybe just quickly three main priorities for us that are also horizontal issues. And actually, one of them is a gender divide, which is also integrated in all our policies and action plans and is also the priority for tech diplomacy and, in a way, my own work. The other is the working with private sector. Our development agency is only two years old. So it has been mainly through the partnership with private companies and other organizations that we carry out our policies. And the third is actually about openness. And that also translates to technological openness. So we support open source in our development cooperation not to get anybody hooked and have also more control and transparency over these processes. So this is maybe very shortly about how we have approached it.

Moderator – Sidney Leclercq:
Thank you very much, Ambassador. And thanks for a great reminder of the democratic potential and also the importance of open source. of building capacity. But you were starting by saying that it’s really early. I’m afraid that for our next speaker, who is based in Kenya, it’s very late. But it’s even more my pleasure to introduce and to welcome Immaculate Kassai, the data protection commissioner from Kenya. So commissioner, over to you.

Immaculate Kassait:
Thank you. I hope you can hear me. You can hear me? Perfectly. All right. It’s very early. It’s actually 3 AM in Kenya. So thank you, Ambassador, and my fellow panelists in the USA and Netherlands for the opportunity to participate in this panel. I’ll try as much as possible to summarize. I think it’s a very exciting moment to be discussing key principles for donors in terms in this era of digital era when we are discussing governance. And I liked what was spoken earlier, that if we could quickly be evolving into digitization, and we’re not talking about governance, this could lead to misuse and destabilize many economies. Of course, from a data protection perspective, we are often seen as the people who hold back development and interfere with innovations because we are put there to actually then ask questions as far as data protection is concerned. As an office, just a quick one, this office has been there for three years now. It was established in 2020, but the act came into force in 2019. And really, our role is to regulate the processing of personal data based on certain principles, which I would say are very common across all data protection authorities. Our task is to make sure that when we talk about the right to privacy, it’s actually not just a right we speak about. It’s a right that is actually implemented by the Kenyan government. That makes sure that the social justice orientation of the society. On top of that, as an institution, we have been mandated to establish a legal and institutional framework, provide the rights of the data subject. Some of the key issues that we’ve been able to achieve in this short time, of course, is guidance notes as an office. We are members of three international bodies. We will be hosting the Network for Data Protection Authority in the coming year. We have established a register of the data protection controller, data controllers, and we have a strategic plan. What I’d like to just speak about is we have had 2,761 complaints and have actually enforced almost six penalty notices. The recent one, which was like a week ago, was to do with people using personal photos of children and also using people’s photos in social places and also unsolicited information. Unsolicited messages. And that comes to the point that many times in the process of marketing, many controllers are not paying attention to that this is personal information and we must be held to account. Of course, as an office, there are challenges and I’m happy we have this conversation. We are finding ourselves in a situation where we don’t have adequate laws in some cases, where in the context of when we developed the Data Protection Act, we did not anticipate we’d have multinationals. have not registered in Kenya, of course, being a new office, resources are never adequate, and of course, advancement in technology, we are seeing AI as one of the issues. But coming now to the highlighting as far as the issues around the donor principles for human rights, what does this mean for us when we say we need to commit to doing no harm in the digital age while enhancing technology and also ensuring that we’re increasing donors accountability? I see several areas of collaboration. Some of the areas of collaboration, when we say donor support and country being aligned in terms of their legal framework, I see the need for support in as far as reviewing of current legal framework and for those countries that don’t have existing data protection framework, they need to actually then help them so that we’re not leaving other countries behind in as far as data governance is concerned. Sharing expertise, some countries are ahead, I think it would be important to collaborate and come up with some of the guidance notes, guidance in as far as this is concerned. We also need to liberate the government agenda on technology. In our case, as a country, we are digitalizing over 5,000 government services, and there’s need for liberating what others have done. Sharing best practices, of course, in terms of collaboration with private sector, we see an opportunity there to facilitate partnership with private sector and recipient countries to encourage right-based respect. And I would say, I would see this also more of the data protection by default and by design. Capacity building is another area for collaboration and technical support, supporting training programs. Of course, when it comes to fostering coordination, I see joint advocacy effort as one of the things that we can also do. Support on the growth of rights, respect and technology as a principle, I see one of the areas of collaboration is facilitating training initiative, advocating for professional codes of ethics, and of course, facilitating exchange of information. When it comes to prioritizing of digital security, the need to provide for resources, and of course, capacity building. I think I don’t take too much of the time. I want to thank you once again for the opportunity, and I really welcome the conversation around the principles, and it being launched here is a really big milestone for donor countries, for partners, and especially in this era of technology, where we are now being hold to account and holding other people to account, so that it’s not just development, it’s not just technology for the sake of it, it’s technology that adheres to human rights. Thank you.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
Thank you so much, Commissioner Kassayet, for those remarks. I think you provided a really nice bridge for us to start thinking about implementation by offering some concrete ideas of how we could partner with other countries around the world, not only donor countries, but all countries around the world, so really appreciate that, and appreciate your remarks. and the work that you do. So I wanted to now turn it over to Juan Carlos Lara, who is the Executive Director of Derechos Digitales and who has played an instrumental role in the drafting process for these principles. Juan Carlos.

Juan Carlos Lara Galvez:
Thank you, Lisa. Good morning, everyone. And good morning, evening, afternoon to people attending online. I wish to first introduce myself. I am a member of an organization that works on digital rights in the global majority, specifically in Latin America. And for us, it’s very important to interact with governments and with donor governments, especially considering the role that they have in funding much of the work that organizations like mine do in the global majority. And that depends on the support that we can obtain from different funders. In that regard, it’s also heartening to hear so much about having countries be accountable or having put principles that will lead to action and other types of language that represents an intention to bring all the good intentions that countries often present into concrete steps, into concrete things. And the donor principles in that regard are a product of an interaction, of an exchange of ideas and views that in many ways represented what our priorities are for civil society in the global majority, understanding as well that we need the support not just to conduct work that we like, but also to create change and to promote social justice and to generate conditions for a responsible development that is respectful of human rights and that is centered around the people. I wish to, before I close my remarks, I wish to recognize those efforts and at the same time recognize the fact that whether we see this as a fruitful steps, fruitful thing is going to be shown by the implementation process. As much as we would like to recognize this as the beginning of something very inspiring, we also need to see how this translates into action. And to the question about the opportunities that this presents for advocacy for organizations like mine, it’s also very positive to see that the principles recognize the need for coordination with stakeholders and the need to admit also participation of different people, participation of different stakeholders and recognition of human rights in issues such as technological development. So I think that one of the most important things that we can see here is that when we put the idea of the priorities of states into action that we need for advocacy organizations is that those priorities should come from the advocacy organizations and should come from the grounds of the people that are doing this work. And that donor governments, donor institutions need to recognize that that’s where the knowledge comes from, from what is needed on the ground. And that the position of certain officials, it’s better informed when they have that type of interaction and when they can foster collaboration between different stakeholders in order to promote human rights. So thank you.

Moderator – Sidney Leclercq:
Thanks very much Juan Carlos, and we cannot agree more on the importance of localized knowledge and evidence at IGRC for sure. And I’ll turn to Zach Lambell, Senior Legal Advisor for the International Center for Nonprofit Law, who is online, and I hope, yes?

Zach Lampell:
Yes. Thank you, Sydney. Can you hear me okay? Perfectly. Great. Well, thank you all so very much. My apologies that I could not be with you all in person in Kyoto, but I know and trust you all having a great time. Before I begin my very brief remarks, I wanted to quickly introduce myself. I’m Zach Lampell, Senior Legal Advisor with the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, where I lead our global digital rights programming, and where we work in over 100 countries to ensure that the legal framework supports civil society and promotes and protects the freedoms of expression, association, assembly, and the right to privacy. I want to also thank the whole Freedom Online Coalition, the support unit, and the member states, and especially the U.S. government, USAID, and the U.S. State Department for their leadership in developing these principles, as well as Sydney and his team with IDRC, the co-authors and co-leaders of the principles. I’d also like to thank the Funding Coordination Group, the rest of the drafting committee, and finally, everyone who provided feedback, comments, and suggestions, especially all of those from civil society organizations in the global majority. I’d also like to thank I’d like to now briefly present three ways in which civil society can use the donor principles for advocacy. First, internationally. I would encourage all civil society organizations to collaborate with donor governments, as those donor governments develop their strategic priorities and institutionalize their processes to shape their foreign assistance. Like Juan Carlos was saying, let them know what you’re seeing on the ground. Let these donor governments know what has worked, what concerns you have, and most importantly, articulate what gaps there are in domestic legislation. And finally, utilize existing processes like the UPR to obtain firm commitments from your governments to improve the legal framework. So that’s internationally. Domestically, work with donor governments to encourage and facilitate real, meaningful, multi-stakeholder, open, public processes for drafting legislation. Be sure to reference all of the international legal obligations and frameworks on which these principles are based. And work with both your governments and the donor community to ensure that these principles and international human rights standards are being upheld in the legal framework. Finally, technically, and this is one of the principles, but work to push for inclusion into standard-setting bodies. If you or your organization or your partners do not have the knowledge base to effectively engage with these standard-setting bodies, reach out to the international community, donor governments, international NGOs, so you can develop and build your knowledge base. So that way you can impact the work of these technical bodies. Work to ensure that human rights protections are built into the infrastructure of the internet. Work with private companies to help create products, services, and design systems that place human rights at the forefront. So again, internationally, domestically, and technically, there are ways for civil society to use these principles to advocate for an improved legal framework, improved product and services, and an improved internet infrastructure, all of which we believe will lead to the change and support, promotion, and protection of democratic principles that we all seek. Thank you again so much, and I look forward to rolling out these principles and working with all of you then. Thank you so much.

Moderator – Sidney Leclercq:
Thanks so much, Zach. And you’ve probably given us the kind of the structure for implementing. internationally, domestically, and technically. So thanks so much. Let me turn to Michael Karimian, Director for Digital Diplomacy, Asia and the Pacific, from Microsoft, to also provide a private sector perspective on the donor principles. Thank you very much, Sydney, and indeed a private

Michael Karimian:
sector perspective, not necessarily the whole of private sector, but thank you to FOC, USAID, and IDRC for the opportunity to join today’s discussion. It’s very nice to follow on from Zach. Zach and I did some work together a few years ago. I have a lot of respect for him and his organization. I work on Microsoft’s digital diplomacy team, which seeks to advance responsible state and non-state behavior in cyberspace, grounded in international law and norms, including the international human rights regime. I previously worked on Microsoft’s human rights team, which seeks to uphold Microsoft’s corporate responsibility to respect human rights, grounded in the United Nations’ guiding principles on business and human rights, and it’s great to see the UNGPs accurately integrated throughout the principles here. Indeed, as Sydney mentioned, I’ll offer a quick reflection on current application of the principles and some of the ways to move forward where there’s perhaps some gaps in application. So looking particularly at principle three, within that there’s reference to donor government should also emphasize the need for industry to remain accountable to address critical feedback from civil society and human rights defenders. I think firstly that requires that donors are very specific in either encouraging or even mandating that companies uphold the second pillar of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, mainly by having a human rights policy in place signed off at the most senior level, publicly available and implemented by accountable teams, and with the right degree of transparency. And that of course should include a commitment to respect the work of human rights defenders. Additionally, that also requires both states and companies to uphold the third pillar of the United Nations guiding principles, which is access to remedy, and you do that through grievance mechanisms, both judicial grievance mechanisms and non-judicial grievance mechanisms. So that’s a mix of mechanisms coming from the state, from law enforcement, and from regulatory bodies, as well as the more informal non-judicial grievance mechanisms which can be implemented by companies, civil society, or other actors. And again, companies should be expected to respect and participate in such processes and not to hinder them. There is an important recognition in the principles around the fact that transnational private sector companies often have weak direct connections to local civil society stakeholders. This is a huge challenge. This is where platforms such as the IGF come into play, as well as regional IGFs and local IGFs. I would also call out organizations which have tremendous civil society networks around the world, such as Access Now. And Brett Solomon is pleased to see Brett is in the room. Access Now is an incredible organization who has a tremendous network, which has certainly helped Microsoft to be better at having those direct connections with civil society organizations in global majority countries. Additionally, in the principles, there’s a reference that donors can and should hold private sector partners accountable. This absolutely goes back to the fact that donors, I think, should have a high expectation that companies should be undertaking human rights due diligence so that the actual inclusive, sustainable, and rights-respecting business investments are being made. And human rights due diligence requires that companies are undertaking ongoing practices which are transparent. They must include stakeholders, including civil society, to assess and address actual and potential human rights impacts. Quickly turn into principle seven, support the growth of rights-respecting technology workforce. Within there, there’s reference to donors should encourage these products to be built in alignment with respect for human rights and democratic values or supporting, I should say, inclusive human rights by design processes. I would actually take that down a step further and make sure that there’s a focus on so-called salient human rights, so the human rights that are most at risk by business activities. And that’s generally understood to be the human rights risks where there’s the highest degree of scale, scope, and remediability challenges posed by those business practices. And for most technology companies, that means privacy by design, accessibility by design, and increasingly responsible AI by design. And that requires having policies in place, accountable teams in place, and again, the right degree of transparency. Lastly, there’s mention in principle seven around a professional code of ethics for individuals, organizations, and institutions. This is a challenge. Many have looked at this before. So for example, can you have software engineers having a code of conducts that are taught in university courses? The challenge there is those university degrees, especially at the highest level universities. Students have very little scope for optional courses. The mandatory courses are already very full. And so it’s hard to add anything into that curriculum. But actually, you don’t need to let perfect be the enemy of the good. There are lots of interim steps. So donors should make sure that companies have the right standards of business conduct in place and making sure that there is the right degree of training for staff throughout the company so that they understand what are their responsibilities. They understand the structures that are in place to seek additional guidance if they need to. They should also have access to additional training if they want to have it. And most importantly, they should know where to go to within the company for additional expertise on these subject matters. I’ll stop there and very much look forward to the breakout sessions.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
Thank you so much, Michael. And what a rich set of remarks for us to think about when we start the implementation. implementation conversation in a minute. Thanks so much for that. So before we move into the second portion of our event, we will hear from, last but not least, Shannon Green, who is the Assistant to the Administrator for the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance at USAID. And she will be joining us, as you can see, via video. Thank you.

Shannon Green:
Hello. I am delighted to join you to celebrate the launch of the Donor Principles for Human Rights in the Digital Age. And I commend the 38 member governments of the Freedom Online Coalition who have endorsed these principles and supported their development. These principles provide an important blueprint to protect and uphold the rights of individuals in our digital world. They commit donor governments, including my own agency, to hold ourselves accountable for the role we play in shaping the global digital ecosystem. The principles encourage donors to examine our own internal structures and processes and introduce safeguards for all programs. These safeguards will help ensure that our programs are equitably distributed. They will also promote safer and more secure environments for partners and local communities. Donors have much to learn from our partners around the world in government, civil society, and the private sector. You heard earlier from Commissioner Kasait, who has been leading Kenya’s Office of Data Protection. These authorities are the safeguards that protect us from the darker aspects of the digital age. It is more important than ever that donors partner with them in their critical mission to better protect the public and increase transparency. USAID is also energized by the Open Government Partnership, or OGPs, recent announcement of digital governance as a priority issue. This will strengthen the transparency of public oversight of artificial intelligence and data processing systems. We have seen remarkable progress under OGP commitments, and in this spirit, on behalf of USAID, I am pleased to issue a call to action for other donor governments to join USAID in making concrete commitments aligned with the donor principles. Internally, donors can make commitments to integrate human rights impact assessments into their program design and evaluation processes. They can also allocate dedicated funding to support partners and local communities’ digital security. Externally, donors can better support partner countries to develop and implement strong legal and regulatory frameworks, or equip oversight bodies to better protect the public and hold powerful actors accountable. Civil society and tech companies, large and small, should consider how they can most effectively use the principles to encourage responsible donor behavior. For more information, please visit the Freedom Online Coalition’s website. We look forward to hearing what concrete actions donors commit to at the Third Summit for Democracy in the Republic of Korea, where the United States government plans to launch its own efforts. The donor principles for human rights in the digital age help contribute to a digital future that respects rights, promotes democracy, and ensures that the benefits of technology are shared by all. Let us act with determination and vision to fulfill its promise.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
Thank you, Shannon. And with that, we will conclude the official launch of the donor principles for human rights in the digital age, and we will now move into breakout groups. So, I’m going to invite Zora, who is over there in the corner, to facilitate the process of getting all of you into breakout groups. There won’t be too much movement. And then maybe I’ll also just say, if you have not signed in via the sign-in sheet that is going around, We will also send it around again, and then we’ll leave it on the table right next to the entrance and exit so that we can continue to keep in touch around implementation of the donor principles after this event. Zohra.

Zora Gouhary:
Hello. Can you hear me? Thank you so much, everyone, for joining us. As Lisa said, we will be going ahead with our breakout groups. So what we’re going to do is we’re going to be breaking out in five groups. So four groups here physically, and then everyone who’s joining us online will have their own breakout group and their own moderator. So I would like to ask everyone who’s in the room just to move to the four different corners of the room. I think make it out of your own choice. I’m not going to be separating you, so just direct yourself to one of the corners. I will be going around, and we have about four questions, which you can see now on the screen. Maybe I’ll just give over to Lisa just to explain maybe the questions in a bit. But one final thing for me is that we’ll have about 15 minutes for the breakout groups, after which we’ll come back into plenary just to quickly discuss what has been discussed in the breakout groups. We have our own facilitators who will be taking your contributions, after which we will be taking them and summarizing them and making sure that we’ll use that towards the next steps following the launch of donor principles. And I think that’s it for me. Thanks.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
Hey, thanks, Zora. So just to provide a little bit of structure, as you heard many of our panelists note, there is sort of an internal component to the donor principles, and there is an external component. So on the one hand, we’re thinking about what can donor governments do internally in terms of their own processes and structures to uphold the donor principles. And then also we’re thinking about what can donors support externally and programmatically in order to uphold the donor principles. So we’ve structured each of the questions around that internal and external component. We’re going to run this kind of like a speed test. dating situation. So each group will have a few minutes to focus on each question. And then the group will remain the same and will just move to focus on a different question every few minutes. Or we’ll announce a loud buzz or something to indicate. And so you’ll get to have a sort of cohesive conversation across the entire period of the breakout group. You can stay with your group and pick up on conversations that you had as the questions move along. And I think that is it. Anything? OK, and to our online group, we will do our very best to incorporate you in the discussion afterwards. And so don’t think we’re forgetting about you. We value that you are there as well. So let’s break out into groups. And if everyone can kind of migrate to the corner that you’re closest to, we’d appreciate that.

Audience:
Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. We’re just going to have a little break in this. I think it was our time. I think we have a few minutes left. And we’re going to move to some five minutes. And I’m going to wait until you have a question. But we want to do one last main question. And then we want to move on to a round of questions. So I want you to do a round of questions. And then we’ll take a buzz. Yeah, let’s go. So if you have a question, in that case, I will say it. And no, I don’t think you need to talk to the audience. I’m just curious to know what we have in there. Because there’s questions all around the room. So if there’s a question, I’m going to say it. Thank you. OK. So if you have a question, and you want to take a buzz, take a buzz. And if you have a question, you can ask that question. And we’ll give it to you there. Can we see this? Because I have it on the board. Yeah. Yeah. So if you have a question, you can ask it. And if you have a question, you can ask it. OK. That’s really insightful. Thank you. Thank you. OK. And thank you all for that. That’s wonderful. And we’ll take another question. And we’ll leave with that. Give us a pause. We have a question. We have a question. We have a question. We have a question. We have a question. The knowledge of the race is important. And meaningfully, it goes without saying. That’s a great question. That’s a great question. Oh, thank you. That’s wonderful. Wonderful. Thank you so much. I know you’re listening in terms of the community and that’s a wonderful thing. Thank you. Hello, everyone. If I can just ask you to move to the next question. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So I’m just wondering if you can speak to the outcome by any funding that’s going to be given to government as a result of the civil society, rather than necessarily a portion of the funding that’s going to be given to government that’s going to be effective in the long term? Thank you so much. I think the accountability potential and accountability, and to make sure that they have the good news, and the structures that are needed in the country to make that happen. But also, the work that’s happening across the whole system, the structures in place, in order to do that. Hello again. I’m just asking everyone if they can move to the next question, if they haven’t already. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. May I ask everyone just to move to the last question? We have the last four minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much. I will just ask everyone to go back to their seats so we can come back to plenary. Thank you. Everyone can stay in the same chairs if you’re in the room and just turn them, or you can get up and move back, but we do need to move back. back to plenary at this point, and we’ll continue the conversation. We won’t just be reporting out. We’ll continue the conversation at this point, and we’ll continue the conversation at this

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
Okay, so we’re going to have a continued discussion, so we won’t be reporting out necessarily from groups, but we’ll invite any of you to raise your hands either in the room or raise your hands online if you want to make a comment, and we’ll just start with one of the questions around implementation internally in donor governments that Eleni, who I don’t know where, oh I think she went to the bathroom. So Eleni from GNI asked a question about what it would look like in donor governments like 4USAID or IDRC to implement these processes, and then somebody else whose name I’m forgetting, but feel free to chime in, asked a question around not burdening those who are receiving funding such as implementing partners, grantees, from having to do extra work themselves in order to implement these principles. So just invite anybody to maybe give thoughts on that. I’m sure this has come up in multiple groups, so we’ll just turn the floor over to anyone who has any ideas around that or want to expand on that idea of implementing the principles internally without burdening grantees and implementing partners with additional labor. We can start with IDRC, maybe Sydney, or if you want to repeat what it was, Rahia, that you said in the session.

Audience:
I mean, first of all, I can’t speak for all of the programming that happens at IDRC, but I think for those of us who work in technology, we already take these things into consideration a lot. And I think what I would want to try to do is socialize this across my colleagues and begin to talk to them about, for instance, providing more digital security and digital resilience as a portion of a budget. And to work with grantees who are, you know, for instance, if it’s a health application and there’s a, you know, what are the data governance practices? Because not everyone’s on the same page with these issues, right? I mean, they’re thinking of different human rights outcomes around access to health or, you know, access to clean water. So how can we begin that conversation with an IDRC?

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
Anyone want to add to that or have a follow-on question? Quinn. And please just introduce yourself when you come on mic.

Audience:
Sure. Is this on? Yes, thanks. Yes, I’m Quinn McHugh, the executive director for Article 19. We work on implementing a freedom of expression approach and human rights-based approach to bridge technology and policy and human rights actors. I just wanted to echo what she was saying. One of the things that we see quite frequently when we are submitting grant proposals for Article 19 and in negotiations with donor governments is we will put in a line for safety and security, and it is one of the most frequently questioned lines we have in our proposal. People are like, what’s this for? Can this be only to demonstrate the safety and security for specific actors in this program and not for the organizations themselves to build robust digital security and resilience practices, which are about keeping our partners safe as well? And so that’s just something to echo a little bit. I think it would be really useful in terms of the implementation if there was maybe a broader understanding of the importance of these kinds of lines in the proposals that we’re submitting. And maybe this. This is something that can be echoed from kind of yourselves down to your colleagues that maybe having a bit broader understanding of digital security and resilience and how that programming should be incorporated into some of the work with grantees. So it’s not just, again, specific to someone being given an emergency training or something like that. It would be very helpful.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
That’s really useful. Thank you. Are there specific actors, this can be directed to you or anybody else, that we should bring to the table or existing networks that we can leverage or bring in as partners in order to socialize these very issues to others across all of our respective development agencies who may not have the knowledge of what digital security might look like in a solicitation process and who should actually be involved and who should be protected?

Audience:
We work on this. I mean, Access Now, pretty much every organization that’s going to be here in civil society could provide something. But in terms of donors themselves, the Ford Foundation is actually really good at building the idea of capacity building into the grants that they give as well. I’m sure there’s other funders here, but that’s just one I’m very familiar with. They have a very open dialogue-based approach and more expansive in terms of looking at issues of security, not just from technical things, but like economic, social, cultural elements of digital security and safety as well, looking at the more kind of a holistic approach to it. So I would suggest if you’re looking for another kind of donor to speak to on some of their practices, they’ve been very good.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
Thank you. What about… Go ahead, Daniela.

Audience:
Yeah, Daniela from GPD. Just wanted to echo that that came up in our group around being more creative in terms of reaching more groups and going beyond the usual suspects and reach communities that are usually marginalized, and that goes back to the very clear point that was made earlier about that bottom-up approach, but also we discussed how these principles can be leveraged not just with donor governments, but also increasing collaboration with private foundations. So that came up as well. So yeah, just echoing that and supporting that point.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
Thank you. Is there a specific fora where maybe these ideas are not socialized as much? So thinking about other major development conferences or like even the G20 process, or other spaces where we might want to work on socializing these ideas so that our colleagues who work on digital health or digital economy can start to learn more about how they can facilitate more digital security? Yeah. Mm-hmm. Go ahead.

Audience:
Thank you. Apologies for my voice. Silvia Cadena, APNIC Foundation. I just wanted to say that there are so many events and… and principles and processes that small and medium and large organizations are supposed to figure out by themselves, that it would be very useful to have, when you talk about mechanisms and tools for implementation, it would be really good to have really practical things that allow organizations to see, okay, where do I align? Where do these align with my strategy? It’s not about, it feels a lot like chasing the strategy of others, instead of seeing how that is helping the strategy of each organization to actually deliver, and maybe that in our case, we can support, I don’t know, or do proper follow-ups of three or four of these principles, but not necessarily all. Same with the ROAMx indicators, and you start looking, and it’s like, okay, which one do I choose? What do I do when I’m doing, and all the time you feel you’re doing wrong, because you’re not following everything. So figuring out this, I really like the fact that you mentioned the principles of digital development, tiny little thing at the end, having things like that to say, for this principle, these other things are important, then you start feeling like you are connected and you’re contributing, and even encouraging people from a bottom-up approach to be able to participate in this process would be really good. I’m David Sullivan with the Digital Trust and Safety Partnership. One thing that occurs to me, so principles are invaluable for building consensus, but that process of building consensus, you wind up with a fair amount of passive voice, and then the concern, of course, becomes that in that passive voice, responsibilities get driven down to implementers and their partners, and I was sort of thinking that you could almost have an accompanying tool for donor agencies to take the principles and then just add specifics in terms of who is responsible. for each of these things, going from, you know, the actors to the events and opportunities and items or whatnot. And that could be particular to each government. And then you could sort of ensure, okay, we’re not going to, you know, take these responsibilities for human rights due diligence and add that on, you know, as on top of other things that the implementer has to do that gets pushed down to local partners in the field. But that’s something that gets built in at the strategy level within the agency with the right people involved. So just a thought in terms of how this could be operationalized in a way that you go from that sort of vague consensus to clarity about who does what.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
Thanks. That’s very helpful. And I will say the idea for the call for action of donor governments is to allow individual governments to be able to think about within their own internal legal structures and processes and strategies, what commitments they might be able to make that are concrete, that are kind of bringing the principles down a level to concrete commitments and actions. And one of the things that we talked about in the drafting process was the potential for building out toolkits as part of the next year implementation under the Freedom Online Coalition. And so curious if anyone talked about that or has ideas around what kind of toolkit might be helpful. You know, there was a suggestion for different pieces of guidance that was more concrete that speaks to specific tools for different stakeholders, like maybe civil society for advocacy or diplomats or development actors who are doing the work out in the field. So any ideas that anyone have those kinds of conversations? Online as well, feel free. Zora, is anyone from online wanting to participate? Okay. Go ahead, Brett. It’s not working.

Audience:
Hello. Hi. Brett Solomon from Access Now. Thanks a lot for the principles and for the donors who have worked on it and for civil society as well. I just wanted to… your point and I think also to David’s as well, is just if these principles serve as a tool to focus donors’ minds on how to get more money out the door and into the hands of the beneficiaries, then I think that’s a real plus. If what actually happens is that they become a bureaucratic roadblock to the delivery of money, then that’s a backfire. And I think in terms of the toolkits and the processes and the briefings and all of that, like the starting point should be, and I’m speaking from the perspective of civil society is, or from my perspective as a civil society member, is that civil society is currently so under-resourced and so under attack and so on the front line, particularly organisations in the global majority. And so whatever we can do to leverage these principles to facilitate the transfer of funds from those who have it to those who need it, then the better. And I would think that should be the starting point of any of the briefings or the processes for implementation.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
It’s very helpful, thank you. Anyone else want to speak to that? Go ahead, Quinn.

Audience:
I’m sorry, I’m speaking too much, but taking off what Brett just said, there’s something that all of us in civil society, particularly working on digital rights and these issues are acutely aware of, which is the big hanging question over all of us, particularly in global majority countries of what is gonna happen with open society foundations. There’s very strong indications they will be pulling away from funding a large number of the organisations they have supported in the past. And so the question is, what is going to be the response of the donor community if they think it’s very important to have these organisations at the local. national level in the global majority countries be strong, what is going to be the response from, as Brett was saying, those who have lots of funding. I mean, statutory donors typically provide larger grants, but it’s often harder to get them to smaller ones. And while these donor principles don’t necessarily talk about that in terms of that issue, I do think because this is a forum for donors here, DR, I just thought it was useful maybe to reflect that there is a huge amount of uncertainty in the community because open society has funded at the human rights level so many organizations broadly and at a small level, but was very useful for sustaining and securing. And with that question, there is, as Brett was saying, there’s a huge amount of uncertainty in the field about how are we going to sustain the momentum that we’ve had. And so in these donor conversations, it’d be very useful to think about that level of how do we sustain and build the networks that are there when the funding environment is so uncertain at present. That’s all.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
Yeah, that’s a really good point, changing landscape for sure. So I wanted to bring it back to the question that Daniela raised about private sector. See, are there any private sector partners who maybe could comment on how private sector organizations who do have even more money than donors do oftentimes could potentially partner with donors on digital security or any of the other issues raised in other principles? Invite those online or in the room. Michael, I don’t want to put you on the spot, but if there are no other private sector partners who want to speak, I will because I know you are one.

Michael Karimian:
Thank you, not appreciated. So I think your question speaks to a broader challenge, frankly, which is that in low and middle income countries, as they undergo digital transformation that expands the cybersecurity threat landscape. And so there absolutely needs to be more effort as some are already doing. For example, the GFCE, the ITU is looking at this as well. Among others, Microsoft too, the government of Sweden. How do we mainstream digital security, cybersecurity into the digital development arena? And as we start to now look at the post 2030 agenda, we need to be much more acutely aware of that than when the 2030 agenda was created in the first place, where digital transformation was. undervalued as a means for achieving the SDGs. It’s kind of a conversation happening now, which is a bit too late. And so how do we think about cybersecurity in the post-2030 agenda is absolutely a critical component of that conversation, which is starting now. The GDC process must be part of that, whatever happens with the new agenda for peace as well. But yeah, absolutely. I mean, it’s much bigger than just what we’re looking at in these principles today, I think. Thank you.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
Well, and that raises a good point about some of the other fora through which these conversations, and particularly the human rights and democracy affirming kind of perspective, could join forces with some of the more traditional cybersecurity conversations that have been occurring in the ITU and GFCE, et cetera. And so we’d love to hear if anyone is engaged in those processes currently, if there are any concrete recommendations for next steps for trying to engage in those spaces and networks that have thus far not been connected that well, at least from the space where I sit in the DRG, Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Bureau at USAID. And I know from talking to other donors as well that the democracy and human rights issues on the technology side have been siloed oftentimes from many of these other technology conversations that are happening at the global level. So any insights from anyone in the room, or Michael, feel free to also respond, or anyone online as well.

Audience:
May I? Yes, please. Yes, I don’t know where to start. Thank you for being one of the participants in this launch. But all that I want to say, my name’s Honorable Ratilo from Botswana. It’s around 3.05 in the morning. want to say here is that when you are talking about the civil society, indeed the civil society can play a critical role, but at the same time we have to try to understand some few things because in most of the country you will realize that there’s no strong civil society in place, but the digital human rights violations are in place. So how are we going to try to protect those people who are living in those countries? We can try to protect the interests of the ordinary people or the community, but at the same time the donors cannot reach that because they have not registered a civil society in their respective country, but at the same time I will decide because I’m a member of parliament, I keep on telling them no, once the violation of the human rights take place on the issue of digital, I will take the government to court, but at the same time I don’t have enough financial muscle to protect the interests of the ordinary people before the court of law simply because of the financial muscle. Now I want to pose a question, how are we going to assist those type of the countries that are not really vibrant in the line of the civil society? Thank you.

Moderator – Lisa Poggiali:
So I think if I’m understanding right, the question was in spaces where civil society doesn’t have that kind of leverage with the government or doesn’t have the resources, how it is that we can support them in order to hold governments accountable when human rights are being violated. If you wanted to put something in the chat, we couldn’t hear, some of the audio was breaking up. I think that’s an excellent question and I think that that’s something that donors can heed the call on to support civil society. And these principles certainly provide a foundation for doing that on these critical human rights issues in particular. So thank you for that. I will right now turn it over to Sidney to close out the session and he will introduce the last speaker.

Moderator – Sidney Leclercq:
Yes, time flies when we’re having fun. And so we’re a bit late, but I’ll introduce maybe Adrian DiGiovanni, our team leader on democratic and inclusive governance at IDRC. And he’ll be providing some closing remarks. And he’s online from Ottawa. Adrian, over to you.

Adrian di Giovanni:
Hi, good morning, everyone. Can you hear me okay? Perfect. All right, so I’ll just dive in and it’s really just to say a few words of thank you. It’s bedtime here, so I managed to join in for the plenary discussion right now and I have a flavor for the richness of your discussion. So really to our distinguished guests and panelists, ladies and gentlemen, it’s an immense pleasure for me to join you from Ottawa, Canada. We’re on the unceded, unsurrendered territories of the Algonquin and Anishinaabe people. We just passed our third annual National Truth and Reconciliation Day in Canada. So we always recognize the traditional custodians of the territories we’re on. And it’s a wonderful event, the launching of donor principles on human rights and the digital age. And we’re really delighted to have been part of this effort and the principles couldn’t arrive at a more critical time. I don’t have to talk to a group of experts like yourself about the fast pace and ever accelerating pace of change with technology and how it can be a double-edged sword. And we always grapple in our work, do we talk about things as an opportunity or as a challenge? And we see it both, and especially for democratic values and human rights for the most marginalized and vulnerable communities in the majority world. Digital technologies, yes, powerful tools for information sharing, self-expression and organization, but they can also be used to deny or diminish people’s. And again, I think within the room, it’s probably come up quite a bit, a lot of the threats. And we’ve seen how digital technologies can play a key role in the decline or backsliding of democratic processes. And this Vera, from what I understand, and I read her opening remarks, mentioned how most often where you see stresses online in the digital space, it reflects a broader decline in human rights and freedoms across the world. And we see that work. We’re at the Democratic Inclusive Governance team at IDRC. We see both the online stresses on the ground and actually how they may feed one another, something we actively try to think about and understand. So that’s why at the International Development Research Center here in Canada, we’re a funder and a champion of research for sustainable, inclusive development. And we’ve been supporting work to improve evidence and understanding of all these critical phenomenon, like information disorder, technology-facilitated gender-based violence, and the online shrinking of civic space. For more on that, Steve Urquia in the room there, she’s definitely a resident expert. And really for us at IDRC, we focus on the experiences of populations and communities across the global majority. We have also aimed at strengthening the capacity of research institutions and civil society organizations to build global self-knowledge networks and to better enable cross-learning and scaling of policy solutions. So a couple of examples are the Feminist Internet Research Network and the Data-Free Development Network. And so many of the discussions just now definitely ring true about trying to reach local organizations, actors, flowing our funding directly. We’re nimble enough. We often get to do it. And that’s really where colleagues like Sidney and Rahia find great joy in the work. We also see the power. And for us, this is part of our contributions to a localization agenda. And on technology, we definitely see the gaps and opportunities, especially in terms of ensuring that strategies are tailored to context. non-European language where from what I understand most of the action can be when it comes to some of the distortions and sneaker democratic governance. So just to say collectively as donors we have a responsibility to ensure that the actions and investments made in digital initiatives do not contribute to an erosion of human rights protections and democratic institutions processes and norms. So in other words to echo the introductory remark donors must do no harm and that’s something because we’re a research funder we take seriously across every single project we fund and so it’s not a pediment to funding just echo a comment earlier it’s actually something we take very seriously and it’s becoming harder to understand how to ensure we do no harm with many of the threats out there to democracy around the world. I mean this is why the donor principles are such an important step they provide both a safeguarding and accountability framework to ensure an alignment between investments in digital and innovative initiatives and commitments to human rights and democratic values. So I’ll also emphasize the importance of inputs from government civil society and private sector throughout the consultation and drafting process of these principles. At Year Z we’re kind of a public institution we’re close to civil society we engage with a variety of actors and so these kind of multi-stakeholder settings we really see as key and I want to thank take this opportunity to thank all colleagues who have taken the time to provide feedback and really to improve the principles and to arrive at the version that you see now. And of course the adoption of the principles is just the start and that’s why together with U.S. colleagues we have wanted this launch to be not just about presenting and discussing the principles but already to begin to dive into the critical question of so what or now what and what next especially through the breakout groups you’ve had and you know I’ve had the pleasure to just really hear your debriefing now. And so This idea, again, it reflects our mix of what we think is needed for effective change going forward. So, as you’ve all just done in this session, you’ve started to address the issues around what the principles actually might mean in practice, what kind of internal and external change is required, how to go about implementation, who do we need to engage with, and how can we measure progress once it is made. This is vital into translating the principles into action and impact. And I have to say the large majority of the work that we support on human rights is about the implementation gap. You can have many great principles and frameworks and constitutions around the world, it’s really then ensuring that they get implementation in the spirit, implemented in the spirit of human dignity, as was mentioned in the opening remarks. So, if you do have further input to provide, we really encourage you to share any comments or suggestions. You have after this launch, including through the dedicated email address colleagues from the FOC have created. I imagine someone in the room can point you to it, but it’s donorprinciples at freedomonlinecoalition.com. And so, let me just conclude by thanking again all of the panelists and the presenters who came before. I believe that they have already been thanked. And also really to end on a note of gratitude to our U.S. colleagues who have shown incredible dedication and commitment throughout the development, consultation and negotiations of the donor principles. It’s with a debt of gratitude that I’ll end. Blame Sydney if I’m gone over time.

Moderator – Sidney Leclercq:
Thank you so much, Adrian. And thank you to everyone for the luncheon. Thank you very much, Lisa. Thank you.