Gathering and Sharing Session: Digital ID and Human Rights C | IGF 2023 Networking Session #166

Speaker 3

Speaker 3 discusses two initiatives aimed at solving problems within the coalition. The first initiative is the National Legislation Mapping Group, which conducts mapping exercises to understand the development of ID systems in different countries. This group recognizes that the issuing and implementation of nationality programs vary greatly across the world and seeks to compare and understand these differences. By doing so, they aim to identify best practices and foster collaboration between countries.

The importance of the National Legislation Mapping Group’s work is emphasized by Speaker 3. Through their mapping exercises, the group hopes to create a comprehensive understanding of the different approaches and challenges in developing ID systems. This knowledge can then be used to inform policy decisions and drive innovation in the field of identity management. The group’s work is particularly relevant to SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, as it aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of identification processes worldwide.

Speaker 3 also highlights the collaborative and flexible nature of the methodology used by the mapping group. Each member contributes their ideas to the development of the methodology, ensuring that it reflects diverse perspectives and is adaptable to different contexts. This flexibility is vital for newcomers to easily understand and contribute to the mapping exercises.

Furthermore, the National Legislation Mapping Group has specific goals and aims for its work. They aim to develop a tool that can be hosted on each organization’s website, making the information easily accessible to stakeholders. This tool would enable organizations to compare and learn from the different legislative approaches employed by countries around the world. Additionally, the group aspires to adopt a more quantitative approach in the future, further enhancing the accuracy and comprehensiveness of their mapping exercises.

In conclusion, the initiatives discussed by Speaker 3 are positive steps towards achieving the goals of the coalition. By mapping the development of ID systems and understanding the varying approaches to nationality programs, the National Legislation Mapping Group is contributing to the partnership for SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals. Their collaborative and flexible methodology ensures that all members of the group can contribute effectively. The goals and aims of the mapping group highlight their commitment to advancing knowledge and promoting best practices in the field of identity management. Ultimately, these initiatives have the potential to drive innovation, foster collaboration, and create positive change within the coalition.

Audience

The speakers at the event covered various topics related to proactivity, digital ID systems, biometrics, and government cooperation. They highlighted the importance of proactive initiatives within organizations, advocating for the need to put things on the agenda themselves. The audience agreed that Caitlyn’s organization supports proactivity and is not just reactive but also proactive.

The discussion also touched upon the implementation of digital ID systems in different countries. The World Bank has been advocating for the entity system, which is being used in countries with numerous problems. The audience believes that the entity system is perceived as a solution for struggling countries, and the World Bank has been endorsing it as a proposed fix.

The government in Mexico is trying to pass a law to expand the digital ID system, raising concerns about the use of funds collected through digital ID. Similarly, there is an expectation for the implementation of mandatory digital ID in Mexico. In Iraq, it was stated that there is currently no biometric system in place.

The introduction of biometric passports worldwide has been initially rejected by most countries but later accepted. Hugo Cordova, an employee of the European Parliament, is currently working on legislation to introduce electronic IDs for Europe.

Concerns were raised about the coexistence of international and national digital identity initiatives and their respective purposes. The audience highlighted the need for clarity on how multiple digital identity initiatives would cohabit. The discussion also touched upon the entry process for various coalitions, as Camila wanted to know how to join.

Armando Manzuela from the Dominican Republic expressed his interest in seeing the scope of a study extended to other countries within the same region. He offered to share plenty of information from his country. The convergence of national and supernationals electronic identity systems into international standards was seen as a possibility in the future, but concerns were raised about the governance of these systems and the need for privacy safeguards.

The principle of necessity was emphasized for digital ID systems, as it was argued that each system should be based on the principle of necessity and not applicable to all contexts. Digital ID systems were also discussed as socio-technical systems, not just technological systems, where context should be carefully considered in analyses. Extensive documentation of the harms that digital ID systems can create and exacerbate was also highlighted.

The speakers also touched upon the importance of public interest litigation and the potential involvement of individuals. The audience acknowledged and appreciated the influence of work done on multinational and national issues related to digital identification. However, concerns were raised about the lack of engagement with communities and the penetration level of the ID system in certain countries.

The significance of digital identity as the entry to the digital economy and society was discussed. The implementation of digital identity was seen as a way to track individuals, and there was increasing momentum from both the government and private sector for its implementation. However, doubts were raised about whether digital identity could be implemented correctly given the pressure.

There was mention of a private meeting on litigation about digital ID, indicating that Peter from Access Now is planning to discuss this topic at the meeting. He also expressed the need for a better acronym for their network.

The importance of multilateral engagement for the proactive development of the Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) safeguards initiative was discussed. The need for a deeper and more participatory engagement process beyond unilateral consultation was emphasized, as the coalition aimed to not just contribute inputs but also receive feedback. The upcoming summit of the future was seen as a pivotal moment for the coalition.

The tech envoy’s insight into the safeguards process’ timeline and key engagement opportunities was highly sought after, as the coalition was eager to prepare for future engagements. The coalition also stressed the importance of civil society involvement and accountability in digitization interventions.

The UNDP’s signing of an MOU with the Kenyan government regarding digital ID without civil society or community engagement was criticized. The audience believed that the UNDP should not abet exclusion in digitization interventions and should be accountable. Transparency and the right to information were seen as essential, and there were concerns about the lack of information regarding the negotiated protection mechanisms concerning civil society.

The benefits of open-source technology for critical systems development by the government were highlighted. Open-source technology was seen as a way to ensure safety, security, and trust in government systems, and it also opened up the possibility for global contribution to what was being built. The audience expressed the belief that everything should be digitized using open-source technology to prevent issues faced by countries with their digital systems.

Regarding government cooperation, the audience expressed a desire for more transparency and communication. There were incidents of claimed public participation without actual involvement, and progress in advocacy in Kenya related to the Data Protection Act and digital access was discussed. It was stressed that the government should work effectively with civil societies and the UNDP.

The event also saw community members expressing their interest in joining the community and asking how to get involved. One audience member, who represented a tech company, T4Beast, with a strong presence in the MENA region, highlighted their expertise in supervision, digitalization, and security. The audience believed that T4Beast was the biggest in the region and valued their close partnership in META.

In conclusion, the event covered a wide range of topics related to proactivity, digital ID systems, biometrics, and government cooperation. The speakers and audience highlighted the importance of proactive initiatives, community engagement, transparency, open-source technology, and effective communication between stakeholders. They also discussed the potential risks and benefits associated with the implementation of digital ID systems. The speakers emphasized the need for context-specific approaches to digital ID systems and the importance of privacy safeguards. Overall, the event provided valuable insights and sparked important discussions about the challenges and opportunities in the digital identification landscape.

Speaker 5

The team responsible for organising the Summit for the Future has developed a plan to host multiple convenings in the lead-up to the summit. These convenings aim to gather input and feedback on the overall process, ensuring that a diverse range of perspectives and ideas are considered.

In addition to in-person convenings, a virtual platform will be provided for individuals unable to attend in person. This platform will enable participants to share their experiences and contribute to the dialogue, ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to actively participate and provide insights, regardless of physical presence.

One of the summit speakers strongly advocates for open dialogue and collective input, emphasising the importance of civil society’s involvement. The speaker encourages civil society to engage and participate in the summit’s discussions. This approach highlights the significance of inclusivity and diversity in decision-making processes and underscores the role of civil society in shaping the summit’s outcomes.

Overall, the team’s plan for the convenings, the inclusion of a virtual platform, and the call for open dialogue and collective input demonstrate a commitment to creating an accessible, inclusive, and responsive space. This approach aims to represent a wide range of voices and interests, fostering collaboration and partnership during the summit.

Amandeep Singh Gill

There is a growing interest in Digital Public Infrastructures (DPIs), and more investments are being directed towards them. It is crucial to develop a safeguards framework to protect the safety, security, human rights, and sustainability considerations associated with these infrastructures. This framework aims to ensure that investments in digital infrastructure do not lead to violations in these areas.

Addressing the issue of exclusion in digital public infrastructures, especially for marginalized groups, is also important. Efforts should be made to avoid excluding these groups and ensure that DPIs are accessible and inclusive for everyone.

Prominent advocate Amandeep Singh Gill suggests the formation of multi-stakeholder partnerships to develop and implement effective safeguards. Involving various stakeholders, including governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector, these partnerships can establish comprehensive safeguards for DPIs.

To support this initiative, the UN Secretary-General’s tech envoy launched an initiative with the UNDP on DPI safeguards, reflecting a positive sentiment towards the need for these safeguards.

Regarding governance, there are plans to establish a governance structure for the DPI initiative. This structure will include an advisory board and a steering committee, contributing to the decision-making process. Additionally, efforts are underway to identify learning partners who can provide valuable insights and contribute to the development of this governance structure.

Engaging civil society and the private sector is also a priority, particularly in developing digital ID systems. Consultations with these stakeholders are planned, recognizing the key role the private sector can play in developing digital identification systems.

The overarching goal is to leverage DPIs in a human-centered and human rights-respecting manner to advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Planning for a good and ambitious global digital compact is underway to ensure DPIs significantly contribute to the achievement of the SDGs.

A noteworthy observation is Amandeep Singh Gill’s emphasis on joint participation in building and maintaining digital platforms. He suggests involving the community in the process, enabling them to contribute to the development and maintenance of digital systems.

Furthermore, Amandeep Singh Gill highlights the importance of accountability for UN agencies in maintaining DPIs and digital services. He suggests holding these agencies accountable as per the safeguards framework to ensure effective management of digital services.

In conclusion, there is a need to establish a safeguards framework around DPIs, ensuring safety, security, human rights, and sustainability considerations are not violated. Multi-stakeholder partnerships, governance structures, and engagement with civil society and the private sector are key elements in developing and implementing effective safeguards. Leveraging DPIs in a human-centered manner can significantly contribute to the attainment of the SDGs. Additionally, promoting joint participation and accountability are crucial in maintaining DPIs and digital services on the ground.

Speaker 1

The organization being discussed is a global coalition of civil society comprising diverse members, ranging from small grassroots organizations to large multinational NGOs. These members employ various approaches, including advocacy, lobbying, and strategic litigation, to advance their goals.

A significant highlight is the organization’s transition from a reactive to a proactive approach in the context of digital identity systems. Instead of merely reacting to opportunities, they now actively identify and pursue them. This proactive mindset enables them to develop shared resources and leverage their community’s strengths to achieve more inclusive outcomes.

Multilateral engagement and national level advocacy have been identified as key priorities for collective action. The organization seeks to incorporate its members’ concerns, information, and expertise in multilateral spaces and international organizations. Additionally, they focus on advocacy at the national level to promote human rights.

Speaker 1 demonstrates a positive stance towards the organization’s evolution and development. They highlight achievements such as agreeing on a shared vision, formalizing a structure, and identifying key priorities. The transition from a reactive to proactive approach is seen as a significant advancement.

The ongoing discussion revolves around clarifying the distinction between legal identity and digital ID. This discussion takes place both online and at RiceCon, and the community perceives productive progress. The incorporation of safeguards and remedies is central to this ongoing debate.

It is important to note that there have been misunderstandings regarding civil society’s approach to digital identity systems. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the difference between legal identity and digital ID. The speaker does not oppose digital IDs but emphasizes the need for appropriate safeguards to protect individuals’ rights.

In summary, the organization is a global coalition of civil society with diverse membership and approaches. They have transitioned to a proactive approach towards digital identity systems, and prioritize multilateral engagement and national level advocacy. The ongoing discussion revolves around clarifying the distinction between legal identity and digital ID while highlighting the importance of safeguards and remedies.

Laura Bingham

Strategic litigation has generated significant interest within civil society communities. To address this, a strategic litigation training workshop has been organized. The decision to hold this workshop was influenced by a heat mapping exercise conducted by the organization, which likely revealed a high demand for knowledge and expertise in this area.

In addition, the concept of ‘Digital ID done right’ was discussed, highlighting its dynamic nature. It was emphasized that Digital ID implementation should not be seen as a one-time event but rather an ongoing process that requires constant monitoring and adaptation to local, national, and regional contexts. This recognition acknowledges the evolving nature of society and the need for digital identification systems to respond accordingly.

Moreover, the importance of incorporating frameworks for ongoing feedback was emphasized. It was suggested that these frameworks are crucial in addressing exclusion and rectifying any issues that may arise during the implementation of Digital ID systems. By continuously seeking feedback from individuals affected by these systems, organizations can ensure they are inclusive and responsive to the needs of all stakeholders.

In conclusion, strategic litigation has garnered significant interest within civil society communities, leading to the organization of a dedicated training workshop. Furthermore, the concept of ‘Digital ID done right’ recognizes the need for constant monitoring and adaptation to effectively respond to evolving societal dynamics. Incorporating feedback frameworks is crucial to ensure the inclusivity and effectiveness of Digital ID systems.

Speaker 2

The coalition’s initiative in Costa Rica involves conducting an exercise to map the needs and capabilities of its members with the aim of facilitating knowledge sharing and capacity building. This initiative is driven by the recognition that effective collaboration and partnerships are essential in achieving the goals outlined in SDG 17: Partnerships for the goals.

Through this mapping exercise, the coalition has sought to identify a balance between the expertise that exists within its member organizations and the areas where development is needed. The exercise was successful in pinpointing the strengths and needs of the coalition’s members, providing valuable insights to guide future actions.

The mapping exercise revealed that some members excel in research fields such as discrimination, economic and social rights, privacy and data protections. On the other hand, there were identified needs in areas such as comparative examples, collective actions, surveillance fields, transparency, and access to information. This comprehensive understanding of the capabilities and gaps within the coalition’s organizations is crucial for effective collaboration and targeted capacity-building efforts.

In light of these findings, the coalition has encouraged its members to support each other by sharing their expertise and learning collectively. By populating the cells according to their strengths and needs, the members can better grasp the areas where support can be given and received. This collaborative effort aims to build capacity and address the identified needs collectively, enhancing the overall effectiveness of the coalition in working towards its goals.

Overall, the mapping exercise conducted by the coalition in Costa Rica has provided valuable insight into the needs and capabilities of its member organizations. By leveraging the strengths and expertise of its members and addressing the identified needs through collaborative learning, the coalition is well-positioned to make significant progress towards its objectives. This initiative demonstrates the power of partnerships and knowledge sharing in achieving the goals set forth in SDG 17.

Speaker 4

The Multilateral Working Group is a dedicated initiative that aims to enhance expertise building on a global scale while ensuring more strategic and coordinated engagement in multilateral forums. The group’s primary focus is on providing training related to technology, science, and standards, equipping members with the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively participate in these international platforms. This approach not only increases the group’s collective understanding of these subjects but also enables them to actively contribute to global development and problem-solving.

In addition to knowledge-building initiatives, the Multilateral Working Group also plays a crucial role in facilitating the participation of its members in international forums. They recognise the importance of having a diverse range of voices and perspectives in these discussions and, therefore, provide funding to support the presence of more members. This financial assistance ensures that individuals from various national contexts can actively engage and contribute to multilateral forums, enabling a more inclusive and comprehensive dialogue.

Another important aspect highlighted in the analysis is the significance of collective efforts in addressing issues related to identification systems. The importance of this collective approach was emphasised by the community involved in the study. They stressed the need for a unified and collaborative approach, acknowledging that tackling such complex issues requires the collective knowledge, skills, and resources of a diverse group of individuals and organisations.

To support this collective effort, the community developed a toolkit aimed at digital rights activists. This toolkit provides valuable insights into the intricate complexities associated with identification systems. Its purpose is to aid advocacy, mobilisation, and education on this topic. By equipping activists with a deeper understanding of identification systems, the toolkit empowers them to effectively advocate for policies and practices that align with the principles of peace, justice, and strong institutions, as outlined in SDG16.

In conclusion, the Multilateral Working Group’s focus on expertise building and strategic engagement in multilateral forums highlights their commitment to global collaboration and problem-solving. By providing training on important subjects and facilitating diverse participation in international platforms, the group aims to enhance the collective knowledge and impact of their members. Furthermore, the emphasis on the importance of collective efforts in addressing identification systems showcases the community’s dedication to promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions. The development of a toolkit further supports this objective by empowering activists to advocate for positive change in this area.

Moderator

The analysis of the provided information highlights several important points made by the speakers during the discussion. Firstly, it is noted that the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) community has made significant progress since the last meeting. This progress includes the development of a structured framework, regular communication, and the identification of thematic areas. These advancements suggest a more organized and coordinated approach within the IGF community.

The community places great importance on deliberate and intentional learning, leveraging each other’s strengths, and identifying gaps and opportunities. They have conducted exercises such as mapping the needs and capabilities of members to identify areas for knowledge sharing and influence. By focusing on capacity building in areas with greater needs, they aim to create a supportive and collaborative environment.

In terms of their focus, the community is working on two thematic groups: one focusing on national-level interventions and the other on multilateral engagement. This demonstrates their commitment to addressing different aspects and levels of digital identification issues.

The World Bank has advocated for the use of an entity system in countries facing various problems. However, it is important to note that digital ID should not be conflated with legal identity, as they serve different purposes. The community recognizes the need for disentanglement between these two concepts and is working towards achieving a common understanding.

The engagement in multilateral forums, particularly in the context of ID4D, has presented challenges. There have been both online conversations and discussions at events like RiceCon. However, misunderstandings in approach have been observed, emphasizing the complexities involved in addressing digital identity system issues at a global level.

Strategizing public interest litigation has been seen as an effective approach to address multinational and national issues related to digital identification. The analysis reveals that countries like Uganda are interested in learning from Kenya’s experiences in working on digital identification issues. Furthermore, the community’s engagement with civil societies and organizations from India and Jamaica showcases the potential for cross-country collaboration.

The analysis also emphasizes the importance of constant oversight and updates in socio-technical systems like digital ID. These systems need to adapt and evolve along with societal changes and should have mechanisms in place for feedback and addressing exclusions and other issues.

Public involvement and collaboration are encouraged for the development and maintenance of digital public infrastructure (DPI) and digital services. By involving the public, UN agencies can be held accountable, promoting a more transparent and inclusive approach.

The use of open-source technology in government systems is suggested as a way to develop secure, trusted, and effective systems. Open-source technology allows for a deeper understanding of how systems operate and enables technical communities from different countries to contribute to their development. It is considered a key solution to address ongoing challenges faced by countries in their digital systems.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the progress made by the IGF community in terms of structure, communication, and thematic areas. It also emphasizes their deliberate approach to learning, collaboration, and capacity building. The recognition of the need for disentanglement between legal identity and digital ID, as well as the challenges in multilateral engagement, are notable observations. The effectiveness of strategic litigation in addressing digital identification issues at various levels is also highlighted. Finally, the analysis underscores the importance of constant oversight and updates in socio-technical systems, as well as the value of public involvement and the use of open-source technology in government systems.

Moderator:
Okay, wonderful, fantastic to have you. We’ve got some new faces, lots of smiles, so that’s really exciting. So this session is about the digital what? IDs and?

Audience:
Human rights.

Moderator:
And we’re called a?

Audience:
Coalition.

Moderator:
A coalition, a?

Audience:
Revolution.

Moderator:
A revolution, a? Yes. Okay, welcome. So this session is really an opportunity for the digital IDs and human rights community to tell you a little bit about what they’re doing, to hear from you about what they do, and hopefully you can join this fantastic community, revolution, coalition, togetherness, yeah? Okay. Excellent. So this digital IDs community is global, yeah? We know what global means? Global means? Global? Huh? Over. Global means? Balloon.

Audience:
Balloon.

Moderator:
So we’ve got people from all over the world represented in this coalition, yeah? Okay, let’s see. We’ve got people from South America, where are you? You see? We have people from North America, can we hear it? Again, again. We have people from Europe in the coalition, where are they? We’ve got people from Asia, Asia, yeah, that was a very, Asia, can we hear you? Yeah, okay. We’ve got people from, we have Australia?

Audience:
Yes.

Moderator:
Hey! Okay, and then people from the motherland, where are you?

Audience:
Hey!

Moderator:
Okay, fantastic. So on our agenda, you have the slide? So on the agenda, we will start with really a brief. a brief overview, so we’ll have different members tell you about the incredible stuff that this community has been doing. They’ll tell you a little bit about the journey. It’s been about a year since the last IGF, isn’t it? But we’ve come such a long way, you know? They’ve got structure, they have regular communication, they have focus, they have thematic areas, they have, you’re going to wait and hear the rest. Okay, so you’ll hear about that and some of the activities that they are doing. Then we’ll also really like to hear from the rest of you and hear about what are some of the digital ID challenges that you’re dealing with, okay? So let’s start with a brief overview, background. Let’s give it up for Kaitlin, for Kaitlin! All right, here you go.

Speaker 1:
Hi everyone, I’m Kaitlin Shafi and I have the very difficult task of following our excellent moderator, Ash Newt. I can promise a drop in energy, so I apologize for that. And I won’t do any call and response, but what I’ve been asked to do is to give a background of our coalition work to tell you a bit how we got here today, why we’re here and why we really want to invite more of you to come join us in the great work that we’re doing in advancing digital ID and human rights. So Ash Newt’s already told you a little bit about who’s in the room, that we’re a global coalition. We are a civil society organization, so we are researchers, activists. Some of us are unfortunately lawyers as well. We’re diverse in our geography, but we’re also diverse in the size of organizations that we represent. So we have small community grassroots organizations all the way up to large multinational NGOs, people from universities. We really run the gamut when it comes to human rights organizations and human rights actors. We’re also very diverse in the reasons why we’re interested in digital ID. People are approaching it from many different perspectives, bringing many different viewpoints, and we’re very diverse as well in our approach to how we come to the work. Some of us are researchers, some of us are engaged in advocacy, some of us do lobbying, strategic litigation. We bring a lot of tools to the table when it comes to advancing human rights. And really the reason that we came together is because we have shared concerns about the types of digital ID systems that we’re seeing, the way digital identity is being formed. And if you look at the timeline, which is the slide that’s on the screen right now, you can see that in the beginning we were very reactive. So we saw opportunities to come together for consultation. consultations, to do joint research projects, to write things like open letters that shared some of our concerns, but we were really reacting to opportunities that we saw. And over the past few years, I think we’ve become a much more proactive community. So we’ve become more cohesive, we do have structure now, which is very exciting for all of us, and also we are trying to be much more forward-looking, to identify opportunities before they come, so that we’re much more prepared to meet them, to develop shared resources, and also to leverage the strengths of our community to build more inclusive and human rights-focused outcomes. And it’s very special for us to be here today at IGF in the first public session to share the work of our coalition, because it was actually at IGF last year in Addis that the coalition really began to take on a formal shape. So that’s when we launched our initial volunteer group to start establishing some structures, and started to bring what was at the time a very loose coalition of civil society organizations together into something that is much, much, much more organized today. And over the last year, we are in a kind of a piloting phase, a building phase, but we’ve accomplished quite a lot. We’ve agreed on a shared vision statement for the coalition, so we’re a powerful coalition that aims to move together to provide solidarity and support, and engage in collective action. And we have a beautiful one-pager that’s on the table here, and I’m sure will be shared with some of the folks online as well, talking about some of our shared vision. And we also established a structure, which will be the next slide that you’ll see here. And at the top of this structure, the thing that is most important to us is our community membership. All of the CSOs and activists that have come together, that is our strength, and that is what we build all of our work on. And to bring some shape and structure to that, we established a coordinating group that’s responsible for setting meetings, developing visions to share with the group, setting up things like sharing sessions as well. We have a specific work stream on sharing and learning, so we have, for instance, shared information about strategic litigation that’s happening in Uganda for the rest of the coalition to learn and hear about current developments, and we have a lot of other opportunities planned where information and resources will be shared with members of the coalition. We also have a work stream on communication, so improving the way that we share and communicate with one another, but also. with the outside world. And perhaps most importantly, at the last meeting we had together, identified two priorities for collective action. So one is on multilateral engagement, on bringing the concerns and the information and the expertise of our members into multilateral spaces and international organizations. And we also have a piece of collective action on national level advocacy. And I have some wonderful colleagues here who are gonna share a bit more about this work. So without further ado, I’ll turn it over to Janina, who’s gonna talk about some of the needs mapping that we’ve done.

Audience:
Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi.

Moderator:
What did you like about what Caitlyn said? Anything that struck a chord? I hope you’re paying attention. Should we ask her to get back again? You like the word community? Aha, what else did we like from Caitlyn’s presentation? Caitlyn’s presentation? You talk to me. Please, don’t be like on Zoom where you hide behind the screens. What did we like about Caitlyn? What else did Caitlyn say that we liked? Sorry?

Audience:
She said that they’re not just reactive, but they’re proactive. Proactive. Putting things on the agenda themselves, which is good.

Moderator:
Okay, excellent. You had another point. Any other thing that stood out for us? Okay, all right. So now let’s listen to Janaina. She’s going to tell us about one of the initiatives of the coalition, of the community.

Speaker 2:
Thank you so much, Ashmit. I don’t know if everyone here was in Costa Rica. I don’t know if Ridescom, but when you were there, get. So some of us, yes. But what we did there, we did this exercise, this mapping of our needs and our capabilities. What we tried to do is actually, it’s better show where we can influence and we can share knowledge between our members and where we can actually build the capacity, where we need to build this capacity. This is something that Juan’s gonna tell just after me. And we wanted to see how we can find these areas. The coalition members can support each other. So we did one sheet just for the capabilities and distribute another sheet just for the needs. What we ask for our members were to populate the cells, where they, for example, which kind of digital governance influence methods they utilize in their organizations and which kind of human rights and social fields they are most, build their expertise on it. So we give them these examples, and I think we can show the next one. And what we came with all of these answers is what we have flourished in the capabilities map, where we have our strengths, where each organization can support each other, like the big ones, the multilateral ones. So here we can see, for example, where some of our members comment. For example, one of our members had like 12 affiliate actors, and they produced state policy research outputs. They are very strong in research fields like discrimination, economic and social rights, privacy and data protections. Other members are like real GDPR experts. They’re from lawmaking to enforcement and compliance. We also have experts using personas, storytelling, and how to reach communities, how to actually raise awareness, and how to stoke advocacy. So these are strong suits, and this is how we can support each other. But also, we see where are our biggest needs, where we should focus our capacity building, where we can actually construct workshops, bring more experts, actually, to help us to capacity build on our needs. So here we see where our members want to learn more about it. For instance, learn about comparative examples. Some of them want more focus on collective actions, alias for advocacy, and their surveillance fields, transparency, and access to information. And this also speaks from our multilateral engagement projects, and also the national legislation project that I’m going to pass to Juan to speak, and how we share knowledge on these two big fields that you’ll focus on this year. So without further ado, Juan, please. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Janaina. As you can see, the community is very deliberate, very intentional on trying to make sure that members learn from each other, leverage on each other’s strengths, really understand where are the gaps, where are the opportunities. and use that to create opportunities to learn from one another. Not just regionally, not just nationally, but? But all over the world. Can you imagine being part of that? Exciting, yeah? Okay. Thank you, thank you. Okay, so we are now going to listen to one of the initiatives that the community is working on. There are two thematic groups. One looking at national level interventions, and then the other one looking at multilateral engagement. So let’s give it up for Juan.

Speaker 3:
Thank you, thank you. Okay. It’s hard to fight against jet lag and keeping such high energy levels. I mean, I’m not gonna be able to deliver as good, but yeah. Yeah, I’m not gonna try and match it, yeah. That’s right.

Moderator:
Should we try and give you energy?

Speaker 3:
No, no, no, I’m fine.

Moderator:
Should we try? Thank you. Should we try and give you energy? Let’s give him energy. Shall we give him energy? You see, we are compassionate, kind. Hey, imagine. We are compassionate, we are kind, we support each other. Yeah, shall we clap? Clap. Energy, energy, energy, energy.

Speaker 3:
Thank you. Okay, now proceed, yeah. I’m feeling very capable now. So yeah, we’ve got two initiatives that are working groups aimed at solving particular problems that we think we can solve for in the coalition. And one of them is the National Legislation Mapping Group. We, this stems also from the Ridescon meeting in which we agreed on forming these two groups. And this one, what it’s doing is a mapping exercise on the development of ID systems in different countries. One of the reasons we think that’s an important task is because the issuing and the implementation of nationality programs is very different in different parts of the world. And we try and compare those different systems in different places to understand how they’re working and to use that knowledge to our advantage in terms of advocacy mainly. So this was a prioritization, as I mentioned, from the Ridescon Summit. And the idea behind it is that we create a tool that’s useful to advocate mainly. We are not a coalition that’s focused only on research or on academic work, although we’re very academically capable as well. We do think that that’s a requirement to build better arguments. But we’re aiming this effort towards something which allows us to move forward our advocacy efforts. And then the methodology, which is maybe one of the stronger points of this exercise as a whole, was collectively developed as well. It’s very flexible, but every member of the working group has pitched in with ideas and with ways of making that methodology very strong, which I think it’s one of the strengths of the group as a whole. So the methodology has that advantage. And the other one is that it’s easy for newcomers to adapt to it. So this is, of course, an invitation for all of you to come join us. join us, but we develop it so that any country or any researcher can come in at any point and bring their specific situation to the table in a manner that allows us to compare the different situations all around the world. So yeah, I think we can show them the idea of how we’re going to – oh yeah, first the categories that we’re actually mapping. For now, it’s these five. We, as I mentioned, have a methodology on how we’re gathering this information in order to make it easy to compare. But this is very much still open to discussion. If we see that we need to develop more or newer categories, we can do that. And then what we’re aiming for with the results is something, at least for the first part, that looks like the next slide. Yeah, something of this sort. So we’re trying to develop something that can be hosted in each organization’s website so that it doesn’t require people to navigate to another website in itself, but it can be – I mean, it’s the same information presented in many different places. And we’re trying to, for now, just have the more narrative version of it displayed. But this is going to be the building, the stepping stone for probably a more quantitative approach towards ID in the future. That depends on what we’re doing. And as you can see, I mean, some countries are already beginning to be blue. But on this side of the map, we still lack some of your help. So if you’re willing to join, that would be great. And yeah, I think that’s it for the National Legislation Group for now. I guess we can take questions on the methodology and everything on the Q&A. Next up, Marianne.

Speaker 4:
I have a lot of energy. I have all the energy. I have all of the energy that you guys do not have. I stole it. Hi. from Access Now. I am the campaigner for YID, which is our campaign on digital identity. So I was supposed to talk to you. I don’t have phone graphs. I only have this one slide. So I need to have a lot of energy to counteract it. But this is basically what the Multilateral Working Group has been working on for the past year. We have been working a lot and meeting constantly so many meetings. This is not trying to deter you from joining. Like, you can join the meetings as you wish. And as you can, you do not have to be present weekly. I mean, yeah, no, but we have the biweekly. And then we have the working group meeting. So it’s a lot. It’s just I’m saying. I’m just saying we have worked a lot. That is good. So this is basically our effort to build expertise that is across national context and transnational and global, which are all different things, and engaging multilateral forums in a way that is more strategic and coordinated, because we have been doing that, all of us, but separately and uncoordinatedly so far. So basically, the goal is to ensure that all of the community members that are part of the coalition have the timely information and the insights so that they can engage in processes at an international level, but also to be able to understand which tools and which activities and which learning experiences can be developed that integrate the different needs across the globe. So that means that, on the one hand, we, this year, work on a collective strategy for our members, independently, to engage with different processes, such as the UN-GIA High Level Week, where we have different sorts of participation and different types of meetings, and then a debrief session to understand how to work with the knowledge that each of us have acquired throughout the different activities. That also means that we are preparing trainings on technology, the science, and standards, and also on how to engage in this forum, because for each organization, we all have different levels of expertise, and we all have different. approaches to how to engage and where to engage. And also, the coalition has been funding, providing funding for the presence of more members on forums like this one. So a lot of the people who came to this IGF, to the previous IGF, to Ridescone as well, to our meeting at Ridescone, where their travel was funded by them. Also, the YAD campaign, ha, ha, ha, you knew this was coming. The YAD campaign is launching today, a report that we have been working on for an entire year with the community, which was a community effort that many of you were part of at the last Ridescone, providing feedback in our zero draft of this. This is a toolkit that, I don’t know if we have a couple of them still there, but the great part is that now we have a website and everyone can see it on the website. This toolkit aims to help digital rights activists working on the identification systems to navigate the complexities of this topic in an easier way and to provide them with language that might help them get started in campaigning and mobilizing, advocating, educating around the YAD systems. So this is basically a stack of a framework to help us think about the YAD systems. And it came from community effort to understand what the global needs were across different regions. And that is all from me. Thank you. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Thank you. Excellent. You see? You’ll even have cards. You have tools. So many things, yeah? OK, so we’ve heard from the different presentations. So what I’d just like to give you is three minutes with the person next to you or three of you. Do you have any questions about the community, about the coalition? Is there anything that intrigues you? Yeah, I give you three minutes. Three minutes. Just talk to the person next to you. Not to your phone. The phone is not a person. A laptop is not a person. A person is an actual human being. Yes. Talk to the person next to you. Please talk to each other. I beg, I beg, talk to each other.

Audience:
The entity system can also be found in countries that have many other problems as well. The World Bank and others have been pushing it as a solution.

Moderator:
Hey, people, please put your phone down. Talk to the person next to you. That phone is with you.

Audience:
I have no natural entity system. By the way, by the way, in Iraq, it’s not my national identity. which is very new in Mexico. Sorry? In the passport. The biometric passport. Okay, yeah. So still, there is no biometric in the world. And the big question is then you have to be mindful what they do with that money. Yeah, I don’t know. There will be creative appliances in the future. Government institutions that collect or that are provided by the authorities like the governments or the nearest organizations or the global organizations that provide the digital ID or add it to the wall. And there are others like the tax authorities. But now, particularly right now, like probably next week, the government is trying to pass a law to expand the digital ID that will be like the mandatory ID for all people in Mexico. And so, we’ve been expecting this for a long time. And they have not been able to do that. Yeah. No, in Iraq, it’s…

Moderator:
Okay, can I have your attention, Bob?

Audience:
My passport just came in. No! So there is a biometric thing, which is very new. And in the beginning, most of the countries, they rejected it. Can I have your attention? They asked people to have it around the world. And now they accept it. So, for example, if you are in trouble… Can I have your attention, please? Yes? So, yeah. Okay, what questions do we have? What questions do we have? What questions do we have? There are no questions. I was hoping for at least… No questions for the community? Oh, it’s clear? It was perfect? Okay. Okay, let’s listen. Hello, everybody. My name is Hugo Cordova, and I work for the European Parliament. I’m working currently in legislation to make electronic IDs for Europe. And my question will be for everybody here who wants to answer. We know that these digital identities now are going to be more and more provided by different countries. How this coexistence of these initiatives with the national solutions is going to cohabit, and what is the purpose of one and another? How is the relationship? Thank you. Okay.

Moderator:
Good thing I’m a moderator. Someone from the community will answer that. Do we have any other questions? Take two or three. Any other questions for the community? Yes.

Audience:
Okay, so we are just curious about the impressive work, and we wanted to know how many organizations are in the coalition so far. Yeah.

Moderator:
How many are we? We are so many. Can you even count? Someone start counting, okay?

Audience:
Hi, I’m Camila from EDAC in Brazil, and my question is, how can we enter the coalition?

Moderator:
You have to go through me, number one. Any other?

Audience:
Two questions, yeah. How much does it cost to join, and why don’t you have a better name and acronym?

Moderator:
A better name, an acronym, as compared to? As compared to? OK. That’s another question. Any other? Those were three? OK.

Audience:
Hello, I’m Ale from Brazil. I’d like to hear how the coalition have been influencing multilateral and international organizations such as ID4D and so on. Thank you.

Moderator:
OK. Do we have someone for each of the questions? Can we take any other? Are we ready? Two more, two more points. Are we OK to answer? OK. No, OK.

Audience:
Yeah, Armando Manzuela from the Dominican Republic. Just wanted to know if you are planning to extend the scope of the study you’ve made to other countries as well, especially to other countries, maybe in the same region, the Caribbean, for example? All countries. I don’t know all countries. OK. If that’s the case, I have plenty of information I’m willing to share with you. So you can have from my country, of course. Dominican Republic.

Moderator:
Dominican Republic. OK. Does someone want to be the facilitator? I saw you taking up. OK, great. So let’s start with the first question. The first question? Who’s taking the first question? Oh, yeah, Thomas, there you go. And you’ve got a microphone right in front of you. Oh, yeah, you’re right. There you go. And it works. Hello, hello.

Audience:
So as I understood the question, it’s about the relationship between these national electronic identity systems, supernationals ones. And I mean, we don’t know the answer yet. But my strong assumption would be that we see a convergence. There will be international standards. They will be supported by our phones, by the secure hardware elements on that. So sooner or later, there will be a one-size-fits-all solution for at least, let’s say, particular regions in the world. And my fear is that not in all cases, these systems will be governed democratically and will have privacy by design safeguards that make them safe to use, particularly for vulnerable parts of the society.

Moderator:
OK, thank you. Did that answer your question? OK. There was a second question. Yes, please add.

Audience:
Yeah, I think I would just add to Thomas’s answer. And I don’t think I can speak for the entire coalition, because I think there is some divergence in our views here. And we’re not a coalition that has a set viewpoint or advocacy position on any given digital ID system, I think, because we are such a diverse group and we have such diverse concerns. But I think from an individual perspective, our position of my organization, which is the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, is that each digital ID system, whether it’s national or supranational, needs to be based on the principle of necessity. So it really needs to be a stronger understanding of where and why certain ID systems are necessary. And that certainly won’t apply to every context in which a digital ID system is currently being implemented. And I think also, just to emphasize the strength of our coalition, is that we have extensive evidence and documentation of the harms that digital ID systems can create and can exacerbate in different contexts. And I think what that has really shown is how important each individual context is, the political context, the economic context, the social context. And that in having an evaluation of how a system should interface, that context needs to be very carefully considered. Because these are not just technological systems, they are socio-technical systems. And it’s very important to situate any kind of analysis about system design, system implementation in the individual contexts of each country and each region.

Moderator:
Mm-hmm, you see that community? I saw people nodding their heads as Caitlyn was speaking. OK, there was another question. What was the other question? There was a question around the number. We have almost 60 groups. Almost 60 groups in the coalition now. Civil society. Oh, there’s a one pager down here at the end with some more information about the community. And there is an email address that you can get in touch with and our new communication system that we set up. Yeah, or anyone in the room. We’re all here to talk to you. OK, does everyone have the one pager? Who has the one pager? Who doesn’t have the one pager? Who doesn’t have the one pager? Really, really, please, please pass that one pager. You must get it. Everyone must get that one pager. Is that the one? There’s another one. It’s the other one. Horizontal. No, this one behind you. That one. Yes, yes, yes. Please, please, please. They didn’t answer your question, Peter. Yeah, you had two questions, Peter. They didn’t answer the second. They are still thinking about it. They are ruminating, ruminating, ruminating. OK, any other questions? Any other questions? Yes, Maria?

Speaker 1:
OK, I don’t need that many microphones. So yeah, I don’t remember who asked this beautiful question that I get to answer now. On our engagement in multilateral forums, but particularly on ID4D. It has been a bumpy road. Is that a assessment of our relationship with ID4D, a bumpy road? But I think that for the last year, we have had a very interesting conversation. It is an ongoing conversation that we had both online and later at RiceCon, and it’s continuing, and it’s ongoing. about there have been some misunderstandings, let’s say, in how we approach digital identity systems from the space of civil society, which is that we are not in the position of a digital ID is bad, necessarily. But that there needs to be a disentanglement between the notion of legal identity as the relationship, the legal relationship, between a person and a state. And digital ID being a tool that is used to accomplish that maybe, maybe, but not necessarily. So there is an identification there that we are trying to disentangle from a conceptual point of view. And then we are working on getting to about the same page on safeguards and remedy. And so there is an ongoing conversation. That is what I’m going to say about that. And I would say that this past year has been very productive for us as a community. And I’m not going to speak on behalf of ID4D, but I think that for them as well. They have expressed so. So that’s that there. Did I miss something?

Moderator:
OK, thank you. No, thank you. OK, OK, OK. Questions? Comments? Yes. Oh, I love.

Audience:
I have a question. I heard a phrase, strategizing public interest litigation. I was wondering if you are doing it. And if yes, how? Secondly, if I could join. So please let me know. OK, let’s take that. Hi, everybody. There was a question. I don’t think it has been answered. It was about how the work has influenced the way we are working. For instance, let me say what Caitlyn was talking about the issues of multinational and national issues. In Kenya, we can give an example. Through the civil societies, Kenya was to launch a digital ID on 2nd of October. But through this platform and a lot of engagement, they suspended it. And through also working together, we’ve seen countries like Uganda, they want to learn more on how Kenya has worked. We’ve worked with Adhar from India and also Jamaica. So at least there is a lot of issues that is happening. Unlike before, not so many people used to know about the issues of digital identification card. But right now, so many people, and the way we are here, there are so many people who are learning a lot from this. So let’s keep it on. Let’s continue. Let’s make more noise. Thank you.

Moderator:
Did you hear that? OK.

Audience:
Hi, I was wondering, I mean, I think we’ve been tracking digital identity for, what, five years or more, probably close to 10 now. And it seems like, and maybe I’m wrong, that there’s like a lot more momentum from a governmental perspective and also from a private sector perspective, kind of that digital identity is going to be, I think it is perceived to be the entry to the digital economy and to digital society. So I’m wondering, over these last years, does the coalition, has the coalition come to a conclusion of what digital identity done right might look like? And is that possible, given that, you know, there’s just so much pressure from a national perspective and from a private sector perspective to implement this, as we’ve seen in, you know, Uganda, Tunisia, you name it. Can it be done right?

Moderator:
Okay. Uh-huh. Laura? Hey, quickly.

Laura Bingham:
Well, I did want to mention something about the strategic litigation question down here, which is to say that that was, in the heat mapping that we did, that was one of the areas where there was a lot of interest across many different members of the community. So in the sharing and learning piece that we talked about, we’re holding a strategic litigation training workshop later this year, so you should join up now and you can come. But there’s a lot of, that was one of the main interests, I think, that got on people’s radar within the civil society communities for transnational exchanges, especially. I had one thing I wanted to say about the question on digital ID done right. You know, I think we get that, I get that question a lot. I think a lot of us get that question a lot. I think it’s the wrong question, because I think just in a lot of what folks have been saying in responding to other responses, other inquiries that have come up, is that things really are contextualized in every single local, national, regional context. And digital ID is never done. It’s the fact that it is implemented and it needs to be monitored and society changes. That’s what we mean when we say it’s a socio-technical system. It’s not done. So it’s not done right. It needs frameworks so that we have constant feedback about people who are being excluded, about the way things are going wrong, because they’re going to continue to go wrong. So I guess that’s, in thinking about the structures that we put in place around it as human beings, that’s how you can get more right.

Moderator:
And they nod their heads again. Okay.

Audience:
Peter, you had something to say about litigation? Yeah, thanks. Peter. from Access Now. We coordinate the Digital Rights Litigators Network. I know there’s some fierce advocates in this room, some folks in the network, some folks who are not yet in the network, but we’re gonna meet on Thursday afternoon, 3.30, and I think digital ID is definitely gonna be on the agenda, so there is an opportunity here for a private meeting on litigation, and we need a better acronym too.

Moderator:
Okay, we’re working on that. I said we are ruminating. We’re thinking, we’re thinking, we’re thinking. Okay, all right. We have a special guest. We have a special guest with us today. We have, who? Who do we have? Who do we have, Laura? Who do we have? We have a special guest. Who’s the special guest? Right there. Who’s the special guest? Who is the special guest? Hey! Yes, we have the UN Secretary General’s tech envoy here with us. Can we welcome him? Welcome, welcome, welcome. You see, when you hang out with this community, you see the kind of people who come into your spaces. Yeah. Okay, welcome, sir. I’d like to give you an opportunity to say something.

Amandeep Singh Gill:
Thank you very much. It’s a great pleasure to join you, and such an important topic. So, the interface of, as Laura put it, socio-technical systems, but I might even add socio-legal technical systems. These interfaces are creating opportunities, but they’re also creating potential problems, even existing problems. So, we need to get them right. And we are very keen to bring together multi-stakeholder partners to build some safeguards, a framework of safeguards around digital public infrastructure at large. So, not just digital ID, but also payment gateways, things that work at the data layer. There is, because of the G20 discussion, many other developments, great interest in DPIs today. More investments are going to come in. So, we have to make sure that these investments don’t result in digital public infrastructure, don’t result in these socio-legal technical infrastructures that violate. safety, security, human rights, sustainability considerations, and that lead to exclusion of marginalized groups. So for that, we’ve launched with UNDP an initiative on DPI safeguards last month, so at a very formative stage, and we would like to invite all of those who are part of this coalition to help us get to that safeguards framework and to help us maintain that, like an international standard that people in the civil society can use as a reference, but also those who are investing in DPIs, who are development cooperation partners on the ground, can use as design principles, can use it to inform their decisions, inform their investments. Tomorrow, and this is a plug in C1 at 9.45, we will be doing an event with UNDP, jointly with UNDP on this issue. It’s the beginning of a conversation, so please help us get this right, and the insights from Kenya, Uganda, India, so if you can, the Caribbean, if you can, Jamaica in particular, we can get those together and put that into a framework that we maintain as a kind of living framework, so version one could be next year with the summit of the future, and we can maintain it after that. Thank you so much.

Audience:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is this? Yeah. Thank you very much. My name’s Caitlin Shafi. I’m a member of the coalition, and I’d just like to say thank you very much to the tech envoy for joining us. I think it’s a fantastic opportunity. There’s been a lot of energy in the room tonight, and a lot of, we’ve already picked up some new members, so I think it really shows the kind of importance and power of this coalition, and it seems to many of us, I think that this is a really pivotal moment with the lead up to the summit of the future, the launch of the safeguards initiative, the critical point that we’re at with the sustainable development goals, and in this room, I think we have a lot of learning about the problems, the solutions, where things can go wrong, and where things can go right, and one of the themes of the beginning of this session was that as a coalition, and as individual members, I think we’re seeking to become more proactive in engaging in some of these multilateral processes, in some of the national level processes, and I think it would just be great to hear from you since we have you in the room today, to hear a little bit about what you see the next six months looking like in this safeguards process, where will be the key opportunities to engage so that we, as coalition members, as a group, can be prepared for them, and I think the final question is really how do we ensure that the engagements go deeper than a kind of unilateral consultation process, which I think is always something that civil society is keen to engage in, I think a lot of members here are very active in contributing inputs, but I think what we’re really seeking here is a real exchange, the opportunity to give feedback, receive feedback, and be more engaged in a truly participatory process, so how can we work together with you to make sure that that is a reality in the kind of next six months?

Amandeep Singh Gill:
That’s a great question, so we are currently in the process of putting together a governance structure for the initiative, so there’ll be an advisory board, there’ll be a steering committee, and also in the process of putting together a list of learning partners, those who have been engaged on these issues, whether it’s the Digital Public Goods Alliance, DILE, the GovStack initiative, so that we can bring these players from the DPI ecosystem into this initiative and learn from their experiences. In terms of the engagement, the consultations with civil society, also with the private sector, in some cases they may be the lead actors in developing digital ID and other layers of DPIs, if they are arranged in a stack, so we will develop a plan for engagement all the way up to the summit of the future, where version one can be stood up next to, hopefully, a good, ambitious global digital compact, so that this is seen as a concrete manifestation of, yes, we want to advance on the SDGs by leveraging DPIs, but we want to do it responsibly in a human-centered, human rights-respecting manner. But I do want to ask my colleague Moritz, who’s into the design of this initiative, check if he has anything to add.

Speaker 5:
Thank you, Amandeep. Pleasure to be here. My name’s Moritz. I work as an advisor on Amandeep’s team. Just referring to your question on how civil society can engage in the process, we will have multiple convenings up to the summit for the future, where we will collect input on the process. We are also planning to set up a platform where you can share the experiences that you’ve made, should you not have the possibility to engage in person during the convenings. Yeah, and we will be sharing updates on that process in the next two months, I would say, something like this. And yeah, if you have questions about that, feel free to reach out. We are looking forward to engage with you.

Moderator:
Fantastic, thank you. We’ll just see, do we have any other questions? We’re having a conversation here. Yes, yes, behind. I think that microphone works. You can give him that one. Thank you. Yes, please.

Audience:
Good evening. I was really asking myself, should I ask this question? But let me just ask. My name is Mustafa from Kenya. In Kenya, for example, UNDP signed an MOU with the government of Kenya without engagement, community engagement in terms of civil society, in terms of community, and without any policy in terms of launching a digital ID until the civil society were up in arms and all that when the government was actually launching it in September. But it was pushed. So I was asking, at this level where there’s already an existing MOU, how do we engage with the UNDP? Because there’s a lot of risk of digitizing exclusion because we are digitizing 5,000 services and all of them are pegged to a digital ID. And in Kenya, there’s no access, the accessibility of digital, leave alone digital ID. The current ID system is less than 50% penetration level. And now all 5,000 services, including health services are going to be linked to a document that is not accessible. So how do you protect that the UN does not? as a bit exclusion. And it also promotes issues of accountability. For example, this one, we don’t even have a data protection impact assessment, leave alone a human rights protection impact assessment. So how do we hold the UN accountable in that situation and also get to get information, right to information from the UN sector? Because in this sector, we don’t clearly alienate you from government actor or civil society compatriot. Because we are like, which side do we put you? Are you part of the government now? Are you going to support civil society? Sorry, I don’t want to look combative, because that’s the situation that we are in. You’re just engaging. Yes. And I’m very passionate, because my community has been locked out of these systems for 100 years. So seeing it, we look at it as digitizing marginalization. So how do we hold the institution accountable and even get information in terms of what are the lines of engagement with the government? What are the protections, mechanisms that you have negotiated in terms of on behalf of civil society and all that? I would love to interact more on that. But in case, I know my questions are ambiguous. But in case you pick any that you feel like you can address now, I really appreciate.

Amandeep Singh Gill:
Great point. And I have a very simple answer to that. Help us build it. So build it together with us. And help us maintain it so that we can all be held accountable. If UN agencies are the ones who are kind of building out DPIs and digital services on the ground, you can hold them accountable as per the safeguards framework.

Moderator:
OK. So working together in community, right? OK.

Audience:
Just to add a bit to what the Secretary-General just said. The best thing a government can do is to develop their critical systems, their main systems, the central systems that sustain main public services, world public services, should be using open source technology. Because open source technology help us to not just to understand how things work, but also opens up the possibility for the technical communities from our same nations or other countries around the world to contribute and to see what we’re building upon. It gives us the possibility to understand that most government systems can be safe, can be secure, and also develops trust. Especially in the context where we’re digitizing everything. And in the context of digital, it’s the same. So in order to prevent most of the situations that most countries are facing with their digital systems, an open source technology should be the best. And that’s the thing that we’ve been doing in the DR.

Moderator:
Great. So there’s an experience to learn from there. OK. Any other comment? Any other question? OK. One more, and then we’ll be wrapping up. OK.

Audience:
Just to respond on, there is, we’ve worked with UNDP. And one of the things that we were told, actually we had a very direct conversation, was kindly work with the government. Because you said, have a simple, we give you ideas on simple way to work. But in most cases, when we give out these ideas, we are told, you have a very good government. You can go and listen to them. But in real sense, the government doesn’t listen to you. For instance, we were brought into a room to agree that we’ve decided to work together with government as civil societies. To an extent, there was a white paper that was provided. We did not know. To an extent, public participation, the government was saying they have done. It hasn’t, it has not been done. So what room is there for us to really work with the UNDP and UN to be able to share the same ideas? To be able to share this? Because there is platform, as you can see, but now having that conversation, it’s not there. And also, there is one question that Brett asked that has not been answered. There has been progress, as we cannot say that the government is really not doing so. For instance, through advocacy in Kenya, we’ve seen some communities have been recognized as a community. They can be able to access these digital platforms. And also, things like Data Protection Act, which weren’t there, they’re still there. So there are still opportunities that we’ve seen.

Moderator:
And your question?

Audience:
Yeah, I don’t have a question.

Moderator:
That was it, okay, okay. So I think what you’re, do you want to respond to?

Amandeep Singh Gill:
I think if you come to the event tomorrow, our colleagues from UNDP will be there, because I don’t have the background to this white paper and the interaction with the government. So we can discuss it tomorrow.

Moderator:
Exactly, the conversation will continue. You said nine what? 9.45, 9 a.m.? You can plug in again. 9.45. 9.45, where?

Amandeep Singh Gill:
C1.

Moderator:
C1, did we hear that? No? 9.45, where? C1, okay. An opportunity to continue the conversation. Can you imagine? The conversations don’t just end here, they continue, they continue online. Oh my goodness, oh, this community. Okay. Any other comments, any other questions? Okay, I think I can wrap up, anything? Four minutes, we have four minutes. Okay, yes, it seems you’re joining the community. By the way, members, can you put up your hands so that if people want more information, you know who to talk to? Okay, fantastic.

Audience:
I don’t have a question, I just want to make a statement that, you know, I’m from India, and India is always glorified with our DPI structure as like the outstanding model, and it’s going to push your economy to blah, blah, blah levels, and you’re gonna gain like trillions of dollars, and et cetera, et cetera. But I think there is a lot of myth that surrounds. And I think that’s the reason why I want to join the community, because, you know, to address the myth before even thinking about starting this kind of an infrastructure in your country, because you should ask whether you needed or not, and are you going to face the problems that India suffered? Because India suffered massively, because it started when I was studying law, and now I’m in the position where I’m researching in this kind of structure. So I myself have seen that it had its own problems, and you need to work it out. I guess that’s it.

Moderator:
Thank you. All right, okay, you can also ask her about the community. Okay, any other comments, any other questions? Can I wrap up now? Yeah? Okay, okay, thank you all so very much for being part of this conversation. The conversation continues. Please get the one-pager if you want to get to know any other information about what the community does. Please enjoy the rest of your evening, the rest of your day. Asante sana. Thank you.

Audience:
I don’t know if you have someone to speak to. Yeah, I mean, actually, I’m happy to have you. Yeah, me too. I’m really happy to join the conversation. That’s lovely. I don’t know, just send an email, or? I just received this email. The best is to send to this IE admin at system.org. Okay. And then our community will receive the email, and we should maybe also just introduce you to a few of the people, so. Laura Bingham, the blonde lady over there. And it’s like, but you are absolutely right. We have many members from Africa, and. No one is speaking Arabic. I can, we have like a. Ah, you could be right, yes. I’m a partner of T4Beast. T4Beast, we do supervision, digitalization, security. So, we think that we are the biggest in the MENA region as a practitioner. We are close partners in META, and also we are certified by AFC International for our tech area as well. That’s a perfect match. Yeah. So, let me. Yeah, yeah. I am, I am the founder and president of the organization. Which is, I’m living in the Netherlands, because of, you’re right. Yeah, yeah. And you can Google me, like, I’m very easily found. Yeah, me too. You can. No, no, no. It’s brilliant, so you are a perfect match, let’s send that email and we’ll get the ball rolling. Thank you very much. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you.