Advancing rights-based digital governance through ROAM-X | IGF 2023

Alexandre Fernandes Barbosa

The Internet Universality Indicators framework has been successfully implemented by Brazil for almost two decades, demonstrating the importance of data production in assessing the impact of internet universality. Despite the framework’s extensive range of indicators, the scope of its application necessitates the collection of comprehensive and up-to-date data.

However, one significant hurdle in utilizing the framework is the existence of a data gap in many countries, which prevents a thorough assessment of internet universality. Without the required data, these countries are unable to effectively evaluate their progress in achieving the goals outlined in the framework. This highlights the need for increased data production and availability to ensure accurate assessments.

The implementation of the Internet Universality Indicators framework has facilitated multi-stakeholder dialogue, providing an opportunity for different actors, including policymakers, civil society, and the private sector, to contribute their perspectives and insights. Continuous engagement of these stakeholders is crucial for effective e-government systems and the development of tangible outcomes.

Brazil serves as a notable example of the positive impact of multistakeholder dialogue, with the creation of important legislation such as the Brazilian General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the law of access to information, and the Internet Bill of Rights. These outcomes underline the potential of multistakeholder dialogue to drive meaningful changes in governance and policy-making.

Furthermore, the relevance of specific stakeholders has not significantly changed, emphasizing the continued importance of involving government, technical community, civil society, and the private sector in discussions and decision-making processes.

UNESCO has played a vital role in fostering dialogue and cooperation, particularly in the context of internet universality. Working closely with UNESCO, individuals such as Barbosa appreciate the organization’s efforts in building capacity and raising awareness among member states. This collaboration has resulted in significant progress, with a considerable number of countries completing assessments and demonstrating commitment to achieving the goals of the framework.

However, one area of concern is the existing data gap, particularly in countries from the global south. It is crucial to address this gap as it hampers the ability to comprehensively assess internet universality and implement necessary measures in these regions.

In conclusion, the Internet Universality Indicators framework provides a comprehensive understanding of the significance of data production, multi-stakeholder dialogue, and periodic assessment in ensuring progress towards internet universality. The successful application of this framework by Brazil highlights its effectiveness in driving positive outcomes. However, the data gap remains a challenge, and further efforts are needed to bridge this gap, particularly in global south countries. Overall, the framework’s implementation has contributed to a greater understanding of the importance of collaboration, assessment, and capacity building in advancing internet universality.

Audience

During a discussion, both the speaker and audience displayed a keen interest in exploring the field of mood stakeholders and whether any new indicators have emerged in the last five years. The primary question raised by the speaker was the existence of new indicators in this domain.

The concept of “mood stakeholders” was deemed a noteworthy dimension of the indicator, relevant to the topic under discussion. While specific details regarding these mood stakeholders were not provided, it can be inferred that they play a vital role in determining the mood or emotional state of a particular group or community.

It was emphasised that a list of indicators encompassed the involvement of mood stakeholders, suggesting that such indicators are already recognised and widely accepted within the field. However, the discussion aimed to identify whether any novel indicators had emerged in the last five years, indicating advancements or changes in this area.

The audience also expressed curiosity about any modifications or developments that may have taken place in the field of mood stakeholders. Unfortunately, specific supporting facts or evidence to address their questions were not mentioned. Nonetheless, their curiosity reflects a general interest in staying up to date with the latest advancements in the field.

Given the neutral sentiment expressed by both the speaker and audience, no definitive conclusions were reached during the discussion. However, the main question raised regarding the emergence of new indicators in the realm of mood stakeholders implies a desire for further exploration and potential expansion of knowledge on the subject.

In conclusion, the speaker and audience engaged in a discussion focusing on the exploration of mood stakeholders and the potential introduction of new indicators within the last five years. The absence of specific facts or evidence limits the ability to provide concrete answers. However, it is evident that the participants expressed a genuine interest in understanding any advancements or changes that have occurred in this crucial field.

Speaker 1

Five years ago, the Internet Universality Indicators received endorsement from UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Council of the International Programme for the Development of Communication. During a recent forum, the speakers emphasized the necessity of continuous transformation and improvement of these Indicators. They highlighted the need for shared insights, strategies, and identification of areas that require enhancement.

The speakers recognized the lessons learned and challenges faced over the past five years, which have strengthened the importance of constantly evolving and adapting the Indicators. They stressed the significance of collaboration and collective action in shaping and refining these guidelines.

Furthermore, the speakers emphasized the value of collective efforts and the exchange of experiences, obstacles faced, and strategies for success. They hoped that the discussions held during the forum would result in tangible benefits for all stakeholders involved in the Romex framework, an important aspect of the Indicators.

Overall, the speakers concluded that the continuous evolution of the Internet Universality Indicators is crucial in ensuring their relevance and effectiveness in addressing the ever-changing digital landscape. They urged a collaborative approach, encouraging stakeholders to work together to shape these Indicators and improve the digital policies related to them. This united effort is expected to lead to practical and positive outcomes for all parties involved.

Anja Gengo

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) featured discussions on various topics related to Internet governance. One notable highlight was the recognition of the Dynamic Coalition, an independent and autonomous entity, for its successful engagement of stakeholders worldwide. The coalition has played a crucial role in promoting indicators and monitoring their implementation since their adoption in 2018. This engagement has yielded significant results, underscoring the value of their efforts.

Another key point addressed was the need to involve stakeholders from underrepresented countries in global Internet governance processes. The IGF Secretariat has prioritised outreach to engage stakeholders from countries that have traditionally had limited participation in these processes. This approach has proven effective in incorporating active participation from nations such as the Maldives, previously underrepresented in global Internet governance initiatives. The argument presented is that engaging stakeholders from a diverse range of countries is essential for achieving a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to Internet governance.

Furthermore, the speakers emphasized the importance of upholding the highest humanitarian values in the digital world. They highlighted the disparity in how different jurisdictions interpret social media posts, with some considering them exercises of freedom of expression while others penalise them with imprisonment or fines. The call to uphold humanitarian values implies the need for the digital world to strike a balance that respects freedom of expression while safeguarding the well-being of individuals and communities.

Additionally, it was noted that there has been a proliferation of national laws regulating artificial intelligence since the onset of the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, only a few national jurisdictions had laws pertaining to artificial intelligence. However, in the post-pandemic era, there has been a significant increase in the number of such laws. This observation highlights the growing recognition of the importance of effectively regulating and governing the use of artificial intelligence technologies.

The speakers also stressed the importance of adopting a methodological approach to stakeholder engagement. The IGF Secretariat presently focuses on engaging stakeholders from underrepresented countries, ensuring a multi-stakeholder and multidisciplinary approach. This methodical approach is seen as essential for fostering more diverse and inclusive discussions on Internet governance.

The relevance of early assessments and the need for expanding outreach were also brought to the fore. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about significant changes in the legal landscape, necessitating a reevaluation of existing assessments. Moreover, efforts must be made to ensure that assessments and outreach are inclusive and comprehensive, without jeopardising the global nature of the Internet.

The speakers also emphasised the need to engage stakeholders from different backgrounds and perspectives in dialogues and processes. They shared an anecdote about a Tanzanian judge who did not fit into a standard stakeholder category, highlighting the importance of recognising and including diverse voices. The initiation of a parliamentary track in 2019 reinforces the need to address recognised gaps in stakeholder group representation. Therefore, efforts to actively engage stakeholders who are not participating within certain stakeholder groups are crucial.

Furthermore, the speakers stressed the necessity of active participation from high-ranking individuals in various domains, particularly those that are currently underrepresented. The absence of medical professionals in privacy-related discussions and individuals from the car industry, particularly at the highest management levels, was highlighted. This observation suggests that the perspectives of individuals with expertise and decision-making authority in these fields should be actively sought to ensure that Internet governance discussions are well-informed and effectively address critical issues.

Lastly, the speakers underscored the significance of promoting and implementing UNESCO’s Internet Universality ROMEX indicators. These indicators are considered essential for guiding and assessing Internet universality, ensuring that the Internet is used for the benefit of all individuals and societies. Both the Dynamic Coalition and the IGF Secretariat expressed support for these values, with an emphasis on cooperation between UNESCO and the IGF for successful implementation.

In conclusion, the discussions at the IGF covered a range of topics related to Internet governance, including stakeholder engagement, representation, regulation of artificial intelligence, the importance of humanitarian values, and the implementation of UNESCO’s Internet Universality ROMEX indicators. Throughout the discussions, the importance of inclusivity, comprehensive assessments, and active participation from diverse stakeholders was consistently emphasised.

David Souter

David Souter proposed a holistic approach for assessing Internet Universality Indicators (IUIs). These indicators, based on the concept of Internet universality developed in 2013, focus on rights, openness, accessibility for all, and multi-stakeholder engagement. Souter pointed out that many countries have concentrated solely on the core indicators and advocated for a review to address this issue.

Souter stressed the importance of diversity within the research team and advisory board when using IUIs. He highlighted that a diverse team helps avoid political pressure and vested interests. Moreover, diverse expertise within the team leads to a more impactful output. Including multiple perspectives ensures a comprehensive analysis and enables the project to benefit from a wide range of insights.

Additionally, Souter emphasized the need to prioritize practical interventions over ideal ones in the national context. The goal of IUIs is to identify realistic interventions that can be implemented effectively. Recommendations should be feasible and achievable within specific national contexts. This pragmatic approach ensures that IUIs can effectively promote Internet universality.

Souter criticized member countries for solely focusing on core indicators. He argued that this approach overlooks the opportunity presented by non-core indicators. By narrowing their focus, countries may neglect important aspects of Internet universality and fail to address crucial issues. Souter’s analysis underscores the necessity of adopting a comprehensive and inclusive approach when utilizing IUIs.

In conclusion, David Souter’s analysis highlights the significance of a holistic assessment approach for Internet Universality Indicators. This approach encompasses diversity within the research team and advisory board, prioritization of practical interventions, and consideration of non-core indicators. Employing this approach enables countries to gain a more comprehensive understanding of Internet universality and actively work towards creating a more inclusive and accessible digital environment.

Lutz Möller

The analysis of the given statements highlights several key points pertaining to internet ecosystems and their influence on societal discourses. One speaker highlights the rapid expansion of dominant social media platforms, noting the fundamental changes observed in these platforms. This speaker also emphasizes the influence of these platforms on the visibility of different political views and the concerning increase in the spread of disinformation.

Another speaker emphasizes the necessity of strengthening internet ecosystems in a more democratic and nonprofit manner. The speaker acknowledges the growth of artificial intelligence (AI) manipulation and repression, as well as the growing influence of private business interests in public discourse. The argument here is to establish internet ecosystems in a way that prioritizes democratic values and ensures a level playing field for all participants.

Additionally, the use of Internet Universality Indicators (IUIs) is praised for providing a comprehensive viewpoint of whether internet policies adhere to principles of human rights, openness, access, and stakeholder participation. The evidence points to Germany’s experience with IUIs, which generated brutally honest evidence regarding internet policies. It is highlighted that IUIs play a pivotal role in highlighting the delicate balance between the right to privacy and freedom of expression.

However, there are concerns raised about the number of IUI indicators, with a suggestion that there should be a stronger focus on key areas and topics. The feasibility and practicality of certain indicators are questioned, as well as issues surrounding data availability and operationalization. Despite these concerns, the general sentiment remains neutral toward the number of IUI indicators.

Additionally, the analysis highlights the crucial role of a multi-stakeholder advisory board in the IUI process, particularly when it comes to effectively communicating results to political stakeholders. The evidence provided is Germany’s successful experience with a multi-stakeholder advisory board in the IUI process. This highlights the significance of involving various stakeholders in decision-making processes to ensure transparency and accountability.

In conclusion, the analysis of the statements highlights the rapid expansion and influence of social media platforms on societal discourses. It emphasizes the need for democratically driven and nonprofit internet ecosystems to counterbalance the growing influence of private business interests. The use of IUIs is regarded as an effective tool for assessing internet policies’ adherence to human rights principles and stakeholder participation. However, there are concerns about the number of indicators and the practicality of certain measures, as well as the importance of multi-stakeholder involvement and effective communication with political stakeholders. Overall, these insights contribute to a better understanding of the complexities surrounding internet ecosystems and their impact on societal discourses.

Simon Ellis

The analysis focuses on the Internet Universe Indicator (IUI) system, which offers a unique holistic approach to assessing the internet infrastructure and usage in countries. Instead of providing a single definitive answer, it produces an analysis that encourages countries to answer a set of questions, resulting in a comprehensive picture of their internet landscape. This approach is viewed positively as it allows for a more nuanced understanding of the internet in different countries.

Follow-ups are considered an important aspect of IUI assessments. The analysis highlights the first follow-up assessment conducted in Kenya by Grace Gitaiga. However, the nature of reporting and the frequency of IUI assessments are being questioned, suggesting the need for further examination of this aspect.

The inclusion of new themes in IUI assessments, such as AI, environment and sustainability, and cyber security, is supported. These emerging themes are seen as crucial considerations in evaluating the state of the internet and its impact on society. This demonstrates the dynamism and adaptability of the IUI framework to address current and evolving challenges.

E-waste and satellite connectivity are identified as significant issues in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The analysis notes that Southeast Asia has become a dumping ground for e-waste from Europe and North America, highlighting the environmental and sustainability concerns associated with improper e-waste disposal. Additionally, the geographical challenges in the Pacific region make satellite connectivity the only viable option, underscoring the importance of addressing this issue for improved internet access in these areas.

Another important point raised in the analysis is the need to define the concept of multi-stakeholder participation. The analysis suggests that true multi-stakeholder involvement goes beyond mere attendance at meetings and emphasizes the importance of active engagement and meaningful inclusion of stakeholders’ inputs in decision-making processes. This understanding is crucial for fostering genuine collaboration and effective governance in the digital realm.

The analysis also stresses the necessity of achieving real participation in multi-stakeholder initiatives. It highlights the observation that in e-government systems, inputs from civil society representatives are often disregarded or their usage remains unknown. To address this issue, it is crucial to analyze what meaningful and effective participation looks like and how it can be captured in order to establish inclusive and participatory digital governance. Furthermore, the analysis mentions the role of new actors on the internet. It notes that police involvement in internet-related matters has been observed in recent maps, indicating the increasing influence of new actors in the digital space. This development raises questions about the implications and potential challenges associated with the involvement of these actors.

The analysis also brings up the noteworthy observation made by Simon regarding the importance of indicators related to training for judges and lawyers. Simon considers it interesting and important, suggesting that adequate training in legal matters pertaining to the internet is crucial for maintaining peace, justice, and strong institutions. This observation highlights the need to prioritize the training of legal professionals in digital issues to ensure fair and effective dispute resolution and legal processes in the digital era.

Finally, the analysis mentions Simon’s approval of the assessment and his anticipation of a new version related to the global digital compact. This indicates support for the assessment process and the belief that it can contribute to advancing global digital cooperation and achieving the goals outlined in the global digital compact.

Overall, the analysis provides valuable insights into the Internet Universe Indicator (IUI) system, its various aspects, and its implications for assessing and improving the internet infrastructure and usage. It highlights the importance of continuous evaluation, the inclusion of new themes, addressing specific challenges, and achieving meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in fostering a sustainable and inclusive digital landscape.

Marielza Couto e Silva de Oliveira

The Internet Universality ROMAX framework, which focuses on the principles of the Internet, needs to be revised to keep pace with the rapidly evolving digital governance and technological landscapes. One argument proposes that the ROMAX indicators should be strengthened and potentially expanded to include new dimensions like child data protection, mental health, and AI toxicity levels, in order to better address the challenges and implications arising from these areas.

The argument stems from the potential of ROMAX indicators to serve as a critical mechanism for monitoring adherence to principles in the upcoming global digital compact. By incorporating child data protection, mental health, and AI toxicity levels, the framework can enhance its effectiveness in promoting good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, and industry innovation and infrastructure, all outlined in the relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

It is important to note, however, that many national teams analyzing ROMAX face research obstacles due to a lack of disaggregated data, which limits visibility of the indicators. Despite this challenge, stakeholders believe that tightening the ROMAX indicators and expanding their scope is essential to keep up with the evolving technological and governance landscapes.

To ensure a successful update of the ROMAX framework, active participation, collaboration, and continued engagement of stakeholders are crucial. The Internet Universality Indicators Dynamic Coalition has proven to be an effective platform for exchanging expertise and experiences in this regard. Stakeholders, who possess an on-the-ground understanding of national needs, research difficulties, and emerging themes, play a valuable role in shaping the future of the ROMAX framework.

In conclusion, the Internet Universality ROMAX framework requires revision to adapt to rapidly changing digital governance and technological landscapes. Strengthening and potentially expanding the ROMAX indicators to include areas like child data protection, mental health, and AI toxicity levels is proposed. The successful update of the framework relies on active participation, collaboration, and ongoing engagement of stakeholders. The Internet Universality Indicators Dynamic Coalition facilitates knowledge exchange, while stakeholders provide valuable insights into national needs and research challenges.

Moderator – Tatevik GRIGORYAN

The meeting on UNESCO’s Internet Universality Romex Indicators was attended by participants from various parts of the world who joined online. Notably, Dr. Lutz Moeller joined the meeting early in the morning, demonstrating dedication and commitment. Despite the inconvenient times, participants were acknowledged and thanked for their valuable contributions.

The meeting included individuals who played a significant role in the development and progress of the Romex Indicators, showcasing the importance of their expertise and insights. It was mentioned that Tatevik Grigoryan, the meeting’s moderator, was sitting next to these individuals, further illustrating their involvement and importance in shaping the indicators.

Due to unavoidable circumstances, the assistant director general for Communication and Information at UNESCO could not attend the meeting in person. However, a video message from the assistant director general was played, indicating their commitment to the meeting and the subject matter.

The meeting emphasized the principles of internet universality, which is the official position of UNESCO. This position entails upholding the rights of individuals, ensuring openness, promoting accessibility for all, and fostering multi-stakeholder participation. The meeting highlighted the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance, which is also promoted by the Internet Governance Forum.

The ROMEX IUI assessment, considered a unique global tool, is currently being implemented in 40 countries. These assessments aim to inform policymakers and contribute to the development of digital strategies, laws, and regulations. It is worth noting that six out of the 40 countries have already published a report based on the assessment.

The ROMEX IUI assessment not only aids in the development of the internet at the national level but also supports the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals. It aligns with the Global Digital Compact, emphasizing the significance of this assessment framework as a comprehensive and holistic approach to internet development.

The meeting also discussed the ongoing revision of the framework. Considering that the ROMEX IUI assessment is currently being implemented in 40 countries, it is imperative to incorporate topics and lessons learned from the implementation process into the revised framework.

Throughout the meeting, Tatevik Grigoryan expressed appreciation to the panelists and steering committee members of the dynamic coalition. This dynamic coalition has been supportive and actively engaged in various initiatives related to the ROMEX framework.

In her closing remarks, Grigoryan reflected on the insightful discussion and offered speakers an opportunity for final thoughts. The absence of audience questions during the meeting indicates that the discussion was well-structured and kept on schedule.

Furthermore, Grigoryan highlighted the contributions and dedication of her team, specifically mentioning the work of her colleagues, Karen Landa and Camila Gonzalez. Their involvement and efforts were recognized in advancing the investigation of Internet universality.

Finally, Grigoryan expressed her interest in carrying on the tradition of taking a family photo. This indicates a sense of continuity and fosters a collaborative and unified spirit among the participants.

In conclusion, the meeting on UNESCO’s Internet Universality Romex Indicators brought together diverse participants to discuss and emphasize the principles of internet universality. The Romex IUI assessment, as a global tool, plays a crucial role in the development of the internet at the national level and supports the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals. The ongoing revision of the framework reflects the commitment to continuous improvement and learning from the implementation process. The panelists, steering committee members, and Grigoryan’s team were appreciated for their contributions and engagement. The meeting concluded on a positive note, highlighting the importance of continuity and unity among participants.

Moderator – Tatevik GRIGORYAN:
Hello everybody who is here in the room with us, and to those who joined online, especially thank you to all the people who have a very inconvenient time. I know it’s 4 a.m. in Europe, and my colleagues are there online, and also we have a speaker online, Dr. Lutz Moeller, who is with us at such an early hour, so thank you so much. So my name is Sathevik Gregorian, and I work for UNESCO, for those of you who just joined us, and I work on UNESCO’s Internet Universality Romex Indicators, and I’m really honored to be sitting next to people who were at the cornerstone of developing the indicators and then supporting the launch and progress of the indicators, who will be sharing their thoughts on the process, and then on the progress, as well as further updates. So I would like to start by a video message from the UNESCO’s Assistant Director General for Communication and Information, who unfortunately couldn’t be here with us, but he sent a video message which I would now like to request the technical team to play. Thank you.

Speaker 1:
Distinguished participants, esteemed colleagues, and honorable guests, I am delighted to extend a warm welcome to all of you at the Dynamic Coalition on Romex Indicators session, which takes place during the Internet Governance Forum 2023 in Kyoto. As we gather today, we are surrounded by passionate individuals who share a common vision, an Internet ecosystem that upholds rights, embraces openness, fosters accessibility, and evolves through the collective efforts of its stakeholders. Personally, I regret not being able to join you physically in Kyoto due to a scheduled conflict with the UNESCO Executive Board meeting in Paris, which I need to participate in. As the UNESCO Assistant Director General for Communication and Information, I had the privilege of attending the previous editions of IGF, including the last two ones held in Poland and in Ethiopia. This platform has consistently proven invaluable for fostering meaningful discussions about the Internet’s pivotal role in our digital age. Today, our focus is on the ever-evolving landscape of Internet governance and the ongoing refinement of the Internet Universality Romex Indicators. Our gathering represents more than just a dialogue. It is a call for collective action. Five years have passed since the endorsement of the Internet Universality Indicators by UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Council of the International Program for the Development of Communication. During this time, we have witnessed the transformative power of these indicators in shaping national digital policies. Yet, the lessons learned and the challenges faced over these years underscore the need for continuous evolution and adaptation. As you mark this five-year milestone, we are actively engaged in refining the framework to ensure its continued relevance in our ever-evolving digital world. I urge each one of you to draw upon the collective wisdom of this forum. Share your insights, your strategies for success, and also the obstacles you have faced. I further encourage you to highlight the framework’s strengths and identify areas that need enhancement. Let’s ensure that our deliberations here translate into tangible benefits for all stakeholders of the Romex framework. I thank you all for your unwavering commitment and active participation in this pivotal session at IGF 2023. Let’s work together in shaping an Internet that genuinely serves the interests of all. Thank you for your kind attention.

Moderator – Tatevik GRIGORYAN:
I thank our Assistant Director General for communication and information, for sending this message and for the leadership in this process. Without any delay, I would like to present our first speaker, David Sucher, who is referred to as the architect of the IEI Romex framework. Personally, I call people who have been in the cornerstone co-parents of the framework. I would like David to request you to please talk about the process of developing the indicators and then progress, and then as we are approaching this five-year mark and planning to ensure the continued relevance of the indicators to speak about what direction we should move towards. Thank you very much. Thank you.

David Souter:
I should say, firstly, I should apologize for the fact that I have to leave for another session which begins at quarter past three, so when I get up and walk out, it’s not a gesture of protest or anything like that. It’s just I need to move to something else. But I thought I’d give you a kind of origin story of the IUIs, Internet Universality Indicators. They stem from a concept of Internet universality that was devised by Guy Berger when he was working for UNESCO back in 2013 before the 10-year review of the World Summit. In fact, I remember him walking up to me at a UNESCO conference at that time and presenting me with this and saying, what do you think of this proposal for universality approach based around the four tenets or four principles of rights, openness, accessibility for all, and multi-stakeholder engagement? The idea emerged eventually from that concept when it was taken up by UNESCO formally of having an indicator framework which was modelled along the lines of one of the existing UNESCO indicator frameworks, the Media Development Indicators, on which I’d also worked in the past. So the indicator framework should be one that would include quantitative and qualitative assessment. So it wouldn’t just be about numbers. It would be one that would support national researchers to assess their national performance, but it wouldn’t be intended to compare one country against another. It would be about looking at the country itself internally. And it would aim to identify practical interventions that could improve Internet performance in relation to those principles of rights, openness, accessibility, and multi-stakeholder engagement. Principles, practical interventions, developed through dialogue amongst national stakeholders, so bringing together the diverse communities which were engaged within the Internet. I ended up leading the development of this indicator framework in association with APC and with my colleague, Henri van der Spee, who’s in the room at the back. So the aim was always to build a large data set, and it is a very large data set presented within the indicators. The aim was always to build a large data set for analysis for a couple of reasons. First is because the availability of data is very variable between countries. So in some countries there are really very few data sets that would be available, and qualitative sources would be particularly important. In others there were many more. Our aim was to try and build a collage from the evidence that was available that would enable the best possible analysis within the country itself. And the second point was to include indicators which would enable the researchers to look at issues that were particularly important in their countries but might not be important in other countries. So to take up those specific themes. We went through a couple of really extensive consultation processes about what should be in these indicators, and that did tend to grow the number even more. And we also decided to round out the Rome framework with the X category, which would bring in a number of important other issues into the analysis of the national Internet environment. So this made for a lot of indicators, and we decided to offer two approaches to that. First a comprehensive set, which is in this rather thick book here. And secondly, a smaller core set that would be more manageable. A core set of indicators which would be more manageable for particularly in countries with relatively limited resources, in the hope that that would encourage more diverse research. In practice, and this is a disappointment to me actually, in practice almost every country has chosen to concentrate solely on the core indicators, and hasn’t really looked in the wider range for other indicators that are particularly important in their own country. I think that’s one of the issues that the review should look at, how to avoid missing the opportunity that that presents. So we put a lot of emphasis as well on the need for a multi-stakeholder approach, with a multi-stakeholder advisory board to oversee processes, but also a multi-stakeholder research team, bringing different types of expertise into a group that could look at things together, and then discuss their findings from their different perspectives. A couple of countries trailed the indicators, including Brazil, in order to validate them, and the whole scheme was then signed off by the IFAP committee in UNESCO, which gave it a kind of crucial status and authorization by UNESCO’s member states. So the outcome, as I suspect you know, is that there have been really rather a large number of implementations of these indicators. There have been a lot more implementations of them than I had expected there to be in the early stages, and in fact a lot more implementations than of the media development indicators. I think that probably indicates that there was a very substantial demand for something along these lines, which would enable national research teams to work on a national assessment. But I’d also give a good deal of credit to Tatavic’s predecessor, Shanhong Hu, who was immensely enthusiastic in promoting the indicators and supporting countries over the last few years in putting them together. Having read a number of the reports, not all of them, I think I’d emphasize three or four things which seem to me to be important in making a successful research project using them. The first is the importance of diversity within the research team and the advisory board, but I think the research team is particularly important. That is, expertise across the different areas of rights, openness, access, multi-stakeholder participation and issues such as gender and sustainable development, which are in the X category. If you bring together people with different expertise, you get more than the sum of the parts. The importance of avoiding political pressure to come to positive conclusions when those might not be justified, and avoiding the pressure that comes from vested interests. Again, it’s valuable to have diversity within the research team and the advisory board. I’d stress the need to pay as much attention to qualitative assessments as to quantitative indicators, and, as I’ve mentioned, to look at the non-core indicators to see which are particularly relevant to a country’s national context. I think I’d stress the importance of the research team discussing and analysing findings as a group rather than just reporting on their own area of expertise, and on building that discussion, that collective analysis, as the way of reporting rather than a box-ticking exercise which any indicator framework is vulnerable to. I think I’d stress the desirability of making recommendations that are practically achievable in the national context, which includes the political context. To identify those things which can move things forward in the categories that are covered by the indicators. So the practical rather than the ideal. Now, it was always intended to revise these indicators after a period of time. In fact, they’ve been used unrevised for rather longer than we’d originally expected. It’s important to bring them up to date in terms of what evidence can now be gathered and in terms of the issues on which evidence should now be gathered if we’re to have a comprehensive picture of a national internet environment. So I hope that this revision will be able to do that, to bring them up to date without making it too difficult within a particular country to look back at an assessment that’s already been done. So building on what is there, developing it and evolving it for future needs, retaining consistency where appropriate. I think it will be necessary to reduce the overall number and I hope it will be possible to encourage a more holistic assessment approach than has always been the case. There are media development indicators assessments that I think will be quite a good model there to look at. I would resist the temptation to omit things for the sake of omitting them. Not least because of the differences between different countries and the fact that different countries need different points of reference. But there may be better ways of doing that than dividing simply between a comprehensive and a core indicator set. And I would encourage more inclusion of non-core indicators where these are relevant. That’s I think what I’d say about the revision process, which I know is at an early stage and I’m not directly personally involved in it. It’s not my responsibility. But I am looking forward to continuing to work with these indicators and the Rome principles in the future. Thanks.

Moderator – Tatevik GRIGORYAN:
Thank you very much, David. And thank you again for your work in putting the indicators together and for continuing the support to us and for your valuable recommendations as we move forward with the recommendations. And we do very much hope as a member of the steering committee for the revision of IUI, you will still be very actively involved in the revision process. Thank you very much. I would be happy to provide actually updates on the process and on our progress of implementing the IUIs globally. But I am aware that our next speaker as well has to leave to attend other engagements. Our next speaker online, Dr. Lutz Moeller, the Deputy Secretary General at German Commission for UNESCO. So, Dr. Moeller, the floor is yours, please. Thank you very much. I hope you can hear me well. Very well, thank you.

Lutz Möller:
Thank you very much. Good afternoon in Japan and good morning here from Europe. I’m also in Paris at the UNESCO board like the ADG. Excellencies, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I think it’s not really necessary to say that we have observed a really enormous and very rapid involvement of Internet ecosystems over the last few months. As a key example, the fundamental changes that several social media platforms that span the globe are much more than technical alterations or simple moderations of one arbitrary product. They have fundamentally altered societal discourses in countries around the globe. And have had enormous reverberations in terms of visibility of certain political convictions instead of others and the ability of disinformation to spread. I, of course, speak about X.com but also could speak about TikTok, Meta Telegram and more nationally successful platforms such as Paula, Korean neighbor of Vietnamese sailor. In Germany, the more non-profit Fediverse with Macedon has had some successes over the last year. But even here, we do not at all see a shift away from the private sector organized social media platforms. It is really not a news item in this year 2023 but the way public discourse, public conversation about the future of society and the planet is shaped and influenced by private business interests. And this has been never more acute than in the last 12 months. As you know all very well, the challenges posed by artificial intelligence come on top as Freedom House has warned us last week in their Freedom of the Net report. More specifically, the use of artificial intelligence to hinder and interrupt public discourse, to repress and to manipulate. Therefore, we really need to strengthen internet ecosystems that are freer, more democratic, more non-profit, more in the public service. We need to strengthen and safeguard human rights, openness, justice, diversity, inclusion, participation, empowerment and well-being in these internet ecosystems. And this is exactly, as you all know basically, where the UNESCO Internet Universality indicators of the Rome IUIs come into play. As you know, Germany has been the fifth UNESCO member state globally and the first from the global north to utilize this instrument to appropriately measure whether national internet policymaking and the implementation of these policies into practice, whether they really live up to this ambition of human rights openness, access, and multi-stakeholder participation. The big advantage from our perspective, from our experience, is that the Rome X IUIs deliver that they focus not only on one or few indicators. They provide a more panoramic view, which also, I have said that previously, is some brutally honest evidence. Actually, we all know that governments can easily claim that their policies and practices are human rights-based. But are they really? Are they really open? Do they really allow access to all? And are they really governed through a true multi-stakeholder participation? Or is this word just used? used as a euphemism for industry lobbying. The application of the Rome X IUI in Germany was a joint endeavor by the German Commission for UNESCO as coordinator, the German Federal Foreign Office as political and financial supporter, and the Leibniz Institute, Hans-Bredo Institute as implementer. Today I will not repeat previously reported results from Germany that we have had, such as the insufficient balance in our country we found between the right to privacy and freedom of expression or the insufficient internet access of jobless persons or the elderly. The key question of today is, what can we suggest from our experience for the upcoming revision? As I said, the huge advantage is this panoramic view which they generate. We have clearly benefited from this approach. However, my main point is that while providing this panoramic view, we found that the number of indicator currently 303 including 109 core indicators is probably too high. I said it with what David Sauter has said before about the general approach to the Rome X IUI, which we perfectly understand and share. Still, we recommend a stronger focus on key areas and topics with the greatest relevance. In particular, we should note data availability. Even if an indicator is excellent in theory, it is of little use if there is no data available or if the indicator cannot possibly be operationalized appropriately. Several of these IUI indicators are not as practical as they appear in theory. I heard with great interest that David also spoke about the need to reduce the number of indicators. And I agree with him that we have to be very careful in that regard. And I also have to share with you that this is a common experience. We have also worked with several of the SDG indicators in Germany over the last couple of years and have found out that also some of them sound fantastic in theory, but are very, very difficult to operationalize. So we really recommend to use this opportunity also for a general up-to-date take to make sure that the IUI really capture also more modern, more up-to-date trends such as AI. On another item, we strongly recommend from our experience in Germany that member states use a multi-stakeholder advisory board. In Germany, this board has proven enormously useful, specifically when it comes to selling and communicating the results to the political stakeholders later on. And in particular, its current debates tend to weaken multi-stakeholder participation. It’s more necessary than ever, not just in the application of the IUI. In closing, we at the German Commission for UNESCO and also the Hans-Prieto Institute joined a dynamic coalition on the IUI from the start to share our experiences and good practices. We offer our support to other parties and other member states to enable them to apply the IUI in their own countries. And we look forward to working together on their vision as well in the years to come to keep them up-to-date with ongoing developments. And I thank you very much for your attention, and thank you very much for inviting me.

Moderator – Tatevik GRIGORYAN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Mohler. Thank you for your support to the IUI project and also to the support to the dynamic coalition for IUI and for encouraging more stakeholders to join. OK. Yeah, David needs to leave to attend another important session. So thank you so very much, David. Again, thank you for your continued support. Let’s give him a round of applause. So yes, Dr. Mohler is also, yes, leaving soon. Thank you. Thank you as well, Dr. Mohler. Well, we can give Dr. Mohler as well a round of applause. As I didn’t mention his name with the first round. Thank you so very much. And I hope that you will continue to support the IUI project. And I hope that you will continue to support the IUI project. The first round. Thank you so very much. And let’s carry on with our discussion. Actually, I know that there are people here who I talked with about the IUI, IUI RailMix project, and who would actually be interested to know about the project. So I will just give a very brief overview for them, for those who are new to this initiative. So I’m sure you grasped a lot from David’s input. But just to give you an idea. So internet universality is the official position of UNESCO on the internet. So UNESCO believes that internet should be universal based on these principles of rights, openness, accessibility to all, and nurtured by multi-stakeholder participation. And so this was in the heart of the internet universality framework, which we then added an X to, ROM-X, X standing for cross-cutting issues such as gender equality, safety and security, sustainable development and environment. So we have in total, they’ve talked already about the number of indicators. We have a lot of them, 303 indicators with 109 core indicators, core being those that we recommend that they are essential to implement, at least as baseline. And then countries are free to, based on their national context, to choose and implement other additional indicators as well. And so we have an eight-step process, and I would like to talk about the establishment of multi-stakeholder advisory board, which David mentioned, and Dr. Moeller also highlighted its importance. So we do believe in multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance, which is also promoted by the Internet Governance Forum. So it is an essential part of this research. So the group consists normally of government representatives, representatives of relevant ministries, civil society organizations, academia, private sector, representatives of marginalized groups. These groups is sort of an oversight body which guides the research, and in the end of the research also looks at the outcomes and what we call validation workshop, validates the results of the workshop, confirming that this is indeed the state of the play in the country in their respective concerned areas. So this assessment, this framework indeed is a unique global tool. It’s a unique tool available to implement the development of the internet at the national level. And it also, it’s not a standalone, it also supports in a way the achievement of sustainable development goals and is also in line with the number of topics now discussed at the Global Digital Compact. So currently the framework, the assessment is ongoing in 40 countries, actually 34 with six having published the report. So just to give you a visual idea because I avoided using presentation. So this is the indicators, the framework which is available on our website. So if you go to unesco.org and I’ll be happy to share my contact as well afterwards and look for internet universality indicators. And so I have here, this is how the report in the end looks like. I have the copy of the report from Brazil and we have Alexandre here and Fabio here who not only supported the creation of the indicators but also were one of the, actually the first ones to implement the indicators in Brazil. So currently, so six reports published so far, three in Africa, one in Europe, Germany, one in Thailand and Brazil. And currently the process is ongoing in 34 countries with Kenya actually doing a second follow-up assessment to measure the results achieved after the publication of the report. And so we have 15 in Africa, 12 in South Asia, 15 in Asia and the Pacific and five in Latin America, three in Europe and two in Arab states. And actually I’m happy to say that we, out of this country, seven are small islands and developing states with five in South Pacific islands. So we have had quite serious results. Dr. Moller already presented a little bit with the achievements in Germany. Our assessments help to inform policy makers and feed into the digital strategies, laws and regulations. And we are happy to continue our progress. And so now I would like to give the floor to, sorry, because we have a missing speaker. I’d like to give the floor to Alessandra Barbosa, Regional Center for Studies of the Development of the Information Society, CETIC.br. And actually this is a UNESCO Category II Institute. And I won’t be telling more about you because there is so much to say. So please add whatever you would like to add. And please, floor is yours around the topic of the discussion today.

Alexandre Fernandes Barbosa:
Thank you very much, Atatavik. And good afternoon, everyone. Well, it’s a pleasure to be here in this discussion because as it was already mentioned, NIC.br, we’re in the very beginning of this discussion since the concept of universality. And in my opinion, this is a very important achievement because although indicators may change over time and concepts may change, like in the past, what we considered internet users, today is very different, right? So the definitions may change and they should be revised from time to time, but principles are really important. And I think that this framework was a very important achievement that UNESCO made in terms of defining important principles, the ROM-X that was already explained, what means R-O-A-M and X. So I’m not going to repeat, but the principles should not change. They should remain. So I think that we are now in a moment after five years that it was approved in 2015, right? I guess that it was approved. 18, yeah, 18. So it’s time now to make an assessment on the framework based on the need of revising principles, but not principles, indicators. And I think that as already has been stressed by both speakers that presided me, in terms of the number of indicators, it is indeed a huge number of indicators, more than 300, the whole set, and the core indicators, 109. But the fact is that the scope that this framework aims to measure really requires a lot of indicators. And I think that what we have realized among these years, and now with more than 40 countries making this assessment, is that we have a very problematic issue of data gap. Many countries, they don’t have the required data to make this assessment. But at the same time, it was, from my point of view, following all these reports and assessment, because CETIC had the chance to revise some countries, like the countries in Latin America, and add some other countries in Africa. Even in Europe, we worked with a German team during the assessment, sharing the Brazilian experience. But having said that, I think that this framework was an opportunity for countries to really understand the need of data production. We need data, because when we don’t have data, we don’t have visibility. And if you don’t have visibility, there is no priority in the political agenda. So, and in this particular regard, I think that Brazil is in a position that we have for many, many years, almost 20 years, of data production in different areas. Not only among population, households, but enterprises, schools, health, culture, government, and many other areas. So I think that the ROM framework gave countries the opportunity to understand that they should produce more data, because we do have a lot of missing data in this regard. And also, another very important achievement, in my opinion, is that UNESCO soon realized that we should not have an index, right? It’s not a matter of comparing countries here. We are using qualitative and quantitative type of indicators to take a picture, a general overview of the situation of the internet development in a given country. So this is a very good thing that UNESCO soon realized that the intention was to have a panoramic view of internet development. A second very important point that I would like to highlight in this process is that not many countries have the experience of having a multistakeholder dialogue on internet development. Brazil is, again, a very good example of a successful model on multistakeholder, a real multistakeholder arrangement to debate internet governance. And since one of the conditions to implementation is to establish what UNESCO has denominated multistakeholder advisory board for the development of this assessment, many countries that had no experience in having a multistakeholder dialogue, they had to implement that. And this is a very important achievement, and we should keep it this way, right? Well, just to mention that David has said the disappointment about having many assessments focusing only on core indicators. And I agree with him that the ideal situation is to implement the whole set of indicators to give a broad perspective on the internet development. But having this condition, maybe in the revision, we could rethink of that. And CETIC has been involved with UNESCO and other expert steering committee for ROMEX discussing this revision. And at the end of the day, we realized that it’s not possible to make such a drastic reduction in the indicators. So we will have to face this reality and to decide what to do. But I probably agree that we should stick with a larger number of indicators to have a better assessment. And last but not least, I would like to just take this opportunity to mention two things related to ROMEX. We have been discussing the application of this framework to different other type of emerging technologies such as AI. When ROMEX was approved in 2018, we didn’t have the new phenomenas of large language models, for instance, and other AI-based applications. So I think that it is completely applicable to emerging technologies because we are talking about principles and the principles should not change. Human rights-based, openness, accessibility, and multi-stakeholder, this could not change. And we could use this framework to apply. We have other discussion going on right now like the global digital compact and other issues that we could rely on those principles. Again, on the X dimension, in the revision, we already realized that we should fill some gaps that the original framework didn’t foreseen such as we had foreseen gender, age scope, children, but we need to include cybersecurity, sustainable development, climate change, all the dimensions relevant in the X dimension. And last, I think that in this revision, we could think of how to really encourage member states to make periodical assessment. I’m not sure if you can do it in two years’ time, three years’ time, but having periodical measurement should be very important for policymakers, civil society, and technical community to have a better idea of the progress given country has made in terms of applying this framework. So those are my initial reactions. I think that UNESCO plays a very important role in promoting and disseminating ROMAX strategy and framework that goes beyond internet development like AI, as I have said already. So those are my initial comments. Thank you very much.

Moderator – Tatevik GRIGORYAN:
Thank you very much, Alexandre. Thank you for your valuable inputs and thoughts. And also, thank you very much for pointing out this is not meant for ranking, which I normally highlight in my presentation. So this is a voluntary assessment. I always highlight voluntary in a sense that the country, the national stakeholder, they decide themselves on doing the assessment and then UNESCO is there to provide technical guidance and support in doing this and there is no ranking or comparison whatsoever. And of course, for some countries, the problems are similar and it’s very important to create this environment, to share practices and learn from each other experiences in moving forward with their national agendas, which in a way this dynamic coalition serves a platform for sharing the ideas and lessons learned and experiences and best practices. So on this note, I would like to give the floor to Anja Gengo, who is from the IGF Secretariat and who has been with the, actually all of you have been with the dynamic coalition longer than me and you’ve seen the development and I would like to invite Anja to speak about the role of the dynamic coalition, the progress, how we could improve it and any other inputs you and thought you have around

Anja Gengo:
the topic of our discussion, please. Thank you very much Tatevic and thank you to UNESCO for, of course, organizing this session, but even more for continuously throughout the year through the IGF platform and the dynamic coalition is working in a very open transparent manner with stakeholders from around the world to not just promote the indicators, but really to understand the value of the indicators and precisely what we are discussing today, whether they’re relevant, whether they’re useful to people around the world, do we need them and if yes, how do we use them, do we have access and especially if we have enough resources and capacity to meaningfully use them. Maybe I can start indeed from the dynamic coalition and the role of that platform and then I would like to say a few words about the relevance of the indicators for our presence and of course for the future. In terms of the dynamic coalition, we at the IGF Secretariat witnessed when this idea was born that a dynamic coalition could be organized just because it has been seen as a way to engage stakeholders from around the world into warm, friendly, meaningful discussions on the way the indicators could be used. I think it was formed after the indicators were adopted in 2018 and that was the whole idea to kind of follow the pace of the implementation and to understand if there are gaps, where are the gaps. It is incredible success in a very short time framework of the dynamic coalitions in terms of the number of stakeholders it managed to together but also in terms of the quality of the inputs that the stakeholders are bringing, not just to these dynamic coalitions but to the whole IGF as such and I think for us it was a really lesson learned that these dynamic coalitions which are very independent, they are also organic and they have their own autonomy in terms of how they manage the process. It was a lesson learned that when you have a strong institution that stands behind a people-centered, people-led process, it really can work and it really can, in a very short time as I said, achieve incredible results. I think long term speaking, we from the Secretariat certainly would advise to continue doing the way that has been done so far in terms of embracing the community, the stakeholders, doing outreach in different for us and especially engaging those that unfortunately are still not meaningfully engaged in the overall internet governance global processes. We through the IGF have quite a nice overview of the stakeholders, types of people, profiles that unfortunately are already left behind and I think it’s important that we alarm the community to really work in a methodological way to engage those stakeholders. So if you look, I’ll be very brief on this, I won’t certainly divert the attention of the IGF and inclusion processes but I do think it’s important to say that there are first of all profiles coming from certain countries that are not present in the global processes such as the IGF for example but also other processes. I mean at this forum you have for example colleagues coming from ICANN, colleagues coming from UNESCO doing wonderful things and unfortunately stakeholders from certain countries are missing so this is something that the Secretariat is very much focusing on to hopefully remedy and I’m very glad for example to say that there are countries from which we couldn’t hear for the past first 10 years of the IGF that are now very active in the IGF ecosystem not just at individual levels but organizationally speaking. You have the Maldives that are having wonderful national IGF and their organized multi-stakeholder participation at this year’s IGF and that’s a really concrete and tangible difference that’s been made through outreach done on different platforms. So this is something that I think the Dynamic Coalition could also do, engage those that are not engaged so far. I think we’ve recognized in the past couple of years that we’ve really evolved from multi-stakeholder model toward a multidisciplinary model which means that we have to look at each stakeholder group participation in a very nuanced way to understand that these discussions, these dialogues and potentially leading into decisions really concerns us all given the fact that we’re all using our smartphones, our computers, meaning we’re all there present in our online world and hopefully in the years to come also this Dynamic Coalition will see more disciplines represented in the core organizational group of the Dynamic Coalition itself. In terms of the validity I completely agree and I think that can’t be underlined enough with everything that my colleagues said previously with respect to the values. I think we’re very much aligned in the fact that we strive for the highest values that humanity can strive in the online world as we do in our, let’s call it, offline world. But if you look at these analog domains for example, you know, humanity for example and the highest international legal mechanisms guarantee right to life for example, but then you still have some jurisdictions that recognize that sentence as a sanction, while some not. So there are fundamental differences between how are we approaching to implement the values that we agree on and the digital world is in that sense not different than to this analog domain as well. There are jurisdictions where if you say something on social media is first of all interpreted as exercising your freedom of expression, while in some jurisdictions a tweet or social media post can potentially lead to imprisonment or fining. So those are the differences. I think we have to be aware of them and we need to make sure that the implementation of the values that we believe in is in the right hands. Two years ago in Poland we had a session on this same subject. We were assessing how the assessment is going and I do recall when I was sitting next to my colleague Kossi from Benin IGF, he coordinates the IGF in Benin, we spoke about the implementation being done through a multi-stakeholder lens, that all stakeholders in the country have opportunity to be consulted and to have a say when you are assessing the ecosystem and I do think that’s still very much relevant two years after. Being said that, the values are relevant, it’s excellent to see that the number of national assessments are growing, but I do think that now compared to the period during the pandemic and after, we may be in a phase where the assessment needs to be assessed and that’s because the COVID pandemic that really changed our landscape and I’m sure I don’t need to speak about the facts, but if you look just at the legislation field, it’s more than palpable, it’s more than visible that that field is dramatically changing. Much of these institutions, initiatives are now growing that are measuring, for example, the number of laws that are regulating, let’s say, artificial intelligence given the fact that it’s on the rise and some of them are indicating that before the pandemic we spoke just about one or two national jurisdictions that had a law in place reflecting artificial intelligence. After the pandemic, so last year, this year, we are facing incredible proliferation of the national laws and there is a concern in the community, you can hear that across narratives at the IGF, at this year’s forum, that there is a concern that this may lead to fragmentation and that we need to be very careful in terms of not allowing that we actually regulate something that may jeopardize the global nature of the Internet that we are all really firmly standing for and advocating and that is one Internet accessible, affordable, safe, secure, resilient, sustainable, unfragmented. So those are the changes that I think we have to be aware and I hope that the assessments that have been done in the early years could be also maybe looked at to ensure just that they are relevant and to work, of course, on the outreach to ensure that this valuable set of indicators is brought to the attention of those that are probably still not aware that it exists. Thank you, Tadej.

Moderator – Tatevik GRIGORYAN:
Thank you very much, Anja, for your excellent points and excellent cooperation and the points will be definitely taken on board as we move forward. And just picking up on your point about reassessing the assessments, I think now we’ve, for example, we’ve completed actually, Kenya is completing the follow-up, what we call follow-up assessment, which is basically reassessing the assessment and Grace is not here today but Simon has read the assessment. I don’t know if he would like to share anything on that. So I think we are thinking about this follow-up phase to see, actually, one of the points as well, steps is the monitoring process which aims to see the progress of the country which could then reassess what has been done and the validity and progress made by the country. So this is an excellent point as well, in addition to others. Thank you very much. So as I mentioned, Simon, I would like now to give the floor to Simon who is currently acting as a technical advisor for the IUI-Romex project, looking into the reports that we receive and also, of course, providing training and support to the multi-stakeholder advisory group board, also to the researchers. So he’s actually more recently involved also closely in the assessment of the project in South Pacific islands, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tonga and Fiji. Please, Simon, the floor is yours. Thank you, Tetevic. So I mean, I think to

Simon Ellis:
start with, the IUI is really a unique holistic system for taking this overall picture of the Internet in countries and really I haven’t much to say because everybody else has said it already and I completely agree with what’s come through, but I’ll take three or four points and a couple of examples. So it is a national assessment, not an international assessment. It’s about what happens in the country and in that sense as well, it doesn’t have to produce kind of a single definitive answer. So through the map, through the analyses, there can be different viewpoints and those different viewpoints can be incorporated. The indicators in IUI are in the form of a question and so countries are effectively encouraged to answer that question and sometimes the answer to the question may not be a yes or a no, but maybe something in between and that leads to something again that I think people have mentioned but it’s worth bringing out again. I think Anna just mentioned it, this sense that yes, one of the major aspects of this is rights and legislation, but then what IUI does systematically throughout is say and is that implemented? How does that work out in practice? So for example many of the points about if certain laws are in data protection for example are in place, the question then is, is there something for example from case law, from civil society analyses which suggest if that is followed up on, if that works and how that works in practice. So again what you’re doing is not a simple answer but is a full analysis of the question and I think that leads again into this sense of follow-up. So for each report then naturally you lead into recommendations and as now we’re getting into 40 or more countries we have to really say well what then is happening as a result of that and as Tatavic has just suggested, Grace Gitaiga has conducted the first follow-up assessment for Kenya, but I think as the first one we still have to establish what is the best way for follow-up on the ground to see whether recommendations are taken forward, but also then how frequently should there be IUI assessments and what should the nature of reporting because you don’t want to recopy 300 indicators and say nothing’s changed. So that whole sense of follow-up is extremely important and is one of the big questions here. The second big question which everybody’s tackled is new themes and really the three themes that are currently emerging are AI and then environment and sustainability and cyber security. AI is very much new in the IOI environment but there are some indicators in environment and cyber security already in the X category of IUI. And then to take that for environment the one question for example which I’m keen on is e-waste and that is particularly a problem in the countries I’ve worked at in Asia and Pacific. So for example in Southeast Asia there are they are sometimes dumping grounds for e-waste from OECD from Europe and North America and often that e-waste is then processed in not very good working conditions let’s say and so this whole issue brings up all sorts of questions about environmental concerns. In the Pacific we’re now working some countries literally the country is as high as the table so waste cannot be put in the ground. Waste has to be disposed of in some other way and again this leads to whole issues about recycling and contamination and what you do and where you put it. To take another example from the Pacific which is again isn’t quite and shows to some degree how IUI can adjust but in some degree as well how we need to make that sensitivity to national circumstances. For the Pacific connectivity is about satellites. In one country islands can be thousands of miles apart there’s no way that you can cable between them and there’s no way that you can put masts or anything between them so satellites is it for those countries. If they’re other to have full connectivity not just to the world and the internet as a whole but even within the same country and I think that also then emphasizes to come back to a point that David made originally about the sense of core and non-core. So certainly certain things are core and apply to every country but certain elements such as I’ve suggested for Pacific with waste and satellites are our core to the Pacific but perhaps less core in in other countries and we need to make keep that flexibility and we need to ensure that the IUI allows a national holistic view for a whole range of different types of country from small islands right up to huge countries like Brazil which in itself I always used to say that if anything if something works in Brazil it’ll work anywhere because there’s so many different environments

Moderator – Tatevik GRIGORYAN:
in Brazil. Thank you very much Simon and thank you for this contribution and for your work. Now I think we heard from all the speakers I wanted to ask if anybody online from the participants or participants here in the room have any questions or points to be made. Yes Fabio please.

Audience:
Hello, thank you. Now I would like to hear from the panelists the point of mood stakeholders and that I think one thing that is interesting in the indicators that not just the process is mood stakeholder because you have to collect indicator throughout stakeholder process but the mood stakeholder is a dimension of the indicator so there’s a list of indicators covering this and do you think this is if this is something that is also changing nowadays if there are some new indicators in the field of mood stakeholders that five years ago we don’t had so how do you do assess this part of the discussion. Thank you. Thank you Fabio who

Simon Ellis:
would like to take the question. Thanks Fabio. I think I’m not going to answer it completely directly but as I said in a previous session on I think I’m a multi-stakeholder dimension and David kind of referred to the sense of ticking boxes I think it’s important to look at as to what multi-stakeholder means and I guess this is kind of what you it’s not just that somebody turned up to a meeting it’s that they’re actively engaged and I’m not sure how we do that and maybe also this is another question to as it were put out there. but really to have the sense of how can we engage, for example, in the reports for e-government, there are a lot of countries that have e-government systems and you see them put out things to consultation and people have said that civil society reps have said they sent things in, but then they said but we don’t know whether anything was ever taken into account, so I think that sense of how real participation and what that looks like and how you would capture that is a question here. For new sectors, new stakeholders, I don’t think I see anything

Alexandre Fernandes Barbosa:
immediately that’s changed. Yes, just to complement, this is a very good question because this is the only dimension or set of indicators that represents both principle of multistakeholderism and also the indicators, they capture how a given country is really implementing or supporting or fostering multistakeholder dialogue. In terms of new actors, I don’t see any new actors in terms of when you consider government, technical community, civil society and private sector, I think this doesn’t change, but maybe there is one thing that doesn’t exist in the set of indicators in terms of how can we measure the outcomes of this multistakeholder dialogue, because referring to my country again, Brazil, we have the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee as a multistakeholder body that has produced along more than almost 30 years, we are going to complete 30 of this model in two years time because it was created in 1995, I think that we can list a large number of important outcomes that has driven loss regulations like the Brazilian GDPR, the data protection law, like the law of access to information and not to mention the very important legislation which is the Internet Bill of Rights that is called Marcos Civil, it was a hundred percent based on the ten principles that was discussed through many years within this multistakeholder structure. So, one new indicators that I would think of is the outcome, how to measure the outcome of this multistakeholder dialogue, but I think that differently from the three others dimensions or principles of the Rome X, this I don’t see many

Anja Gengo:
change. Thank you very much Fabio, I completely agree with my colleagues, I don’t see in theory that we need to change anything on a paper, but the IGF Secretariat and also within the IGF, we do see gaps and that’s what I was saying at the beginning during the introductory remarks, there are stakeholders that are just not participating within certain stakeholder groups and I think who well illustrated that was the judge that spoke during the opening ceremony, I don’t know if you’ve heard when he said that he had issues at the registration area because he said I come from a high court of Tanzania, I’m a judge and then some colleagues had difficulty to place him under a certain stakeholder group. I mean it was a very nice way to illustrate that those are types of subgroups I would say, you know within our traditional stakeholder groups that are missing to actively participate in our dialogues, in our processes. We’ve recognized that a couple of years ago also with legislators, with parliamentarians and that’s what prompted this parliamentary track at the IGF that’s been going on since 2019, but I do think there’s much more to do. For example look at the health industry, we speak a lot about the privacy there, but you don’t really speak with you know medical professionals at the IGF, you speak with people coming from other backgrounds which are mostly patients in these domains. So this is something that I think we need to work on to engage them more. We need to raise awareness, that’s probably the reason why we don’t have them here present. Car industry as well, I mean a lot of issues with privacy, obviously their data protection and that they are not here. In Katowice we heard a little bit from Volkswagen, but here today we don’t really have active participation from the highest management from these domains. So these are just some examples that I think it’s important to work on, but we do have them on our paper. I think the authors of the indicators recognize that well, the matter is just raise awareness in practice and have them engaged. Thank you very much for the question and for

Alexandre Fernandes Barbosa:
the answers. Just to complement, very interesting what you said and I would say that the X dimension on the ROMAX could accommodate other important dimensions, like the ethical dimension could be one set of indicators within the X, but the other ones we don’t have much to change I guess. Thank

Moderator – Tatevik GRIGORYAN:
you very much. As I was saying, thank you Fabio for the question and for the answers which will help us I believe in the revision process. I wanted to ask the audience again if there are any reactions to what has been said or if there are any questions and the audience online. I don’t see any questions online, so we’re keeping to the time, we’re doing very good. We have our director joining us online. Before giving her the floor for the official closing remarks, I don’t know Marielsa if you had any contribution to what has been said or would we expect to hear the official closing remarks from you? Thank you Tatevika. I think I will weave them into the closing remarks so as not to make it two separate things. Okay, thank you very much. Then I would just like to give one final floor to the speakers if you have any reflections on as we move forward with the revision, if you have any final thoughts you would like to share. I would like to remind the audience and especially those who joined a bit later that we’ve been discussing the Dynamic Coalition as a platform to cooperate and to share best practices and lessons learned for the implementation and promotion of the UNESCO’s Internet Universality ROMEX indicators which is ongoing in 40 countries and as we’ve reached the five-year mark, we’re currently in the process of updating the framework to make sure that we incorporate the topics and input from lessons learned from the implementation of the IUI framework. So I’d give the floor to Anja first,

Anja Gengo:
please Anja. Thank you very much Tatevika. I think just to thank you and UNESCO first of all for using the IGF as a platform to promote these good values and bring them closer to people from around the world. We certainly at the IGF Secretariat but I’m pretty sure I can speak also for other structures of the IGF as a project, welcome our cooperation to continue long-term speaking as one UN family and to work as much as that’s possible with people from around the world to ensure that these values are really implemented in practice for the Internet that we all want.

Simon Ellis:
Thank you. Simon please. I don’t think again I have anything much further to say. I’m still thinking about new actors. One thing I’ve seen in a few maps recently is the police involved which is quite interesting and I think there is something there about police and justice. There is an important indicator about training for judges and lawyers which I think is quite key in all of this but I think this is a really good assessment. I think it is producing very big results and I look forward to a new version in relation to perhaps the global digital compact

Alexandre Fernandes Barbosa:
in the beginning of next year. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to be here and in my particular case being part of UNESCO family I have to say that it is a real pleasure for me and for my team to work with UNESCO and to help fostering this idea of this dialogue that is so important and I think that we have to celebrate that in such a short period of time you have a large number of countries making the assessment and the dialogue is live and I hope that in the coming years we can make new assessments and increase the number of countries that join this framework in a voluntary basis as you mentioned and I think that UNESCO plays an important role in building capacity and raising awareness among member states for the importance of having data to make this assessment. This is a very important issue. We do have a huge data gap mainly in countries from the global south so UNESCO plays a very important role and I have to really congratulate for your leadership in this project. Thank you very much. Thank you very much,

Moderator – Tatevik GRIGORYAN:
Alessandro. Thank you to all of you and thank you CETIC indeed for the excellent cooperation that we’ve been enjoying and the serious work especially now when it comes to the revision. I would now like to, I’m happy to give the floor to Marielsa Oliveira who is the director for digital policies and transformation at UNESCO. Please Marielsa, the floor is yours.

Marielza Couto e Silva de Oliveira:
Thank you and hello everyone. Konnichiwa. I’m really sorry that I could not join before but I had other sessions. I’ve been in session since 2 a.m. Paris time and many of those actually was talking about the ROMAX as well advocating for it and including it in the topics but for me this session which is focused specifically on the revision of the ROMAX framework is the most special one. We’ve been working together as a dynamic coalition you know to advance the internet universality for the past five years and over those years we actually accomplished quite a lot. You know if you think about it 25% of the countries of the world have actively adopted the ROMAX framework and it has embedded itself in global and regional discourse about the internet. You know it’s at the highest levels so it is no small measure due to the work of the internet universality dynamic coalition and the way you have worked as a shared space to exchange expertise, to exchange experiences, to act as a peer-to-peer support mechanism for each other and this is a very generous attitude you know of all of you and which the richness of our collective experiences you are the right people to contribute and guide the fifth year revision of the internet universality indicators. It has been envisioned from the very beginning we always knew the internet to be a fast-changing environment so we always considered that these indicators would have to be revised at some point but nevertheless it comes at a very timely moment in which we see digital governance changing it under a major overhaul with the new for example the the upcoming global digital compact the WSIS plus 20 review and so others. We also see generative AI changing you know the landscape the technological landscape of the internet itself and what we have found out that the internet can also be harmful this is something that we didn’t realize but before as much but the harms that can be done when it serves as a conduit for disinformation for hate speech and other harmful content particularly at scale you know that that it operates and the environment has changed so much too with indicators needing to change. In this session we have looked at this scenario and asked ourselves what are the things that we must change about the internet universality framework and you know I’m sure that you have covered important elements but I heard some of those in in the end and I would like to mention you know that this includes for example a tighter specification of which are the core indicators and this is one of the things that I consider particularly relevant we need to really tighten up the core indicators to to give a an easier process including for the the measurement as well as for the follow-up. The potential inclusion of new dimensions both in terms of content such as you know what Simon was referring to environment and in waste cyber security but others that have come up through you know different mechanisms of consultations child data protection mental health and of course we also have AI the toxicity levels of the internet itself you know of the social media environment and some of the elements that we need to consider but also in terms of the assessment process itself for example you know accounting for research obstacles that many of the national teams have encountered including the lack of data for many indicators particularly disaggregated data that then doesn’t allow us to see the x dimension so you know so clearly but including as well as when and how to conduct follow-ups to monitor progress in implementing the recommendations which I find an essential mechanism and I think that it’s really important that we document this process as well because we are you know about to have a new global digital compact and we will have principles and commitments and that’s in that at that level as well so it’s the process of monitoring adherence to principles it’s one of the most important things that’s actually going to be happening and the example that the ROMAX framework offers is extraordinary so I’d like to offer that as my key contribution today is reminding us that we need to document this process this trajectory to show also the global digital compact process what could be you know how they could actually be taking care of implementing it so with that I’d like to really extend heartfelt appreciation to all the panelists they’re actually good friends who have joined us today to share these insights and you know say that your participation is always enriching and enriches our understanding of the path that we must take forward to achieve this shared objective updating the framework I’d like to explain my special gratitude to our partners at CITIC.br you know Alessandri and Fabio have been really supportive and collaborative in this process of taking up quite a lot of the work but also you know Simon who is you know supporting leading this and to our esteemed steering committee members for their support in advancing this review and just like your constructive suggestions and advice have enabled UNESCO to facilitate the implementation of the ROMAX national assessments in the last year we are now able to successfully adapt this framework with your help and for that reason I really encourage all of you to remain actively engaged in the revision process to continue sharing your inputs with us and Tatevik has certainly given you a mechanism to reach out if you have contributions to make we have always counted on our dynamic coalition but this year we really count on you more than ever you are the ones we have on the ground understanding of national needs of the difficulties their own research typically faces of the themes about which you wish to put you could know more about and so on so your guidance is absolutely indispensable so let me invite also all IGF stakeholders to join the internet universality indicators dynamic coalition and to help us to continue advancing this work of advocating for a human-centered internet so thank you all very very much for your support and I hope to see you in person again soon.

Moderator – Tatevik GRIGORYAN:
Thank you very much Maria-Elsa thank you for this rich remarks and points that we will also take on during our steering committee meeting closed door meeting tomorrow and from my end as well I would like to really extend a heartfelt thank you to each panelist and each member of the steering of the dynamic coalition who has been supporting us throughout the years who are not here today but who remain actively engaged throughout through different initiatives around Romex so thank you so very much I would also like to thank my colleagues the Romex team especially Karen Landa and Camila Gonzalez who are online with us now and I would like to also thank the participants who have been here we are happy to hear from you after the session we will be around and I would like to continue the tradition that my colleagues have established of taking a family photo and I’d like to ask the online participants as well to put on their cameras and colleagues as well. Thank you.