The Challenges of Data Governance in a Multilateral World

Luciano Mazza

In the G20, data governance was not discussed during the last two presidencies due to each country’s unique concerns and priorities. The Indonesian and Indian presidencies did not directly address this subject area, as they focused on other issues relevant to their respective realities. It is worth noting that every country in the G20 tries to bring a perspective that aligns with its own reality and immediate concerns. India, for instance, discussed data governance in the context of the Digital Public Infrastructure (DPIs).

On the other hand, the upcoming Brazilian presidency has outlined four priority areas for the G20: universal and meaningful connectivity, artificial intelligence (AI), e-government, and information integrity. Brazil’s internal discussions have shown that these areas are of primary importance and echo the concerns present in the international agenda. The emphasis on these topics reflects Brazil’s immediate internal needs, signaling a positive sentiment towards addressing them globally.

One notable proponent of data governance is Luciano Mazza, who believes it is crucial and important. Mazza notes that data governance issues consistently appear in every single communication of the G20. This observation highlights the recognition within the G20 of the critical importance of data governance in achieving the goals related to industry, innovation, and infrastructure, as well as partnerships for sustainable development.

The analysis also reveals that digital governance is a broad and complex topic, making it challenging to fully cover within the duration of a G20 presidency. What may be sensitive and important to countries like Japan or Saudi Arabia may not hold the same significance for countries such as India, Indonesia, or Brazil. Each country has its own priorities and concerns in the realm of digital governance, emphasizing the need for flexibility in adopting digital policies that best suit their internal needs.

Furthermore, it is observed that digital elements are increasingly being incorporated into trade agreements. Some agreements explicitly identify themselves as digital agreements, indicating the growing recognition of the significance of digital aspects in facilitating international trade and fostering partnerships towards achieving the goals of sustainable development.

Lastly, Japan has emerged as a leader in conceptual discussions surrounding data flow and trust within the G20. Under Japan’s leadership, considerable progress has been made in developing conceptual frameworks and understanding the importance of data flow and trust in the digital age. This demonstrates the active engagement and contributions of G20 countries towards shaping the future of data governance and trust in the global digital landscape.

In conclusion, the G20 has not extensively discussed data governance in recent presidencies, but the upcoming Brazilian presidency has identified it as a priority among other areas such as universal connectivity, AI, e-government, and information integrity. Luciano Mazza emphasizes the crucial importance of data governance, which is consistently recognized within the G20. Each country prioritizes digital governance based on internal needs, and digital elements are increasingly incorporated into trade agreements. Japan has played a leadership role in conceptual discussions on data flow and trust. These insights shed light on the complexities and dynamics surrounding data governance within the G20 and the diverse approaches taken by member countries.

Alexandre Barbosa

The discussion focused on the important role of social movements in data governance discussions, particularly the involvement of the homeless workers’ movement in the technology sector. It highlighted that this movement recognizes the significance of technology and has established a data governance section within the sector. This indicates an increasing awareness among social movements of the need to participate in decision-making processes related to data governance.

Another key point raised in the discussion was the recognition of the contributions of micro-workers in data production. These individuals are responsible for labeling and cleaning data. To address this, the Oxford Internet Institute has launched a policy brief emphasizing the importance of considering the rights and working conditions of micro-workers in data governance. This highlights the need for a broader conversation that includes all stakeholders involved in data production.

Moreover, the discussion highlighted the potential limitations faced by social movements due to data traffic control by gatekeepers. It was argued that such control can restrict the ability of social movements to disseminate their messages and organize effectively. This issue underscores the importance of ensuring that gatekeepers do not hinder the activities and impact of social movements in the digital sphere.

Additionally, the discussion emphasized the importance of considering data governance in the “last mile,” which refers to the final stage of data transmission where data is delivered to end-users. The role of multilateral organizations in adopting multi-level approaches to data governance in order to address challenges in the last mile was highlighted.

An advocate in the discussion strongly supports data governance models that prioritize cooperation, privacy, and the common good. These models have established principles regarding access, usage, and generation of data for the benefit of society as a whole. This highlights the need to move away from data governance models that solely focus on individual gain or profit and instead promote societal well-being and privacy protection.

In summary, the discussion highlighted the increasing recognition of the role of social movements and micro-workers in data governance discussions. It raised concerns about limitations imposed by gatekeepers and emphasized the importance of considering data governance in the last mile. Furthermore, it stressed the need for data governance models that prioritize cooperation, privacy, and the common good. By taking these factors into account, a more equitable and inclusive data governance framework can be created.

Veronica Arroyo

Upon analysing the arguments provided, it becomes evident that data governance structures vary across jurisdictions. The level of enforcement mechanisms for data privacy differs, with some jurisdictions implementing stringent measures while others adopt more flexible approaches. This discrepancy stems from the policies and priorities specific to each country.

Furthermore, it is argued that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) should form the foundation of policy development. The SDGs serve as a common purpose and language agreed upon by numerous countries and representatives. By integrating the SDGs into policy development, countries can determine areas where regulations need updating, ensuring that policies are aligned with the global goals.

Seeking commonalities within data governance and the SDGs is also highlighted as crucial for fostering the development of data transfers. Finding common ground facilitates the creation of recommendations to enhance data governance practices. Additionally, the alignment between data governance and the SDGs further promotes mutual progress and advancement.

Additionally, it is proposed that the climate action goals, one of the 17 SDGs, can influence the structure of data governance. When climate action is prioritised, adjustments can be made to data governance practices to align with this objective. This exemplifies how the SDGs can guide and shape the structure of data governance.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasises the diverse nature of data governance structures among jurisdictions. It underscores the importance of incorporating the SDGs into policy development for a shared purpose. The discovery of commonalities both within data governance and the SDGs enables the advancement of data transfers and governance practices. Furthermore, the incorporation of climate action goals within data governance highlights the influence and alignment between the SDGs and data governance.

Miriam Wimmer

Data governance in multilateralism requires the participation of multiple stakeholders, including multilateral organizations such as the G7, G20, the UN, and the OECD. These organizations have presented various proposals related to data governance and its role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

When discussing data governance, it is important to consider multiple perspectives, including those of companies, nation states, and individual rights. The interests and concerns of businesses and countries should be taken into account in multilateral discussions on data transfers, while also respecting the rights of individuals. Striking the right balance ensures that data can be transferred effectively while still preserving privacy and protecting individual rights.

Moreover, it is crucial that interoperable mechanisms for international data transfers prioritize the fundamental right to data protection. Brazil, for instance, is currently engaged in discussions regarding regulations on international data transfers. These conversations focus on achieving interoperability while also safeguarding data protection rights. The aim is to create data protection mechanisms that can effectively provide necessary safeguards, regardless of the data’s location. This commitment ensures that data is adequately protected, regardless of where it is transferred or stored.

In conclusion, data governance in multilateralism necessitates the active participation of multiple stakeholders and organizations. Proposals put forth by multilateral organizations such as the G7, G20, the UN, and the OECD shape discussions on data governance and transfers. Considering the perspectives of companies, nation states, and individual rights is essential in designing data governance frameworks. Additionally, the development of interoperable mechanisms for international data transfers must prioritize the fundamental right to data protection. Efforts, like those in Brazil, strive to strike a balance between effective data transfer and the protection of privacy and individual rights.

Gaurav Sharma

India has received praise for its positive approach to technology and digitization. The country recently passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, demonstrating its commitment to safeguarding personal data. Additionally, India recognizes the economic potential of digitization and actively promotes it as a driver of growth. The importance of Digital Public Infrastructure in facilitating technological advancements and promoting innovation is also highlighted.

On the topic of data governance, a neutral sentiment is expressed. It is argued that data governance should prioritize norms and values that enable interoperability and data transfers. This requires standardized practices and regulations to ensure seamless sharing and exchange of data across different platforms and systems. The need for efficient governance structures that operate effectively with datasets is also emphasized.

There is also a call for greater participation and collaboration from the Global South in shaping data governance. The argument stresses the importance of the Global South, representing countries outside of the traditional economic powerhouses, having a voice in defining norms and implementing definitions in various legal contexts. Collaboration is seen as essential to address diverse needs and perspectives.

In conclusion, India’s progress in embracing technology and digitization, as demonstrated by the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, is applauded. However, it is crucial that data governance prioritizes norms and values that enable interoperability and data transfers. Furthermore, greater collaboration and participation from the Global South are needed to ensure inclusive and effective data governance frameworks. Balancing technological advancements with responsible and collaborative governance is essential in the digital age.

Yoichi Iida

The free flow of information across borders is vital for promoting effective Internet governance, as highlighted by the G7 Presidency in 2016. This importance was further recognized during the G20 discussions in 2019, when the Japanese government proposed the concept of data free flow with trust. This indicates a growing recognition among world leaders of the need to enable seamless information exchange across national boundaries for a more open and connected global internet.

However, it is vital to acknowledge that different jurisdictions have diverse frameworks for data and AI governance due to variations in historical, socio-economic, and legal contexts. To ensure smooth data flow and effective deployment of AI technology, countries should aim for interoperability and coherence in their governance approaches. This will facilitate greater collaboration and knowledge sharing, enabling nations to collectively address challenges and seize opportunities in the data-driven digital era.

Maintaining a human-centric approach is crucial in discussions about data flow and AI. The term ‘human centricity’ was even used instead of ‘democracy’ during G20 discussions, highlighting the importance of prioritising the well-being and interests of individuals in data and AI policies. By placing people at the center of these discussions, governments can ensure that the development and use of data and AI solutions align with the goal of achieving decent work and economic growth, as outlined in SDG 8.

The G7 governments strongly advocate for a multi-stakeholder approach in Internet governance. Involving diverse stakeholders, including governments, civil society, academia, and the private sector, in decision-making processes helps harness collective expertise and foster a more inclusive and democratic approach to shaping Internet governance policies. This approach was prominently featured during the G7 Presidency in 2016.

Better data governance and improved data flow are essential not only at the national level but also across borders. The digital economy is inherently open and cross-border in nature, requiring discussions on data governance from social and economic perspectives rather than purely political ones. Governments working toward better data governance and facilitating data flow domestically and internationally can unlock the full potential of the digital economy and enhance collaboration towards achieving SDG 9 on industry, innovation, and infrastructure, as well as SDG 17 on partnerships for the goals.

Moreover, there is a preference for using the term “Information Integrity” instead of “Cybersecurity” to avoid politicisation. By focusing on information integrity, the aim is to prioritize the protection and accurate dissemination of information while preventing malicious activities in the digital space.

In conclusion, facilitating the free flow of information across borders is crucial for effective Internet governance. It is important to aim for interoperability in data and AI governance, maintain a human-centric approach, promote a multi-stakeholder approach in decision making, and strive for better data governance and improved data flow domestically and internationally. By adopting these approaches and focusing on information integrity, governments can navigate the complex landscape of data governance, AI deployment, and cybersecurity, leading to a more accessible and secure digital ecosystem.

audience

The discussion centres around the concept of “digital sovereignty” and its potential impact on exceptions to free data flow requirements. One perspective suggests that the use of data and the digital sovereignty debate can support the implementation of these exceptions. The argument is that digital sovereignty allows countries to have control over their own digital assets and data, which can be crucial in certain situations, such as protecting national security or privacy. This perspective highlights the need to balance the ideals of free data flow with the importance of maintaining control and sovereignty over data.

On the other hand, there is a viewpoint that argues for more debate and refinement of the term “digital sovereignty” before effectively incorporating it into these contexts. This perspective acknowledges the complexities and nuances of digital sovereignty, suggesting that a deeper understanding and clearer definitions are necessary to ensure its effective use. The argument here is that without a well-defined concept of digital sovereignty, any attempts to apply it to exceptions to free data flow could result in confusion or unintended consequences.

Both perspectives maintain a neutral stance, refraining from taking a strong position either for or against the use of digital sovereignty in the implementation of exceptions to free data flow requirements. This neutrality suggests that further discussion and examination are needed to fully understand the implications and potential benefits or drawbacks of incorporating the concept of digital sovereignty in this context.

Overall, the analysis highlights the ongoing debate and complexity surrounding the concept of digital sovereignty and its role in shaping data governance. It underscores the need for a deeper understanding, refinement, and consensus on the term before its practical application in relation to free data flow exceptions. This analysis contributes to the broader discussion on data protection, policy-making, and international agreements, emphasizing the importance of considering all viewpoints and refining concepts to ensure effective implementation.

Moderator

During the discussion on data governance, several speakers highlighted the importance of adopting a multistakeholder approach and fostering collaboration among different stakeholders. Japan’s efforts in promoting inclusive internet governance on global platforms like the G7 and G20 were praised. In 2016, Japan focused on the free flow of information across borders during its G7 Presidency. It also initiated international discussions on AI governance in the same year. During its G20 Presidency in 2019, Japan proposed the concept of data free flow with trust. Notably, Japan used the term “human centricity” instead of “democracy” within the G20 framework to accommodate a wider range of partners. Japan is actively working to promote data flow while safeguarding privacy rights and human rights.

India sees technology and digitisation as drivers of its economic growth. The country has introduced the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, which regulates the processing of digital personal data, whether collected online or offline within the country. India aims to ensure that its digital strategies and data governance frameworks are inclusive, transparent, secure, and aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

One speaker stressed the importance of considering data stakeholders, values, and governance structures. Effective data governance requires efforts focused on data sourcing, accumulation, categorisation, and organisation. The speaker also highlighted the need to address issues of sovereignty and dependency on digital infrastructures in data processing.

Collaboration and participation from the Global South were emphasised as crucial for developing a collaborative approach to data governance. Additionally, social movements and civil society were seen as essential in the discourse on multistakeholderism.

The labour behind data production and the inclusion of workers in the data economy should not be overlooked. Micro-workers, who label and clean data used in datasets, play a significant role in data production. The importance of this discussion was highlighted by the Oxford Internet Institute.

Special attention was given to the cloud economy and data governance in the last mile. A significant portion of data traffic relies on gatekeepers, and multilateral organizations should base their approaches on concrete experiences.

The alignment of digital rights organizations with traditional social movements was seen as a way to strengthen rights claims. Bridging the gap between these entities can fortify the protection of rights.

The conference also discussed the impact of the data economy on different populations and the need for appropriate protection measures. It was recognised that different populations experience the data economy in various ways, necessitating inclusive data governance frameworks.

The environmental impact of digital technologies and their relationship to the SDGs was emphasized as an important topic for further exploration. The conference highlighted the need to examine the environmental consequences of digital technologies and their role in achieving climate action goals.

The diversity among jurisdictions in terms of data governance was acknowledged, with some jurisdictions having strong enforcement mechanisms for data privacy while others adopt more flexible approaches. However, the Sustainable Development Goals serve as a common language to inform the design of global data governance structures.

The facilitation of data transfers between different regions, such as China, Europe, and the US, was discussed. The speakers advocated for focusing on commonalities to foster data transfers and promote interoperability between different frameworks.

The upcoming G20 summit in Brazil was highlighted as an opportunity for the Brazilian government to promote its vision and agenda on data governance. The importance of the G20’s focus on data governance and information integrity was acknowledged.

Miriam Wimmer, a commissioner at the Brazilian National Data Protection Authority, shed light on the challenges of data governance in a multilateral world. She emphasized the need to consider different proposals and viewpoints on data governance, taking into account the interests of companies, nation-states, and individuals.

The conference also addressed the protection of children’s and young people’s rights in data governance frameworks. The discussion revolved around ensuring privacy and mental health within data governance structures.

In conclusion, the conference highlighted the importance of a multistakeholder approach to data governance and collaboration among different stakeholders. Japan’s efforts in promoting inclusive internet governance were commended, while India’s focus on inclusive and transparent data governance for economic growth was noted. The role of data stakeholders, values, and governance structures was emphasized. Other topics discussed included sovereignty in data processing, collaboration in the Global South, the inclusion of workers in the data economy, and the environmental impact of digital technologies. The SDGs were seen as driving global data governance, and the facilitation of data transfers was explored. The upcoming G20 summit in Brazil was seen as an opportunity to promote data governance, and the challenges of data governance in a multilateral world were acknowledged. Overall, effective data governance, collaboration, and inclusive strategies were highlighted as crucial in the digitalized world.

Moderator:
It’s a pleasure to present this panel with such great speakers. We’re going to talk here about the challenges of data governance that we have. The title is In a Multilateral World, and our focus will be mostly on the discussions that are happening both on the G7 and on the G20 in this regard. And I think that’s especially considering that the Brazilian government is preparing itself to host the G20 in the next year. I think it is a great opportunity for us to discuss these digital topics, whether data governance is a priority for the next discussions, or if we have other issues that are more on the priority of what’s going on. So I think it will be a really fruitful, very fruitful debate. And I’m looking forward to the discussion. And of course, I would really appreciate if you guys brought questions so that we can have the most interesting discussion possible. So this is a panel that I am… My name is José Renato. I’m from the Laboratory of Public Policy and Internet, LAPIN, a think tank based in Brasília, the capital of Brazil. And I work on issues related to digital policy, so AI governance, data governance, and platform regulation as well. And I’m also a member of the Federal Administration’s Central Committee of Data Governance. And this panel was made in partnership with our great friends from the Brazilian National Data Protection Authority. And I speak mostly in the person of also Thiago Moraes, who worked really hard to make this panel happen. And it’s unfortunate that we don’t have him and his colleagues here to stay with us in person. But I would like just to present a video of a dear colleague and a leader in the debates regarding data protection, data governance as a whole, Director Miriam Wimeth, who is a director of the ANPD, the National Data Protection Authority. And then we’re going to discuss how will be the format of this panel, how it will work, and also present our extremely talented speakers. So let’s see if it will work now. Can we have the sound, please? Just one more second now. Okay. Well, okay. While we fix this issue again, I’m going to start talking a little bit about the idea of this panel. Well, as I mentioned, the idea is that we discuss how data governance is being dealt with in these two forums, G7 and G20, understand how each of them impacts the other, and understand what are the challenges that we have to propose this agenda on a more international level, and how important is the flow, the protection, and the governance as a whole of data, not just personal but also non-personal, to advance policies in our countries. So we are going to have a first round of presentations, it will be three minutes each. I’ll have, unfortunately, to be quite strict to the time because we have already such a delay, and then afterwards we’re going to open to questions. So please pay attention to what the people here are saying so that you bring the best considerations that you can have. So on my left side we have Mr. Yoshi Iida, a director at the Ministry of Information and Communication, Internal Affairs and Communication. Thank you very much, Mr. Iida. On my left side we have Alexandre Costa Barbosa, he is a representative of the movement of homeless workers in Brazil. On my right side we have Mr. Luciano Mazza, he is a director at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Brazil, and we also have online with us Gaurav Sharma, who is an AI expert at the GIZ, the German Inter-Corporation Agency, based in India. And we also have Veronica Arroyo, a researcher at the Citizen Lab, currently based in Canada, but she’s a Peruvian, so another representative from Latin America. And okay, okay, let’s try again. And so let’s have a medium of humor with us, hopefully it will work out. Oh, unfortunately not. Okay, so let’s move on with our panel. I’m sure the media not only won’t understand, but we will try again afterwards, and then we pretend that it wasn’t in the beginning. So yes, well, we’re going to start now the discussion, also because he’s representing our host country here at the IGF, Mr. Iida, who has been very active in the discussions on data governance within both four that we’re going to discuss here, both the G7 and the G20. And Mr. Iida, maybe to start the conversation, I would like to hear from you what have been the main objectives and principles that the G7 and the G20, from the perspective of the Japanese government, have worked on data governance issues. So if you could talk a little bit about this theme, and how do you see that the agendas of both four complement and also differentiate from each other, it would be amazing to hear from you on this topic.

Yoichi Iida:
Okay, thank you very much for the introduction, and thank you very much for the invitation. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Yoichi Iida, as introduced, and I’m working as, at this moment, Assistant Vice Minister at the Ministry, covering multilateral policy fora in digital field. And as the moderator pointed out, we have been trying to be very active, in particular in the fora such as G7 and G20, to promote the inclusive and multistakeholder approach in Internet governance. But when we talk about Internet governance, we have many, many different items to cover, and also very wide-ranging perspectives from different communities. So when we took the previous G7 Presidency in the year 2016, we particularly focused on the topic of free flow of information across borders, which we believe is one of the most important elements in promoting Internet governance. And also, we proposed to start international discussion on AI governance in the year of 2016, and both of the agenda items were succeeded in G7 framework and also some in G20 framework, and we continuously discussed free flow of information across borders with G7 colleagues, and in the year of 2019, we proposed the concept of data free flow with trust when we took the G20 Presidency. At that moment, we also focused on the discussion on AI governance, and both agenda items, we used the terminology human centricity instead of democracy, because we have many wider range of partners in the framework of G20. When we discuss those issues in G7, we always focus on the common shared value based on democratic principles, but when we discuss with colleagues with G20 partners, we use terminology of human centricity. Anyway, we believe data flow and AI are most important elements in promoting open and free Internet based society and economy, and we also pick up Internet governance as a whole as one of the most important agenda items when we took the G7 Presidency this year. Also, in the whole agenda items in digital and tech ministers’ discussion, we covered data free flow with trust to promote the data flow across borders as free as possible, but of course at the same time, we enhanced trust among stakeholders, and we discussed how we could do that, in particular, how we could promote data flow with personal data across borders while protecting privacy and human rights. And when we discussed AI principles, we discussed how to promote interoperability between different frameworks. This applies to the data flow discussion too. We always recognize the different countries, different jurisdictions have different frameworks and different approaches to data governance or AI governance in their domestic jurisdiction, because we, of course, recognize different countries have different backgrounds and different historical or social or economic conditions. We recognize we have to have different approaches, but those approaches should be as interoperable and coherent as possible, and that would facilitate the better flow of data across borders and better deployment and use of AI technology between countries. And we also picked up internet governance policy as a whole, and countries discussed how we could promote multi-stakeholder dialogue in order to promote open and free and unfragmented global internet, and that is why we jointly hosted a session on internet governance on the very first day of this IGF. And the whole series of sessions at this IGF discussed how to promote internet governance based on multi-stakeholder approach, which we put highest importance as a government of Japan, and we are very happy to see all of you are gathering together and discussing this very important topic all together. So thank you very much. This is just my introduction, and thank you very much for this opportunity.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Mr. Ide. And it’s very interesting because you brought the issue not only of the centrality of the flow of data between borders, but also the relationship of this with emerging technologies and AI, et cetera. But the specific point of multi-stakeholderism is one thing that we’re going to work a lot in this panel, discussing also the role of civil society in these discussions. But before that, I would like to hear now Gaurav Sharma. He’s going to talk a little bit about the main challenges that we have in the coordination between these two groups, and also how does he see the difference between the agendas of countries from the global south and the global north in this regard. So, Gaurav, are you there?

Gaurav Sharma:
So I would put my remarks in my personal capacity, and not from the German Development Corporation, but I work with the German Development Corporation on AI. And in this sense, we are also in an open sourcing environment of the creation of data sets, and we’re also trying to leverage supporting the data ecosystem in general. So my comments from Indian perspective, and then leading into highlighting the G20 aspects of how things are, I would just suggest that India has embraced technology and digitization, and this has been an economic driver for India to improve the lives of the citizens. However, the country, as it continues to grow and with sort of involvement of digitization, digital payments, India being the heartland of DPI’s digital public infrastructure now, it is also ensuring that its digital… strategies and data governance are inclusive, are transparent, secure, and conducive to the SDGs, the Sustainable Development Goals. And in this sense, I think the recently sort of passed bill or act, the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, has highlighted certain components, but it also highlights certain issues of how Indian government mindset is also looking at other aspects of data. So I’ll just highlight two or three points. One of them is processing of digital personal data within India based on online or offline is of cognizance and such processing outside of India and services, which also affects Indian citizens, will be taken with a lawful purpose. Consent has also taken sort of for lawful purposes of an individual, but it might not be required based on certain grounds of national security. So, I mean, that also leads into data collection, processing, and retention on exclusionary basis on certain sectors. Data fiduciaries and all good. So I just wanted to highlight that this data protection bill has sort of championed what next one year will actually showcase how both public and private sectors look at this components of data governance in general. What I’m coming down to now is basically the aspects of data governance when it is looked at from a emerging tech perspective. Basically, if you look at data governance, it is developing agreements on filtering and curation of practices and basically connecting sources, toolers, and multiple entities involved in data. What has been highlighted is that there’s a need for governance as such, which focuses on data stakeholders, interacting norms, values, et cetera, but also on governance structures that operates over data sets. I mean, provides efforts on data sourcings, on how data is accumulated, categorized, organized, and most importantly, on data documentation. And I think these frameworks are designed to enable values. And this will actually, from my perspective, lead into interoperability or trans data transfers. And these discussions are still being categorized in terms of how this will happen across borders because of the sense of data subjects, the sense of data creators, the sense of data set distributors, and of course, the sense of the data set users and also all citizens. So, I think I would rest my initial comments that the G20’s agenda item in approach of collaborative governance is great, but it does require some initial hand-holding in terms of how norms get designed and how operationalization of these definitions in different legal contexts based on national sovereignty are allowed for the development of both locally relevant supporting tools or to formalize relations between actors in different parts of the world. So, I list my case as that, but there is a definite need for the Global South, more greater participation, but also collaboration. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Gaurav. I found it interesting that you brought the issues related to sovereignty when we discuss, especially in the Global South, how to some degree dependency on infrastructures and how our data is processed by agents in other territories. I mean, how this issue plays within our region. So now, jumping to Alexandre Costa Barbosa, I think that now we could start talking a little bit more of how social movements can benefit from this agenda, how they relate to this agenda, and also maybe how participation from the civil society can be enhanced. I think that we listen especially to Mr. Ida talking a lot about multi-stakeholderism, but do we have an effective participation? How is your take on that?

Alexandre Barbosa:
Thank you very much, Josiah. It’s a pleasure to be here. Thank you for inviting us, dear Vice Minister and colleagues. I’d like to address some really quick issues, and I think it’s really important, not only in terms of participation and representation and legitimacy of multi-stakeholderism, but actually, and Vice Minister, you’re probably asking yourself why there’s even a homeless workers’ movement, and why a homeless workers’ movement is working with technology. So I invite all of you, if you want to get to know a bit more about that, our work will be showcasing in the front session at 3 p.m. But my take, it’s mainly, I think Gauraj mentioned clearly about the labor behind data production. I think it should be really taken into account. I don’t know if most of you have heard about the micro-workers, which are the ones who are basically labeling, cleaning data that are being used in those data sets, in those data codes, and so on. I think it’s really important to be taken into account, even just having discussions. The Oxford Internet Institute, for instance, just launched a policy brief last week, and they are really making clear how this discussion has been missing. Also, we need a really special attention on the cloud economy as well, because there’s something that we cannot do as a social movement, right? Since most of the data traffic goes through these so-called gatekeepers. And I’d like to take the opportunity as well to raise the importance of thinking of the data governance in the last mile, right? So multilateral organizations really should think of this multi-level approach, really have to be based on concrete experiences, like how data governance has really influenced the last mile, right? And that’s why we created ourselves a data governance section within the technology sector, and we have among our principles, basically, the use, access, and generation of data for the common good, ensuring privacy and prioritizing cooperative data governance models. So it’s maybe something, lessons that can be learned from both directions, right? And just to conclude, I think what we should do is exactly this, like bridging digital rights organizations with traditional social movements, and be on the ground, like even in G20 negotiations in Brazil, we’ll be there definitely claiming for our rights. Thank you very much.

Moderator:
Thanks, Ale, and the issue, I think that when we talk about also imaging, we’ve talked a lot about data, not only the free flow of data, as I mentioned earlier, but also on data for training AI systems for working on them, and how it is unavoidable, indispensable, and necessary that we talk about the laborers who are doing the back, the back, the back work of all of this. So, and to some degree, I think that now, how we include the issue of how we include workers, how we include issues related to the exercise of human rights among these different groups, I think is a thing that relates a lot to what even Mr. Ida mentioned about the SDG, the Sustainable Development Goals, and I think that maybe Veronica could talk a little bit about these issues. We have been discussing a lot here in the IGF on the environmental impacts of digital technologies, but also we’ve talked about, once again, labor on how different populations experience the data economy in very different manners. So, yeah, Veronica, if you could please jump in.

Veronica Arroyo:
Yeah, sure. Thank you very much for the question, for the opportunity here, for the invitation, and hello to everyone wherever you are at this point. Like, when we talk about, like, data governance, one of the things that I think immediately is that it really depends where you are. So, I think already, being here right now, that there are differences among the different jurisdictions that we have. Some of them will have a very strong enforcement mechanism for specific issues such as data privacy, for instance, but in some other cases will be more flexible, right? And that happens because I think that that design on the data governance and how a country addresses this depends heavily on the policies, on the priorities that this country has. And in other words, that those priorities drives, like, are the one that decides, like, which regulation or which rule is stronger or weaker, or it’s completely absent. And when we talk about those SDGs, I would like to think more, like, how those SDGs, as we know, can drive that design of global or data governance tools. Because at the end of the day, those SDGs are a purpose that a bunch of countries and representatives have agreed on, and they are also common language. That means that it’s easier when you have those commonalities that we already heard, like, a few minutes ago. It’s easier to develop further. And those SDGs can be at the core of any policy, of any development, because at the end, the data governance tool, like, the regulation that we are fighting for or writing are just tools on how to manage all the information ecosystem that we have in a country. So, that’s the part where I see, like, SDGs becoming, like, the central issue. And for instance, as you mentioned, right, just seconds ago, like, the climate action goals, one of the 17 goals of the SDGs. So, for instance, taking that, if that’s the priority right now, if we agree, like, the seven countries have the G7 or the 20 on the other meeting, I agree that that’s something that we want to foster, that we want to care. So, then you internally, like, in your own framework, you see, like, where do I need to make the tweaks? Which regulation needs to be updated? Like, how we can make this conversation between my data governance inside my country to with another data governance design. So, that helps to then, at the end of the day, you know, have and meet those goals that we already set at that point. And focusing on the commonalities is one of the messages that I have here, because I’ve already tried to kind of experiment on how to work with commonalities. And there’s a paper, my colleagues Karen Hayes, Nicole Grabone, and Gustavo Rivero wrote, and we published, like, some weeks ago, that works on those commonalities. And in a very interesting way, we found commonalities between China, Europe, and the US. And based on those commonalities, we propose, obviously, ideas and recommendations on how to foster or allow data transfers, which is a very huge topic and very difficult to answer in a very straight way, similar to what do we do and how do we do SDGs. At the end, the question, I think, or the answer, mainly the answer to this question is how we find those commonalities, and SDGs are those commonalities for, to foster and to design the future or the present data governance structures that we have in our countries.

Moderator:
Thanks, Vero. I think you brought amazing points, and I think that it’s, we, like, we within the Global South probably are the ones, we have differences in how our, we suffer the impacts of digital economy. And when you brought the issue of climate action and etc., how, I mean, climate effects of, that we are having by, at the moment, how this relates to, for instance, how popular, how local communities, how indigenous communities in Latin America suffer with this issue, for instance, when we talk about mining and etc., and how this mining also relates to the digital economy as a whole. And, well, as I mentioned earlier, the G20 next year will be in Brazil, and I think that no one, there’s no one better, maybe, in this, in this table, in this room, to talk about that than Luciano Maza, who is leading the Department of Science, Technology and Intellectual Property at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And, well, I would like to hear from you, Luciano. How do you think that, how the government, the Brazilian government is seeing the next steps related to data governance? How does it intend to promote this agenda? If it is a priority, if it’s not, if it’s not, what are the other priorities that it has for the discussions to come at the G20?

Luciano Mazza:
Thank you very much, José Renato. It’s a pleasure to be here, part of this panel. I think Mr. Iida gave us a good, set the scene for our discussions. Mr. Iida is a reference in this area, not only for his work in G7 and G20, but also as head, as chair of the CDEP committee in the OECD. And I think that that’s important to bear in mind, because there is a certain coherence in the approaches that have been developed in the work on data flows, on data governance within the OECD, within the G7, and then how it was debated and absorbed in the G20. And as Yoshi rightly pointed out, it was brought to the fore in particular by the Japanese presidency. And it is articulated mainly under this concept of data-free flow we trust. I think that the question we have is that there are different approaches to look into data. And of course, data protection is one component of data governance. There are other elements, there are other dimensions. And I think within the framework of G20, there is a certain, let’s say, my perception that you have a certain stabilization in conceptual terms on the discussion of data-free flow we trust. We haven’t discussed more directly this agenda in the last two presidencies, more direct, of course. Data governance is in every issue of the digital domains, of course, in a way or another we’re touching on them. But I think neither the Indonesian presidency or the Indian presidency approached this subject area more directly. And I think there’s a reason for this. Because of course, when we start a presidency, every country tries to bring a perspective that makes sense for its own reality, let’s say, and how it responds to more immediate concerns of the country, the issues that are higher in the agenda at that moment. Not to imply that other topics are not equally relevant, but in the specific context may be less appropriate. from the perspective of the government. And I think both the Indonesian Presidency and the Indian Presidency dealt with this issue in different ways, but not directly, so data governance was not presented at one, let’s say, what you call priority issue in their Presidency of the Digital Economy Working Group. The Indian Presidency, of course, discussed this in the context of the DPIs. Obviously DPI, one of the way the discussion was articulated during the Indian Presidency, there’s a big element about data sharing, of course, as one of the stacks of the DPIs, but that’s more in the internal dimension. There’s an external dimension, as mentioned by Mr. Iida, on how you can make sure that different frameworks on this area can be interoperable in a way or another. But I think one of the main reasons why this was not discussed more directly is that when we started this discussion on data governance in the G20, there was a way to try to balance a little bit the debate on free flow of data and potential concerns or constraints in terms of a more development-oriented perspective. And something that we felt during the debates of the Indian Presidency, for instance, a lot of discussion in where they are finalizing the documents on expression that has been in the communiqués of G20, that every time we discuss data free flow we trust, we also ask for the inclusion of a reference in the importance of the role of data for development. And I think that’s, the question is, those are perhaps different approaches that are complementary in a way, but perhaps are not fully articulated in the G20 debates. And I think that’s why from a developing country perspective, they may feel that the subject is not fully mature to an additional discussion from this perspective. In our case, although we recognize that the issue is crucial and of utmost importance, we identified and we indicated this to our colleagues in G20, four priority areas that are universal and meaningful connectivity, artificial intelligence, e-government, and also information integrity. So sorry, thank you. And those are the four topics that we identified as being the main priority for Brazil at this point, because they, let’s say, they respond to concerns and to issues that are very much at the forefront of our discussion internally, and you think that they echo concerns that are also in the international agenda right now. But of course, data governance issues will come up in different elements of the discussion, they always appear in every single communiqué of G20, display references and debates on this topic. But as I said, we are not envisaging a full-front discussion on this topic in our agenda right now. And I think we can, of course, elaborate a little bit on this issue, and also you refer to the topic of how multi-stakeholder participation can be ensured in that process. We’ll be happy to discuss this as well.

Moderator:
Okay, thank you very much, Luciano. Well, I already have some questions, but I would like to know first if there is anyone in the audience who would like to jump in and raise a question. Do we have anyone? Come on, guys, you can make it. We have some questions here in the chat, maybe I’ll have them, and then some of you can also think of something. So, actually, first, before that, I think I’m gonna try once again to share Miriam’s video, otherwise she’s gonna… I’ll be in a bad situation. Yeah, yeah, she’ll definitely be mad at me. Just one second, guys. Okay, hope now it will work.

Miriam Wimmer :
Dear colleagues and participants, good afternoon. I’d like to begin by thanking all participants for their interest in joining the session on the challenges of data governance in a multilateral world. My name is Miriam Wimmer, and I’m a commissioner at the Brazilian National Data Protection Authority and one of the organizers of this session. Our aim today is to address some of the challenges posed by data governance and explore the different approaches that have been proposed by multilateral organizations, such as G7, G20, the UN, and the OECD. In fact, over the past years, we have been observing lots of discussions and many different proposals manifested through declarations, roadmaps, and agendas, and based on complex concepts, such as data-free flow with trust. In this sense, one of the main challenges that faces us today is to understand how these different proposals interconnect with each other, in which aspects they complement each other, and in which cases they create tensions or gaps. Another aspect of this debate is how to make sure that all relevant stakeholders participate in the discussions, understanding that when we discuss the flow of data across borders, we are not only debating the interests of companies or of nation states, but the rights of individuals. In this sense, the debate on data governance and international data transfers must necessarily take into account multiple perspectives, based not only on the different approaches that countries may have towards data protection, but also on the different interests of the various stakeholders affected by this discussion. In fact, in Brazil, where we have a quite recent general data protection law, we are at this point in time discussing regulation on international data transfers and facing the challenges of making sure that the mechanisms that we establish are interoperable and allow for the protection of the fundamental right to data protection, regardless of where the data is actually located. I very much regret not being able to join you in person for this discussion, but would like to thank Mr. José Remato Arajeira for conducting the debate in person. Thank you very much and I look forward to hearing your comments. I wish you all a very productive session.

Moderator:
Well, Miriam was part of my master’s examining committee, so she would never forgive me if I didn’t share this video here with you guys. Well, so, the question that we have here is from Omar Farouk. He is a 17-year-old boy from Bangladesh, as he describes himself, and so, first of all, it’s really nice that the youth is participating, and I think that maybe this can be also a topic of discussion when we talk about multi-stakeholderism, and he asks, first, how can data governance frameworks be designed to protect the rights of children and young people, especially regarding their privacy and mental health? What are the specific challenges of data governance in the context of child rights and mental health in the global south, and how can we ensure that their voices are heard? So, this relates a lot to multi-stakeholderism. Well, who wants to jump in first, before I start pointing fingers here? Who would do? Mr. Ida, Ale, Luciano.

Yoichi Iida:
Thank you very much. Yeah, wisely pointed out, we see, you know, as the world is digitalized, and the more data used for production, or education, or many other sector activities, we need to know how we better govern data, but it is always a challenge for policymakers to understand, you know. Domestically, we have different types of players, and we need to make everybody happy, but at the same time, the digital economy is not closed economy, but it’s always open and go beyond the borders, so we always need to collaborate together with outside players, and that is what G7, and G20, and other international fora is working for, and this is a very important opportunity, and as I listened to Director Matzah, we are very happy to know the Brazilian G20 presidency will be discussing data governance, and also information integrity, which is probably kind of another formulation of cybersecurity, which we used to use the wording, but I think the terminology information integrity will be a very wise approach to pick this up, because you know, once people talk about security, this is easily politicized, and I think this matter should be discussed from the social and economic perspective, rather than a political perspective, so I very much look forward to the discussion next year, and discussing data governance is very important for all economic and social actors, and it is very important to know how to better and wisely use data, because data is always the, I don’t know, oil, or engine, or whatever, but we definitely need better use and better flow of data across society and the economy. Okay, Mr.

Moderator:
Before passing on to the others, Juliana has a question over there, and okay, so please go ahead.

audience:
Thank you. I’m Juliana, technical advisor from the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, and I’d like to ask if, do you think that the data and digital sovereignty debate may help to auxiliate the implementation of exception to free flow, to free data flow requirements, such as mentioned by Luciano, for development in these multilateral agreements, or is the term still needs to be profounded and needs more debate?

Moderator:
Thank you, Juliana, and maybe also on this topic, I think, oh, thank you very much. Well, okay, let’s give a room for you guys to answer it. Maybe, like, who wants to answer any of the questions? Gaurav, Veronica, if you guys are also interested in discussing any of them, please raise your hand, but Luciano, then please go ahead. Luciano, maybe if you could also, since you’re saying, maybe if you could also touch a little bit upon how, what do you see in this trend? You mentioned Indonesia and India. It was not a priority in their presidencies. What do you think that this means when we, like, considering that these two countries, and now Brazil, all of them from the global south are not taking this. Let’s not say that they are not paying attention to it, because, as you said, data governance is part of everything when we discuss this, but why is this not on the top list? So, maybe you could highlight beyond the questions of things.

Luciano Mazza:
No, I think, of course, we have a limited time during the G20 presidencies. We’re talking normally about working year of, I don’t know, eight months sometimes. The digital agenda is huge. It’s very hard to cover all topics during a period of one presidency, so it’s accepted that it’s important to give focus to certain issues, and I think in this case, from a more pragmatic perspective, I think there’s a huge development in the conceptual discussions on data for flow and trust, based on all this leadership Japan has had and had in the past. So, as I said, I think the issue is stabilized a little bit. I just mentioned, so I think understandably, when in every country we look to this reality from a different angle, and I think it’s understandable that what are, let’s say, the more sensitive and pressing issues for Japan or for Saudi Arabia won’t necessarily be the same as for India, Indonesia, or for Brazil. So, I think it’s normal that we have these situations where a relevant topic is not dealt with in detail in every presidency, because that’s not possible. That happens also to other issues, and not only to data governance. What I mentioned, I think that it relates a little bit to the question Juliana made, is that there is, I won’t say there’s a tension, but there’s an issue on how you can incorporate into this discussion perspective, more development-oriented perspective, and I think that relates a little bit to discussions on data or digital sovereignty, in the sense that I think there are a lot of questions that need answering, and I think particularly from the perspective of developing countries, many countries, I’m not saying necessarily in the case of Brazil, but looking at the general landscape, don’t necessarily have a fully matured set of policy and governance regimes internally, and so there is a concern also on how you can make sure that there is a certain margin of flexibility or leeway to ensure that when you decide on the right policies for the country domestically, you don’t face constraints that may make it difficult to adopt those policies. So I think part of the discussion relates to the fact that it’s still evolving, an evolving landscape. I think in this field, something that I have to be aware of is that there are agreements and trade agreements that are, let’s say, developing the direction of incorporating digital elements. There are few agreements that call themselves digital agreements, and I think the question that one must, should make is, to what extent the same principles and guidelines that normally are considered in the trade, with lateral trade regime, for instance, can be fully replicated in the digital area, and I think that there are different answers to that, but I think that relates a lot to the issue you mentioned.