WS #262 Innovative Financing Mechanisms to Bridge the Digital Divide

Summary

This discussion focused on innovative financing mechanisms to bridge the digital divide, particularly in developing countries. The panelists explored why traditional approaches to telecommunications infrastructure have failed to achieve universal access goals and how community-centered connectivity solutions can address this gap.

Carlos Rey-Moreno provided historical context, noting that despite recommendations dating back to the 1980s, private sector investment alone has been insufficient to close the digital divide. He emphasized the need for public finance and support for local, community-centered initiatives. Other speakers highlighted the unique advantages of community networks, including their flexibility to adapt to local conditions and ability to operate sustainably at small scales.

Regulatory challenges were discussed, with Dr. Emma Otieno sharing Kenya’s experience in creating an enabling environment for community networks through licensing frameworks and capacity building. Jane Coffin stressed the importance of regulators re-imagining financing models and gathering more data to support these initiatives.

The role of Universal Service Funds (USFs) was examined, with suggestions for making them more transparent, efficient, and inclusive to support smaller local connectivity providers. Panelists also discussed the need for innovative risk assessment models to attract investment in community networks.

Gender considerations were addressed, with Talant highlighting the Women in Digital Economy Fund as an example of targeted support for closing the gender digital divide. The discussion concluded with practical advice on building sustainable community networks and the importance of knowledge sharing between communities.

Overall, the panel emphasized the need for a multi-stakeholder approach, blending public and private financing, and adapting policies and regulations to support community-centered connectivity solutions as a complement to traditional infrastructure approaches.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The persistent digital divide and failure of traditional approaches to achieve universal access

– The potential of community-centered connectivity initiatives to bridge the digital divide

– The need for innovative financing mechanisms and enabling policy/regulatory environments

– The role of regulators in supporting community networks through licensing, capacity building, etc.

– Addressing gender gaps and inclusion in digital connectivity efforts

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore innovative financing mechanisms and policy approaches to support community-centered connectivity initiatives as a way to bridge the digital divide, especially in underserved areas.

The tone of the discussion was largely constructive and solution-oriented. Speakers shared examples, case studies and recommendations with a sense of urgency about addressing connectivity gaps. There was an emphasis on reimagining traditional approaches and taking calculated risks to support new models. The tone became more interactive and practical during the Q&A portion at the end.

Speakers

– Risper Arose: Africa Regional Capacity Building Coordinator for the Local Access Network, a LockNet initiative

– Emma Otieno: Representing Women International Digital Inclusivity Network; Communication Authority of Kenya

– Carlos Rey Moreno: Co-manages the LogMet initiative, focuses on policy and regulatory environment for community-centered connectivity initiatives

– Jane Roberts Coffin: Speaking in personal capacity; 28 years of experience working with communities, international financial institutions, and organizations focused on connectivity

– Lilian Chamorro: Part of Colnodo, an NGO in Colombia working with community networks

Expanded Summary: Innovative Financing Mechanisms for Bridging the Digital Divide

This discussion, organized by the Local Access Network, focused on innovative financing mechanisms to bridge the digital divide, particularly in developing countries. The session explored why traditional approaches to telecommunications infrastructure have failed to achieve universal access goals and how community-centred connectivity solutions can address this gap.

Session Structure and Participants

Risper Arose, the moderator from the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), introduced the session structure:

1. A keynote presentation by Carlos Rey-Moreno

2. A panel discussion with experts in the field

3. An interactive Q&A session with the audience

Keynote Presentation

Carlos Rey-Moreno, Senior Advisor on Community Networks at APC, provided historical context and current challenges in his keynote. He highlighted that despite recommendations dating back to the 1980s, private sector investment alone has been insufficient to close the digital divide. Rey-Moreno emphasized the need for public finance and support for local, community-centred initiatives. He also mentioned the ongoing WSIS+20 review and the task force on financial mechanisms, stressing the importance of community-centred approaches in addressing connectivity gaps.

Panel Discussion

The panel featured experts from various backgrounds:

– Dr. Emma Otieno, Director of Licensing, Compliance and Standards at the Communications Authority of Kenya

– Jane Coffin, Senior Advisor at ISOC

– Lilian Chamorro, Researcher at Colnodo

– Talant Sultanov, Co-founder of the Internet Society Kyrgyzstan Chapter

Key points from the panel discussion included:

1. Regulatory Approaches:

Dr. Emma Otieno shared Kenya’s experience in creating an enabling environment for community networks. She highlighted specific support measures:

– Flexible licensing frameworks

– Capacity building programs

– Guidelines for community network operators

– Reforms to universal service funds to support smaller providers

2. Reimagining Financing Models:

Jane Coffin emphasized the need for regulators to:

– Re-evaluate risk assessment for local connectivity projects

– Gather more data to support community network initiatives

– Explore blended finance approaches combining public and private funding

3. Sustainability Strategies:

Lilian Chamorro discussed sustainability strategies for community networks, including:

– Adapting to local conditions and needs

– Lowering costs through community involvement

– Knowledge sharing between community networks

4. Real-World Impact:

Talant Sultanov shared an example from Kyrgyzstan where a small investment in community connectivity catalyzed broader development. A village connected to the internet through a community network saw improved communication with relatives abroad and was able to advocate for other essential infrastructure improvements.

5. Gender Considerations:

The Women in Digital Economy Fund was highlighted as an example of targeted support for closing the gender digital divide. The fund focuses on:

– Supporting women-led initiatives in the digital economy

– Providing resources for skills development and entrepreneurship

Audience Interaction

During the Q&A session, Kossi Amessinou from Benin inquired about the Women in Digital Economy Fund’s eligibility criteria and geographic scope. Panelists provided information on how to access the fund and its current focus areas.

Conclusion

The discussion emphasized the need for a multi-stakeholder approach, blending public and private financing, and adapting policies and regulations to support community-centred connectivity solutions. There was a growing recognition of the potential of these alternative models to address the persistent digital divide, complementing traditional infrastructure approaches. The panel highlighted the importance of flexible regulatory frameworks, innovative financing mechanisms, and community involvement in developing sustainable connectivity solutions for underserved areas.

Risper Arose: Good afternoon, everyone. It’s my absolute pleasure to welcome you all to this important session. My name is Risper Arose, and I serve as the Africa Regional Capacity Building Coordinator for the Local Access Network, a LockNet initiative, which is a collective effort led by the Association for Progressive Communication, in partnership with grassroots communities and support organizations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. We aim to directly support meaningful community-centered connectivity initiatives while contributing to an enabling ecosystem for their emergence and their growth. It has been an enriching and insightful week, participating here at the Internet Governance Forum 2024 here in Riyadh, and today I have the privilege of moderating our discussion on a topic that lies at the heart of digital inclusion. The topic is innovative financing mechanisms to bridging the digital divide. In this digital age, ensuring universal access to telecommunication infrastructure remains a significant challenge, particularly in developing countries. Despite significant public and private investments, traditional approaches to telecommunication infrastructure, while impactful in certain respects, have failed to achieve universal access goals, even for basic voice connectivity for over two decades. However, as the saying goes, innovative technology solutions have emerged as a powerful alternative. These solutions are rewriting the narrative driven by distinct investment priorities. These providers not only connect underserved communities, but they also foster social, economic development. They represent a vital part of the micro, small and medium enterprises, SMEs’ ecosystem, which is the backbone of developing countries that has been largely overlooked by traditional large scale network operators. They remind us that connectivity is more than a utility. It is a foundation for empowerment and progress. And with all this said, they still face funding constraints and regulatory challenges that hinder their sustainability and scalability and their impact. Efforts to engage traditional commercial financial institutions that fund communication infrastructure have surfaced three intrinsic difficulties that needs to be addressed. At a limited scale, there are high real and perceived level of risks and the lower returns on investment. To address these constraints, there is a strong need to create an enabling and flexible policy, regulatory and financing environment that encourages the emergence of more innovative regional and local investment models for community centered connectivity providers, which by extension allows them to expand and operate cost effectively. And in this respect, to improve the balance between profit maximization and also reaching the universal access, the time has come to fully review where investments are made and how effective they are at addressing these challenges. digital inclusion. That is just a brief. For our session today, we will explore the interplay of policy, regulation and financing and fostering innovative connectivity solutions that bridge the digital divide. Our discussion will showcase new and innovative financing mechanisms, investing in small scale infrastructures that are already supporting emerging and successfully supporting community-centered solutions. I am thrilled to have a distinguished panel of experts and practitioners with us today. And without further ado, I will give them each less than a minute to introduce themselves. And I’ll start with those joining us online. I’ll give the floor to Dr. Emma Otieno.

Emma Otieno: Thank you for the opportunity. In the event that I’m not able to keep both the voice and the video sometimes I’ll be switching off, but I’m glad to join this very, very important session. My name is Dr. Emma Otieno. Currently based in Kenya. I’m on this call representing an organization, a non-profit organization known as Women International Digital Inclusivity Network. It has an abbreviation that is written in French. So back in Kenya I also work for the regulator. That’s the communication authority of Kenya. My background mostly at the moment I’m specializing on matters of digital inclusivity and specifically I’m passionate about digital gender inclusivity. I’m happy to be in this call.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much, Dr. Emma. We are also very happy to have you as part of the panelists. Next on, I’ll go to Dr. Carlos Rey Moreno. Carlos?

Carlos Rey Moreno: Hi everyone there in the room and also online. My name is Carlos Rey Moreno. I’ve been co-managing the initiative, the LogMet initiative that Risper mentioned at the beginning, focusing on policy and regulatory or creating an enabling environment for community centre connectivity initiatives, especially in policy and regulation. But lately, I’ve been doing quite some work around financial mechanisms as part of that. And it will be a pleasure to be in the session sharing that with you and joining from Spain. It has been amazing to be there with you, but it was impossible this time around. Thank you again. Thank you.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much, Carlos. Next on, we’ll hear from Jane Coffin.

Jane Roberts Coffin: Good evening. Good afternoon. My name is Jane. I’m joining you from the United States. And I’m speaking in my personal capacity, not professional where I work. And based on my experience over the last 28 years, and most recently, my experience working with communities around the world, international financial institutions, international organizations focused on connectivity, and the importance of how we can take a look at financing smaller community-based networks and or small ISPs. A pleasure to join you today. And again, I’m speaking in my personal capacity, and none of the information that I’ll be speaking about today is non-public. It’s all public information and based on my experience. Thank you very much.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much, Jane. And thanks for clarifying that. Now I’ll give this chance to Talant to start us off. You can introduce yourself. Thanks so much.

Speaker: My name is Talant and I’m wearing two hats here. One is the co-founder of Internet Society, Kyrgyz chapter within which we’ve launched several community networks in Kyrgyzstan. And also I am representing Global Digital Inclusion Partnership, which is a member of our consortium with GSMA and implementing project called Women in Digital Economy Fund. So I’ll talk about that as well. Thank you.

Risper Arose: Thank you, Talant, happy to have you in this panel. Last but not least, we’ll hear from Lilian Chamorro. Well, hello to all. Thanks for joining to this session.

Lilian Chamorro: My name is Lilian Chamorro. I’m part of the team of Colnodo. Colnodo is an NGO based in Colombia, in South America. We have been working with community networks since many years ago, but more helping communities to have their own infrastructure since 2017, approximately. And we have been involved in different projects with different parents and allies. Then, okay, I’m going to share with you some of the experience that we have in Colombia right now. Thank you so much, Lilian.

Risper Arose: Looking forward to those experiences and engaging. Maybe just a brief on the structure of our session today. We will include, we’ll have a keynote presentation to set the stage. And this will then be followed by a dynamic panel discussions from the speakers you’ve heard from. And then afterwards, we’ll open the floor to questions and contributions. And I encourage each of you to engage your questions, thoughts, and insights, etc. we really hope to make this session interactive and also enriching. So as we begin, I’d like to leave all of us with a question, maybe to think about and to reflect on, and that’s in how can we reimagine financing models and also financing models that can empower local connectivity providers and achieve universal access. And with that said, I’d now welcome Dr. Carlos Rey-Moreno to give us a keynote presentation. Carlos, over to you.

Carlos Rey Moreno: Hello. Thank you, Risper. It’s a pleasure to be with so many nice people in this panel. Let me actually share a screen. Yeah, okay. And let me know if you can see my screen. Those online? I can see you, Carlos. Yep. Yes, we can see your screen. Okay, sure. So yeah, I wanted to go back to the introductory remarks from Risper and why we are talking about this, right? Because the reality that, you know, I also want to frame this presentation in the context of the WSIS Plus 20 review that is taking place at the moment and to be concluded next year. That there is a reality, right, that is the continued inability to meet universal service aspirations that demonstrate that for ensuring the WSIS vision of a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society, where everyone can create, access, and utilize and share information, we cannot leave it solely to traditional technology. telecom incumbents operators to solve, right? That all the actors need to participate because as Riesfeld was saying, after 20 years, there is a massive persistent digital divide that those business models are not able to close, right? Because over this time, we’ve seen a shift in focus from access to telephony, to broadband internet, now to meaningful connectivity that underscores that changing landscape. But throughout that changing landscape, there is the essence of a business case that meets the profitability requirements of those operators continue to pose a challenge for these players to offer services that can bridge the digital divide in remote and rural areas with a small populations and low income. And despite being here today, despite many fora, especially after COVID discussing this issue, discussing the issue of the persistent digital divide, and this has been a longstanding challenge. I mean, this was introduced in the mainland report in 1985. It was known that private sector alone was not gonna be able to close the digital divide, right? Still in that context, donors and many international financial institutions, because it was thought that a for-profit, a fully for-profit model was gonna be able to do that, and that private investment were gonna find enough return as to be able to finance this capital intensive industry. They started to withdraw from the area in the early 90s, right? Because that private capital is stepping, right? And, but later on, as part of WSIS, there was a task force on financial mechanisms that was created to precisely look at what could be done, right? As it was realized that private capital could not do it alone. There were ideas of the Digital Solidarity Fund that were studied, the Digital Solidarity Fund was created maybe not as intended initially, but more with voluntary contributions which did not quite solve the problem. But one of the things that the task force on financial mechanisms highlighted back in 2004, 2005 was the vital role of public finance as well, right? Because, you know, from this graph from the World Bank from 2002 that we have seen in so many places, and there is, you know, an affordability frontier, a market gap, and then an access gap that the market isn’t gonna be able to cover and public intervention is gonna be necessary, right? And this actually led to the creation of many universal or that report and the task force on financial mechanisms influenced many discussions for countries to create a universal service funds and implementing agencies to actually utilize them and implement them. Some countries such as the US promulgated USF even before this type of reports, but ever since this report, many other agencies or funds have been created. A report from the ITU mentioned that in 2022 42% of their members had a USF agency or fund. And then the adoption of the strategies, how it has worked. whether efficiently or inefficiently is up for debate. In some countries it has a massive positive impact. In other countries there has been issues with its disbursement. It has been issues with many other things. I believe other speakers and during the discussions we will be touching precisely on USS but they were there to solve or to look at that problem from that perspective that the private finance was not gonna be able to close the digital divide, right? But there were other findings from the TFF that were incorporated in the Tunis agenda that I wanted to highlight here. One was helping to accelerate the development of domestic financial instruments including by supporting networking initiatives based on local communities and strengthening capacities to enhance the potential of securitized funds and utilizing them effectively, right? The Tunis agenda was adopted in 2005. And this is the path for the future that was adopted in September, 2024, that is three months ago where the digital divide is recognized as its first objective, right? That there is a persistent digital divide that is there and that it needs to accelerate it. The closing that digital divide needs to be accelerated in order to meet the sustainable development goals. And there are two commitments there that I want to kind of guide the presentation today. One is the development of innovative and blended financial mechanisms and incentives included in collaboration with governments, multilateral development banks and relevant international organizations on the private sector. Again, kind of saying that private and public and multilateral development banks are part of the solutions and blended financing is part of the solution. but also that there is a need to invest on local network initiatives, right? It was said in 2005, it is said again in 2024, right? 20 years after, in order to provide safe and secure network coverage for all areas including rural, remote and hard to reach areas, right? So why no change? Why we are still discussing this 20 years later, right? I think from our analysis and this is touching on the submission that APC did to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development on the WSIS plus 20 review, that there has been little resources that has gone to developing countries. The WSIS didn’t include a financial mechanism per se, a fund, mainly as a result of donor countries not wanting to make additional financial commitments, but also the fact that the lingering impact of structural adjustments, right? A trend in development aid to discourage global South governments relying on aid from investing on public sector infrastructure and services and the debt burden after a period of debt forgiveness in the early of the centuries, that is, you know, that current crisis of the debt is at the center of many of the issues that we are seeing in developing countries as well. And the idea that, you know, financial mechanisms are not just to address the infrastructure issues, but also there is a need to include, there is a need to invest on human capacity and digital public services to do this, right? There is not gonna be an infrastructure without the capacity, it would not solve this issue. But also because regardless of private finance and public finance, regarding of many other instruments, the logics have been supporting and using all that finance to support. for traditional incumbent operators and they’re trying to support their return on investments and their for-profit business model to do something that they are struggling to, that their business model is not able to provide the return on investment that they are seeking in those areas, right? And that again, something different needs to be done. A lot of the USF, pretty much 99% of that USF has gone to the very same operators that were using private finance for their operation. But also that the public finance over and beyond USF, the multilateral banks only use 1%, and this is a study from the Alliance for Affordable Internet, that around 1% of the multilateral development banks cumulative commitments in low and middle income countries over the period of 2012, 2026 in relation to ICPs and was 1%, was 5 billion over that period, right? There has been some changes. There are some initiatives such as, the World Bank including ICPs and as part of the digital, as part of their priorities, the European Commission for Team Europe, Global Gateway, the G7-led Partnership for Global Infrastructure Investment, the Digital Silk Road. There are many, many more investments, but still those investments are going to the very same partners and they are way less than what the ITU and others are considering to do that. And they are going to the very same places and investment and funding similar things in many cases than the private sector and private finance is funding, right? 5G, Leo satellites, submarine cables, and that tend to focus on profitable markets that maximize the return of their shareholders. They are not going into supporting. initiatives or supporting interventions that could potentially close the digital divide and address the issues that 30% of the persistent digital divide are facing. As Risper was saying, and I think many others have been saying over the years, there are 16 initiatives that are showing that there are other ways of doing this, right? And initiatives that are based on or business cases that are focused on decentralized, local and community center initiatives that are driven by completely different investment imperatives, right? Where it’s not only that they need to be sustainable, they need to have some revenue streams to be sustainable, but that they have a different bottom line around social and environmental concerns that move their interest, not only the seek of profit and return for their investors, right? They are part of the micro, small and medium size businesses that are, as Riesper was alluding to, part of the blood or the lifeblood of so many economies in the global South, but that they don’t, it’s only very recently that they are taking part of the telecommunications sector and that they are struggling to be part of a telecommunication sector that is built for traditional and national based footprint, right? This community center connectivity providers can operate and be self-sustainable at a very small scale and have a way more diverse range of ownership and operating models, right? By being community center instead of profit center, as I was saying, they are able to use all their financial mechanisms to reduce their costs and be a center on the communication needs of the community. rather than the profit that their shareholders are seeking. Over and beyond the initiatives, we’ve seen that the ITU and all their members have reached consensus that both at the World Telecommunications Development Conference in the bridging the digital divide resolution that this type of complementary access solutions are needed. Not only at the WTDC, but also at the Plenipotentiary Conference. Again, all the member states are agreeing that we need to look at complementary access solutions and enable them to close the digital divide. And the ITU in the recent Universal Service Financing Efficiency Toolkit is putting community broadband networks as part of the solutions that need to be considered. And because when we are looking at innovative financial mechanisms, those that are able to do the same at a lower cost are a financial mechanism in and by themselves, right? ABC is coming up with a financial assessment tool to compare last mile connectivity providers. And the initial findings that we are having is that they are considerably cheaper. And not only considerably cheaper, but that they bring along social inclusion related impacts to achieve meaningful connectivity that those incumbent traditional operators are not able to come up with. So how they are able to do this, right? Well, the investment comes from the users themselves. And they are also able to tap into other non-returnable support, such as subsidies and grants or donations from people that kind of align with that social mission, also public budgets and other. in mechanisms that private companies also use such as recovering the cost of hardware in the price of sales or private finance. But in the sustainability model, they also include other elements such as barter transactions, action-based subsidies, membership fees, and others that public operators are not, sorry, private operators are not able to meet. And that’s how they are able to provide pricing that is below market price. Sometimes it’s based on cost recovery and sometimes it is even free of charge depending on these other contributions on the capital investment and the sustainability models that members and other socially aligned actors are allowing them to achieve. So it’s not only that there are recommendations that are being incorporated in policy in some countries. It’s not only that our existing initiatives that are able to do this at a lower cost is that financial institutions themselves such as the Inter-American Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank in their publications are incorporating and are recommending governments to look at this as a financial mechanism in and by itself, right? As a way of closing the digital divide because traditional operators are not able to do so. The Broadband Commission in this report from 2021 looking at financing models for bridging broadband gaps incorporates recommendations that recommends government to explore the options and feasibility of funding allocations to empower smaller providers such as community networks, recommends the potential beneficiaries from USF to include community networks, propose an international fund where projects that are less scalable such as. community networks could be funded and that could ask that as a clearing house for knowledge and best practices and potentially provide loans and other resources in a condition at concessional terms. We have countries such as Argentina that are looking at supporting community networks, right? $3 million from the USF budget for 2020 to 2022 were made available to community networks. And one would say, but no, we cannot support community networks because bigger operators are doing a great job at that. 100%, that’s why we are referring to complementary solutions. That’s why Argentina allocated 0.63% of their budget to community networks. So they could continue supporting the other operations that they were doing with 99.37% of their budget, right? It’s not that what we are proposing and what others are proposing should be right front and center of these initiatives. It’s about complementing, it’s about testing things that haven’t been tested, supporting initiatives that haven’t been supported. So just coming to the proposed solutions and I’m coming to an end, and one is about capacity building, right? And again, I’m trying to talk to the WSIS, to talk to the task force on financial mechanisms because some of the findings are the same, right? We proposed a new policy of financial mechanisms where that could provide an information service that provide access to independent advice on how to evaluate the information that many governments and regulators are bombarded with from the private sector. and prevent them from looking at other solutions that prevent them to negotiate as equals. Such information is also relevant, and such advice is also relevant to other stakeholder groups as well, such as community-based initiatives and other of their partners. Because as the Task Force on Finance and Mechanism was saying, building human resource capacity and knowledge at every level is central for achieving the WSIS objectives. Diversifying the ecosystem. There is, you know, we have that, we have some countries, such as Kenya, where there is a national recognition, even a license for community-centered initiatives, but that’s the exception more so than the rule. So that recognition that is on the ITU, that recognition that comes from the multilateral development banks and other institutions need to be included, right? And streamlined, right? So there are licensing processes that reduce the licensing fees and make other enablers, such as Spectrum, and reporting bartends, and access to backbone available, right? If it’s illegal to do this, how someone is going to invest in them, right? There are many investors that are ready and willing to invest in this if they were legal, right? So please consider that as an enabled financial mechanism or as a prerequisite for this. And this needs to be accompanied by awareness-raising and capacity-building programs to develop the pipeline of initiatives that could use effectively these instruments that are created, right? And this starts, again, with a finding from the Task Force on Financial Mechanisms from WSIS that was saying that policy and regulatory incentives and more open access policies are also needed for private investment, civil society organizations, and community networks to contribute to expanding ICT to rural and low-income populations to address the bottom. of the pyramid population. That is to say, this was said in 2004. The other recommendations that I’m making were said in 2004. If we don’t include them in 2005, and in 2024, 2025, we are not gonna be able to implement the GDC. We are not gonna be able to invest in local networks in a way that they close the digital divide, right? And two more points on innovative financing mechanisms. For that investment in local network initiatives to be effective, new ways to make smaller products available are needed. Multilateral development banks, they recommend supporting this, but they don’t know how to do it. Because the minimum investment that they can do is $1 million, $2 million, $3 million. These are small operators, they don’t need, there is no need for $1 million. They could function with way less, right? But we understand the fact that making those deals available has the same transactional costs. So we need to look at reducing those transactional costs per loan, per grant, per whatever that we are doing, as well as finding ways of risking those investments so the rates are lower, right? They are donors out there that have guarantee pools that are willing to use these, to the risk these and reduce the interest rates. There are ways of working with local financial institutions and that are public and that could, you know, benefit from those concessional loans and pass them on in this product so they could be made smaller and with better rates for these social mission driven operators. We could create pools of projects and a standardized process and documentation that reduce the duplication of effort to again, reduce the transactional costs. And this is not new. This has been tested in so many other sectors that could take the form of that international fund as proposed by the UN Broadband Commission. The GDC is talking about blended finance. And that blended finance, those grants could be used in places where it is impossible to find a return on investment or to start initiatives off. And it could be used to cover some of the transactional costs that I was alluding above. And there is an interest on development finance, right? There is the UN Financing for Development Conference that is taking place next week, sorry, next year after 10 years that could look into all of this, that could put operators that are looking at development, not at profit, at the center of this investment in telecommunications. But there is a risk of, and we are seeing this already, of those profit-seeking companies looking at development finance that we need to be aware of and kind of be attentive. So the development finance is used for development, is not used for profit, right? And for increasing shareholder value. But this is the last comment that also was mentioned by Risper, right? We need to improve the balance between profit maximization and the goal of reaching universal and meaningful access, right? And the time has come of reviewing where those investments are going, right? And how effective they are when they are targeting universal and meaningful connectivity. And we really invite the stakeholders to implement the solutions that we propose in this presentation. We are open to discuss, to share our lessons, to work together to do that. But really, development should be put at the center and not profit maximization. Thank you very much.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much, Carlos, for setting the tone for this discussion. You have a brilliant presentation and has given us why this discussion now and why it’s important to start thinking around innovating financing mechanism for bridging the digital divide. You’ve mentioned a lot of the work that has already been happening, both in terms of the global processes as well as policy recommendations and also tools that have been created. So I would say that’s what we’re trying to do in bridging the digital divide and, of course, community-centered connectivity stand as a viable alternative solution that more focus and also visibility around supporting in bridging the digital divide. This really sets the tone towards our next segment of this particular session. Now we’ll move into the panel discussion and we’ll hear from our different speakers that are lined up. We’ll start with Lilian and Talant who are here with me. And for this segment, we’ll look at framing the challenge and ideally talk about what are the main barriers to universal access and why have traditional infrastructure approach failed. We’ll start by looking into your various experience and also your expertise within the work that you’ve done. And also, while at it, perhaps you can talk around why our community centered connectivity solutions uniquely suited to address this gap. So we can start with you, Lilian.

Lilian Chamorro: Thank you, Risper and Carlos. Well, just something that we have been talking about is that for the private sector is the rural communities are not something that they want to address. Because those are communities with low income that they cannot pay high prices for the services, for the communication services. But also they are few people in the remote areas. Then the investments that companies make in those spaces is difficult. They have the return to obtain the money that they invest in those spaces, because we have few people. And also, the cost of the deployment of the infrastructure in some of the rural areas is so, so high. This is because you need transportation, you need security also. Sometimes, for example, basic services in electricity are not available. Then they have to implement also other infrastructure, not only telecommunication infrastructure. Then the cost to deploy telecommunications infrastructure in rural areas is so high. And the low income and the few population in those areas is not enough to cover the cost. And this is if we don’t have in account other factors. For example, they’re difficult to access to some territories. In Colombia, we have areas where the violence, but also the geographic, is very hard to go to those areas. Then it’s something that is not easy to address, even for implementing infrastructure, but also for sustaining infrastructure when you need to repair something, or something like that. It’s not so easy to go to that areas. By other side, the governmental programs have failed also in sustaining the initiatives. Then they invest a lot of money putting antennas, putting some infrastructure. But when resources finish, then the projects also finish. And we have a lot of, I don’t know how to say, infrastructure that is not used, and it’s getting old. and without use in many rural areas. You can see antennas. You can see a lot of infrastructure that is not used in rural areas, because the program of the government’s finished, and no one could sustain the work of that kind of equipment. About the other question, why community-centered connectivity solutions are suited then for this, I think one of the principal things is the flexibility of these kind of initiatives. Flexibility to adapt to the diverse and unique condition that every community have. Then it’s so difficult that you see community networks that work equal in many of the communities. Each community network is different, have their own characteristics. Because the communities can establish their own infrastructure, adapting to the geographic conditions, but also to the necessities they have. Also, because the sustainability model that they adopt is different, and it depends on the context, the income that the community have. Also, the traditional ways to exchange, I don’t know how to say in English, but yes, to exchange the services we could be. And additionally, the communities can establish their own governance process to define how and for why the community network is for. And the other reason is not all the reasons, but just one more, the possibility to share basic costs. For example, the connectivity. For example, the transportation of some technical people to help to fix some problem. The community can share the cost, can have. different ways to a board. For example, they invite to the people to their house. It’s not just about money. It’s also about how the community organize themselves to have the services that they need for sustain the community network.

Risper Arose: Thanks so much for the opportunity to speak about the community networks.

Talant: And I wanted to share a story of how a small investment into a community network helped unlock major investments into infrastructure. So just before coming to IGF, I was reading news in Kyrgyzstan. And there was a news that a very remote village of Zardali in Kyrgyzstan was connected to electricity. And the Minister of Energy personally came to the village and announced that now the village has electricity. Just a few weeks before that, Minister of Transport came to this village and said that I’m going to provide you a road, because this village had no road, no electricity, no internet. And before that, a mobile operator came and installed a mobile tower. All of this is happening month after month in the village, which previously nobody has heard of. And if you heard of it, it would be once in a decade. Maybe some disaster happened or something. And the president himself flew to the village on a helicopter to say that we are going to help the village with infrastructure. While all of this was happening, a year before that, the village was connected to the internet as a community network with a small grant from Internet Society Foundation. And the very first thing that the villagers did was, of course, first to connect to their relatives around the world, saying that now we have a connectivity. Please call us. We can call you. And the second, they started making videos of the village, saying that, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, we don’t have a road. We don’t have electricity. We don’t have mobile connectivity. Please help. And maybe, like Carlos was saying, that it wasn’t millions of dollars that were required to connect this village. It took maybe $10,000 to provide internet. But with this small investment, the villagers were able to attract hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government to do all of this infrastructure. So we were really excited that we, as the Internet Society Kirghiz Chapter, helped the village to be connected. And this was an interesting kind of case survey, which is not PPP, as we know, but I counted 6P. So it was a partnership of the public, the government, partnership with the private sector, the ISPs who provided the spectrum, partnership with the provincial or municipal government, partnership with the people who live in the village, and finally, a partnership of civil society organizations and international donors like ISOC Foundation, European Union, US Embassy. They have provided small funds that allowed us to connect this village to the internet. And the way we learned how to do community networks was actually in an IGF like this many years ago in Guadalajara. And that’s where we learned that there is such a movement of community networks. And I think today, there is a discussion that next year, there will be a decision, do we need the IGFs? And of course, for the villagers of Zardali, yes, we need the IGFs, because they do make a real impact on the people on the ground. So this is kind of my brief introduction. Hopefully, later on, I can share information about potential financing opportunities for such initiatives to close the digital divide, especially gender digital divide. And I wanted to talk about the Women in Digital Economy Fund. And I think we have colleagues online who are working with women-led initiatives. And this fund can provide support in terms of financing, in terms of technology. technical assistance and know-how and in terms of policy and regulations. So thank you. Back to you.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much, Talant. Such a great story. And just back to give what a community, connectivity can do in terms of even fundraising for this sort of initiatives. And also Lillian, thank you so much for highlighting from the community aspect and the governance of this type of networks and how by pulling the resources together, they can be able to sustain this network infrastructure and even reduce the cost of this type of community-centered connectivity. Now, next on, I’ll just jump into the next segment where we’ll now hear regional insights on innovative policies and regulation. And with us in the room, we have Dr. Emma Otieno and also Jen Coffin. And as I give you the floor, perhaps you can talk to us around what role do regulators play in enabling flexible community-oriented licensing framework, as well as how can universal service fund mechanisms be more transparent, efficient, and inclusive to support smaller local connectivity providers. We can start with Jane and then finish with Dr. Emma.

Emma Otieno: Thank you very much. And it was just very inspiring hearing everyone speak. And it has struck me so much that when you start to think about the localized approach to providing connectivity, it’s almost a very obvious correlation. area that you need a localized approach to policy regulation and financing. So if you’re, and that means looking at, as Carlos has said, different ways of assessing risk, different ways of bringing blended finance, meaning different pots of money together at different times with different funders and different instruments, financial instruments. It’s just very logical that you would look at this differently now. And as Carlos has noted, the 1985 Maitland Commission Report, known as the Missing Link Report, laid this all out for us years ago. And the regulatory and policy environment has changed so much over time and does probably need to be recalibrated to the local circumstances that we are all seeing. How do we find different ways of changing our policies and regulations to fit and adapt to making sure that different sized networks, which have different demand and supply side economics than larger network investments, how do we take a look at this again? And I think, and Dr. Emma will probably have a great deal to say here too, is that we’ve got to take some risks as policymakers and regulators and rethink how we’re looking at local connectivity, infrastructure assessment, feasibility studies, what’s out there in a country and how we would re-approach, re-imagine not only that policy and regulatory environment, because the investors want to see data. They want to see the facts. They want to know how many people are not connected, where is that community located, what’s the potential estimated cost of connecting that community, whether it’s through satellite technology, fixed infrastructure, fixed wireless infrastructure, or wireless solutions alone. They want to see the facts. they want to understand, but we also need some of those larger investment organizations and some of the localized investment entities to re-look at these, the demand and supply side issues, what the regulatory and policy frameworks are that are in existence, and what needs to be changed from that regulatory policy side and the financial side to match that local connectivity challenge. One thing I would say is that regulators and policy makers have a fabulous tool in their hands and something called the notice of inquiry or a gathering of information process. You can put out a notice and ask different organizations to provide you with information and you can pull in all that information to reassess, realign, and reimagine what you need to do. Look, the G20 this year and the Digital Economy Working Group has even acknowledged that innovative financing is super important to connectivity and that’s from the Brazil process this year. It’s rolling into South Africa next year in 2025, so there’s a recognition at the highest levels of government, at the highest levels of global organizations and financial organizations that that innovative approach to financing, the blended finance approach that Carlos indicated, needs to be looked at and you have to have that policy and regulatory corollary that match. It’s not just, oh we’ll bring in lots of money, but how do we bring in money at a certain point locally with a different vision of risk as well. There’s an old way of looking at risk that’s a bit, I’m going to say this out loud and this is my personal opinion, colonial. It’s a traditional different type of banking approach. We’ve got to de-risk investment differently and so it’s at that local level with the local facts and with the data. so that investors have confidence, but they’re local investors too, which might be more locally bought in to the solutions that could be provided. So really, if we’re looking and re-imagining on how we bring in, Talent has just talked about a network in Kyrgyzstan. That network is a completely different network economic and policy and regulatory solution based on what type of technologies can be brought in, how the local people can be brought in to also help with that productivity solution. And so the investors are gonna look at this differently. The government from a governance perspective is gonna look at this differently as well. So it’s matching that local sensibility, the local factors in place and just taking steps back. And I’m gonna circle back around. Sorry, it’s a little late here. So my brain is probably a little circular, but please as regulators and policymakers, give yourself a little breathing room to re-imagine, to take a step back and work with the public, work with the different financial institutions, work with ITU and the development financial institutions, but work with this multi-stakeholder community. You also have of APC, ISOC, other, other, where you can come in and get that information from all of the organizations who know that local circumstance. And then of course, some of those financiers and investors that know the different types of blended finance instruments that can be brought in. So we really are talking about taking a step back, gathering more data, looking at new models that are being brought in and looking at just the sheer fact that if we haven’t been able to solve some of the connectivity problems from since 1985 forward, we have seen how community networks can solve that problem. We’ve seen how regulators can come in and re-imagine their USFs. We’ve seen how that they can re-imagine their licensing and bring in community and other complimentary based networks. You really can create a match up with the financing side now and looking at the different demand and supply side. I’m gonna stop talking. So Dr. Emma. can jump in here, but I’m really excited to hear more from the panelists and others, but I think we really do have an amazing opportunity to just rethink, step back and gather more data. And for regulators and policymakers, use that tool of the notice of inquiry to gather more information. Thank you. Thank you very much, Jane and Carlos and the rest of the speakers who have really given a very pertinent points to this very important subject of discussion. And I will just augment the very many points that have already been stated very aptly. In terms of how the regulator can be this enabler for the community-oriented networks and in terms of coming in as the enabler for licensing or the existence, I would actually state the following and I’ll be using the case of Kenya just as Carlos has said that Kenya has made a bit of progress and very passionately and very intentionally. So when it comes to supporting the community-centered networks or connectivity. So one of the things and where Kenya started and it should be a good example for all the other regulators to go is to really take the issue of access gaps for the market when it comes to connectivity gaps and usage gaps very seriously. I think that’s where Kenya started to create this appetite and create a justification of where to place the community-centered networks and actually how to fight for their place in the frameworks of the regulation and in policy. So for the case here in 2021, there was an updated access capacity that was being undertaken and it went further to actually really take a microscopic view of the true gap because by that time, the connection in terms of population coverage had already gotten upwards of 78. So we’re indeed getting into the true gap space of what Carlos shared as the access gap model. And with that, the beauty of a space like Kenya enjoys is the combining of the regulator also being the board responsible for the ambassador service fund. So this very seamlessly speak to each other that when there is a data, empirical data that the universal service fund brings onto the table, the regulatory of the regulator really swings in and they’re able to come on board with issues like then how can we use these findings to update the market structure? And that is how the case of finding a place to review the market structure and starting to a process of incorporating the community centered networks into the regulatory framework and for Kenya. In 2020, the first day the license framework was adopted and since then several community networks have been licensed. So that’s another regulatory support that has actually been extended to enable these sorts of networks. And moving on actually, the regulator should also move away from being the police to enable and like the question that has been asked which is enabling. For instance, there’s been a lot of deliberate handholding that has come from the Kenyan regulatory setup that the regulator is reaching out and really nurturing the community networks and the constituents. Speaking to institutions like APC Locknet and other capacity building facilitators and trying to champion for can we have courses of capacity building opportunities that are actually centered to supporting the community networks. networks operators. And we’re seeing that really their capacity is a bit low. Rostive source was there also a bit not very enabled. So the regulator comes to the table and speak and actually champions for their rights actually and speak for them in terms of let us allocate, let us prioritize, let’s ensure we do not have a conversation where we’re talking about the various market segments and the various support, the various challenges without including the community centered network. So that has really been a nibbling role that the regulator has played in this perspective. And even this year we’ve had several collaborative initiatives with the Africa Telecommunications, the capacity building arm of the telecom sector and the Locknet and APC and the regulator, the ministry to really ensure that the capacity of the constituents in this space is being built. So there’s been practical example that actually that is an enabling angle to it. Further to that, there’s the issue of making that space very clear. Beyond the existence of just the licensing framework, they need to be additional guidelines that can really provide sort of like things like handbooks, things like guidelines on how to really domesticate or roll out networks in different typologies. And I think some previous speakers have talked about the various challenges that are facing this connectivity initiatives. The challenges in some areas are terrain, the challenges in other areas are security related, others are just about affordability and financial support. So actually coming up with guidelines that incorporate the feedback from this operators so that they’re out there. So the people who are interested to come into a field in this gap are able to be guided uniformly in terms of how they can go about it, even in terms of accessing support. What is the procedure? Where do you start from? When it comes to this license, apart from the the framework being there. How do we start? Whom do you talk to? Where do you go to for support? And we find that they’re quite not exposed because most of them are indeed from the community, they’re from the rural. So they really need a lot of guidance, like really broken down to a granular guidance to enable them. And that, again, speaking of the Kenyan situation, that is something that is ongoing and the process of even augmenting the guidelines to support them is happening. And also the issue of sustainability. We find that being a subject that is very critical, that has to be at the center of this discussion all the time. And if a regulator is coming in from the front of being able to support the community networks, when you have licensed a community network, you don’t want to license it to go and die. So what are these other discussions that can be put on the table from the policy perspective from bringing on the board, the other agencies as collaborators? For instance, the feedback we’re getting from the community networks in Kenya is that the revenue agency seeming to want to expand their revenue base would actually go for anybody who seems to be putting up a business, trying to speak for them. They cannot be able to go as individuals to speak onto those tables. So that you are like speaking for them and saying that this is a new model, which is working like this, we should be exempted, talking about exemptions in terms of our taxations, clear exemptions that are actually enacted in the law, but speaking to other players, like the Ministry of Finance, the central banks, like what avenues can actually come on board to assist to this community networks, especially that we are seeing that they have to get into the leveraging the usage gap, so that they come up with a bit of products that can create that sustainability interface between the connectivity and the keeping the business running. So that sustainability is a very major issue also to champion through the various forums that can be able to listen to whatever is being. being proposed as avenues and strategies of enabling the sustainability of these community networks. I’ll quickly speak to two or three points maybe that touch on the issues of how this transparent, efficient, inclusive ways of supporting this and using the Universal Service Fund. And we have to rethink as regulators, I think at the Universal Service Funds mostly, what are these other approaches that can be used to finance the community centered connectivity or networks. Key point here, speaking from the experience in Africa, I find that most Universal Service Funds are using subsidies as a key support to the telecommunications operators. And we find that this, even in the Kenyan situation, a subsidy to a network, a community centered network might not be it because it’s not for profit as unlike the other categories of licenses. So starting to move away from the traditional way of support to thinking wider about, even if it’s a government that is talking managing the Universal Service Fund, grants, frameworks for grants, that requires a bit of change in the laws, like the public financial management laws, the issues of like a loaning. And the other day we were having a conversation with Brazil and they have a very good model where the Universal Service Fund is loaning these small operators, community centered networks to loan. So that is a collaboration, a very major shift in law, bringing together the ICT ministry, the Ministry of Finance and the banks so that the Universal Service Fund can be used to offer loans. So many other models that if time allowed would actually speak about. And then also the issue of really getting the involvement, engaging the community centered connectivity networks, players in that space so that you get feedback that can improve decisions that are being made. And then also strategies, like for instance, I’ve seen the current strategy that’s being under development for the Universal Service Fund in the space of Kenya, community networks, community. a certain connectivity has been prioritized, very clear targets, like by when, how many do they want to support, what framework should be put in place, what kind of stakeholder engagement and mapping should be undertaken. And then of course, monitoring and evaluating how that is being implemented. Then finally, and the last one is really collaborating with the agencies or governments or other bodies, let’s say like the APC and networks, the people who have the global perspective to champion for the community-centered connectivity so that they can support the areas of research so that regulators can have updated data to inform decisions, both on the side of a universal service fund and the side of the regulation, because they have the part of the pie that makes decisions that can impact on this, but they require updated data and they may not have that resource or the expertise in all the instances to be able to make a decision. So thank you very much. Let’s see what other available opportunity can be to keep on discussing about this and so much about it.

Risper Arose: Thank you. I appreciate it. Brilliantly said. Thank you so much for our two presenters and Dr. Emma for coming in and talking from the regulatory perspective. Jane, also thank you so much for joining in at this hour and also just sharing and really underscoring the importance of regulators re-imagining, financing for initiatives like community-centered connectivity solutions and gathering more data as well as working with different stakeholders, really a multi-stakeholder approach to supporting the community-centered connectivity solutions. For Dr. Emma, thank you so much for also highlighting the case that has been happening in Kenya in terms of regulators hand-holding the community network and what that looks like in creating an enabling environment for community-centered connectivity solutions. And of course, just highlighting the role of USF and how that alternative models and frameworks that can really look into transparency of an inclusive universal service fund in supporting community-centered connectivities. I am just cognizant of time, and because of that, we’ll jump into question and answers, and we’ll have a discussion around that as we round up this very engaging conversation. So I’ll start with the online audience. Are there any questions online?

Carlos Rey Moreno: There were some comments in relation to, I believe this was made when Talan was speaking around how do we ensure that energy perspective is attendant as the critical enablers for Internet governance. There was others that request Jane to expand further on alternative risk perspective, and then request around how best practice areas for this topic, where those resources could be created. I can answer that one in the chat, and then maybe develop procedures or guidelines as highlighted by Dr. Emma. So those questions around Jane to expand on the risk perspective and maybe Talan touching upon the energy perspective around Internet governance as a critical enabler were the ones that appear in the chat so far.

Risper Arose: Thank you. Thank you so much, Carlos. Yes, so we can start with Jane, and then we can have talent come in and then see if we can finish up.

Jane Roberts Coffin : Absolutely, and I’ll be very quick so we can fit in more people. I think what we’d have to say is we’d have to take a look at the traditional risk checklists and risk matrices that are generally used for investment and look at how we would adapt them and look at our own risk tolerance and the specific market or area we’re talking about and what the feasibility is of developing that infrastructure, building it out, the different regulatory and policy parameters in a country. And by reassessing risk, it’s also taking a look at, there’s some complications when people take a look at risk and look at a country and say, oh, well, I’m not sure we can actually do business here. Well, if we’re talking about a different focus from a community-based perspective with the backing of different government organizations in the country, different communities of interest, the way you’re gonna look at the tolerance for risk, your checklist for risk, and whether it’s a social investment risk model, which is different, you’re gonna have different factors that you would use from both governance, policy regulatory, and then even from a more systemic financial perspective where there’s some very different models that are used for assessing risk. So this might be one of those topics that would be really great for another IGS or for, one of the speakers has typed in the chat about what some of the best practices might be for reassessing, assessing risk in a country and how we can work and speak with donors at a different level to speak their language from an investment perspective, but reassess how that would work with local community involvement. So I’ll stop there, but it’s more a question. And so when we get to the question of, if there are traditional ways of assessing risk that are tied to grants and loans, and or how government might look at a project coming into its country, or how local multi stakeholder approach to building connectivity would be put together, we, we’d have to start to take apart those traditional models and rebuild a different type of risk framework.

Risper Arose: Thank you again. Thanks so much.

Talant: I think it’s a great questions. Thank you for asking about the governance because it’s a really good segue into the publication that I wanted to bring your attention to it’s called the policy actions to close the gender digital divide. We are here today to speak about innovative financing mechanism for generally digital divide and the organization where I’m working is now focusing on gender digital divide because it’s a major topic globally. And this initiative is called Women in Digital Economy Fund, which was launched by USAID, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other donors, and which started as a $50 million fund now is growing to 18 million and more. Yeah. So may this initiative identified three areas where there are, there has to be a lot of work done. One is the financing. So there is funds set apart for to support women led organizations or organizations who are working on closing gender the digital divide. And the second area I think it’s the know how, how to do this kind of work. So, there is a opportunity for technology. technical assistance to organizations. And finally, third major area is policy and regulations. And there, myself and my colleague, Vakas here, who is sitting here in this room as well, we are working on with the governments that are interested and willing to do reforms to close the gender digital divide. And in this publication we have collected interesting, promising practices from around the world. And this will be annual publication and hopefully that next year we can see Columbia case, Kenya case, that would enable other governments also to get inspired and to work on closing the gender digital divide. And finally, I just wanted to say there are five core areas where the work is being focused on. One is access and affordability. Second is the relevant digital tools and services. Third is digital skills and literacy. Fourth is safety and security online. And finally, as Jane was mentioning, the importance of data and insights, which is crucial for policymakers and regulators to make decisions. Thank you.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much, Talant. Absolutely, we can’t finish without talking about how we are mainstreaming gender whilst talking around financing mechanism for this type of initiatives. And thanks for mentioning what WEDEF is doing. Now I’ll just hand it back to the onsite participants. Let me see how many questions we have in the room. So a couple of hands. Okay, yes, go ahead. Okay, thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you to all the panelists. This session was very comprehensive, and please let me present myself. I’m Kosi, I’m a senior. I’m from Benin. I’m from Ministry of Economy and Finance, but I’m also lead one NGO called Women Be Free. We provide employment for training and employment for ladies and women in our country. When we talk about community network is something very important for us. I want to know step by step what is the process to build a good community network where we don’t have problem on how we can make it sustainable for a time. That is my first question. The second one is leading the ladies and women. How can I put on table partnership directly, self and self organization to provide knowledge somewhere to another countries like mine in Benin? Can we make a partnership and provide knowledge directly to our different community? How can we do it now? Third one, the phone we are talking about, is it available for every region of the world or is specifically for some region and from some kind of stakeholders specifically? Thank you very much.

Risper Arose: Thank you. Thank you so much for those three questions. I would give the mic to Carlos. Carlos, I’ve seen you have shared some of the links in the chat. Thank you so much for sharing those links. You can come in and then also we can hear from Lillian and Challenge. You have something. Okay, go ahead. Yeah.

Carlos Rey Moreno: On the first question I hope someone in the room can share with you some of the links that are on the on the on the chat because I believe they provide some of those guidelines. I haven’t changed absolutely nothing about my setup can you hear me? I can hear you Carlos you’re loud and clear. Yeah we can also hear you. Sorry we still can’t hear you just give give me one one minute one second.

Risper Arose: Can you speak Carlos now let’s hear?

Carlos Rey Moreno: Hello hello no no we can hear Carlos I think it’s a respite is your side we can hear. Thanks Dr Emma it might be something in the room I mean with the audio setup of the room. Yes it’s on our side we’re trying to figure out. So you can hear me something somehow I know or you can hear me through the I’m confused now. Okay as we can’t hear Carlos in the room so we are we are sorting that out

Risper Arose: with the technicians but meanwhile we can hear from Lillian and Talant and then we’ll get back to you Carlos. Well I think the the question about the sustainability is the big question

Lilian Chamorro: no because I think we in Colombia have a methodology when we try that the community appropriate the network since the first beginning of the process then. have a series of steps to create a group that sustain the operation, but also the uses of the community network, when there is a problem, can fix the network. Then I think that is one of the things that make that the network can sustain in the time, to have a group of people in the community that lead the operation of the community. I think that is so important, try to find those persons that like the technology, but also like to serve the community, and try that they engage to the community network and sustain the operation of the community network. And then other part could be, try to find a financial method to sustain the expenses of the community network, the way to sustain the connectivity, but try to be creative in that. Sometimes people also make some festivals or things, that for them is easier to have the expenses, or in other communities they just put a contribution, an equal contribution to sustain the expenses of the community, then it’s different in each community. I don’t know. Okay, I think it’s okay for me.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much Talant. Briefly. Thank you. In terms of building community

Talant: networks, I think I could point out two organizations that are very strong at it, is one Internet Society, and we have colleagues here, and I think there are guides for, step-by-step guides on building community networks, and the other one is Association for Progressive Communications. APC, and Carlos, I think, could probably share some links, so very good resources. And in our case, in Kyrgyzstan, engaging the local community has been the biggest factor, that it has to be a bottom-up interest and approach. And in terms of the fund, in your question, this fund is available for organizations around the world, in the global south. But of course, the most priority will be the areas where the gender divide is the biggest challenge. Yes, and finally, I would like to say

Lilian Chamorro: that it’s important to exchange the experiences between communities. For us, has been a key to have some encounters where people from different communities can know what is the experience of other communities, can exchange the problems, because they said, OK, it makes me see that it’s not just my problem, that maybe many of us have the same problem, and many of us can find the solutions for some problems. Then the exchange of experiences, I think, is so important.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much, Lilian. I don’t know if we have one minute for Carlos. Carlos, you can come in now. Hello, hello, hello. Can you hear me? No? Can you hear me in the room? If you cannot hear me in the room. I can hear you online. Yeah, I guess it’s fine. OK, bye bye. Thank you for everything. Rizpra, I just wanted to draw attention to a huge conference in June and July. Unfortunately, Carlos, we can’t hear you for now. I don’t think we can hear them either, Jane. Yeah, now it seems we can’t hear them, they can’t hear us online. Hello, IGF, can you hear us? Hello, hello. Can you hear our private conversation here? Yeah, we need to have a separate workshop. Exactly. You know what they’re doing? They’re using different frequencies in each of the rooms. Talk about tricky. They did this in Baku in 2012, and it’s good. They have an open ceiling, that’s why it’s hard to… Let me try to see if somebody… But it looks like the session has ended anyway. Oh, has it? Oh, yeah, you’re right. I mean, it was due to finish two minutes ago, so… Let me try to call somebody who’s in the room to just advise us what’s happening. Sure, thank you. Dr. Emlin. Not speaking, let me try another one. For some reason, I was seeing the person in the room, but somehow the call is not… connecting. I think we can just chat and say we’re dropping off. Yeah, maybe we can write it on the chat. I think that’s a great idea. All right. Well, it was great to hear your voices. Likewise. I owe you an email, Jane, so I will be writing to you soon. Same here. Great to hear your voice, Dr. Emma. Yeah, yeah. Great to hear you, Jane. Yeah, we’ll connect again. Definitely. Okay, good to hear you. Bye-bye, Carlos. Bye-bye, Dr. Emma. Thank you so much. And reaching ideas. But they can hear each other. Thank you. Thank you. It’s great to hear that this type of consultation is happening. I love what she said about people who are starting to learn. I just don’t see any effort. I don’t know. I think I’d still be interested in people who are talking about keeping things that we have. Well, we’re just trying. Yeah. I feel like it’s just cool. Yeah. No, no. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Traditional approaches have failed to achieve universal connectivity

Lilian Chamorro

Carlos Rey Moreno

Risper Arose

High costs and low returns in rural areas

Failure of traditional approaches and business models

Lack of sustainable funding for community networks

The speakers agree that traditional telecom operators and their profit-driven models have been unable to close the digital divide in remote and rural areas due to high costs, low returns, and lack of sustainable funding models.

Community networks offer unique benefits and flexibility

Lilian Chamorro

Carlos Rey Moreno

Risper Arose

Speaker

Flexibility to adapt to local conditions and needs

Lower costs through community involvement

Empowerment of local communities

Ability to attract further infrastructure investments

The speakers concur that community-centered connectivity solutions provide unique benefits such as flexibility, lower costs, community empowerment, and the ability to catalyze further infrastructure investments.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for innovative financing mechanisms that combine different sources of funding, including reforming universal service funds to better support community networks and smaller providers.

Carlos Rey Moreno

Emma Otieno

Blended finance approaches combining public and private funding

Reforming universal service funds to support smaller providers

Both speakers emphasize the need for regulatory changes to accommodate community networks, including flexible licensing frameworks and adapted risk assessment models.

Emma Otieno

Jane Roberts Coffin

Creating flexible licensing frameworks for community networks

Reimagining risk assessment for local connectivity projects

Unexpected Consensus

Multi-stakeholder collaboration for community networks

Emma Otieno

Speaker

Partnerships between regulators, communities and support organizations

Engagement of local communities in network development

There was an unexpected consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, with both a regulator perspective (Emma Otieno) and a community network implementer perspective (Speaker) emphasizing the need for partnerships and community engagement.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the limitations of traditional approaches to connectivity, the unique benefits of community networks, the need for innovative financing mechanisms, and the importance of regulatory changes to support these initiatives.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers, which suggests a growing recognition of the potential of community-centered connectivity solutions to address the persistent digital divide. This consensus implies that there may be increasing support for policy and regulatory changes to enable these alternative models, as well as for developing new financing mechanisms tailored to community networks.

Different Viewpoints

Role of traditional telecom operators

Carlos Rey Moreno

Emma Otieno

Failure of traditional approaches and business models

Creating flexible licensing frameworks for community networks

Carlos Rey Moreno argues that traditional telecom operators have failed to close the digital divide, while Emma Otieno suggests creating flexible frameworks that could potentially include traditional operators alongside community networks.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role of traditional telecom operators and the specific mechanisms for financing community networks.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of community networks and the need for innovative financing, but differ slightly in their proposed approaches. This suggests a general consensus on the topic, with variations in implementation strategies.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for innovative financing mechanisms, but propose different approaches: Carlos suggests international funds, Emma focuses on reforming universal service funds, and Jane emphasizes reimagining risk assessment.

Carlos Rey Moreno

Emma Otieno

Jane Roberts Coffin

Blended finance approaches combining public and private funding

Reforming universal service funds to support smaller providers

Reimagining risk assessment for local connectivity projects

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for innovative financing mechanisms that combine different sources of funding, including reforming universal service funds to better support community networks and smaller providers.

Carlos Rey Moreno

Emma Otieno

Blended finance approaches combining public and private funding

Reforming universal service funds to support smaller providers

Both speakers emphasize the need for regulatory changes to accommodate community networks, including flexible licensing frameworks and adapted risk assessment models.

Emma Otieno

Jane Roberts Coffin

Creating flexible licensing frameworks for community networks

Reimagining risk assessment for local connectivity projects

Key Takeaways

Traditional approaches to connectivity have failed to achieve universal access goals, especially in rural and remote areas

Community-centered connectivity solutions offer a flexible, cost-effective alternative to bridge the digital divide

Regulatory and policy changes are needed to enable and support community networks

Innovative and blended financing mechanisms are required to fund smaller-scale connectivity projects

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is crucial for developing sustainable community connectivity initiatives

Resolutions and Action Items

Regulators should re-examine licensing frameworks to accommodate community networks

Universal service funds should be reformed to support smaller, local connectivity providers

Develop guidelines and capacity building programs for community network operators

Explore blended finance approaches combining public, private and development funding

Increase data collection and research on the impact of community networks

Unresolved Issues

Specific steps for building sustainable community networks in different contexts

How to effectively assess and mitigate risks for community connectivity projects

Mechanisms for knowledge sharing between community networks across regions

Ways to integrate gender considerations into community network financing and development

Suggested Compromises

Allocate a small percentage of universal service funds to community networks while continuing support for traditional operators

Develop tiered licensing systems with reduced fees and requirements for small-scale community providers

Create blended financing models that combine commercial investment with development funding and community resources

Despite significant public and private investments, traditional approaches to telecommunication infrastructure, while impactful in certain respects, have failed to achieve universal access goals, even for basic voice connectivity for over two decades.

speaker

Risper Arose

reason

This comment sets up the key problem the discussion aims to address and challenges the effectiveness of traditional approaches.

impact

It framed the entire discussion around the need for innovative solutions and alternative financing models.

We need to improve the balance between profit maximization and the goal of reaching universal and meaningful access, right? And the time has come of reviewing where those investments are going, right? And how effective they are when they are targeting universal and meaningful connectivity.

speaker

Carlos Rey Moreno

reason

This comment directly challenges the profit-driven model of traditional telecom investments and calls for a paradigm shift.

impact

It sparked discussion about alternative models focused on social impact rather than just financial returns.

By being community center instead of profit center, as I was saying, they are able to use all their financial mechanisms to reduce their costs and be a center on the communication needs of the community rather than the profit that their shareholders are seeking.

speaker

Carlos Rey Moreno

reason

This insight highlights a key advantage of community-centered networks over traditional profit-driven models.

impact

It led to further discussion about the unique benefits and sustainability models of community networks.

While all of this was happening, a year before that, the village was connected to the internet as a community network with a small grant from Internet Society Foundation. And the very first thing that the villagers did was, of course, first to connect to their relatives around the world, saying that now we have a connectivity. Please call us. We can call you. And the second, they started making videos of the village, saying that, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, we don’t have a road. We don’t have electricity. We don’t have mobile connectivity. Please help.

speaker

Talant Sultanov

reason

This real-world example powerfully illustrates how a small investment in community connectivity can catalyze broader development.

impact

It provided concrete evidence of the potential impact of community networks, shifting the discussion from theoretical to practical.

So if you’re, and that means looking at, as Carlos has said, different ways of assessing risk, different ways of bringing blended finance, meaning different pots of money together at different times with different funders and different instruments, financial instruments.

speaker

Jane Roberts Coffin

reason

This comment introduces the concept of blended finance and new risk assessment models, offering a practical approach to financing community networks.

impact

It opened up discussion on specific financial mechanisms and risk models that could support community-centered connectivity solutions.

For instance, there’s been a lot of deliberate handholding that has come from the Kenyan regulatory setup that the regulator is reaching out and really nurturing the community networks and the constituents.

speaker

Dr. Emma Otieno

reason

This insight provides a concrete example of how regulators can actively support community networks.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the role of regulators in enabling community networks, leading to further exploration of policy and regulatory approaches.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by challenging traditional telecom investment models, highlighting the unique advantages of community-centered networks, providing real-world examples of their impact, introducing innovative financing concepts, and exploring the role of regulators in enabling these networks. The discussion evolved from identifying the problem to exploring concrete solutions and policy approaches, with a strong focus on the social impact and sustainability of community-centered connectivity initiatives.

How can we reassess and adapt traditional risk assessment models for community-based connectivity initiatives?

speaker

Jane Roberts Coffin

explanation

Traditional risk assessment models may not be suitable for community-based initiatives, and new approaches are needed to properly evaluate and support these projects.

What are the best practices for creating resources and guidelines on implementing community networks?

speaker

Dr. Emma Otieno

explanation

Developing clear, granular guidelines can help community networks navigate the process of setting up and operating, especially in rural or underserved areas.

How can energy infrastructure be integrated into Internet governance discussions as a critical enabler?

speaker

Online participant (via chat)

explanation

Energy infrastructure is crucial for connectivity initiatives, particularly in remote areas, and needs to be considered in Internet governance frameworks.

What are the step-by-step processes to build a sustainable community network?

speaker

Audience member (Kossi Amessinou from Benin)

explanation

Detailed guidance on establishing and maintaining community networks is needed, especially for those new to the concept.

How can partnerships be formed to directly transfer knowledge about community networks between organizations and countries?

speaker

Audience member (Kossi Amessinou from Benin)

explanation

Facilitating knowledge transfer between experienced organizations and those starting out could accelerate the development of community networks in new areas.

What are the eligibility criteria and geographic scope for the Women in Digital Economy Fund?

speaker

Audience member (Kossi Amessinou from Benin)

explanation

Clarification on the fund’s availability and criteria is important for organizations seeking support for gender-focused digital initiatives.

How can Universal Service Funds be adapted to better support community-centered networks?

speaker

Dr. Emma Otieno

explanation

Exploring alternative models for Universal Service Funds, such as grants or loans, could provide more effective support for community networks.

What policy and regulatory changes are needed to create an enabling environment for community networks?

speaker

Carlos Rey Moreno

explanation

Identifying necessary policy changes can help remove barriers and create supportive frameworks for community networks.

How can we improve data collection and research to inform decision-making around community networks?

speaker

Dr. Emma Otieno

explanation

Better data and research are crucial for regulators and policymakers to make informed decisions about supporting community networks.