Uncategorized

Summary

This WIPO-hosted discussion explored the critical role of intellectual property in the esports ecosystem and methods for resolving related disputes. The session featured experts from WIPO, Video Games Europe, and legal practitioners who examined how IP rights function across the complex network of stakeholders in competitive gaming.

The panelists emphasized that video games themselves are multiverses of IP protection, encompassing everything from software code and character designs to music and storytelling elements. Unlike traditional sports where rules are collectively owned, esports rules are typically protected by IP rights held by game developers and publishers. This creates a unique dynamic where the “playing field” itself is an artistic creation subject to copyright protection.

Tournament organizers must navigate varying licensing requirements depending on the scale and commercial nature of their events. While grassroots community tournaments often operate under automatic licenses with basic restrictions, larger commercial tournaments require explicit licensing agreements with game publishers. The discussion highlighted how licensing policies vary significantly between companies, games, and territories, creating a complex landscape for organizers to navigate.

Players and teams have increasingly become IP powerhouses in their own right, protecting their brands, logos, and even catchphrases through trademark registrations. Notable examples include professional player Tyler “Ninja” Blevins, who holds approximately 25 trademark registrations. The integration of team brands and player likenesses directly into games through cosmetic items represents an evolving revenue stream that bridges player IP with game publisher IP.

The session also addressed dispute resolution challenges in this fast-moving, global, and predominantly digital industry. Traditional court litigation often proves inadequate due to jurisdictional complexities, lengthy proceedings, and high costs. WIPO introduced the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET), a specialized alternative dispute resolution framework designed specifically for the gaming industry, offering faster, more cost-effective, and industry-knowledgeable resolution processes.

The discussion concluded with emphasis on the importance of IP literacy and proactive dispute resolution planning, noting that WIPO is developing educational resources to help players and tournament organizers better understand and navigate IP requirements in the esports ecosystem.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **IP as the Foundation of Esports**: Video games are fundamentally built on intellectual property rights (copyright, trademarks, patents), and esports competitions require explicit or implicit licenses from game developers/publishers to use their IP for tournaments, broadcasting, and commercial activities.

– **Multi-Stakeholder IP Ecosystem**: The esports industry involves complex IP ownership across multiple parties – game developers/publishers own the core game IP, while tournament organizers, teams, and players are increasingly developing their own IP assets (brands, trademarks, content) that can be commercialized and integrated back into games.

– **Licensing Framework and Commercial Thresholds**: There’s a clear distinction between community/grassroots tournaments (often automatically licensed with basic conditions) and commercial tournaments (requiring explicit licensing agreements), with the level of commercialization determining the complexity of IP permissions needed.

– **Global Jurisdiction and Dispute Resolution Challenges**: Traditional court litigation is often inadequate for esports disputes due to the global, digital, and fast-moving nature of the industry, leading to the development of specialized alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET).

– **Education and Awareness Gaps**: There’s a recognized need for better IP literacy among players, streamers, and tournament organizers to help them understand when they’re using protected content commercially versus for community purposes, and how to properly navigate licensing requirements.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to educate stakeholders about the critical role of intellectual property in the esports ecosystem, explain how different parties can protect and manage their IP rights, and introduce specialized dispute resolution tools designed specifically for the gaming and esports industry.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, educational tone throughout, with speakers acting as industry experts sharing knowledge rather than debating contentious issues. The tone was collaborative and solution-oriented, with WIPO representatives and industry experts working together to provide practical guidance. The atmosphere remained consistently informative and supportive, particularly when addressing audience questions about common IP challenges faced by content creators and tournament organizers.

Speakers

– **Richard Frelick** – Moderator from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

– **Alexia Gkoritsa** – Co-moderator from the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (AMC)

– **Sergi Mesonero** – Head of eSports at Video Games Europe, previously co-founder and public affairs vice president at LVP Liga de Video Jugos Profesional, and chairperson of international eSports chair at Universidad Católica de Murcia

– **Daniel Zohny** – IP lawyer with over 20 years of experience, former head of IP at FIFA (until end of 2023), partner and country manager at Albion’s Switzerland office, co-heading the company’s global brand protection business, currently co-chairing the 25th Presidential Task Force at INTA

– **Rafael Ferraz Vazquez** – Legal officer at WIPO’s Copyright Law Division, has worked on copyright and digital content issues at WIPO for over 10 years

– **Audience** – Identified as Kenneth, previously with a media and entertainment conglomerate focusing on public policy and government affairs

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the speakers names list provided.

# Intellectual Property in Esports: Navigating Rights, Licensing, and Dispute Resolution

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive WIPO-hosted discussion examined the critical role of intellectual property in the esports ecosystem, bringing together experts from the World Intellectual Property Organization, Video Games Europe, and legal practitioners to explore how IP rights function across the complex network of stakeholders in competitive gaming. The session, moderated by Richard Frelick from WIPO and co-moderated by Alexia Gkoritsa from the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, featured insights from industry leaders including Sergi Mesonero (Head of eSports at Video Games Europe), Daniel Zohny (IP lawyer and former head of IP at FIFA), and Rafael Ferraz Vazquez (Legal officer at WIPO’s Copyright Law Division).

Richard Frelick opened by explaining that WIPO is “the United Nations agency that serves the world’s innovators and creators,” establishing the international context for the discussion. The conversation revealed that intellectual property forms the foundational basis of the entire esports ecosystem, with video games representing complex multiverses of protected content encompassing software code, character designs, music, storytelling elements, and artistic creations. Unlike traditional sports where rules are collectively owned, esports operates within a framework where game rules, playing fields, and competitive parameters are protected by IP rights held by developers and publishers, creating unique dynamics for tournament organisation, broadcasting, and commercial exploitation.

## The Fundamental Role of IP in Esports

### Video Games as IP Multiverses

The panellists emphasised that video games themselves represent comprehensive collections of intellectual property protection. As Richard Frelick noted, these digital environments contain “a multiverse of IP from music and voice acting to code, character design, and storytelling.” This fundamental characteristic distinguishes esports from traditional sports in profound ways.

Sergi Mesonero provided a particularly insightful perspective on this distinction: “In contrast with sport, where the rules of sports are owned by no one, they are a collective creation… the rules of eSports for the most part are part of the intellectual property… The playing field. It’s an artistic creation the map where the players are competing… So you can imagine that through IP you also control the rules of the game, which is a very specific thing.”

This observation proved foundational to understanding why IP considerations permeate every aspect of esports operations, from grassroots community tournaments to major commercial competitions. The speakers agreed that this IP-centric structure enables creators to recoup the massive investments required to develop and maintain the sophisticated multiplayer games that serve as the foundation for competitive esports.

### Multi-Stakeholder IP Ownership

The discussion revealed a complex ecosystem where multiple parties have developed distinct IP assets. Daniel Zohny outlined how teams and players have evolved over time into “IP powerhouses,” protecting their brands, logos, and even catchphrases through extensive trademark portfolios. The example of professional player Tyler “Ninja” Blevins, who holds about 25 trademark registrations covering entertainment services, merchandise, and personal branding, illustrates the sophistication of modern player IP strategies.

Richard Frelick specifically mentioned WIPO’s Madrid system as a valuable tool for international trademark protection, noting its relevance for stakeholders operating across multiple jurisdictions.

**Developers and Publishers** maintain ownership of core game IP, including software, graphics, characters, and game mechanics. This foundational IP enables the entire esports ecosystem but also creates dependencies for other stakeholders.

**Tournament Organisers** have increasingly developed their own protected brands and competition formats through trademark registrations, creating valuable IP assets around their events and broadcast productions.

**Teams and Players** have developed sophisticated IP strategies that extend far beyond gameplay, encompassing personal branding, merchandise, and commercial partnerships.

## Licensing Framework and Commercial Thresholds

### Community Versus Commercial Activities

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the practical distinction between community and commercial activities within the esports ecosystem. The speakers achieved consensus that video game publishers generally adopt a permissive approach toward non-commercial activities whilst requiring explicit permissions for commercial exploitation.

Sergi Mesonero explained that “community tournaments often have automatic licenses with basic conditions, while commercial tournaments require negotiated contracts.” He provided specific examples of automatic license conditions, including prize limits and restrictions on TV commercialization. Importantly, he noted that for most regular players, IP issues are “transparent” and only become problematic when activities transition to commercial exploitation.

Daniel Zohny reinforced this perspective, noting that “most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing.” He emphasized that publishers want to “push” their games through fan engagement, recognizing that community activity drives long-term success.

### Licensing Complexity and Variation

The discussion highlighted significant challenges in navigating licensing requirements across the esports landscape. Sergi Mesonero noted that “licensing requirements vary by company, game, territory, and tournament size and scope,” creating a complex matrix that tournament organisers must navigate.

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez emphasised the importance of understanding these distinctions, particularly for players transitioning from casual to commercial activities: “The fact that they acquire a licence to play the video game as a consumer, as a user, does not mean that they can undertake a lot of different acts within the eSports activity… if they associate themselves and stream and have a sponsorship over their activities, that might trigger conditions that they are not allowed to undertake without the authorisation of the publisher.”

Rafael also highlighted specific IP elements commonly used in tournaments, including “trademarks, characters, images, art,” emphasizing that tournament organization and streaming activities are directly related to IP usage, contrary to some audience assumptions.

## Emerging IP Integration Trends

### Reverse IP Integration

One of the most fascinating developments discussed was the emerging trend of integrating player and team IP directly into video games themselves. Sergi Mesonero highlighted this phenomenon: “We are seeing lately even something that I find quite fascinating… how teams and players IP is even introduced inside the games… how can you buy Faker inside the video game as a skin. So this is something that I find that it’s very unique of the esports ecosystem.”

This reverse integration represents a unique circular relationship in IP usage that doesn’t exist in traditional sports. Professional players’ likenesses, team brands, and associated intellectual property are being incorporated back into the original games through cosmetic items, branded skins, and character representations.

### Diversification of Revenue Models

This IP integration trend contributes to diversifying the esports economy beyond traditional advertising and sponsorship models. Team brands integrated into games through cosmetic items provide direct monetisation opportunities for both teams and publishers, whilst creating new ways for fans to engage with their favourite organisations and players.

## Dispute Resolution Challenges and Solutions

### Inadequacy of Traditional Legal Systems

Alexia Gkoritsa provided compelling arguments for why traditional court litigation often proves inadequate for esports disputes. “Court proceedings take time… by the time a judgement is issued, the game or the competition in that case might already be in its next season or no longer relevant. Moreover, courts may not always have the specialised knowledge… judges in jurisdictions that do not fully understand the technical or commercial realities of the industry.”

### The International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET)

To address these challenges, WIPO developed the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET), a specialised alternative dispute resolution framework designed specifically for the gaming industry. Alexia Gkoritsa explained that IGET offers faster, more cost-effective, and industry-knowledgeable resolution processes compared to traditional litigation.

While Alexia mentioned collaboration with organizations like ESIC, she emphasized that IGET provides access to neutrals with specific gaming and esports expertise, enabling more informed decision-making on technical and commercial issues unique to the industry.

## Education and Awareness Initiatives

### Current State of IP Literacy

The discussion revealed mixed perspectives on the current state of IP awareness within the esports community. Sergi Mesonero noted that “there’s increased IP literacy among top-tier players compared to 10-15 years ago,” suggesting improvement at the professional level.

However, audience questions revealed ongoing challenges, particularly among content creators and smaller tournament organisers who may not fully understand when their activities require explicit permissions versus operating under automatic licences.

### Collaborative Educational Efforts

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez announced that “WIPO and Video Games Europe are developing educational guides for players and tournament organisers,” specifically targeting those engaged in “non-commercial or community-based” activities and those “starting a business.” These resources aim to provide practical guidance on IP management, licensing requirements, and best practices for different types of esports activities.

The speakers agreed that education represents a more effective approach than restrictive enforcement for building IP awareness and compliance within the esports community.

## Addressing Community Concerns

### Audience Perspectives

The discussion included important audience input that highlighted ongoing community concerns. An audience member questioned whether EULA restrictions might be legally void due to players’ lack of understanding, while industry representatives maintained that these restrictions are legitimate and directly related to IP usage.

Rafael specifically clarified that EULA restrictions ARE related to IP, contrary to the audience member’s suggestion, emphasizing the importance of understanding IP consequences for sponsorship and brand relationships.

Kenneth, an audience member, raised a particularly thoughtful concern about young people developing negative attitudes toward copyright due to streamer complaints about copyright strikes and demonetization. Daniel Zohny acknowledged this “weird interaction” where people complain about IP restrictions while potentially benefiting from the same protections later in their careers.

### Balancing Protection and Access

The speakers demonstrated understanding of these concerns while maintaining that current approaches generally balance IP protection with community accessibility. Daniel emphasized that publishers recognize the value of fan engagement and generally adopt permissive policies for non-commercial activities.

## Practical Recommendations and Action Items

### For Tournament Organisers

The discussion emphasised that tournament organisers should develop proactive IP strategies and secure proper licensing before events. This includes understanding the distinction between community and commercial activities, researching specific licensing requirements for relevant games and territories, and establishing clear contractual relationships with all stakeholders.

### For Players and Content Creators

Players transitioning from casual to commercial activities need to understand how this transition affects their licensing requirements. The upcoming WIPO-Video Games Europe educational guide should provide practical guidance for navigating these transitions and understanding when explicit permissions are required.

### For the Industry

The speakers recommended continued collaboration on educational initiatives, development of clearer licensing frameworks, and adoption of specialised dispute resolution mechanisms like IGET. These efforts should focus on building understanding rather than restricting activities, particularly for community and non-commercial uses.

## Conclusion

This educational discussion revealed that intellectual property serves as the fundamental enabler of the esports ecosystem, creating both opportunities and challenges for stakeholders across the industry. The unique characteristics of esports—where the playing field itself is an artistic creation protected by IP rights—distinguish it fundamentally from traditional sports and require specialised approaches to licensing, dispute resolution, and stakeholder management.

The strong consensus among industry experts suggests a maturing ecosystem with shared understanding of best practices and common challenges. The development of specialised tools like IGET and collaborative educational initiatives demonstrates the industry’s commitment to addressing these challenges constructively.

The discussion maintained a collaborative, educational tone throughout, with speakers demonstrating remarkable alignment on fundamental issues. All agreed that IP forms the foundation of the esports ecosystem, that different licensing requirements exist for community versus commercial activities, and that better education and awareness are needed throughout the industry.

The emerging trend of reverse IP integration, where player and team brands are incorporated into games themselves, represents an exciting evolution that could further diversify revenue models and deepen stakeholder relationships. As Richard Frelick noted in closing the session before the coffee break, this type of collaborative dialogue between industry stakeholders and international organizations provides a strong foundation for addressing current challenges whilst enabling continued innovation and growth within this dynamic ecosystem.

Richard Frelick: A very good morning to a very good afternoon, a very good evening, depending on from where you are connecting. But a very good morning still here to all who have gathered here in all beautiful Oslo. Welcome sincerely to our event where we will explore IP and resolving disputes in esports. I’m Richard Frelick from the World Intellectual Property Organization, in short WIPO. And I will have the pleasure of being your moderator for the next 55 minutes or so. For those who don’t know, a quick plug in WIPO is the United Nations agency that serves the world’s innovators and creators, ensuring that their ideas travel safely to the market and improve lives everywhere. We all are also a forum for addressing cutting edge IP issues. And of course, our data and IP information guide decision makers and our projects and initiatives and our projects and technical assistance ensure that IP benefits everyone everywhere. This includes, of course, the video game developers and stakeholders involved in esports from players to to tournament organizers and everyone in between. I will have the pleasure to moderate this event with Alexia, who is joining us online. Alexia, for a moment, over to you.

Alexia Gkoritsa: Thank you very much, Richard. And good morning, everyone. It’s great to be with you from Geneva. to join you all in Norway and online. As Richard mentioned, I’m Alexia Goritsa from the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, or AMC for short, and it’s a real pleasure to join you all today. So I will say more about this later, but just in short here, the AMC is the WIPO Center for Resolving IP and Tech-Related Disputes, and this includes more and more cases in the esports space. I’m really happy to co-moderate this session with Richard today, and I look forward to sharing more shortly about how dispute resolution tools can support growth in the industry. So looking forward to a great discussion and back to you, Richard.

Richard Frelick: Thanks, Alexia. So a quick overview from my side of what you will hear today. So first, the session will be divided into three parts. First, we’ll have a discussion with Sergi and Daniel, who are joining us here on-site on the importance of IP and esports. Second, we’ll connect with Rafael to hear about managing IP and esports with an overview around that. And finally, we’ll hear back from Alexia, who will tell us about preparing and resolving disputes. You will have the chance to ask questions after our discussion with Sergi and Daniel here on-site, and then at the very end, you will also have the opportunity to ask your questions. Let me just start by underlining perhaps one thing, and I love doing it, that IP is at the heart of each video game, and every video game is basically a multiverse of IP. From the music and voice acting to branding and marketing, from the code of the software to the design of the characters, from storytelling and innovative gameplay that shapes the experience, all of it is protected and enabled by IP, ranging from copyright, trademarks, patents, and many, many more. I just mentioned video games themselves, and the topic of our today’s session focuses on and this opens another huge and very important dimension on intellectual property. We have with us two excellent panelists today, who could probably talk for hours and hours about these issues, but we don’t have that much time. Let me quickly introduce them. So first is Sergi, who is head of eSports at Video Games Europe, representing the video game industry. Previously, Sergi was co-founder and public affairs vice president and LVP Liga de Video Jugos Profesional. I am very sorry for my Spanish, which is not there.

Sergi Mesonero: It’s fine.

Richard Frelick: Which is the biggest eSports company in the Spanish-speaking market and the chairperson of international eSports chair at Universidad Católica de Murcia. Daniel, on the other hand, is an IP lawyer with over 20 years of experience and until end of 23, he served as the head of IP at FIFA, overseeing all IP matters, including global brand protection efforts to all FIFA World Cup tournaments. He’s also, of course, a leader in INTA, currently co-chairing the 25th Presidential Task Force, and he leads Albion’s Switzerland office as partner and country manager, also co-heading the company’s global brand protection business. All right. Great to have you here, Sergi and Daniel, for joining us. Thank you for joining us. And let me start with Sergi. Let’s kick this off with that endless question. How valuable is IP and the eSports ecosystem?

Sergi Mesonero: Well, I’m glad that you asked me that question. Well, you’ve basically mentioned it. eSports are based on the public use and communication of a work protected by intellectual property, so the video games themselves. That’s the base of eSports, the use of a video game. So you can imagine… that intellectual property is the way first to ensure that eSports happen because video games happen. The creators need the control over intellectual property to ensure that they can do a series of things first, recoup the investment that they make into those products, making video games and even more video games that are a service, such as these big multiplayer video games that are used in eSports competitions. It’s, as you can imagine, not only extremely expensive to produce, but also extremely expensive to keep on going, to maintain. So, through intellectual property rights, the creators are able to recoup the financial investment. But it goes further than that. Through IP rights, they also control the way their products are used in these eSports competitions. So, to ensure that the games are presented in a way that does not conflict with values, that does not conflict with other objectives, that the creation is respected. That is also a very important matter. But I will go even further, and this is something that is not super well understood of the sector, but in contrast with sport, where the rules of sports are owned by no one, they are a collective creation. So, there’s no intellectual property over the rules of any sport. The case is that that’s not true for eSports for the most part. the rules of eSports for the most part are part of the intellectual property and I will put a An example that that I hope it illustrates it in an easy way, you know In the case of I don’t know FIFA for example, no or the key in the case of football the national federations will follow international rules to establish the size and of Football field and what characteristics it will have no I’m not the biggest Football, okay, but The size or what marks should be the goalpost and so on. Okay in the case of eSports The playing field. It’s an artistic creation the map where where The players are competing. It’s not just it has a double a double reality as a first a Program a software that is protected by intellectual property and then as well and graphic creation That so The the video game developer of the publisher will decide how it how the size of it how it looks and that’s part of a Graphic design, okay So you can imagine that through IP you also control the rules of the game, which is a very Very specific thing so IP is very important for publishers developers for the video in companies But as well for the other stakeholders tournament organizers the team organizations the players Which of course on one hand they have to respect the IP of the creators but on the other hand they can also create their own IP their own brands their own content which That alignment with the intellectual property of the video game creators sometimes can bring a series of you know of tensions, but for the most part is what is bringing the eSports sector forward what is moving it forward IP

Richard Frelick: Thanks. And that’s a very good segue for me to still move to the next slide, which gives it a very good overview of a very simplified, although in many ways, because it’s much more complex, but it’s still a very good first overview of the whole ecosystem and how IP can play its part. So, Daniel, could you give us this overview of the different stakeholders that can own IP in esports?

Daniel Zohny: Sure. Thank you. And thanks for having me. And thanks, Sergi, for the very good introduction. And you already talked about the big and obvious one, that the software, the IP behind it, the graphics, etc., are typically owned by the developers and publishers of the video games. And those are the first ones that people often think about. But there’s a whole ecosystem built around it, that in esports drives the whole movement, but also the commercial aspects of it. So it being a sport, there has to be some kind of competition. And competitions are normally organized in tournaments, leagues, as in regular sports. They might look quite different as regular sports is used to, because often they take place online, etc. However, these competitions have brands, have setups that are protected by intellectual property rights when it comes to the brands, typically trademarks, that the organizers secure, protect, in order to be able to license them out, but also, as you said, to have control over their product, if you so want to call it. And there can be other aspects if you actually have on-site events where you might have intellectual property rights instead of the stages, etc., etc. So that’s to tournaments and leagues. They, of course, then also use broadcasting, streaming, which is a separate kind of intellectual property, right, that is commercialized to create income. And typically, in traditional sports, the biggest one, actually, how you make sure you can stage your events. Now, if you go to the other side, more on the participant side, there you have the teams and the players. And the teams and the players have, over time, really evolved into IP powerhouses because they realized, okay, we have an opportunity outside of just through the competition, through prize money, et cetera, to commercialize our brands and to actually support what we’re doing. And that typically also is done through the avenue of trademarks.

Richard Frelick: Thanks so much. Maybe back to you, Sergi. So as a tournament organizer, what do you need to take into account from an IP perspective, vis-à-vis especially, for example, of the developers?

Sergi Mesonero: Well, vis-à-vis the video game companies, you basically have to have the permission to organize and to communicate, to broadcast the tournament at the end of the day. From that ownership, the rest of the chain value is created. So you not only need the permission in the form usually of a license to play a video game. Most players would not be that aware. They are aware from a subconscious way that you have to tick, you know, like, yes. Nobody really reads, except for lawyers, nobody really reads the whole end user license agreement. But actually… You need to agree to a series of things that give you the permission to use that video game and that extends for the whole sector. You need a license or a permission, either tacit or explicit, to publicly communicate the game, which means to organize a tournament. You need it to broadcast it, you need it to create content around it, to exploit it in any way. So, there’s though quite a bit of a difference between what would be commercial, professional tournament organizers and what would be community, grassroots tournament organizers. And this is generally speaking because at the end of the day, every company may have a different policy and it goes worse than that. Every company may have a different policy for different games in different territories. So, this makes the landscape a bit tricky and complicated to navigate sometimes. But, generally speaking, for all that is community tournaments, grassroots tournaments, many companies have automatic licenses that allow you to use that video game and to broadcast that video game without any explicit permission. You just need to follow a series of very basic conditions. Like, for example, I don’t know, if you are giving prizes, you cannot give prizes higher than a specific quantity. Or you cannot commercialize that on television, for example. Okay, something very basic. That has a double objective. On one hand, you are creating your own community. building it, and on the other hand, it’s free marketing as well for your video game. For commercial tournament organizers, things tend to be quite different, okay? And also generally speaking, there are different types of licenses depending on the origin and the size of the tournament. So again, I’m generalizing because every case is different. But for tournaments that, for example, have a price that goes between one quantity and another and that are shown on free platforms on the internet that are not organizing any live event, but they are not having ticketing, for example, so automatic licenses may apply as well. But the bigger a tournament, and for example, the more international it gets, usually the more explicit that needs to be the license to the point that for the bigger ones, you need to actually negotiate a specific contract with the video game company. Again, this may vary from company to company, from game to game, and territory to territory, but this is generally speaking what tournament organizers have to have in mind, that they need to have some kind of permission to operate their tournaments.

Richard Frelick: Thanks. And by the way, another thing comes to my mind when I see some of the amazing shows which are being the tournaments themselves with the stages, with musicians, with the cups themselves being designed by famous companies. And all these things, by the way, are also going to be protected by intellectual property. So that amazing music we can hear during the tournament, the amazing design. whether virtual or real, can also be protected by various IP rights. And of course, then we move to the teams and the players themselves, which are an important part, of course, of the ecosystem. And they do own IP rights. And Daniel, can I turn to you about that?

Daniel Zohny: Sure. Yeah. And you’re right. I mean, the teams and the players, especially in recent years, have become much more professional in how they can go about using their brands that they’ve built over the years and making sure that they are self-sustained also, that they don’t rely that much on maybe the publishers and the developers, apart from, you know, what they’re playing, of course. But they’re brands of their own right. They use that, especially teams, or it started with the teams more. But in recent years, as in regular sport again, went shifted a lot to players also as they became more notorious and they realized, OK, we we should engage in protecting our IP, because it’s important in brand building and in commercialization that you can get sponsorships, you can have licensing deals that on the other side, your partners see, oh, you’re doing something about it and you have some kind of exclusivity. You’ve seen it a lot with some of the players and probably the most prominent one who who really went full throttle and realized what he can do with his brand. Tyler Bevins Ninja, who started very early on to protect his IP, mainly through trademark registrations. He has for one person, I think about 25 registrations, which is not bad. That range from. you know, what he does. Entertainment in the end, because largely his income comes from endorsement deals, from streaming on Twitch, etc., but also clothing, merchandise. He does not only have a trademark in his name, Ninja, or his game tag. He has a logo, has an additional logo for his company, but also in a claim time in that he uses a lot to exemplify how much time he puts into his craft. So he did protect all this, also to make sure, and it’s I think very important especially in eSports or in gaming overall, that most of it happens online. There’s a lot of other people that would like to benefit off of this, and you as the player can then at least control how your brand is used and act against imposters. You know, if somebody’s impersonating you, has their own social media accounts up, runs their own Twitch streams, and people might think it’s you, of course looking for followers, you can shut that down pretty quickly if you have the tools in place, which again are based on IP.

Sergi Mesonero: We are seeing lately even something that I find quite fascinating on the topic of teams and players, is that up until now, or since recently, the intellectual property of the games and the intellectual property of the players did not interact that much, except at the time of playing, or sorry, except at the time of broadcasting and so on. But now we are seeing how teams and players IP is even introduced inside the games. And for example we’ve seen how, this is mostly of course for the top tier of competitions, but how teams may have their brands applied to cosmetics inside games, so their fans can play the video game using a skin as a cosmetic for their character, for their tools, their weapons, that it’s branded with their favorite team brand. So this is a recent development, but even more, we are also seeing how the brands in the form of name tags and likenesses of video game players are also being put inside the video games. One probably the best example is in the case of League of Legends with Faker, which is traditionally considered the best ever League of Legends players in history, how his likenesses have been put in skins inside the video game, how can you buy Faker inside the video game as a skin. So this is something that I find that it’s very unique of the esports ecosystem. It has also been applied more generally in video gameplay with influencers, with streamers in games such as Fortnite and others, but in the case specific of professional esports players and teams, this is something that is pushing as well forward the economy of the whole ecosystem. Before, for the most part, and it still is, the economy of esports is very much based into advertising and sponsorship, but now it’s diversifying also in this way that is using the intellectual property of teams and players.

Richard Frelick: No, thanks. And just for me to do this a bit of a shameless plug as well, in a way. So by using some of many of WIPO services, the players, wherever they are in the world, they can really more easily and cost effectively, by the way, protect their brands. For example, the Madrid system, which is based on an international treaty agreed by many, many countries. So there’s there’s there’s a lot of tools out there that can be used to to protect your brands as a player, as a team. But of course, this goes way beyond. I promise a moment of seeing if there’s any questions from the audience. And that is the moment where I’m looking at all the participants here in Oslo. Sorry, not in Oslo, in Norway, but as well as looking online. And if there are no currently questions, I’m I’m gathering that everybody is thinking on all the things they want to ask until the very end. We’ll also have a moment for that. And in that case, let me still turn now to Alexia, who will moderate a part of the event down the road now. Alexia, over to you.

Alexia Gkoritsa: Thank you, Richard, and thank you, everyone, for the great discussion so far. So we will now turn to the second part of our session where we will hear a bit more about how IP is managed in the sports space. For that, I’m very happy to welcome my colleague, Rafael Ferraz Vazquez, the legal officer at WIPO’s Copyright Law Division. Rafael has worked on copyright and digital content issues at WIPO for over 10 years, and he’s joining us online today to talk about how copyright and IP rights are applied, licensed and sometimes even challenged in the world of esports. So over to you, Rafael. Thank you.

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez: Thank you very much, Alexia. and thanks to you and Richard for moderating the session. It’s a pleasure to share this panel with Sergio and Daniel. So as we already heard, the video games are at the center of the eSport activity. Even also now we have a number of growing IP from other stakeholders, right? Such as tournament organizer that might register the trademark, the players that might seek protection for IP for some of their content that it has a growing commercial value. So eSports, although again, the video game is a fundamental requirement and it has a number, a multitude of IP protecting this content from different elements of the video game in order to ensure that this multimillion investment, not only in creating, but curating and maintaining this video game to enable the eSports activity leads to a number of IP that those stakeholders might sometimes find themselves on asking themselves on how to harmonize the different ownership and the different IP in an eSports event. So the very basic thing is that everyone that is part of this eSports environment needs to have clear and specific understanding of the conditions on especially the commercial activities that they undertake in eSports, be it for example, a content creator, be a tournament organizer or even a sponsor and brands. So for players. It’s very important to understand that the fact that they acquire a license to play the video game as a consumer, as a user, does not mean that they can undertake a lot of different acts within the eSports activity. And they need to make sure that when they go beyond playing the video game in their private environment, that they understand the acts that they are doing from an IP perspective and even from a business perspective, right? So if they, for example, associate themselves and stream and have a sponsorship over their activities, that might trigger conditions that they are not allowed to undertake without the authorization of the publisher or the video game company. So this is very important as the number of content creators related to eSports and video games in general is growing significantly, especially around the world. And also the importance of the commercial significance of those activities are also growing as the fan base continues to expand. And of course, sponsors and brands also like to jump in the opportunity to communicate to this fan base that are highly involved in the eSports. So with the growth of eSports, a number of team organizations and tournament organizers are involved and also protecting the IP and managing the IP around eSports. Some of those activities are authorized by the video game publishers. And he said he mentioned that it varies according to the publisher, to the right owner, and also to the territory. to the video game and even to the type of activity. Some of those activities, especially if they have a community aspect and with lower commercial significance, they are actually allowed, and that is made clear in the website of the publisher, where they say the conditions where the organization of the tournament is already allowed with all the need to ask for further authorization. So those small tournaments are mostly allowed, and if someone is organizing a tournament, they need to seek and understand those conditions in order to apply in practice. In other conditions, there is a way to seek that authorization, and there are preconditions to facilitate the authorization from a publisher. So certainly, we see that a number of video game publishers and the right owners, of course, would like to foster the development of eSports around the world, and in some cases, it’s quite straightforward for stakeholders to actually obtain and ensure that they are following and respecting the IP rights of the video game publishers, with the conditions being very clear in terms of participation, in price, in broadcasting, streaming, and in the type of sponsorship that the tournament organizer might have. So this is also important for those stakeholders that engage into commercial relationship with sponsors or brands in order to avoid infringement that can actually bring a damage either to the team, the player, and the other tournament organizer in case there is a lack of… for example, for the cancellation of a tournament or for an IP infringement on the part of one of those stakeholders. Having said that, being protected by IP rights that are owned by those that created the video game, there’s a number of relationships between the different stakeholders of the eSports environment, from the publisher to the developer that created and maintained, for example, the servers of the video game, to the players, teams, tournament organizers, sponsors, brands. And they all have, of course, entered into contractual relationships in order to enable this exploitation of the different business models in the eSports. For example, in entering or fostering different business models such as sponsoring and advertising, and this could be a number of different sponsorships, from sponsorship to the tournaments, sponsorship to teams, private and personal sponsorships to players and so on. You also have, of course, the possibility of merchandising, the broadcasting and streaming, and cases where there is agreement related to data involved in the eSports. And as I mentioned, depending on the conditions of those agreements and the characteristics of the business models or how the video game is being used in that business model, either the IP of the video game is not used or used according to one of those licenses that are pre-approved by the publisher, or the right owner of that IP need of course to authorize the exploitation of their IP rights, some of the exploitation of their IP rights, establishing of course the conditions and here the typical conditions in IP contracts such as the territory, the time, another type of conditions such as remuneration and so on will need to remain clear for those involved in the exploitation and authorization of those IP rights. And again as esports become more and more relevant around the world, especially with different activities and tournaments being created and expanded, it’s important that everybody involved in the esports understands the consequences, the importance and also how to manage the IP in order to successfully exploit the esports activity and that’s why we’re at WIPO with a partnership with the Video Game Europe who are looking to make it clear for example for players and tournament organizers on how to manage that IP in a successful way to foster business models and to foster the continuation of the expansion of esports around the world. So in terms of players managing the IP, there are a number of key issues for example to understand the content ownership and licensing, the issues of monetization and revenue sharing for example, the cases of foreign art and game modifications and of course understanding when it is an authorized use of material protected by copyright from the video game and the cases of trademark infringement that is of course very much important for brands and sponsors. And from the perspective of tournament organizers A number of key elements that are important for them related to IP is, of course, to secure the license to use the video game in the way that they had foreseen in the tournament, to develop a proactive IP strategy, not to, of course, have last minute problems because they did not obtain the authorization for the type of uses they foreseen, to have contracts in place and, of course, by the time all those stakeholders beyond the video game publisher also protect the IP, become right owners of IP, of course they also start to have an interest in protecting the IP and enforcing to avoid that other stakeholders use the IP without the authorization. For example, a tournament organizer might have the interest to control the trademark of the name of the tournament to avoid that third parties, for example, associate themselves with the tournament without being true. So those two stakeholders, the teams and players and the tournament organizer will certainly benefit from the upcoming publication that we are finalizing between WIPO and Video Game Europe. I hope all of you have access to that in the near future and, of course, I’m available for any question you might have. Back to you, Alexia.

Alexia Gkoritsa: Thank you, Rafael. So I will take the next few minutes to talk about, as you may have seen in the schedule, how we can prepare for disputes in games and the sport sector in general and how we can resolve them better. I will continue along the same vein as Rafael and I will mention some tools also that WIPO makes available for stakeholders to use. But let me start with a quick observation. I mean, all the speakers have mentioned so far. along several lines that we’re talking here about an industry that moves fast, faster than most really, an industry that nowadays is almost 100% digital and it’s deeply collaborative. So let me add to that, that we’re also talking about an industry where conflicts are inevitable. Now, in many industries, when there is a dispute, the first instinct is to go to court. But in games and e-sports competitions in particular, this is not always the best option and often it is not a realistic option for reasons that have already been mentioned so far, let me add. So there are a few reasons for that. We have discussed quite extensively that this is a global industry. So studios, platforms, players and organizers often work across borders or even fully online as Daniel mentioned. So that creates confusion over which country’s courts will have jurisdiction or even on which law applies. We can have, let’s say, a developer in Tokyo, a publisher in LA, a player in Germany, a tournament which took place fully online. So the question arises, where would you even file a claim in the case that there is a dispute? Second, court proceedings take time. So in most jurisdictions, they can last for years. And by the time a judgment is issued, the game or the competition in that case might already be in its next season or no longer relevant. Moreover, courts may not always have the specialized knowledge. So we may encounter judges in jurisdictions that do not fully understand the technical or commercial realities of the industry. about which the previous speakers have already talked. And finally, litigation is often costly. So for indie studios, for example, or mid-sized tournament organizers, or even individual streamers or players, pursuing a claim in court may not be a viable option at all. So in short, litigation, it can be slow, sometimes too expensive, other times too complex, or too rigid even for what the sector needs. And this is where alternative dispute resolution or ADR may come in as a more realistic option. I mentioned already in the beginning that I work with arbitration and mediation center of WIPO. So here we have worked for quite a few years, for almost 30 years now, on resolving IP and tech related disputes through ADR. ADR may encompass a variety of methods. So we talk about mediation, arbitration, expert determination. I will not delve into the specifics of its procedure. Suffice to say here that we have also noticed with these years of experience that games and esports in particular bring unique challenges. And this is why we identified the need for tools that are even more specialized. And this is where a new tool comes in that is called the International Games and Esports Tribunal or IGET. So IGET is a relatively infant initiative by the joint initiative by WIPO and the Esports Integrity Commission or ESIC. It’s a sector-specific ADR framework that we created following also consultations with stakeholders from across the… industry. So contrary to what I mentioned a few minutes ago about court litigation and contrary to what applies on ADR in general, if I may say, there are some things that make IGIT different and perhaps a bit more suitable for disputes that may arise here. So first of all we have put together a specific rule set which draws inspiration to a great extent from the WIPO ADR rules that have been in place for a couple of years but adapted specifically for games and esports. So we have tried to reflect there the realities of digital content, licensing models, cross-borders activities and platform-based ecosystems in particular. Moreover the cases that are brought for resolution before IGIT are handled by neutrals with knowledge of the sector, so we have put together a list of arbitrators, of mediators and experts which have been selected not only by virtue of their legal skills but also based on their industry-specific expertise. The proceedings are also confidential to a great extent which may matter a lot as you understand in an industry where the reputational risks are quite high and they are also flexible in the sense that based on what the parties tell us we can have fast-tracked proceedings, proceedings that take place fully online and in general proceedings that are adapted a little bit too much the scale of the dispute and the subject matter at hand. Moreover we have tried to put together the proceedings in the way that are cost-effective and accessible, I mean I mentioned already that this is a not-for-profit initiative and the costs are usually scaled based on the nature of the dispute and the value of the subject matter that is brought for resolution. We try to encourage the conduct of the proceedings fully online especially when parties come from all over the world and that encompasses the filing of the case to the hearings to the resolution which is also another factor that can keep the barriers quite low and lastly and maybe most importantly if I may say the IGET offers a forum that is neutral and international and also avoids to some extent the risks and the uncertainties even of going to court in foreign jurisdictions. Now that in terms of the proceedings in terms of subject matter we have tried to design a forum that will be able to handle basically all types of disputes that may arise in the industry so we talk of course about IP related disputes such as the ones Raphael talked about and the previous speakers including copyright, licensing, trademarks, characters etc etc. Classical commercial issues such as revenue sharing, merchandising or sponsorships. Contractual disputes and here we see quite a few disputes which involve players and teams or players and tournament organizers. Platform related issues also such as issues pertaining to streaming or takedowns, content removal etc etc and what we characterize are strict sense of competitive or integrity related issues where we have leveraged quite a lot the experience that the Esports Integrity Commission brought to the table because we as the part of WIPO at the EMC, as you understand, brought the biggest chunk of expertise when it comes to IP and commercial issues. So to circle a bit back and to wrap up what I wanted to say, I mean you saw in the title of my presentation that we talked about preparing for the resolution of these features as well. So in all honesty, I mean you understand already by the multiplicity of stakeholders involved that this will happen and that is also part of doing business, not only in the esports field but in general. But if we are smart about preparation, we can make sure that they are handled quickly, fairly and with the right expertise. So my first advice is simple, that preparation is key. Stakeholders need not wait for a conflict to appear before thinking about the resolution. Being proactive, using clear contracts which include clear dispute resolution clauses and in particular clear ADR clauses is key. Dispute resolution clauses that will specify where the disputes will be resolved, under what rules, in what language. To that end, for example, we as WIPO-EMC but also IGET provide model clauses that the users can easily adapt. It’s also important for stakeholders to know their options. I mean I spoke quite a bit about ADR in general and IGET in particular, but it is important for stakeholders to be aware of these options and in that sense being able to choose the process that makes more sense. For example, when it comes to ADR, mediation can be great for preserving relationships and reaching a more… amicable resolution, while arbitration can be more akin to court litigation and provide the final or binding decision when needed. So all in all, planning early saves time, it can protect relationships and help projects move forward when there is a disagreement. And that was all on my side. So thank you very much. Looking forward for your questions later on, and I will give the floor back to Richard.

Richard Frelick: Thank you so much, Alexia, and thank you so much, of course, Rafael. This is the moment we promised to open the floor up also to questions from the audience, both the ones here, both here and with us, as well as those joining online. I’m first having a look at the room here. If there are any raised hands, there is someone coming up over to the mic.

Audience: Hi, my name is Kenneth, and I’ve previously was with a media and entertainment conglomerate focusing on public policy and government affairs. But I wanted to ask my question as someone who observed eSports tournament and catch streamers’ live stream. So one of the most common complaints that stands out to me most during their live stream is lamenting about how they couldn’t use their copyrighted music, they couldn’t use all those tools, et cetera, because their video will get demonetized when they upload to certain platforms or do the live stream. So my question is, how can the eSports ecosystem or the IP community help elevate each other so that the entire ecosystem are more aware about the value of the copyright or intellectual property, because IP is sort of interlinked. So I guess it’s also important for them to understand. how limiting one part of the intellectual property could eventually impact, let’s say, the income, and especially when, especially eSport players might not be there for creation. They just want to have fun or have some economic value. So this mindset going into sort of creation might be different from what we have been looking at for artists or authors. So I would love to have your take on how to increase their awareness, especially when they have such a global reach and their global reach to young audiences. And when the young people grow up, hear about all those complaints and lamenting about copyrights, I don’t think it’s a good development and prospect for the IP community. So I would love to have your take on that.

Sergi Mesonero: I don’t know if this question also connects a bit with the one that we had online. Don’t you think so?

Richard Frelick: Yes, and I can read the question which you also already received online. So EULAs and user license agreements are treated as licenses imposing restrictions on various aspects of the game. These restrictions might not always relate directly to the game’s underlining IP, but can include things like requiring permission to upload gameplay video, even if the footage is the player’s own, or to organize tournaments. Can these restrictions be considered void, given that EULAs are usually written in a way that an average player would love to have constructive knowledge of the restrictions imposed on them?

Sergi Mesonero: So I will start with this final one, which probably I cannot answer because I’m not an IP lawyer. Maybe I don’t know if Daniel will be brave enough, because it’s a very, very highly, highly technical. But from a practical point of view, actually, there’s not an issue. Because, as I’ve mentioned before, for the most part, And I would say it’s practically universal. Video game companies will allow the use of the game for broadcast reasons and for free online streaming reasons and for community tournaments for free and automatically. You will only face a problem, basically, if you are simplifying. But basically, if you are commercializing that, and if you are commercializing that, I’m sorry, but you are not just an individual player that is just having fun. You are planning to have like you’re basically acting as a business. And on the other hand, if you are doing something that is basically catastrophically bad, like, I don’t know, like using, for example, adult content together with the game, even in that case, it will not apply. It will not directly involve the video game company. It will involve mostly the streaming service. So the question is, I think, from a point of view of a theoretical, very interesting. But currently, it has very limited practical implications because the players are allowed to do all that, and they are not seeing any issue. And answering to the in-person question here, I think that the situation has changed a lot in the previous 10, 15 years. I think that there’s more literacy right now among players, and especially the top tier on the topic of intellectual property. As our colleague Rafael from WIPO has mentioned, together with us, with Video Games Europe, we are helping with the publication of a guide. for players and tournament organizers, which of course it’s aimed mostly to the either the non-commercial or the more community-based or to those that are, let’s say, starting a business more than to the elite and to the professional, to the professional tier. So, wrapping up, I think that what I would say is that the sector has adapted quite well to a situation where there’s a highly engaged community that just wants to share their passion for that, for those games, and that does not, and does not feel, I mean, all those licenses, all those issues are actually transparent for them. The issues come when you are trying to commerce, mostly when you are trying to make a business out of it.

Daniel Zohny: And maybe adding to that, and I fully agree, we also, in my practice, we don’t see a lot of issues when people come and ask, what can we do, right? And then you look into the restrictions that maybe publishers put on their games, it’s always about commercialization. It’s never, or ethics, right, or inappropriate behavior. Otherwise, the publishers are aware, you’re the customer, you’re the fan, right? They want to push that, and they also know that you’re disseminating their games, you know, you’re making them more popular. And driving their profit, or their community. However, I think there’s this weird interaction where a lot of people online will complain about, oh, my stream got shut down for one reason or another. Oh, I only used something that might be protected by IP, and suddenly it got taken offline. But people should also be aware, why are you doing it? A lot of them are trying to commercialize. So they have to be aware of IP and the restrictions, because on the flip side, they would use the same rules. reasoning once their business takes off. So there is an interaction between the two. And sometimes, but it can be unfortunate when really people are trying just to have fun that through automated processes, some, you know, IP protection kicks in and just shuts things down that happens. But, you know, there has to be found the right balance, I guess.

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez: I see that Rafael also raised his hand over to you for a moment. Thanks, Richard, just along the same lines of Sadi and Daniel mentioned. And I just wanted to to thank both questions. I think they’re very interesting regarding the question in the chat. I just when when he mentioned that the end user license agreements restrict some issues that are not really related to to IP. I think it’s quite the opposite. When we talk about organizing events and streaming, that is very much related to the IP in the game. So tournament organizers will, of course, want to associate themselves with the video game by using the trademark, by using the characters, by using all the images and art created for the video game, and that is protected by IP, either by trademark, either by copyright, either by other means. So you know, someone undertakes that they are using the IP in the in the video game. And same as broadcasting or streaming the gameplay of the video game, even if it is tolerated in many occasions, as Sadi and Daniel mentioned, is still the use of the IP on the video game. Right. In the same way that broadcasting a movie or broadcasting a TV show, it’s using the IP over that movie or that video show. So it’s very much related to the IP. And I think what is clear and what is mentioned in the licenses for user when you. purchase a license to play is that what you authorize does not include those activities, but it is very much linked to the IP. And related to the question from the gentleman in there, in the venue, I think it’s the same question we came up with, how can we make clear the role and how to better use IP in esports to avoid the pitfalls, for example, for a content creator to have the content demonetized, or for a player to not longer to be able to compete professionally because of an IP infringement, for a tournament organizer to avoid any problem in organizing the events or making agreements with sponsorships and brands. And we hope we’re gonna provide at least a partial answer, a partial solution, if not a full solution to that need to bring IP into discussion for the esports community.

Richard Frelick: Thanks, Rafael. Daniel, I’m sorry, I would love to give you the voice, but I’m very aware of that red clock going almost over time. So before finishing, just let me also underline that one important part always for us in WIPO is that we make sure that everyone everywhere is aware of how they can benefit from intellectual property. And that means also the small game developers from every corner of the world who are developing esports titles. This is the players from all corners of the world who are creating their brands and they all can and should be very much benefiting from the intellectual property system. So aside from the upcoming guide, we have also a lot of materials that are available from WIPO and we are trying to empower those small developers, the beginning players who don’t yet have the knowledge on how to protect their brands, how to protect their images. This is something, the materials there, you have the links as well. So I’m putting up that on the on the screen. And with that, we are past the time, it’s 00.00, I’m having the signs being shown. So just let me end by, first of all, thanking my panellists here who have joined us, and of course thanking also my colleagues from WIPO who have also joined us online. Let me just end by emphasising and underlining that in WIPO we really continue to provide initiatives that will help all the innovators, all the creators, all the entrepreneurs in eSports and beyond. And we look forward to working with all our partners from across the world, from across the industries, to make sure that also everyone, everywhere can benefit from IP. Thank you for your participation and looking forward to some coffees. Thanks. Thank you.

Agreement points

IP is fundamental to the esports ecosystem

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Richard Frelick
– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Video games are fundamentally protected by IP and esports are based on public use of IP-protected works

Video games contain a multiverse of IP from music and voice acting to code, character design, and storytelling

Developers and publishers own the core IP including software, graphics, and game elements

Streaming and tournament organization involve using protected IP elements like trademarks and copyrighted content

Summary

All speakers agree that intellectual property forms the foundational basis of esports, with video games being complex IP-protected works that enable the entire ecosystem

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Different licensing requirements exist for community versus commercial activities

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Community tournaments often have automatic licenses with basic conditions, while commercial tournaments require negotiated contracts

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Players must understand that consumer licenses don’t automatically permit commercial esports activities

Summary

There is consensus that video game companies generally allow community and casual use while requiring explicit permissions for commercial exploitation

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Need for better IP education and awareness in esports

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez
– Audience

Arguments

There’s increased IP literacy among top-tier players compared to 10-15 years ago

WIPO and Video Games Europe are developing educational guides for players and tournament organizers

The esports ecosystem should work together to increase IP awareness, especially given streamers’ global reach to young audiences

Summary

All parties recognize the importance of improving IP education and awareness within the esports community, with collaborative efforts underway to address this need

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that from a practical perspective, video game publishers are generally permissive of non-commercial use and community activities, with restrictions primarily targeting commercial exploitation

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny

Arguments

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Both speakers recognize that teams and players have become sophisticated IP owners who need proper contractual frameworks to manage their relationships with other stakeholders

Speakers

– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Teams and players have evolved into IP powerhouses, protecting their brands through trademarks for commercialization

Clear contractual relationships are essential between publishers, developers, players, teams, and sponsors

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Both speakers emphasize the importance of proactive planning and preparation in managing IP and potential disputes, rather than reactive approaches

Speakers

– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez
– Alexia Gkoritsa

Arguments

Tournament organizers need proactive IP strategies and proper licensing to avoid last-minute problems

Proactive preparation with clear dispute resolution clauses in contracts is essential for stakeholders

Topics

Intellectual property rights | Alternative dispute resolution

Unexpected consensus

Practical permissiveness of video game publishers toward community use

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Players must understand that consumer licenses don’t automatically permit commercial esports activities

Explanation

Despite the complex legal framework around IP rights, there is unexpected consensus that publishers are quite permissive in practice for non-commercial activities. This contradicts common perceptions about restrictive IP enforcement and shows industry pragmatism in balancing rights protection with community building

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Integration of player and team IP into video games themselves

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny

Arguments

Team brands are being integrated into games through cosmetic items and branded skins for fans

Professional player likenesses are being incorporated into games, as seen with Faker in League of Legends

Teams and players have evolved into IP powerhouses, protecting their brands through trademarks for commercialization

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus on the emerging trend of reverse IP integration, where player and team brands are being incorporated back into the original games. This represents a unique circular relationship in IP usage that doesn’t exist in traditional sports

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the fundamental role of IP in esports, the practical approach of publishers toward community versus commercial use, the evolution of players and teams as IP owners, and the need for better education and proactive management of IP rights

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary expertise. The agreement spans both theoretical understanding and practical implementation, suggesting a mature and collaborative approach to IP management in esports. This consensus indicates the industry has developed shared best practices and understanding, which bodes well for continued growth and professionalization of the esports ecosystem

Different viewpoints

Legal validity of EULA restrictions

Speakers

– Audience
– Sergi Mesonero
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

EULAs may contain restrictions unrelated to underlying IP that could be considered void due to lack of constructive knowledge by average players

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Streaming and tournament organization involve using protected IP elements like trademarks and copyrighted content

Summary

The audience member questioned whether EULA restrictions might be legally void due to players’ lack of understanding, while Sergi argued this has limited practical implications since companies allow most activities, and Rafael maintained that these restrictions are directly related to IP usage and are legitimate.

Topics

Intellectual property rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Practical impact of IP restrictions on content creators

Speakers

– Audience
– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny

Arguments

Content creators and streamers face copyright restrictions that limit their ability to use music and other copyrighted materials, leading to demonetization

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because it revealed a gap between the industry perspective (that IP restrictions are minimal and practical) and the content creator experience (frequent demonetization and restrictions). The industry representatives viewed current policies as accommodating, while the audience member highlighted ongoing practical problems that affect the community’s perception of IP rights.

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed minimal direct disagreements among the main speakers, who largely aligned on the importance of IP in esports and the need for education. The primary tensions emerged between audience concerns about practical IP restrictions affecting content creators and the industry representatives’ view that current policies are generally accommodating.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The main speakers (industry representatives and WIPO officials) showed strong consensus on core issues, while audience questions revealed some disconnect between industry policies and content creator experiences. This suggests the need for better communication and education rather than fundamental policy disagreements, though it highlights important practical challenges in IP implementation within the esports ecosystem.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that from a practical perspective, video game publishers are generally permissive of non-commercial use and community activities, with restrictions primarily targeting commercial exploitation

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny

Arguments

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Both speakers recognize that teams and players have become sophisticated IP owners who need proper contractual frameworks to manage their relationships with other stakeholders

Speakers

– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Teams and players have evolved into IP powerhouses, protecting their brands through trademarks for commercialization

Clear contractual relationships are essential between publishers, developers, players, teams, and sponsors

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Both speakers emphasize the importance of proactive planning and preparation in managing IP and potential disputes, rather than reactive approaches

Speakers

– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez
– Alexia Gkoritsa

Arguments

Tournament organizers need proactive IP strategies and proper licensing to avoid last-minute problems

Proactive preparation with clear dispute resolution clauses in contracts is essential for stakeholders

Topics

Intellectual property rights | Alternative dispute resolution

Key takeaways

IP is fundamental to esports, with video games representing a multiverse of protected intellectual property that enables the entire ecosystem

The esports ecosystem involves multiple IP stakeholders including developers/publishers, tournament organizers, teams, and players, each with distinct IP ownership and licensing needs

Tournament organizers require explicit or tacit permission from game publishers, with licensing requirements varying by company, game, territory, and commercial scope

Traditional court litigation is often unsuitable for esports disputes due to the global, fast-moving, and specialized nature of the industry

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like IGET (International Games and Esports Tribunal) provide more appropriate sector-specific solutions

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation rather than casual gameplay sharing or community activities

There is growing integration of team and player IP directly into video games through cosmetic items and character likenesses

Proactive IP management and clear contractual relationships are essential for all stakeholders in the esports ecosystem

Resolutions and action items

WIPO and Video Games Europe are finalizing a publication/guide for players and tournament organizers on IP management

WIPO will continue providing educational materials and tools to help small developers and players understand IP protection

Stakeholders should use clear contracts with dispute resolution clauses and consider ADR options like IGET

Tournament organizers need to develop proactive IP strategies and secure proper licensing before events

Unresolved issues

The technical legal question about whether EULA restrictions unrelated to core IP can be considered void due to lack of constructive knowledge by average players

How to achieve the right balance between automated IP protection systems and allowing legitimate non-commercial use

Specific implementation details for the upcoming WIPO-Video Games Europe educational guide

Standardization challenges given that licensing requirements vary significantly by company, game, and territory

Suggested compromises

Video game companies generally allow automatic licenses for community tournaments and streaming with basic conditions while requiring explicit licensing for major commercial activities

Publishers balance IP protection with community building by being transparent about what uses are automatically permitted versus requiring authorization

The esports industry can address IP awareness issues through education rather than restrictive enforcement, focusing on commercial rather than casual use cases

In contrast with sport, where the rules of sports are owned by no one, they are a collective creation… the rules of eSports for the most part are part of the intellectual property… The playing field. It’s an artistic creation the map where the players are competing… So you can imagine that through IP you also control the rules of the game, which is a very specific thing

Speaker

Sergi Mesonero

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it identifies a fundamental structural difference between traditional sports and esports that has profound implications for the entire ecosystem. By highlighting that esports rules are IP-protected rather than collectively owned, Sergi reveals how this creates unique power dynamics and control mechanisms that don’t exist in traditional sports.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from viewing esports as simply ‘sports with video games’ to understanding it as a fundamentally different category with unique IP implications. It provided the conceptual foundation for understanding why licensing, permissions, and IP management are so critical in esports, influencing how subsequent speakers framed their discussions about licensing requirements and stakeholder relationships.

We are seeing lately even something that I find quite fascinating… how teams and players IP is even introduced inside the games… how can you buy Faker inside the video game as a skin. So this is something that I find that it’s very unique of the esports ecosystem.

Speaker

Sergi Mesonero

Reason

This observation is thought-provoking because it identifies an emerging trend that represents a new form of IP convergence – where player/team brands become integrated into the very games they compete in. This creates a recursive relationship between the game IP and player IP that doesn’t exist in traditional sports.

Impact

This comment introduced a new dimension to the discussion about IP ownership and monetization, showing how the esports ecosystem is evolving beyond traditional sponsorship models. It demonstrated the innovative ways IP can be leveraged and cross-pollinated within the ecosystem, adding complexity to the revenue models discussion.

Court proceedings take time… by the time a judgment is issued, the game or the competition in that case might already be in its next season or no longer relevant. Moreover, courts may not always have the specialized knowledge… judges in jurisdictions that do not fully understand the technical or commercial realities of the industry.

Speaker

Alexia Gkoritsa

Reason

This comment is insightful because it identifies the fundamental mismatch between traditional legal systems and the fast-paced, digital nature of esports. It highlights how the speed and technical complexity of the industry creates unique challenges that require specialized solutions.

Impact

This observation provided the logical foundation for introducing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like IGET. It shifted the conversation from theoretical IP discussions to practical implementation challenges, leading directly to the presentation of sector-specific solutions and demonstrating why traditional legal approaches may be inadequate for this industry.

When we talk about organizing events and streaming, that is very much related to the IP in the game… even if it is tolerated in many occasions… is still the use of the IP on the video game. Right. In the same way that broadcasting a movie or broadcasting a TV show, it’s using the IP over that movie or that video show.

Speaker

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it reframes streaming and tournament organization as fundamentally IP-based activities, challenging the common perception that these are separate from IP concerns. The analogy to movie broadcasting makes the IP implications clear and accessible.

Impact

This clarification directly addressed audience confusion about why EULAs restrict seemingly non-IP activities. It provided conceptual clarity that helped bridge the gap between technical IP law and practical esports activities, reinforcing the central theme that IP is at the heart of all esports activities, not just game development.

The fact that they acquire a license to play the video game as a consumer, as a user, does not mean that they can undertake a lot of different acts within the eSports activity… if they associate themselves and stream and have a sponsorship over their activities, that might trigger conditions that they are not allowed to undertake without the authorization of the publisher

Speaker

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Reason

This comment is insightful because it distinguishes between personal use and commercial exploitation, highlighting how the transition from casual player to content creator/professional involves crossing important legal boundaries that many participants may not recognize.

Impact

This observation helped explain the practical implications of IP licensing for individual players and content creators, providing context for audience questions about streaming restrictions and demonetization. It clarified why seemingly simple activities like streaming can become complex IP issues when commercialization is involved.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing esports as a unique IP ecosystem rather than simply traditional sports conducted digitally. Sergi’s insights about rule ownership and IP convergence provided the conceptual framework that distinguished esports from traditional sports, while Alexia’s observations about legal system inadequacies justified the need for specialized solutions. Rafael’s clarifications about the IP nature of streaming and the distinction between personal and commercial use provided practical grounding that connected abstract IP concepts to real-world esports activities. Together, these comments created a progression from theoretical understanding to practical application, culminating in the presentation of specialized tools like IGET. The discussion evolved from basic IP education to sophisticated analysis of emerging trends and practical solutions, largely driven by these pivotal observations that challenged conventional thinking and introduced new perspectives on the intersection of IP law and esports.

Can EULA restrictions that don’t directly relate to a game’s underlying IP (like requiring permission to upload gameplay videos) be considered void given that average players lack constructive knowledge of these restrictions?

Speaker

Online participant

Explanation

This raises important legal questions about the enforceability of complex licensing agreements and whether restrictions beyond core IP rights are valid when users cannot reasonably understand them

How can the esports ecosystem and IP community better educate stakeholders about the value of copyright and intellectual property to reduce complaints about content restrictions?

Speaker

Kenneth (audience member)

Explanation

This addresses a fundamental challenge in building IP literacy within the esports community, particularly among content creators who may not understand the business rationale behind IP protections

How can licensing policies be standardized across different companies, games, and territories to reduce complexity for tournament organizers?

Speaker

Implied from Sergi Mesonero’s discussion

Explanation

The current landscape where every company may have different policies for different games in different territories creates navigation challenges that could benefit from standardization efforts

What are the long-term implications of young audiences hearing constant complaints about copyright restrictions on their future relationship with IP rights?

Speaker

Kenneth (audience member)

Explanation

This touches on generational attitudes toward IP and whether current friction points might undermine respect for intellectual property rights among future creators and consumers

How can automated content protection systems be improved to better distinguish between commercial and non-commercial use?

Speaker

Implied from Daniel Zohny’s response

Explanation

Current automated systems sometimes inappropriately flag non-commercial content, suggesting a need for more sophisticated detection mechanisms that consider context and intent

Summary

This discussion focused on protecting the personal integrity of minors in digital environments, presented by Lea Peters from ECPAT Germany and Michael Terhorst from Germany’s Federal Office for the Enforcement of Children’s Rights and Digital Services (KIT). Peters defined personal integrity as the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles, emphasizing how digital environments significantly influence its development in children and youth. She presented alarming statistics showing that over 300 million children globally have been affected by online sexual exploitation and abuse in the past year, with one in eight children experiencing online solicitation or non-consensual sharing of sexual content.

The speakers highlighted that exposure to such content can desensitize children and negatively impact their personal integrity development. Rather than supporting social media bans for minors, they advocated for creating safer digital spaces that respect children’s right to participation. Terhorst explained Germany’s three-step enforcement approach under the Digital Services Act: analyzing platform functionalities, identifying associated risks, and checking existing precautionary measures. Their “dialogic regulation” method involves collaborating with platforms to implement solutions rather than immediately imposing penalties.

Key protective measures discussed included secure default settings, age assurance mechanisms, restricted contact functionalities, and improved moderation systems. The speakers emphasized that effective protection requires combining multiple measures tailored to specific age groups and platforms. They acknowledged challenges in age verification technology and the need for upcoming EU guidelines to strengthen enforcement. The discussion concluded with audience questions about platform cooperation, regulatory challenges in different countries, and ensuring that protective measures don’t inadvertently restrict access to legitimate educational content.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Definition and importance of personal integrity for minors online** – Lea Peters explained personal integrity as being honest and having strong moral principles, emphasizing how digital environments significantly impact its development in children and youth, with German legislators now including it as a protection goal in child and youth media law.

– **Scale and impact of online child sexual exploitation** – The speakers presented alarming statistics showing over 300 million children globally affected by online sexual abuse and exploitation in the last 12 months, with one in eight children experiencing online solicitation or non-consensual sharing of sexual content.

– **Regulatory enforcement approach through dialogic regulation** – Michael Terhorst described Germany’s three-step enforcement process under the Digital Services Act: analyzing platform functionalities, identifying associated risks, and checking existing precautionary measures, followed by collaborative dialogue with providers rather than immediate penalties.

– **Technical safeguarding measures and age assurance challenges** – Discussion of specific protective measures including secure default settings, contact restrictions, content moderation, and the complex challenge of implementing effective age verification systems that balance privacy, functionality, and user-friendliness.

– **Platform cooperation and global enforcement challenges** – The speakers addressed varying levels of cooperation from different platforms, with smaller platforms often more willing to comply, while noting significant challenges in enforcing regulations on platforms outside the EU and the revenue conflicts that arise when companies profit from harmful content.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to educate attendees about protecting minors’ personal integrity in digital environments, presenting both the scope of online risks facing children and the regulatory approaches being implemented in Germany to create safer online spaces through collaborative enforcement of the Digital Services Act.

**Overall Tone:**

The discussion maintained a professional, informative tone throughout, with speakers presenting serious statistics and challenges in a measured way. The tone remained collaborative and solution-focused, particularly when discussing the “dialogic regulation” approach. During the Q&A session, the tone became more conversational and supportive, with speakers offering practical advice and acknowledging the complexities faced by different stakeholders in various global contexts.

Speakers

– **Lea Peters**: Policy Specialist for Digital Child Protection at ECPAT Germany. ECPAT Germany is a children’s rights organization working for the protection of minors from sexualized violence, exploitation and human trafficking.

– **Michael Terhorst**: Head of the Federal Office for the Enforcement of Children’s Rights and Digital Services (KIT). Responsible in Germany for enforcing precautionary measures related to the Digital Services Act, especially Article 28.

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members who asked questions during the discussion. Specific roles/expertise not mentioned, though one identified as working for an NGO called SEED in Kurdistan, Iraq, leading a project on online child safety, and another identified as a digital native.

Additional speakers:

None – all speakers in the transcript were included in the provided speakers names list.

# Protecting Personal Integrity of Minors in Digital Environments: Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This discussion focused on protecting minors’ personal integrity in digital environments, featuring two German stakeholders in child protection policy. Lea Peters, Policy Specialist for Digital Child Protection at ECPAT Germany, provided the advocacy perspective, while Michael Terhorst, Head of the Federal Office for the Enforcement of Children’s Rights and Digital Services (KIT), discussed Germany’s regulatory enforcement approach under the Digital Services Act, particularly Article 28.

## Defining Personal Integrity in Digital Contexts

Peters opened by defining personal integrity as “the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.” She emphasized that “Personal integrity though is nothing you are just born with or that’s being formed in a vacuum. It is influenced by our family, our social circle, the culture we grew up in and the experiences we make. Digital environments and technology have become an integral part of our lives. It is nowadays a huge factor in the development of personal integrity.”

Peters noted that German legislators have incorporated the personal integrity of children and youth as a protection goal in child and youth media law, reflecting a shift from merely preventing harm to actively fostering positive character development.

## The Scale of Online Child Sexual Exploitation

Peters presented concerning statistics: over 300 million children globally have been affected by online child sexual abuse and exploitation within the past 12 months, with one in eight children globally subjected to online solicitation and non-consensual sharing of sexual images during the same period. She noted that 84% of these incidents are outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

Peters observed that police statistics show the average age of offenders is becoming younger, and every case now has a digital component. This digital dimension creates challenges for personal integrity development, as exposure to sexualized violence online can desensitize children and negatively impact their moral development.

## Germany’s Dialogic Regulation Approach

Terhorst introduced “dialogic regulation,” a departure from traditional punitive enforcement models. Rather than immediately imposing penalties, KIT employs a three-step analytical process followed by collaborative engagement with providers.

“So our idea is we have something called dialogic regulation,” Terhorst explained. “So we don’t just, yeah, send a letter saying, okay, you have to, I don’t know, pay €5 million because your platform isn’t safe. We get in touch with the provider and say, okay, we found some deficits on your platform.”

The three-step analysis involves examining platform functionalities, identifying risks for minors, and checking existing precautionary measures. Terhorst noted that “The providers don’t have to take those specific ideas. We present them. They can do something on their own. As long as it works, we’re good.”

KIT has opened between 30 and 40 cases in Germany so far. Terhorst observed that smaller platforms often actively seek guidance, while larger platforms typically wait for official guidelines before implementing changes.

## Technical Safeguards and Age Assurance Challenges

Terhorst emphasized that effective protection requires multiple precautionary measures including secure default settings, age assurance mechanisms, restricted contact functionalities, and improved moderation systems.

Age assurance emerged as a particularly complex challenge. Terhorst illustrated this with an example: “when you have a name like Butterfly13, you don’t know if Butterfly13 is a 13-year-old girl or a 46-year-old man. So that just doesn’t make it easier.”

Current technology faces significant limitations. The EU’s planned digital identity wallet systems, including the “mini wallet” and “UDI wallet” planned for autumn 2026, will initially only verify users as 18 or older, lacking the granular age verification necessary for tailored safety measures for different minor age groups.

## Platform Cooperation and Transparency Challenges

Peters highlighted the need for greater transparency in algorithmic processes and meaningful participation from civil society organizations in developing safety measures. She mentioned that consultation feedback indicated “there wasn’t enough emphasis on transparency and including civil society organizations.”

Terhorst noted varying levels of engagement from different platforms, with smaller platforms showing more willingness to comply and seek guidance compared to larger platforms. He acknowledged that regulatory authorities face significant limitations when dealing with platforms operating outside the EU.

## Economic Dimensions and Implementation Challenges

During the audience discussion, Michael, an NGO worker from Kurdistan, Iraq, raised concerns about economic incentives that perpetuate harmful content online. He noted that tech companies derive substantial revenue from harmful sites, citing Ethiopia as an example where such sites generate 6% of tech company revenues. “These tech companies, they get their revenue, most of their revenues from these sites,” he explained. “So it also affects the government because these tech companies are paying taxes to the government, right?”

Peters responded by suggesting that economic arguments could be reframed for advocacy purposes, recommending studies that demonstrate the negative economic impact of sexualized violence on national economies, noting that “people who suffer from, for example, PTSD, they often have difficulties in participating 100% later on in their professional life.”

## Balancing Protection with Rights and Access

An audience member identifying as a digital native raised concerns about potential overreach in safety measures, particularly regarding access to sex education and support for LGBTQI+ communities. Peters acknowledged these concerns while emphasizing that Germany’s legal foundations help prevent discriminatory implementation of protective measures.

## Planned Actions and Follow-Up

The EU Commission guidelines for Article 28 of the Digital Services Act are expected to be published within weeks. KIT will continue its three-step analysis process for ongoing platform cases. A specific follow-up discussion was planned between the presenters and the Iraqi participant to share regulatory strategies for telecom companies.

## Conclusion

The discussion examined the complex challenges of protecting children in digital environments while respecting their rights. The concept of personal integrity as shaped by digital experiences provided a framework for understanding child protection that extends beyond preventing immediate harm. Germany’s dialogic regulation approach offers a collaborative enforcement model, though challenges remain in age assurance technology, cross-jurisdictional enforcement, and balancing economic incentives with child protection goals. The upcoming EU guidelines may provide clearer frameworks for implementation and enforcement.

Lea Peters: and the American Heart Association. The American Heart Association is a non-profit organization that supports people with disabilities. The American Heart Association is a non-profit organization that supports people with disabilities. Important among deaf people. Important among the deaf. Important knowledge. Good morning, thank you everyone for being here and taking part in our talk on personal integrity and Minors online. My name is Leah Peters, I work as Policy Specialist for Digital Child Protection at EGPT Germany. EGPT Germany is a children rights organization that is working for the protection of minors from sexualized violence, exploitation and human trafficking.

Michael Terhorst: Good morning also from my side, my name is Michael Terhorst, I’m head of the Federal Office for the Enforcement of Children’s Rights and Digital Services. A quite long name, KIT is the short form, so that might be easier to remember. Today we’re going to start with Leah, who’s going to present the idea and define the personal integrity and show some potential risks. After that I’m going to continue by showing some examples how we might battle those risks. So yeah, thanks for being here.

Lea Peters: Exactly, when you read the title you might have asked yourself, but what is personal integrity? Well according to the Cambridge Dictionary, personal integrity is the quality of an individual of being honest and having strong moral principles. So this means aligning behavior with values, even when faced with challenges or temptations. It includes truthfulness, being reliable and taking responsibility for your actions. Personal integrity though is nothing you are just born with or that’s being formed in a vacuum. It is influenced by our family, our social circle, the culture we grew up in and the experiences we make. Digital environments and technology have become an integral part of our lives. It is nowadays a huge factor in the development of personal integrity. However it also poses new risks and challenges that we are faced with, thus also posing risks and challenges to the development of personal integrity, especially of minors. Those new risks can bring negative impact on the development, especially to minors who are still at an earlier developmental stage. In response to those new risks, the German legislators have included personal integrity of children and youth as a protection goal of child and youth media law. Thus they are making the development and socialization of children and youth a key factor. So when looking at sexualized violence and exploitation online, we have to look at how this can also affect the development of personal integrity of minors. Prevalent studies show that online child sexual exploitation and abuse is prevalent in every country where it is measured. Globally more than 300 million children and youth have been affected by online child sexual abuse and exploitation in the last 12 months. One in eight children globally has been subjected to online solicitation in the last 12 months. This includes unwanted sexual talk like non-consensual texting, unwanted sexual questions or unwanted sexual requests by other adults or other youth. Also one in eight children have experienced the non-consensual taking, sharing and or exposure to sexual images and videos in the last 12 months. When looking at reports, we see that in 2024 the US National Center for Missing and Exploited Children analyzed more than 30 million incidents of sexualized violence and exploitation against children and youth. 84% of these incidents are outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Emphasizing that this problem is global and in every country but also in international cooperation we have to deal with and find solutions. When looking at the offender side, we see that police statistics show a demographic change over the past years of offenders in these crime areas with the average age of offenders becoming younger and younger. In general, every case of online child sexual violence and exploitation of children has a digital component. Being because the child has been contacted through social media or messaging apps before or because the abuse and exploitation is being filmed or photos are being taken of it. Being confronted with sexualized violence is not merely uncomfortable for children and youth. It is deeply disturbing and in many cases traumatic. And like we heard yesterday in the panel, in the high-level panel in the morning, the CEO of the Five Rights Foundation said without intention in less than 15 clicks you find images of sexual abuse and sexual violence against children online. Having seen this so many times online can desensitize children and youth and have negative impact on their personal integrity because it negatively impacts the values they see, positive behavior they are exposed to as well as respect in acting with each other. Due to this, it is important to create digital environments and technologies based on the rights and well-being of children and youth. It is our duty to do better and deliver on this and it is not optional. Safe digital environments have a positive impact on children and youth personal integrity since it creates more aware, knowledgeable and respectful societies that benefit from the positive sides of technology. Thus meaning it also creates safer digital experiences for everyone, not just for children and youth.

Michael Terhorst: Thank you. So, after what you just said, there is a huge and immense necessity to protect the personal integrity of minors. The variety of ideas how to do that is also quite great. So, when we look at some voices saying that there is already enough. We hear from some people that when we look at social media platforms for example that providers already do a lot to protect the personal integrity of minors. Those voices are from the providers themselves. So, maybe it is not really objective. Because when we look at the risks arising out of the different functionalities we see on those platforms there is the need to do something. So, what should we do? There are some ideas of a social media ban. We see that in Australia, we see those ideas in other countries also in the European Union and the idea to ban young persons from especially social media platforms. The Digital Services Act, the DSA, is taking into account the idea of the rights of the child, the right to participate, the right of participation. So, we now have to work together to make sure that we create safe online spaces for children and young persons to guarantee safe usage of those platforms which are important for them, which are part of their everyday life. So, how do we do that? It is not that easy. as you can imagine, because there is no one-size-fits-it-all. There are different platforms, different functionalities, and so different risks arising out of those different functionalities. So we have to find individual solutions for every platform. That’s a lot of work to do, but that’s something we have to do, because otherwise it just doesn’t work, and the status quo is not acceptable. So what we do at KIT, K-I-T-D, so we are responsible in Germany to enforce precautionary measures when it comes to the Digital Services Act, especially Article 28. What we do in Germany is that we have three steps. So first step is we do an analysis of those platforms. We look at the functionalities. We just try everything you can do there, from going live to comment sections and all that, to see what functionalities are given on those platforms. Step two is looking at the different risks which are connected to those functionalities. Step three is checking out if those risks are already being covered by precautionary measures, which might already be implemented. And if all those risks are already being covered, we are good. It’s fine. There’s nothing the providers have to do, but there has been no case where we came to the conclusion that nothing has to be done. So there’s always something to do, and there’s always a lot to do to create online, safe online spaces for children and young persons. So our idea is we have something called dialogic regulation. So we don’t just, yeah, send a letter saying, okay, you have to, I don’t know, pay €5 million because your platform isn’t safe. We get in touch with the provider and say, okay, we found some deficits on your platform because there are functionalities which lead to the exposure to different risks to children and young persons. So something has to be done. We don’t just say that. We already give some ideas, some solutions, some possible solutions to counter those risks. And the providers don’t have to take those specific ideas. We present them. They can do something on their own. As long as it works, we’re good. And we started this about a year ago on the legal basis of the DSA. You mentioned the German Youth Protection Act. We already had this idea in 2021, the Youth Protection Act. So we had already some connections to some providers which helped us in the past and still now. So we already see some slight improvements. But as you might know, Article 28 DSA needs guidelines because you just need guidelines to really have something when you talk to the providers to show what needs to be done, what level of security has to be guaranteed. So when we talk to the providers, we give them possible solutions. We give them some time. And if it works, it’s good. If they don’t comply, then okay, the next steps, a hard enforcement has to be started because otherwise it just wouldn’t work. The guidelines from the EU Commission will be published in the next couple of weeks. So we’re happy for this next step because that makes our enforcement much easier, as you can imagine. Okay, so I talked a lot about possible precautionary measures. And here are some examples. So you can see, for example, moderation or registration, age assurance, all that. That list is not exhaustive because it can’t be. There are new functionalities like every day. There are new platforms. There are new ideas of how to create spaces for young persons, how to connect people to the different platforms. So new functionalities lead to new risks. New risks lead to the necessity of the implementation of new precautionary measures to guarantee a safe usage for children and young persons. So we are working every day, not just at the status quo, but at possible new functionalities in the future and the risks arising out of those functionalities. So when we take a brief look, you see some examples here. There are other precautionary measures already mentioned in the draft of the guidelines to Article 28. But, yeah, let’s take a look at the secure default settings, for example, because they’re always like the heart or the basis of the whole system of precautionary measures. Because, as you can imagine, when you see all those measures, it’s not like one measure which leads to a safe space. It’s always a combination of different measures because otherwise it just wouldn’t work. So the secure default settings. Children or young persons should not be able to be found when you do a Google search. Their profile should not just be open or be public. It should be private by default. So you see some examples here. Restriction, especially regarding contact. So limitation of contact functionalities. You already mentioned all those risks for the sexual integrity, especially this cyber grooming, this sexual extortion. There are so many risks. And those risks have to be mitigated. And you can do that by limiting the possibilities of communication, for example, and to create safe spaces by, for example, usage of pseudonyms or, yeah, just to make sure that not like real names, addresses, locations, all that are being published. So it is really important for us and that’s like a key factor that young persons cannot be directly contacted by like adults because in very many cases you just have no idea how old someone is. And sometimes even the providers, in some cases they do know, but they just tell you that they have no idea. But actually they do know how old you are. But in many cases they just don’t. And when you have pseudonyms, on the one hand, it’s good to protect like the individual, but on the other hand when you have a name like Butterfly13, you don’t know if Butterfly13 is a 13-year-old girl or a 46-year-old man. So that just doesn’t make it easier. So what we need is age assurance because with age assurance you can make sure that, yeah, a specific, let’s call it age bracket is given. So, for example, if you have 18 plus or an age bracket between 13 and 15, when we look at the default settings, those can be tailored to the specific age groups. So, for example, limitations to communication between 13 and 16, but when you’re 17 or 16, 17, maybe there’s some default settings which don’t need to be as strict as when you’re younger. So it has to be tailored to the specific risk and to the specific age groups. And it is also very important, I already mentioned, like Butterfly13 being a 46-year-old man, that in those cases also age verification can be used not to exclude children, young persons from, for example, content, which might harm them, for example, pornography, but to include them to create safe spaces. So, as you can see, it’s also necessary for the precautionary measures, for the security default settings. But also when I go back to all those measures, when you look at, for example, moderation when you look at reporting mechanisms It is important that children young persons really understand what’s happening when they report something. It’s important that the language used By the providers when you try to report something can be understood by children young persons So they just need to know how you are. They don’t need to know The providers don’t need to know if your birthday is like 5th of December but they need to know if you’re like between 13 and 15 or 16 to 17 whatever and that makes it really Necessary to implement age assurance. There are different kinds. There are age verification systems. There’s age estimation. There are other things being used All of them have one thing in common It is always a balancing act between privacy on the one hand and on the other hand functionality It also has to be user friendly. There’s so many aspects when it comes to age assurance it’s a it’s a really big thing and everyone’s talking about it because it’s so complicated and Because it’s it’s like about it’s it’s Bella Bella saying like balancing 20 different Interests and it’s it’s it’s really hard to find something that really works. So the EU Commission Is now publishing the first step the so-called mini wallet and in about a year, I think it’s it’s planned for autumn 2026 the so-called UDI wallet comes to the mini wallet and also the UDI wallet the first at the beginning it will be only be possible to verify your age if you’re 18 plus but they’re already also some ideas and we are really trying to to force that as we can that all those apps or those Those programs like the UDI wallet will make it possible to identify if someone is let’s say between 13 and 15 to tailor the default settings and all those other precautionary measures and to create safe spaces because if Those age assurance mechanisms don’t work It just really gets Really dangerous because you trust them and if you trust those measures and if it doesn’t work Because when you think that you are like in a safe space and you let your kids and you sit in a so-called safe space But if those mechanisms doesn’t work, it’s just it can be really harmful and all those risks earlier described Yeah can can really happen and that’s something we really don’t want okay, so our basic idea is not to exclude children to include them and to have like a digital environment offering significantly more opportunities than risks and That’s not easy because what we are doing is just one small piece. We all have to work together also Like our media literacy and all that we have to like to follow in a holistic approach because otherwise it’s Impossible to create safe spaces. So let’s work together Let’s do together and if you have any questions or maybe online if you have any questions or want to do a statement will be open for everything and Thanks for your attention Are there any questions ideas statements

Audience: Yes Thank you for the presentation I’d love to know if you can share to the degree that you can and how it’s been interacting with the platforms and the sort of Co-regulatory model that you described like are they open to Speaking with you other I assume their difference between different platforms. I’d be really curious to experience.

Michael Terhorst: Yeah. Thank you for a question. It’s actually a pretty good question because sometimes it’s actually a bit surprising for us so we started this idea of dialogic regulation because it was in the and the Youth Protection Act in Germany and There are a lot of providers coming to us and Saying also providers. We were actually not on our list and they’re coming to us and saying, okay Hey, it’s us Maybe you can look at our platform because we just want to comply with with the law. We just Want our platform to be safe? But that’s a small part of the providers We have opened between 30 and 40 cases in Germany so far and we have also started We can we can we can act in Germany and outside the EU because in the other member states there are other authorities Responsible and when it comes to very large online platforms, so could be labs. The EU Commission is responsible for the regulation, but when we look at Those platforms in Germany or outside Germany. It’s interesting because in Germany most companies almost providers more or less willing to comply But And also interesting and chatting with us that really works. So the first like the first one or two meetings. It’s also it’s I Think the communication is kind of good Also with we loves the velops. They they come to us. We we talk to each other We keep each other updated talk about best practices on song. That’s good. That’s good That still needs a lot. There’s there’s still a lot to do but this actually works pretty well After that When we get like to the next steps when we say, okay, you have to change this or that then it’s like, okay Thank you But let’s wait for the guidelines because without the guidelines to article 28 that’s what I mentioned in the beginning a hard enforcement is almost impossible because They just say okay article 28 needs needs to be filled with more with more information to to Information to to to really like Yeah To to to show what it really means. So Yeah, I think to answer your question in two months I can say a lot more if it really if it really works that well because Smaller platforms that we actually we are happy that most of them are willing to comply But there are this like block and I mentioned the the platforms outside the EU It’s not that easy for us as you can imagine and Also, maybe it’s because the law enforcement outside the EU for us it’s also we have to be honest It’s not that easy When in like all around the globe when the when they are providers and we want to enforce Something when you want to enforce something in Germany, you send a letter and they say, okay, we have to pay because otherwise But when you send this letter to you, I don’t know any other state in the world. It’s not that easy. But Yeah I hope maybe maybe in a year on the next IGF. You asked the same question. I say we are good we now have a safe space for genuine persons or at least a little bit safer and

Lea Peters: Maybe a little additional comment from the civil society perspective So, I think what we also see missing is Transparency from platforms also to the wider open public, especially when it comes to algorithmic usage on platforms And things like that This is also also one thing We mentioned in the consultation in the guideline process for the DSA that there wasn’t enough emphasis on this transparency and including civil society organizations and Academic experts in this as well as having meaningful and child and survivor participation This was a this was something that we flagged because we see it is very important Also already in the developmental stages of new features of measures that are being implemented So there is a lot of room for improvement Thank you any of the Commons questions Oh

Audience: Thank you, all right Thank you. My name is Michael. I come from Iraq. I’m working for an NGO called SEED in Kurdistan, and I’m leading a project on online child safety by SafeOnline there, and we’re trying to build a government system there to be able to respond to AXIA and with the new name TFCSEA. One of the greatest learning here when I come to IGF is the importance of regulating the tech companies. I’ve done this before in Ethiopia, and we were able to ban pornographic websites there in collaboration with the telecom company there. But the greatest challenge is when we try to ban those websites, these tech companies, they get their revenue, most of their revenues from these sites. For example, in Ethiopia, like 6% of their revenues from these sites, harmful sites. So it’s one of the greatest challenges for us, and we’re trying to do that in Iraq. So it also affects the government because these tech companies are paying taxes to the government, right? So do you have any advice regarding this, how to regulate specifically these telecom companies in a kind of environment?

Michael Terhorst: So first of all, love your name, also Michael’s. But that’s a pretty good question. I mean, it’s, as I can imagine, a completely different kind of legal system. And so it’s actually kind of hard for me to give some advice because we have another legal basis we work from. Maybe, so we made a lot of positive experience when it comes to dialogue. So just communicating and telling them, okay, you don’t want to have, sometimes bad press isn’t that bad. But in those cases, there are a lot of providers who are interested in having like a good picture of themselves in the press, online, wherever. So our idea is we get on the dialogue, and if they comply, then we don’t advertise those pages. But we say, okay, we report about our experiences we made with those providers. And we made press statements and so on, where we say, okay, there have been some improvements on various platforms. So other platforms come to us and say, okay, actually, we want to also be mentioned like in a positive way by you. Is it possible that we get in touch, that we talk and so on? So maybe that could be an idea, but you mentioned pornographic platforms. Pornographic platforms, yeah, that’s like content, that’s content regulation. And most precautionary measures I talked about, that’s more risks resulting out of interaction. So it’s also sometimes content, but it’s very often risk resulting out of communication. When it comes to cyber grooming, for example, or when it comes to extremism, sometimes it’s a mixture of both, because when you have like extremist content, on the other hand, like this communication where they try to get especially young people in their hands. So I think I have to think about it more. Maybe we can chat later and share some ideas, and you can explain me a bit more about your situation, and we will see what we can do. Okay, thank you.

Lea Peters: Yeah, and I mean, also, if you have capacity to kind of push from both sides or push the private sector, but also the government, it’s always useful to also use studies that show the negative impact of risks like sexualized violence on the overall economy of the country or the region you live in. Since studies show that also online sexualized violence has the same traumatic outcome for survivors and victims, like offline sexualized violence, and for offline sexualized violence, there are studies how this negatively impacts a country’s economy. So this might also be a route you can go, and it might also be something that the companies or the private sector is interested in to see, because people who suffer from, for example, PTSD, they often have difficulties in participating 100% later on in their professional life and things like that. So this could also have negative impact on the future workforce they want to build. So this might also be an additional angle you could try to use.

Michael Terhorst: Thank you. Do we have time for one last question? A really short question, sorry. And a short answer. Yeah, I’m sorry.

Audience: First I just want to say, as a digital native, I truly understand how vital the work you’re doing is. But I’m curious, in terms of the work that’s been done so far, a lot of the times access to education for children has been barred because of different countries’ views on what education should be. And I’m curious, do you all have any measures in place to prevent that from happening when implementing these protective measures?

Lea Peters: Yeah, I mean, so we are both based in Germany, the kid and the expert Germany. So we work on that legal basis, and they’re already in the legal basis. They are kind of a strong basis that ensures that this is not going to happen. So for example, when you look at the development of your sexualization, then there are different laws when you’re a teen. So when you’re above 14, then when you are below 14. So we are working on those measures, and they are already kind of trying to counteract that this is happening, that it has negative impacts, for example, on sex education and things like that, which are quite important, as well as seeing that this is not limiting access for vulnerable groups like LGBTQI plus community and things like that, and other groups like that. So there are kind of strong students. We are always pushing to keep it that way, because there’s also push also from a political side to restrict this more again. But yeah, as a civil society organization, like the expert Germany, together with others, we are trying to see that this is not happening. We have it in our perspective and are pushing for that. Yeah. Thank you.

Michael Terhorst: That was a perfect answer. Nothing to add. So thank you. Thank you, Leah. Thank you, everyone.

Lea Peters: Thank you.

Agreement points

Need for collaborative rather than punitive regulatory approaches

Speakers

– Lea Peters
– Michael Terhorst

Arguments

Regulatory Approaches and Enforcement Mechanisms

Platform Cooperation and Transparency Challenges

Summary

Both speakers advocate for working together with platforms through dialogue and collaboration rather than simply imposing bans or punitive measures. They emphasize the importance of creating safe online spaces while respecting children’s rights to participation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Platform transparency and stakeholder participation are insufficient

Speakers

– Lea Peters
– Michael Terhorst

Arguments

Platform Cooperation and Transparency Challenges

Platform Cooperation and Transparency Challenges

Summary

Both speakers agree that platforms lack sufficient transparency in their operations and that there is inadequate meaningful participation from civil society organizations, academic experts, and affected communities in developing safety measures.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Economic incentives can be effective for promoting child safety

Speakers

– Lea Peters
– Audience

Arguments

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Summary

Both acknowledge that economic arguments and considerations of financial impact can be powerful tools for convincing companies and governments to prioritize child protection measures, though they also recognize the challenges this creates when harmful content generates revenue.

Topics

Economic | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that protecting children online requires comprehensive, multi-faceted approaches that address the massive scale of online child sexual exploitation through technical safeguards, regulatory measures, and collaborative efforts.

Speakers

– Lea Peters
– Michael Terhorst

Arguments

Scale and Impact of Online Child Sexual Exploitation

Technical Safeguards and Precautionary Measures

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both acknowledge the significant challenges in enforcing child safety measures, particularly when dealing with platforms outside the EU and when economic interests conflict with safety objectives.

Speakers

– Michael Terhorst
– Audience

Arguments

Platform Cooperation and Transparency Challenges

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Unexpected consensus

Balancing child protection with educational access and rights

Speakers

– Lea Peters
– Audience

Arguments

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Explanation

Despite coming from different perspectives (regulatory/advocacy vs. digital native), both speakers show unexpected consensus on the importance of ensuring that protective measures don’t inadvertently restrict legitimate educational access or harm vulnerable groups like the LGBTQI+ community. This demonstrates sophisticated understanding of the complexity of child protection.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Recognition of economic barriers to effective regulation

Speakers

– Lea Peters
– Michael Terhorst
– Audience

Arguments

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Platform Cooperation and Transparency Challenges

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Explanation

All speakers, despite their different roles (civil society, government regulator, and practitioner), show unexpected consensus in acknowledging and discussing the economic realities that complicate child protection efforts, including revenue dependencies and tax implications.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the need for collaborative, multi-stakeholder approaches to child protection online, the importance of transparency and meaningful participation, and the recognition that economic factors significantly impact regulatory effectiveness.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with sophisticated understanding of implementation challenges. The agreement spans across different stakeholder perspectives (government, civil society, practitioners) and suggests a mature, nuanced approach to child protection that balances safety with rights and acknowledges real-world constraints. This consensus provides a strong foundation for collaborative policy development and implementation.

Different viewpoints

Revenue conflicts in platform regulation

Speakers

– Audience
– Michael Terhorst

Arguments

Tech companies and governments face conflicts of interest when regulating harmful content because these companies derive significant revenue from such sites and pay taxes to governments

Rather than implementing social media bans, the focus should be on creating safe online spaces for children while respecting their right to participation

Summary

The audience member highlighted the fundamental economic conflict where tech companies derive significant revenue (up to 6%) from harmful sites and pay taxes to governments, making regulation challenging. Michael Terhorst acknowledged this difficulty but focused on collaborative dialogue and positive press coverage as incentives, without directly addressing the revenue conflict issue.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Approach to economic incentives in regulation

Speakers

– Audience
– Lea Peters

Arguments

Tech companies and governments face conflicts of interest when regulating harmful content because these companies derive significant revenue from such sites and pay taxes to governments

Economic arguments can be effective in convincing companies and governments to prioritize child safety, as online sexual violence has the same traumatic outcomes as offline violence

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both parties are concerned with child protection, yet they have fundamentally different views on how economic factors should be leveraged. The audience member sees economic interests as obstacles, while Lea Peters sees them as potential tools for advocacy. This represents a strategic disagreement on whether to view economic factors as barriers or opportunities.

Topics

Economic | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most participants aligned on the core goal of protecting children online. The main areas of disagreement center around economic incentives and enforcement strategies rather than the underlying principles.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The disagreements are primarily strategic and methodological rather than philosophical, focusing on how to achieve shared goals rather than questioning the goals themselves. This suggests good potential for collaborative solutions, though the economic conflict issue raised by the audience member represents a significant structural challenge that wasn’t fully resolved in the discussion.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that protecting children online requires comprehensive, multi-faceted approaches that address the massive scale of online child sexual exploitation through technical safeguards, regulatory measures, and collaborative efforts.

Speakers

– Lea Peters
– Michael Terhorst

Arguments

Scale and Impact of Online Child Sexual Exploitation

Technical Safeguards and Precautionary Measures

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both acknowledge the significant challenges in enforcing child safety measures, particularly when dealing with platforms outside the EU and when economic interests conflict with safety objectives.

Speakers

– Michael Terhorst
– Audience

Arguments

Platform Cooperation and Transparency Challenges

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Key takeaways

Personal integrity development in minors is significantly impacted by digital environments, with over 300 million children globally affected by online sexual abuse and exploitation in the last 12 months

Creating safe online spaces through regulation and cooperation is more effective than blanket social media bans, requiring tailored solutions for different platforms and functionalities

Dialogic regulation (collaborative engagement with platforms) shows promise, with many smaller platforms actively seeking compliance guidance, though larger platforms often wait for official guidelines

Technical safeguards must work in combination – secure default settings, age assurance, content moderation, and reporting mechanisms are all necessary components of effective child protection

Age assurance technology is crucial but complex, requiring balance between privacy, functionality, and user-friendliness, with EU wallet systems planned but initially limited to 18+ verification

Economic arguments about the negative workforce impact of online violence can be effective tools for convincing both private sector and governments to prioritize child protection

Resolutions and action items

EU Commission guidelines for Article 28 DSA to be published in the coming weeks to facilitate easier enforcement

Continued advocacy for EU wallet systems to include younger age bracket verification beyond just 18+ users

KIT to continue three-step analysis process (functionality review, risk assessment, precautionary measure evaluation) for 30-40 ongoing platform cases

Follow-up discussion planned between presenters and audience member from Iraq to share specific regulatory strategies for telecom companies

Continued push from civil society organizations to maintain legal safeguards preventing discrimination against vulnerable groups while implementing protective measures

Unresolved issues

Enforcement challenges for platforms operating outside the EU remain difficult to address effectively

Revenue conflicts where tech companies and governments benefit financially from harmful content sites create ongoing regulatory obstacles

Lack of transparency from platforms regarding algorithmic usage and insufficient meaningful participation from civil society and survivors in development processes

Age assurance technology limitations – current systems cannot effectively distinguish between different minor age brackets (e.g., 13-15 vs 16-17)

Balancing protective measures with access to education and preventing discrimination against vulnerable groups like LGBTQI+ communities remains an ongoing challenge

The ‘Butterfly13’ problem – difficulty determining actual user ages when pseudonyms are used, creating safety risks

Suggested compromises

Dialogic regulation approach that engages platforms collaboratively rather than imposing immediate penalties, allowing providers to propose their own solutions as long as they effectively address identified risks

Graduated default settings based on age brackets rather than one-size-fits-all restrictions, with less strict measures for older teens

Using positive press coverage and public recognition to incentivize platform compliance rather than relying solely on punitive measures

Combining multiple precautionary measures in tailored combinations for different platforms rather than requiring identical solutions across all services

Holistic approach incorporating media literacy education alongside technical safeguards and regulatory measures

Personal integrity though is nothing you are just born with or that’s being formed in a vacuum. It is influenced by our family, our social circle, the culture we grew up in and the experiences we make. Digital environments and technology have become an integral part of our lives. It is nowadays a huge factor in the development of personal integrity.

Speaker

Lea Peters

Reason

This comment is insightful because it reframes personal integrity from a static moral concept to a dynamic, socially constructed quality that is actively shaped by digital experiences. It establishes the theoretical foundation for why digital child protection is not just about preventing harm, but about fostering positive character development in the digital age.

Impact

This comment set the conceptual framework for the entire discussion, shifting it from a purely regulatory perspective to one that considers the developmental psychology of children in digital spaces. It provided the philosophical justification for all subsequent policy recommendations.

So our idea is we have something called dialogic regulation. So we don’t just, yeah, send a letter saying, okay, you have to, I don’t know, pay €5 million because your platform isn’t safe. We get in touch with the provider and say, okay, we found some deficits on your platform… And the providers don’t have to take those specific ideas. We present them. They can do something on their own. As long as it works, we’re good.

Speaker

Michael Terhorst

Reason

This introduces a novel regulatory approach that challenges the traditional adversarial model of enforcement. It’s thought-provoking because it suggests that collaborative regulation might be more effective than punitive measures, representing a paradigm shift in how governments can work with tech companies.

Impact

This comment fundamentally changed the discussion from theoretical policy to practical implementation, demonstrating how regulatory innovation can bridge the gap between child protection goals and industry cooperation. It prompted audience questions about the effectiveness of this approach and became a central theme in the Q&A session.

when you have a name like Butterfly13, you don’t know if Butterfly13 is a 13-year-old girl or a 46-year-old man. So that just doesn’t make it easier… what we need is age assurance because with age assurance you can make sure that, yeah, a specific, let’s call it age bracket is given.

Speaker

Michael Terhorst

Reason

This comment brilliantly illustrates the fundamental paradox of online child protection – the very anonymity features designed to protect children can also enable predators. It’s insightful because it shows how traditional privacy protections can conflict with safety measures, requiring innovative solutions.

Impact

This vivid example shifted the discussion toward the technical complexities of age verification and the delicate balance between privacy and safety. It made abstract policy concepts concrete and relatable, helping the audience understand why simple solutions don’t work in digital child protection.

these tech companies, they get their revenue, most of their revenues from these sites. For example, in Ethiopia, like 6% of their revenues from these sites, harmful sites. So it’s one of the greatest challenges for us… So it also affects the government because these tech companies are paying taxes to the government, right?

Speaker

Audience member Michael from Iraq

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it exposes the economic incentive structures that perpetuate harmful content online. It reveals how financial dependencies create systemic barriers to child protection that go beyond technical or regulatory solutions, highlighting the intersection of economics, governance, and child safety.

Impact

This comment dramatically expanded the scope of the discussion from technical implementation to systemic economic challenges. It forced the speakers to acknowledge that their European regulatory model may not be universally applicable and prompted a more nuanced discussion about different approaches needed in different economic and political contexts.

if you have capacity to kind of push from both sides or push the private sector, but also the government, it’s always useful to also use studies that show the negative impact of risks like sexualized violence on the overall economy of the country… people who suffer from, for example, PTSD, they often have difficulties in participating 100% later on in their professional life

Speaker

Lea Peters

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it reframes child protection from a moral imperative to an economic argument, suggesting that protecting children online is not just ethically right but economically rational. It demonstrates strategic thinking about how to build coalitions for child protection across different stakeholder interests.

Impact

This response showed how advocates can adapt their arguments to different contexts and audiences. It shifted the conversation toward practical advocacy strategies and demonstrated how child protection arguments can be tailored to resonate with economic and political decision-makers who might not be moved by moral arguments alone.

Overall assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively expanding its scope and complexity. The conversation began with theoretical foundations (personal integrity as socially constructed), moved through innovative regulatory approaches (dialogic regulation), confronted technical paradoxes (anonymity vs. safety), and ultimately grappled with systemic economic and political challenges. The most impactful comments were those that revealed underlying tensions and complexities rather than offering simple solutions – such as the economic incentives that perpetuate harmful content and the privacy-safety paradox in online spaces. The discussion evolved from a presentation of best practices to a more nuanced exploration of how context, economics, and power structures shape the possibilities for child protection online. The audience questions, particularly from the Iraqi participant, were crucial in challenging the speakers to consider the limitations and cultural specificity of their European regulatory model.

How effective will the dialogic regulation approach be once EU Commission guidelines are published and implemented?

Speaker

Michael Terhorst

Explanation

Terhorst mentioned that in two months he could say a lot more about whether the approach really works well, indicating this needs follow-up assessment after guidelines implementation

How can telecom companies be regulated when they derive significant revenue from harmful sites, especially in developing countries?

Speaker

Audience member Michael from Iraq

Explanation

This represents a complex challenge where economic interests of telecom companies and government tax revenue conflict with child protection goals, requiring further research on regulatory approaches

What are effective strategies for regulating tech companies in different legal systems outside the EU?

Speaker

Audience member Michael from Iraq

Explanation

The speakers acknowledged this is challenging and suggested further discussion, indicating need for research on cross-jurisdictional regulatory approaches

How can age assurance mechanisms for specific age brackets (13-15, 16-17) be effectively implemented in the EU Digital Identity Wallet?

Speaker

Michael Terhorst

Explanation

Current systems only verify 18+ status, but tailored safety measures require more granular age verification, which is still under development

How can transparency from platforms regarding algorithmic usage be improved and civil society participation be meaningfully included?

Speaker

Lea Peters

Explanation

This was identified as a gap in current DSA guidelines that needs further development to ensure proper oversight and accountability

What economic impact studies exist showing how online sexualized violence affects national economies?

Speaker

Lea Peters

Explanation

Peters suggested this as a potential advocacy tool but implied more research is needed to quantify these economic impacts for policy arguments

How can protective measures be designed to prevent restricting access to legitimate education, particularly for vulnerable groups?

Speaker

Audience member (digital native)

Explanation

This highlights the need for ongoing research to balance child protection with educational access and rights of marginalized communities

Summary

This discussion centered on the official launch of the Global Internet Standards Testing Community (GISTC) at the Internet Governance Forum, aimed at promoting secure internet environments through collaborative testing and knowledge sharing. Wouter Van Den Bosch, Community Manager International of Internet.nl, explained that after the 2013 launch of their open-source testing tool, various organizations worldwide began using it independently, but lacked broader interaction and coordination. The new community seeks to address this gap by creating a cooperative body where organizations can share experiences, develop next steps together, and raise awareness about security-related internet standards deployment.

Walter Kobes demonstrated Internet.nl as a testing tool that allows users to easily assess website and email domain security, providing not only results but concrete improvement recommendations. The tool processes over 5 million scans annually in the Dutch version alone and has been adopted by countries including Brazil, Denmark, Germany, and France. Alena Murawska from RIPE NCC emphasized the critical importance of internet standards for global connectivity, highlighting how policy makers increasingly recognize their role in economic development and national security, particularly with regulations like NIS2 making certain standards mandatory.

International speakers shared their experiences: Gilberto Zorello described Brazil’s successful implementation called “STOP” with Portuguese interface and integration into their Safer Internet Program, while Daishi Kondo from University of Tokyo discussed email security research and the need for policy frameworks to drive adoption. The community welcomes all interested organizations, from government agencies to academic institutions, and plans to coordinate future development of testing standards including potential post-quantum cryptography support.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Launch of Global Internet Standards Testing Community (GISTC)**: The primary focus was officially launching an international community around Internet.nl, an open-source testing tool that helps organizations assess their compliance with internet security standards like IPv6, DNSSEC, and email security protocols.

– **Internet.nl Tool Capabilities and Global Adoption**: Detailed explanation of how the testing tool works, showing real-time examples of website security assessments, and highlighting its successful implementation in multiple countries including Brazil (called “STOP”), with emerging adoption in Germany, France, and research use in Portugal and by the European Commission.

– **Policy and Regulatory Drivers for Internet Standards**: Discussion of how government policies, particularly the EU’s NIS2 regulation, are making internet security standards increasingly mandatory, with examples of successful “comply or explain” approaches in the Netherlands and the European Commission’s multi-stakeholder forum on internet standards deployment.

– **International Experiences and Benefits of Collaboration**: Presentations from Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands showcasing different approaches to internet standards testing, emphasizing how international cooperation can help bridge policy gaps, share best practices, and accelerate adoption of security measures across different cultural and regulatory contexts.

– **Community Building and Future Development**: Focus on creating an open community where governments, academia, and technical organizations can collaborate, share experiences, learn from each other’s challenges, and coordinate future developments including potential additions like post-quantum cryptography testing.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to officially launch the Global Internet Standards Testing Community, bringing together international stakeholders to promote the adoption of internet security standards through collaborative testing, knowledge sharing, and coordinated policy approaches.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently professional, collaborative, and optimistic throughout the session. It maintained a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere, emphasizing partnership and mutual benefit rather than competition. The speakers demonstrated enthusiasm for international cooperation and showed genuine interest in expanding the community, ending on a celebratory note with the official launch and invitation for continued engagement.

Speakers

– **Wouter Van Den Bosch**: Community Manager International of Internet.nl, a testing tool for internet security standards

– **Walter Kobes**: Colleague at Internet.nl, technical expert who explains the Internet.nl testing tool functionality

– **Alena Muravska**: Representative of RIPE NCC (Regional Internet Registry), responsible for IP address allocation and registration, expert in internet standards and protocols

– **Gilberto Zorello**: Project Manager from Brazilian Network Information Center (NIC.br), implements decisions and projects for Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br)

– **Daishi Kondo**: University of Tokyo, researcher specializing in email security

– **Doreen Booghaart**: Online moderator for the event

– **Nico Caballero**: GAC Chair (Governmental Advisory Committee) within ICANN

**Additional speakers:**

– **Annemieke Toersen**: Platform Internet Standards in the Netherlands (mentioned as being present but did not speak in the transcript)

– **Flavio Anais**: Systems development manager at NIC.br (mentioned by Gilberto as being present)

– **Santosh Pandit**: Online participant who asked a question about post-quantum cryptography

– **Peter**: Reporter in the Netherlands (mentioned in closing remarks)

# Global Internet Standards Testing Community Launch: Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

The Internet Governance Forum witnessed the official launch of the Global Internet Standards Testing Community (GISTC), marking a significant milestone in international cooperation for internet security standards deployment. This session brought together representatives from the Netherlands, Brazil, Japan, and various international organisations to establish a collaborative framework for testing and promoting internet security standards globally.

The discussion centered on the evolution of Internet.nl from a Dutch national testing tool to an international open-source platform, with the new community structure designed to facilitate knowledge sharing and coordinate development efforts across different jurisdictions.

## Background and Community Formation

### Origins of the Initiative

Wouter Van Den Bosch, Community Manager International of Internet.nl, explained the genesis of the global community initiative. Following the 2013 launch of Internet.nl as a Dutch national tool, the platform became open source to enable international adoption. However, while various organisations worldwide began implementing their own versions independently, there was a lack of broader interaction and coordination between these implementations.

The catalyst for formalising this community came through a meeting in March, where representatives from different countries recognised the need to create a cooperative body. This gathering highlighted the potential benefits of sharing experiences, developing coordinated next steps, and raising awareness about security-related internet standards deployment through collaborative efforts.

Van Den Bosch emphasised that the active use of testing tools provides organisations with crucial insights into their country’s security status, enabling more informed policymaking responses.

### Community Structure and Objectives

The newly launched community operates on principles of openness and inclusivity, welcoming participation from governments, academic institutions, and technical organisations interested in standards testing. The primary objectives include facilitating knowledge sharing between international implementations, coordinating future development of testing standards, and creating mechanisms for addressing emerging security challenges such as post-quantum cryptography integration.

## Technical Capabilities and Global Adoption

### Internet.nl Tool Functionality

Walter demonstrated the testing tool’s capabilities during the session, despite some initial microphone difficulties. The platform serves as both an individual testing service and a comprehensive dashboard system, processing over 5 million scans annually in the Dutch version alone. The tool evaluates websites and email domains across multiple security standards, including IPv6 implementation, DNSSEC deployment, RPKI, DNS security, and email security protocols.

Crucially, Internet.nl goes beyond merely identifying security issues by providing concrete improvement recommendations. The tool’s interface presents results in an accessible format, enabling both technical specialists and policy makers to understand security postures and necessary improvements.

The technical architecture supports localisation and customisation, allowing different countries to adapt the interface and testing parameters to their specific needs while maintaining core functionality.

### International Implementation Experiences

The global adoption of Internet.nl has yielded diverse implementation approaches. Brazil’s implementation, branded as “STOP” (which stands for “Test Standards” in English), represents one of the most comprehensive adaptations. Gilberto Zorello, Project Manager from Brazilian Network Information Center (NIC.br), detailed how the Portuguese-language interface became integral to the Safer Internet Program.

Brazil is currently running version 1.7 and testing version 1.9 of the tool. The Brazilian approach extends beyond simple testing to include comprehensive support mechanisms: technical training programmes, ISP guidance meetings, and recognition awards for companies following security recommendations. NIC.br created an award for best operational practices and conducts ICT enterprise surveys every two years through CETIC.br.

Denmark, Germany, and France have also adopted the platform, while Portugal and the European Commission utilise it for research purposes. Walter noted that international users have been instrumental in identifying improvements and suggesting enhancements, creating a collaborative development cycle that benefits all implementations.

## Policy and Regulatory Context

### European Regulatory Framework

Alena Muravska, representing RIPE NCC, provided context on the evolving regulatory landscape, specifically mentioning the NIS2 regulation and its impact on internet standards deployment. She emphasised that while governments play an increasingly important role in promoting these standards, their efforts must complement rather than replace the open collaborative processes that have maintained internet innovation and accessibility.

### Successful Policy Integration Models

The Netherlands’ “comply or explain” approach was highlighted as a successful model for government-led standards promotion. This framework requires organisations to either implement recommended security standards or provide explanations for non-compliance, creating accountability without mandating specific technical solutions.

Van Den Bosch also suggested that economic buying power from customers demanding secure services could be a significant driver for standards deployment, positioning testing tools as enablers of informed customer choice.

## International Perspectives

### Japanese Experience

Daishi Kondo from the University of Tokyo provided comparative analysis based on email security research. His findings demonstrate that adoption of email security measures is significantly influenced by policy frameworks and security culture, with the Netherlands achieving high adoption rates through initiatives like the Comply or Explain List and Internet.nl.

In contrast, Japan lacks similar policy mechanisms or counterpart tools to Internet.nl, creating adoption challenges for email security measures. Kondo emphasised that international cooperation is essential to bridge policy and cultural gaps affecting security standards adoption.

### Brazilian Integration Success

Gilberto highlighted the importance of language localisation, noting that the Portuguese interface was crucial for adoption in Brazil where English proficiency is limited. The Brazilian approach demonstrates how testing tools can be successfully integrated into comprehensive national cybersecurity programmes.

## Future Development and Emerging Challenges

### Post-Quantum Cryptography Integration

Online participant Santosh Pandit asked about the community’s approach to post-quantum cryptography support. Walter confirmed that post-quantum cryptography capabilities will be added to the Internet.nl testing suite when relevant standards are established and widely accepted, ensuring quantum-proof ciphers for web and email servers.

### Community Coordination and Next Steps

The community will hold a prioritisation meeting in October in the Buskerud room in the hotel to establish priorities for the first year of operation. Nico Caballero, GAC Chair within ICANN, expressed interest in government cooperation mechanisms, particularly for countries interested in implementing DNSSEC, cryptography, and other standards.

Additionally, the Internet Standards Security Coalition report presentation was scheduled for Friday morning at 9 o’clock in Room 1.

## Participation and Engagement

The session included both in-person and online participants, with Doreen Booghaart serving as online moderator. Annemieke Toersen from platform Internet Standards Netherlands was introduced but did not speak during the session. The community encourages participation through various channels, including a QR code signup process mentioned during the presentation.

## Conclusion

The launch of the Global Internet Standards Testing Community represents a significant step towards coordinated international cooperation in internet security standards deployment. The strong foundation of successful national implementations, combined with diverse international experiences, provides a solid basis for community development.

The session concluded on a celebratory note with cake, marking the formal launch of this collaborative initiative. The community’s success will depend on its ability to balance technical excellence with policy effectiveness, local adaptation with global coordination, and current needs with future challenges in internet security standards deployment.

Wouter Van Den Bosch: Good morning. Welcome to this launch event with the name Empower the Global Internet Standards Testing Community. My name is Wouter Natus van den Borch and I’m the Community Manager International of Internet.nl, a testing tool that my colleague Wouter Kobes will tell you more about in a minute. Why an international community? After its launch in 2013, the community behind Internet.nl made the decision that the software behind it would be open source and available for anyone to use. Also, a testing environment was created that more and more people started to use. Some organizations decided to use the existing toolkit, other organizations built their own, but more or less with the same goal, testing how secure their and their country’s internet environments are. Contact remained between organizations one-on-one between the interested parties and Internet.nl itself. There was no broader interaction. And the people behind Internet.nl aspired to change this. After a few months in preparations, in March this year, representatives from different countries and organizations met for the first time. They decided that there’s merit in creating a cooperative body in which they can work together, share experiences, and agree on and or develop next steps. The next meeting is scheduled in somewhere in October and will be defined for prioritizing in the first year. As a global internet standards testing community is open to all with an interest to start working with this tool, we decided to do an official launch here at the Internet Governance Forum. As an internet standards deployment and the spreading of the knowledge why this is crucially important for a more secure and safer environment, it is important to work with governance. By working together, it becomes easier to raise awareness around and raise the deployment of security-related internet standards. And by creating a community, the profile of the work and its outcomes is raised considerably. Additionally, all involved can learn from each other’s experiences, from their outcomes and how they can be used, from challenges and how they were overcome, from the arguments used to convince superiors to partnerships making cooperation possible, et cetera, et cetera. And this may go for more experienced organizations as much as those with a first interest. Other forms of added value may lay in more enhanced cooperation in the future and perhaps coordination on future steps. Formulation of common ambitions or outreach programs all adhere to and perhaps even the creation of a more formal organization. But why should I join or you join this community, you might ask. For starters, because the active use of this tool provides you and your organization the insight how secure or insecure organizations in your country are and allows you for knowledge and insight for responses and policymaking. But let me as an introduction stop here and introduce the people around me. I’m here with Walter Kobus of Internet.nl. I’m with Elena Murawska of RIPE NCC. Online are Gilberto Zorelli of NIC.pr and Daishi Kondo of the University of Tokyo. Also with me is Annemieke Toersen of the platform Internet Standards in the Netherlands and Doreen Booghaartwho is our online moderator. So first I’m going to ask Walter to explain to you what Internet.nl is and what it does. So Walter, the floor is yours.

Walter Kobes: Yes, thank you very much, Wout. And let me go to the next slide. Yeah, so I will shortly explain to you the Internet.nl testing tool and what you can… Is my sound working? Yeah, it is. I think it’s your problem. So you can… I will shortly explain to you where Internet.nl can be used for and how it works. So basically it is a testing tool in which you can easily test either your website or email domain name. Showing right now is the results of the IGF 2025 website which, as you can see in our vision, there are still some improvements available and basically this reporting does not only tell you what is good and what is wrong but also gives you concrete steps how to improve them. And luckily if you look to other parts of the Norwegian government, you will see that they perform better. So for instance, this is the Norwegian digital gateway that actually has only very minor improvements still recommended by us. So this is the individual testing in which, well, basically everyone can test their own domain names right now if you go to Internet.nl. However, for organizations it’s mostly required to scan a lot of domain names and on a regular basis. For this we have also a dashboard available. This allows for creation of reports, scheduled scanning, trend monitoring over time and basically in total we have seen that just for the Dutch version of this code base we see over 5 million scans annually both on the individual test and the dashboard testing happening right now. As was mentioned by Wout, this source code is open source available and it has throughout the years already been picked up by other countries. So these are a few examples of the use of Internet.nl around the world in Brazil, Denmark and we see new instances starting in Germany, France, etc. And also the project is used in various measuring projects in Portugal, European Commission, in which they do not present the website themselves but they use it to generate reports for their research. And over the years many of these international people have worked with Internet.nl but also gave us feedback and helped us improve the product more and more which is of course also why we’re trying to create this community to make this code base even more widely known but also get something back from the community to make

Wouter Van Den Bosch: the product even better. So that’s in real short the introduction on Internet. Thank you very much Wouter and as you can see that if you go to Internet.nl you can type in the name of your own organization and immediately see how secure or insecure your organization is but also you get the advice on the steps that you could take to make yourself more secure. So it’s something you can do here or later at home and show to the people responsible for ICT what they can do. Let me go to the next speaker and Alena Murawska is going to tell you about how important Internet standards are and why we are having this discussion and why RIPE NCC supports the Internet.nl initiatives already for quite some years. Alena the floor is yours. Thank you Wouter. Good morning

Alena Muravska: colleagues here in the room but also colleagues online and I’m very grateful for this opportunity to be a part of this important launching event. It’s an important milestone for the global technical Internet standard testing community. So I’m Alena Murawska and I represent the RIPE NCC here. We are a regional Internet registry and in this function we are responsible for the allocation and registration of IP address and autonomous system numbers. Why I am mentioning this? So we have two core principles of the Internet and the registration is one of them and the registration ensures that the resources are globally unique and traceable. That makes the Internet global actually. But the second principle of the Internet is actually the protocol standardization. It’s a development and the adoption of open standards that define how devices communicate over the Internet. So and together registration and standardization have enabled the Internet to function as a global and permissionless platform for innovation. Internet standards are agreed upon technical specifications that underpin the infrastructure of the Internet. Many of you in the room are familiar with all of this so bear with me. Actually my explanation is more referred to the people who are less technical in the room. So the Internet open standards are the building blocks that enable interoperability, comparability and consistency across the thousands of networks. Open standards also enable Internet scalability, security and resilience. At the same time they support the innovation and grow because they allow people and organizations to create new services that make them available worldwide without needing permission. So open Internet standards are publicly available and deployed through the process that are transparent and open to broad participation and organizations as Internet Engineering Task Force, IETF, many of you are very familiar with it, plays a central role in this process. Other policy makers are placing a growing emphasis on Internet standards and they recognize their critical importance for the economic development and and National Security in this changing world. While the governments play a key role in promoting and supporting these standards, their efforts must complement, not replace, the open and collaborative process that have ensured that the Internet remains innovative and accessible for the past few decades. So we have seen various approaches when it comes to implementation of Internet standards because implementation is also a key to success. Successful examples include governments that have developed, for example, national IPv6 roadmaps in close cooperation with the technical community, ensuring that these roadmaps are grounded in the technical reality in their countries. On the other hand, more politically driven roadmaps without sufficient input from technical experts often failed to meet the expectations. So I would like to mention a good example of a successful governmental approach to RPKI. It’s a policy implemented by the Dutch Standardization Forum. They developed an apply or explain approach that made RPKI mandatory for governmental entities and public institutions. And in this case, monitoring RPKI metrics and close collaboration with technical community experts, they are the key factor to success. So we’ve also seen that your approach to Internet standards has gradually evolved over the years. And since 2019, so already six years ago, the European Commission has launched a series of initiatives to strengthen the role of the European Union in standardization processes and promote its vision for the Internet. And NIS2, as we all know, puts the deployment of key Internet standards in this spotlight even more. So the NIS2 implementing regulation adopted in 2024 requires operators to take appropriate technical and organizational measures, including the adoption of transition plans to modern network protocols, so think about IPv6 here, best practices for Internet routing security, such as RPKI, and measures for DNS and ML security. So these requirements are framed in technology-neutral and flexible manner, yet they reflect the growing governmental interest in driving the deployment of the standards. So the last activity that we’ve seen in this area is the European Commission’s established multi-stakeholder forum on the deployment of Internet standards, supported by NISA and national authorities. So this forum aims to identify the best practices, standards, and deployment techniques in the four areas which I already mentioned, so that’s network layer protocols, email security, DNS security, and routing security. So this initiative is welcome as long as leadership and decision-making stay anchored in the technical community. And why all this story? Because we believe that the testing community could play a key role in monitoring and deployment of adoption of the standards. Because of all the dimensions, testing ensures that standards are not only implemented, but also correctly and consistently deployed. So it helps prevent fragmentation, enforces interoperability, and raises the overall quality of the Internet infrastructure. So tools like Internet.nl are excellent examples in this process. So they help public and private institutions access their compliance, this established Internet standard, so Vaud already mentioned that as well. And on organizational level, testing contributes to more efficient processes and helps integrate security improvements into daily workflows. So on a broader scale, also testing fosters cooperation and collaborative learning, and it creates mechanisms for implementing standards and aligning the efforts of public administrators, service providers, and the technical community. Thank you.

Wouter Van Den Bosch: Thank you, Alena. I think that you showed from the technical community side how important it is to start deploying these standards, and also that it’s going to become more or less mandatory within the European Union within a year or two. The next speaker that is coming from Brazil is online, Gilberto Zorello. Please answer the question, how can you join and benefit from the global Internet standard testing community, as it’s now provisionally called? So what are your experiences in the past with running Internet.nl in the Brazilian way?

Gilberto Zorello: Good morning. We have a very good experience with Internet.nl here in Brazil. I’ll bring a short presentation about our experience. I would like to thank Internet.nl for the opportunity to participate in this event, this presentation about our experience with Internet.nl in Brazil. This is our agenda. I’m Gilberto Zorello, project manager from Brazilian Network Information Center, NIC.br, that implements the decisions and projects designed by Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGI.br, which is responsible for the coordination and integration of all Internet service initiatives in the country. Flavio Anais is here with me, too. He is the systems development manager at NIC.br. This presentation is about our experience with Internet.nl. We call the tool here in Brazil STOP. In English it’s Test Standards. STOP is part of a bigger program that we have, the Safer Internet Program, which aims to help Internet operators and service providers to reduce security incidents caused by vulnerabilities and configuration errors. We are interested in Internet.nl. Internet.nl is very important, because its recommendations are fully aligned with the objectives of the Safer Internet Program. STOP has a web interface in Portuguese, very important in Brazil, because people here don’t speak any English. We need a web interface in Portuguese. Its operation starts on December 21st. We are currently running the version 1.7 and testing 1.9. We intend to release the dashboard 2. The project is an initiative funded by NIC.br. The tool is disseminated in different cities across the country, through lectures at NIC.br technical events and ISP association fairs. NIC.br offers technical training on specific topics recommended. For instance, configuration of recursive and authoritative DNS service, RPKI and IPv6. The Safer Internet Program holds meetings with Internet service providers to provide guidance on how to implement the best security practice in the networks and how to use the top testing tool.

Wouter Van Den Bosch: We have new activities planned to promote the dissemination of good operational practice. NIC.br created the pickup best operation practice NIC.br award, which rewards institutions that implement continuous improvement in their networks. This year, the annual competition, this year’s competition, companies that configure their websites following top recommendations will be awarded. Gilberto, sorry, I can give you 30 seconds. Okay, finishing. The second activity, the Regional Center for Studies on Development of Information Society, CETIC.br, monitors the adoption of information and communication technologies, ICTs, in Brazil. The CETIC.br conducts ICT enterprise survey that measures the adoption of ICT small, medium, and large enterprises. The survey is conducted every two years. Next survey will check the readiness to meet the best security practices for websites of these companies used on top. Okay, that’s my presentation. I’m ready for questions if you need. Thank you very much, Gilberto, and it shows that it really works in Brazil, so thank you for showing that to us. We’re going to move to the totally other side of the world. We’re going to Japan, and we have a few questions for you. So, Gilberto, we have a few questions for you. We have Daishi Kondo with us, who is now with the University of Tokyo, and he is going to answer the following question. Daishi, what is your experience with the email security research so far, and how do you expect to benefit from international cooperation in the internet of the international community?

Daishi Kondo: Okay. Hello. Good morning, I should say. I’m Daishi Kondo from the University of Tokyo, and one of my research interests is email security. And these days, actually two weeks ago, I presented the email security work in Denmark in the conference, which is called TMA. And we stored several statistics about email security implementations. And from my experience in my email security research, I have realized that the adoption of email security measures is greatly influenced by the policy frameworks and the security culture. For example, the Netherlands has initiatives such as Comply or Explain List and Internet.nl, which have contributed to a high adoption rate of email security measures. On the other hand, Japan lacks similar policy mechanisms or counterpart to Internet.nl. In order to promote the better adoption, it is essential to bridge the needs, policy, and cultural gaps. I believe that the first step in international cooperation is to understand the nature of the differences through collaboration. Thank you very much.

Wouter Van Den Bosch: Thank you, Daishi. What it shows is that we already have a lot of people from around the world joining the community, and that we’re going to ask more people to join. First, I’m going to ask Doreen if there’s any comments made online that she would like to read out.

Doreen Booghaart: Yes, thank you. We have one comment online from Santosh Pandit. In case you were taking questions, he asked, will the community support a journey towards post-quantum cryptography and its use at Internet.nl?

Wouter Van Den Bosch: That is a very good question. What I can say is that we’re going to have a report, but that’s by the Internet Standards Security Coalition of the IGF. It will be presented on Friday morning at 9 o’clock in Room 1. Where this community is concerned, I can imagine, but I’m looking at Walter, that this is an issue that will come up in the near future as one of the potential testing points. But is it being considered already, or is it something that is future, Walter?

Walter Kobes: Yes, most definitely that will be added to the Internet.nl testing suite in due time. And of course, once that’s relevant, you want to be sure that the ciphers used by your web and email server are indeed quantum proof. But that’s something to be added in the future.

Wouter Van Den Bosch: I can imagine that it will, but what the time is, that is harder to set at this moment, because we need the standards to be in place and accepted in a broad way. I’ve got time for one question before we go to the official launch. Is there a question in the room? Then we have a microphone that will go around, so please put up your hand so we can have one question. Yes, the gentleman there. Does this microphone work? Please introduce yourself first.

Nico Caballero: Well, thank you. Can you hear me? Because I can’t hear myself, but anyways, this is weird. So I just wanted to know.

Wouter Van Den Bosch: Please introduce yourself.

Nico Caballero: My name is Nico Caballero. I’m the GAG Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee within ICANN. And I wanted to know if there’s any way to cooperate with governments, with at least certain governments who are very interested in implementing not only DNSSEC, but also symmetric and asymmetric cryptography. Sorry, too early in the morning. Need more coffee. And some other standards. My question is would there be any kind of, let’s say, task force or group or somebody we can contact, I mean specific governments who might be interested in implementing the standards and some way forward?

Wouter Van Den Bosch: I’ll take it first, and then I give it to Walter. I think that the idea behind the community that we are launching in the moment is that everybody with an interest in – I will start again because you didn’t have your phone on. The idea behind the community is that all organizations with an interest in testing the situational standards in their country can participate. So that could be from a governmental angle. It could be from a research angle, academia. It could be from a technical community who also advises members. So all different sort of parties can join and have already joined. So if you would like to promote this in the GAG, then we would be more than welcome to do so. There is a set of standards at this moment that is in the program, but the idea is to develop the program further in the future. And that is something that we hope to also be able to coordinate on between all the different parties so we can set the next steps together. So that’s the idea behind starting this international community. So let’s talk a little bit after the session and we can see how we can promote this further. And would you like to add, Walter?

Walter Kobes: I fully agree and I think the added value of the tool is not to show what standards are implemented and what not, but also to give you the means to implement these standards that are not yet supported. So that is the goal of the program and I think we should get in touch.

Wouter Van Den Bosch: So thank you very much for the question. And we only have half an hour, so I’m already seeing people waving there that we should stop in time. But I want to thank you very much for coming and showing your interest in the launch of this international community. You heard what Internet.nl is, what it does, and why deployment of Internet standards is crucial. And you have heard the experience of the people already working with the tool from the Netherlands, but also in Brazil and in Japan. We could have staged some others, but we have only 30 minutes. Now it’s time to officially launch the international community in which we are going to cooperate to make everyone understand why not deploying the new generation security-related Internet standards and ICT best practices for that matter should no longer be an option for anyone manufacturing devices or offering digital services, etc. Just like it should no longer be an option to not procure ICTs secure by design as an organization. I can’t think of a bigger driver towards deployment than economic buying power, personally. You have a legislation, but if your customer doesn’t want you anymore because you’re not delivering, then you’re out of business. To get there, all concerned need to become more aware of the current situation and feel the pressure shown by this testing tool. How can you join our community? In a moment, Wouter will show you a QR code and you can sign up on a form and you will receive information for the future meeting, probably in October. I’d say, Wouter, let’s launch the Global Internet Standards Testing Community, the GISTC, but not before I welcome you to a bilateral meeting that you can ask questions if you like. It’s on Thursday morning, 10.30 in the Buskerud room in the hotel. If you’d like to have questions and answers, please come to that meeting and we will be there answering your questions. Thank you for joining. Wouter, please launch our… I’m not seeing this slide anymore, but we have some cake to celebrate this launch. Here’s the slide, so let’s go. We’re launching. We’re launching. Thank you very much for joining. Thank you very much for joining. Thank you, presenters, Wouter, Alena, Gilberto, Daishi. Thank you, Doreen, for the online moderation. Peter for reporting, he’s in the Netherlands, and for the scribes and the technical people for really perfect preparation that we’ve had with you. So, thank you very much and I hope to meet you in the community room on Thursday. Thank you. Workshop 2 workshop 2. Workshop 2. Workshop 2. Workshop 2. Workshop 2. Workshop 2. Workshop 2.

Agreement points

Open source approach and international collaboration are essential for Internet standards testing

Speakers

– Wouter Van Den Bosch
– Walter Kobes
– Gilberto Zorello

Arguments

Internet.nl became open source after 2013 launch to enable global use, but lacked broader interaction between organizations until now

The open source code has been adopted by multiple countries including Brazil, Denmark, Germany, and France

Brazil successfully implemented Internet.nl as “STOP” with Portuguese interface as part of their Safer Internet Program

Summary

All speakers agree that making Internet.nl open source has enabled global adoption and that international collaboration through a community structure will enhance the tool’s effectiveness and reach

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Testing tools must provide actionable guidance beyond just identifying problems

Speakers

– Walter Kobes
– Alena Muravska

Arguments

Internet.nl is a testing tool that evaluates websites and email domains, providing concrete improvement steps beyond just identifying problems

Testing communities play a key role in monitoring standards deployment and ensuring correct implementation

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that effective testing tools must not only identify security issues but also provide concrete steps for improvement and ensure proper implementation

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Government and policy support are crucial for standards adoption

Speakers

– Alena Muravska
– Daishi Kondo
– Nico Caballero

Arguments

Governments are placing growing emphasis on internet standards for economic development and national security

Japan lacks policy mechanisms similar to Netherlands’ initiatives, creating adoption challenges for email security measures

Government cooperation through advisory committees like ICANN’s GAC could help promote standards implementation

Summary

All three speakers recognize that government policy frameworks and support mechanisms are essential drivers for successful internet standards adoption

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the value of creating a structured international community for knowledge sharing and collaborative improvement of Internet standards testing tools

Speakers

– Wouter Van Den Bosch
– Walter Kobes

Arguments

Representatives from different countries met in March to create a cooperative body for sharing experiences and developing next steps

International users have provided valuable feedback that has helped improve the product over time

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive approaches that combine regulatory requirements with practical support mechanisms like training and incentives to drive standards adoption

Speakers

– Alena Muravska
– Gilberto Zorello

Arguments

NIS2 regulation requires operators to adopt modern network protocols, routing security practices, and DNS/email security measures

The Brazilian implementation includes technical training, ISP guidance meetings, and awards for companies following security recommendations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognize that testing tools serve broader policy purposes beyond technical assessment, helping inform national security strategies and cross-cultural cooperation

Speakers

– Wouter Van Den Bosch
– Daishi Kondo

Arguments

Active use of testing tools provides organizations insight into their country’s security status for policymaking responses

International cooperation is essential to bridge policy and cultural gaps affecting security standards adoption

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Economic market pressure as a primary driver for security standards adoption

Speakers

– Wouter Van Den Bosch

Arguments

Economic buying power from customers demanding secure services could be a major driver for standards deployment

Explanation

While most speakers focused on technical and regulatory approaches, Van Den Bosch uniquely emphasized market-driven adoption through customer demand, suggesting economic incentives may be more powerful than regulatory compliance

Topics

Economic | Cybersecurity

Future technology integration planning

Speakers

– Walter Kobes
– Doreen Booghaart

Arguments

Post-quantum cryptography support will be added to Internet.nl testing suite when relevant standards are established

The community provides a platform for bilateral meetings and ongoing collaboration opportunities

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the need to plan for emerging technologies like post-quantum cryptography, showing forward-thinking approach beyond current standards

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on the value of international collaboration for Internet standards testing, the need for actionable testing tools, and the importance of government policy support. All speakers agreed on the open source approach and community-building efforts.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than disagreements. The speakers represented different geographical regions and organizational types but shared common goals for improving Internet security through standards deployment. This consensus suggests strong potential for successful international cooperation and community development.

Different viewpoints

Role of government vs. technical community in standards implementation

Speakers

– Alena Muravska
– Nico Caballero

Arguments

While governments play a key role in promoting these standards, their efforts must complement rather than replace the open collaborative processes that have kept the internet innovative and accessible

Government cooperation through advisory committees like ICANN’s GAC could help promote standards implementation

Summary

Muravska emphasizes that government efforts must complement, not replace, open collaborative processes and warns against politically driven approaches without technical input. Caballero focuses on expanding government cooperation through advisory committees, representing a more government-centric approach to standards promotion.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Unexpected differences

Primary drivers for standards adoption

Speakers

– Wouter Van Den Bosch
– Alena Muravska

Arguments

Economic buying power from customers demanding secure services could be a major driver for standards deployment

NIS2 regulation requires operators to adopt modern network protocols, routing security practices, and DNS/email security measures

Explanation

This represents an unexpected philosophical difference in a collaborative launch event. Van Den Bosch emphasizes market-driven adoption through customer demand as potentially more effective than legislation, while Muravska focuses on the importance of regulatory frameworks like NIS2. This disagreement on whether market forces or regulatory compliance should be the primary driver for standards adoption was not anticipated in what appeared to be a unified community launch.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows minimal direct disagreement, with most tension arising from different emphasis on approaches rather than fundamental opposition. The main areas of subtle disagreement involve the balance between government/regulatory approaches versus market-driven and technical community-led approaches to standards implementation.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with significant implications for community direction. While speakers generally align on the importance of internet standards and testing tools, their different emphases on regulatory compliance versus market forces, and government involvement versus technical community leadership, could influence how the community develops its strategies and priorities. These philosophical differences may become more pronounced as the community moves from launch to implementation phases.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the value of creating a structured international community for knowledge sharing and collaborative improvement of Internet standards testing tools

Speakers

– Wouter Van Den Bosch
– Walter Kobes

Arguments

Representatives from different countries met in March to create a cooperative body for sharing experiences and developing next steps

International users have provided valuable feedback that has helped improve the product over time

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive approaches that combine regulatory requirements with practical support mechanisms like training and incentives to drive standards adoption

Speakers

– Alena Muravska
– Gilberto Zorello

Arguments

NIS2 regulation requires operators to adopt modern network protocols, routing security practices, and DNS/email security measures

The Brazilian implementation includes technical training, ISP guidance meetings, and awards for companies following security recommendations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognize that testing tools serve broader policy purposes beyond technical assessment, helping inform national security strategies and cross-cultural cooperation

Speakers

– Wouter Van Den Bosch
– Daishi Kondo

Arguments

Active use of testing tools provides organizations insight into their country’s security status for policymaking responses

International cooperation is essential to bridge policy and cultural gaps affecting security standards adoption

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The Global Internet Standards Testing Community (GISTC) was officially launched to facilitate international cooperation in testing and deploying security-related internet standards

Internet.nl has proven successful as an open-source testing tool with over 5 million annual scans and adoption across multiple countries including Brazil, Denmark, Germany, and France

Government policy frameworks and security culture significantly influence the adoption rates of internet security standards, with the Netherlands showing high success through ‘comply or explain’ approaches

NIS2 regulation will make deployment of modern network protocols, routing security, and DNS/email security measures mandatory for EU operators

Testing communities play a crucial role in ensuring standards are not only implemented but correctly and consistently deployed to prevent fragmentation

International collaboration is essential to bridge policy and cultural gaps that affect security standards adoption across different countries

Economic pressure from customers demanding secure services could be a major driver for standards deployment, potentially more effective than legislation alone

Resolutions and action items

Community members can join by signing up through a QR code form to receive information about future meetings

Next community meeting scheduled for October to prioritize activities for the first year

Bilateral meeting scheduled for Thursday morning at 10:30 in the Buskerud room for questions and answers

Post-quantum cryptography support will be added to Internet.nl testing suite when relevant standards are established

Follow-up discussion planned between organizers and ICANN GAC Chair to explore government cooperation opportunities

Continued promotion of the community through various channels including government advisory committees

Unresolved issues

Specific timeline for implementing post-quantum cryptography testing remains undefined, pending establishment of accepted standards

Formal organizational structure for the community has not been finalized – currently described as ‘provisionally called’ GISTC

Concrete mechanisms for government cooperation and task force formation need further development

How to effectively bridge policy and cultural gaps between countries with different security adoption rates

Specific coordination methods for future standards development and community input processes

Suggested compromises

Technology-neutral and flexible approach to NIS2 requirements while maintaining technical community leadership in decision-making

Multi-stakeholder forum approach that includes government, technical community, and private sector participation

Gradual expansion of testing standards based on community feedback and technical readiness rather than rigid timelines

Successful examples include governments that have developed, for example, national IPv6 roadmaps in close cooperation with the technical community, ensuring that these roadmaps are grounded in the technical reality in their countries. On the other hand, more politically driven roadmaps without sufficient input from technical experts often failed to meet the expectations.

Speaker

Alena Muravska

Reason

This comment provides a crucial insight into why some government initiatives succeed while others fail, highlighting the critical importance of technical community involvement versus purely political approaches. It introduces a nuanced understanding of governance effectiveness.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from simply promoting standards to examining the quality and approach of implementation. It established a framework for understanding successful versus unsuccessful deployment strategies, which influenced how subsequent speakers framed their national experiences.

STOP has a web interface in Portuguese, very important in Brazil, because people here don’t speak any English. We need a web interface in Portuguese.

Speaker

Gilberto Zorello

Reason

This seemingly simple observation reveals a profound barrier to global technology adoption – language accessibility. It challenges the often English-centric approach to technical tools and highlights how localization is not just helpful but essential for meaningful adoption.

Impact

This comment introduced the practical reality of global deployment challenges beyond technical considerations. It demonstrated that successful international expansion requires cultural and linguistic adaptation, not just technical replication, adding depth to the community’s understanding of what ‘global’ really means.

From my experience in my email security research, I have realized that the adoption of email security measures is greatly influenced by the policy frameworks and the security culture. For example, the Netherlands has initiatives such as Comply or Explain List and Internet.nl, which have contributed to a high adoption rate of email security measures. On the other hand, Japan lacks similar policy mechanisms or counterpart to Internet.nl.

Speaker

Daishi Kondo

Reason

This comment provides empirical evidence of how policy frameworks directly impact technical adoption rates, offering a comparative analysis between countries. It moves beyond theoretical discussion to concrete evidence of what works and what doesn’t.

Impact

This observation reinforced Alena’s earlier point about successful government approaches while providing specific comparative data. It helped establish the value proposition for the community by showing measurable differences in adoption rates based on policy support, strengthening the argument for coordinated international efforts.

I can’t think of a bigger driver towards deployment than economic buying power, personally. You have a legislation, but if your customer doesn’t want you anymore because you’re not delivering, then you’re out of business.

Speaker

Wouter Van Den Bosch

Reason

This comment introduces market forces as potentially more powerful than regulatory compliance in driving standards adoption. It challenges the assumption that legislation is the primary driver and suggests that consumer/customer demand might be more effective.

Impact

This insight reframed the entire discussion about deployment strategies, suggesting that creating market pressure through awareness and testing might be more effective than relying solely on regulatory mandates. It positioned the testing community as a market-enabling force rather than just a compliance tool.

Will the community support a journey towards post-quantum cryptography and its use at Internet.nl?

Speaker

Santosh Pandit (online participant)

Reason

This question demonstrates forward-thinking about emerging security challenges and tests the community’s adaptability to future standards. It shows engagement with cutting-edge security concerns and challenges the community to consider its evolution.

Impact

This question pushed the discussion beyond current standards to future challenges, demonstrating that the community needs to be adaptive and forward-looking. It showed that participants are thinking strategically about the community’s long-term relevance and technical evolution.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a simple product launch into a sophisticated discussion about the complex interplay between technology, policy, culture, and economics in global standards deployment. The comments collectively established that successful standards adoption requires: technical excellence, policy support, cultural adaptation, market incentives, and forward-thinking evolution. They shifted the conversation from ‘what we do’ to ‘how and why it works differently across contexts,’ creating a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the global internet standards testing community. The discussion evolved from promotional to analytical, with each insight building on previous ones to create a comprehensive framework for understanding global technology deployment challenges.

Will the community support a journey towards post-quantum cryptography and its use at Internet.nl?

Speaker

Santosh Pandit (online participant)

Explanation

This is important as organizations need to prepare for quantum-resistant security measures, and testing tools like Internet.nl will need to incorporate post-quantum cryptography standards once they are established and widely accepted.

How can governments cooperate with the community, particularly those interested in implementing DNSSEC, cryptography, and other standards? Is there a task force or contact point for governments?

Speaker

Nico Caballero (GAG Chair, ICANN)

Explanation

This addresses the need for structured government engagement in Internet standards deployment, which is crucial given the regulatory requirements like NIS2 and the role of policy frameworks in driving adoption.

How to bridge policy and cultural gaps between countries to promote better adoption of email security measures?

Speaker

Daishi Kondo (University of Tokyo)

Explanation

This is important because adoption rates vary significantly between countries due to different policy frameworks and security cultures, and understanding these differences is essential for effective international cooperation.

What will be the specific priorities and focus areas for the community’s first year of operation?

Speaker

Wouter Van Den Bosch

Explanation

This needs to be determined at the October meeting and is crucial for establishing the community’s direction and concrete objectives.

How can the community coordinate on future development of standards and testing capabilities beyond the current set?

Speaker

General discussion context

Explanation

This is important for ensuring the community remains relevant and can adapt to evolving Internet security standards and requirements.

Summary

This discussion focused on measuring internet use in the United States, featuring presentations from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the U.S. Census Bureau. The session began with a historical video from the 1990s showing early efforts to address the “digital divide” between Americans with and without access to information technology. NTIA officials presented their Internet Use Survey, which has been the longest-running federal data collection on computer and internet use since 1994, conducted as a supplement to the Current Population Survey with tens of thousands of households interviewed monthly.

The Census Bureau representatives discussed the American Community Survey (ACS), which measures computer and internet access among 3.5 million households annually and provides geographically granular data down to neighborhood levels. Both agencies acknowledged limitations in their current data collection methods, particularly the challenge of obtaining reliable estimates for smaller geographic areas and keeping pace with rapidly changing technology. To address these gaps, NTIA and the Census Bureau introduced Project LEIA (Local Estimates of Internet Adoption), which uses advanced statistical modeling techniques called small area estimation to produce more detailed local internet adoption data.

Project LEIA combines direct survey data with auxiliary information like income levels and broadband infrastructure availability to generate reliable single-year estimates for all U.S. counties, rather than just the quarter of counties with sufficient population for traditional survey methods. During the interactive discussion, international participants raised questions about sustainability measurements, data quality assessment, capacity building opportunities, and how collected data influences policy decisions. The session concluded with participants sharing experiences from different countries and expressing interest in continued collaboration on internet measurement methodologies.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Historical Evolution of Digital Divide Measurement**: The discussion began with historical context from the 1990s, showing how the “digital divide” between technology “haves and have-nots” became recognized as a critical economic and civil rights issue, leading to the establishment of long-running federal data collection efforts.

– **Two Primary Survey Methods for Internet Use Data**: Presenters detailed NTIA’s Internet Use Survey (running since 1994, supplementing the Current Population Survey) and the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey questions (added in 2013), explaining how these capture different aspects of internet adoption, device usage, and online activities.

– **Project LEIA – Advanced Local Estimation Techniques**: A significant focus on the new “Local Estimates of Internet Adoption” initiative using small area estimation and machine learning to provide more granular, single-year county-level internet adoption data, addressing gaps in geographic coverage of traditional surveys.

– **Data Limitations and Methodological Challenges**: Discussion of survey limitations including declining response rates, difficulty measuring rapidly changing technologies, inability to capture internet quality/infrastructure readiness, and challenges in providing estimates for smaller geographic areas.

– **International Collaboration and Capacity Building**: Questions from international participants about training opportunities, data sharing, and how measurement data translates into targeted policy interventions for digitally excluded populations.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to present current U.S. federal approaches to measuring internet use and adoption, introduce new statistical modeling techniques for more granular local estimates, and foster international dialogue about best practices, methodological improvements, and collaborative opportunities in internet measurement.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently professional, collaborative, and educational tone throughout. It began as a formal presentation but became increasingly interactive and engaging during the Q&A portion. The tone was optimistic about technological advances in data collection methods while acknowledging ongoing challenges. International participants brought a global perspective that enriched the conversation, and the overall atmosphere was one of knowledge-sharing and mutual learning rather than debate or criticism.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Video**: Historical testimony from the Honorable Larry Irving presenting findings from “Falling Through the Net, Defining the Digital Divide” study released by the Commerce Department in 1999

– **Jaisha Wray**: Associate Administrator for the Office of International Affairs and Acting Associate Administrator of the Office of Policy Analysis and Development at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

– **Susan Chalmers**: Internet Governance Team Lead in the Office of International Affairs at NTIA

– **Luis Zambrano Ramos**: Senior Policy Advisor in NTIA’s Office of Policy Analysis and Development

– **Andrew Flavin**: Leads the Digital Policy Team in NTIA’s Office of International Affairs

– **Rafi Goldberg**: NTIA policy expert with 14 years of experience at the agency

– **Leslie Davis**: Census Bureau’s Subject Matter Expert on Computer and Internet Use as measured by their surveys

– **Heather Keene**: Works in the same division as Leslie at the Census Bureau, brings modeling expertise to internet and computer use measurement

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members asking questions during the open forum discussion

**Additional speakers:**

– **Michael Lewis**: Mentioned as someone who would discuss the NTIA Internet Use Survey and its history, but did not appear to speak in the transcript

– **Nenad Dorlich**: Audience member who asked questions about sustainability data collection and comparison with commercial service providers

– **Robert**: Online participant from Uganda working for Youth in Technology and Development Uganda, asked about capacity building training

– **Joshua**: Audience member from Uganda ISOC chapter who asked about disaggregation of internet measurement in schools and institutions

# Measuring Internet Use in the United States: Federal Data Collection Approaches and International Collaboration

## Executive Summary

This forum examined federal approaches to measuring internet use and adoption in the United States, featuring presentations from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the U.S. Census Bureau. The session began with historical context from the 1990s digital divide research, followed by detailed presentations on current survey methodologies and the innovative Project LEIA small area estimation initiative. The discussion included questions from international participants about capacity building, data comparability, and policy implementation.

## Historical Context: The Digital Divide Foundation

The session opened with a video clip from the 1990s featuring Larry Irving discussing the Commerce Department’s “Falling Through the Net, Defining the Digital Divide” study. This historical footage provided context for understanding how the digital divide between technology “haves and have-nots” was first identified as a critical policy issue affecting American access to technology.

## NTIA Internet Use Survey

Luis Zambrano Ramos, Senior Policy Advisor in NTIA’s Office of Policy Analysis and Development, presented the NTIA Internet Use Survey, which represents the longest-running federal data collection effort on computer and internet use, operating continuously since 1994. The survey operates as a supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS), interviewing tens of thousands of households monthly.

The survey captures comprehensive data on device usage, online activities, and internet access technologies, measuring not merely access but the sophistication and variety of internet usage patterns across demographic groups. The survey methodology undergoes continuous refinement through a public comment process that ensures stakeholder input in data collection design.

Zambrano Ramos highlighted the public availability of raw data through GitHub repositories and explorer tools designed for researchers and policymakers, demonstrating the agency’s commitment to data transparency and accessibility.

## American Community Survey (ACS)

Leslie Davis, the Census Bureau’s Subject Matter Expert on Computer and Internet Use, explained how computer and internet questions were added to the ACS in 2013 following Congressional directive through the Broadband Data Improvement Act. The ACS provides nationally representative data on internet adoption and computer ownership for 3.5 million households annually.

The ACS underwent significant methodology improvements in 2016 to address question clarity and response reliability issues. Davis emphasized that the ACS enables analysis of broadband adoption disparities at sub-state geographic levels, though with important limitations: one-year data is limited to counties and places with populations exceeding 65,000, while five-year data can reach census tract level but sacrifices timeliness for geographic coverage.

Davis detailed the interactive mapping tools and pre-tabulated products available through data.census.gov, making statistical information accessible to diverse user communities.

## Project LEIA: Local Estimates of Internet Adoption

### Technical Approach

Rafi Goldberg, NTIA policy expert, and Heather Keene, Census Bureau modelling expert, presented Project LEIA as an innovative solution addressing geographic limitations in traditional survey methods. Announced last fall, the project employs small area estimation techniques that combine direct survey data with auxiliary predictors such as income levels and broadband infrastructure availability.

The statistical approach blends direct ACS estimates with indirect regression estimates, weighted by relative precision for each county. This methodology enables production of reliable single-year estimates for all U.S. counties, rather than just the quarter of counties with sufficient population for traditional survey methods.

### Results and Applications

Project LEIA produces the first-ever experimental single-year estimates of household internet adoption for every U.S. county. This advancement in geographic granularity enables state broadband offices to utilize survey data for designing targeted programs. Goldberg provided specific examples, noting that while Los Angeles County has sufficient sample size for direct estimates, smaller counties in Texas do not, making the modeled estimates particularly valuable.

### Future Development

The research team outlined plans for expanding Project LEIA’s capabilities, including refining the county-level model to produce official data products, exploring census tract-level estimates, and applying machine learning techniques to bring detailed internet use data from NTIA surveys to ACS datasets. Keene mentioned plans to incorporate additional predictors including urban/rural measures and STEM occupation concentrations.

## International Engagement and Questions

The session included participation from international attendees, with Jaisha Wray, Associate Administrator for NTIA’s Office of International Affairs, and Susan Chalmers, Internet Governance Team Lead, facilitating discussion.

### Key Questions Raised

**Capacity Building**: Robert from Youth in Technology and Development Uganda requested training on internet measurement methodologies. Speakers suggested working through existing institutions like the U.S. Telecommunications Training Institute.

**Environmental Sustainability**: Nenad Dorlich asked whether agencies collect data on electricity consumption or CO2 emissions related to internet usage. Speakers acknowledged this data is not currently collected.

**Data Disaggregation**: Joshua from Uganda ISOC chapter asked about measuring internet access in schools and institutions beyond household-level data. Speakers noted that while other agencies collect some institutional data, comprehensive integration remains limited.

**Infrastructure Quality**: A RIPE NCC representative questioned measuring internet infrastructure readiness for next-generation applications like AI and AR, highlighting that access doesn’t necessarily indicate capability for advanced applications.

**Policy Implementation**: An international think tank representative asked how data collection translates into targeted initiatives for digitally excluded populations, emphasizing the gap between measurement and effective intervention.

## Technical Challenges

Speakers acknowledged several ongoing challenges:

– Declining survey response rates affecting data reliability

– Sample size constraints limiting geographic granularity

– The need to balance technological currency with time series comparability

– Integration challenges across multiple data collection efforts

## Data Accessibility and Tools

Both agencies emphasized their commitment to open data access. NTIA provides raw data through GitHub repositories and specialized explorer tools, while the Census Bureau offers interactive mapping tools and pre-tabulated products through data.census.gov. This approach enables independent analysis and supports evidence-based policy development across government levels.

## Conclusion

The forum demonstrated significant progress in federal internet measurement capabilities, from the foundational digital divide research of the 1990s to today’s sophisticated statistical modeling approaches like Project LEIA. While current methodologies provide valuable insights into internet adoption patterns, the discussion revealed ongoing challenges in areas such as environmental impact measurement, infrastructure quality assessment, and translating data into effective policy interventions.

The international interest in U.S. methodologies suggests opportunities for knowledge sharing and capacity building, while the technical innovations presented indicate continued evolution in measurement approaches to address the changing digital landscape.

Video: and so at this time we’d like to ask the Honorable Larry Irving to present testimony. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank you and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify today on the findings of Falling Through the Net, Defining the Digital Divide, the study released by the Commerce Department earlier this month. President Clinton and Secretary Daley released Falling Through the Net on July 8th, 1999 in Los Angeles during the President’s New Markets Tour. And during the tour, the President and Secretary Daley discussed the fact that even though information technology underlies much of our nation’s economic growth, far too many Americans are left out of the digital economy. And as a result, the digital divide, that is the divide between the haves and have-nots in information technology, has become a critical economics and civil rights issue. Access to new technologies such as the computer and the Internet will be keys to the future economic success of any American business, community, or individual. And increasingly, Americans use the net to find jobs, contact colleagues, locate public information, or take courses online. Electronic commerce is helping small companies compete and entrepreneurs in rural, remote, and traditionally underserved areas reach out to the rest of the world. Familiarity with new technologies will also prepare more Americans for the high-tech workplace of the 21st century. Because of the increasingly important role of these new technologies, Secretary Daley concluded that ensuring access to the fundamental tools of digital economy is one of the most significant investments our nation can make. And as we enter the 21st century, it will become even more essential to ensure that all Americans, rich or poor, urban or rural, black or white, Hispanic or Native American, can reap the benefits of these new technologies. Falling through the net provides a starting point in bridging the gap between the nation’s information rich and poor. This is our third report examining census data, looking at the digital divide. And we anticipate that it will serve as an important diagnostic tool to assist policymakers in the private sector in formulating methods to provide greater access for more Americans. And today I’d like to provide for the subcommittee several slides showing some of our key findings. These slides illustrate that overall Americans are far more connected than they have been in years past. On the other hand, we have also found that there are alarming disparities based chiefly on income, education, race, and geographic location in which group of Americans have computers, and who is online. Hmm, it’s gonna be interesting as I read my testimony. Equally disturbing, many of these disparities are growing. And let me turn to the first slide. This shows… And everyone will be in the dark if we don’t get online.

Jaisha Wray: Great, thank you all for joining us today. My name is Jaycia Ray and I am the Associate Administrator for the Office of International Affairs and the Acting Associate Administrator of the Office of Policy Analysis and Development in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, in the United States. What you just saw is a video from NTIA in the 1990s discussing the early days of measuring Internet use in the United States. As you will hear, this issue continues to be of high importance and the work continues on to this day as well. Today we have a distinguished set of speakers from NTIA and the U.S. Census Bureau who will discuss the past, present, and future of measuring Internet use in the United States. Located within the U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA is the executive branch agency principally responsible by law for advising the President on telecommunications and information policy issues. NTIA’s programs and policymaking focus largely on expanding broadband Internet access and adoption in America, expanding the use of spectrum by all users, and ensuring that the Internet remains an engine for innovation and economic growth. Also located within the Department of Commerce, the United States Census Bureau is the nation’s largest federal statistical agency with the mission to serve as the leading provider of quality data about the nation’s people and economy. The Census Bureau provides high quality, timely, and relevant data products that determine how legislative seats are distributed across the nation. It also supports evidence building in government and policymaking, planning decisions about community services, and the annual distribution of federal funds to local, state, and tribal governments. Together, subject matter experts from these agencies will share details about how they measure Internet use, highlighting promising new initiatives and issues that require further examination in this ongoing effort. Following their overview, we want to open the floor for robust interactive discussion with people both in the room and online. We want to hear how other countries are measuring Internet use and what we can learn from those experiences. In particular, what are the missing pieces in measuring Internet use, and how can the international community collaborate in this space? We hope that this open forum will serve as an opportunity to bring experts from around the world together to advance the state of knowledge for one of the most important aspects of digital connectivity, understanding how people use the Internet. So to kick things off, I will ask my colleagues to briefly introduce themselves.

Susan Chalmers: Good afternoon. My name is Susan Chalmers, and I am the Internet Governance Team Lead in the Office of International Affairs at NTIA.

Luis Zambrano Ramos: And I’m Luis Zambrano Ramos. I’m a Senior Policy Advisor in NTIA’s Office of Policy Analysis and Development.

Andrew Flavin: Hi, I’m Andrew Flavin. I lead the Digital Policy Team in NTIA’s

Luis Zambrano Ramos: Office of International Affairs. Rafi, are you online?

Rafi Goldberg: Good afternoon. My name is Rafi Goldberg, and I’ve been working on policy at NTIA for the past 14 years. And I will pass it on to our Census Bureau friends.

Leslie Davis: Great. Thank you, Rafi. My name is Leslie Davis, and I’m the Census Bureau’s Subject Matter Expert on Computer and Internet Use as measured by our surveys.

Heather Keene: Hi, good afternoon. I’m Heather Keene. It’s morning for us. I work in the same division with Leslie, and you’ll meet Mike after me. They’re the Subject Matter Experts on Internet and Computer Use, and I bring modeling expertise to the table. I’m going to pass it to you, Mike.

Jaisha Wray: All right. So in terms of our run of show today, first we will hand it over to Michael Lewis, who will discuss the NTIA Internet Use Survey and its history. Following that, Leslie will talk about the U.S. Census Bureau’s decades-long work in the American Community Survey. After Leslie, Rafi will highlight the latest project to produce local estimates of Internet adoption. Heather will then dive deeper into the technical details of this project. And following the presentation, Susan and our other Subject Matter Experts will help steward the open forum discussion. So with no further ado, we’ll get started, and over to Luis.

Luis Zambrano Ramos: Great. So thank you so much, Jaisha Wray. So I am going to focus on one of NTIA’s most important contributions to the field, the NTIA Internet Use Survey. This survey is a supplement to the current population survey, which is a survey that’s sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is a monthly survey, which is primarily known as the source of some of our official labor statistics. Agencies such as NTIA have the opportunity to sponsor supplemental questions during particular months. Tens of thousands of households are interviewed for the CPS every month, providing a large, nationally representative sample of American households. We have worked for over 30 years with our partners at the Census Bureau on this survey. In fact, the Internet Use Survey is the longest-running federal data collection on computer and Internet use in the United States. We have sponsored a grand total of 17 surveys in the field since 1994, and we’re planning to get our next survey out in November of this year. So here you can see a timeline of our collections. Over time, we have transitioned from print publications of our findings to a more web-centered approach to present the results. We have blog posts and other analyses of the data, and we also have a nifty, publicly available explorer tool that I will showcase in a bit. One very important component of the NTIA Internet Use Survey is the ability to obtain input from the public on the survey instrument itself. We include a draft version of the survey instrument and seek comment from the public before we issue the survey. This forum actually is particularly timely, given that last week, on June 17th, we published a notice and request for comment for our upcoming survey later this year in 2025. So with all this said, what can we learn from the survey? So in addition to learning just about Internet use generally, we can also learn things like devices and Internet access technologies, details about how people use the Internet, including locations and certain online activities. We also have other questions, such as questions about how people use the Internet. This is a slide that you can get using our explorer tool, which I will show in a bit. This slide breaks down device usage, perhaps not surprisingly for example, we have noticed that smartphone use has gone up since 2011, while desktop computer use has decreased. And here are a few online activities that we have measured and how they have trended over time, things like social media use, telework, and the like. So as I mentioned, we have a publicly available explorer tool that we call the NTIA Dead Explorer that allows us to play with this data. For example, if I am searching for device use, specifically laptop use, you can look at that information throughout the years. You can look at the total number in millions and percentages over the years. You can also get a table that gives you a result for each of the U.S. states and breaks them down along with numbers, percentages, and also things like confidence intervals. So again, here is just how the tool is being applied, and I’m sorry, I think we’re having some technical difficulties, but moving on to sort of the availability of this data, if you want to dive deeper, we make all the underlying raw data publicly available. We actually have a GitHub repository with sample code, and at the end of the presentation we’ll actually give a link to our website. And there you can see some of the publicly available data sets that we have. And before I pass it on to my Census colleagues, last year we actually celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Internet Use Survey, and we threw a little party. You just saw that slide, and we were able to put it on a cake, and unfortunately there’s no cake today, but I welcome you all to join in the celebration. And with that, I will pass it on to my colleague Leslie from Census.

Leslie Davis: Great. Thank you so much, Luis. In addition to the NTIA Internet Use Survey, the Census Bureau measures computer and Internet access on the American Community Survey, or the ACS, which is the Census’s flagship demographic survey. This is a nationally representative survey that serves as the premier source for timely, detailed population and housing information for the U.S., and it provides local and national leaders with information needed for programs, economic development, emergency management, and more. It is fielded annually to a sample of 3.5 million households nationwide, and also additional group quarters, and it asks questions on over 40 topics, including Internet access. Next slide, please. So in 2008, U.S. Congress directed federal agencies through the Broadband Data Improvement Act to improve their data collection on broadband use and subscription, and this act specifically called upon the Census Bureau to add questions to the ACS that measured, A, whether persons at households use or own computers at their address, and, B, whether persons at that address subscribe to dial-up or broadband Internet service at their address. The computer and Internet questions were added to the ACS in 2013. Next slide, please. So the initial set of questions that were asked on the ACS are shown on the left-hand side of this screen, and they were designed to capture computer ownership, Internet adoption, as we measure by a connection to the Internet, and Internet subscription type. As a result of us measuring adoption, the ACS data does not offer insights on the level of Internet use within a household or the extent of digital literacy skills of a particular respondent. Furthermore, if a respondent says that they don’t have a subscription, the ACS data does not tell us if there isn’t an Internet service provider thus not allowing for the subscription or if it’s due to another reason, such as the cost of the subscription. The ACS questions were revised in 2016, which you can see on the right-hand side of the screen, and their current versions remain as they were in 2016. These changes that we made were implemented after feedback received from survey methods experts and undergoing thorough content testing, and the changes were aimed to address potential confusion with question wording, response categories, and definitional clarity. The first question you’ll see on the screen is our changes to device ownership question, and given the focus of today’s talk, I’m going to switch to the next question, which asks about Internet access. Here we replaced the language regarding subscriptions to paying a provider or cell phone company, which helped to reframe what it means to subscribe or adopt to the Internet for our respondents. Next slide, please. As for our Internet types question, we altered the language of mobile broadband plan to cellular data plan for clarity, and this change alone improved our response reliability drastically. We also collapsed the high-speed categories of cable, fiber, and DSL to improve question clarity and also distinguish this category, which is fixed to a particular location, and compare it to the mobile broadband option. Again, here we removed language related to subscription and changed it to access to the Internet, which improved our response rates. As you can see on this question and the device type question before, we also offer the opportunity for respondents to write in a particular Internet service type or device type that they may not see on the questionnaire. Clerical coders at our headquarters can match these write-ins to our categories as best as possible and reassign those write-ins as needed. So, for example, if a respondent wrote in Comcast for their Internet service type, which is a provider of cable and fiber Internet in the United States, we can typically assign that respondent to high-speed broadband on the back end. Next slide, please. So, based on the ACS, the Census Bureau publishes one-year and five-year estimates, and the main difference between the two is the level of geographic granularity captured in the estimates. Our one-year data can go down to the county and place levels for the geographies that match our population threshold of 65,000 and over, which helps us ensure confidentiality of our respondents and ensure reliability. The five-year data, which brings together 60 months of data, can go down even smaller to the census tract and block group level, as you can see on the hierarchy on the screen. Next slide. The tables on the screen provide some context for how small these geographies are. So, for example, for the one-year data, our counties are the largest sub-state geography. They are highly variable in geographic area and population size. So, for example, Los Angeles County in California has about 10 million residents, whereas Armstrong County in Texas has about 2,000. Counties in the U.S. have some government oversight in many states. Places, on the other hand, represent a town or a settled concentration of people within a state and can often be identified by a name. They sometimes have governmental functions, and their median size is about 1,000 people. Our five-year data can go down to the tract level, which is generally represented to be neighborhoods. They have an optimum size of about 4,000 people, and even smaller than that is the block group. The block group is a group of comprised of blocks, which are statistical areas bounded by visible and non-visible boundaries, and they’re comprised of about 600 to 3,000 people. As I mentioned, the one-year data is less geographically granular, which helps us ensure the reliability of those estimates and our confidentiality of survey respondents. So, as a result, we were able to publish. 27% of counties and 2% of incorporated places in our nation for the one-year data set in 2023. Our five-year data in contrast has a greater sample size and better reliability for smaller geographies and as a result we were able to publish all estimates. Next slide please. Using the ACS computer and internet data that we collect, the Bureau publishes 14 tables on device ownership and internet adoption by select demographics and geographic breakdowns. The data is available on our data tool which is data.census.gov and data users on that tool can access pre-tabulated products and use tables to create custom maps as I did to create the map on the screen here which shows the percent of people age 65 and older with a broadband subscription and computer by state. In addition to the tables and maps, data users can use our public use microdata sample or our PUMS data to create custom tables. This PUMS data is a sample, a subsample of the ACS microdata and it goes through many disclosure processes to protect confidentiality. Next slide please. In addition to our pre-tabulated products, we also produce written reports based on the ACS data. This most recent report investigated computer and internet use trends between 2013 and 2021. It also explored disparities in broadband adoption at the county level and included a great section on the demographics of smartphone-only households in the United States. Next slide. We also author shorter blog-style publications called America Counts Stories and here I have two examples, one pertaining to tablet ownership among households with children and the other exploring broadband adoption disparities among tribal households. Next slide. So what are the strengths of the ACS data? As I mentioned, it has a large sample size which allows us to publish geographically granular data. So for example, if you were interested in studying broadband adoption at the sub-neighborhood level, our five-year data from the ACS could help you get there. Additionally, the ACS offers detailed demographic data available for sub-state geographies which helps academics, policy makers, community stakeholders, and more explore internet adoption disparities by different factors like income, education, and rurality. We also publish the data on a frequent basis on an annual basis and it undergoes rigorous verification and reliability checks prior to us publishing it and it also provides a helpful time series of data as it dates back to 2013.

Rafi Goldberg: Great. Thank you, Leslie. Hopefully, my first slide is up although I cannot see it at the moment. But the, you know, the NTIA Internet Use Survey and the ACS, thank you, have served as the basis for a ton of important research and analysis for many years now and they continue to be vital data sources for understanding internet use in the United States. But we’re also very much aware that these surveys alone are unable to answer every relevant question and recently we’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about how to address some of the gaps in our data and to ensure we’re fully equipped in the future to understand our progress and challenges. Next slide, please. We learn a ton from household surveys but they’re not without their limits. For example, it’s pretty common for a colleague or a member of the public to ask me what internet use is like in their particular area and unfortunately, our current ability to answer that question is limited. Even with a huge sample size of our surveys, those numbers start to get small very fast if you try to zoom in too far on the map. For less populous areas, as Leslie mentioned, we need to aggregate five consecutive years’ worth of ACS data. Now, you know, even if you can work with the three basic internet use questions that are on the ACS, five-year estimates, while, you know, very useful in a lot of cases, are not ideal when you’re trying to understand the impacts of relatively fast changes like the introduction of a new program. I’m excited to say that NCIA and the Census Bureau are working to fill this gap, which will be the focus of the rest of our presentation, but just want to note that we also have some other challenges in this field. For example, while our surveys have fairly high response rates, they have been falling over time, and there’s a lot of work going on to try to address that. Internet use is also very much a field where the technologies and even the words that we use to describe those technologies are changing all the time, so it’s always a balancing act between keeping up with those changes in our surveys and being careful not to break good time series comparisons. Finally, while we have data on online activities from the NCIA Internet Use Survey, we are limited in our ability to measure important workforce and other skills. Next slide, please. So, I want to focus now on the problem of getting more granular internet use estimates, and I’m excited to report that last fall NCIA and the Census Bureau announced a new initiative called Local Estimates of Internet Adoption, or Project LEIA for short. With Project LEIA, we’re working to develop more granular single-year estimates using statistical techniques that are so advanced you might just think that they came from a galaxy far, far away. Next slide, please. So, what exactly is Project LEIA? The Census Bureau team is using something called small area estimation to make it possible for us to learn about internet use at the local level. The first product of this effort was released back in September in the form of the first ever experimental single-year estimates of household internet adoption for every county in the United States. For comparison, only about a quarter of U.S. counties have a large enough population to get to internet adoption estimates using the single-year ACS product. And again, the five-year estimates are also able to do this, and they’re very useful, but they’re not ideal in a lot of situations. Next slide, please. The basic idea behind small area estimation is that you take what you already know from survey data and feed that into a model alongside other data points that are known to be linked with the outcome of interest. In this case, we know from previous studies that factors like income and the availability of broadband infrastructure are predictors of internet adoption rates, so we can work with those as auxiliary data sources. Heather will go into more detail about this in a moment, but by incorporating these outside data points alongside the direct survey estimates, you get estimates with smaller margins of error compared with the survey estimates alone, and you also reduce the risk that individual respondents in less populous areas could be re-identified by the publication of new estimates. That makes it feasible to publish reliable estimates for places with smaller populations, all without having to interview any more households or putting anyone’s privacy at risk. Next slide, please. For our first experiment with, you know, with this, the Census Bureau team was able to estimate the proportion of households in every U.S. county that had a wired internet subscription in 2022. We were really excited to be able to share these first results with the world last fall, and we put together an interactive map on NTIA’s website to show off these new estimates. As you can see, there’s quite a lot of variation in adoption rates among U.S. counties, and these estimates enable you to zoom in on a particular area of interest. Next slide, please. While this is a promising start, we think there’s a lot more that can be done with Project LEIA, and NTIA and the Census Bureau are working together on the next steps. At the same time that we released the feasibility study and experimental estimates, NTIA put out an RFC asking for feedback and ideas for future directions. We’ve got some great suggestions that we’ve incorporated into our work moving forward. Right now, we have three tasks that we’re working on as part of this. initiative. First, the Census Bureau team is looking at ways to refine the model for the current set of estimates to get to the point where we all feel ready to shed the experimental label. Second, they are exploring the feasibility of producing even more granular estimates at the census tract level. And as mentioned before, census tracts in the United States are basically neighborhoods in a lot of places, and they generally contain between 1,000 and 8,000 people. And finally, they are working to apply machine learning to bring some of the more detailed computer and internet use data from the NTIA Internet Use Survey to the ACS dataset, opening up new research opportunities and setting the stage for the potential for small area estimates of those more detailed variables in the future. We’re very excited about the potential for project layout to help improve our understanding of internet use in the United States. And I’m pleased to turn next to Heather, who will get into some more of the technical details of how the Census Bureau is making this all possible.

Heather Keene: Thanks, Rafi. I’m happy to continue our 30-year partnership with NTIA, with Project LEIA. And I’m going to reiterate a lot what Rafi said. So Project LEIA is filling in the gap to obtain one-year estimates of internet adoption for all counties, because we need to measure time more quickly than what the five-year ACS estimates can tell us. So the nearest alternative, we could publish the survey estimate from one year from the ACS. But as Rafi and Leslie talked about earlier, you would only get about a quarter of all counties. And so Project LEIA, using small area modeling techniques, allows us to blend that survey with other sources, like Rafi pointed out, to publish internet adoption rates for every single county in the United States. That’s 3,144, I think it was at last count. Okay, so next slide. And so the small area modeling technique that we use, this is a very high-level view of what that looks like. The layout model estimates are really the combination of two separate estimates of internet adoption. And so on the left-hand side of the slide, you see that one component is the AC estimate. This is just from the survey by itself, the proportion of county households that have adopted internet. And on the right-hand side is what we call the indirect estimate. And this is the mechanism that we use to bring in the other related data sources and other factors that are related to internet adoption. So this is a regression model where the outcome is internet adoption at the county level. And the predictors are median household income for the county, the proportion of the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher, and the proportion of county households that have access to broadband infrastructure, which is taken from an administrative source that measures broadband internet infrastructure from another agency. We can talk more about that if you’d like. And so taking these two separate estimates of internet adoption, we blend them together where the contribution of each is determined by the relative precision compared to one another. Next slide, please. So here’s another look at that same visual where we see what happens in larger counties like L.A. County where we have a population of around 10 million people. The ACS direct estimate on proportion of households with internet adoption would be pretty reliable because we would sample a lot of households from this county. Because it’s a very large county, we would send out a lot of questionnaires, and we would get very good data from this county because of its size. And so the final model data estimate, we would expect a higher contribution from this high-quality direct survey estimate where we ask the households directly, do you have access to an internet broadband subscription? And so the LAYA model would draw more information from the ACS compared to the regression model defined in the indirect estimate. Next slide. And so you can imagine for smaller counties like the one in Texas Leslie talked about earlier, we would expect more contribution from the indirect estimate because the ACS estimate for that county, we wouldn’t have a lot of cases to derive an estimate from. And so the resulting estimate of proportion of households would be rather noisy. This would be reflected in the weight that combines the two estimates, the direct estimate from the ACS and the indirect estimate that brings in the additional data. Here, the indirect estimate we would expect to contribute more to the final estimate for that particular county. Okay, so that’s in a nutshell how Project LAYA works. And so the next slide is, this is the same map that Rafi showed you. This is just a screenshot from our feasibility report. Exact same data, but if you want to interact with the data, you’ll go to the NTIA website to look at different views and zoom in and zoom out. So on the right is just kind of a reminder of what exactly are we modeling here. And this is from the actual questionnaire in ACS. So we’re modeling the proportion of all households in each county that subscribe to high speed broadband, internet service, that’s cable, fiber optic, or DSL, just as a reminder. And so this map is a gradient. So darker blue counties are going to be those that have higher proportions of households that have adopted internet with that particular technology type. Next slide. Okay, and so this is just kind of a typical QC that’s done in small area modeling. What we’re looking at here is a scatter plot that compares the proportion of county households that adopt internet compared to that derived from our modeled layer estimate. ACS proportion is on the x-axis or the horizontal, and the layer proportion is on the vertical or y-axis. And so each one of these circles represents the county. And so whenever the layer proportion is exactly the same as the ACS survey proportion, the county or the circle will fall exactly on that diagonal line. So we don’t expect all counties to fall exactly along this line, but generally we want them to follow the general trend. You see some outliers, some counties, some circles that are not very closely aligned to the line. This means that the ACS data doesn’t have a lot of impact here. The model is drawing more from the indirect estimate here. And these are probably going to be very small counties. So this kind of some handful of scatter of points away from a line is completely expected, but we see in general the two estimates agree, and this is as desired. Okay, so overall the layer model progression proportion agrees at a high level with ACS. Okay, next slide. So this is a kind of repeating what Rafi was talking about and what we’re looking to continue Project LEIA. We’re going to fine-tune this county model for all counties for internet adoption and look at some other useful predictors that we didn’t use before that we got from our request for comments from the public. And mainly we’re going to look at measures of urban versus rural. We tried some of those before, but they didn’t work out. So there are other ways that you can measure that. So we’re going to continue exploring that. We’re going to look at measures of economic growth and concentration of the type of jobs or occupations in the county, namely science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or STEM occupations. And so we want to finalize that model, remove the experimental data product label, and have an official data product that measures internet adoption. And what we also want to look at the feasibility of going even further granularity and look at below the county level census tracts Rafi and Leslie described. These are subdivision or neighborhoods of counties around 4,000 people, but these are statistical entities that the Census Bureau creates at the start.

Luis Zambrano Ramos: Thank you so much, Heather, and that concludes our presentation. I’ve put up our website as well as our contact information, and I’m going to pass it over to Susan and Andrew to help us further the discussion.

Susan Chalmers: Thank you so much, Luis. And thank you to everybody for joining us for our open forum today. During this session, we have learned from colleagues at NTIA as well as colleagues from the U.S. Census Bureau on two different surveys. I mean, first we had NTIA’s Internet Use Survey, and then second we heard from the Census Bureau on the American Community Survey. I’d just like to pause to see if anybody has any questions they would like to put forward to our colleagues in person and in Washington, D.C. Sir, please. I believe you may have to use a microphone. You’re welcome to…

Audience: Hi. Do you hear me? Yes. Great. My name is Nenad Dorlich, and I would like to ask, does Census Bureau or NTIA collect any data in regards to sustainability, Internet and sustainability, like electricity consumption from the end user to data centers or CO2 equivalent emissions and such? And the second, I have a second question too, is do you compare your statistic or use data from commercial service provider, FCC, or any other source that may have this information also? Do you use them or compare your findings with them? Thank you.

Susan Chalmers: I’ll just pause to see if colleagues were able to capture the question. Rafi?

Heather Keene: Yeah, I guess for the Census Bureau, yeah, we have lots of different sources that we could potentially use that are collected by other agencies, not specifically the consumption from data centers per se, but we have used in other modeled products data from the Department of Energy, which collects data on energy consumption and detailed. We use that for a project to estimate what proportion of households use air conditioning, which is not asked in the AC. So we brought in that particular data. So the Department of Energy would, we could probably have a look to see what kind of detailed sources about energy consumption are available. And, yes, we do have third-party sources, just depending on the subject matter. The other administrative data that I was talking about that’s used in the LEIA model is data collected from the Federal Communications Commission FCC that measures broadband Internet availability for each county down to the block group level based on speeds that are advertised and the type of technology. So we have a lot of sources that we could potentially draw from. And, yes, we have from other agencies and from commercial sources. Rafi, do you want to add anything to that? Rafi, were you aware of any energy consumption sources that specifically look at data center consumption?

Rafi Goldberg: I am not. I think we would love to get our hands on this data if they were available somewhere. Yeah, I was just going to speak a little bit to the second part of the question. Right. And, you know, and just to add that, you know, in this session we’ve been talking about Internet adoption and usage data, whereas the FCC, as Heather mentioned, is the entity that collects data on where broadband infrastructure is actually available. So we do have that, you know, a whole other data source. And as Heather mentioned, that is actually one of the inputs into the experimental model for Project LEIA.

Audience: Thank you so much. Thank you for the question and thank you for the responses, colleagues. We have a question from an online participant. We’ll go to him next and then, sir, we’ll take your question after the online participant. So, Robert, please, the floor is yours. Yeah, thank you, the presenters. My question is I’m based here in Uganda and I work for a small organization called Youth in Technology and Development Uganda. Yes, I’ve been listening and down here we have a challenge of measuring Internet. I was wondering, do you offer capacity building training now to measure Internet for a small organization like mine, if interested in such?

Jaisha Wray: So I will briefly chime in that that is a very excellent point that we can take back to our colleagues in Washington to consider. We do think that there are great benefits to capacity building on this topic, so more to come. But we work closely with the U.S. Telecommunications Training Institute, and so it’s something to consider for the future. I don’t know if my colleagues online have anything to add.

Susan Chalmers: No, and Robert, we also have provided email addresses on one of those slides, so please let us know if you do not have those email addresses and we can find a way to provide them to you. Thank you for the question. Sir, please.

Audience: Thank you. I’m from RIPE NCC, the regional Internet registry that also operates the largest network of Internet measurement devices, so-called RIPE Atlas props and RIPE Atlas itself. So the question is about, well, when do we talk about the access to the broadband infrastructure? Do we also consider measuring the quality of this infrastructure? Because the access to it is not always the readiness of this infrastructure for the next level of digital economy, for the AI, for all the segmented reality, for this metaverse, et cetera. Do you also measure how do users use this Internet? So is it used only for primary functions or is it used for the access to AI or metaverse applications and activities? Do you think that there should be some measurement done to ensure, and efforts based on that, that should ensure the readiness of Internet infrastructure for the next level of Internet development and digital development? Thank you.

Luis Zambrano Ramos: So I’ll take the first part of the question and then pass it on to my colleagues. So at least for us, the NTIA Internet Use Survey does measure some online activities like social network usage, telework, and the like. We don’t, I think, get to the whole wide range of activities that people can do online, but we’re always looking to improve and iterate upon the survey instrument so that we can actually focus on the way that people are using the Internet today. And, Rafi, I don’t know if you have anything else to add to that.

Rafi Goldberg: Yeah, no, that is exactly right. And, you know, I would just add that in terms of the sort of direct network measurement, you know, there have been efforts at the FCC as well as in the private sector with firms like Ookla and Microsoft. and others to measure actual speeds and latency and other metrics related to the quality of the internet connection the folks actually experience, which I agree is another very important piece of the puzzle. So it’s not one of our programs, but I think another important area for us, certainly.

Audience: Thank you. We’re ready to share our sources as well and our knowledge for that. Thank you.

Susan Chalmers: Wonderful. Let’s let’s exchange information and we can we can be in touch after the session. Are there any other questions? Oh, yes, sir, please.

Audience: Thank you. I am I audible? All right. This is Joshua from Uganda, ISOC chapter. I have a question on the disaggregation. Do you do any disaggregation to maybe like internet in schools? Because I think you seem to focus on households. What about maybe in schools and in other institutions? Is that something you also measure? And how, if you do so? Thank you.

Susan Chalmers: Thank you. Excellent question made turn to our our colleagues in Washington.

Rafi Goldberg: Sure, I can start. So these are household surveys, which is which is why, you know, I think you’ve been hearing a lot about households. We do in the NTIA Internet use survey ask a range of questions about different locations of Internet use. And one of those is Internet use at school. So we do capture some information about that through this survey. I understand that there are other agencies throughout the government that also direct surveys towards the schools themselves. And through that, right. If you’re interested in learning more about how the school itself is using the Internet, those those would probably be the, you know, places to go for that information. But we do ask about Internet use at school, as well as using the Internet for online courses or training is one of the many activities that we ask about as well.

Susan Chalmers: Excellent, thank you. Anything to add from us on the census side?

Leslie Davis: Yes, hi. So, yeah, Rafi is exactly right on the ACS side. I think we’re a little bit restricted in terms of how the questions are mandated. And as a result, the questions are at the highest household level. But there are other sources, I believe, within the census as well on other surveys that get more at the school level or how trainings are done at the school level.

Luis Zambrano Ramos: And actually, one thing I want to plug in is one of, I believe, Leslie or Heather’s slides, it’s data.census.gov for access to various census data products.

Susan Chalmers: Thank you, just checking if we have any questions.

Andrew Flavin: Nothing more online.

Susan Chalmers: OK, any any questions from the room? Please.

Audience: So a quick one from international think tank perspective. When we speak to member states, the trouble is not just data collection, but actually using it for targeted initiatives for those who are not yet included or using the Internet. So how does your data collection feed in to the decision-making process at county or state or central federal government level to really make initiatives that target those geographical segments and those household and user segments that are not yet got the access, got the skills, or not yet using the Internet for various functions, anything from, you know, participating in public discourse, using government services online, shopping online, banking online. How is your data collection feeding into that to really ensure that we get those who are excluded online and included? Thanks.

Susan Chalmers: Thank you for the question. May I turn to Rafi, would you be able to offer a response to the question?

Rafi Goldberg: Yeah, you know, I think, you know, I have heard from many state broadband offices in particular that, you know, they like to make use of our data when, you know, they’re designing programs to, you know, serve their their constituents. So certainly, you know, at the federal level, we don’t have a monopoly on how we use these data, you know, certainly state and local governments and nonprofits and the private sector make use of these data all the time for their own work. You know, and, you know, it is not uncommon for us here at NCIA and elsewhere in the government to cite some of our data, for example, in an FCC filing or you know, in another venue where, you know, we are, you know, analyzing various policy issues. So, you know, so that I think is, you know, part of how this is helpful. But, you know, we certainly don’t think that we have a monopoly on, you know, how to best make use of the data. One very important feature of these data sets is they’re all available for public use and researchers and advocates on the outside do a lot of great things using our data.

Susan Chalmers: Thank you so much, Rafi. We just have a few minutes left. I would just like to invite the audience to share any of their experiences on measuring Internet use. Please feel free. We did flag these questions towards the top of the session, but we still do have some time if anybody would like to contribute.

Audience: Well, I can share a bit about our experience not about sharing Internet or measuring Internet use, but with the initiative that is called Internet Measurement Day that we do together with ICANN and we do it in different countries going there and just trying to show the country how to use the Internet measurement instruments to see what is their counter position on routing security, what is their counter position on the interconnection with other countries, what is their counter condition about the peering inside the country? So I guess we should have similar activities so we can have more understanding how we can improve the situation to have these networks ready because we talk a lot about these digital services, but there should be also the understanding that to ensure these digital services, to ensure this next level to digital development, we should have an appropriate level of Internet development in the country, appropriate level of critical resilient infrastructures in the country, route servers, IXPs, all the stuff that is connected and that is equivalent to the needs of digital economy and society of the future. Of now, because now is the future.

Susan Chalmers: Thank you, thank you so much. We are wrapping up and our time is concluding, so I just want to thank everybody for their contributions to this discussion and Jayshia, may I turn it to you to conclude?

Jaisha Wray: Sure. Again, thank you for participating. We really appreciated the active discussion. It’s clear there is a lot of interest in this topic. Our goal today was to introduce it and then to continue the discussion. So please feel free to reach out to us. Our virtual doors are open and we look forward to hearing from all of you and continuing to exchange lessons learned in this area and moving forward and exploring areas for cooperation as well. So again, thank you and we’ll see you next time. Take care. Thank you.

Agreement points

Need for comprehensive Internet measurement data to inform policy decisions

Speakers

– Luis Zambrano Ramos
– Leslie Davis
– Rafi Goldberg
– Heather Keene

Arguments

NTIA Internet Use Survey as longest-running federal data collection on computer and Internet use since 1994

ACS provides nationally representative data on Internet adoption and computer ownership for 3.5 million households annually

State broadband offices utilize survey data for designing targeted programs to serve constituents

Small area estimation technique combines survey data with auxiliary predictors like income and broadband infrastructure availability

Summary

All speakers from NTIA and Census Bureau agree that robust data collection is essential for understanding Internet adoption patterns and informing evidence-based policy decisions at federal, state, and local levels.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Geographic granularity limitations in current survey methodologies

Speakers

– Leslie Davis
– Rafi Goldberg
– Heather Keene

Arguments

ACS one-year data limited to counties and places with 65,000+ population, while five-year data reaches census tract level

Current surveys unable to provide reliable estimates for smaller geographic areas due to sample size constraints

Project LEIA produces first-ever experimental single-year estimates of household Internet adoption for every U.S. county

Summary

Speakers acknowledge that traditional survey methods face limitations in providing reliable estimates for smaller geographic areas, necessitating innovative approaches like Project LEIA to fill these gaps.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Importance of data accessibility and transparency for research and policy development

Speakers

– Luis Zambrano Ramos
– Leslie Davis
– Rafi Goldberg

Arguments

Public availability of raw data through GitHub repository and explorer tools for researchers and policymakers

ACS data enables analysis of broadband adoption disparities at sub-state geographic levels for policy development

State broadband offices utilize survey data for designing targeted programs to serve constituents

Summary

All speakers emphasize the critical importance of making Internet measurement data publicly available and accessible to enable research, policy analysis, and program development by various stakeholders.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of iterative improvement in survey methodology through stakeholder engagement and continuous refinement to enhance data quality and relevance.

Speakers

– Luis Zambrano Ramos
– Leslie Davis

Arguments

Public comment process for survey instrument development ensuring stakeholder input in data collection design

Survey methodology improvements in 2016 to address question clarity and response reliability issues

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers advocate for advanced statistical techniques to overcome traditional survey limitations and provide more granular, timely data for local-level policy and program evaluation.

Speakers

– Rafi Goldberg
– Heather Keene

Arguments

Need for more timely local-level data to understand program impacts and community-specific Internet use patterns

Project LEIA produces first-ever experimental single-year estimates of household Internet adoption for every U.S. county

Small area estimation technique combines survey data with auxiliary predictors like income and broadband infrastructure availability

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognize the value of international cooperation and knowledge sharing to advance Internet measurement capabilities globally and learn from different countries’ experiences.

Speakers

– Jaisha Wray
– Susan Chalmers

Arguments

International collaboration needed to advance understanding of Internet usage measurement globally

Coordination opportunities with international measurement initiatives and infrastructure assessment programs

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Recognition of survey methodology challenges and limitations

Speakers

– Rafi Goldberg
– Leslie Davis
– Heather Keene

Arguments

Declining survey response rates and evolving technology terminology requiring constant survey instrument updates

Survey methodology improvements in 2016 to address question clarity and response reliability issues

Current surveys unable to provide reliable estimates for smaller geographic areas due to sample size constraints

Explanation

It is somewhat unexpected that government agencies would openly acknowledge the limitations and challenges in their own data collection methods. This transparency demonstrates a commitment to continuous improvement and honest assessment of methodological constraints.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Openness to international capacity building and knowledge sharing

Speakers

– Jaisha Wray
– Susan Chalmers
– Audience

Arguments

Potential for capacity building partnerships through U.S. Telecommunications Training Institute

Request for capacity building training on Internet measurement from organizations in developing countries like Uganda

Coordination opportunities with international measurement initiatives and infrastructure assessment programs

Explanation

The willingness of U.S. government agencies to share expertise and collaborate internationally on Internet measurement, especially with developing countries, represents an unexpectedly collaborative approach that goes beyond typical domestic policy focus.

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion reveals strong consensus among speakers on the fundamental importance of comprehensive Internet measurement data, the need for methodological innovation to address geographic limitations, and the value of data transparency and accessibility. There is also agreement on the challenges facing current survey methodologies and the potential for international collaboration.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with collaborative implications – The speakers demonstrate remarkable alignment on both the challenges and opportunities in Internet measurement. This consensus suggests strong potential for continued inter-agency cooperation, methodological advancement through projects like LEIA, and international knowledge sharing. The agreement extends beyond technical issues to include policy applications and capacity building, indicating a mature and coordinated approach to addressing digital divide measurement challenges.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Scope of Internet measurement beyond adoption statistics

Speakers

– Luis Zambrano Ramos
– Rafi Goldberg
– Audience

Arguments

NTIA Internet Use Survey measures device usage, online activities, and Internet access technologies through CPS supplement

State broadband offices utilize survey data for designing targeted programs to serve constituents

Interest in measuring Internet infrastructure quality and readiness for next-generation digital applications beyond basic access

Explanation

While NTIA representatives focused on measuring adoption, usage patterns, and basic online activities, audience members raised concerns about measuring infrastructure quality, sustainability impacts (energy consumption, CO2 emissions), and readiness for advanced applications. This revealed an unexpected gap between what government agencies currently measure versus what stakeholders believe should be measured for comprehensive Internet assessment.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed minimal direct disagreements among speakers, with most participants sharing common goals around improving Internet measurement capabilities. The main areas of divergence centered on measurement scope and implementation approaches rather than fundamental disagreements about objectives.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high consensus on core objectives. The implications are positive for the field, as stakeholders share common ground on the importance of Internet measurement while bringing complementary perspectives on how to enhance current capabilities. The discussion suggests opportunities for expanding measurement frameworks to address broader stakeholder needs while building on existing statistical infrastructure.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of iterative improvement in survey methodology through stakeholder engagement and continuous refinement to enhance data quality and relevance.

Speakers

– Luis Zambrano Ramos
– Leslie Davis

Arguments

Public comment process for survey instrument development ensuring stakeholder input in data collection design

Survey methodology improvements in 2016 to address question clarity and response reliability issues

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers advocate for advanced statistical techniques to overcome traditional survey limitations and provide more granular, timely data for local-level policy and program evaluation.

Speakers

– Rafi Goldberg
– Heather Keene

Arguments

Need for more timely local-level data to understand program impacts and community-specific Internet use patterns

Project LEIA produces first-ever experimental single-year estimates of household Internet adoption for every U.S. county

Small area estimation technique combines survey data with auxiliary predictors like income and broadband infrastructure availability

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognize the value of international cooperation and knowledge sharing to advance Internet measurement capabilities globally and learn from different countries’ experiences.

Speakers

– Jaisha Wray
– Susan Chalmers

Arguments

International collaboration needed to advance understanding of Internet usage measurement globally

Coordination opportunities with international measurement initiatives and infrastructure assessment programs

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

The digital divide remains a critical economic and civil rights issue, with NTIA and Census Bureau providing essential data through two major surveys: the NTIA Internet Use Survey (running since 1994) and the American Community Survey (ACS)

Current survey methods have significant limitations in providing granular geographic data, particularly for smaller communities and rural areas, due to sample size constraints

Project LEIA represents a breakthrough innovation using small area estimation techniques to produce single-year internet adoption estimates for every U.S. county, combining survey data with auxiliary predictors like income and infrastructure availability

There is strong international interest in capacity building for internet measurement, with developing countries seeking training and technical assistance

Data quality and infrastructure readiness are emerging concerns, with stakeholders emphasizing the need to measure not just access but the quality and capability of internet infrastructure for next-generation applications

The surveys serve as vital tools for policymakers at federal, state, and local levels to design targeted programs addressing digital inclusion gaps

Resolutions and action items

NTIA to consider capacity building training opportunities for international organizations, potentially through collaboration with the U.S. Telecommunications Training Institute

Project LEIA team to continue refining the county-level model to remove the ‘experimental’ label and produce official data products

Census Bureau to explore feasibility of producing even more granular estimates at the census tract (neighborhood) level

Research team to apply machine learning techniques to bring detailed internet use data from NTIA surveys to ACS datasets

Incorporation of additional predictors into LEIA model including urban/rural measures and STEM occupation concentrations based on public feedback

Exchange of contact information and data sources between NTIA/Census Bureau and international measurement organizations like RIPE NCC

Unresolved issues

How to effectively measure internet infrastructure quality and readiness for next-generation applications like AI and metaverse beyond basic access metrics

Addressing declining survey response rates across both major data collection efforts

Balancing the need to update survey instruments for evolving technologies while maintaining time series comparability

Measuring internet sustainability impacts including electricity consumption and CO2 emissions from end users to data centers

Expanding measurement beyond households to include schools and other institutional settings more comprehensively

Developing more effective mechanisms to translate data collection into targeted policy interventions for digitally excluded populations

Suggested compromises

Using five-year ACS estimates for smaller geographic areas when single-year data is not reliable, accepting the trade-off between timeliness and geographic granularity

Leveraging multiple data sources (survey data, administrative records, commercial data) through small area estimation techniques to balance precision and coverage

Collaborating with other federal agencies (FCC, Department of Energy) and private sector entities to supplement survey data with infrastructure and quality measurements

Maintaining both detailed NTIA Internet Use Survey for comprehensive activity measurement and streamlined ACS questions for broad geographic coverage

Does Census Bureau or NTIA collect any data in regards to sustainability, Internet and sustainability, like electricity consumption from the end user to data centers or CO2 equivalent emissions and such?

Speaker

Nenad Dorlich

Reason

This comment was insightful because it introduced an entirely new dimension to internet measurement that hadn’t been considered in the presentation – the environmental impact of internet usage. It challenged the traditional focus on access and adoption by highlighting the sustainability implications of digital connectivity, which is increasingly relevant given climate concerns and the growing energy consumption of data centers.

Impact

This question shifted the discussion from purely social and economic metrics to environmental considerations. It prompted the speakers to acknowledge gaps in their current data collection and opened up a new avenue for future research. The response revealed that while they don’t currently collect this type of data, they are open to exploring it, demonstrating how external perspectives can identify blind spots in existing measurement frameworks.

Do we also consider measuring the quality of this infrastructure? Because the access to it is not always the readiness of this infrastructure for the next level of digital economy, for the AI, for all the segmented reality, for this metaverse, et cetera.

Speaker

RIPE NCC representative

Reason

This comment was particularly thought-provoking because it challenged the fundamental assumption that measuring access equals measuring readiness for digital participation. It introduced the critical distinction between having internet access and having quality internet that can support emerging technologies and advanced digital economy activities.

Impact

This comment deepened the technical discussion by highlighting the inadequacy of binary access measurements. It pushed the conversation toward more nuanced quality metrics and future-readiness assessments. The speakers acknowledged this as an important gap, referencing other organizations’ efforts to measure actual speeds and latency, which showed how this comment helped identify complementary measurement approaches.

The trouble is not just data collection, but actually using it for targeted initiatives for those who are not yet included or using the Internet… How is your data collection feeding into that to really ensure that we get those who are excluded online and included?

Speaker

International think tank representative

Reason

This comment was insightful because it shifted focus from the technical aspects of data collection to the practical application and policy impact of the data. It challenged the presenters to consider whether their sophisticated measurement systems actually translate into effective interventions for digital inclusion.

Impact

This question fundamentally changed the discussion’s trajectory from methodology to impact assessment. It forced the speakers to address the gap between data collection and policy implementation, leading to acknowledgment that while they provide data, they don’t control how it’s used for targeted interventions. This highlighted a critical weakness in the data-to-action pipeline and sparked discussion about the need for better coordination between data collectors and program implementers.

Do you do any disaggregation to maybe like internet in schools? Because I think you seem to focus on households. What about maybe in schools and in other institutions?

Speaker

Joshua from Uganda ISOC chapter

Reason

This comment was valuable because it exposed a significant limitation in the measurement approach – the heavy focus on household-level data while potentially missing institutional access points that are crucial for digital inclusion, especially in developing contexts where schools and public institutions may be primary internet access points.

Impact

This question highlighted a methodological blind spot and prompted discussion about the limitations of household-focused surveys. It led to acknowledgment that other agencies collect school-level data, revealing the fragmented nature of internet measurement across different sectors and the need for more comprehensive approaches that capture institutional access.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed what began as a technical presentation about measurement methodologies into a more critical examination of the limitations and gaps in current approaches to measuring internet use. The questions from international participants were particularly impactful, as they brought perspectives from different contexts and challenged US-centric assumptions. The comments collectively pushed the discussion beyond the ‘how’ of measurement to address the ‘why’ and ‘what’s missing’ questions. They revealed that while the US has sophisticated measurement systems, there are significant gaps in environmental impact assessment, quality measurement, institutional access tracking, and most importantly, in translating data into effective policy interventions. The international perspective was crucial in highlighting these limitations and suggesting that comprehensive internet measurement requires a more holistic approach that considers sustainability, quality, diverse access points, and practical policy applications.

Does Census Bureau or NTIA collect any data regarding sustainability, Internet and sustainability, like electricity consumption from end user to data centers or CO2 equivalent emissions?

Speaker

Nenad Dorlich

Explanation

This identifies a gap in current data collection around environmental impact of internet usage, which is increasingly important for policy making

Do you offer capacity building training to measure Internet for small organizations?

Speaker

Robert (online participant from Uganda)

Explanation

This highlights the need for international capacity building and knowledge transfer on internet measurement methodologies

Do you measure the quality of broadband infrastructure and its readiness for next-level digital economy applications like AI, metaverse, etc.?

Speaker

RIPE NCC representative

Explanation

This addresses the gap between measuring access versus measuring quality and capability of internet infrastructure for emerging technologies

Do you measure how users actually use the Internet – whether for primary functions or advanced applications like AI or metaverse?

Speaker

RIPE NCC representative

Explanation

This explores the need to understand not just access but the sophistication of internet usage patterns

Do you do disaggregation for internet use in schools and other institutions beyond households?

Speaker

Joshua from Uganda ISOC chapter

Explanation

This identifies a limitation in current surveys that focus primarily on household data rather than institutional usage

How does data collection feed into decision-making processes for targeted initiatives to include those not yet online?

Speaker

International think tank representative

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap between data collection and practical policy implementation for digital inclusion

Exploration of urban versus rural measures and other predictors for the LEIA model refinement

Speaker

Heather Keene

Explanation

This is ongoing research to improve the accuracy of small area estimation models for internet adoption

Feasibility of producing census tract level estimates (neighborhood level) for internet adoption

Speaker

Rafi Goldberg/Heather Keene

Explanation

This would provide even more granular geographic data for local policy making and program targeting

Application of machine learning to bring detailed internet use data from NTIA survey to ACS dataset

Speaker

Rafi Goldberg

Explanation

This could significantly expand the types of internet usage data available at local levels for research and policy

Summary

This workshop focused on strengthening multi-stakeholder participation in technical internet governance, with particular emphasis on multilingualism and digital inclusion. The discussion was moderated by Anne Rachel Inne from Niger’s National Agency for Information Society, featuring speakers from UNESCO, ICANN, and various regional organizations.

Guilherme Canela de Souza from UNESCO highlighted how multilingualism serves as a crucial example of multi-stakeholder engagement, noting that UNESCO’s Internet Universality concept includes multi-stakeholderism as one of its five core pillars. He emphasized that meaningful participation requires going beyond traditional stakeholders to include indigenous communities and underrepresented groups, though he acknowledged the practical challenges this presents, including procurement systems not adapted for indigenous communities.

Teresa Swinehart from ICANN discussed the organization’s partnership with UNESCO on Universal Acceptance, which ensures that all valid domain names and email addresses work across internet-enabled applications in different languages. She described successful initiatives like hackathons with university students that bridge technical cooperation with practical applications.

The panelists addressed significant barriers to inclusive participation, including the need for diverse skill sets beyond pure technical knowledge, the importance of translation between technical and policy communities, and the challenge of retaining participants from underrepresented regions once they’re initially engaged. Valts Ernstreits shared experiences from Latvia’s Livonian indigenous community, demonstrating how international engagement can drive domestic policy changes.

Practical solutions discussed included creating WhatsApp groups for youth engagement, developing fellowship programs, establishing networking platforms for niche communities, and ensuring that capacity-building efforts include mentorship and empowerment opportunities. The discussion concluded with calls for continued collaboration on UNESCO’s global roadmap for multilingualism in the digital era and the upcoming ICANN top-level domain program that will provide new opportunities for community representation online.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multilingualism and Universal Acceptance in Internet Governance**: The discussion emphasized the critical importance of ensuring all languages, including indigenous and underrepresented languages, can function properly in digital spaces. This includes making domain names, email addresses, and web applications work across different scripts and languages, with UNESCO and ICANN partnering on Universal Acceptance initiatives.

– **Multi-stakeholder Participation Challenges and Solutions**: Panelists addressed the need to move beyond “usual suspects” in internet governance discussions and actively include diverse voices – indigenous communities, youth, developing country representatives, and non-technical stakeholders. They acknowledged significant barriers including funding, procurement systems, and methodological challenges in meaningful inclusion.

– **Bridging Technical and Policy Communities**: The conversation highlighted the importance of translation between technical experts and policymakers, emphasizing that effective internet governance requires people who can communicate across these different domains and ensure policies are both technically feasible and socially beneficial.

– **Capacity Building and Retention Strategies**: Participants discussed practical approaches for engaging underrepresented groups, including fellowship programs, mentorship, hands-on training (like hackathons), and creating ongoing support networks through platforms like WhatsApp groups to maintain engagement beyond initial participation.

– **Practical Implementation and Future Actions**: The discussion concluded with concrete next steps, particularly around UNESCO’s Global Roadmap on Languages and Technologies, the International Decade of Indigenous Languages survey, and upcoming opportunities like ICANN’s next round of top-level domain applications with applicant support for underrepresented communities.

## Overall Purpose:

The workshop aimed to explore how to strengthen multi-stakeholder participation in technical internet governance, with a particular focus on ensuring meaningful inclusion of underrepresented groups, especially indigenous language communities and developing country stakeholders, in shaping the technical infrastructure and policies that govern the internet.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants openly acknowledging challenges while sharing practical solutions and experiences. The tone was professional yet accessible, with speakers drawing from personal experiences and concrete examples. There was a sense of urgency around inclusion issues, but also optimism about existing initiatives and partnerships that could drive progress. The conversation remained solution-oriented, ending with specific actionable commitments and next steps.

Speakers

– **Anne Rachel Inne** – Director General of the National Agency for Information Society in Niger, West Africa (Moderator)

– **Guilherme Canela De Souza** – Director of UNESCO’s Division for Digital Inclusion and Policies and Digital Transformation on UNESCO’s Memory of the World Register; Secretary of UNESCO’s Information for All program

– **Theresa Swinehart** – Senior Vice President, Global Domains and Strategy at ICANN

– **Valts Ernstreits** – Director and representative of Latvia and University of Latvia Livonian Institute; comes from Latvian indigenous people Livonian community; part of International Decade of Indigenous Languages global task force; co-chairing ad-hoc group on digital equalities and domains

– **Elizabeth Bacon** – Senior Director of Policy and Privacy at Public Internet Registry (PIR)

– **Amrita Choudhury** – Works for CCUI on tech policy; represents end-user communities, especially from developing countries; MAG member; from Asia-Pacific, India

– **Edmon Chung** – From DotAsia

– **Dominique Hazael Massieux** – Works for the World Wide Web Consortium; involved in Internationalization Program

**Additional speakers:**

– **Tawfiq Jalassi** – UNESCO’s Assistant Director General for Communication and Information (mentioned but could not attend)

– **Christy** – Managing online participants and questions (mentioned but did not speak extensively)

# Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Participation in Technical Internet Governance: Workshop Report

## Executive Summary

This workshop, moderated by An-Rochelle Iné, Director General of Niger’s National Agency for Information Society, brought together representatives from UNESCO, ICANN, the World Wide Web Consortium, and various regional organizations to discuss strengthening multi-stakeholder participation in technical internet governance. The discussion focused on multilingualism and digital inclusion as key examples of how diverse stakeholder engagement can improve internet governance structures.

Participants shared practical experiences and challenges in engaging underrepresented communities, particularly indigenous groups, in technical internet governance processes. The conversation highlighted both successful initiatives and significant barriers that prevent meaningful participation, while identifying concrete opportunities for improvement.

## Key Themes and Analysis

### Multilingualism as a Foundation for Inclusive Internet Governance

Guilherme Canela De Souza from UNESCO positioned multilingualism within UNESCO’s Internet Universality concept, explaining that it serves as one of five core pillars alongside multi-stakeholderism. He noted that UNESCO’s approach to multilingualism inherently requires multi-stakeholder engagement, involving technical communities, linguistic experts, policy makers, and affected communities working together. UNESCO has developed a World Atlas of Languages tool and is currently consulting on a global roadmap for multilingualism in the digital era.

Teresa Swinehart from ICANN discussed Universal Acceptance, a technical initiative ensuring that all valid domain names and email addresses function properly across internet-enabled applications regardless of language or script. She described successful collaborative efforts, including hackathons with university students that create websites capable of handling internationalized domain names and responding in multiple languages like English and Arabic. ICANN recently published a Universal Acceptance report and observes Universal Acceptance Day on March 28th.

Valts Ernstreits, representing the Livonian indigenous community and working with the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, shared how international engagement in technical governance can drive domestic policy changes. He described how participation in global forums led to increased recognition of Livonian language rights within Latvia’s national institutions, illustrating his metaphor that sometimes going “one floor up” is easier by going “all the way to the roof and then come back down again.”

An-Rochelle Iné, drawing on her background as a former interpreter and translator, reinforced the importance of multilingualism from an African perspective, noting that Universal Acceptance is gaining momentum in Africa, where most of the world’s languages exist and where rural populations often do not speak colonial languages.

### Current Limitations and Barriers to Participation

Workshop participants acknowledged significant shortcomings in existing multi-stakeholder models. Guilherme Canela De Souza noted that while the importance of including underrepresented groups is widely acknowledged, current systems are “far from guaranteeing it” due to practical, financial, and institutional barriers.

He provided a specific example of how administrative requirements can exclude communities: paying per diems to indigenous communities requires bank accounts, which many lack due to their different organizational structures. This seemingly neutral administrative requirement effectively excludes entire communities from participation.

Elizabeth Bacon from Public Internet Registry emphasized that technical internet governance requires diversity of views and skill sets beyond pure technical knowledge. She shared examples from her work with US government technical experts who would request implementations that would achieve “absolutely the opposite” of their intended policy goals because “that’s not how the internet works.” This highlighted the need for people who can translate between technical and policy communities.

Amrita Choudhury, representing end-user communities from developing countries, highlighted the retention challenge in multi-stakeholder participation. She noted that while bringing diverse participants through fellowship programs is important, the greater challenge lies in maintaining their engagement over time. Her observation that “you have to interact with young people in the way they want, not the way we want it” emphasized the need to adapt institutional practices to meet participants where they are.

### Technical Infrastructure Challenges and Solutions

Edmon Chung from DotAsia explained the complexity of developing Label Generation Rules (LGR) for different languages in domain name systems, which requires collaboration between local linguistic experts and technologists to create appropriate policies for each language’s unique characteristics.

Dominique Hazael Massieux from the World Wide Web Consortium highlighted ongoing challenges in accessing sufficient language expertise across the world’s diverse linguistic landscape. He noted that while the W3C’s Internationalization Program aims to make web pages work across as many languages and cultures as possible, they currently lack adequate contact with deep language experts for many languages.

Teresa Swinehart discussed upcoming opportunities through ICANN’s next round of top-level domain applications, beginning in early next year in April, which will include applicant support programs specifically designed to assist underrepresented communities in obtaining community-based domains.

### Innovative Engagement Approaches

Several speakers shared successful strategies for improving participation. Teresa Swinehart described ICANN’s use of hackathons and practical educational programs that engage youth through hands-on problem-solving rather than traditional academic approaches.

Valts Ernstreits shared insights from awareness-building work with indigenous language communities. He recounted how an expedition initially found institutions claiming to have no Livonian heritage materials, but after local media attention, the same institutions acknowledged having “plenty” of such resources, illustrating how visibility can transform institutional behavior.

Amrita Choudhury discussed practical retention strategies, including creating WhatsApp groups for ongoing engagement and establishing subcommittees that provide meaningful roles for diverse participants. Her approach emphasizes “hand-holding and empowerment” rather than one-off training sessions, recognizing that sustained engagement requires ongoing support.

### Bridging Technical and Policy Communities

A recurring theme was the critical importance of translation between different domains of expertise. Amrita Choudhury noted that domain name abuse, for instance, has technical, content-related, and social dimensions that require different types of stakeholder involvement. No single community has all the necessary expertise to address such multifaceted challenges effectively.

Elizabeth Bacon argued that existing newcomer programs need to be more robust and focused on bringing diverse perspectives rather than simply increasing participation numbers. She emphasized that the goal should be empowerment and meaningful contribution rather than tokenistic representation.

## Concrete Action Items and Future Directions

The workshop identified several specific opportunities for progress:

– Participants agreed to engage with UNESCO’s global roadmap on multilingualism in the digital era, currently open for public consultation

– Valts Ernstreits committed to following up on the International Decade of Indigenous Languages survey that was distributed in March, which serves both data collection and community awareness-building purposes

– ICANN’s applicant support program for underrepresented communities in the next top-level domain application round represents a concrete mechanism for enabling community representation in internet infrastructure

– Dominique Hazael Massieux expressed interest in establishing connections between the W3C and UNESCO’s language expert networks to improve internationalization support

## Conclusion

This workshop demonstrated both the complexity of achieving meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in technical internet governance and the potential for progress through coordinated efforts. The focus on multilingualism provided a valuable lens for examining broader inclusion challenges, showing how technical decisions have profound social and cultural implications.

Participants identified practical barriers ranging from administrative requirements to capacity-building challenges, while sharing successful approaches including innovative engagement methods and cross-community collaboration. The concrete action items and ongoing initiatives discussed provide multiple pathways for continued progress, while highlighting areas requiring sustained attention and innovation.

The discussion revealed that strengthening multi-stakeholder participation requires both addressing systemic barriers and developing innovative engagement strategies that meet diverse communities where they are, rather than expecting them to adapt to existing institutional structures.

Anne Rachel Inne: Good morning and welcome everybody. My name is An-Rochelle Iné, and I’m the Director General of the National Agency for Information Society in Niger, West Africa. Today’s workshop, first one here, is about strengthening multi-stakeholder participation in technical internet governance. So welcome, and thanks for being with us. We’re going to start with two speakers, Teresa Swinehart and Guilherme Canela de Sousa Godot, who is the Director of UNESCO’s Division for Digital Inclusion and Policies and Digital Transformation on UNESCO’s Memory of the World Register. Teresa is a Senior Vice President, Global Domains and Strategy at ICANN. And then we will have a panel where Valls and Streitz, who is the Director and a representative of Latvia and University of Latvia Livonian Institute, will be our first speaker. And then we will have Elizabeth Bacon, Senior Director of Policy and Privacy at Public Internet Registry. And then Amrita Choudhury, who is the Director of Credit Consultant Association of India. So thanks for being with us, and everybody who is online, also welcome. Christy, who is sitting on the side, will be looking at our online. participants and if you have questions we’ll be telling us what to do. So this is how the discussion is going to go but before we start as I said we’re going to have introductory remarks from Guilherme who is also representing today Mr. Tawfiq Jalassi, UNESCO’s Assistant Director General for Communication and Information who could not join us this morning. Guilherme, the floor is yours.

Guilherme Canela De Souza: Good morning everyone and especially thanks for all the early birds that are here with us. So you were supposed to have a cardinal, my boss Tawfiq and you got a priest but I will try to do the best job possible on this configuration. So of course the topic of the panel is very broad and very close to UNESCO’s heart. There would be many ways to approach the idea of the multistakeholderism in the technical discussions in the internet so I decided to focus on Zooming with a particular cross-cutting example of the multilingualism aspect but I could speak about others because this is in the DNA of UNESCO although we are an intergovernmental organization from the very outset of our existence 80 years ago UNESCO was one of these UN organizations that the member states always decided to send experts, civil society, librarians, activists for building the different documents resolutions etc that were approved throughout the UNESCO’s history and if you see this landmark idea that was approved by our general conference 10 years ago during the previous WSIS review process the concept of internet universality That concept is also associated with a set of indicators where UNESCO is recommending how the development of Internet should be assessed in a particular country. You remember that that set of indicators is established and organized around five pillars that’s called ROM-X, so Rights, Openness, Accessibility, and the M is Mode Stakeholderism and the X, the cross-cutting issues, gender, and so on. So it’s just to say that from the outset the message of UNESCO is if you want to assess the level of development of Internet in a particular country Mode Stakeholderism is one of the pillars of this assessment. So this is the overall umbrella. But then let me focus very briefly on the example of multilingualism. UNESCO is the UN organization, among other things, there in our very first paragraph to promote the free flow of ideas. As you can imagine, there is no serious free flow of ideas without multilingualism. If you only can express yourself in a majority language then the free flow of ideas is not being guaranteed. So that’s why this is the philosophical principle behind the UNESCO mandate to protect and promote multilingualism everywhere including, of course, in the digital spaces. So one of our intergovernmental programs, the Information for All program that I am the secretary, since 2001 has a specific group on information for all and multilingualism and although it’s an intergovernmental program, this specific group is conformed by a mode stakeholder configuration of experts, academics, civil society and so on and obviously governments. Then, even before the Geneva Agenda of the WSIS processes in 2003, the UNESCO General Conference approved a recommendation on multilingualism in the cyberspace. And again, although it’s an intergovernmental document, the monitoring we do every four years with member states, we do ask specific questions about the integration of the different stakeholders on that. And then to finalize with four other concrete things that express this importance of the multistakeholderism on that, when we did this process that many of you know, the guidelines for the governance of digital platforms was a massive multistakeholder endeavor. We received 10,000 comments. And one of the specific pillars of that document is also about multilingualism. Then we have a tool called the World Atlas of Languages, which we invite through an ad hoc committee the participation of the multistakeholder community. And finally, two quick things. We are the Secretariat of the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, that Vats here is one of the key experts. And the configuration of that, the decade, is again a multistakeholder configuration with a strong participation of the indigenous communities, which is paramount for this. Currently, we are consulting, and please participate, a global roadmap on languages and technologies, which include this conversation. And I’m sure Vats will also speak a bit for that. And finally, before I guess Teresa will also mention that, we are very proud to partner with ICANN on the idea of universal acceptance for UNESCO. And I’m sure for ICANN, one of the central aspects of this partnership is also try to be as inclusive as possible in a multistakeholder way, inviting those different actors to engage with the idea of universal acceptance and therefore implement what we are looking for on that. So I’ll stop here. As you saw, I could have chosen another example but I think the example of multilingualism is super interesting to also measure this idea of multistakeholderism in the technical space of the Internet. Thank you very much.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you, Guillaume. Theresa, you have the floor.

Theresa Swinehart: Thank you, Guillaume. And it’s really a pleasure to be here. First of all, thank you everybody for being here. I don’t know how many were at Music Night last night, but two things. A, thanks for being here, having gone. It was, I think, quite eventful and very exciting. But I was also struck there how people who play different instruments and are very versed in singing come together and create something and create an evening. A bit of an analogy to that, digital cooperation, multilingualism, the languages, bring people together. It allows each other to be heard, allows each other to engage and to cooperate. And to have that as part of a fundamental anchor in digital cooperation is essential if we want to have the Internet really reach everybody and enable them that opportunity to cooperate. communicate together. So it’s an important part of the multi-stakeholder aspect. People come from different sectors, stakeholder groups and speak different languages and it’s good to be heard and and to hear what people are saying and to be able to engage with that. So as had been mentioned we are very pleased we have a long-standing partnership with UNESCO and MOU with them also on some very specific project areas and with that the two organizations, while our mandates are quite different and our mission is quite different, share a common goal of including enhanced linguistic representation including in the domain name system to enable that full experience online as individuals in indigenous speaking populations have offline. So that’s quite important. This year we started an additional partnership with UNESCO and that is on the Universal Acceptance Day and this is an event that we have annually and this year we had a good event with UNESCO as well. It’s usually on or around the 28th of March and we’ve just two days ago published the report of all the events that were held on 28th of March or around that date to demonstrate the approach, the results of all those events that were held globally. So I would encourage everybody to take a look at that recent report. As I’ll talk about later in my other remarks, universal acceptance is the concept that all valid domain names and email addresses work in all internet-enabled applications, devices, and systems. Now this might sound quite straightforward but actually on a technical level it is feasible to do. We just have to make sure that the applications and the platforms and all that can actually deliver on those results. UA Day is a chance for us to work together and to create awareness around the fact that it is possible to have to the left or the right of the dot or in your email address the ability to resolve that in legible useful representation in different tools that we’re using in this digital environment. So I’ll touch on some of those later today but in this session but in the meantime thank you very much and we look forward to the conversation.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much Teresa and I know that one of the things that I have noticed for example lately is that in the African region particularly universal acceptance is really picking up so yeah being one of the places where we have the most languages I think it is very important and it’s even more important when you have 60 to 80 percent of our populations depending on the countries that are still in rural areas and that do not speak the French and the English that we’re speaking here so great to see that happening. So we’re going to now open the panel discussion and the first question is how does participation in technical internet governance contribute to more diverse and balanced stakeholder engagement in broader multi-stakeholder internet governance? And I’m going to give the floor to Václav first.

Valts Ernstreits: Thank you, thank you for giving the floor and a little bit expanding on my background I come from Latvian indigenous people Livonian community and I have been working let’s say 35 years hands on the ground and through that for past years I’ve been also part of International Decade of Indigenous Languages. on a global task force of it and currently co-chairing also ad-hoc group on digital equalities and domains and Working hands on the ground. So one thing that I have learned throughout this time is that Sometimes unlike in real world if you want to go one One floor up it’s easier actually and faster then you go all the way to the roof and then come back down down again Let me give you an example from from our own experience in Latvia For the Livonian language has indigenous status for 34 years already So it seems like it should like locally Be quite well developed. However It’s still a problem. For example to use Livonian in state-run data systems Which basically leads to the Fact that you cannot register NGO name or business name in in Livonian language And use it in official domains. So now having for these past years This international dialogue and bringing that back home. This has Kind of launched quite initiated quite a quite big changes. So come on Throughout a couple of past years that we have been working Internationally, we see that domestically so we now have our Parliament our state institutions Look through all the technicalities and all the legislation that block using using Livonian on an official unofficial data system so this is this is like one example how how you really true true involving and And participating in the kind of global issues actually change quite a lot domestically and languages and generally like good example For involving multi-stakeholderism as Guilherme said previously, so UNESCO currently is developing global roadmap on multilingualism in digital era and that is quite a task reaching actual multilingualism because getting all languages into digital domains it’s actually a complex task because language is not just like a translation languages are everywhere in every aspect of our lives so it’s language lives in fridge in a car and so there is a need for very very big stakeholder involvement and very diverse because it requires really the participation of all of government, academia, developers, general public and language community themselves but what these documents like these and these initiatives they help to build awareness and also a dialogue bringing all the stakeholders to the table and also helping to get the message out and explaining explanations out like why this is necessary and how we can actually tackle this so linguistic diversity is what is for example special if we start catering instead of 200 top languages that technology is actually working currently so that we need to cater those other 7,000 or more languages and what is special in those cases because those cases are extremely diverse or how GDPR and open science policies for example actually limit the use of the language and digital domains or how to reach representation of languages not just in the internet but on the cloud computing and cloud programs that are gaining more and more popularity so how to do it there. so and therefore also ensure this universal acceptance. So starting from the top is relevant and especially it is it is one option how to get wide wide number of stakeholders involved especially in the world that is extremely diverse like linguistic world for example.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much both absolutely we need everybody and we need the linguists. So Beth what do you have to say about how we come together to make this happen?

Elizabeth Bacon: Every time. Thank you both. Fultz promised that he was the most awake so he volunteered to go first and I appreciate him. I’m a little bit less there. So I think the the question is about how participation in the technical internet governance can contribute to balance stakeholder engagement and broader governance and certainly within the community of technical operators you hear a lot about how the multi-stakeholder model is effective because it most closely mirrors the distributed technical nature of the internet infrastructure and that makes it then the most effective way to ensure that stakeholders are represented and involved. However if that participation doesn’t also mirror the stakeholders that the internet that internet governance and policy impacts then we aren’t really using that model to its fullest extent and really the getting the most out of it that we can. So while I think there are a few layers to participation in technical governance that can really contribute to the to the success of the model and the success of representation. So as Fultz and Teresa noted you things like UA and diversity of language representation are vitally important but also key to that is including a diversity of views and a diversity of skill sets. So for me I focus on my participation in technical technical community not as a actual technical person. So that can mean to a means to increase participation and lead to more comprehensive policies that are implementable if you not only have the diversity of languages and participation in that way, but if you have both technical and policy and legal, all of the universe of things that internet governance and the use of the internet can impact. So for, in addition to that pure technical knowledge, I do believe that the diversity of views and skill sets is vital to making sure that as you engage in the in technical internet governance in that space, that you then have that a broadens the stakeholder engagement, but it also really leads to really rich comprehensive policy. I used to work quite a lot with with the US government. And we would have technical folks come in. And they said, we want this result. And I said, Well, this is going to do absolutely the opposite, because that’s not how the internet works. And if you don’t have people bridging that gap and doing that translation, because not everyone is good at everything, then you really end up with not a quality product. So I think the the value of getting folks into participating in that technical layer is really having the translation there. So I think if we can focus, you know, the foundation is the technology. And if intergovernments has that participation, be it region, background, business type, legal policy, all those things, I think it really, it really does just result in a more comprehensive quality product that that kind of stands the test

Anne Rachel Inne: of time. Thank you very much, Beth. And I definitely identify with the translation part, I my first job in life was as an interpreter translator. So sitting in between two people who are saying, you know, things to each other, and making sure that I don’t say it the wrong way. At the risk of provoking World War was one of my jobs. So I definitely, you know, understand that

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you. To answer this question, I will start with a few examples. And just to give you a background, I work for CCUI, which is not what was mentioned there. We work on tech policy. And my involvement in ICANN, per se, is to represent the end-user communities, especially from developing countries. And I come from Asia-Pacific, India. So if you’re talking about participation, and I’m talking about even non-technical people participating in the technical internet governance, I’ll cite a few examples. All the panelists had been speaking about multilingualism, universal acceptance as to how the domain names have to be compatible to regional languages. Now, how does it translate down when you go down to the grassroots? So there have been some initiatives where volunteers have not only been building capacity of the technical community, as in the language communities, as well as technologists who actually make products or services within the, you know, in various regions everywhere, Africa, Asia, et cetera, on why is the need of, what is the importance of universal acceptance? Why is it needed? Similarly, if you want the companies to listen to you, you have to skill people. So there were volunteers who went, worked with the technical community to develop programs, which could be undertaken in technical engineering colleges, et cetera, so that the skills can be built up. And the younger generation of engineers can actually, you know, imbibe those things. When they go back to the jobs, they are at least to a certain extent equipped or aware that these are certain things you have to take care of. So that’s how, and they can come back with feedback, there is a feedback loop and tell, you know, the technical community that look, this is working, this is not working So it develops an ecosystem and it cannot be just, you know, you say this is good, it has to percolate but there has to be a system and that’s where the different stakeholders come in Similarly, the other thing is, you know, the domain name abuse is something which is being spoken about in various ways Now it has various dimensions, there are certain things which the technical community can look after There are certain dimensions which is content related and there are some dimensions which is very social or which is, you know, normal day to day interpersonal How do you break the silos or the problem and try to address it at different levels So, you know, at ICANN there is, the ESSAC has been trying to come up with certain, you know, working on how to address the domain name issue thing At large we are trying to simplify it or, for example, develop a module and it’s a small module which we are developing on phishing which we want our community members to again educate their end user communities as to what they need to really take care of, how they need to, you know, the awareness part of it so that you can at least to certain extent reduce the harms You can’t completely, you know, remove them but at least at certain levels Similarly, the domain name security which is important The technical communities impart that training to the ISPs or the telcos, whoever do it because that’s important So, if you look at it, it’s not a very simple thing that, for example, ICANN or the community in ICANN is designing something but you also need the acceptance from the community that this is working or this is not working And for this, this kind of engagement is important And the other thing which is important for developing countries is it builds skills for young people who are looking for jobs There are new avenues which comes out for them which we miss at times and there are various, you know, for example, working on internationalized domain names. There may be a lot of other avenues of work coming up rather than the cliched work, because jobs are scarce today. AI is taking away jobs. So those are certain things I think we need to take care of and I hope I’ve been able to answer with these examples something of why this is important.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much, Amrita, and I’m absolutely in agreement with you. Excuse me. One of the things that we don’t realize, I think, in general is that, so you spoke about telcos and ISPs, for example, even inside the technical community, there’s a lot more people that we need to co-op that are not like the regulars of the internet per se world. So, and those are part of the stakeholders that we absolutely need to co-opt in this world. So thanks for that. We are going to now continue with the second question and how can digital cooperation be leveraged to build awareness and the capacity for underrepresented groups to engage in technical internet governance? Beth, may I start with you?

Elizabeth Bacon: I’m sorry. I’m happy to. So I think that one of, there’s, again, there’s maybe two prongs to this. One is the existing folks that are already participating in these models, in these groups, to be much more intentional about coordination between the groups. Certain, you know, the IGF is a non-decisional space. It’s discussion. You can have big thoughts and big ideas and you can really run with it and have the conversations and do a lot of learning, ask really hard questions in a kind of a safe space because you’re not necessarily coming out the, you don’t have to agree at the end. It’s what it’s for. And I think it’s a huge value, but then, you know, you go to a space like ICANN and it’s, you know, you’re making a policy. It’s a decisional space, but there’s, we often miss the leap from things that have been really matured and thought about really well by folks here. in an IGF type space with a really diversity of views. How do we intentionally push those things into other spaces when they’re ready? And when it’s appropriate to that other spaces scope. I’m just using ICANN because that’s an easy one. We all know that one. We also know IGF because we’re here. And then I think the other item for that, for underrepresented groups is utilizing capacity building and some of the programs that exist to bring in not only youth participants, which I think is really, really important. And I’ve been, I don’t think we have any young ones in the room, sorry. You’re all very youthful, I’m very sorry. Ajit raises his hand, he’s now, he reached out. So I think that we have, some of the youth participants have been wildly impressed. They make such great contributions. There’s a lot of programs like that across the communities and groups that we work in. So if we leverage those well, if we really dedicate our time to making that value as opposed to a box check, I think that could be very helpful. And then there’s other things, especially I’m gonna again, I live in a little bit of an ICANN space, ICANN land. Fellowships for when you’re not a youth, but you’re still, you’re trying to expand your views. There’s a fellowship program, there’s newcomer programs. There’s all of these things that they exist, but can we do a better job of really making them robust and bringing, again, the diversity of views, but then also really then reminding ourselves that it’s not just about the participation, it’s about of humans, but also taking those ideas and making sure that we’re cooperating and moving those into the right space.

Anne Rachel Inne: Wonderful, thank you very much, Beth. Guillermo, may I ask you to also give a insight into this question?

Guilherme Canela De Souza: Sure, sorry. I think that we need to acknowledge how… Important it is the inclusion of underrepresented groups in the conversation, but we also need to acknowledge that we are far from guaranteeing it. Because it’s difficult, because it costs money, because we are not fully prepared to do it. But we are having, for example, discussions about multilingualism and inclusion of indigenous languages with a very minor participation of indigenous communities, unfortunately. I’m very glad that VATS is here, but should be many more. And we need to, the first step for solving a problem is acknowledging we have a problem and not put it under the carpet. So the entire technical community, internet community needs to start recognizing that the idea of multistakeholderism also implies diversity within each stakeholder group. So when we look to civil society, it can’t be the usual suspects of the digital rights communities, nothing against them, always present and always at the table. We need to find the ways to get the others that are not always around these tables. And again, I’m saying it’s easy to say, but it’s not necessarily easy to do. Before, and I finish with that, before joining UNESCO, I worked with children’s rights. And with UNICEF and Save the Children and so on, we were always trying to see the best way of including children in the conversation. And it’s super necessary, but it’s not an easy thing, because you need other methodologies, you need other ways of, I mean, I can, and I finish with that, we just did in February a language conference in UNESCO and technology. And we tried to actually bring indigenous communities. Even our procurement systems are not adapted for that. because you need to have a bank account to pay the per diem and the indigenous groups will say, no, we don’t have that bank account in that particular indigenous community. So, if we are going to be serious about that, we need to take these very high-level titles and go into the specifics of how to actually guarantee this participation. Thank you.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much. And this is really, truly resonating just because I come from a place, yesterday we were talking about several things, like how to make, you know, artificial intelligence and the work that is being done globally around that more diverse and representative of underrepresented communities. And I come from a region that is very young. So, to be able to have very young people into this conversation is definitely a challenge, though they have to be there. It’s their present and their future. Teresa, do you want to say something about that?

Theresa Swinehart: Sure. Thank you. I think, in particular, the youth or the next generation is absolutely critical to have involved because they come from an era and an opportunity where it wasn’t about the dial-up and hoping to connect, but rather it’s the assumption that the app is going to work. But it actually takes something to make that work. And we had the opportunity recently in Bahrain, actually, to do a hackathon with university students around designing a website that could take internationalized domain names and universal acceptance. And we had 60 students and they were allowed to use artificial intelligence in order to help solve the problem. But they had to create a website that could respond to questions that were posed and it could respond to questions in English or Arabic. and it had to be able to process certain information in relation to that website. So that sounds like a very simple task. In principle, you design a website, right? But there’s actually quite a bit of work that goes around it. But it was amazing to watch these students. For two days, they were dedicated and spent time trying to solve this, and they were incredibly creative and ingenious in all of their attempts. But it’s a really good example of bridging this cooperation into some very practical tools. And these students are the future engineers in other companies. So they come in with awareness to your point, you know, solving the problems. So just an example of how we can bridge in the next generation around that. But more specifically, if I have just a few seconds, in relation to other opportunities moving forward. From our perspective, there’s also further awareness and capacity and opportunities for ensuring underrepresented communities, Indigenous languages, communities that may not be online necessarily at this point in time. And that also relates to the opportunity to have your presence online in what we refer to as the next round top-level domain program. That is the choice to have what one wants to the right or the left of the dot, depending upon if one is looking for something in Arabic script or in other scripts or in Roman character sets. So with that, internationalized domain names will clearly provide an opportunity for further opportunities for different language groups and for that bridging of digital cooperation from the technical side, but also then into the policy side and potentially even political opportunities for regions and communities to be represented fully in the way that they are and that they want to do. The opportunities there are multifold, so there’s also the opportunity for community-based type-level domains and that is quite common. We have seen that in the context of different communities coming together and we hope to see that opportunity really for communities that currently may want to have also their digital presence online. We’ve seen it in the context in the past also with regards to cities or communities, you know, .amsterdam or .veen or others, you know, who have their presence. So it’s not always about the revenue or the business model, but it’s oftentimes about having one’s digital presence online and bridging that cooperation from the technical into the community and into schools and education and healthcare and all of those. A part of our program also provides applicant support for communities that qualify. I’ll do a shout out to my colleague, Christy, over here. If you have any questions, she can provide you with anything that you may want to know. And that is very much open to non-profits, indigenous groups, small businesses and NGOs that might not have the resources to participate fully in the application process, but we want to make sure that there’s opportunities afforded there. So these are some examples of very practical things that we’re undertaking right now to bridge the digital cooperation into other areas, but create awareness for anybody who wishes to be participating in any of those endeavors. And that program will start early next year in April. Wonderful. We’ll look forward to it.

Anne Rachel Inne: Vals, you want to add anything around how to bring underrepresented communities here?

Valts Ernstreits: A little bit, because I have a couple of points, but they are somehow in concordance with what already sounded. Again, many of my examples, good or bad, come from my own experience. We had an expedition which went out to one area, and there were our colleagues going to different institutions asking the same question, so do you have any Livonian heritage here? And all these institutions answered no, no, no. And then a week later what happened, a local newspaper found out and they went through the same places, asking the same question, basically. And in that one week, all these institutions started to say, well, yes, we have plenty of it. And it took a week for the situation to completely change. This is something similar with this kind of digital cooperation we have at the International Decade of Indigenous Languages. There is a survey that went out in March, a survey of indigenous languages. The primal task was to collect data so that we could make informed decisions and we could better understand the actual position of indigenous languages. And there is a big part on digital domains and digital issues, including what kind of technologies you have, what kind of technical issues you have, or how do you see them. And on one hand, this is data collection, but on the other hand it is actually an opportunity for communities to look in a mirror and maybe for the first time to consider, well, there are those things out there. Should we have it? Can we build it? And this is something that initiates process. So the first way how to leverage is being or making underrepresented groups noticed and kind of giving them idea that we can do something or there is something that we could be involved. and this kind of launches the process. So the next level of leveraging is actually the consolidation and accumulation of knowledge. And one thing that we need, and especially now talking about multilingualism, we need designated networking platforms to connect the dots like repositories or forums like this. So this is also something that is planned in the roadmap, but in a more focused way, because if we think about underrepresented groups, those subjects, these are not mainstream subjects, these are not mainstream groups, this is not mainstream knowledge. But at the same time, we are entering a new era technology wise, so the era of tailored solutions. So we need those kind of niche platforms where we can talk cross-sectorally and with multi-stakeholders, where we can talk, where we can learn, and where we can actually innovate and bring new solutions. In this sense, I think that multilingualism is kind of our testing ground, so on the road towards the customization. Because if we can do it, then we can do everything. If we can’t, then it’s actually the question of what good are we with all that we know. Because at the end of the day, and this is my personal opinion, that this technology is moving in the direction where it should be capable to serve each individual. So getting voices heard and getting those platforms, how now those are not mainstream, but also underrepresented different groups. are being heard and being learned from is actually crucial.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much, Feltz. Amrita, you as a MAG member and as someone who has participated in national, you know, IGFs, regional IGFs, I want you to maybe bring out to the community here some of the ways that this digital cooperation actually works also on a regional and kind of local level. So all of this can maybe tie together, localize.

Amrita Choudhury: Right. Thank you. And I will mix a few things and speak now. And I’ll take an APAC example because that’s where I belong from. So if you look at it, there are fellowships, which, for example, ICANN gives NextGen, which is very young, young fellows. Internet society has certain fellowships. When we have the national, regional IGFs like the Asia-Pacific regional IGF, we have fellowship. Now, we have a lot of diverse people coming in from different countries who were, as in we try to get people from places, but it’s not possible to get everyone. For example, someone from Mongolia whom we got in or Bhutan, which are pretty unrepresented at this point of time. Now, the challenge is once you bring them, how do you retain them? So what we’ve been trying to do at the Asia-Pacific regional at large organization and at APR IGF is create WhatsApp groups and have them there because you have to interact with young people in the way they want, not the way we want it. And we found it very effective. They chat there. They work there. Now, in APRILO, what we do is we have small subcommittees formed on many things like we have the continuous improvement process, which is happening. We have a subcommittee, which are young people. We have someone who’s mentoring them, they make and they work, they feel empowered. If their names are there at the end, they feel empowered. We have the newsletter where we have people working together to form something. So if you get them into the system, empower them, keep on giving them information, this is the opportunity, this is what you can do, they also can think. So many of them come from diverse backgrounds. After that, if someone, after you give them the first step, if they want to explore something else, they can. Like if they’re interested in the technical part of it, they can go there. If they’re interested more in rights perspective, they can go. You should not limit them, that has been our learning. And we also encourage them to take it back to their communities, discuss, so that they can get more people. It’s not perfect, but those are the steps which have worked. Similarly, if you can encourage them, for example, there are many people, young people, who have been funded by the MAG or they’re coming from a particular region, and they’re pretty shy. And there are many newcomers in IGF. Trying to get them together, speaking to them, getting them introduced to people, or even taking a picture with them, helps them empowering them, so that they’re motivated, because you have to keep their motivation on. They have jobs to think of, they have their careers, but you have to excite them to be there in the space, because it’s not always exciting. Thank you.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much, Amrita. I actually use one word, which is hand-holding. It’s really accompanying people into seeing and believing in how is it that they can interact with other people, because they feel empowered, as you said. They have the arguments, they actually know how to talk. Beth was earlier talking about how do we get technical people to talk to regular people, like policymakers. So they understand, you know, why some GDPR decisions may break the machine or not. So, yeah, those are really some of the issues that we’re facing. And it’s all about making sure that we communicate in the right way. Let’s make sure that nothing is being lost in translation. So thank you all. And I think we’re now going to open the floor for audience participation. If you have questions out there or maybe online. Christy? No? Okay. All right. Yeah. You have mics on both sides. Thank you very much. Please introduce yourself and go ahead.

Dominique Hazael Massieux: Hi, I’m Dominique. I work for the World Wide Web Consortium. As you may know, we have a program, the Internationalization Program, which is about making web pages work across as many languages and cultures as possible, very similar to the ICANN program for domain names. And one of the structural issues we have in that program is getting enough contact and input from the right experts across so many languages that exist out there. And we already have some networks, but I wonder if there is something that, I mean, whether it’s the original IGF, whether it’s UNESCO, whether it’s some academia network that could help in providing a source of constant expertise in this field. Because we have the basic knowledge about what is needed, but until you get to the right expert that has the deep knowledge about how the language needs to work for locators to really make use of the web to its full potential, we can’t really do the full amount of work we want to. So I’m curious if the… Panelists have any suggestions about how we can structure better this source of expertise

Anne Rachel Inne: Well, you’re at the right door because I’m pretty sure Guillerme knows how to Respond to this because UNESCO is one of the places where we have a collective of linguists that can help

Guilherme Canela De Souza: Thank you very interesting question two quick things one, please do Everyone here include you do look into this road map on languages and technology that is currently open for consultations And make your contributions to that document because what you said could be if it’s not yet there I read but I can’t remember this kind of cooperation It’s important to make sure that it’s there But on your concrete question two quick things you can come to speak with me and Vats at the end of the of the session but Organizations like the World Wide Consortium and that we spoke yesterday with ICANN similarly You can’t write to us at the Secretariat of the Decade of Indigenous Languages and make this offer Saying we are ready to cooperate with these experts For for improving that and then we can connect you with these huge communities that are under the umbrella of the decade And similarly in the World Atlas of languages We can connect you with the national focal points that are from 130 plus countries Of course, it’s obvious. We do this in an anonymous way We we sent to them your offer is for them to decide if they want to contribute or not But please feel free to contact me and we can advance on that. Thank you

Anne Rachel Inne: Wonderful and before I give you the floor, but I’m Teresa. I wanted to add a little something

Theresa Swinehart: Yeah, and Edmund may touch on this as well Likewise happy to exchange contact information To complement also what UNESCO is doing in relation to some of the very specific technical areas We we also have the what’s referred to as the LGR the label generation rule set They’re working with very specific communities on The areas around the domain name system and the rules for that So that might complement access to yet another group that could be of help or at least know where to go So happy to exchange information on that

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much, Teresa. Edmund?

Edmon Chung: Edmund Chung here from DotAsia Actually, I came up to respond to the question very similar to what Teresa said Just I guess adding a little bit of context around it the what is called the label generation rules thing is actually looking at all the languages and scripts around the world and defining policies for Defining names that can can or should be used on the on the domain name system. And therefore It it well I can in the community actually spent over the last decade and more than 10 years Developing all the policies for the different languages to deal with abuse issues and and so on that group has basically gone through all the Scripts and languages that that are are live. I guess in in terms of actively being used so you can look at the what is called the It’s called the generation panel and that doesn’t mean anything, but they are local communities local experts of linguists and they include linguists as well as technologists and and so and Engineers to look at what the policies need to be so that that group might be you know, actually It’s readily available on the the ICANN website It’s readily available on the the ICANN website You can check it out and that should give you a good sense of all the people around. Thank you

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much Edmund Christy Do we have any questions online? Okay, all right Beth wanted to chime in

Elizabeth Bacon: Just a question that I think maybe we didn’t answer your question. I think LGRs are great and that’s important for the technical aspect but I think maybe you were asking more about actual translation and and content and I and I hate to to run right by it and I don’t necessarily have an answer but I think that’s something that I mean we have certainly run into at PIR at org we have also we have several IDNs and we have we’ve engaged you know globally on different languages and it is incredibly difficult to translate appropriately as Michelle well knows. So I think that just making sure that we’re answering your question you could tell me I’m very wrong but maybe that’s something we just take away and and try and brainstorm a little because I think that’s a it’s a very universal issue.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much Beth. You’re absolutely right on that point and so you wanted to add a little something?

Dominique Hazael Massieux: So just to clarify, my question was actually answered but the point on translation is also one of the issues. We’re also very happy to hear any ideas that may be in strengthening translation support for the technical community because again another way we can better involve as many communities as possible is by making our specifications available in the many languages of the world. So we have a program for that but again it’s a voluntary bottom-up and the more people we have that can contribute to that program would also be super helpful. So maybe there is something indeed that we could work as a group on together.

Anne Rachel Inne: Wonderful. Communication, communication, communication. Valts, you wanted to add something to this one too?

Valts Ernstreits: Just to add a little bit about contacting. I do really understand the problem of getting the right person especially when it comes to languages and in that diverse landscape of language situations that I was previously mentioning this survey of indigenous languages. So one part of the survey of one function of the survey is that we also ask for those people who are responding for the future involvement. And we are doing through this survey, we are looking precisely to that, to finding right persons who are proficient answering questions about this language and who can be a contact point directly for that particular language community. So, I would definitely encourage to follow up all the developments regarding the International Digit of Indigenous Languages and the roadmap. And, yeah, we’ll just contact later.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much, Valt. So, we have less than two minutes left and I know they’re going to stop the mics very soon. So, whoever wants to jump in to talk about the one action, maybe that we can take in the next six to twelve months, having talked about the decade of Indigenous Languages and really real participation, meaningful participation in technical discussions coming from everywhere. We can’t leave anybody behind in all this. So, who wants to add that one little bit that we need to do to make sure that we have a real participation and multi-stakeholder participation?

Valts Ernstreits: So, maybe I will jump on. In the next six to twelve months, I think that, and I know that I was talking maybe a lot about multilingualism, but there’s one thing that is very much defining our future. And the thing that will happen somewhere in this period is the finalization of that roadmap of the multilingualism digital era. But following that, there will also be development of the action plan about concrete actions and practicalities on how to bring it to life. So I would call everyone to participate in that as well together with us.

Anne Rachel Inne: Thank you very much. So eight seconds, so I guess I’m just going to say thank you very much for coming here this morning. Thank you for brave in the morning and being here with us and thanks to all my panelists and have a great day.

Agreement points

Multilingualism is fundamental to meaningful internet participation and requires multistakeholder approaches

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza
– Theresa Swinehart
– Valts Ernstreits
– Anne Rachel Inne

Arguments

UNESCO promotes multilingualism as fundamental to free flow of ideas and has multistakeholder programs addressing this need

Universal acceptance ensures all valid domain names and email addresses work across internet applications, requiring technical implementation and awareness building

International participation in technical governance can drive domestic policy changes, as seen with Livonian language recognition in Latvia

Universal acceptance is gaining momentum in Africa where most languages exist and rural populations don’t speak colonial languages

Summary

All speakers agree that multilingualism is essential for inclusive internet governance and that achieving it requires coordinated multistakeholder efforts combining technical implementation, policy development, and community engagement

Topics

Sociocultural | Infrastructure

Current multistakeholder participation lacks sufficient diversity and meaningful inclusion of underrepresented groups

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza
– Elizabeth Bacon
– Amrita Choudhury
– Anne Rachel Inne

Arguments

Current multistakeholder models often lack true diversity within stakeholder groups, particularly missing indigenous communities from multilingualism discussions

Technical internet governance needs diversity of views and skill sets, not just technical knowledge, to create comprehensive implementable policies

Hand-holding and empowerment approaches, including WhatsApp groups and subcommittees, help retain underrepresented participants

Technical community needs to include broader stakeholders beyond regular internet governance participants, including telcos and ISPs

Summary

Speakers unanimously acknowledge that existing multistakeholder models fall short of meaningful inclusion, with participation dominated by usual suspects while underrepresented communities remain marginalized

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Capacity building and awareness creation are essential for meaningful participation of underrepresented groups

Speakers

– Theresa Swinehart
– Valts Ernstreits
– Elizabeth Bacon
– Amrita Choudhury
– Anne Rachel Inne

Arguments

Youth engagement through practical applications like hackathons helps bridge technical cooperation with real-world problem solving

Creating awareness among underrepresented groups about available opportunities initiates their participation process

Existing fellowship and newcomer programs need to be more robust and focused on bringing diverse perspectives rather than being checkbox exercises

Volunteers build capacity in technical communities and language communities to implement universal acceptance at grassroots level

Hand-holding and accompaniment are essential for empowering underrepresented groups to participate meaningfully

Summary

All speakers agree that systematic capacity building, awareness creation, and supportive accompaniment are crucial for enabling meaningful participation of underrepresented groups in technical internet governance

Topics

Development

Technical solutions require cross-stakeholder collaboration and translation between different domains of expertise

Speakers

– Elizabeth Bacon
– Amrita Choudhury
– Theresa Swinehart
– Anne Rachel Inne

Arguments

Translation between technical and policy communities is essential to prevent misaligned outcomes

Domain name abuse requires addressing technical, content-related, and social dimensions through different stakeholder involvement

Universal acceptance ensures all valid domain names and email addresses work across internet applications, requiring technical implementation and awareness building

Translation and interpretation skills are crucial for bridging communication gaps in technical discussions

Summary

Speakers agree that effective technical internet governance requires bridging different domains of expertise and ensuring proper communication between technical, policy, and community stakeholders

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical underrepresentation of indigenous communities in internet governance discussions that directly affect them, and advocate for systematic approaches to include these communities meaningfully

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza
– Valts Ernstreits

Arguments

Current multistakeholder models often lack true diversity within stakeholder groups, particularly missing indigenous communities from multilingualism discussions

Survey of indigenous languages serves dual purpose of data collection and community awareness building about digital opportunities

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Both speakers advocate for moving beyond superficial inclusion efforts to create meaningful, sustained engagement programs that empower participants and provide ongoing support

Speakers

– Elizabeth Bacon
– Amrita Choudhury

Arguments

Existing fellowship and newcomer programs need to be more robust and focused on bringing diverse perspectives rather than being checkbox exercises

Hand-holding and empowerment approaches, including WhatsApp groups and subcommittees, help retain underrepresented participants

Topics

Development

Both speakers focus on the technical infrastructure requirements for supporting linguistic diversity in domain name systems, emphasizing the need for both technical implementation and expert linguistic input

Speakers

– Theresa Swinehart
– Edmon Chung

Arguments

Universal acceptance ensures all valid domain names and email addresses work across internet applications, requiring technical implementation and awareness building

Label generation rule sets involve local linguistic experts and technologists to develop policies for different languages in domain name systems

Topics

Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Institutional barriers prevent meaningful inclusion even when organizations have good intentions

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza
– Valts Ernstreits

Arguments

Institutional barriers exist, such as procurement systems not adapted for indigenous communities without traditional banking structures

International participation in technical governance can drive domestic policy changes, as seen with Livonian language recognition in Latvia

Explanation

Unexpectedly, speakers from both UNESCO and indigenous community perspectives agreed that well-intentioned organizations face concrete institutional barriers that prevent inclusion, such as financial systems incompatible with indigenous community structures. This consensus highlights that inclusion challenges go beyond awareness to systemic institutional design

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Technical expertise alone is insufficient for effective internet governance

Speakers

– Elizabeth Bacon
– Amrita Choudhury
– Anne Rachel Inne

Arguments

Technical internet governance needs diversity of views and skill sets, not just technical knowledge, to create comprehensive implementable policies

Domain name abuse requires addressing technical, content-related, and social dimensions through different stakeholder involvement

Technical community needs to include broader stakeholders beyond regular internet governance participants, including telcos and ISPs

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus among speakers from different backgrounds that technical expertise alone is inadequate for internet governance, requiring integration of policy, legal, social, and community perspectives. This challenges the traditional view that technical issues can be solved purely through technical means

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around four main areas: the fundamental importance of multilingualism for inclusive internet governance, the inadequacy of current multistakeholder participation models, the critical need for systematic capacity building and awareness creation, and the requirement for cross-domain collaboration in technical solutions

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for internet governance reform. The agreement suggests a shared understanding that current approaches are insufficient and that fundamental changes are needed in how multistakeholder participation is conceptualized and implemented. The consensus points toward a need for more systematic, inclusive, and institutionally adapted approaches to internet governance that go beyond technical solutions to address social, cultural, and structural barriers to participation.

Different viewpoints

Approach to addressing institutional barriers for indigenous participation

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza
– Elizabeth Bacon

Arguments

Institutional barriers exist, such as procurement systems not adapted for indigenous communities without traditional banking structures

Existing fellowship and newcomer programs need to be more robust and focused on bringing diverse perspectives rather than being checkbox exercises

Summary

Guilherme focuses on fundamental institutional reform needed to accommodate different organizational structures, while Elizabeth emphasizes improving existing programs rather than systemic change

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Scope of technical versus policy integration

Speakers

– Elizabeth Bacon
– Amrita Choudhury

Arguments

Technical internet governance needs diversity of views and skill sets, not just technical knowledge, to create comprehensive implementable policies

Domain name abuse requires addressing technical, content-related, and social dimensions through different stakeholder involvement

Explanation

While both advocate for multidisciplinary approaches, Elizabeth emphasizes the need for policy and legal expertise in technical spaces, whereas Amrita focuses on breaking down silos between different types of technical problems. This represents different philosophies about integration versus specialization

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on goals (multilingualism, inclusion, universal acceptance) but revealed methodological differences in implementation approaches, institutional reform strategies, and capacity building techniques

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high strategic alignment. Disagreements were primarily methodological rather than fundamental, suggesting strong potential for collaborative implementation despite different preferred approaches. The main tension was between institutional reform versus program improvement approaches to inclusion

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical underrepresentation of indigenous communities in internet governance discussions that directly affect them, and advocate for systematic approaches to include these communities meaningfully

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza
– Valts Ernstreits

Arguments

Current multistakeholder models often lack true diversity within stakeholder groups, particularly missing indigenous communities from multilingualism discussions

Survey of indigenous languages serves dual purpose of data collection and community awareness building about digital opportunities

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Both speakers advocate for moving beyond superficial inclusion efforts to create meaningful, sustained engagement programs that empower participants and provide ongoing support

Speakers

– Elizabeth Bacon
– Amrita Choudhury

Arguments

Existing fellowship and newcomer programs need to be more robust and focused on bringing diverse perspectives rather than being checkbox exercises

Hand-holding and empowerment approaches, including WhatsApp groups and subcommittees, help retain underrepresented participants

Topics

Development

Both speakers focus on the technical infrastructure requirements for supporting linguistic diversity in domain name systems, emphasizing the need for both technical implementation and expert linguistic input

Speakers

– Theresa Swinehart
– Edmon Chung

Arguments

Universal acceptance ensures all valid domain names and email addresses work across internet applications, requiring technical implementation and awareness building

Label generation rule sets involve local linguistic experts and technologists to develop policies for different languages in domain name systems

Topics

Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Multilingualism is fundamental to meaningful multistakeholder participation in technical internet governance, as it enables true free flow of ideas beyond majority languages

Current multistakeholder models often lack genuine diversity within stakeholder groups, particularly missing indigenous communities and underrepresented voices

Technical internet governance requires both technical expertise and diverse skill sets including policy, legal, and community perspectives to create comprehensive implementable solutions

Capacity building through fellowships, mentorship, and practical engagement (like hackathons) is essential but must focus on retention and empowerment rather than tokenism

Universal acceptance of internationalized domain names requires coordinated effort across technical communities, language experts, and grassroots implementation

Digital cooperation can drive domestic policy changes when international participation creates feedback loops to local governance structures

Youth engagement and next-generation participation is critical as they represent the future of internet governance and bring fresh perspectives to technical challenges

Resolutions and action items

Participate in UNESCO’s global roadmap on multilingualism in digital era consultation currently open for public input

Follow up on the International Decade of Indigenous Languages survey and action plan development over the next 6-12 months

Establish connections between World Wide Web Consortium and UNESCO’s language expert networks for better internationalization support

Leverage existing fellowship programs more effectively by making them robust rather than checkbox exercises

Utilize ICANN’s applicant support program for underrepresented communities in the upcoming top-level domain application round starting April next year

Create specialized networking platforms and repositories for niche knowledge sharing among underrepresented groups

Develop concrete action plans following the finalization of the multilingualism digital era roadmap

Unresolved issues

How to systematically overcome institutional barriers like procurement systems that don’t accommodate indigenous communities without traditional banking structures

Effective strategies for retaining diverse participants beyond initial fellowship or capacity building programs

Scaling translation and localization support for technical specifications across the many languages of the world

Bridging the gap between non-decisional spaces like IGF and decisional spaces like ICANN policy development

Addressing the full spectrum of domain name abuse issues that span technical, content-related, and social dimensions

Finding sustainable funding and resource models for meaningful inclusion of underrepresented communities in ongoing technical governance processes

Suggested compromises

Use voluntary, bottom-up approaches for translation programs while seeking broader community support networks

Combine top-down international initiatives with grassroots local implementation to maximize impact and sustainability

Leverage existing technical infrastructure (like label generation rule sets) while building new inclusive participation mechanisms

Balance technical expertise requirements with the need for diverse perspectives by creating translation and bridge-building roles

Utilize multiple communication channels (including informal platforms like WhatsApp) to meet participants where they are rather than forcing participation through traditional formal channels

Sometimes unlike in real world if you want to go one floor up it’s easier actually and faster then you go all the way to the roof and then come back down down again… Throughout a couple of past years that we have been working Internationally, we see that domestically so we now have our Parliament our state institutions Look through all the technicalities and all the legislation that block using using Livonian on an official unofficial data system

Speaker

Valts Ernstreits

Reason

This metaphor brilliantly captures a counterintuitive but practical approach to advocacy – that sometimes engaging at the global/international level can be more effective for creating local change than working directly at the local level. It challenges conventional wisdom about grassroots organizing.

Impact

This comment reframed the entire discussion about multi-stakeholder participation by showing how international technical governance can be a strategic tool for domestic policy change. It shifted the conversation from theoretical benefits to concrete tactical advantages of global participation.

We need to acknowledge how… Important it is the inclusion of underrepresented groups in the conversation, but we also need to acknowledge that we are far from guaranteeing it. Because it’s difficult, because it costs money, because we are not fully prepared to do it… Even our procurement systems are not adapted for that. because you need to have a bank account to pay the per diem and the indigenous groups will say, no, we don’t have that bank account in that particular indigenous community.

Speaker

Guilherme Canela De Souza

Reason

This comment cuts through the typical rhetoric about inclusion to expose the mundane but critical systemic barriers that prevent meaningful participation. The bank account example is particularly powerful because it illustrates how seemingly neutral administrative processes can exclude entire communities.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from aspirational goals to practical implementation challenges. It forced other participants to move beyond surface-level solutions and consider the deep structural changes needed for true inclusion. The honesty about current failures elevated the conversation’s authenticity.

The value of getting folks into participating in that technical layer is really having the translation there… I used to work quite a lot with with the US government. And we would have technical folks come in. And they said, we want this result. And I said, Well, this is going to do absolutely the opposite, because that’s not how the internet works.

Speaker

Elizabeth Bacon

Reason

This comment identifies a critical but often overlooked function of diverse participation – not just representation for its own sake, but the practical necessity of having translators between technical and policy domains. The concrete example demonstrates real consequences of this gap.

Impact

This reframed multi-stakeholder participation from a democratic ideal to a functional necessity for effective governance. It influenced subsequent speakers to focus more on practical skills and knowledge gaps rather than just demographic representation.

We had an expedition which went out to one area… asking the same question, so do you have any Livonian heritage here? And all these institutions answered no, no, no. And then a week later what happened, a local newspaper found out and they went through the same places, asking the same question, basically. And in that one week, all these institutions started to say, well, yes, we have plenty of it.

Speaker

Valts Ernstreits

Reason

This anecdote reveals how visibility and attention can instantly transform institutional behavior and resource availability. It suggests that the problem isn’t always lack of resources but lack of recognition or incentive to acknowledge them.

Impact

This story provided a powerful illustration of how awareness-raising and visibility can be transformative tools. It influenced the later discussion about surveys and data collection as consciousness-raising exercises, not just information gathering.

The challenge is once you bring them, how do you retain them? So what we’ve been trying to do at the Asia-Pacific regional at large organization and at APR IGF is create WhatsApp groups and have them there because you have to interact with young people in the way they want, not the way we want it.

Speaker

Amrita Choudhury

Reason

This comment addresses a critical gap in inclusion efforts – the difference between one-time participation and sustained engagement. The WhatsApp example shows practical adaptation to participants’ preferred communication methods rather than forcing them into existing structures.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from recruitment to retention strategies and highlighted the importance of meeting participants where they are rather than expecting them to adapt to existing systems. It influenced the discussion toward more practical, user-centered approaches to engagement.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally elevated the discussion from theoretical ideals about multi-stakeholder participation to practical realities and strategic insights. Valts Ernstreits’ contributions were particularly transformative, introducing both the ‘going to the roof’ metaphor that reframed international engagement as a domestic strategy, and the heritage survey story that illustrated the power of visibility. Guilherme’s honest assessment of systemic barriers forced the conversation to confront uncomfortable truths about current failures, while Elizabeth Bacon’s ‘translation’ concept reframed diversity as functionally necessary rather than just morally desirable. Amrita’s retention-focused approach shifted attention from recruitment to sustainability. Together, these comments moved the discussion from aspirational rhetoric to actionable insights, creating a more nuanced understanding of both the challenges and opportunities in technical internet governance participation.

How can we structure better sources of expertise for internationalization across many languages, particularly for getting contact and input from the right experts across the diverse languages that exist?

Speaker

Dominique Hazael Massieux

Explanation

This is crucial for the World Wide Web Consortium’s Internationalization Program to make web pages work across as many languages and cultures as possible, but they currently lack sufficient contact with deep language experts

How can we strengthen translation support for the technical community to make specifications available in many languages of the world?

Speaker

Dominique Hazael Massieux

Explanation

This would enable better involvement of as many communities as possible by making technical specifications accessible in their native languages, though current programs are voluntary and bottom-up

How can we develop better methodologies and systems to actually guarantee participation of underrepresented groups, including addressing practical barriers like procurement systems not being adapted for indigenous communities?

Speaker

Guilherme Canela De Souza

Explanation

While the importance of inclusion is acknowledged, practical implementation faces significant challenges including financial systems that don’t accommodate indigenous community structures

How can we better coordinate and intentionally push mature ideas from non-decisional spaces like IGF into decisional spaces like ICANN when they’re ready and appropriate?

Speaker

Elizabeth Bacon

Explanation

There’s often a missed opportunity to transfer well-developed concepts from discussion forums to policy-making bodies where they can be implemented

How can we develop designated networking platforms and repositories specifically for underrepresented groups and niche knowledge areas in multilingualism and technical governance?

Speaker

Valts Ernstreits

Explanation

Underrepresented groups need specialized platforms for cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder dialogue, learning, and innovation, especially as technology moves toward tailored solutions

How can we better retain and continuously engage young people and underrepresented participants after initial fellowship or capacity building programs?

Speaker

Amrita Choudhury

Explanation

While bringing diverse participants through fellowships is important, the challenge lies in maintaining their engagement and building sustainable participation in technical governance

What concrete actions and practicalities should be included in the action plan following the finalization of the roadmap on multilingualism in the digital era?

Speaker

Valts Ernstreits

Explanation

The roadmap development will be followed by an action plan that needs specific, implementable steps to bring multilingualism goals to life in technical governance

Summary

This discussion focuses on leveraging technology and artificial intelligence to address agricultural challenges facing smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. The participants, including researchers from Cosmopolitan University in Nigeria and the University of Oslo, emphasize that while agricultural challenges are well-documented, the key issue is connecting solution providers with farmers who need practical, accessible technologies. Moustapha Binta from the Center for Climate-Smart Agriculture argues that the focus should shift from simply providing more fertilizers to re-engineering solutions specifically designed for smallholder farmers, particularly women farming in small communities who need food processing, storage, and packaging solutions.

Barak Otieno from Kenya provides concrete examples of successful technology implementation, highlighting how sensor technologies can measure soil humidity to optimize water usage and prevent flooding. He explains how proper water management can transform semi-arid regions into productive agricultural areas, noting that some Kenyan farms using these technologies are already exporting produce to Europe. The discussion reveals that traditional farming practices, such as crop rotation and natural soil renewal through foliage, can be enhanced with modern sensor technology.

A significant challenge identified is the limitation of traditional training methods, where information is lost as it passes from instructors to farmers. The participants propose AI as a solution for agricultural education, with Professor Noel Josef highlighting Norway’s substantial investment in AI centers. The discussion also addresses the critical issue of youth abandoning agriculture, suggesting that attractive, high-tech solutions like programmable tractors and drones could make farming appealing to younger generations. The conversation concludes with the recognition that bridging the gap between advanced agricultural technology and practical implementation for smallholder farmers requires collaborative efforts between universities, technology developers, and farming communities.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Access to technology and AI solutions for agriculture**: The speakers emphasized that while AI and technology can provide valuable answers and solutions for farming challenges, the fundamental issue is ensuring access to these technologies, particularly for smallholder farmers in Africa.

– **Climate-smart agriculture solutions for smallholder farmers**: Discussion focused on practical solutions like drip irrigation, borehole systems, weather monitoring, and soil management specifically tailored for small-scale farmers rather than large commercial operations, with emphasis on connecting solution designers with actual community needs.

– **Water and soil management using technology**: Detailed conversation about using sensor technologies to measure soil humidity, proper water harvesting during rainy seasons, and sustainable soil management practices that combine traditional methods (like crop rotation and natural foliage) with modern technology.

– **Training and capacity building limitations**: The challenge of scaling agricultural education and training, particularly the information loss that occurs when knowledge is passed from trainers to farmers through multiple levels, and how AI could potentially address these educational gaps.

– **Youth engagement in agriculture through technology**: Discussion of how modern agricultural technology (like programmable tractors, drones for pest control, and mobile apps) could make farming more attractive to young people who currently view it as uncool or outdated.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to explore how technology, particularly AI and digital solutions, can address agricultural challenges in Africa, with a specific focus on supporting smallholder farmers, improving food systems, and making agriculture more sustainable and attractive to younger generations.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone was collaborative, optimistic, and solution-oriented throughout the conversation. The speakers consistently built upon each other’s points with enthusiasm (evidenced by phrases like “Excellent, excellent” and “Super, super”), showing strong agreement and mutual support. The tone remained constructive and forward-looking, with participants sharing concrete examples and case studies while maintaining a sense of urgency about addressing agricultural challenges in Africa.

Speakers

– **Noel Josef**: Professor at University of Oslo, works on AI centers and farming education, energy education

– **Moustapha Binta**: Works at Center for Climate-Smart Agriculture, Cosmopolitan University, Abuja, Nigeria; involved in climate-smart agriculture research and farmer incubation programs

– **Barak Otieno**: Professor at University of Oslo, Kenya; chairs the Association of Community Networks in Kenya; works on access and sensor technologies for agriculture

**Additional speakers:**

– **Dr. Rislan Kanya**: Center for Climate-Smart Agriculture, Cosmopolitan University, Abuja, Nigeria

– **Dr. Badaru Usmaniaya**: Chief Scientific Officer, Cosmopolitan University, Abuja, Nigeria

– **Dr. Ibrahim Mani**: Registrar for Communications and Strategy, Cosmopolitan University, Abuja, Nigeria

# Discussion Report: Technology and AI Applications for Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa

## Executive Summary

This discussion brought together agricultural researchers and technology experts to explore how artificial intelligence and digital technologies can address agricultural challenges facing smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. The conversation featured three main speakers: Professor Noel Josef from the University of Oslo, Moustapha Binta from the Center for Climate-Smart Agriculture at Cosmopolitan University in Abuja, Nigeria, and Professor Barak Otieno from Kenya who chairs the Association of Community Networks in Kenya.

The discussion centered on three key areas: the critical need for technology access and infrastructure, the importance of designing solutions specifically for smallholder farmers, and the potential for AI to scale agricultural education and training. Speakers emphasized that successful agricultural transformation requires moving beyond conventional approaches toward solutions tailored to small farming communities, particularly addressing challenges in water management, soil health, and youth engagement in agriculture.

## Key Speakers and Their Main Points

**Professor Noel Josef** from the University of Oslo focused on AI applications in agricultural education, arguing that traditional training methods face scalability limitations due to information loss at each transmission step. He mentioned the Norwegian government’s investment of 1 billion Norwegian crowns (approximately $100 million) in six AI centers and advocated for directing these resources toward practical agricultural applications in distributed African environments rather than solely high-tech solutions.

**Moustapha Binta** from the Center for Climate-Smart Agriculture provided practical insights from Nigeria, particularly referencing the 2022 floods in Jigawa State and ongoing farmer incubation programs. He emphasized the need to connect solution designers with actual farming communities, noting that women farming vegetables in small communities need support for food processing, storage, and packaging rather than just more fertilizers. He highlighted low-tech solutions like USSD (Unstructured Supplementary Service Data) for documenting farmers and connecting them to services and loans.

**Professor Barak Otieno** contributed examples from Kenya, particularly regarding sensor technologies for measuring soil humidity and preventing flooding. He discussed the importance of soil pH measurement and monitoring soil composition, warning that prolonged fertilizer use without proper understanding can damage soil health. He also addressed the challenge of youth abandoning agriculture despite being financed through university by smallholder farmer parents, noting that farming is no longer considered attractive by graduates.

## Main Topics Discussed

### Technology Access and Infrastructure

The speakers identified technology access as a fundamental requirement for implementing AI and digital agricultural solutions. Professor Otieno described infrastructure building work through community networks, while Moustapha Binta discussed how USSD technology can serve as an accessible stepping stone within current infrastructure limitations to help document farmers and connect them to essential services.

### Smallholder Farmer Solutions

A significant focus was placed on designing solutions specifically for smallholder farmers rather than adapting large-scale technologies. Moustapha Binta argued for re-engineering agricultural solutions rather than simply providing more fertilizers, emphasizing the need to address specific challenges including drip irrigation, borehole systems, weather monitoring, and carbon and nitrogen management. Professor Otieno provided examples of sensor technologies that have enabled Kenyan farmers to optimize water usage and access international markets.

### Integration of Traditional and Modern Methods

The discussion explored combining traditional farming practices with modern technology. Professor Otieno emphasized that traditional methods like crop rotation and natural soil renewal through foliage should complement modern sensor technologies. The speakers discussed flood water harvesting as a way to return nutrients to soil and the importance of understanding soil composition over time.

### AI for Agricultural Education

Professor Josef proposed that AI could overcome scalability problems in traditional agricultural training by providing direct, consistent access to knowledge and guidance. He suggested that university AI centers could redirect focus toward practical agricultural applications in distributed African environments.

### Youth Engagement Challenge

Professor Otieno identified a critical issue where young people are abandoning agriculture despite many being supported through university by smallholder farmer parents. He noted that farming is perceived as “business for the poor or those who have no direction” and suggested that advanced agricultural technology could make farming more attractive to youth, citing examples of programmable tractors and other high-tech equipment.

## Specific Examples and Case Studies

– Sensor technologies in Kenya measuring soil humidity to optimize water usage and prevent flooding

– USSD systems for documenting farmers and connecting them to loans and services

– School-based climate-smart agriculture projects mentioned by Moustapha Binta

– The 2022 Nigeria floods in Jigawa State as an example of climate challenges

– Traditional farming methods including letting land rest and using foliage for natural soil renewal

## Challenges and Solutions Identified

**Key Challenges:**

– Limited technology access and infrastructure in rural areas

– Mismatch between available solutions and smallholder farmer needs

– Information loss in traditional agricultural training methods

– Youth abandonment of agriculture

– Soil degradation from improper fertilizer use

– Water management in arid and semi-arid regions

**Proposed Solutions:**

– Developing AI applications specifically for distributed African farming environments

– Creating farmer incubation programs and collaborative AI centers

– Implementing low-tech solutions like USSD as stepping stones

– Combining traditional knowledge with modern sensor technologies

– Using advanced technology to make farming more attractive to young people

– Focusing on comprehensive support including food processing, storage, and packaging

## Conclusion

The discussion highlighted the need for practical, accessible agricultural technologies designed specifically for smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. The speakers emphasized that successful solutions must address infrastructure limitations, integrate traditional knowledge with modern technology, and appeal to younger generations. The conversation identified concrete opportunities for collaboration between AI centers, universities, and farming communities to develop relevant agricultural technologies that can scale effectively across diverse African farming environments.

Moustapha Binta: Dr. Rislan Kanya, Binta Moustapha Dr. Rislan Kanya, Binta Moustapha Binta Moustapha, Center for Climate-Smart Agriculture, Cosmopolitan University, Abuja, Nigeria Dr. Rislan Kanya, Binta Moustapha, Center for Climate-Smart Agriculture, Cosmopolitan University, Abuja, Nigeria Dr. Badaru Usmaniaya, Chief Scientific Officer, Cosmopolitan University, Abuja, Nigeria Dr. Ibrahim Mani, Registrar for Communications and Strategy, Cosmopolitan University, Abuja, Nigeria Dr. Barak Otieno, Professor, University of Oslo, Kenya

Noel Josef: That AI then will give me the answer which I need to have. But that then means that I need to have, and that is what I’m always saying here at the IGF, we need access.

Moustapha Binta: Excellent, Prof. In line with what Prof. has been saying, we’ve been talking about the challenges, the challenges, but at Center for Climate, Smart Agriculture, Cosmopolitan University, we recognize that there are solutions. The problem is how to connect solution leaders. We talk about drip irrigation. We talk about borehole systems. We talk about weather. We talk about carbon, nitrogen. Those are the challenges with agriculture for smallholder farmers. We do not need more fertilizers. We need to rethink, re-engineer. We need to talk to the technology developers of the solutions. What do we really need for smallholder farmers, not just big farming projects? How do we connect the gaps, the silos that exist within our communities to make sure that the solution designers are actually designing solutions that cater to the needs of not large-scale farmers elsewhere around the world, but in those small communities where women are farming vegetables, where we need food packaging, where we need food processing, where we need storage facilities, where we need to revive school-based, climate-smart agri-projects. Those are the conversations we’re having at the center, and we hope that as many of you can join us on this transformation to improve the food systems on the continent. So, Mr. Barak, are there case studies specific to your community that you can share with us?

Barak Otieno: Yes. I come from Kenya. I chair the Association of Community Networks in Kenya. We have been building infrastructure. Prof has just said that access is key. We have been working with him on access in the last five years. But as we interact with the government, the question now is beyond access, what next? Beyond access, we need solutions that are helpful to farmers. Kenya, as with the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, has different terrains. We have terrains that are arid, and we have terrains that are semi-arid. In fact, majority of sub-Saharan Africa is semi-arid. But we have seen that with technology, you can actually turn semi-arid places into places that are arable, places that are able to produce food. It’s all about management of water, which is a scarce resource, management of soil. We are talking about fertilizers, but we can’t talk about fertilizer without talking about measurement of the soil. DH and all the related ingredients of the soil. We can’t talk about fertilizers without understanding their effect on the soils. Because if we use fertilizer on the soil over a given period of time, there’s a likelihood that it will destroy it. And we have had natural ways of ensuring that our soils remain relevant from days of old. We could farm in some portions and let them rest during certain seasons, plant trees and allow leaves to fall there so that we can be able to have a natural way of… Foliage. Foliage, yes. A natural way of renewing the soils. And we are seeing sensor technologies, an area that Prof is working on, which can be able to tell you the amount of humidity in the soil. Based on the amount of humidity, you can determine how much water you need to take into the soil to avoid flooding. Because flooding is wastage. You may find that, for instance, a smallholder farmer may require 50,000 liters or 100,000 liters of water per year, which if properly harvested during the rainy season, then we don’t need to keep talking about the perennial water challenges or water situations that we do have. And that’s really technology in action. So we have farms that are already doing this and exporting produce here in Europe. But I think it’s an opportunity for many more farmers to be trained. As Prof has said, we need to do capacity building and capacity development so that we can be able to address food problems that are both in the global north and in the global south.

Moustapha Binta: Excellent, excellent. I kept nodding to all the comments you were making. You just hit on the notes for Kenya, and I wish that there were more African countries on the stage to share their experiences, especially maybe you, Taki, an experience which may be relevant for East Africa. There might be similar stories or different verticals for south, west, and north. I just wish that we had more smallholder farmers from the continent. So Prof, do you agree or disagree with the solutions that Mr. Otieno has just provided?

Noel Josef: There’s this point of training. And of course, we can only train a limited amount of people at a given time. When I give my classes, I have 20, 30 people. And the question is how much information is lost in the next step and the next step and the next step. Because there’s always the limitation that whatever training we are giving, we don’t get it all over to the next line. And that actually brings me again to, I’d love to bring in the AI, because I really see that we at university, we are lucky the Norwegian government has spent 1 billion Norwegian crowns, which is about $100 million on six AI centers. And as the University of Oslo, I have to say my colleagues have done such a tremendously good job to be in all of the six AIs. So what I want to bring across is we should, or what I love to invite you is when you can, together and after the stage, get out the use cases where we see the AI being used in our farming, in our distributed environments, which we have in Africa. Then we can bring them in to these AI groups and say that, hey, don’t only look at high-tech, look at how we can actually change the market for agriculture. Because I would believe that AI on education, on farming education, on energy education is a very, very good step.

Moustapha Binta: Super, super. What a way to step in into this lightning talk. I kept nodding when Mr. Barak was talking because he mentioned the environmental challenges, the value of geosensing. At the Center of Climate Smart, we have similar examples. For example, in 2022, Nigeria had one of the worst floods in 10 years. It was, it didn’t make the news globally, but it was very serious. There was loss in lives, loss. And you would be very surprised as we talk about climate challenges. Some of the locations that were worst hit are areas that are arid, semi-arid areas. One of the case studies where we’re currently working on at the center, Jigawa State, is in Northwest Nigeria. We’re trying to harvest the flood water to see how we can package it into a reverse solution that can be valuable for farms. Because when those floods come, they wash away all the nutrients, they take away the soil. But if you can integrate science and technology, you can find a way to return back what was lost. So that’s one of the samples. That’s one of the case studies that Chief Scientific Officer at the center is working on. We hope that we can have more partners to take this skill and in agreement with Prof, we have a center at the University Center for Collaborative AI. We have different programs, farmer incubation programs. We’re trying to see how to work with low tech, especially USSD, to document farmers. We have a lot of challenges with smallholder farmers assessing services, assessing loans, and other solutions that we talk about here that can be very valuable for them. So Mr. Barak, do you think that youth, because we have to talk about, this is the reality for Africa. The young people don’t want to go into farming anymore, whether it’s small scale or large scale. How do we get technology and digital solutions to bring them back into this? Because that’s the first occupation on the continent. What’s your take about Kenya?

Barak Otieno: You actually read my mind. It’s interesting to note that majority of the students in universities are actually financed by their parents who are smallholder farmers or peasants. But when they leave university, farming is no longer cool. It looks like the business for the poor or those who have no direction, for lack of a better word. And I want to give the example of Germany, which is way ahead in terms of agri-tech. And I was just reading that many youth are being attracted into farming because of the cool tractors that are coming up. You know, it’s really like a Mac, which you can be able to program and drive around. And you know, youth like toys or youth like things that they can be able to enjoy. There’s also a lot of usage of drones in dealing with pests or spreading pesticides and very advanced tech, which is the band for youth. And I think this is something that can actually attract many young people into the agricultural fields because the apps that we need is the young people that need to develop them. Operating the drones, most of the people who are senior in the society may not really have the interest in operating.

Moustapha Binta: . . .

Agreement points

Access to technology is fundamental for agricultural solutions

Speakers

– Noel Josef
– Barak Otieno

Arguments

Access is fundamental requirement for AI and digital solutions to work effectively

Community networks have been building infrastructure and working on access solutions for five years

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that access to technology is a prerequisite for effective agricultural solutions, with Josef advocating for access at IGF and Otieno describing five years of infrastructure building work

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Need for capacity building and training in agricultural technology

Speakers

– Noel Josef
– Barak Otieno

Arguments

AI can overcome limitations of traditional training methods that lose information through multiple transmission steps

Young people are abandoning farming despite being financed by smallholder farmer parents

Summary

Both speakers recognize the need for better training and capacity development, with Josef identifying limitations in traditional training methods and Otieno emphasizing the need to train more farmers

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Technology solutions must be practical and tailored to smallholder farmers

Speakers

– Moustapha Binta
– Barak Otieno

Arguments

Need to connect solution leaders and bridge gaps between technology developers and small-scale farming communities

Sensor technologies can measure soil humidity and optimize water usage to prevent flooding and waste

Summary

Both speakers advocate for practical technology solutions designed specifically for smallholder farmers rather than large-scale operations, emphasizing community-focused approaches

Topics

Development | Economic

Youth engagement is critical for the future of agriculture

Speakers

– Moustapha Binta
– Barak Otieno

Arguments

Technology solutions must be designed to attract young people back to agriculture as it remains Africa’s primary occupation

Advanced agricultural technology like programmable tractors and drones can make farming attractive to youth

Summary

Both speakers identify the challenge of youth abandoning agriculture and propose technology-based solutions to make farming more attractive to young people

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for leveraging university AI resources and collaborative centers to address practical agricultural challenges in African contexts

Speakers

– Noel Josef
– Moustapha Binta

Arguments

University AI centers should focus on agricultural use cases in distributed African environments, not just high-tech applications

Farmer incubation programs and collaborative AI centers can bridge technology gaps for smallholder farmers

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasize the importance of combining traditional knowledge with modern technology to address specific community needs in agriculture

Speakers

– Moustapha Binta
– Barak Otieno

Arguments

Solutions should focus on specific needs like drip irrigation, weather monitoring, food processing, and storage facilities for small communities

Traditional farming methods like crop rotation and natural foliage renewal should be combined with modern technology

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers focus on sustainable soil and water management practices, emphasizing the importance of understanding and working with natural systems

Speakers

– Moustapha Binta
– Barak Otieno

Arguments

Flood water harvesting can be converted into valuable farming solutions, returning lost nutrients to soil

Proper soil measurement and understanding fertilizer effects are essential to prevent soil destruction

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Integration of traditional farming methods with modern technology

Speakers

– Moustapha Binta
– Barak Otieno

Arguments

Flood water harvesting can be converted into valuable farming solutions, returning lost nutrients to soil

Traditional farming methods like crop rotation and natural foliage renewal should be combined with modern technology

Explanation

Despite the focus on modern technology and AI, both speakers unexpectedly emphasize the value of traditional farming practices and their integration with new technologies, showing respect for indigenous knowledge systems

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Low-tech solutions alongside high-tech AI applications

Speakers

– Moustapha Binta
– Noel Josef

Arguments

Low-tech solutions like USSD can help document farmers and connect them to services and loans

University AI centers should focus on agricultural use cases in distributed African environments, not just high-tech applications

Explanation

While discussing advanced AI applications, there’s unexpected consensus on the importance of accessible, low-tech solutions that can work in current infrastructure conditions

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on key issues including the fundamental importance of technology access, the need for practical solutions tailored to smallholder farmers, the critical challenge of youth engagement in agriculture, and the value of combining traditional and modern approaches

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than conflicting viewpoints. The speakers build upon each other’s arguments and share similar priorities for agricultural development in Africa. This strong alignment suggests potential for collaborative action and indicates that stakeholders in this field have developed shared understanding of key challenges and solution pathways

Different viewpoints

Approach to knowledge transfer and capacity building in agriculture

Speakers

– Noel Josef
– Barak Otieno

Arguments

AI can overcome limitations of traditional training methods that lose information through multiple transmission steps

Young people are abandoning farming despite being financed by smallholder farmer parents

Summary

Josef focuses on AI as a solution to overcome information loss in traditional training methods, while Otieno emphasizes the need for hands-on training and capacity development for farmers, suggesting different approaches to the same knowledge transfer challenge

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Technology complexity level for agricultural solutions

Speakers

– Moustapha Binta
– Barak Otieno

Arguments

Low-tech solutions like USSD can help document farmers and connect them to services and loans

Advanced agricultural technology like programmable tractors and drones can make farming attractive to youth

Explanation

Unexpectedly, while both speakers advocate for technology solutions, they differ significantly on the appropriate level of technology complexity – Binta emphasizes accessible low-tech solutions while Otieno promotes advanced high-tech equipment, representing different philosophies about technology adoption in African agriculture

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkable consensus on core challenges (youth engagement, smallholder farmer support, technology access) but reveals subtle disagreements on implementation approaches – particularly between high-tech versus low-tech solutions, and institutional versus community-based approaches

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high collaborative potential. The disagreements are primarily methodological rather than fundamental, suggesting different but potentially complementary approaches to shared goals. This creates opportunities for integrated solutions that combine multiple approaches rather than requiring resolution of conflicts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for leveraging university AI resources and collaborative centers to address practical agricultural challenges in African contexts

Speakers

– Noel Josef
– Moustapha Binta

Arguments

University AI centers should focus on agricultural use cases in distributed African environments, not just high-tech applications

Farmer incubation programs and collaborative AI centers can bridge technology gaps for smallholder farmers

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasize the importance of combining traditional knowledge with modern technology to address specific community needs in agriculture

Speakers

– Moustapha Binta
– Barak Otieno

Arguments

Solutions should focus on specific needs like drip irrigation, weather monitoring, food processing, and storage facilities for small communities

Traditional farming methods like crop rotation and natural foliage renewal should be combined with modern technology

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers focus on sustainable soil and water management practices, emphasizing the importance of understanding and working with natural systems

Speakers

– Moustapha Binta
– Barak Otieno

Arguments

Flood water harvesting can be converted into valuable farming solutions, returning lost nutrients to soil

Proper soil measurement and understanding fertilizer effects are essential to prevent soil destruction

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Access to technology infrastructure is fundamental for implementing AI and digital agricultural solutions in Africa

Technology solutions must be specifically designed for smallholder farmers rather than large-scale operations, focusing on local community needs

Traditional farming methods should be integrated with modern sensor technologies for optimal soil and water management

AI can overcome the limitations of traditional agricultural training by reducing information loss through multiple transmission steps

Advanced agricultural technology like programmable tractors and drones can attract youth back to farming by making it more appealing

Flood water harvesting and soil nutrient recovery represent viable climate-smart agricultural solutions for semi-arid regions

Collaboration between universities, AI centers, and farming communities is essential for developing relevant agricultural technologies

Resolutions and action items

Develop use cases for AI applications in distributed African farming environments to present to AI research centers

Continue collaboration between University of Oslo AI centers and African agricultural institutions

Expand farmer incubation programs and collaborative AI initiatives at the Center for Climate-Smart Agriculture

Work with technology developers to create solutions specifically tailored to smallholder farmer needs

Implement capacity building and training programs for farmers on new technologies

Unresolved issues

How to effectively scale technology solutions across diverse African terrains and farming conditions

Specific mechanisms for connecting solution leaders with smallholder farming communities

Funding and implementation strategies for widespread adoption of agricultural technologies

How to ensure technology solutions remain affordable and accessible for smallholder farmers

Methods for measuring and preventing long-term soil damage from fertilizer use

Strategies for making farming attractive to youth beyond just introducing advanced technology

Suggested compromises

Using low-tech solutions like USSD alongside high-tech AI applications to accommodate different access levels

Combining traditional farming methods (crop rotation, natural soil renewal) with modern sensor technologies

Focusing on both immediate practical solutions and long-term technological advancement in agricultural development

We do not need more fertilizers. We need to rethink, re-engineer. We need to talk to the technology developers of the solutions. What do we really need for smallholder farmers, not just big farming projects? How do we connect the gaps, the silos that exist within our communities to make sure that the solution designers are actually designing solutions that cater to the needs of not large-scale farmers elsewhere around the world, but in those small communities where women are farming vegetables.

Speaker

Moustapha Binta

Reason

This comment challenges the conventional approach to agricultural development by questioning the assumption that more fertilizers are the solution. It introduces a critical perspective about the disconnect between solution designers and actual smallholder farmer needs, particularly highlighting gender considerations and community-specific requirements.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from general challenges to specific solution-oriented thinking. It prompted Barak Otieno to provide concrete examples from Kenya and established the framework for discussing technology that serves smallholder farmers rather than industrial agriculture.

We can’t talk about fertilizer without talking about measurement of the soil. DH and all the related ingredients of the soil. We can’t talk about fertilizers without understanding their effect on the soils. Because if we use fertilizer on the soil over a given period of time, there’s a likelihood that it will destroy it.

Speaker

Barak Otieno

Reason

This comment introduces scientific complexity to the fertilizer discussion, challenging the simplistic view of fertilizer application. It connects traditional farming wisdom with modern technology needs and emphasizes the importance of soil health monitoring.

Impact

This deepened the technical discussion and led to exploration of sensor technologies and traditional farming methods. It bridged the gap between indigenous knowledge and modern technology, setting up the conversation about humidity sensors and water management.

There’s this point of training. And of course, we can only train a limited amount of people at a given time… And the question is how much information is lost in the next step and the next step and the next step… And that actually brings me again to, I’d love to bring in the AI.

Speaker

Noel Josef

Reason

This comment identifies a fundamental scalability problem in agricultural education and training. It’s insightful because it recognizes the information degradation problem in traditional training cascades and proposes AI as a potential solution to scale knowledge transfer.

Impact

This comment introduced AI as a concrete solution to the training scalability problem, shifting the discussion toward technology integration. It led to exploration of how AI centers could focus on agricultural applications and prompted discussion about collaboration between academic institutions and practical farming needs.

It’s interesting to note that majority of the students in universities are actually financed by their parents who are smallholder farmers or peasants. But when they leave university, farming is no longer cool. It looks like the business for the poor or those who have no direction… And I want to give the example of Germany, which is way ahead in terms of agri-tech… many youth are being attracted into farming because of the cool tractors that are coming up.

Speaker

Barak Otieno

Reason

This comment reveals a profound irony in agricultural development – that education funded by farming leads young people away from farming. It’s thought-provoking because it identifies the perception problem around agriculture and suggests that technology appeal, rather than just economic incentives, could be key to youth engagement.

Impact

This comment introduced the critical issue of generational transition in agriculture and reframed the youth engagement problem as one of perception and technology appeal rather than just economic opportunity. It provided a concrete pathway for making agriculture attractive to young people through technology integration.

Overall assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively building a comprehensive framework for addressing agricultural challenges in Africa. The conversation evolved from identifying problems to proposing systemic solutions, moving through three critical phases: 1) Challenging conventional approaches and emphasizing smallholder-specific needs, 2) Integrating traditional knowledge with modern technology and scientific approaches, and 3) Addressing scalability through AI and youth engagement through technology appeal. The comments created a logical flow that connected immediate technical solutions (soil sensors, water management) with broader systemic issues (training scalability, youth engagement), ultimately presenting a holistic approach to agricultural transformation that considers both technological innovation and social dynamics.

How do we connect solution leaders and bridge the gaps between technology developers and smallholder farmers’ actual needs?

Speaker

Moustapha Binta

Explanation

This addresses the critical disconnect between available agricultural solutions and the specific needs of small-scale farmers, particularly women farming vegetables who need food packaging, processing, and storage facilities.

Beyond access to technology, what solutions are specifically helpful to farmers in different terrains (arid and semi-arid)?

Speaker

Barak Otieno

Explanation

This question emerges from the recognition that access alone is insufficient and that solutions must be tailored to specific geographical and climatic conditions across sub-Saharan Africa.

How can AI be effectively integrated into farming education and distributed agricultural environments in Africa?

Speaker

Noel Josef

Explanation

This explores the potential for AI to overcome training limitations and scale agricultural education, particularly important given the challenge of information loss in traditional training cascades.

What are the specific use cases where AI is being used in farming in distributed African environments?

Speaker

Noel Josef

Explanation

This research area is needed to provide concrete examples to AI research centers to demonstrate practical applications beyond high-tech solutions.

How can flood water be harvested and converted into valuable agricultural solutions, particularly in arid and semi-arid areas?

Speaker

Moustapha Binta

Explanation

This addresses the paradox of flooding in drought-prone areas and the potential to capture and utilize this water while recovering lost nutrients and soil.

How can technology and digital solutions attract youth back to farming and make agriculture ‘cool’ for young people?

Speaker

Moustapha Binta

Explanation

This addresses the critical issue of youth abandoning agriculture despite being financed by farming parents, which threatens the future of food production in Africa.

How can low-tech solutions like USSD be used to document farmers and improve their access to services and loans?

Speaker

Moustapha Binta

Explanation

This explores practical technology solutions that can work within existing infrastructure limitations to connect smallholder farmers to essential services.

How can sensor technologies be scaled and made accessible to smallholder farmers for soil and water management?

Speaker

Barak Otieno

Explanation

This addresses the practical implementation of precision agriculture technologies for small-scale farmers to optimize water usage and soil health.